House of Commons
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I should like to add to my brief comments yesterday to pay tribute to Godfrey Cameron, who passed away on Tuesday. Godfrey was part of the security team who did so much to keep us safe here. He was a very popular and respected colleague, always looking to help and to make a difference. He will be greatly missed. Our condolences go to his wife, Hyacinth, and his children, Leon and Renee.
Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
My right hon. Friend has been a huge champion for Scotch whisky. We have been working hard to de-escalate this conflict and get punitive tariffs removed on both sides of the Atlantic. That is the way forward, not escalating this tariff dispute.
David Mundell [V]
The Secretary of State has worked incredibly hard in negotiating with the United States to try to find a bilateral settlement to the Airbus-Boeing dispute to facilitate a deal with the US. Of course she is aware of the significant damage that the Scotch whisky industry continues to suffer, with export losses now approaching a staggering £450 million. Will she reassure me that as soon as possible after the new US Administration is in place, she will urgently pick up negotiations on a deal to end tariffs? Will she update the House, before that, on what support she requires from other UK Government Departments to ensure that a deal is agreed by the whole of the UK Government?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the urgency of ending this tariff dispute. I have been clear with the United States and the European Union that we want to de-escalate it and reach a negotiated settlement. This dispute has already been going on for 16 years and has caused much damage. I am seeking an early meeting with the new US trade representative, Katherine Tai, and this will be one of the items on my agenda. I am also working closely with the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on this issue.
John Lamont
I know that everybody in Government is working hard on this, but I want to reiterate the huge financial strain that the tariffs are having on the textile and cashmere industry in my constituency in the Scottish borders, which I fear will cost many local jobs. Will the Government consider offering financial compensation to the firms affected to protect local jobs and this industry?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are looking at supporting industry, including through the BEIS fund that will invest £10 million to help distilleries go green, and no doubt the Treasury is looking at other affected industries as well. If we had accepted the advice from Labour to put additional tariffs on US products such as sweet potatoes and nuts, we would likely be hit by more tariffs as Germany and France were, as announced on 30 December.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has threatened to reimpose tariffs on the United States if the Airbus dispute is not settled, but that threat will only carry any impact if the US believes that we have the legal authority to carry it out. Will she agree to publish the UK’s legal advice or our exchange of letters with the World Trade Organisation to prove that she is not bluffing and that we genuinely have the authority to reimpose those tariffs if we need to do so?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very clear that we have the authority to impose those tariffs. We have acquired rights as a result of leaving the European Union. But I go back to the point I was making: the hon. Gentleman has advocated putting additional tariffs on products such as sweet potatoes and nuts, so presumably he thinks that we have those acquired rights.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The Government have included, and will continue to seek to include, specific SME chapters in all our free trade agreements to ensure that SMEs are provided with the information necessary to make informed commercial decisions and seize the great new opportunities provided by these agreements.
Paul Howell [V]
The support for SMEs in the trade agreement is great to see, but may I ask the Minister to continue that with a free trade agreement for the USA that supports companies like Kromek in Sedgefield? It manufactures high-radiation detector material ingots that are shipped to the USA, attracting US import duty incorporating the price for worldwide sale, with the waste coming back to the UK for re-manufacture, attracting further UK import duty. The removal of those duties would clearly support high-value jobs in Sedgefield and increase the global competitiveness of an export-led UK business.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question on behalf of his constituency company, and I can tell him that the US and the UK have a shared ambition to improve trade for our SME-focused economies on both sides of the Atlantic, to help companies such as Kromek. There are three specific areas we are looking at. First, we want to reduce or eliminate tariffs. Secondly, we will have a wide-reaching SME chapter. Thirdly, we are also looking at provisions on reimported goods as well. Those provisions will benefit around 32,000 UK SMEs that already export to the US, such as Kromek, but also future SMEs. That will grow that trade, which will suit our bustling and improving SME sector.
Rob Butler [V]
The trade agreement with the European Union is absolutely fantastic for our country as a newly sovereign nation, and it comes on top of deals already covering more than 60 countries. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he intends to go further still and secure opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region, which would particularly benefit small businesses in my constituency of Aylesbury, but also those across the UK?
Greg Hands
We are seeking an SME chapter in all our future free trade agreements. SME chapters are an excellent way of assisting companies to navigate a free trade agreement. They distil information and make it easier, particularly for companies without expertise in trade agreements, which is generally the case for SMEs. In Asia-Pacific, we aim to include such chapters. We have already included one in an agreement with Japan, and we aim to include them in agreements with Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are aiming to do that to benefit SMEs in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s in Aylesbury.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We are launching a new food and drink export campaign this year, which will encourage British businesses to take advantage of the deals we have struck, covering 63 countries around the world. As part of our Japan deal, we will be putting forward 77 geographical indications to the Japanese system, including Welsh lamb.
Simon Baynes [V]
The Prime Minister’s Brexit deal is a great achievement, but could my right hon. Friend help with problems being experienced by companies delivering goods to Northern Ireland, such as dairy wholesaler Spear UK in Llandrillo in my constituency of Clwyd South, which saw delays last week due to additional paperwork and permanent extra costs for the customs agent and veterinary oversight?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave a statement on this issue yesterday, and he is working hard with the Brexit business taskforce to deal with those issues. We also have the trader support scheme for Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that freight volumes for Northern Ireland ports are at normal levels for this time of year, and there are no significant queues. Supermarkets are reporting healthy levels of supplies, but I certainly will pass on my hon. Friend’s issue to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to ensure that it is resolved.
Mr Speaker
Let us head to Scotland to Scottish National party spokesperson Stewart Hosie with the first of two questions.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State was copied in to a letter to the Business Secretary from Vicky Leigh-Pearson, the sales director at John Ross Jr, Aberdeen, salmon producers and exporters. It described in excoriating detail the “barrage of useless information” on Brexit, which added no value or clarity for such food and drink exporting businesses. Would it not be better to fix the problems at the UK-EU border, where real exports take place, rather than make vague promises about future promotional campaigns?
Elizabeth Truss
I observe that the hon. Gentleman did not support a deal, so effectively he wanted no deal for the people of the United Kingdom. I think it is a bit rich of him to raise issues when no deal would have been very, very tricky for the exporters he is talking about. Given that £200 million was given to the Scottish Government to prepare to minimise disruption, I suggest he takes up the issue with Nicola Sturgeon to see how that money has been spent to help Scottish exporters.
Stewart Hosie
That was possibly the worst case of deflection I have ever seen, even from a Tory. The Brexit advice on offer to businesses such as John Ross Jr, which has an exemplary 30-year record in exporting,
“has fallen woefully short when it comes to one of the most important commercial issues of our time.”
Instead of vague promises about future campaigns, pathetic attempts at deflection and playing rather silly politics, would it not be better to fix the problems at the UK-EU border, where real exports happen, to protect real jobs and businesses?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is working very hard with the Brexit business taskforce to make sure that disruption is minimised and businesses are given support. It is perfectly reasonable for me to raise the £200 million that has been given to the Scottish Government and how they are spending it, and the hon. Gentleman’s silence speaks volumes.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Not enough vets to inspect Scottish fish, not enough customs agents to process border forms and not enough time for exporters to adopt new rules of origin—it is no good the Secretary of State saying that the delays are temporary or promising compensation with money that has been already allocated to modernise the fishing industry, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. The Government have failed to prepare for the new arrangements at the border, so is it any wonder that a company such as John Ross Jr says that the Government have thrown them in the sea “without a life jacket”?
Elizabeth Truss
I am not quite sure what the question was, but I have been clear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is running the Brexit business taskforce and that we are seeing disruption minimised and businesses given the support they need. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an urgent question immediately after this Question Time specifically on the fisheries issue, in which he will no doubt want to participate.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Britain will not sacrifice her high standards of environmental protection in any future free trade agreements. At present, we do not have a trade agreement with Brazil, but we are clear that more trade does not need to come at the expense of our values. The Secretary of State and I raised the pressing issue of deforestation most recently on 11 November at our joint economic and trade committee with Brazil.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, but in recent correspondence I have had with the Brazilian ambassador, he has refused even to acknowledge that deforestation is an issue in the Amazon. We have also seen recent reports in the press about terrible working conditions on Brazilian beef farms, which have been described as akin to modern slavery. What more can be done to ensure not only that these concerns are raised in discussions with Brazil but that any future bilateral trade deal is conditional on Brazil taking action to stop the abuse of workers and the deforestation?
Mr Jayawardena
The hon. Lady is right: there is, of course, more that can be done, which is why the United Kingdom has already committed £259 million to Brazil through its international climate finance programme to tackle deforestation. For example, the early movers programme rewards pioneers in forest conservation, and another programme led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has protected the clearance of something like 430,000 acres in Brazil.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
As we all know, Scotland opposed leaving the European Union, and leaving the European Union is going to cost the UK about 4.9% of GDP. Many are concerned that a trade deal with Brazil will be a threat to UK poultry and meat production. Will the Minister ensure that lower meat production standards do not get on the table in any way, shape or form? What is the GDP gain of a deal with Brazil? Do the Government have that figure, or is it similar to the Australia trade deal, which is projected to be 245 times smaller than the Brexit damage that the Tory Government have foisted upon the UK?
Mr Jayawardena
I thank the Chairman of the International Trade Committee for his question. I can be clear that we are firmly committed to upholding our high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards now that we are outside the EU. Indeed, we have the agility and flexibility to enhance them where we believe that that is right. We can also go further on trade. That includes recently opening new opportunities for fish by securing approval from Brazil for seven new British fisheries facilities, which means that companies can now sell high-quality British fish to an import market that was worth almost £1 billion in 2019.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We have agreed trade deals covering 63 countries plus the EU, accounting for £885 billion of UK trade. No other country has ever negotiated so many deals simultaneously.
Claire Coutinho [V]
I commend the Secretary of State for her work securing the most ambitious digital free trade provisions anywhere in the world. The digital economy is worth £150 billion to the UK economy, and it is growing five times faster than the rest of the economy. Could the Secretary of State outline the work that she is doing, to update businesses on these exciting new provisions, so that they can make the most of the new opportunities?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that digital trade is vital, and the UK is a world leader in technology. Our Japan deal goes well beyond the EU-Japan deal in areas such as the free flow of data, the commitment to uphold the principles of net neutrality and the ban on data localisation. We are negotiating similar provisions with Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, and we are looking to accede to the CPTPP, which has a very strong digital and data chapter. We also have a trade advisory group involving leading figures from the tech industry so we can make sure we have the most up-to-date information when we are negotiating these deals.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It has now been 14 days since the provisional trade agreement between the UK and Cameroon entered into force, yet Parliament has still not even seen that agreement, let alone had the chance to examine, debate or approve it. While I fully understand the reasons for that, does the Secretary of State understand why Members of all parties believe that this episode just illustrates why—in fact, it is the latest illustration of why—scrutiny procedures need to be improved, which is the reason many will be voting for changes to them next Tuesday?
Elizabeth Truss
I like to say that scrutiny starts at home, so I suggest the right hon. Lady starts with her colleague, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who presided over the EU’s signing of the CARIFORUM deal 13 years ago, which is still being provisionally applied. I am not quite sure why the right hon. Lady does not ask for a debate on that. [Laughter.]
Emily Thornberry
These are serious matters. Cameroon has become, in the last three years, one of the most abusive, repressive and murderous regimes in the world today. We all know that that did not stop the Secretary of State reaching a trade agreement with it, but we do not even know what, if anything, the trade agreement says on this issue. Again, does the Secretary of State understand why Members on all sides of this House believe that there is a need for new laws, next Tuesday, obliging the Government to take proper account of human rights when negotiating and ratifying new trade agreements?
Elizabeth Truss
I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would have welcomed our announcement earlier this week on the action we are taking on forced labour in Xinjiang and making sure that Britain upholds its values when trading internationally. I would ask her to consider some of her previous actions, such as sharing a platform with Hamas and refusing to criticise Fidel Castro’s abhorrent human rights abuses. It is a bit much being lectured by a Labour Member on human rights, given her past record.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to the Secretary of State that I expect better of her answer? That was just way off beam. In fairness, you are a much better Secretary of State than that, and I do expect better.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
The DIT’s inward investment goal is to maintain the UK’s position as the No. 1 holder of foreign investment in Europe. That is why I am delighted to say that, according to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, the UK’s inward foreign direct investment stock stood at £1.6 trillion at the end of 2019. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—the global equivalent of the ONS—the UK maintained its No. 1 status for FDI stock in Europe at the end of that year.
Brendan Clarke-Smith [V]
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that inward investment supports the levelling up of areas such as Bassetlaw?
Graham Stuart
What an excellent question. My Department is committed to ensuring that exports and investment bolster our levelling-up agenda. That is why we operate a key account management programme, to support existing investors in priority levelling-up areas. D2N2 LEP—it sounds like something from “Star Trek”, but it is my hon. Friend’s local enterprise partnership—is currently receiving funding under that programme to identify foreign owned companies across the LEP area, including in Bassetlaw, which can be assisted with growth plans precisely to retain an increased number of jobs. Since March, we have also placed seven new officers in key markets overseas, who are specifically tasked with promoting investment opportunities in the midlands, not least in Bassetlaw.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Britain has strong bilateral trading relationships with our friends in the middle east and a clear ambition to deepen them. That is why we have launched a joint trade and investment review with the Gulf Cooperation Council, with which total trade stood at almost £41 billion in the year to June 2020. We continue our work with other parts of the region too, particularly where we have trade agreements and are seeking to maximise new opportunities.
Robert Halfon [V]
The recent report from the all-party group on the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, which I chair, identifies opportunities for British bodies in energy, solar power, film production, higher education and agriculture, including quality pomegranates from Halabja, and it states that the Government should organise a second official trade mission once covid allows. Will the Minister talk with his colleagues, the Kurdistan Regional Government, and the APPG to consider how such a trade mission could boost investment and trade with our allies, who constantly seek British expertise, goods and services?
Mr Jayawardena
Sadly, such travel is somewhat restricted at this moment in time, but my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the opportunities across the whole middle east region. For instance, in the education sector, which I know is a particular passion of his, my Department has supported companies to win more than 30 contracts in the middle east, worth more than £58 million over the past year. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend to take that forward.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I thank the distinguished trade envoy for his excellent question. My Department is turbo-charging efforts to help northern businesses take advantage of our trade deals and ensure that the benefits of FTAs are shared across the United Kingdom. Since March we have recruited an additional 30 international trade advisers, and 14 overseas representatives just for the northern powerhouse. We founded the Export Academy, equipping northern businesses with the knowledge, skills and tools that they need to create an export plan and, more importantly, to implement it. Since 2016, the DIT northern powerhouse team has led 83 trade missions to 23 countries, supporting 1,638 companies. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that covid-19 has not stopped us, and that 272 northern companies have benefited from nine virtual missions that the northern powerhouse team has delivered since April 2020. Five further such missions are planned for delivery by the end of March 2021.
Mark Menzies [V]
I am delighted to have recently joined the parliamentary export programme, which is a DIT-led initiative that focuses on promoting international trade. Fylde, just like Chorley, is home to numerous SMEs that currently do not export their goods and services, but would be well placed to do so. What support and advice will be made available to businesses that are looking to begin exporting and play their part in post-Brexit, global Britain?
Graham Stuart
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the parliamentary export programme and thank him for all he is doing for businesses in Fylde. In addition to the support I just outlined, I launched the export growth plan in October, with a £38 million internationalisation fund to provide grants for businesses to export. In December, I launched the UK Export Finance general export facility, providing working capital to exporting SMEs—the first product of its kind and available from all the major banks. In 2019, we were the only top 10 exporting country in the world to grow exports. All I can say is that we do not plan to let up.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
We are determined that all regions of the United Kingdom should benefit from free trade agreements. Our English network of international trade advisers includes 30 giving export support in the south-east of England, all of whom have been trained to help companies take advantage of FTAs. We have a range of online resources, including country-by-country guides and tools on great.gov.uk such as “Find an online marketplace” and “Find export opportunities”, in addition to the wide range of webinars that the Department provides.
Henry Smith [V]
The Coast to Capital local enterprise partnership is soon to submit a freeport bid for the Manor Royal industrial area south of Gatwick airport. May I have an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will liaise with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of this excellent initiative?
Graham Stuart
I would not want to tread on my hon. Friend’s toes. As he understands, the selection process is ongoing and it will be decided by the Treasury, but obviously we are working very closely with the Chancellor and the Treasury team, precisely to ensure that the opportunities for freeports are assigned to the best possible places and that all the benefits that they can bring are realised, for the benefit of constituents such as my hon. Friend’s.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We have made good progress, and we are about to go into the third round of talks with Australia next month. I will be speaking to my counterpart, Dan Tehan, next week in advance of that, and we will be fighting to cut tariffs on vital British goods such as ceramics, which face a 5% tariff into Australia.
Aaron Bell [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and for everything that she and her team, and her negotiators, did last year to get continuity trade agreements for Newcastle-under-Lyme exporters such as Doulton Water Filters, which I met shortly before Christmas. For all our exporters, will my right hon. Friend set out how an agreement with Australia would also facilitate our accession to the CPTPP, which is one of the most vibrant markets in the world and would give us even more opportunities in the future?
Elizabeth Truss
A deal with Australia will be another important step towards CPTPP, where we will be negotiating a market access schedule with Australia. It is a high-standards, rules-based agreement covering £9 trillion of GDP and, importantly, it removes tariffs on 95% of goods. It has a strong data and digital chapter and it will mean more opportunities for exporters in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Global Britain’s trade agreements will benefit food and drink producers and farmers by driving up growth and opening new markets to them. Just in 2019, Wales exported £123 million-worth of meat products globally, so a future trade deal with the US and others could reduce barriers. A deal with the US alone could boost the Welsh economy by £154 million, helping to create more jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Fay Jones [V]
On Christmas day, a local sheep farmer knocked on my door to give me a Christmas present—a box of swedes—as a thank you for the Prime Minister reaching our historic free trade agreement with the EU. Sheep farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire have warmly welcomed the deal with the EU, the largest market for Welsh lamb, but my farmers are not prepared to stand still; opening new markets through rewarding trade deals is essential to future-proofing the sheep sector. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look to give sheep farmers across Brecon and Radnorshire every possible opportunity to get their lamb across the world?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the farming industry in her constituency and across Wales, and I can assure her that the Government are committed to securing future free trade agreements that will open up markets for farmers in Wales. Indeed, the United Kingdom-Japan free trade agreement is particularly beneficial, as it will protect Welsh lamb under the new agreement on geographical indicators. Sheep farmers such as Rhug Estate have already welcomed the opportunity to export their high-quality lamb to Japan.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
The latest data gathered from a survey by the British Educational Suppliers Association indicates that UK EdTech exports are worth £170 million a year. That is expected to increase in light of the pandemic, which has lifted demand for EdTech products and services. The UK is well placed to take advantage of this trend as the fourth largest market globally. More important than the market value is the difference that good educational technology can make.
Damian Hinds [V]
My hon. Friend will recall that, when we worked together on the international education strategy, EdTech was a key export growth area—and that was before, as he mentions, the focus that the pandemic put on its role. What can be done across Government to maximise the export potential of EdTech for the future?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is quite right. It was in his time as Secretary of State for Education that we built much closer ties between our Departments to make sure we could promote educational exports. He is also right to highlight the pandemic’s impact on EdTech. We are working with BESA, the British Educational Suppliers Association, and the Department for Education, his old Department, on a major EdTech event this month, which will connect companies with overseas buyers.
More activity is planned for later in the year in several key markets, supported by the international trade champion, Sir Steve Smith. That post, of course, came out of the work that my right hon. Friend did to develop the international education strategy. He will be pleased to know that we will soon be launching a refreshed international education strategy, in collaboration with the Department for Education and with the support of other Government Departments, that includes provisions to maximise EdTech’s export potential.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The trade co-operation agreement secures continued market access across key service sectors, including both professional and business services. The agreement also includes a commitment to review the services provisions with a view to making further improvements, along with a specific joint declaration on regulatory co-operation in financial services. Specifics will be taken forward by the Cabinet Office and Taskforce Europe.
Douglas Chapman [V]
Within a day of leaving the EU, shares worth billions of euros normally traded in the City of London flooded out of the EU to other European capitals such as Paris and Amsterdam. One trader told the Financial Times that this was a “stunning own goal” and only the beginning of the financial sector’s post-Brexit decline. We know that in Scotland seafood markets are already being decimated, but what is the Minister’s assessment of the damage Brexit will do to the UK’s financial sector and how many own goals can we expect in the future?
Greg Hands
The memorandum of understanding on financial services ensures financial stability and consumer protection, and we look forward to that being negotiated. I was not surprised by this question, but I was a little bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman was the one asking it. It is not that long ago that he said:
“Leaving the European Union without a deal in place is an act of economic self-harm”.
But that is precisely what he voted for on 30 December.
Deidre Brock [V]
The Prime Minister admitted that the deal is not up to the job on trade and services, and Brussels has made it clear that access will be restricted further if there is divergence from the EU’s standards. Is it the Government’s intention to give up access to that market, or will the UK remain wedded to the EU’s regulatory framework?
Greg Hands
I have long experience in this space, having been a Treasury Minister, and there are of course advantages to the UK being able to set its own regulatory regime for financial services as the biggest financial services marketplace in Europe. I think the hon. Lady is wrong to characterise the treaty—she voted in favour of no deal—as not being good for services. There are good provisions on business travellers, excellent provisions on legal services, and very, very good provisions on digital and data. I am a little bit surprised that she is not more supportive of the deal.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The agreement that we have struck with the EU is great for the UK. It delivers on our promise to the British people and takes back control of our laws, our borders and our money. It proves that we can succeed as an independent trading nation, and builds on the deal that we have struck covering 63 countries around the world.
Kevin Brennan [V]
I was genuinely interested in what the Secretary of State would say, because so far none of the 30-plus free trade deals that she has rolled over with non-EU countries since 2019 is actually set to deliver any increase in exports compared with what was previously forecast. According to her own economic impact assessments, even the Japan trade deal, which she has lauded, will result in only a £2.6 billion increase in UK exports, not the £4.3 billion forecast inside the EU. Can she explain—preferably without reverting to wishful thinking, personal attacks or party political rants—exactly how Britain is going to be better off?
Elizabeth Truss
I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s political advice there. I note that he did not vote for a deal with the EU, even though he previously said that no deal was unacceptable. The figures that he is quoting on Japan from the EU are crude figures that are completely out of date and were created from data before the financial crisis in 2008. The fact is that the Japan deal that we have struck goes further and faster in areas such as data and digital, the creative industries, and food and drink—all areas where the UK has a comparative advantage. There are huge opportunities ahead, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to embrace them.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Over the last two years, the Government have placed, as the Secretary of State tells us frequently, more than 30 new trade agreements before the House. Every single one of them, of course, has been accompanied by an economic impact assessment.
The Secretary of State’s October agreement with Japan set a new standard for these documents, with over 100 pages analysing the impact of the deal on UK exports, jobs, business and growth. May I simply ask the Secretary of State, when are the Government going to publish the economic impact assessment for the UK’s trade agreement with the European Union?
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Lady will be well aware that the Department for International Trade is not responsible for negotiating the agreement with the European Union. That is a matter for Taskforce Europe, which has provided full data to this House. The House voted for the deal—including, I am delighted to see, the right hon. Lady.
Emily Thornberry
I was not asking whether the Secretary of State was responsible; I was just thinking that, since she was in the Cabinet, she might know when the impact assessment was going to be published.
The reality is that we only need to watch the news to see the devastating economic damage being done to businesses across our country—especially the Scottish fishing industry—as a result of the new rules facing our exporters and the shocking way in which they are being implemented. Can the Secretary of State explain the logic? Why have the Government published full economic impact assessments for the trade agreements signed last month with Moldova and North Macedonia, but not for our trade agreement with the European Union?
Elizabeth Truss
The trade agreement with the European Union is something that the House has already voted on and supported, and which has happened. It is one of the largest agreements ever struck, duty free and quota free on products covering huge amounts of the British economy.
I encourage the right hon. Lady to move forward and focus on the areas for which the Department for International Trade has responsibility—namely, the 63 countries that we have covered with new trade deals, and our aspirations to strike trade deals with the US, New Zealand and Australia.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The United Kingdom has long promoted its values globally. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of our values. While our approach to agreements will vary between partners, it will always allow this Government to open discussions on issues, including on rights and responsibilities.
Margaret Greenwood [V]
Following on from the Minister’s response, successive UK Governments have believed in the principle that all new trade treaties should contain clauses allowing those treaties to be suspended if the other party engages in serious abuses of human rights, yet the UK recently signed new treaties with Singapore, Vietnam and Turkey, none of which had those clauses, despite ongoing concerns about the records of those countries. Can the Minister please explain why?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady might be misunderstanding the nature of the continuity programme for rolling over existing agreements. I point out that, on Turkey, the underlying agreement dates from 1963, and there were no human rights clauses in that agreement, but that does not mean to say that we do not have a robust discussion with Turkey on human rights. The EU-Vietnam framework agreement was separate and was not necessary to achieve trade continuity, but again we have a good dialogue with Vietnam on human rights. The UK and Singapore have agreed a UK-Singapore political joint statement to reflect our close partnership. Once that is signed, it will be published on gov.uk.
Greg Hands
I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s question. The Foreign Secretary delivered an extensive statement on this topic on Tuesday. Of course, the UK is not negotiating a free trade agreement with China. However, the Foreign Secretary announced on Tuesday a review of export controls, financial penalties for organisations not complying with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, strengthening the overseas business risk guidance and making sure that the Government have the information we need to exclude suppliers complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Kate Osborne [V]
May I ask the Minister very simply why he feels it was appropriate to roll over a trade agreement with Egypt, a country that routinely detains and executes political opponents and religious minorities, persecutes its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and suppresses democratic freedoms, and why no effort was made to strengthen the human rights provisions in that agreement?
Greg Hands
The continuity programme is all about rolling over the deals that are there. I do not believe that there was any diminution of human rights provisions in the agreement with Egypt, or certainly of the effect of those provisions. We have a regular dialogue with Egypt on these issues. There is an extremely difficult internal security situation in Egypt, which the hon. Lady will know has affected British nationals directly as well. It is careful to get that balance right in all our dialogues with countries such as Egypt.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
In under two years, we have agreed trade deals covering 63 countries plus the EU, accounting for £885 billion of UK trade. This is unprecedented; no other country has ever negotiated so many trade deals simultaneously. In 2021, we will add to these deals: negotiations are already under way with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and our planned accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership will hitch Britain to the fastest-growing markets around the world.
Alan Mak [V]
Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the UK’s accession to the CPTPP and explain how exporters from my constituency could expect to benefit?
Elizabeth Truss
Accession to the CPTPP is a priority for this Government and a key part of our trade negotiation programme. We aim to make our formal notification of our intent to accede soon. This agreement will give huge opportunities for British business to export more goods. We already export more goods to the CPTPP countries than to China. For example, 95% of goods are tariff-free under the agreement, and the strong data and digital provisions will really help British tech firms.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]
Elizabeth Truss
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), is running the Brexit business taskforce to ensure that the additional processes required of businesses are clear and to give businesses the support they need to be able to trade in the new environment.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
No one in this House has done more than my hon Friend to champion the English language sector under the pressures of covid. I congratulate her on today’s question and on the debate that she led in, I think, July, to which I had the honour of replying.
We are determined to champion the interests of the English language sector. That is why it is a key member of the education sector advisory group, which I co-chair with my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities. We are determined across Government to ensure that it can access Government schemes for support. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we should look ahead, and that is why we have produced an enterprise management incentive suppliers catalogue for China and are working to replicate that for growing markets such as Indonesia and Brazil. We have to help those businesses to survive today, and we have to put in place support for the future so that they can grow once again and be such an important part of our education sector and, indeed, our wider cultural offer to the world.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
Elizabeth Truss
The trade deals that we have secured are worth £885 billion of trade. What trade means is jobs. It means opportunities for firms to export abroad. It means strong supply chains for businesses across the United Kingdom. The FTAs that we have secured mean that UK traders will continue to enjoy preferential access to trade that covers 63% of UK trade. In the case of our deal with Japan, that deal goes further and faster, and that will bring more benefits to our tech companies, to our food and drink industry and, of course, to our fantastic creative industry.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
This has attracted some attention. I would remind the hon. Member that he voted for no deal on 30 December. I would also refer him to the article written by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the New Musical Express this week, in which he said that the EU offer on this unfortunately fell short of the UK’s proposals and would not have enabled touring by musicians. He said:
“The UK pushed for a more ambitious agreement with the EU on the temporary movement of business travellers, which would have covered musicians and others, but our proposals were rejected by the EU”.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is a great champion of business in his constituency, and I can tell him that the deals with Canada and Mexico give vital certainty to businesses across the midlands, which export goods and services worth about £15 billion, in key sectors such as automotive, manufacturing and food and drink. I know that these opportunities, and new ones, will be taken up by businesses—manufacturers and others—on the Holmewood business park in Shirebrook and across the Bolsover constituency.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)[V]
Elizabeth Truss
I observe to the hon. Gentleman that Japan has data adequacy with the EU and it is also part of the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership, which has a strong digital and data chapter. So it is absolutely reasonable that we should be able to have both and be successful.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right to advocate so passionately on behalf of his constituents, particularly those who need that opportunity and that levelling up. This is precisely what the levelling-up agenda and the freeport programme are about, and we are determined that the benefits of our free trade agenda should be shared right across the country, including in Ipswich. Freeports will attract new investors and drive trade and exports, all of which will help to regenerate communities across the UK, through high-skilled jobs and new infrastructure. It is so important that we work together as a House to champion business and jobs. Forget there being a division in the Labour party, its Front-Bench International Trade team could not—
Mr Speaker
Order, Mr Stuart. This questions session has not been good, because I am beginning to worry that we have very good answers to those on one side of the Chamber but the answers to those on the other mean that they are not getting the respect they deserve. In fact, on one occasion we had, “No, it is not our responsibility”, but then suddenly when another Member asked, we had, “It is our responsibility”. I want us to be concise in our treatment and the way we deal with all Members of this House. They are representing constituencies, and I expect them to get full and thorough answers, and not the political games, on all sides, that seem to be being played.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—he is right to raise issues on behalf of small businesses in his constituency. The Government are in constant dialogue with business representative organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, for example at the Brexit business taskforce chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Government have of course provided an enormous amount of funding to make sure that businesses are ready for the end of the transition period.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
Greg Hands
Since we left the EU a year ago, no bureaucrats will ratify our trade agreements. The ratification of future free trade agreements will take place only once this Parliament has had the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of any trade deal and any necessary implementing legislation. We believe that our system of parliamentary scrutiny compares favourably with that of other Westminster-style democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
Greg Hands
Our chemicals industry is extremely important and we are well aware of the issues in the industry with all its trade partners. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the EU deal is the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but I am sure that the chemicals industry will make its voice heard at the Brexit business taskforce. The Government stand ready to assist the industry, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is vital for our future prosperity.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
Elizabeth Truss
We are working very hard to de-escalate that tariff conflict and reach a negotiated settlement. I have been in discussions with the US and the EU and I will take up the matter on an urgent basis when the new US trade representative is confirmed in due course.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are all well aware of the important role that Milton Keynes plays in technology innovation, electric vehicles and other transport technologies in particular, as well as other areas. That is why the UK is seeking to minimise the barriers to digital trade in particular, going further in the UK-Japan deal. We want to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of global dialogue on policy issues, for example, at the World Trade Organisation.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the consequences of the EU trade and co-operation agreement as it applies to the fishing industry.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
As hon. Members will know, before Christmas the UK and the EU concluded a new trade and co-operation agreement, which established tariff-free trade in all goods and, among other things, sets a new relationship with the EU on fisheries. Before turning to the specifics of that agreement, I should briefly set the wider context.
The withdrawal agreement that was agreed by this House in January last year established the United Kingdom as an independent coastal state. Over the course of the last year we have taken our independent seat at the regional fisheries management organisations, including the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. In September, we reached a partnership agreement with Norway—our most important partner on fishing interests, and with whom we have responsibility for shared stocks in the North sea.
We have also developed new bilateral arrangements with our other north-east Atlantic neighbours, including the Faroes, Greenland and Iceland. We have recently commenced annual bilateral fisheries negotiations with the Faroes in relation to access to one another’s waters, and a UK-Norway-EU trilateral is about to begin to agree fishing opportunities on shared stocks in the North sea. There will also be a UK-EU bilateral negotiation on fishing opportunities for the current year in remaining areas. For the first time in almost 50 years, the UK has a seat at the table and represents its own interests in those important negotiations.
The trade and co-operation agreement establishes an initial multi-annual agreement on quota, sharing and access, covering five and a half years. It ends relative stability as the basis for sharing stocks. Under the agreement, we have given an undertaking to give the EU access to our waters on similar terms as now and, in return, it has agreed to relinquish approximately 25% of the quota that it previously caught in our waters under the EU’s relative stability arrangement. That means that we move from being able to catch somewhat over half the fish in our waters to two thirds of the fish in our waters at the end of the multi-annual agreement. The transfer of quota is front-loaded, with the EU giving up 15% in year 1. On North sea cod, we have an increase from 47% to 57%. On Celtic sea haddock, our share has moved from 10% to 20%. On North sea hake, we secured an uplift from 18% to 54%, and on West of Scotland anglerfish, we have an increase from 31% to 45%. After the five-and-a-half-year agreement, we are able to change access and sharing arrangements further. The EU, for its part, will also be able to apply tariffs on fish exports in proportion to any withdrawal of access.
Although we recognise that some sectors of the fishing industry had hoped for a larger uplift, and, indeed, the Government argued throughout for a settlement that would have been closer to zonal attachment, the agreement does, nevertheless, mark a significant step in the right direction. To support the UK industry through this initial five and a half years, the Prime Minister announced, just before Christmas, that we will invest £100 million in the UK fishing industry, and I will be bringing forward proposals for this investment in due course.
Finally, although it is not a consequence of the trade and co-operation agreement, the end of the transition period and the fact that we have left both the customs union and the single market does mean that there is some additional administration accompanying exports to the EU. I am aware that there have been some teething issues as businesses get used to these new processes. Authorities in the EU countries are also adjusting to new procedures. We are working closely with both industry and authorities in the EU to iron out these issues and to ensure that goods flow smoothly to market.
Mr Carmichael [V]
For years, this Government have promised our fishing industry a sea of opportunity, but, today, our boats are tied up in harbour, their propellers fouled with red tape manufactured in Whitehall. Boats that are able to go to sea are landing their catches in Denmark—an expensive round trip of at least 72 hours, which takes work away from processors and other shoreside businesses in this country. Our Fisheries Minister describes promises made by Ministers as “dreams” and apparently did not think it was worth reading the agreement as soon as it was made, even though every second counted. How on earth was it allowed to come to this? The EU trade agreement allows a grace period on customs checks for EU businesses. Why was there no grace period allowed for our exporters, and will the Government engage with the EU as a matter of urgency to make good that most fundamental of errors?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that compensation is being considered for our fishing industry. Who will be compensated, for what, and by how much? When will our scheme be published and what steps will be taken to help processors, catchers and traders in the meantime? On the loss of quota swaps and other mechanisms, as the Fisheries Minister said yesterday, this could be done Government to Government in-year. Can the Secretary of State explain today how the literally hundreds of producer organisation to producer organisation swaps done every year will be done on a Government-to-Government basis?
Finally, what will happen at the end of a five-and-a-half year transition period? A transition normally takes us from point A to point B. This transition takes us from point A to point A with a new negotiation. Is zonal attachment still the Government’s policy on quota shares?
This is a shambles of the Government’s own making; there is no one else to blame now. When will the Minister start listening to the industry? I make him this offer: I can convene a virtual roundtable of all the affected sectors today or tomorrow. Will he meet with me and them to sort this out? The time for complacency has passed.
George Eustice
May I begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended and say that we are looking and working very closely with industry on this matter? We are having twice-a-week meetings with all the key stakeholders and all the key sectors to help them understand these issues. Yesterday, we had a meeting with the Dutch officials; earlier this week, we had a meeting with the French; and, on Friday, we had a meeting with the Irish to try to iron out some of these teething problems. They are only teething problems. When people get used to using the paperwork, goods will flow normally. Of course, it would have been open to the EU to offer us a grace period, just as we have had a grace period for its goods coming to us. For reasons known only to the EU and the way that it approaches its particular regulations, that was not something that it was willing to do, so we have had to work with these arrangements from a standing start and, clearly, that causes certain issues.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what happens after five and a half years. As I said in my opening statement, after that period, we are free to change access arrangements and change sharing arrangements, and we will do so. He asked specifically about swaps. It is important to note that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has all of the information on all of the swaps that have taken place in recent years, since each of those producer organisation to producer organisation swaps requires the Government to agree them. It is, therefore, quite possible for us to build those swaps into the annual exchanges. Annual exchanges of fishing opportunities are a normal feature of annual negotiations, and we have also retained the ability to do in-year swaps on behalf of those POs.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of what the fisheries Minister said yesterday. I think the record will show that she did not say she did not have time to read the agreement; what she actually said was that her jaw did not drop when she was told what was in the agreement. There may be a reason for that, which is that she knew what was likely to be in the agreement for at least a week, since I had been discussing it with her and we were both in regular contact with our negotiators.
Finally, I am aware that the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that the Government remain open to considering compensation for sectors that might have been affected through no fault of their own. We will look closely at this issue, but in the meantime, we are going to work very closely with the industry to ensure that we can iron out these difficulties.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State will be aware that fishermen in Cornwall have been very disappointed with the agreement reached on quota with the EU, and the fact that its vessels can still fish in our six to 12-mile limit. There is real concern that our inshore fleet, which makes up the vast majority of vessels in my constituency, will benefit little from this new deal, so what assurances can he give the fishermen of Mevagissey and Newquay, as well as fishermen across Cornwall, that the Government will be working with our inshore fleet to make sure it can benefit as much as possible from this new deal, and that those fishermen will be in a good position to increase their share of the quota when we come to the end of the adjustment period?
George Eustice
We left the London fisheries convention and gave notice under that because it is our intention that the six to 12-mile zone should be reserved predominantly for our own fishermen, and at the end of the five and a half years, that is exactly what we will be seeking to achieve. There are some uplifts for fishermen in the Celtic sea, and in particular those in Cornwall—as I mentioned earlier, haddock has moved from 10% to 20%—and the Celtic sea is also an area that often had its fishing interests affected by the ability of Ireland to invoke Hague preference, which depleted our share of some stocks, notably cod. With the absence of Hague preference, there will be some other uplifts in those areas.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Fishing has every right to feel betrayed and let down by this Government. The industry was promised a better deal, but they have not got one. Fishers fear some of the extra quota is just paper fish—fish that might not even exist, or are hard for British boats to catch. The promise to immediately exclude European boats from our six to 12-mile limit was broken, and the catch app and export systems are cumbersome, bureaucratic, and home-grown Tory red tape that the industry can ill afford. Shellfish exporters feel particularly betrayed: they are unable to export until April, because the Government failed to negotiate a deal that included them.
Yesterday, the PM promised compensation for those affected by export chaos, but Downing Street seemed to U-turn on this less than six hours later. Fishers deserve better than this incompetent Government, so when will the distant water fleet be able to go to sea again? When will the new avalanche of paperwork be scaled back? When will the £100 million be available for coastal communities? When will British fishers get the extra quota they were promised? When will the requirement to land more British fish in British ports finally be introduced, and when will this Government actually start standing up for our fishers with action, not just soundbites?
George Eustice
I know that in previous debates on fishing the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the importance of tariff-free access to the EU market, and the trade and co-operation agreement gives our fishing export businesses that access, which is particularly important for the shellfish sector.
It is not the case that shellfish cannot be exported at all until April. There have been certain issues regarding bivalve molluscs and getting the correct paperwork, and some issues around depuration and the ability to export stocks that have not been purified prior to export, but they do not amount to a ban on the export of shellfish.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the distant water fleets. It is a convention that in the absence of agreements on quotas—this is pertinent to the agreement we have with Norway—access is suspended, but we will seek access to Arctic cod in the usual way for those parts of our fleet that benefit from that stock.
The hon. Gentleman asked when fishermen will see the uplift in quota. As I made clear, the EU is giving up 15% of its catch in our waters in year one, so fishermen will see some important advantages in this very first year.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
We are seeing teething issues arise for our fishing exporters, with health checks and customs documents causing some backlogs in exports to the EU. Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps his Department is taking to ensure that exporters know what is required of them, so that those challenges can be eased?
George Eustice
We have been working closely with authorities, particularly in France and the Netherlands, to understand the sorts of issues that they are finding. At one end of the spectrum, many of the issues are quite trivial, such as where the stamp is; we have even had questions about the colour of the ink used on the forms, pagination and the way pages are numbered. Those are all trivial problems that can be sorted out—indeed, some leeway is being given for such issues in France, given that there is sometimes a difference in interpretation. There are other, more significant issues, notably around import agents failing to pre-declare properly or at all. We are working closely with the industry on those, with regular meetings, to ensure that they are addressed.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
“Stay in the UK,” they said in 2014; “Leave the EU,” they said in 2016; “A sea of opportunity,” they said in 2020—bad advice, backed by lies and disinformation, all down the line, and Scotland’s fishing industry is among those feeling the betrayal. Now, Scots businesses cannot get their product to their European markets, EU fishing fleets can still access our waters, and we are still subject to the CFP but now do not have a say in how it runs. Scots businesses have lost many thousands of pounds and communities are facing job losses. DFDS cannot take groupage loads until Monday at the earliest, because the Government made a mess of the paperwork system. Businesses may close and people may lose jobs because this Government messed up. Jimmy Buchan of the Scottish Seafood Association—once a Tory election candidate—said that Ministers are not doing enough. The sales director of John Ross told UK Ministers that the Brexit deal was worthless unless they took action. It is not just “teething issues”, Minister. It is chaos, and it is costing businesses shedloads of money. Who exactly do they apply to for compensation? Shall I give them the Minister’s mobile phone number?
George Eustice
As I said earlier, there have been some teething problems, particularly in Scotland, I know. DFDS established a hub system at Larkhall so it could group consignments together. It has had some difficulty getting the right information from some of the fishing businesses in Scotland. Food Standards Scotland is working hard to address the issue.
The hon. Lady says that the Government made a mess of the paperwork. She will be aware that the paperwork is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I have spoken regularly to Fergus Ewing about this, and he maintains—I believe he is right—that there is no lack of export health certification capacity; the vets and the fish certifying officers are just trying to get used to complicated new paperwork. I will talk to DFDS later today to see whether there is anything we can do to help, but I pay tribute to the work that it and Food Standards Scotland are doing to work through some of the technical differences. The short answer to the current challenge is to work through each of the problems as they present themselves, so that they are not repeated and goods can flow smoothly.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]
The fishing community in Grimsby welcomes the deal agreed by the Prime Minister, particularly the springboard it gives us to take back more quota as the years go on, and our tariff-free arrangements. Can my right hon. Friend confirm when the details of the £100 million fund and the international quota swaps will be made available to us?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend’s constituency is home to the UK’s fish processing industry, and tariff-free access will be important for some of those sectors. She asked two specific questions. The first was on the new £100 million fund that the Prime Minister announced. We are working on the details of that and will in the next month or two consult on how the fund should be allocated and used. Secondly, she asked about the issue of swaps. Those negotiations with the European Union and the trilateral with Norway and the European Union are about to commence. We envisage that, probably in the next couple of weeks, there would be a final conclusion on how we manage the North sea, and that would include swapping arrangements.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Eight-five per cent. of the seafood caught by my local fishing fleet goes to customers in the EU. Along with boats right across the UK, they are currently tied up, as logistics firms will not accept any more produce due to the current customs chaos. Can the Secretary of State explain how he plans to resolve what he dismisses as “teething problems” and clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about financial compensation for their losses?
George Eustice
We are working closely with the industry and DFDS to identify what we can do to address some of the problems that have been encountered. I am aware that late last week, DFDS suspended the groupage service that it was offering to smaller consignments and has focused on single larger consignments, particularly of Scottish salmon. I understand that it believes it has sorted out some of those problems and intends next week to resume some of those groupage consignments. There is a challenge here: in a group of several consignments, maybe three people would have got the paperwork right, but if one person has not, that can cause issues for everybody. We need people to pay attention to the detail and to get that paperwork right. We are working closely with the industry so that it can acclimatise itself to this administrative process.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
My constituent Andrew Trust, the owner of Ocean Harvest, is finding that the high cost of border control charges, export health certificates, the need for a fiscal representative in France and the uncertainty that his fish will reach the buyer in the EU poses a real threat to his business. What compensating measures will the Government put in place?
George Eustice
The key thing is to get this process working more smoothly, and that requires traders to familiarise themselves with it. I have also spoken to fish operators in my constituency, which is in that part of the world. Those who have experience of exporting more widely around the world, including to the far east, are quite familiar with these processes and are coping with them, but for those businesses for which this is new, it will take time to get used to the paperwork.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
Fishing communities across the country feel that their genuine concerns have been used for political purposes and they have ended up being sold down the river. Why does the Secretary of State think that fishers in Fleetwood and across the country feel angry and let down by the way they have been betrayed by his Government’s choices, and how much of the £100 million promised to the industry will be spent on improving port facilities in Fleetwood?
George Eustice
Port facilities will, indeed, be one of the areas that the new £100 million fund will address around the country; we want to build capacity there as our share of the catch grows. The Government have maintained all along that we were aiming for something closer to zonal attachment. As I made clear earlier, we took an important step towards that objective, with the EU giving up 25% of its catch in our waters as part of the wider agreement. Yes, we would have liked to have gone further, and after the first five and a half years, we will.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]
Pulse trawling, which uses electrical signals to drive flatfish such as sole from the seabed into nets, is highly controversial and damaging to our marine environment. Many in Marlow and Beaconsfield have written to me about how we can protect our marine environment moving forward. Therefore, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the end of the transition period at the beginning of this month, we have seen the last of this practice in UK waters?
George Eustice
I can. We have the freedom to regulate through technical measures in our own waters, and we have banned pulse trawling.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
With fish exporters paying over £500 or £600 a day in extra paperwork since the Tory Brexit deal came into force, in what world does the Secretary of State believe that this represents frictionless, barrier-free trade, as the Prime Minister claimed the deal delivers?
George Eustice
There are no tariff barriers. We secured an agreement through the trade and co-operation agreement that means tariff-free trade in all goods, including fish.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) [V]
While some of the benefits of leaving the CFP are going to be postponed for five and a half years, can the Secretary of State set out what action he is taking right now, with the powers that we do have, to benefit both the marine environment and the under-10 metre fishing fleet?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that while we have reached a quota sharing and access agreement for five and a half years, we do have the freedom to set our own regulations. We have already banned pulse trawling, and we are consulting on and will soon be bringing forward measures to further protect the Dogger Bank. We will continue to look for opportunities to use technical measures to enhance conservation in our waters.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his work to date on the particular fishing issues relating to Northern Ireland, but would he recognise that there are some outstanding matters, including a permanent commitment that Northern Ireland boats can land products in local ports without sanitary and phytosanitary or other checks, addressing the exclusion of Northern Ireland boats from all but two ports in the Republic of Ireland and ensuring that new quota allocations reflect the existing fixed quota allocation units?
George Eustice
Yes, there are some issues in Northern Ireland that we are working through. For the purposes of regulation, we have taken the position that Northern Ireland vessels should not require an SPS check or a catch certificate to land in their home port. Such an idea would clearly be ridiculous, so we are not requiring that, and we have agreed that with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. There are some remaining issues about the Northern Ireland protocol and some of the easements we have had on trade and what will replace them, and we are working closely with the Commission and with colleagues in DAERA to agree on that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Catching fish is one thing; landing and processing fish is quite another. If we are to be even more ambitious in five and a half years’ time and catch even more fish, what are the Government going to do in the next five and a half years to develop our fish processing industry?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is why the Prime Minister has announced this new £100 million fund, which will support the infrastructure at ports to cope with a growing share of the catch. We will also look at supporting processing as well, so that we can add value to the fish we catch.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) [V]
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations described the Prime Minister’s EU trade deal as “minuscule, marginal, paltry, pathetic” and some British fishers are now landing their catch straight on to the continent to avoid the Government’s red tape and the impending lorry queues chaos at the border, so does the Secretary of State agree that this is driving jobs away from the UK and hitting hard our coastal communities?
George Eustice
I do not agree with that. As I said earlier, we do recognise that fishermen would have liked a larger uplift, and we absolutely recognise that throughout the negotiation we were arguing for a move to a share that was closer to zonal attachment, but this does represent a significant step in the right direction, with a 25% loss of what the EU currently catches in our waters, and that will bring additional fishing opportunities to our own sector.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The fishermen of Salcombe, Dartmouth and Brixham are now faced with catch certificates, health certificates, and export documentation, all of which is extensive red tape and comes with a cost. What is the Department doing to reform that system, and to improve it and reduce bureaucracy? We are hearing reports from the EU that customs officials are deliberately delaying British exports on the European mainland. What steps have been taken to hold them to account, and to ensure a streamlined process and to ensure that the EU upholds its side of the deal?
George Eustice
The bureaucracy that we are having to fill in is obviously designed by the European Union, and in some cases, on many export health certificates, the form is a generic World Trade Organisation form that has not had a great deal of thought given to it. We think the paperwork could be improved, but we would need the EU to agree to engage with that. For now we have to work with the paperwork that it designates. It is EU bureaucracy, but we are working closely with European countries to get a better understanding of what is required.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
DEFRA’s consultation letter of October 2020 on future quota arrangements contained much emphasis on zonal attachment and how it might be applied at UK level. With a small maritime zone, that would severely disadvantage Northern Ireland as only 20% of our quota holdings are in the Irish sea, and the Irish sea is shared by the UK’s four Administrations, plus the Isle of Man. Discrimination faced by Northern Ireland’s fishermen at the hands of the EU and its Hague preference must not be replaced by a form of discrimination within the United Kingdom. We believe that any departure from the established principle of fixed quota allocation units will disadvantage Northern Ireland’s fishermen. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will not allow that to happen, and that Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet will receive its share of the additional quota on the basis of its existing fixed quota allocation share?
George Eustice
We have made clear that the existing entitlements that people would have had under relative stability will continue to be issued under the legacy FQA units approach, but when we get additional fishing opportunities, we want to be able to allocate those in a different way. We are working closely with all UK Administrations on a fairer sharing arrangement, and we recognise the particular issues in the Irish sea. We are conscious of that, and we are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on getting a fair arrangement.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
I have been contacted by many fishermen from Moray and across Scotland who are raising their serious concerns and frustrations about the current situation, both here with the Scottish Government element at Larkhall, and because of the losses they are currently experiencing. One local skipper, Liam Gray from Buckie, agreed that I could share his returns from this week. He is averaging £30 a box for the fish he is landing, and £47 a box for the prawns. That is half of what he needs to cover his costs. Will the Secretary of State outline the discussions that he is having with the Scottish Government about the problems at Larkhall, and about the compensation scheme that is clearly needed by fishermen right across the country?
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues. As I have said, I am having a discussion with DFDS later today, to see whether we can offer help. It is working through a difficult situation, and working hard to address these problems, as is Food Standards Scotland. I have had numerous conversations on those matters with Fergus Ewing, and the Government have offered support should the Scottish Government want that to address these problems. January is always the slowest month in the fish trade, and the coronavirus pandemic has caused a lot of problems in the export market generally. The export market is quite weak, which is why the price of some fish has been lower.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
We already know that if the period of disruption that we are witnessing is extended, European consumers will seek alternative suppliers and will be unlikely to return to Scottish suppliers. When asked how long it will take to sort the problems, the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), said on the radio this morning, “How long is a piece of string?” Does the Secretary of State think that that is an acceptable answer for an industry that is facing what it describes as a “catastrophe”?
George Eustice
We are working very hard to make sure that that piece of string is as short as possible by having regular daily meetings with industry to try to iron out these problems.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
Prior to our departure from the EU, 90% of Welsh shellfish exports were sent to the EU. Since the new customs system has been in place, The Lobster Pot, a family business on Ynys Môn, has had its imports arrive dead so that they cannot be used, and another, Menai Oysters, has decided to stop exporting until this problem is resolved. Can the Secretary of State please confirm to my Ynys Môn businesses what he is doing to speed up customs procedures and when they can expect to be able to securely export live shellfish?
George Eustice
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working daily with industry to identify specific granular problems that are presenting themselves and then working with authorities in France to ensure that there is a common understanding of what is required so that we can speed up the passage of these goods.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
The fishing industry is absolutely crucial to my constituency, and right now, as we have heard, it is in dead trouble. Everyone in the Palace of Westminster knows my stance on Brexit, but I am of a practical frame of mind, and I would like to offer my help to work with Ministers and with the industry to try to get this problem sorted, because that is what we must do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has made the offer of a roundtable discussion between the Government and industry. May I support that plea? Finally, financial compensation is going to be utterly crucial if the industry is to survive in remote parts of the UK like my constituency.
George Eustice
We are having roundtable discussions with the industry formally twice a week and are in conversation with it daily. We have helplines set up at the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Carlisle to tackle any of the technical issues that vets might have. We also have meetings with colleagues in this House to take on board any of the individual issues that they are receiving. I make this offer to any Member of this House who has a constituent bringing up a specific issue: do feed that back to us so that we can address the problems.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
One catch brought to shore by Porthdinllaen fishing boats is scallops. Fair play to AM Seafoods of Fleetwood, which is still supporting Welsh fishermen by continuing to buy up scallops, but at present they have to be frozen as there is simply no way to get them to continental markets fresh. I am told that paperwork on both sides of the English channel now means an extra cost per consignment of 5%. This looks like a tariff and it hurts like a tariff to an industry that was promised a tariff-free Brexit. Could the Minister tell me how he is working with the Welsh Government to ensure the survival of Welsh inshore fishing, and will he admit that for our fishing communities this bare-bones deal is a no-deal Brexit by the back door?
George Eustice
It is certainly not a no-deal Brexit. There is a free trade and co-operation agreement that means that we have tariff-free trade in goods, including in shellfish. One of the key asks of the shellfish sector was that we sought to get a free trade agreement without tariffs. I regularly meet Lesley Griffiths, who attends the sub-committee we have that looks at some of the teething issues at the border, and we are in regular contact with her about the particular challenges in Wales.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Clearly the fishing fleet in the United Kingdom has been suppressed for the past 48 years, and as we come out and set our own policies, it will take time to develop the fishing fleets and, indeed, the fish processing centres. Will my right hon. Friend set out what the Government plan to do to ensure that our fishing fleet and fish processing centres are built up so that we can take full advantage of the fish in our waters?
George Eustice
There will be new opportunities with the uplift in quota that we are getting, but also the new requirements that we are bringing in to require vessels to land a greater proportion of their catch into the UK. The new £100 million fund announced by the Prime Minister will indeed go towards supporting that increased capacity at ports and in processing.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The shortage of vets to inspect fish, the lack of customs agents to process border forms and there not being enough time for businesses to adapt to new rules of origin are, I would suggest, a lot more than “teething problems”. The Secretary of State might want to rethink his analysis there, but what the fishing communities up and down our country want to know is when he will fix the problems caused by the Government’s failure to prepare for the new border arrangements.
George Eustice
We are working with the industry daily to identify the specific challenges that they are encountering, such as individual examples of why the French may have raised a query on an export health certificate. We are trying to deal with that and iron out that problem.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
UK fishermen are understandably frustrated by the current situation at the borders. Can my right hon. Friend therefore update the House on what discussions he has had with our European neighbours, since the end of the transition period, to tackle the issue?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point, because many of the problems we have are often down to different interpretations of the official control regime in different countries, with Ireland, the Netherlands and France in some cases having different views on what is required. We are working very closely with them. We met Irish counterparts on Friday. We met French officials on Tuesday and have further meetings planned with them, and we met Dutch officials yesterday.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
In the lead-up to the trade and co-operation agreement, John Ross Jr in Aberdeen said that it
“had to endure the government issuing a barrage of useless information”.
D. R. Collin in Eyemouth has said that Brexit has more or less finished the business. Prices at the quayside at Peterhead fish market are now 80% below normal. All of that can be taken together with what was described on the front page of the Fishing News as the Prime Minister’s “Brexit betrayal”. Is it not the case that rather than the promised sea of opportunity, through their incompetence the UK Government are now in danger of delivering instead a sea of insolvency for the Scottish seafood industry?
George Eustice
The responsibility for issuing the export health certificates that are causing these challenges rests with the Scottish Government, but I would like to pay tribute to Food Standards Scotland, which is working very hard to resolve some of the issues being encountered.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the plight of D. R. Collin, the seafood suppliers in Eyemouth in my constituency. I know that his officials and those at the Scotland Office are working exceptionally hard to find a solution to the problems that it is facing as it tries to export to the EU. I back-up the calls for compensation for those facing losses as a consequence of this, but can he reassure me that those in his Department are doing everything they possibly can to find solutions to the problems that D. R. Collin and others are facing in trying to export and continue to sell their fish to Europe?
George Eustice
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I will be talking to DFDS later today. I pay tribute to what it is trying to do to resolve these problems. Some of the paperwork is complex. Its plan for a consolidation hub at Larkhall is a good one. When we iron out these problems, the system will work.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
First, I take the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to thank the Fisheries Minister for taking a call from us on Christmas eve and again having her office contact us early on Christmas day and Boxing day to clarify the situation. I reject the character assassination that she has been subject to in the past 24 hours, and I think that should be put on record.
I welcome the demise of the Hague preference. That scheme discriminated badly against fishermen in Northern Ireland, but I appeal to the Minister to please not replace that discriminatory process of theft of our fish with a UK replacement that discriminates how quota is shared out within the four nations of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland fishermen will not tolerate using share-out to placate English fishermen who feel they have been let down. I am appealing to the Secretary of State to ensure that we get a fair share-out of that quota.
From Howth to Greencastle, Northern Ireland fishermen now face a deliberate hard border put in place by the Republic of Ireland. We are told that we cannot land in those traditional ports, yet boats from Skibbereen, in the very deep south of the Republic of Ireland, can catch mackerel in British waters and land them in Lisahally in Londonderry. When will the message go from the Government to the EU that we want a fair share-out in the process? If that cannot happen, I appeal to the Government to invoke article 16.
George Eustice
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Fisheries Minister. He is absolutely right: she was across the detail of this agreement and was briefing colleagues in the House over the Christmas period.
The hon. Gentleman raises sharing arrangements within the UK. We are consulting closely with each and every part of the UK about how additional opportunities could be shared differently. He is also right that the Hague preference was against the interests of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. That was a concept that the UK created in the late 1970s to try to get a fairer share, but, as is often the case with the EU, it is a system that ended up being used against our interests.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Dudley South, Mr Speaker.
Media reports at the weekend suggested that the EU trade deal prevents the UK from protecting our marine conservation. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether we have the legal powers to regulate the vessels and the forms of fishing that are conducted in British waters if we feel it is necessary to protect our marine wildlife and particularly our marine conservation areas?
George Eustice
Yes, I can absolutely make that point. The technical conservation measures are for us, and us alone, to make. There will be times when we may seek bilateral agreement with the European Union on that, but there will be nothing to stop us putting conditions on vessels, provided they are not discriminatory and do not aim to discriminate against the European Union.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
While I welcome the Minister’s statement that he will be meeting stakeholders, I assure him that those stakeholders understand the issues; it appears to be the Government who have failed to grasp them, particularly with adjusted quota shares, especially in whitefish, which no amount of understanding or explaining forms will fix. When will there be an effective mechanism for allowing co-operation between UK and EU fishermen on adjusting fishing opportunities to fix the mess that this Government have created?
George Eustice
A common feature of annual fisheries negotiations, which will continue, is what are called the annual exchanges, where a swapping arrangement takes place Government to Government. We are very aware of the swaps that took place from producer organisation to producer organisation in the past. We have all that data. We are working with the industry to ensure that we get it access to the quotas that it actually fishes.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
Other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), have raised the issue of the £100 million fund. When we are talking about infrastructure projects, £100 million is very limited. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will press the Treasury hard for further funding, and that there can be some cross-working with the other funds that are available for coastal communities and regional funding?
George Eustice
Obviously we all know that, on every front, people would always like more money, but we also recognise that the Treasury has to balance the finances as best it can in these difficult situations. It is £100 million of new money, and it is in addition to the money that we have already made available to every part of the UK to replace the legacy European maritime and fisheries fund.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Thanks to the United Kingdom Government’s incompetence, the fishing industry is in chaos, not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom, and many face bankruptcy. In a disastrous interview with Radio Scotland this morning, the Secretary of State’s junior colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), told us that everyone knew there would be challenges with Brexit, so when will the Secretary of State be renaming the “sea of opportunity” the “sea of challenges”?
George Eustice
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) is absolutely right on this issue. We have been clear for the whole year, as we prepared for the end of the transition period, that new paperwork would be needed. It is inevitable that when we introduce the requirement for export health certificates, for instance—these are new processes for customs officials and so on in France to get used to—there will be some teething problems. That is what we are seeing and we need to work hard to iron them out.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]
As my right hon. Friend and fellow Cornish MP will know, crab and lobster exports are a big part of our fishing sector in North Cornwall. There have been reports in the press of delays specifically around export health certificates. Will the Secretary of State outline how widespread this issue is in the south-west and what we can do to expedite the customs processes to ensure that shipments are delivered faster?
George Eustice
The principal issue is that DFDS, which, as well as leading on logistics in Scotland has a significant presence in the west country, encountered some difficulties with the accuracy of the paperwork, in particular the export health certificates, and some particular issues with import agents failing to declare the correct information on the EU’s TRACES system. For that reason, it temporarily suspended mixed consignments—the groupage—until it had been able to iron out those problems. I understand that it may be considering starting that service again next week.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
Recently, Jimmy Buchan, the chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association, mooted the idea of an independent clearing house for Europe in Scotland, which would allow Scottish fish producers to receive written clearance for export before their goods had to leave Scotland. What consultations has the UK Government had with the Scottish Seafood Association on the viability of that idea?
George Eustice
We are working very closely with the industry on all these matters. In the short term, we have to sort out issues arising with import agents and declarations on TRACES and so forth. However, if in the medium term we can come to further arrangements with the European Union, we can look at that. With the hub at Larkhall, DFDS is trying to consolidate loads and do export health certificates in one place.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We have taken back control of our fishing waters. Now, I and many in Redcar and Cleveland want to stop supertrawlers damaging our wildlife, harming and sadly killing porpoises and fish off the Teesside coast. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps being taken to protect our seas from the practices of supertrawlers?
George Eustice
This is an issue that is often raised and refers, I think, specifically to a Lithuanian vessel that started to access our waters last year, targeting mainly horse mackerel. There are things we can do and are doing through technical measures. We have already banned pulse trawlers, which were predominantly a Dutch part of the fleet. We are also looking at new spatial measures to protect Dogger Bank.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
Mr Speaker:
“as a seafood exporter, it feels as though our own government has thrown us into the cold Atlantic waters without a lifejacket”.
Those are not my words, but those of John Ross Jr., an historic smoked salmon producer based in my Aberdeen South constituency. Will the Secretary of State stop patronising businesses by referring to this Brexit chaos as “teething issues”? Will he apologise to John Ross Jr. and can he confirm when he will deliver full financial compensation for all the damage his Government are currently causing?
George Eustice
The salmon industry in Scotland benefits from tariff-free access to the EU market. While there have been, as I said, some problems, particularly around groupage and mixed consignments, the salmon trade has continued. We estimate that there are about 20 to 30 lorries a day crossing the short straits predominantly carrying Scottish salmon.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he is doing to resolve the issues around paperwork for our fishermen. My Ilfracombe fishermen have now brought the fleet in as they cannot transport their fish. Given that these issues are causing losses on both sides of the channel, is there an option for free customs clearance on perishable goods?
George Eustice
The solution is for us to work closely with authorities in France to get an agreement on what is required. To be fair to the French authorities, while they have, as I said, encountered some quite trivial paperwork errors, they have generally shown some forbearance and allowed those goods to travel through. There were problems with IT systems in Calais and Boulogne early in the new year that exacerbated the situation. Those have been fixed now. We continue to work with the French authorities to try to make sure that the process can be made as smooth as possible, so that goods continue to travel on time.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Right now, a few miles from here, there are 10 EU trawlers: eight Irish, one French and a Dutch factory trawler. All but the Dutchmen are steaming south towards the beautiful village of Killybegs—Na Cealla Beaga in Irish—in Country Donegal. In five years’ time, EU nations such as Ireland will lose about 25% of their access to mainly Scottish waters; perhaps two or more of those boats will not be there, but perhaps they will. Regardless, the EU promised Ireland €1.051 billion-worth of help. Will the Minister tell me why politicians such as Neale Richmond say Ireland feels “constant solidarity” from the European Union, while Scotland, which has already been hit by the losses from its biggest market—probably more than 25% right now—is getting little or no solidarity at all from the United Kingdom, certainly not €1.051 billion-worth, which has left fishermen threatening to dump their catch on the gates of Westminster next week?
George Eustice
Although we did not get the larger uplift that we wanted, and we did not get as close to zonal attachment as we wanted, we got a significant step in the right direction, with an increase of around 25% in our fishing opportunities, including in the pelagic sector, particularly around the west of Scotland, and in some of the mackerel quota, where there has been some additional uplift. We are aware that there are consequences for the EU fleets. They have had to give up some of that quota, and obviously their own Governments and the EU are considering compensation for their losses.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House briefly to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before I call the shadow Leader of the House to ask the business question, let me say that today will be the last occasion on which Steve Jaggs is in the Chamber as an Associate Serjeant. Steve is retiring after over 30 years in the service of this place, during which he has played a valuable role in the upkeep of the buildings in which we work, as well as having important responsibilities relating to arrangements for State Opening and as Keeper of the Great Clock—what a great title to retire with. I thank Steve for his loyal service to this House. He has been a great man and has certainly ensured the safe wellbeing of this building and its maintenance. Steve, enjoy retirement with your family; you will be missed. Do not forget to keep in touch with us.
Business of the House
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 18 January will include:
Monday 18 January—Opposition day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion relating to universal credit and working tax credit, followed by a debate on access to remote education and the quality of free school meals. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Tuesday 19 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill.
Wednesday 20 January—Remaining stages of the National Security and Investment Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of an electoral commissioner.
Thursday 21 January—Debate on a motion relating to errors in payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal, followed by general debate on the operation of the child maintenance service during the covid-19 outbreak. The subjects for those debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 22 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 January will include:
Monday 25 January—Opposition day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 26 January—Remaining stages of the Environment Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 27 January—Consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 28 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2021. The subject for that debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee. It will be followed by a further debate to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 29 January—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
May I start by reiterating your comments, Mr Speaker, about Steve Jaggs? On behalf of the Opposition, I thank him for all the work that he has done. He has spent 30 years here, and, I understand, spent five years at Buckingham Palace—a great, long time of public service. We thank him and wish him a very happy retirement. I just hope that he did not get a clock as his leaving present!
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. It is right that there should be clarity for the next few weeks, until the end of January. The motion on private Members’ Bills was passed last night, so I am keen to ask him whether he will ensure that the list of private Members’ Bills will stay in place when they return. There was some concern that Members would fall off the list, so could the Leader of the House tell us when the end of the Session will be?
The Opposition thank you, Mr Speaker, the Clerk of the House and John Angeli for finding a solution for Westminster Hall in another venue, so that we can continue to hold the Government to account. The Leader of the House will know that ministerial responses have been of great concern to our colleagues, and the deputy shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), has conducted a survey of hon. Members. I will write to you, Mr Speaker, with further information, but to give you a flavour, one of our colleagues wrote in April about childcare providers and has not yet received a response. Some of them say that Departments leave the responses so long that it is not necessary to make a response.
The Government should have anticipated this issue. These questions are one of the tools that we have to hold the Government to account. I have to say that the Cabinet Office and the Leader of the House are very assiduous. I think they are the best performers—the quickest responders. The worst are the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care. That is all the more reason why the Government should have provided extra support, given that we have the worst economic record of all the major economies and the worst death record.
This is a shambolic Government because, right to the wire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has made a U-turn on evictions for renters. He said that no one will be evicted because of coronavirus, but the new statutory instrument is watered down. It is an affirmative instrument, so could we have a debate on the Floor of the House, so that we can debate the new watered-down provisions?
Another broken promise: the Secretary of State said that the Government would reimburse all councils for all the money they spent on measures in the pandemic, but they have not, so could we have a statement? The burden should not fall on our constituents from an increase in council tax or a cut in services.
Either the Government are not speaking to each other or the Health Secretary is not reporting to Cabinet. He told the World Health Organisation on 14 December that there was a new variant, so it is a bit weird that the Secretary State for Education did not know that there was a variant. It is probably a worse excuse than “the dog ate my homework”. Given that we have Education questions on Monday, could the Education Secretary make a statement on whether he knew about the new variant? Also, one of my constituents, who is a supply teacher, has said that, according to her agency, she does not qualify for furlough because schools are open. Could the Secretary of State address both those points in his statement?
It seems that the Prime Minister does not take his own advice to exercise locally. I do not whether it was the letters from his Back Benchers who said what a terrible Prime Minister he was; they must have said, “On yer bike,” and he took it literally. Many of my constituents want clarity. They are asking why angling is allowed and not golf. One of them asked me whether they can drive to the arboretum in Walsall to exercise, so could we have a statement to clarify those coronavirus issues?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) tabled a written question, and was told that the last time the Foreign Secretary raised Nazanin’s case was on 13 December. That is a month ago. Every minute spent away from family is a wasted minute in the middle of this coronavirus. The Foreign Affairs Committee report on the UK’s relationship with Iran published on 16 December said that the current approach to seeking the release of detainees is not working. Could we have a debate in Government time—not a report for 20 minutes, where a Minister does not respond, but a full debate? Anousheh needs diplomatic protection. Luke Symons needs to be protected. There was an attack on Aden airport, a place I know very well from my childhood. We need a full statement.
It is Martin Luther King Day on Monday. What a difference in the rhetoric and the march for jobs and freedom in 1963 compared with last week. Quite rightly, the outgoing president will be impeached. We are on the side of the incoming Biden-Harris Administration, who want to form allies of democracy.
Finally, just for you, Mr Speaker: Chorley 2, Derby County nil.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, I think that was a reference to association football, so I congratulate you as well.
Before I respond to the right hon. Lady, I pay tribute to Godfrey Cameron, whose death was referred to in the Chamber yesterday, but not by name. Mr Speaker, you referred to him earlier today. He has been one of our security personnel. He worked incredibly hard for the House. He died suddenly at the age of 55. He was an heroic figure; he managed to stop a young lady jumping off Westminster bridge. He is a model of the type of service we have been so fortunate to have in this House. His death will be much mourned by his family, his wife, Hyacinth, and his children, and we pray for the repose of his soul. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon him. May he rest in peace.
May I now move to happier news? I have not had a chance to congratulate all those who were rewarded in the new year’s honours. It is a fine list: the Counsel for Domestic Legislation, Daniel Greenberg, has been made a Companion of the Order of the Bath—that is well deserved, and for one of the cleverest people I have ever had the opportunity to engage with; Marianne Cwynarski has been made a Commander of the most excellent Order of the British Empire, which is most thoroughly deserved, for all the work she has done in keeping this place covid-secure and operating; John Angeli has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament, particularly for broadcasting; John Owen, Director of Strategic Business Resilience at the House of Commons and House of Lords, has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; David Smith, Deputy Managing Director of the Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; Matthew Stutely, Director of Software Engineering, Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; Avi Dussaram, Member Services Officer, Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament; Rupert Hay-Campbell, Head of Architecture, Parliamentary Digital Service, has been made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament and to the community in Essex; Barry Underwood, Head of Distribution Services, Vote Office, House of Commons, has been made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for services to Parliament, particularly during the covid-19 response, and for voluntary services to football—you will like that bit, Mr Speaker: as I understand it, that is one of your great interests. I really take pride in congratulating all of them, as this is symbolic of the wonderful service that this House receives from so many dedicated members of staff.
How fortunate we are to have Mr Jaggs in the Chamber so that I can add my tribute to him. I think the title “Keeper of the Great Clock” is most wonderful; it is hard to think of one that could be better—many people would swap the title of “Prime Minister” to be known as Keeper of the Great Clock. The enormous amount of work that is done is something for which we are very grateful. Thirty years’ service in this place is terrific—I did not know about the five years in Buckingham Palace, but I note Mr Jaggs’ affection for royal palaces, as well as his willingness to turn his hand to everything.
It is a comment on the enthusiasm and support we have in this House that before I came to the Dispatch Box today, Mr Jaggs, our very distinguished Keeper of the Great Clock, was cleaning the Dispatch Box—he was doing everything. When we had a leak in the ceiling, it was Mr Jaggs who dealt with it. I do not really know how this place is going to run after your retirement, so if you get an urgent call to come back, you will know that we need you as a matter of priority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I am sorry for that long preamble, Mr Speaker, but I think it was important. Let me move on to the right hon. Lady’s questions. The end of the Session will be announced in the normal way. She will ask about this every week and I will give the same answer every week: it will be announced in the normal way.
The news on the developments for Westminster Hall is encouraging. As I said yesterday, it is important that we maintain scrutiny. I take extremely seriously the right hon. Lady’s questions on ministerial responses. It is my aim to help any Member of the House who is not getting responses to try to speed the process up. I am grateful for her praise of my own office, although I must confess that the volume of correspondence that I receive is on an entirely different and lower scale from that received by the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care, so it is perhaps a little easier for me. One should have had sympathy for them at the beginning of the pandemic, but I think answers should now be coming through much more swiftly.
As regards the statutory instrument on repossessions, there always has to be a balance between renters and landlords; it needs to be a fair system to ensure not only that people’s rights of property are protected, but that people, during the pandemic, have their housing protected. It is all about getting that balance right.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of council funding, which has been enormous, with £3 billion of additional support to councils announced in the spending review, more than £10 billion in additional covid funding, more than £22 billion for their local businesses and £4.6 billion of additional un-ringfenced funding. Councils have received the money that they need, and this has been an important part of what the Government have been doing with taxpayers’ money.
The right hon. Lady mentioned that the Education Secretary is here answering questions on Monday, which is the opportunity to raise those questions, rather than using me as the postbox between Thursday and Monday. I am sure he will answer all those questions if they are of interest to other Members.
The Prime Minister was clearly exercising reasonably within all the rules—both the spirit and the letter of the rules. This game of trying to pick holes in what people are doing when they are obeying rules is undignified, and I think there is clarity in the rules; I think people know what they are supposed to do. People are allowed to exercise, and at the moment they are allowed to meet one person while exercising. These rules are absolutely clear, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said that she did not believe people do not know the rules by now. They do, and the rules are being followed.
I obviously share the right hon. Lady’s concern about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe; that is a truly important issue. I raise it every week after business questions, and I will continue to do so. I hear her request for a debate. I am not sure I will be able to grant that, but I certainly think that keeping the pressure up via the House of Commons is the right thing to do.
Finally, on the US Administration, we are right to be allies of democracy. It is really important that we get on with the incoming American President. I must confess that the actions of the outgoing President were a matter of the gravest concern. I do not think it is the business of Government Ministers to criticise the leaders of friendly countries, but what happened in Capitol hill is a reminder of how delicate and fragile democracy is and the responsibility of politicians to protect democracy and not to be what one might call an accessory before the fact to disorder. That is a real problem, and let us hope for better things in the United States and that our special relationship will be able to flourish.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a fan of “The West Wing”, the fictitious political drama about an American President, but in that drama C. J. is the press secretary to the President, and every day she strides to the podium, announces the President’s policy and answers questions.
Apparently there is now a television studio built in Downing Street, and we are going to have our own C. J.: Allegra Stratton. However, we have a very different system of government. Ministers are supposed to come to the Dispatch Box to announce new policy first in the House of Commons and answer questions from MPs, not announce new policy to the media and take questions from journalists. Could we have a debate on this new situation in Government time at the earliest possible moment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As it happens, I very much enjoyed “The West Wing”. I found it compelling TV watching and even bought the DVD set, which may sound surprisingly modern. Allegra Stratton’s role is one that has been carried on in the shadows for an extremely long time with the lobby briefings. Of course the Government have to brief journalists from both the newspapers and electronic media, to ensure that Government policy is advertised to the world at large. There are two lobby briefings every day; one of them will now be filmed and in public. This is open government, which I thought my hon. Friend might like, but it will not in any way change the requirement of the ministerial code that policy announcements are made to this House first.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
First, may I associate my party with the comments made regarding Godfrey Cameron and send our condolences to his family? I also take this opportunity to note the sad passing of the Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia, who died suddenly yesterday. I know that the House will join me in sending condolences to his family and to the Catholic community of Glasgow.
I will start with two agenda points. First, I note that the Labour Opposition have been allocated two debate days in the current business statement. When might my party expect one? Secondly, the debate on the House of Lords Trade Bill amendments is scheduled for next Tuesday, yet the amendments themselves will not be published until after the Lords finish their debate late on Monday night. Can I ask why there has been this undue haste in the scheduling?
Turning now to the Brexit fishing disaster, boats are confined to harbour, lorryloads of seafood have been destroyed, and the industry is losing £1 million a day as firms go bust. This is all the result of Brexit red tape imposed by this Government, yet when asked about this yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer. When asked this morning how long this would last, the Government Minister contemptuously replied, “How long is a piece of string?” When can we have a debate about compensation for the Scottish seafood industry for the havoc that has been wreaked upon it by this Conservative Government? The Select Committee that oversees our relationship with the European Union is being scrapped. What parliamentary mechanism will replace it?
Finally, let me turn to the question that the Prime Minister refuses to answer. Can we have a debate on what democratic mechanism is available to the people of Scotland if they wish to change the way in which they are governed? I ask because today’s The Scotsman newspaper has published a poll stating that 57% of people in Scotland wish to become an independent country—the 18th poll in a row to report a pro-independence majority. It is no use the Leader of the House repeating the “once in a generation” mantra, as if expressing a view seven years ago means that people are forbidden from doing so again. What happens if a majority in Scotland take a different view and vote to have the right to choose an independent future? We need to have a debate on what this Parliament’s response to that outcome will be, and whether it still believes in the claim of right for Scotland, which states that people have a right to choose how they are governed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again, the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, and I will therefore repeat the answer: it is very clear that the people of Scotland made their views clear in a vote in 2014, which was said to be a generational vote. That was the democratic mechanism that they had, the democratic mechanism that was used, and the democratic mechanism that was accepted by the Scottish National party at the time.
What is going on in the SNP is interesting, is it not? I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to tell us a bit about that—about the rows between Mrs Sturgeon and Mr Salmond, with one accusing the other of not being entirely accurate in her evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Committees. I thought he might be asking for a debate on that. Would it not be interesting to understand all the shenanigans that are going on—the accusations of forgetfulness, of money being spent, and of breaches of the ministerial code? Not a word of that: just the old complaint that the referendum in 2014 was not a valid referendum. It was: it was authoritative, and it was a once-in-a-generation vote. That is absolutely right, and we see the benefits of the Union. The figure I have previously given for UK taxpayers’ support for Scotland has gone up: it is now £8.6 billion. The strength of the United Kingdom is helping Scotland face this pandemic, and that is why the United Kingdom is so strong and is to the advantage of all its people.
As regards bringing forward amendments to the Trade Bill, it is an important piece of legislation, and we want to get it through as swiftly as possible. People are well aware of what has been going on in the House of Lords, and will be quite capable of discussing those issues. I am always happy to have discussions about an Opposition day for the SNP with the hon. Gentleman, as well as with the SNP Chief Whip, and I am sure those discussions will take place. I am aware of the Standing Orders commitments.
The fishing issue was covered a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have tuned into that debate, rather than bringing it up at business questions, but the Government are tackling this issue and dealing with it as quickly as possible. The key is that we have our fish back: they are now British fish, and they are better and happier fish for it.
Mr Speaker
Obviously, there is no overwhelming evidence for that, but let us head to Mansfield with Ben Bradley.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
The Government have put levelling up at the heart of their agenda for this Parliament, but the fundamentals that underpin many of our structures are sometimes contrary to that aim, not least the Equality Act 2010, which embeds identity politics and physical characteristics into everything that we do but ignores the socioeconomic and geographical inequalities that really drive disadvantage. Can my right hon. Friend find the time for us to debate that in the House, and to debate how we might reform things to seek equality of opportunity and fairness rather than to artificially equalise outcomes?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important and good point. He is a dogged campaigner on this issue, and I commend him for raising ways in which we can improve our approach to equality and disparity. I refer him to the words of the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who said in December:
“We will not limit our fight for fairness to the nine protected characteristics laid out in the 2010 Equality Act”,
which have arguably led to a narrowing of our discussion about inequality, neglecting factors such as socioeconomic status and geography. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Minister’s announcement that an equality hub is being established. It will truly broaden our understanding of equality in the UK today and it will work closely with the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, so excellently led by the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).
Mr Speaker
Let us head to Gateshead to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and say that I very much welcome the return to a two-week statement, which really does assist with planning. I also thank him for announcing the Backbench debates on Thursday 21 January, when we have a long-awaited debate on errors in payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal and a debate on the operation of the child maintenance service during the pandemic, and also on Thursday 28 January, when we have a very timely debate on Holocaust Memorial Day, the date of which is the 27th, as Members will know. The Committee has asked me to request protected time for that debate because, as we know, urgent questions and statements by Ministers eat into the time available for Backbench Business debates.
With the closure of Westminster Hall for the time being, may I echo the sentiments of the Chairs of the Procedure and Petitions Committees regarding the need to ensure that there is appropriate time for Backbench and Petitions Committee debates, which should be protected during the duration of the Westminster Hall closure? As always, the Backbench Business Committee would be very happy to facilitate the filling of any time that might become available on days other than Thursdays.
Lastly, youth unemployment rose in my constituency by 58% between March and November—the last date for which we currently have figures. Notwithstanding the pandemic, this highlights the precarious nature of employment for all too many young people under 25 years old. Can we have a debate in Government time on rebalancing the economy, levelling up and the need urgently to address the scourge of youth unemployment in places such as Gateshead in the north-east of England?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and very pleased to see that the Backbench Business Committee has decided to have a debate on 28 January for Holocaust Memorial Day. That is a wholly appropriate debate to be having and a very important one. I note his appeal to fill any time that may become available if business falls early. That has the risk of being unpredictable, but I know what he is asking for.
I am sorry to hear about the youth unemployment figures in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which are a matter for concern. It is worth pointing out quite how much has been done to support employment during the pandemic, including the £280 billion of taxpayers’ money that has been given in support. He is right to argue for levelling up. I am delighted that he is becoming so supportive of the Government’s policy objectives. They will be the major themes of what the Government are doing in the rest of this Parliament.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
Potholes drive us potty in the Potteries, so, in advance of National Pothole Day tomorrow, I hope my right hon. Friend will join me in applauding the engineers at JCB who, earlier this week, after extensive trials in Stoke-on-Trent, launched an all-new British innovation called the JCB Pothole Pro, which can repair potholes four times faster and at half the cost of conventional methods. Will my right hon. Friend enable us to have parliamentary time to celebrate this British ingenuity and encourage local councils to back British innovation as we strive to rid the country of the blight of potholes?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this, though I am not convinced that National Pothole Day is the most celebrated day across the country at large. None the less, what JCB has done is terrific. I read about it in the newspapers—the machine can fill potholes faster, as my hon. Friend says. It is a wonderful British innovation to deal with, it has to be said, a widespread British problem. This will shock right hon. and hon. Members, but there are even a few potholes in Somerset, that county of glory and bliss. I therefore hope to see the JCB machine working across the various Somerset councils.
The Government are providing local highway authorities in England outside London with £1.125 billion, including £500 million for the pothole fund for highway maintenance. As JCB can do it for half the price, should we say that this £500 million is worth £1 billion, or could we save £250 million of taxpayers’ money? I will leave that for the House to deliberate upon.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Last week, I finally received the answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled on 22 September asking for an update on the serious violence taskforce. The response stated that the taskforce is being discontinued, but I can find no statement from Home Office Ministers to that effect. Does the Leader of the House agree that the delay is unacceptable, and will he please ensure that the Home Secretary provides the House with a full update?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I apologise to the hon. Lady for the delay in the reply to her written parliamentary question. That has taken too long, and I reiterate, if hon. Members find that there are unacceptable delays, please will they notify me and my office and I will do whatever I can to facilitate faster responses? As regards the taskforce, my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing set out that there will be another taskforce, which will report directly to the Prime Minister, so I think that the position has now been made clear.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
For over 100 years, in one form or another, the Ashbourne bypass in Derbyshire Dales has been endlessly discussed, debated, consulted on and promised. The residents of Ashbourne, which is a quintessentially English medieval town, suffer from more 7,000 vehicles a day, including many heavy lorries from nearby quarries, rumbling through the town. With the expected post-Brexit boom and the promise of levelling up, rural communities such as mine should not be forgotten. May we please have a debate on the processes around how we build key infrastructure projects, not least the Ashbourne bypass?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I commend my hon. Friend’s advocacy for the people of the Dales and her efforts in the campaign for the Ashbourne bypass. I understand from the Derby Telegraph that there has been progress towards making the bypass a reality, with the local authority considering the results of a consultation. That ties in with the Government’s announcement of a £27 billion package to spend on our strategic road network. It will provide essential upgrades and new roads across the country.
I remind my hon. Friend that the Parliament Act 1911 refers to itself as a temporary measure, and it is 110 years old this year. A hundred years seems like a long time, but in a parliamentary context, perhaps not always.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I add my voice on behalf of our party to wishing Steve Jaggs well on his retirement. I understand that, as Keeper of the Great Clock, he was responsible for more than 2,000 clocks in this place and making sure that they are all synchronised and on time. The Leader of the House said that the job was perhaps more jealously desired than that of the Prime Minister, though I do not know whether we would ask the Prime Minister to wind up 2,000 clocks. Anyway, we congratulate Steve Jaggs and wish him all the very best. I know that he will find, as St Paul did, that time is undoubtedly short and we need to get on with life.
When Mr Johnson was Foreign Secretary, he commenced the process of appointing William Shawcross to investigate the victims of Libyan—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to stop the hon. Gentleman, but when he says “Mr Johnson”, I think he means “the Prime Minister” or “the right hon. Member”.
Ian Paisley
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he commenced the process of appointing William Shawcross to investigate how victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism should be compensated. On 3 January, a letter calling for the publication of the Shawcross report was published in The Daily Telegraph. The letter was signed by members of the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and my own party, so it really did attract cross-party support. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that it was too complicated and some way off finding a solution. Will the Leader of the House arrange a full statement on this matter? If that is not possible, will he agree to allow the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to call the author of the report, Mr Shawcross, to give evidence, and ensure that that is not prohibited or blocked by the Foreign Office?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The House has wide powers, subject to a small number of limitations, to call people in front of it to give evidence, although the evidence they can give is sometimes limited by the confines of confidentiality. It is for the Select Committee to decide who it wants to call. Regarding the activities of the Prime Minister and his interest in this, I think the fact that he ordered the report when he was Foreign Secretary, is paying close attention to the report now and is ensuring that the report is thorough and full indicates the concern of Her Majesty’s Government about this whole area and does, I hope, give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend and I agree about the risk of paying danegeld to anybody, but Somerset County Council was given £32 million to fight covid and the Vikings in charge of the council have stashed £10 million away to spend on whatever they fancy. They have even bankrolled a fund for the car parks and financed publicity for their “One Somerset” half-baked unitary plan, even though we are facing a public health disaster down here. Local government reform must be shelved now and all covid grants must be ring-fenced to be spent on covid. Somerset’s Vikings have to be stopped. Let us bring to bear the spirit of King Arthur—I mean King Alfred—and have a debate on this subject immediately.
Mr Rees-Mogg
King Arthur is a bit before my time, so I am glad we are not going to dwell on the once and future king.
My hon. Friend is right to hold to account all public bodies that spend taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers’ money should not, as a general rule, be spent on the propaganda of the political interests on any individual council, so he is right to hold the council to account for that. I think it is important that the Government work through existing local authorities during this pandemic to deliver the policy needed to help people locally, and that needs to be done while, at the same time, watching carefully over how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
I have been contacted by a foster carer who wants to know whether the Government have considered putting foster carers in a higher priority group for the covid vaccine. I tabled a named day question to the Health Secretary on 1 December and still have not received a response. My office has written to him to chase it up, but Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care are taking months to respond. Will the Leader of the House tell me how best to raise this issue in Government time and update the House on what conversations he has had with Cabinet colleagues who continue to dodge MPs’ questions and correspondence? We need answers for our constituents.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady does not need my advice on how best to raise this subject publicly, because she has done so, very effectively. Immediately after this session, I will take up with the Department of Health and Social Care the question she has put down and try to get her an answer punctually. On her specific question about foster carers, it is absolutely right that the highest-risk categories are vaccinated first—that is to say the people who are most at risk of death if they catch covid. That is the right priority and is widely accepted. There is inevitably more discussion about who should be vaccinated once those highest-risk categories have been reached.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that I have been working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) on a private Member’s Bill to look at drugs testing in prisons, and also on my own private Member’s Bill to end the barbaric and medieval practice of virginity testing. I understand the situation at the moment with the pandemic, but will the Leader of the House make every effort to ensure that Back-Bench Members will be able to start their private Members’ Bills days again at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can indeed give that undertaking, as I did yesterday. We will seek to bring back both Westminster Hall and private Members’ Bills as soon as is both possible and practical. Having the right to introduce legislation is such an important way in which Members represent their constituencies, and it is something of which I am very supportive.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
May I, too, convey my deep condolences to the family of Godfrey Cameron, the parliamentary security officer who died yesterday?
The extended furlough scheme covers employees returning from maternity or other statutory leave so long as their employer made a PAYE submission for the employee between 20 March and 30 October 2020. However, for new mothers on maternity allowance, rather than statutory maternity pay, there will be no such submission and therefore many new mothers are being now refused furlough by their employers. Will the Leader of the House raise this with Government colleagues and ask that the guidance is clarified as a matter of urgency?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady obviously raises an important point. It is worth saying that the furlough and self-employment schemes have protected 12 million jobs, at a cost of over £56 billion of taxpayers’ money, but it is important that this should be fair in its application, and the point she has made is one I will certainly take up on her behalf.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
Many constituents have raised the proposed use of Kooltherm K15 on flats at Zenith Close in my constituency. This is a type of cladding that was found to have been used in Grenfell Tower before the fire occurred. As thousands of leaseholders across the country continue to face demands for remedial works to replace cladding, can we have a statement from a Minister setting out guidance on the types of cladding for which safety concerns remain, and can we have a commitment from the Government that an amendment to the Fire Safety Bill to ensure that leaseholders are not held responsible for the costs of remedial works is accepted?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are naturally working hard to make sure people are safe and feel safe in their homes. The Government are determined to learn the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy, and we are bringing forward the most significant building safety reforms in almost 40 years. It does remain building owners’ responsibility to address unsafe cladding on buildings of all heights. The Government have provided expert advice on the measures building owners should take to ensure their buildings are safe. It is worth adding that 84% of buildings with Grenfell-type cladding have had it removed, rising to 99% in the social sector. However, I understand from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that, in some circumstances, combustible insulation materials such as Kooltherm K15 can be retained. I will ask for further details on how this can happen and why this can happen for my hon. Friend, so that he has a full explanation.
On the Fire Safety Bill, the Government are naturally keen to reduce the burden on leaseholders. However, in the Government’s view, the amendment would have some unintended consequences, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is very focused on this issue. Michael Wade’s work is under way, and the Communities Secretary has committed to address this as soon as we are in a position to do so.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
During the Christmas period, on 27 December, a young women in my constituency was tragically murdered by her partner. She was 26 years old. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the media have rightly exposed the appalling practices of some GPs who are charging victims of domestic abuse over £150 for a letter confirming their injuries to enable them to get legal aid and other vital support. Legal aid is a lifeline for women fleeing domestic abuse, but as I said in the House last November, the legal aid sector has faced many cuts over the years and the demand for it is growing. At a time when we should be removing barriers, we are making it much harder for victims to come forward to get support. Can we have a debate in Government time to look at the impact that cuts to the legal aid sector are having on our most vulnerable constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, whose question is well timed because the responsible Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has just joined me on the Front Bench. The Domestic Abuse Bill will be looking into the legal aid matter, and the Government are looking into the charge being made to victims of domestic abuse who need to go to their GP to get certificates. Immediately following this session, my hon. Friend the Minister will be answering questions in greater detail.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, I know that my right hon. Friend will want to join me in wishing Tamils in Carshalton and Wallington, in the UK and around the world a very happy Thai Pongal. As we approach the UN Human Rights Council sessions in the spring, may we have a debate about human rights in Sri Lanka, especially given the recent worrying reports of the destruction of a memorial in Jaffna?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Vanakkam and happy Thai Pongal to everyone in Britain’s Tamil community and around the world. I hope that their happiness on Thai Pongal has not been reduced by the fact that we bowled the Sri Lankans out so quickly earlier today in the test match. I feel rather guilty that, on a day that should be celebratory for them, we have taken so many wickets. I would like to thank the Tamil community for all they are doing in our struggle against covid throughout this crisis. Their values of hard work, discipline and community spirit have shone through. Regarding the destruction of the memorial monument at Jaffna University, the Minister for south Asia, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, expressed his concerns on 9 January. The UK has long supported efforts to promote peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, including in our role as penholder on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council—UNHRC. We regret Sri Lanka’s announcement in February that it no longer supports the UNHRC resolution on post-conflict accountability, and we made clear our commitment to the resolution in statements at the UNHRC in February, June and September 2020. We are working alongside our international partners on how best to take forward this issue at the March session of the UNHRC.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
Can we have a debate on the report today from the TUC, “Working mums: Paying the price”, which calls for a temporary legal right to furlough for parents and others with caring responsibilities who cannot work due to covid-19 restrictions? It is clear that parents, and perhaps women in particular, are among the biggest losers as a result of covid. Seven out of 10 women requesting furlough following school closure are turned down. This is a proposal that needs urgent action from the Government. Can we please have an urgent debate on it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Furlough is available for firms to use for their employees, but furlough in any individual circumstance must involve a discussion between the business concerned and the employee concerned. It is much better done at a local and immediate level so that the needs both of the firm and the individual employee can be accommodated in a way that ensures that economic activity continues, but also that families are able to take their responsibilities for their children into account. This is much better done at a local level and at a business level rather than by a heavy-handed intervention by the state.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
A new freeport next to East Midlands airport would provide a massive jobs boost to Ashfield, Eastwood and the whole of Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) has done a fantastic job in bringing together politicians of all colours to champion a bid for this much-needed facility. Will my right hon. Friend please allow time in the Chamber to debate the merits of freeport in our area, and will he please commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for pushing this all the way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I commend both my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) for pushing for freeports. Freeports are a really exciting initiative. They will be national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce, regenerating communities across the United Kingdom. They can attract new businesses, spreading jobs, investment and opportunity to towns and cities up and down the land. I welcome efforts that Members are making to ensure that they have freeports in their areas, and I will pass on specific requests to the Treasury. The Government have published their bidding prospectus for freeports and the bidding period will close on 5 February. This is the opportunity for these bids to go in and for the success, the opportunity and the excitement of freeports be trumpeted up and down the land.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Next Monday—18 January—is generally thought to be the day when most of us feel at our lowest post Christmas, and this year all of us have been affected by social isolation arising from coronavirus. Each year, Samaritans volunteers seek to repurpose the day, calling it Brew Monday, where we talk to people at places such as stations and shopping centres. In fact, we have had our own event here in Parliament. I believe that you came along last year, Madam Deputy Speaker. This year we cannot meet face to face, but we can meet virtually. Will the Leader of the House join me online on Monday morning for our virtual Brew Monday, and help to get the message out that it is good to talk when we feel low? I also extend the invitation to other hon. Members in the House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I really thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue in the House? I join her in thanking the Samaritans for the absolutely amazing work that they do that saves so many lives, and the commitment of Samaritans volunteers who take on the incredibly onerous responsibility and burden of speaking to people and encouraging them when they are at their lowest point, and having to deal with the tragedies that sometimes occur; they do remarkable work. The initiative to have an online brew day is absolutely first class, and if I possibly can join the hon. Lady, I will—although I am not sure that everybody would be that cheered to hear from me, so it would have to be a very selective audience that I talked to. [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Sorry; I did not mean to laugh. I am quite sure that the Lord President will have an excellent response on Monday. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) has worked very hard on this. I recall it being an excellent day last time. Let us hope that we can do the same on Monday.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
Can we have a debate on access to healthcare in rural areas? This is particularly important given the roll-out of the covid vaccine. I pay tribute to three brilliant local charities—the New Mills and District Volunteer Centre, Connex Community Support in Buxton, and The Bureau in Glossop—which are all offering High Peak residents free transport to attend vaccine appointments. This is a really important service, and I want to put on record my thanks to all involved and to all those working so hard to roll out the vaccine.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s tribute to the three charities in his constituency. During the pandemic we have seen the most amazing national effort to tackle the coronavirus. It has been our nation at its absolute best. As of Friday, 96% of the population in England will live within 10 miles of a vaccination site, and by spring we will have 2,700 vaccination sites across the United Kingdom. On top of the 1,000 vaccination sites that are already on line, this will include, in England: an additional 206 active hospital sites; 50 vaccination centres; and around 1,200 local vaccination sites, including primary care networks, community pharmacy sites and mobile teams. I join my hon. Friend in praising the work of these charities and all that they are doing to support this vital roll-out.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
As we fight to eradicate covid, I am sure that the Leader of the House would wish to congratulate the Valneva team in my Livingston constituency, who, alongside the Oxford-AstraZeneca team, are doing their bit to develop a vaccine. We hope very much that the Livi vaccine will be with us very soon. Does he agree that we need a debate on how to ensure that no one is left behind in the race to get our population vaccinated? I am sure that he would agree that women who are pregnant and other groups who are considered at risk should very much be a focus for us all as the clinical trial frameworks are developed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes a really important point. I join her in congratulating the Valneva team for the work that they have been doing. The Government are making great efforts to reach the hard-to-reach groups, including by dedicating an extra £10 million to homelessness in order to try to reach people who have no particular home and ensure that they are registered with a GP so that they have access to the vaccine. The point that she makes a really important one. It is well understood by the Government and I am sure that it will be raised in this House on many occasions.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]
Bringing down the cost of school uniforms for parents and carers is more important than ever in these challenging economic times. What intervention can the Leader of the House make with the Government to ensure that my Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill, which is supported by the Government, Members across the House, the Sunday Mirror, the National Education Union and the Children’s Society, is given parliamentary time in this Session?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier about private Members’ Bills. I am keen that they should come back as soon as is possible and practical. We had to suspend them under current circumstances, but I hope we can get back to them as soon as conditions allow—those conditions are outside my control—and then his Bill can come to the Floor of the House in the normal way, according to its priority, and be considered.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I am speaking from a very snowy Derbyshire today. Could the Leader of the House facilitate a statement by the most appropriate Cabinet Minister to give the country some good news about covid? I am concerned that, even when we are vaccinated, we are not going to be allowed to visit other vaccinated people, and I think that the country needs to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Could the Leader of the House please facilitate that as soon as practically possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There was good news in the papers today indicating that a study shows that people who have had covid maintain an immunity. The report I read said that that lasted for at least five months, but that was the extent of the study, so that is not a maximum; it is very much a minimum. There is some good news, with the roll-out of the vaccine and that sort of information. It is really a matter of achieving critical mass and having enough people vaccinated, at which point life will change and we will get back to normal, which is something we all welcome, but the lesson of the last few months is that putting a date on things is tempting fate.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
The last time I asked a business question, I asked the Leader of the House whether MPs could have more than the scheduled one hour to debate amendments to the Fire Safety Bill designed to protect leaseholders from the cost of fire safety remediation. However, in the last few days, we have seen reports of gagging clauses being put into cladding removal contracts and of Grenfell insulation being used to fix flammable homes, and last night I found out that in my constituency of St Albans, it is going to cost £7 million to remove the cladding on just one block of flats. That is more than £150,000 per flat. May we have an urgent statement or debate in Government time on how the Government think cladding remediation work will be funded, so that all MPs are fully informed before we debate the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If I may give the hon. Lady good news, the Daily Mail reports today that the gagging clauses have been lifted by order of the Secretary of State; as soon as he heard about them, he said that they should stop and that freedom of speech is important. I reiterate the point I made earlier: 99% of Grenfell-style cladding has been removed already from social housing, and 84% from properties in total. Good progress is being made, although the hon. Lady is obviously right to continue to raise this important topic.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is snowing up here in Staffordshire as well.
I have two contrasting problems regarding air quality in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Government have asked the council to institute either a clean air zone or some other mitigating factors in one part of my constituency, but there is very little appetite for that, and it is clear that the changes wrought by coronavirus mean that the mitigation seems already to have largely happened. Conversely, we have an issue with odour coming from the site of a landfill, which is causing a great deal of concern to my constituents, and we have been unable to get the requisite action from the Environment Agency. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to schedule a debate in which we can raise issues of air quality more generally and hold the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to account in responding to the needs of my constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is battling for his constituents and is absolutely right to do so. Improving air quality is one of the most tangible and beneficial things we can achieve with a sensible environmental policy. Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent have jointly identified a package of measures, including bus gates and bus retrofit, to bring nitrogen dioxide exceedance in their local authority areas within legal limits. It has to be said that restrictions on motorists are always deeply tiresome. Stoke-on-Trent requested, and has been granted, a short period—to 15 February—to model alternatives to the proposed bus gate on Victoria Road. A clean air zone is not being imposed by the Government.
As regards the odour from the landfill, I understand that the Government are aware of this. I know from my own constituency that the Environment Agency has experts trained to sniff out odours from landfill sites to see if they are within permissible limits and whether there is a problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
A report published by Christian Solidarity Worldwide on Tuesday 12 January claims that, in 2020, Cuban authorities continued to routinely and systematically violate the right to freedom of religion or belief. I know that the Leader of the House and I have a similar opinion on this. Documented violations include arbitrary detention, threats, harassment, surveillance of religious leaders, efforts by the Government to block overseas humanitarian aid, defamation of religious leaders online and the targeting of church properties. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or debate on this matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for campaigning for religious freedom around the world. It is clear that Christians in Cuba face appalling discrimination from the country’s communist totalitarian regime. Communists have always been anti-Christianity and anti-religion. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Promoting the right to freedom of religion or belief is one of the UK’s long-standing human rights policy priorities.
The Government regularly speak to the Cuban Government, in both London and Havana, about a range of human rights issues, and also address these issues through multilateral human rights forums, including the UN periodic review. While we welcome the new protections that underpin freedom of religion or belief in the 2019 constitution, we call on the Cuban authorities to confer in practice those rights that the constitution enshrines. This is a reminder to those who like the idea of a written constitution that what is written is not always what is done.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I receive emails every single week from residents concerned about speeding in their local area, from Manchester Road to Colne Road to Padiham Road and many more. This is not only a nuisance to local residents but risks serious injury or even death to the victims, be they drivers or pedestrians. Could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on how we can tackle this issue, particularly as we see traffic increasing in the months ahead?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Excess speeding is a risk on the roads and may lead to death or serious injury. The enforcement of speeding offences is ultimately a matter for local chief officers. The Government are clear that anyone who breaks speed limits should expect to face penalties, as set out in law. Fortunately, the United Kingdom has some of the safest roads in the world, with deaths steadily declining throughout the 21st century. While every death is one too many, we are making good progress.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Yesterday, 1,564 people tragically died of covid-19—the highest death toll on record—and in York, infection rates are still rising sharply. This half-hearted approach to the lockdown is hurting the economy and causing the virus to spread at an alarming pace. Can we have an urgent statement from the Prime Minister to announce a proper, comprehensive lockdown with no ambiguity, with only critical work in direct response to the pandemic, or related food or services, to be undertaken and a full economic support package put on the table?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a full economic support package available: £280 billion of taxpayers’ money has been provided and the furlough scheme extended to the end of April. The lockdown is quite extraordinary. The infringements on people’s liberties are unprecedented in this country. People cannot have visitors in their own home. A lady yesterday, it was reported, knocked on the window of her mother in an old people’s home, her mother having Alzheimer’s, and she was fined by the police, although the fine was subsequently remitted. The restrictions on people are extraordinary. That is because of the threat that the pandemic has created. People know the rules. They are absolutely clear and people, by and large, are following them. The overwhelming majority of people in this country are following the rules in both the spirit and the letter. We should recognise that this country operates by consent with our laws, and that is something we can be proud of—that people have gone along with what the Government have suggested because they knew it was the right thing to do. We have not required the type of aggressive enforcement seen in other countries because the British people have joined in with this effort as a whole. The restrictions are already very tight, they are very clear, and the economic support package is enormous.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
May I welcome the Leader of the House’s robust answer to the previous question? Mine is on a different subject. Monday’s non-partisan debate in Westminster Hall referred to the need for a dedicated Minister with status in both main Departments that deal with the hospitality sector—the third largest in our economy. In his well-received response, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), was naturally rather reticent about restructuring the Government to reflect such an enhanced role for himself. May we therefore have a statement from the Cabinet Office Minister on the need for a dedicated and upgraded Minister for the hospitality sector and the promotion of its survival and recovery?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend noted that the Minister responding was diffident about the reorganisation of Government. He may not be surprised if I am diffident too in this regard, because that is a right that belongs to the Prime Minister. I would like to commend the debate on Monday, because the Government fully recognise the importance of the UK hospitality sector, which makes a vital contribution to the UK economy. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this, because in my own constituency I have had certain correspondence and great concern from a wedding services company that has found maintaining its livelihood during this pandemic so exceptionally difficult.
Ministers in both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have worked closely with business leaders across the hospitality sector throughout the pandemic to ensure that their interests are represented. That engagement has helped to form the Government’s comprehensive package of support, including measures such as the reduction in VAT, the job retention scheme, the hospitality grant, and indeed the eat out to help out scheme. I will obviously pass this matter on to the relevant Secretaries of State, but my right hon. Friend might want to write to the Prime Minister directly with his suggestions for the reorganisation of Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Domestic Abuse and Hidden Harms during Lockdown
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement. The coronavirus pandemic has presented this country with enormous and unprecedented challenges. In order to control the spread of the virus, we have had to ask the public to follow a simple but crucial instruction: stay at home. Earlier this month we entered a new national lockdown, and while we are absolutely clear that these measures are necessary, it is also important to recognise the potential impact on what we refer to as hidden harm crimes, which include domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation and modern slavery. These are some of the most pernicious, harmful types of offending in society, and they often occur behind closed doors. Given that fact, let me reiterate a crucial message that the Prime Minister delivered to the public last week: notwithstanding the restrictions in place, those at risk of abuse can leave home to seek safety and avoid the risk of harm.
Protecting those at risk of abuse and exploitation remains a priority for this Government, which is why I am so pleased that today I can announce the launch of a new codeword scheme for victims of domestic abuse called Ask for ANI. From today, thousands of pharmacies across the UK will provide this service, enabling victims to seek help discreetly. Through a signal to a pharmacist, a victim will be provided with a safe space in the pharmacy, and taken through the support available to them, whether that is a call to the police or a domestic abuse helpline service. The codeword scheme will offer a vital lifeline to all victims, ensuring that they get help in a safe and discreet way.
Let me set out more of the steps that we have taken to ensure that victims and those at risk can continue to access critical advice and support. We have provided unprecedented levels of additional funding to critical frontline services helping victims of domestic abuse. As part of wider charitable funding, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have between them distributed more than £25 million in emergency covid-19 funding for domestic abuse organisations. That has provided almost 1,900 bed spaces in safe accommodation, and enabled domestic abuse organisations of all sizes to provide advice and support to victims. For example, Home Office funding allowed the charity Safelives to train hundreds of frontline workers online, including new independent domestic violence advisers. To help sustain those charities through the second part of the year, we are providing further funding of nearly £11 million from the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.
Although funding forms an important strand of our response, it is also vital that victims of domestic abuse, and those worried about them, know how to access help and advice. In April, the Home Secretary launched the #YouAreNotAlone communications campaign to do precisely that. The campaign has reached almost 25 million people through paid advertising, and has been supported by a range of celebrities and influencers who have shared its messages with more than 130 million followers on social media. Materials have been translated into 16 languages. The campaign directs victims to sources of specialist help and support. It also makes clear that the “stay at home” restrictions do not apply to those at risk of abuse who need to leave home to seek help or refuge. We have relaunched the campaign over the winter to reaffirm those messages, and I ask hon. Members across the House to do everything they can to highlight that campaign, and make clear to victims that help continues to be at hand, should they need it.
The police have been, and will continue to be proactive in tackling domestic abuse during this period. Courts have continued to prioritise domestic and child abuse cases throughout, as well as civil protection orders relating to domestic abuse, stalking, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. We have seen many innovative police responses to domestic abuse during the pandemic. The Metropolitan police has developed an online function for the domestic violence disclosure scheme, whereby police can disclose previous domestic violence history to new partners. Nottinghamshire police is applying the disclosure scheme in every domestic abuse occurrence. Other forces are able to use discreet technology to take witness statements remotely, without leaving any trace on the victim’s phone. Some forces, such as Gloucestershire police, have used spare capacity to instigate dedicated domestic violence response vehicles, while independent domestic violence advisers are helping to support victims.
There are, sadly, other forms of hidden harms within domestic abuse, and we are acutely aware that the pandemic has increased risks to some children and young people, and reduced their contact with trusted professionals and adults. The Government are committed to doing everything they can to continue to support and protect children at risk, and they have provided more than £11 million since last June to Barnardo’s See, Hear, Respond service, to support more than 50,000 vulnerable or hidden children, whose usual support networks have been affected by national and local pandemic restrictions.
The Home Office has also launched a national communications campaign, Something’s Not Right, to help children who have been exposed to a range of harms, reaching millions of secondary school children in England. At this time, we are particularly concerned about online harms. With children spending more time on the internet, parents have been signposted to materials for staying safe online, including from the National Crime Agency’s Thinkuknow campaign.
A record number of reports of online child sexual abuse have been processed by the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation, including a large increase in self-generated indecent images of children. The Home Office is providing £80,000 to support the development of the IWF’s campaign to support parents in starting conversations with their children around keeping safe online, and to help young people to identify the signs of coercion and to report abuse. In December, we published the full Government response to the online harms White Paper, which sets out our expectations on companies to keep their users safe, especially children. At the same time, we published the interim code of practice on online child sexual exploitation and abuse, which sets out steps that companies can take now to tackle these crimes on a voluntary basis, ahead of any regulatory system being introduced.
Another form of hidden harm is modern slavery. The Government are committed to the safety and security of victims of modern slavery, particularly during the pandemic, by ensuring that victims are provided with the support they need and that those responsible for these crimes are prosecuted. Last year, we made an additional £1.73 million available for modern slavery services in England and Wales. The funding has enabled providers to adapt the ways in which they provide support during the pandemic, including by reducing face-to-face contact where appropriate and ensuring that support can be accessed remotely. The new Victim Care Contract came into force last week and will help to ensure that victims receive the care they need. In early adopter sites, child victims of modern slavery continue to be supported by the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian scheme which is working flexibly to continue to provide effective and responsive support remotely, both to trafficked children directly and to other professionals. Law enforcement agencies continue to pursue high-risk modern slavery cases where there is a risk of harm or detriment to individuals.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, we have remained resolute in our commitment to tackling abuse that takes place behind closed doors and out of sight. We continue to work across Government to monitor, assess and respond to the ongoing situation, but I ask all hon. Members to consider ways in which they can point victims in their constituencies to support. We will continue to prioritise domestic abuse during and after the pandemic. To do this, we remain committed to delivering our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill to further strengthen protections for victims and bring perpetrators to justice.
In addition, this year we will publish the new Tackling Violence against Women and Girls strategy, which will help us to better target perpetrators and support victims of these abhorrent crimes. We are currently running a call for evidence to inform the new strategy, and I urge hon. Members to share this via their networks within their constituencies to help us reach as wide an audience as possible. This will be followed by a dedicated and complementary domestic abuse strategy that will ensure progress following the passage of the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill. We will soon publish the first-of-its-kind strategy on tackling all forms of child sexual abuse, outlining our long-term ambition to drive a whole-system response in tackling this heinous crime.
In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone involved in helping victims of hidden crimes in this pandemic and beyond, from those working in domestic abuse refuges and community services and in modern slavery safe accommodation, to those scouring the internet to remove images of children being raped, as well as our police officers, our National Crime Agency officers, our Border Force officers and those working in the security services to support this work. I thank them all for what they are doing to help support victims and to stop perpetrators of these terrible crimes. I would like to finish by reassuring all victims of hidden harms that they are not alone, their voices are heard and help will continue to be there for them. I commend this statement to the House.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. We in the Labour party are really pleased to hear about the launch of the Ask for ANI scheme today, which will be a real innovation in helping victims come forward. Can the Minister tell the House what work her Department has done to ensure that in launching this brilliant scheme, when a victim comes forward there will be support beyond an initial phone call available, especially in cases where victims are not ready to inform the police?
We are now eight days into a third national lockdown, with a “Stay at home” message that we have become incredibly familiar with. It was welcome in this third lockdown that the Prime Minister clarified that individuals who wish to leave their homes to escape domestic abuse could do so. That message was not given back in March, and I welcome that being rectified and that the right thing has now been said.
We on the Opposition Benches welcome what the Minister has said today about the measures being taken to tackle domestic abuse and hidden harms. Back in April, the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) wrote to the Home Secretary urging her to act on this important issue. He also raised concerns from the sector, including the need to bring forward urgently a package of emergency financial support for organisations doing the vital work on the frontline which the Minister has talked about.
It was the Labour party that urged the Government to put in place £75 million of financial support for the sector. When the Government announced that they would do that, we welcomed the support, but the Home Secretary confirmed back in June, months into the crisis, that only a staggering £1.2 million had been spent. Today, the Minister’s statement tells us that 11 months into this crisis, still only a third of that funding has reached the frontline. Can she explain that? Will she tell us when the £51 million unspent will be allocated? Will she confirm that the £11 million extra that she has announced today is in excess of the £75 million already announced?
The Minister has also mentioned refuge capacity, and we thank all those who struggled very hard under very difficult circumstances to create urgently needed beds that should never have been missing. We must now ask: is that still enough? I have myself this week tried to get a refuge bed and not been able to find one. Will the Minister tell us today and in the coming weeks what contact she has had with refuges about capacity? Can she today say that she is confident that there is capacity to meet the demand? Can she tell the House what specific provisions have been made for specialised services for those victims who are black, Asian and minority ethnic, migrants, LGBTQ, male or disabled?
As the Minister has mentioned, children are often the hidden victims of domestic and sexual abuse in the home. Can she tell us what work her Department is doing to ensure that vulnerable children who are out of school are safe? What, if any, detached youth work and proactive targeting of children—at the very least, those on child protection plans—has she asked for in order to reach children living in dangerous and violent homes?
The Minister mentioned the £11 million of funding to the brilliant “See, Hear, Respond” scheme, but as she said herself, it will target 50,000 children, not the three-quarters of a million children today living in dangerous homes. Can she tell us whether any of the schemes that she has announced for children cover every child in our country, so that all child victims can benefit, not just those in some areas, where a postcode lottery determines whether we fund a child’s safety?
To continue on a theme, the Minister mentioned the support of independent child trafficking guardians—a brilliant scheme that we welcome. Can she confirm that that scheme is available to all children trafficked in our country, as was promised some years ago by this Government, or is it still, as I understand, just a pilot for some areas, leaving some trafficked children without support?
Domestic abuse and community support services are currently planning for redundancies in March—quite unbelievable in the middle of a global pandemic and a national lockdown. The sector, the Labour party, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner have all called repeatedly for sustainable funding for at least the next year. The staff being made redundant are the very people the Minister needs for Ask for ANI to have any chance of success. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any discussions with the sector or the Treasury about multi-year funding, and an end to the dangerous year-on-year short-termism in community services for adults and children?
The Government were too slow to act in the first and second lockdowns. I am very pleased that now, in the third lockdown, they are more alert to this issue. Labour, the shadow Home Secretary and I have been saying to the Government since April that they need to do more to protect those who cannot leave home. It is not enough to say that victims should reach out; we in this House, especially the Government, have a responsibility to ensure that when they do that there is help for them. If there is not, we risk losing them for good.
With the thought of the lockdown carrying on until March, it is imperative that the Government act, and act fast. All Members across this House need to assure their constituents that all, not just some, victims suffering from domestic abuse and other hidden harms can leave that abuse and access safety. There are people waiting and willing to help. That is the message that we need to send, and it is on all of us to ensure that that is the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister, I must point out that the hon. Lady significantly exceeded the time allocated to her. I know this is a very serious subject, but everybody on the list recognises that, and will want to make points. I must ask for brief questions; if they are not brief, the people who are at the end of the list—everyone can see who they are—will not get to ask their questions. It is a matter of dividing the time in this House equally and fairly between Members.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Accordingly, I will answer some of the hon. Lady’s issues, and then write to her on the matters that I cannot address, because I am mindful that, as you say, other colleagues would like to come in.
May I deal first with the codeword scheme? I really welcome the fact that the hon. Lady and the Opposition welcome that scheme. It has been really carefully thought through, after really careful work with domestic abuse charities, including Hestia, which has done great work with its own safe spaces scheme. We are clear that the scheme must be victim-led. In other words, when a victim is taken into the consultation room in pharmacies they will be asked by a fully trained pharmacist what they would like to do. For some it may be a 999 call. For others it may well be other forms of help, through the helplines and community services. We will look at the scheme very carefully to ensure that it is working well for victims. It is another source of information and access to help for victims, because we are so aware of how difficult it can be for victims to reach out.
The hon. Lady challenged me on the funding. We have had this conversation before, but the latest figures I have to hand on the funding that we have committed—both the charitable funding that was committed in spring last year and the Home Office’s additional £2 million fund for the helpline services and web-based services—are that a total of just under £27 million has been allocated and, indeed, paid out of Government coffers. That is across the MHCLG, the MOJ and the Home Office. We are working hard to allocate the £11 million, but that was in addition to this funding, which of course is in addition to the funding that is available in normal times.
I am really pleased that, on refuges, part of the funding that has been granted through the Chancellor’s charitable funding that was announced in the spring has allowed just under a further 1,900 spaces in safe accommodation. Clearly, we keep that under review, and want to get to a situation in which the sorts of challenges that the hon. Lady has set out do not apply. That is precisely why we are bringing in the duty on tier 1 local authorities through the Domestic Abuse Bill, and as she will know, MHCLG has already provided funding ahead of the next financial year to help tier 1 local authorities prepare for that.
There are many things that we have done for vulnerable children. In particular, we have worked with social care services and early help services to ensure that they continue to support vulnerable children and young people, along with their families. I have seen this myself, not just in the context of child sexual exploitation and abuse but, for example, in the context of gang exploitation. We have also brought thousands of social workers back on to a temporary register, the Social Work Together online tool, which we have developed in partnership with Social Work England and the Local Government Association to draw on those people’s expertise and experience where needed. We have invested not just in the “See, Hear, Respond” service that the hon. Lady supports, but in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s helplines, Childline and the equivalent for adults.
Finally, ICTGs—the trafficking guardians—have been rolled out over a third of local authorities, and we have been clear that we want to roll this out further. As the hon. Lady will know, the model of use of the national referral mechanism by child victims has changed in recent years with the sad arrival of county lines gangs, so we have been changing the system to try to reflect the needs of those victims, as well as victims from overseas. All of this work is continuing through this pandemic, and I thank the hon. Lady for joining our call to ensure these messages are rolled out across our constituencies to help our victims, wherever they may live.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have both worked on this important policy area in the past, and I commend the Minister on her statement and the added protections she is putting in place. However, evidence is now becoming available that some of the people who are suffering most adversely in this lockdown are adults and children with autism. So that more appropriate and better services can be offered to them to alleviate their suffering, what data are the Government collecting on individuals and families with an autistic member suffering from domestic abuse, and the hidden harms the Minister has referred to, during this lockdown? If the answer is none, can this be remedied immediately? If that data is being collected, can it be published on a regular basis so that specialised support for this vulnerable group of adults and children can be improved?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the needs of people living with autism and other such conditions, as she always does when the opportunity presents itself. I hope that she welcomes the mental health reforms that the Government have announced this week, which will be a real step forward in us all understanding the differences between autism and Asperger’s, and the ways in which they are wrongly treated at this point in time under the historic legislation. I also hope that she is aware of the national strategy for disabled people, which the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to publishing. Only yesterday or the day before, in fact, I attended a meeting chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), to work out across Government how we can help people with disabilities, including those who live with autism.
As to the specific points on data, sadly, there is much room for improvement when it comes to the collection of data in respect of victims. I will take away my right hon. Friend’s specific question, because I am very clear in my mind as to how those health conditions can make a person more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and ensuring that disabled victims of domestic abuse are better looked after will be part of our work. I will draw upon her advice and wisdom in this respect, because we want to be clear that no matter what health conditions and disabilities people are living with, they should not be victims of these terrible crimes.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
Abusers exploit lockdowns to increase their control, so I welcome the “Ask for ANI” scheme, which the Home Affairs Committee called for.
On the vital issue of funding for services, can the Minister explain whether the £11 million that she announced is the same £11 million announced for the second lockdown, or is there any additional funding for this difficult third lockdown? The domestic abuse commissioner called for funding to be extended beyond March. Can she tell us whether that is happening?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the right hon. Lady and her Committee for the work that they do to scrutinise, rightly, the work of Government in this regard. I hope that I was clear that the £11 million was the £11 million announced in November, and that was very much directed towards helping organisations for the rest of the financial year.
We are working very closely with domestic abuse services to understand the strains that they are facing. I know from speaking to chief execs of the charities that, like a lot of frontline services, frontline workers are just feeling exhausted by having to work in these conditions and with the extra pressures that they have faced over recent months. This money is taking us up to the end of this financial year.
On domestic abuse services beyond the end of this financial year, the right hon. Lady will know that we have just had the spending review process. We are in the middle of working out allocations, but I hope that she draws some comfort, as I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) earlier, that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already committed £6 million to helping tier 1 local authorities prepare for that really important duty, set out in the Bill, to help victims in safe accommodation.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]
I know that my hon. Friend is aware that lockdown has been so challenging to new families with small babies; in certain tragic cases, it has been deadly to those babies and toddlers. The early years healthy development review that I am chairing on behalf of the Government has heard about the effect that lockdown has had on our very youngest. What steps is she taking to protect the youngest in our society from the effects of domestic violence?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for the amazing work that she is doing in this regard. It has long been a passion of hers, and I look forward to her drawing her conclusions in due course on this vital piece of work.
We are very conscious of the pressures on children in abusive households, including on pre-school children, which is why we have provided £3 million to support children affected by domestic abuse and, indeed, corresponding work on the development of perpetrator programmes. None the less, we are very aware of the need, as she says, sadly, to look after the youngest babies and children because of some of the figures that came out of the last full lockdown. This is why her work and our work to continue to tackle these terrible crimes is so vital, not least because seeing this abuse at a young age can have terrible effects on the children’s long-term life chances as well.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Between April and November last year, referrals from the NSPCC to police and social services about child abuse increased by 79%. Schools play an important role in identifying potential abuse, so with the current lockdown, this is likely to be harder to pick up on. With local authorities already facing considerable financial pressures, what extra resources will the Government be giving them to help detect and prevent child abuse during this lockdown?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the enormous work that schools are doing during lockdown restrictions as well as in the period that we had last year between lockdown restrictions. We have invested some £8 million to help teachers spot some of the signs of abuse and distress in children. It may take some time for those signs to show when children return to the classroom, but the money is intended to help to address that. The hon. Lady will, I hope, have heard about the investment we have made in the “See, Hear, Respond” scheme. We have also provided £7.6 million to children’s charities that have suffered financial hardship due to covid-19.
We continue to fund Childline, as well as the professional helpline for adults who are concerned about a child. In addition, we are funding a helpline set up by Operation Encompass in the middle of the first national lockdown last year. It is a helpline for teachers worried about the families of children in their school, particularly in relation to domestic abuse, and want to know what they can do to help. The Operation Encompass helpline exists very much to help the teachers who help to look after our children, and I recommend it to teachers in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I warmly welcome the launch of the new codeword scheme today. I have a constituent whose abusive partner is the subject of a non-molestation order, but because the place where she lives is the place where they had a joint business, he has managed to get the zonal aspect of the order lifted, on the ground that he needs to be in the location for business. The abuse has restarted, and during lockdown it is difficult for my constituent’s friends and family to support her in the right way. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how to give better support to victims of abuse in these circumstances?
Victoria Atkins
I most certainly will meet my hon. Friend, and I thank him for raising a case that demonstrates the complexity of many people’s experiences of abuse, even after a relationship has ended. The Bill contains a number of measures to address that sort of abusive behaviour, including the introduction of domestic abuse protection orders that will put positive requirements on offenders, as well as negative ones. I am happy to meet him, and I hope that, through his work and support from services, his constituent is able to find a solution to the terrible situation he has described.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
There is a lot to commend in the statement, in particular the “Ask for ANI” scheme, but I put it to the Minister that what is really important is early detection of abuse and abusive behaviour, because that is most likely to lead to behaviour change on the part of the perpetrator. That is why it is so important, particularly during lockdown, that victims are at least given credibility and that early action is taken to support them and to work with perpetrators to break the cycle. That is vital during covid, as it is in normal times.
Victoria Atkins
I agree. May I say that it is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman again? He is absolutely right to say that this is not just about supporting victims; we want to deal with perpetrators’ behaviour as well and to stop the cycle of abuse. That is why in addition to all the work we are doing during the pandemic this year, we are investing £7.1 million in perpetrator programmes. We want to tackle that offending behaviour.
I want to highlight the existence of a helpline, the “Respect” helpline, which can help people worried about the way they are beginning to behave. The number is on the gov.uk website. Sadly, it has seen an increase in calls during the pandemic, but it offers help for people who are worried about their own behaviour—to stop a situation from spiralling, as the hon. Gentleman describes so eloquently.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for implementing the “Ask for ANI” scheme, which will be a vital lifeline for victims of domestic abuse, but another lifeline is the availability of domestic abuse refuges, such as Wear Valley Women’s Aid in Bishop Auckland.
Paula, who is from that organisation, wrote to me this week to express concern that if covid spread throughout her team, they might be unable to provide their much-needed service. On that note, can my hon. Friend assure Paula and me that those who provide domestic abuse refuge services will be considered for the priority list in the next phase of the vaccine roll-out, to help ensure that there are no gaps in support for domestic abuse victims because of covid?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important point. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is advising the Government on the ways in which the vaccination programme should be rolled out, has focused on the highest clinical need priority groups, which include residents in care homes and healthcare workers. Once that phase is completed—we hope and expect by mid-February—we will look at the next roll-out phase.
My hon. Friend will know that there are many categories of profession, including those who work in refuge charities but also police officers, teachers and others, where great arguments will be made as to their exposure to the public and the risk of infection. I very much take her urging on board, and we will, I am sure, in due course consider her points and others in this regard.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences, I am incredibly worried about the long-term consequences of covid and the increase in domestic abuse for a large number of children. There will be no short-term fixes. Will the Minister work with the APPG to embed widespread trauma-informed services across the country?
Victoria Atkins
Yes, I most certainly will. Again, I refer to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is already preparing work on the effects of adverse experiences in the early years of a child’s life. Our understanding is improving as to, for example, the effect that living in an abusive household can have on a child’s life chances.
In my work on tackling serious violence, we are very clear about the theme of violence in the home being very common for those who commit violence outside the home. There are many reasons why this work is invaluable, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and the APPG on this.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend will be aware that organisations such as the Safeguarding Alliance have reported that there is a new frontier of vulnerable children exposed to county lines drug gangs, online harms and domestic abuse, and the BBC found that reports of online child abuse images increased by 50% during the last lockdown. Furthermore, many children on the fringes of care are often not attending school during this lockdown, even if permitted to do so.
Will my hon. Friend ensure that these children are identified by schools and checked by social services? Will she set out what measures the Government are taking to ensure that we do not have a safeguarding crisis in the offing for these young children? Finally, will she meet the Safeguarding Alliance to discuss these issues?
Victoria Atkins
Yes. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work he does on the Education Committee to scrutinise our work. We are all concerned about the welfare of the most vulnerable children. That is why, for example, in the first lockdown we enabled vulnerable children to still attend school, sending out the message to parents, carers and children and young people themselves that if they need that extra bit of help and support, schools are open to give them access to that. That continues under today’s restrictions, because schools are open to vulnerable children.
In terms of the work that we are doing over and above keeping schools open, I have already referred to the vital work that social workers are conducting and our efforts to increase the number of social workers available to help with that work. Some of our children’s charities have also been fantastic. I have seen for myself the work that Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society are doing to help children, particularly those who are potentially being ensnared by county lines gangs. This comes back to how we can reach these poor, poor children before those gangs really get their fists on them. It is about a combination of education at school, education and support for families—because mums, dads and carers can be very worried about their child—and ensuring that we have robust law enforcement measures in place against those gangs. One thing the police were able to do during the last national lockdown—the first one—was concentrate on targeting drug gangs. We are seeing some of the results of that work, alongside the safeguarding and early intervention work we are doing.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her update and fully welcome the new Ask for ANI scheme. Residents in Pontypridd who have experienced domestic abuse will appreciate the issue being raised here today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) has said, tackling the root cause of domestic abuse requires a long-term strategy focused on interventions targeted towards the perpetrators. Will the Minister therefore confirm exactly what support the Home Office is providing and what conversations it is having with organisations working in this area?
Victoria Atkins
I am so pleased the hon. Lady raised the point about a strategy. She will know, I hope, that alongside our work on the Domestic Abuse Bill—she served on the Bill Committee—which is currently in the House of Lords, we are planning for a stand-alone, specific national strategy on domestic abuse. I very much expect there to be measures in relation to perpetrators within that, because although we of course want to support victims, it is vital that we tackle the cycle of abuse as well. That strategy, combined with our investment of £7.1 million in perpetrator programmes, will, I hope, revolutionise our approach in this important regard of tackling domestic abuse.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
Last year, the Government prioritised the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee so that the Bill’s progress was not disrupted by the pandemic. That speaks to both the determination of the Government and the personal determination of this safeguarding Minister, and the Ask for ANI scheme is evidence of that. The scourge of cyber-flashing, whereby unwanted and unsolicited indecent photographs are distributed to mobile devices, needs to be made a criminal offence. Will she confirm that the Government are considering that?
Victoria Atkins
It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend, and I know her personal commitment to helping her constituents in this regard. I am pleased that she has brought up that aspect, because it enables me to reiterate to hon. Members that we are running a call for evidence at the moment on producing a new violence against women and girls strategy. I do not want to pre-guess what the public, victims, survivors and charities may say in the course of that call for evidence, but I, for one, am very aware of the offence of which she speaks. I very much want those sorts of 21st century online crimes to be dealt with not just in the VAWG strategy, but in the DA strategy and by making sure our laws are up to date—we have asked the Law Commission to ensure that. I thank her for her question and encourage her to publicise the call for evidence with her constituents.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for her statement. The Prime Minister indicated to the Liaison Committee yesterday that the Government do not have any specific policies in place for survivors of domestic abuse among what the Home Office describes as those with “insecure immigration status”. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will she look at additional protections for those seeking refuge in the United Kingdom?
Victoria Atkins
I can help the hon. Gentleman with news of a specific pilot project, for which we launched the bidding process just before Christmas, to help support migrant victims of domestic abuse. He will know that there is already support available for some migrant victims, namely those who have a legitimate expectation of indefinite leave to remain because they come to this country on a spousal visa and they are eligible under the domestic violence concession scheme. We are very conscious that there is a cohort of victims who do not fall within those criteria, so this pilot scheme has been created very much in consultation with specialist charities that help such victims. We are in the middle of the bid process, and I am very much hoping we will be able to make some progress in the next couple of months so that we can help those victims first and foremost as victims of domestic abuse, and ensure that their abusers cannot continue their abuse.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Can I ask my hon. Friend what specific measures she is taking to reach out to domestic abuse victims in the BAME community who might find it harder to communicate and let others know of the plight they face?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend sincerely. Yes, we know that the plight of victims in the BAME community and those of others in similar situations means they may find it very difficult to reach out. The Home Office works very closely with specialist charitable organisations—I myself have the pleasure of working with them as well—to make sure that the policies we are introducing will help with the whole realm of problems, issues and abuse that victims face. I very much thank my right hon. Friend for her help in ensuring that the Women and Equalities Committee scrutinises our work.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Running away from home, wanting a divorce, wanting to marry and saying no to marriage are some of the scenarios that victims of abuse have contacted the charity Karma Nirvana about since the lockdown. Lockdowns and this crisis have produced the economic conditions to increase forced marriage, no doubt among families already struggling with food and financial hardship in particular. Will the Minister work with her counterparts leading in the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver a plan to tackle forced marriages in lockdown that provides sufficient economic protection to households so that they are not choosing between their children marrying or going hungry?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady sets out one of the most heinous forms of hidden harms. I hope she knows of the work we have done to tackle forced marriage both before and during the pandemic. Certainly, I always enjoy working with Karma Nirvana on this. I am conscious of time, so if I may, I will write to her with the specific steps we are taking to help victims of forced marriage.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for her statement and for all her work in this area. The Minister referred earlier to the helpline element of Operation Encompass. There is another part of this initiative whereby the police automatically inform schools when a domestic violence incident has occurred in a child’s home. This has been, tragically, absolutely vital in my constituency, and I think it should be available nationwide. Will the Minister confirm whether the police element of Operation Encompass will be available on a nationwide basis?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to be able to confirm that not only is my hon. Friend’s force, Kent, signed up to that fantastic scheme, but so too are 40 other forces out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. This is a great scheme. I would encourage the remaining forces to sign up, because we have seen the evidence that helping children on the morning of their return to school after a terrible incident at home the night before can pay dividends for their wellbeing.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) [V]
I welcome today’s announcement of the Ask for ANI scheme. The Minister will be aware that legal aid is a vital service for victims of domestic abuse. To access this service, victims quite often need a letter from a GP to prove that their injuries are a result of abuse. There are reports of GPs charging up to £150 for a letter to do this, which is a disgrace, so will the Government today commit to ensuring that this appalling practice ends?
Victoria Atkins
On the practice the hon. Member describes, we have already, in years gone by, agreed with the British Medical Association that this is not within its recommendations, and it has made that clear to its members. I know this has been raised in the other House, and we continue to look into it.
If I may, I will just clarify a tiny point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House answered a question on this earlier and referred to considerations within the Domestic Abuse Bill, which of course is in the other place. Just to clarify—there was a problem of translation through masks—we look at legal aid in context and it is always something we consider, but within the Bill itself we are looking very specifically at the measures available in courts to help victims of domestic abuse.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
This is a very welcome statement and initiative. The Minister has referred to the priority that is rightly being given by the police and the criminal courts to bringing perpetrators before them swiftly and promptly where there is evidence to support doing so, but will she also set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that victims have as swift access to legal advice as to—[Inaudible]—redress in the family and civil courts without the need to go through complicated legal aid application forms?
Victoria Atkins
I hope I caught most of my hon. Friend’s question. He will know of the sterling work being done by my ministerial counterpart the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can have access to free legal advice in the initial stages of their case. The scheme is called Finding Legal Options for Women Survivors. I would really recommend it, because it has a huge benefit for people who are in the early stages of the court process. Of course, courts remain open during these restrictions. They have remained open for domestic abuse cases, and for other vulnerabilities and priority cases. We encourage anyone who needs to access a court to please, please continue trying to do so during the current set of restrictions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) was very brief in his question, but I must beg that we go a lot faster now, otherwise not everybody will get to ask their question. It is also not fair on people who are waiting to take part in the next three items of business, so questions and answers have to be short.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
We know the terrifying impact of lockdowns on those experiencing domestic abuse, and the increased pressure on support services and refuges. What discussions has the Minister had with charities and organisations running refuges for women, men and those of the LGBT+ community about capacity, and what plans are there to ensure that a rise in demand does not mean that some people are left with a choice between staying with their abuser and homelessness?
Victoria Atkins
As I said earlier, I am in constant contact, as are my officials, with people who work in the domestic abuse sector and provide refuges. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided advance funding ahead of the duty under the Domestic Abuse Bill coming into force—we hope, in April or May. We very much want to keep building this capability so that people have access to the services that the hon. Member set out.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
Research by Women’s Aid has found that covid-19 restrictions and associated socioeconomic strains make leaving abusive relationships more difficult. Its data also indicates that separations are being delayed until digital restrictions are eased, rather than cancelled. Although the funding and support announced today is welcome, given that separation is a known trigger for domestic abuse escalation, what are the Government planning to put in place to anticipate this likely surge in demand?
Victoria Atkins
We have been working closely with domestic abuse charities throughout the pandemic to ensure that when a surge happens—as is sadly predicted—the services are there to be able to deal with it. That is why we have committed the extra funding that I outlined earlier in the statement. We are very much looking to the future through the Domestic Abuse Bill and the continued duty on tier 1 local authorities to help people into safe accommodation.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her announcement today. It is yet another positive step from this Government on tackling domestic abuse. She is aware that victims of this heinous crime require the help and support of many organisations, just like Family Help in Darlington. Will my hon. Friend outline to the House how the Government are getting their financial support to such organisations as quickly as possible?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend, who was a sterling performer in the Bill Committee. We have taken a national, regional and local approach to community-based services and we have rolled out funding for that with the help of police and crime commissioners to commissioned and non-commissioned services. Of course, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been rolling out money to refuges. We in the Home Office have focused on the national and regional parts of the funding, including support to bolster the helplines, which so many people rely on when seeking help.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement. There were 557 domestic abuse calls in the last week of March last year and 8,302 from April to June. Will she confirm that the support and help that have been announced today will also be implemented in Northern Ireland and that discussion has taken place with the Minister in charge in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that that is the case?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to say that my opposite number in the Northern Ireland Executive is working hard and has confirmed her intention to bring in similar legislation in Northern Ireland. That is a vital part of our jigsaw in ratifying the Istanbul convention, so we wish her and the Assembly well in their scrutiny of the forthcoming legislation.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
To those trapped in abusive relationships, getting out can seem like an impossible task. Will my hon. Friend reassure us that, if they seek help to Ask for ANI, they will be connected to an amazing network of help such as The Haven in Wolverhampton? She also mentioned modern slavery and human trafficking. Can victims of those hidden harms also seek emergency help through the Ask for ANI pharmacy scheme?
Victoria Atkins
The Ask for ANI scheme is focused at the moment on victims of domestic abuse. There has been a huge and careful training programme of the pharmacists who are currently participating. Nearly 8,000 members of staff have been trained in Boots alone. They will be very knowledgeable about what to do when somebody walks into their chemist’s seeking help.
My hon. Friend is right that sometimes just getting out of the house is a huge obstacle. That is why I am delighted that we are also funding a rail to refuge scheme to help victims make that railway journey to a refuge as and when they need it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Sadly, 1,500 children in York are growing up in a home where domestic abuse is a factor, according to the office of the Children’s Commissioner. Will the Minister give clear assurances today that victims can have the confidence that, if they Ask for ANI, they will be provided with more than a conversation, but with safeguarded housing, and wellbeing and psychological help for them and their children?
Victoria Atkins
I hope that the hon. Lady knows that the training of members of staff has been meticulous. We have created the scheme hand in glove with domestic abuse charities because we are so concerned to ensure the safety of victims. I see it as the first avenue of support. Once the victim is in the consultation room, she or he can set out what they would like to happen. For some it will be a 999 call, for others it will be access to community services, but I hope that the hon. Lady has a picture now of the tapestry of support that we are rolling out locally to try to help victims of domestic abuse.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
Online image-based sexual abuse is a growing way in which perpetrators coerce and control their victims by threatening to release private and intimate videos and photographs online. According to the revenge porn helpline, the number of people contacting it has risen to more than 3,000—a 22% increase in 2020. Has the Minister considered the impact of that during lockdown? Will she agree to include the threat of releasing those intimate and private images as a crime in the Domestic Abuse Bill?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is right that that can be a devastating form of abuse for victims of domestic abuse. We are very much listening to debates in the other place about the terrible factors in that type of behaviour. I hope she knows that we have already asked the Law Commission to look into the many forms of malicious behaviour that can occur online. I know that the Law Commission is considering that and we are very much looking forward to receiving the outcome of that review to see what may be needed in future.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
We know that when it comes to domestic abuse, every contact counts. The Government’s new Ask for ANI scheme is a very welcome step towards enabling victims of domestic abuse to receive the support they need, but we need to do more. Will the Minister look again at including a statutory duty on public authorities to train frontline staff to recognise the signs of domestic abuse and to fund such training?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Lady has seen not just the announcement of the codeword scheme today but the announcement encouraging employers to join the cause and to be better informed as to how they can help members of their workforce who may be suffering from domestic abuse. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), has written to many, many businesses today to set out how they can help. I see this as very much part of our overall efforts to ensure that people understand what domestic abuse is, the many forms it can take, and how it is everyone’s business.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have considerably exceeded the time allocated for this statement, but I do not think it would be fair to cut off the last three people who are on the list. However, I say now—not only to people who have taken part in this statement but to all Members, if anyone is paying attention—that if we are going to make virtual proceedings work, we have to do it as if we were in the Chamber, and that means that we do it quickly. It is not a conversation; it is questions and answers. Now we really have to go quickly. I say the same for the next statement, because it is not fair for the people who will be here at 5 o’clock and simply will not get to speak.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Due to the emergency circumstances, victims of domestic abuse sometimes have to flee, leaving behind all their possessions, including mobile phones, making it harder to stay in contact with the police and other agencies. In Stoke-on-Trent, the police have launched a fantastic initiative whereby some vulnerable residents and domestic abuse victims have been given mobile phones loaded with useful contacts based on the individual’s situation. Does the Minister agree that it is important to support measures enabling domestic abuse victims to leave their home environment while eradicating the fear of being cut off from society, especially when covid-19 is exacerbating isolation across the board?
Victoria Atkins
We are keen not just to help victims to flee home when that is necessary for their own safety but, importantly, to keep them in their own homes where it is safe to do so, and to ask, or demand, that the perpetrator leaves. There is a whole host of work going on on this. Perhaps I can take the opportunity to discuss it with my hon. Friend in slower time outside of this statement, but I thank her for raising it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) [V]
Many of us have been extremely concerned about the increased incidence of domestic abuse and other hidden harms during lockdown. However, many domestic abuse charities and anti-modern slavery and vulnerable children’s organisations have been struggling financially and have spoken about the insufficient support from Government. Can the Minister confirm what discussions she has had with the Treasury and the sector on multi-year funding?
Victoria Atkins
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I have given previously, including in relation to the £25 million to £26 million that has already been paid out to charities.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for getting to me at the end of the list.
I thank the Minister for her statement and all her work on this issue. I commend to her the work of Future Living Hertford, which does amazing work with victims of domestic abuse and their families and is running a “children’s voices” campaign to highlight the need to hear children and recognise their status as victims. Does she agree that this message is particularly important during this crisis and is completely in line with the aims of the Domestic Abuse Bill? Will she agree to visit Future Living Hertford with me when such visits are possible once more?
Victoria Atkins
I would be delighted to do so. I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Bill Committee enabling us to table an amendment whereby children are included in the Bill, reflecting the impact that this abuse has on them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to make the necessary arrangements for the next business, I am going to suspend the House for only two minutes in order to save time.
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse of Aid Beneficiaries
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Select Committee on International Development
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Sarah Champion will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and I will call Sarah Champion to respond to those in turn. I call the Chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I speak to the report issued this morning by the International Development Committee titled “Progress on tackling the sexual exploitation and abuse of aid beneficiaries”. I thank the Chair and members of the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time in the Chamber for this statement, and the sponsors and contributors to this afternoon’s debates for their understanding.
We launched our inquiry in July 2020, and we are very grateful to everyone who provided evidence to inform our work. I would particularly like to thank our specialist advisers and the wonderful Committee staff, who have provided invaluable support throughout—plus, of course, my fellow MPs on the Committee.
Sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries is still happening, and it is happening with impunity. In February 2018, the aid sector was rocked by revelations that aid workers had been paying local vulnerable women for sex in Haiti while they were meant to be working on the humanitarian response to the 2010 earthquake. During the investigations that followed, it became clear that organisations involved put limiting reputational damage ahead of fulfilling the duty to report and challenge abuse.
That case did not occur in a vacuum; our inquiry shows that sexual exploitation and abuse is endemic in the aid sector. Twenty-six per cent. of respondents to the Committee’s online survey claimed to have witnessed sexual exploitation and abuse of aid recipients. That disgusts me, but it does not come as a surprise. Abuse can happen whenever there is a power imbalance. Extreme power imbalances are almost always at the heart of humanitarian responses. Local populations are totally reliant on aid workers for their most basic needs, and perpetrators know the power that affords them.
Aid organisations should be alert to the obvious risk that they will be targeted by individuals intent on abusing vulnerable people, but all too often there is a lack of concerted action to face up to this reality. Aid organisations therefore become complicit in enabling sexual exploitation and abuse to occur.
I am proud that in the wake of the Haiti scandal, the Department for International Development was at the forefront of efforts to tackle abuse. International safeguarding summits were arranged, commitments were signed and working groups were convened. Numerous organisations in receipt of UK aid funding have taken steps showing their commitment to tackling sexual abuse. Many hired preventing abuse co-ordinators, while others introduced new training for staff. Recently, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office published a strategy on safeguarding against sexual exploitation and abuse in the aid sector.
Clearly, there is not a lack of policies and procedures in place, yet abuse is still happening, and the UK Government continue to fund organisations at the centre of sexual abuse scandals. Some 73% of people who responded to our survey think that sexual exploitation and abuse of aid beneficiaries is still a problem. The Committee agrees. Abuse within the aid sector is rife, and until we accept this, we will not resolve it. Alina Potts from the Empowered Aid project gave evidence to our inquiry about its work looking at how survival equipment is distributed to refugees in Uganda and Lebanon. It found that sexual exploitation and abuse by aid and non-aid actors is pervasive across all points of distribution. Alina told us that, of the many women who reported sexual abuse, the majority were abused to access aid that they were unknowingly already entitled to. This behaviour must be robustly challenged, yet a third of respondents to our survey thought their organisations had made little or no progress on ensuring that aid recipients know their rights, including how to report cases of exploitation and abuse. My Committee strongly recommends that all aid agencies make a point of telling recipients their rights and entitlements and how to complain.
Last September, we learned of the scale of the sexual abuse of aid beneficiaries during the 2018-20 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Committee heard that sex-for-jobs schemes were an open secret among aid workers. Local women who sought employment with aid organisations were subjected to horrendous sexual abuse by men with the power to decide whether to hire them. The level of impunity was astounding. Abuse victims were ferried to and from hotels where aid workers stayed in vehicles carrying World Health Organisation insignia. One woman described how she had been told by a foreign WHO worker—through an interpreter—that she would have to sleep with him in order to get a job. The UK is the biggest donor to the WHO. The Government must show zero tolerance and hold organisations, including multilateral organisations, to account for their safeguarding failings.
Giving evidence in October, the Charity Commission warned about sexual exploitation and abuse taking place in Myanmar. While I was pleased to hear that these issues are being identified and efforts are being taken to tackle them, the Committee is clear that abuse should not be treated like some repulsive game of whack-a-mole, chasing problems from country to country. By their very nature, aid beneficiaries are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, and therefore the potential for sexual abuse and exploitation should always be a concern. It can be prevented by embedding safeguarding in every project.
I am fed up with hearing that lessons have been learned. We will only see true change when there is a root-and-branch transformation of the culture of aid organisations. The Committee heard appalling accounts of this culture, with accusations of racist, colonial and sexist attitudes fed by unchallenged power imbalances. This discrimination enables abuse to flourish. Just 8% of respondents to our survey believe the culture of this sector is as strong as it can be to prevent exploitation and abuse. Sexual abusers are almost always men, and their victims almost always women. Some 80% of WHO workers in the DRC Ebola response were men. The Committee heard that there are repeated calls from aid recipients for more female aid workers, but we are yet to see any real moves by the sector to address this. Is it any wonder that most beneficiaries never formally report abuse? How can anyone have confidence that they will be listened to and believed and that a robust investigation will be undertaken in such circumstances?
Only 16% responding to our survey felt that their organisation had in place safe reporting and complaints mechanisms. Even when abuses are reported, aid organisations hide behind weak justice systems in the country where the abuse occurred, or the difficulty of penalising local contractors, to avoid taking proper investigations. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could do more to combat this. Our embassies already liaise with local enforcement. Why not use them when a British citizen is the perpetrator, and help survivors to access support? The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides existing legislation to prevent sex tourism, but it is rarely used. It could be a powerful tool to prosecute aid abusers. The forthcoming Domestic Abuse Bill could do the same. Criminal convictions are a strong deterrent. Victims and survivors of UN staff face even greater hurdles, with agencies wrongly invoking UN immunity to protect perpetrators from robust investigations.
The Government have invested heavily in schemes to prevent perpetrators from moving from one job to another, but first we need to identify the perpetrators, and no evidence we received made us believe that reporting and investigations were working as they should be. If the sector is serious about preventing abuse, the solution is simple: empower local communities, especially women’s groups, to have a greater say in the design and delivery of aid, and embed safeguarding from the start. FCDO-funded organisations must be required to report cases of abuse to it, and any associated non-disclosure agreements. There must be consequences of failings that lead to cases of abuse. Failings would include poor treatment of whistleblowers. Our survey found that 57% of those who had tested their whistleblowing policies felt that they were inadequate. Whistleblowers must play a key role in exposing abuse as they force action to happen. They must be protected. Bizarrely, the Government have not designated aid workers as a regulated activity eligible for Disclosure and Barring Service checks, which means that aid organisations cannot apply. This should be changed today.
I conclude by saying to the sector: I know that the vast majority of aid workers are good people giving their all to make a difference, but you have to wake up to the fact that some of your staff are sexual predators. You have to change your organisational culture to address this, and embed safeguarding in everything you do. I commend my Committee’s report and this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee. We will now take brief questions to the Chair of the Committee, starting with David Mundell.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
Although the report does not make for comfortable reading, I welcome it and the efforts of the Committee to ensure best practice within the aid sector. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is imperative that the UK Government now embed safeguarding in all their development work and that they sanction aid organisations, including multilateral organisations, that fail to do so?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Unless that happens, the abuse will continue. It is the Government’s duty to do that. They are spending taxpayers’ money, and they need to be accountable for that.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
This report from the International Development Committee is very important, and I would like to pay tribute to all the staff who have served the Committee and send my best wishes to Fergus Reid, the principal Clerk to the Committee, who is taking some time off. After a lot of fanfare, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative is a skeleton of its former self. Does my hon. Friend agree that, without the political will from the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the ability of the initiative to have a positive impact will continue to dwindle?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Committee member, and I completely agree. We need to see the broader perspective on this, and unless we deal with and prevent violence against women and girls in all its forms, these examples of where it pops up—whether it is violence in war or violence towards aid workers—will just keep on happening. The Government have great strategies in place for this, but they need to embed them in all their work.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
Since concluding our inquiry, the scale of the reductions to UK aid have become much clearer. Does the Committee Chairman agree that the Government must ensure that cuts do not lead to aid delivery partners and contractors reducing operational standards and leaving women and girls at increased risk? How can the Government ensure that their tenders for aid projects, and bids in reply, require effective provision for spending on safeguarding?
Sarah Champion
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his work on the Committee. At the moment only 0.3% of Government funding goes specifically to women and girls’ projects, so I share his concern that with a third now taken away from the aid budget they will be the ones really let down by this system. I urge the Government to stop that. They have to embed safeguarding in every aspect of their work and make sure they fund aid organisations to do the same. This is not a bolt-on. This is not additional. Safeguarding the most vulnerable people on the planet must be funded and must be core to everyone’s work.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I thank the Select Committee for this very important report. Is it not the case that organisations that receive Government grants should have robust procedures in place, including complaints procedures, so the Government can monitor and approve? Should those procedures not be required by the Government before any organisation receives any funding?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. It is one of our recommendations that not only do the Government audit and ensure safeguarding policies are in place, but that they are acted on. When the Government feel there are shortcomings, there should be sanctions, including financial sanctions.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
As always, it is an honour to speak to my fellow Rotherham MP. I welcome the Select Committee’s work on tackling the sexual exploitation and abuse of aid beneficiaries, but inevitably there will be a power and wealth imbalance in the sector. We must never accept that that inevitability will lead to exploitation. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must do more through our safeguarding standards and that we must act quickly?
Sarah Champion
I thank my honourable neighbour. I agree. The best way to stop abuse and achieve value for money on aid projects is to involve local people in delivery and safeguarding, and in the building of and reporting on such projects. They know what they need best and we should be there to serve them.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the many years of work she has done on these important issues. Does she agree that Ministers must urgently set out what steps they are taking to work with local populations to dismantle imbalanced power dynamics, and what actions they are taking to ensure aid organisations do the same?
Sarah Champion
I agree with my hon. Friend. What we need to see now is the Minister step up and outline how the Government are going to address the imbalance between recipients and aid workers which many seek to exploit, how we ensure all projects that receive UK funding are properly audited on their delivery and outcomes, and how they are looking actively to empower local communities so they can all reach their potential.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Lady for her statement. My belief, having been involved since 2018, is that it is no good having tick-boxes for organisations when it is well known that it is endemic in the sector. It is also no good putting up notices in refugee camps in different places, because many of the women and girls cannot read. How are they going to report the situation anyway? Does she agree that now, having done this latest report, which is still pretty damning, the FCDO needs to cut off the funding for organisations—whoever they are, whether it is the WHO, Oxfam, Save the Children or whoever—and publicise what they are doing and why, so it gets out that nobody is above the law?
Sarah Champion
May I take this moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to the hon. Lady who is a member of the Committee? She fought to get the first two reports into sexual abuse in the aid sector off the ground and continues to fight for women’s rights around the world. I completely agree with her. The Government need to show zero tolerance. The most effective way to do that is by taking away the cash. There can be no safe space for sexual abuse within the aid sector and no taxpayers’ money spent on supporting it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Select Committee for all they have done on a very difficult and emotive topic. The Committee has made a number of suggestions for changes to end the cycle of abuse. Can the Chair confirm that the goal of prosecuting sexual offenders overseas is achievable and will be available as redress to non-governmental organisations in every form, not just those funded or part-funded by Government?
Sarah Champion
Abusers are getting off the hook because aid organisations have put prosecuting them into the “too difficult” box, either because it happened overseas, or because it involved locally employed subcontractors. It is not too difficult, and we owe it to the survivors to do that. We can use the existing sex tourism Act, and we can work to support local justice systems to ensure that prosecutions take place. The Committee heard that sexual abusers are actively trying to get into the aid sector because they know that they can get away with the abuse there. We have to stamp it out.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Chair and the Committee for an extremely important report on this difficult and poignant area. Some of the individuals most vulnerable to sexual exploitation are people with disabilities. Will the Chair comment on what more can be done to ensure that people with disabilities in the aid sector have the support they need to know their rights, communicate their experiences, and navigate any criminal justice system?
Sarah Champion
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The inquiry found that there is so much discrimination, and the power imbalances that exist are not being challenged by the aid organisations. We found that there was very little effort to engage local populations in developing programmes or safeguarding routes. Methods to enable beneficiaries to report abuse tended to be in written form, or someone would telephone in. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, one organisation had 22 different reporting mechanisms, and not one of them got used. Unless we build things in partnership with local people, and ask them what is the best way forward, whatever clever systems we put in place will not engage the local population and they will fail. We need aid organisations to be much more proactive about engaging with everybody who they are meant to be serving.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic and measures taken to contain it have exacerbated gender inequality around the world, creating yet greater power imbalances and raising the risk of abuse and exploitation. DFID’s strategic vision for gender equality 2030 provided a strong framework to ensure that the rights of women and girls, and gender equality, continue to be prioritised in development and humanitarian responses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must formally adopt that framework? What assessment has her Committee made of the impact of the upcoming cuts to the aid budget on the ability of safeguarding to be at the heart of our official development assistance programmes?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful question, which gets to the nub of this issue. I have no idea why the FCDO has not formally adopted the gender strategy that DFID put in place in 2018. I am grateful that it has put a safeguarding strategy in place, but my fear is that unless it also puts money in, and expects aid organisations to embed safeguarding in their projects, that will fall. It has been estimated that, because of the pandemic, 30 million girls are being forced into child marriages, and my concern is that—this issue was touched on in the previous statement—women and children who are locked in homes because of covid are bearing the brunt of this. That will be happening around the world.
Our second report comes out at the end of the month and tries to deal with the secondary impacts of covid. Women and girls bear the brunt of that, and the Government must proactively put the money where the intent is, sign the document, and ensure that gender equality is embedded across all FCDO and Government projects.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for responding to those questions and presenting her report.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Long Covid
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure all colleagues will have noticed that we have a relatively short amount of time for two debates this afternoon. This one will run for approximately one hour and 20 minutes, to divide the time equally, and there is a three-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. I am sorry about that, but time is very pressured.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered long covid.
I would like to start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time to debate long covid today. I also thank members of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, especially the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who co-sponsored the debate. Most of all, I want to thank everyone who has written to me, the all-party group or their own MP in the last few weeks with their stories. Their accounts are deeply moving. Today’s debate is for them.
In one such email, a constituent of mine said,
“I can’t see myself getting better and being able to beat this fatigue.”
Her experience is sadly not unique. Other symptoms of long covid include, but are not limited to, poor memory, brain fog, headaches, lung pain, palpitations, muscle pains, purple toes, hallucinations, hair loss and insomnia. These symptoms often start weeks or even months after the initial bout of covid, and many report them getting worse, not better, with time.
Long covid affects young as well as old, and the numbers are staggering. It is believed that there are 300,000 people living with long covid already in the UK and 7 million worldwide. New research in The Lancet suggests that more than half of people who are hospitalised experience ongoing symptoms six months later, and the Office for National Statistics estimates that one in 10 people who contract covid at all will still have symptoms three months later. So far this year, we have consistently seen more than 40,000 new coronavirus cases a day, which means that there are potentially more than 4,000 new long covid cases a day—I repeat: 4,000 more cases a day.
Despite those numbers, public awareness of long covid is poor. Many who are young and fit think that they have nothing to worry about and that the restrictions are more about protecting others than themselves. One expert told our group this week that anyone who flouts rules by thinking it will not affect them is also playing Russian roulette with their health. We are concerned that the Government’s focus on NHS beds as the primary metric by which danger is measured means that the public believe that if they do not end up in hospital, it counts as a mild case of coronavirus The problem is that a mild case of coronavirus can lead to long covid—and there is nothing mild about long covid.
Take Jason, for example. He is 23 years old and a personal trainer, so his is not the profile of someone we often see blighted by coronavirus in the news. He told me:
“for the last nine months I haven’t been able to leave my house due to long effects of covid. I haven’t cooked all my meals for one whole day once since the end of February, everything small is a major task. I can’t walk more than 100 metres without suffering.”
The evidence of children getting long covid is building. New groups such as Long Covid Kids have been highlighting how children can present very differently from adults. That needs robust research fast, as there are surely implications for how we view school safety.
The consequences of this emerging reality should give us in this place pause for thought. Some are arguing for a rapid unlocking when the first wave of vaccination is complete, and yet the effect that such a move would have on the numbers contracting long covid seems to be missing from the debate. Long covid is scary and often heartbreaking, and it is avoidable if we prioritise keeping numbers low.
Today, the all-party group is calling for three things: better reporting, urgent money for research, and recognition by employers and the welfare system. On reporting, we need a national register to count and publish the number of people living with long covid in the UK. Positive cases, hospital admissions and deaths due to covid-19 are published regularly. We need to add long covid to that list. Doing that would help to drive up compliance, especially among younger adults. It would also help to explain policy decisions about future rules and restrictions, especially once the most vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Many long covid sufferers have no formal diagnosis, as they never had a test because tests were not available in the first wave. It is also worth noting that long covid can emerge months after a bout of the initial virus and long after the antibodies remain, so even an antibody test may not tell the whole story. The register therefore needs to be symptom-based, not test-based. We also need active follow-up of people who test positive for coronavirus, to identify long covid cases better and offer support.
The Government need to improve urgently the scope and funding of research both into the disease itself, including its prevalence among different sexes, races and groups and diagnosis, and of course into effective therapies. Clinicians have called for the approach to be truly multidisciplinary. It should cover mental as well as physical health. There are currently 69 NHS England long covid centres, which is a good start; however, it is a postcode lottery. We have heard, for example, that there are none in Wales. Some have reported being turned away when they go, or even told that they are not treatable. Long covid’s impact on mental health needs further research and support too. That includes children. Although we welcome the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, we also need to remember that there is a lot that we still do not know, and the guidelines need to evolve rapidly to reflect the most recent research.
Long covid sufferers feel they are forgotten in this pandemic, and their plight needs recognition by both the state and employers. Take Liz. She told me:
“I lost my job as a result of my illness, I have struggled on universal credit. This does not cover my bills. I’m getting further and further into debt and can’t see a way out.”
Take Alexander, a headteacher, who said:
“after 23 years of service as a teacher and headteacher, I now have a written warning on my employment record due to me becoming ill during a global pandemic. I have a second review meeting in just over a week’s time and having not made sufficient recovery to return to work, I will most probably receive a final written warning.”
Take Daisy, an NHS nurse in Wales. For four months she received reduced and then no pay from NHS Cymru, which told her that it was unable to support staff who contracted covid-19. Her case was resolved, but she continues to say that this issue has not been resolved at a national level in Wales. That story, and many others like it, have left me speechless—a headteacher and a nurse, key workers on the frontline, who have no choice but to do their job with inadequate personal protective equipment and testing, and now face financial ruin for doing their duty. It is unacceptable, which is why the APPG recommends that the UK Government recognise long covid as an occupational disease and institute a long covid compensation scheme for frontline workers.
That scheme should go beyond existing sick pay schemes and should be specific to those living with long covid who are unable to work. During the first wave, I led a cross-party group of MPs in calling on the Prime Minister to set up a coronavirus compensation scheme for the families of frontline workers who tragically died in the line of duty. The Government listened and now there is a scheme in place, albeit just for NHS and social care staff. We need an extension of such a scheme so that it mirrors the armed forces compensation scheme, and recognises that casualties are not counted just by the tragedy of death.
What of everyone else? Guidelines from the Government for employers are crucial, so that the public and private sectors know how they should be supporting people with long covid. I first wrote to the Prime Minister recommending employer guidelines in August. Four months later, we have not seen any progress. Last but not least, when all else fails we need to ensure that our welfare system is not unfairly excluding people with long covid. Statutory sick pay, personal independence payment and universal credit all need to be geared up to support them and, indeed, their families, who suddenly find themselves as their carers.
There are so many unanswered questions and concerns, and, as you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not enough time. Our understanding of covid, and long covid in particular, is evolving day by day, and I have no doubt that this will not be the last debate we have on this matter.
Reporting, research and recognition are all desperately needed, but more than anything else we need to protect our heroes on the frontline who cannot work because they have long covid. I urge the Government to commit to recognising long covid as an occupational disease and to create a scheme to help those people; that is my most urgent and immediate ask of the Minister in today’s debate.
I end by thanking all Members for speaking today, and, above all, by thanking everyone who has shared their story. I want them to know that they have not been forgotten and that this House has heard them and it is listening. Our hope now is that the Government will step up and act, too.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor who has been working on the frontline throughout the covid pandemic.
There is no doubt that long covid has a life-changing impact on the lives of some of the people whom it affects. We often do not hear much about young people when we discuss the impact of covid on our hospitals and when we talk about death rates, because, predominantly, the illness seems to have immediate adverse physical outcomes for older people. Very often, though, it is young people who are the victims of the life-changing impacts of long covid. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) outlined, it is a subject that we are learning more about literally by the day, and we still need to better evaluate the data and the statistics on long covid. Undoubtedly, we are seeing a group of individuals who are experiencing the effects of covid often many weeks or months after their initial infection, and it is those individuals who need help.
Although we welcome the fact that the NHS has set up a new care pathway and new long covid treatment centres, there are some specific asks that I have of the Minister. First, we need that national register and better data. The covid app that has been set up by King’s College London and Professor Tim Spector is an excellent start at getting some national-level data on people who have covid symptoms, people who have positive antibodies for covid, and, indeed, the effectiveness of the vaccine. The key point is that we need that data to better understand the impacts of long covid and to treat people more effectively.
My second key ask, in the time that I have available to me, is to look at the mental health impact of long covid on people. We have a cohort of people who have been traumatised with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms while being treated for covid in intensive care. For many of them, it will take weeks and months to recover. That group need special attention in particular. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), who is replying to the debate, and welcome other contributions today.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
These are very worrying times indeed. I am worried as a Member of Parliament and people out there are extremely frightened about what is happening in this country at this moment in time. We saw a record 1,564 recorded deaths only yesterday. People are worried about what is happening and about what the challenges ahead might present. That includes the challenge of long covid, which, as we begin to learn more about it, appears to pose what can only be described as a serious threat—perhaps more so than we once believed—and it is a threat of which many people are still unaware.
The impact of long covid can be absolutely devastating. In the most serious instances, it can be totally debilitating. People can suffer extended periods of symptoms including: fatigue; breathlessness; anxiety; depression; palpitations; chest pains; joint or muscle pain; not being able to think straight or focus, which has been described as brain fog; and many others that have already been described.
A number of my constituents have been in touch about experiences they have had with long covid. In one example, a 29 year-old man has been feeling the effects since way back in February. After numerous visits to the doctors and several false diagnoses, he was finally told he had long covid. Another example is a 26-year-old woman who as a result of long covid ended up having emergency bladder surgery and consequently developed a neurological disorder that has left her unable to mobilise without the use of a wheelchair since November. Both were young, otherwise healthy and worked in the care sector. As a result of having long covid, they have been unable to earn a proper income and show no signs of making a speedy recovery.
There is a failure of the social security system to recognise people suffering from long covid. There should be financial support for those who are unable to work, including a review of the paltry and mean statutory sick pay and of universal credit and the temporary £20 increase. We need to look after the people who have this debilitating disease. I fear that since the Government have failed to tackle successfully any other facet of this pandemic with any degree of competence, they will manage to fail in this as well.
I conclude by pleading for the Government to learn from their mistakes going forward in order to save lives and get the country back to some form of normality.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this afternoon’s debate. For the past three years, I have been involved with individuals living with myalgic encephalomyelitis, a post-viral condition triggered by a virus such as flu or, in some cases, severe acute respiratory syndrome. Knowledge of post-viral conditions, particularly with regards to activity management, is essential for the many people now living with long covid. As early as January last year, some people expressed concerns that this mysterious new coronavirus could produce similar post-viral effects. However, the sheer numbers affected by long covid is a serious health challenge.
In addition to listening to and—crucially—believing and supporting people with long covid, health professionals should be providing guidance on symptom management. I am pleased to see that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence moved quickly to provide guidelines for long covid, and thankfully it has cautioned against the use of graded exercise therapy. It is surprising to find a guideline recommending exercise testing. Exercise testing in people who may have an undetected cardiac pathology clearly carries a risk. In addition, the NICE guideline contains no specific guidance on the management of any of the common symptoms of long covid. That is a serious omission that requires urgent attention.
Advice on symptom management cannot be left to charities and support groups. Instead, we should be looking at how that can be delivered in primary care, with the help of, for example, properly trained community physiotherapists. There is a need for health professionals, employers and wider society to recognise that recovery from a virus takes time. Employers must identify tasks that individuals can continue to carry out, and that might be in a different setting from what they are used to doing. The Government must ensure that there is proper financial support for those affected. It may be that these people take months or even years until they start seeing improvements in their health, and we must make sure that the support system can be just that during these times.
Today, we had a study by Public Health England that shows that those who have had covid will have immunity for about five months post-infection. Those who are living with post-viral conditions such as long covid or, indeed, ME, should therefore be considered vulnerable beyond the five months and prioritised for vaccine. Finally, it has taken decades of campaigning, largely due to the lack of belief—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid I have to thank the hon. Lady for her speech. We need to move on, because not everybody will be able to get into this debate.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I wish to concentrate my remarks in this debate on two things, which will hopefully show that even though long covid is not as high in word search functions, the Government and the NHS have not ignored it. My first observation is that, in the context of covid-19 itself still being a relatively new disease, the existence of long covid has been known about for even less time. I must say how impressed I am by the response of the Government and the NHS, which have put in place the comprehensive five-point plan for long covid support and made an investment of £10 million in post-covid assessment services currently spanning 69 trusts—almost half of all NHS hospitals in the UK.
Secondly, I will provide some real-time feedback from Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley North, which is my local hospital. It is one of the appointed assessment centres, and has informed me today that it has assessed more than 500 patients to date. It is working closely with primary and community care colleagues, and has produced a stratified, multi-professional offering for patients about the four main aspects of long covid, based on clinical severity and need. It is ensuring that patients with ongoing respiratory symptoms have access to imaging and respiratory nurse and clinician support, and that patients with other organ dysfunction are seen by the appropriate specialists, as are patients with musculoskeletal problems. Long covid patients can also benefit from our excellent Action Heart service, which is providing state-of-the-art exercise rehabilitation and already offers an excellent service to Dudley people. Patients requiring mental health support have full access to the NHS’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies scheme. Finally, there has been a series of workshops with local GPs and hospitals to better understand this condition and the support services required for ongoing care.
I am also advised that the clinical commissioning group is co-ordinating work in conjunction with all hospitals and CCGs across the Black Country to better understand the wider long-term impact of this condition. No doubt that will feed through NHS England so that we all have a better understanding of this terrible disease and its legacy.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
As we all know, long covid is a very real issue that many of our constituents are dealing with; indeed, colleagues and former colleagues from this House are also suffering from the effects of post-viral symptoms. My friend and former colleague Jo Platt has been a great campaigner on this issue, but after 10 months of living with the disease, little progress seems to have been made. She told me that some of the online support groups have been a lifeline to her, and have helped her to find treatment, which in turn has eased some of the symptoms. However, this comes with an associated cost: Jo has told me that her supplements bill is around £90 a month. What happens to those people who cannot afford to purchase those supplements? Where is their support?
My constituent, Amy Seddon, has also contacted me about her journey. For months, she had no idea what was wrong with her, until she also found this online support and many of the pieces started to fall into place, as they would. Amy has been taking part in the COVERSCAN study, through which her own scans have shown liver changes and potential kidney issues that could have an effect on her life for many years to come. As an MP and an employer, I have two members of my staff battling with the symptoms of long covid. It is a reality for all of us.
One of the most difficult problems is that people are experiencing such diverse symptoms: some experience breathlessness, some joint pain, some anxiety, and some experience all of these together. However, we know that for all of the people who are affected by long covid, extreme fatigue is the biggest problem. GPs are not universally aware of the symptoms and are playing catch-up with long covid. I understand the huge pressures that have been put on the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, but there is some Government short-sightedness in dealing with this, and that is unacceptable.
It is not just a matter of further strain on our health service; the economic impact of people who may suffer from chronic conditions for years needs to be managed in a sustainable way. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is unable to join us today, has heard from many of her constituents who are suffering. Sam, a care worker, is unable to work because of the pain caused by this debilitating condition. People going back to work before they are ready and then having to take further sick days has an impact on their long-term prospects, and that is not fair to anyone. We need strong leadership from the UK Government and from the devolved Administrations to deal with long covid.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House today. It is much needed, and I am pleased to be able contribute on behalf of my constituents. I pay tribute to the NHS and the Government for the work they are doing on long covid; I was delighted to receive the NHS briefing on the five-point plan on long covid this morning.
The debate is shining a light on a condition that is not fully recognised or fully appreciated. The focus of our national effort, understandably, has been on stemming the virus—particularly the new strain—but against the headlines about daily cases and deaths, NHS capacity and, of course, vaccinations, I fear that we are forgetting those who suffer from covid, survive it, but do not fully recover.
Chris Loder
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to keep going.
As I was saying, we are in danger of forgetting those whose immediate threat to life from the more common symptoms has subsided, but who are left with one of the many debilitating conditions that relate and go on to form long covid. I would like to share with the House some shocking statistics that I have found in my research over the past day or so: 21% of those who get covid suffer with it for five weeks or more—112,000 people suffered with it for between five and 12 weeks. That statistic is from November last year, so there are bound to be more. One in ten of all those who get covid suffer from it for longer than 12 weeks.
Today, I want to speak in support of children with long covid and those who care for them. Sammie McFarland is a constituent of mine, and I pay tribute to her and her colleagues, who have set up Long Covid Kids, a support group for children and their parents who are contending with some of the most difficult of long covid situations. The inspiration for the movement came when Sammie and her daughter caught covid last March and both went on to struggle with long covid. Long Covid Kids has highlighted some profound realities, which we have talked about in this debate.
I will conclude my remarks with some clear and decisive asks of the Minister. Children must be counted in long covid cases, and I fear that so far they have not been. Paediatric provision is needed in the long covid clinics. We need to raise awareness of long covid in schools. We need a plan and consideration to be given to the return to school of long covid children, avoiding fines for parents but also appropriately phasing the return of children who are recovering.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her superb opening to the debate and for her leadership of the all-party group.
My experience with covid began in early March, when I started to feel grotty and run down. I just wanted to rest, but as a precaution I phoned NHS 111, which suggested to me that it could not possibly be covid because no cases had been reported in M34, even though I explained to them that I worked in hotspot SW1. Eventually, typical covid symptoms developed, so I spent the next fortnight in self-isolation. The illness lasted for about 12 days, by the end of which the country was in lockdown 1, but the reality is that, although the coronavirus passed, the effects are still with me today.
Thankfully, research is now being carried out and the Government recognise long covid as being real. That has been a battle. I was lucky: my GP is brilliant, and from an early stage recognised my condition—long before it had the name “long covid”. My condition is not as severe as it was even just a few months ago. There have been real improvements, but it has been a hard slog to get here. For the first seven months or so, the exhaustion came back frequently and to the point where just doing simple tasks around the House brought me out in massive sweats as if I had run the London marathon. I had lots of dizzy spells; I have never had vertigo before this. And oh, the brain fog! In a job where we have to be razor sharp, my short-term memory is shot to pieces. I have had to learn to pace myself. Trying to push my limits would set me back. I still have to remind myself not to overdo it.
The lasting symptom is still the brain fog. When it is bad, taking in information and processing it is so difficult. It is physically and mentally tiring, often triggering headaches, dizziness and vertigo. I am fortunate in having been able to balance work with my disabilities. Virtual participation and proxy votes have helped. I talk about the difficulties of doing my job, but what about the mechanic, the builder, the emergency worker, the teacher, the nurse—people who do not have the luxury of virtual participation, aides-mémoire, and an efficient and brilliant office to hide deficiencies? They are left to struggle and make the most of it, or to lose their jobs. On that point, the Department for Work and Pensions has to do more to recognise the condition for work capability assessments and other interviews.
I am so grateful to some of the representatives from long covid support groups for meeting me earlier this week. They want the Government to acknowledge that children can also get long covid. Of course children often present with symptoms different from adults’, so an awareness campaign is required, but children should also have access to treatment in long covid clinics and throughout the NHS.
The problem of long covid is not going away; it is growing as the number of people catching covid grows. I would like to hear from the Minister about a holistic approach, with research, treatment and support in the health sense, but also in the wellbeing sense, the workplace sense and the family sense too. Let us support people and their families—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I am pleased to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate on such an important topic.
I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and over the past year we have heard lots of evidence from lots of areas of the NHS—from social care, patients and staff—about the challenges that they have stood up to in the face of covid and the issues that have been raised. Throughout the year, I have seen a constant change in the landscape and the battles that we are having to fight, and a constant process of relearning what we thought we knew about this terrible virus. Long covid is part of that ongoing story, as we continue to learn about it and to fight the challenges that it will bring.
The Government and the NHS must be thanked in many ways for the work that they have done to set up 60 specialist centres for long covid and for putting in place the five-point plan, but, of course, there is always more to do. The repercussions of coronavirus will be with us not only until we are all vaccinated, and not only until we all deal with this over the next few years and start to get back together again; they will be with us for years.
There are unknowns—things that we will not know until we face them in the future. Long covid is one of the challenges that we will face and learn more about as the months—and, sadly, the years—go on. Similarly, we are facing challenges around mental health, and in that respect we are learning more not just about ourselves, but about society and how we support each other. I pay tribute to the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), for the incredible work that she and the Government are doing to tackle the challenges around mental health, and in this area.
I say to everybody out there: let us work together on this. We have to make sure that we are sharing the stories of the challenges, because we do not yet know whether some of the health challenges that we might be facing ourselves are due to long covid. It might be affecting our families, but they might not be sharing their stories.
Let us make sure that we learn from this excellent debate and all the wonderful words that have been spoken. My message to everybody out there, including Members, is this: “Please share the challenges you are facing. Speak to your GP and your family and share those stories, because you might be one of many silent people out there. Together, combined, your voice is so much greater than on its own, and you can save lives and change lives as we move into the future.”
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this very important debate.
It is understandable that in the middle of the covid pandemic, the focus has been on primary prevention and managing the symptoms of those who become infected, but given that, as has already been said, the covid tracker survey suggests that more than 4 million people—about 12% of the population—have symptoms beyond the acute phase, which typically lasts just four weeks, with one in 10 having symptoms beyond 12 weeks, we also need to develop healthcare management responses that recognise that covid can have effects way beyond that acute phase. On top of that, we need an appropriate societal response to long covid, where people are supported during their illness and do not feel stigmatised. That is incredibly important.
I am pleased at the speed with which NICE has brought forward its guidelines for managing long covid. I particularly like the recommended holistic healthcare approach when assessing patients with symptoms between four weeks and 12 weeks, and after 12 weeks, with the emphasis on empathy and acknowledging the impact that the symptoms may be having on the patient’s day-to-day life, including their ability to work. However, I was surprised that there was no reference to immunology or immune therapies. I hope that we have learned from the mistakes made in how we prevent, treat and care for people suffering with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as ME, and post-viral syndrome.
We know that covid-19, like other viruses, attacks multiple systems—respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous and gastrointestinal—as it attacks epithelial cells, which are distributed throughout the body, but our body’s ability to fight the virus depends on our immune system reacting appropriately and not overreacting. The British Society for Immunology and a number of other researchers have suggested that, in addition to long-term damage to multiple organs, the pain, muscle weakness, fatigue and even brain fog often associated with long covid may be due to inflammatory issues associated with our immune system itself rather than covid.
There is still so much we do not know about the virus, and I support calls for more research, as well as for the establishment of a disease register. More research is needed, and I am a strong advocate of evidence-based medicine, but it is important that we never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Finally, we must ensure, as I mentioned, that we have a societal response, not just a healthcare response. Working-age people in particular must be supported by their employers and by the Government, through the DWP. We must ensure that adequate support is provided to those with long covid who are not able to work. Stigmatising those with long covid should not be tolerated.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The coronavirus pandemic has shed light on some of the inequalities that exist in our society. The evidence shows that those worst affected by the virus are generally those who had worse health outcomes before the pandemic, including people from less affluent communities such as Stoke-on-Trent Central.
Professor Altmann, the Government adviser and professor of immunology, was clear in his remarks to the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus that although there is relatively little consensus in the clinical world regarding the causes and treatment of long covid, there is a shared understanding among medical professionals that long covid can affect anyone and everyone in society, including those who are young, fit and healthy. However, we know that the body’s ability to recover is better if a person’s general health is strong, so it is vital that we do everything we can to reduce health inequalities so that constituencies such as Stoke-on-Trent Central are not disproportionately affected by the consequences of coronavirus and the impacts of long covid.
Tackling obesity must be placed at the very top of our political agenda. We know that people who are obese are far more likely to become seriously ill and go into intensive care if they contract the virus. I believe that food labelling needs to be reformed so that we place the emphasis on promoting the eating of healthy foods, not simply junk food that is bad for people but meets food safety standards. The myriad statutory food labelling requirements from nine different agencies are bewildering and do not make it easy for the consumer.
We know the benefits of clean air and exercise for our physical and mental health. A recent report in The Lancet highlights a very real problem: reduced movement behaviours among children and young adults caused by covid-19 restrictions, if not adequately addressed, will have serious ramifications for long-term health outcomes. So I welcome the recent proposal in the Centre for Social Justice report to extend the school day for years 7 to 11 by two hours for sport and physical activities.
One of the many symptoms reported by people suffering from long covid is something similar to a brain fog. This causes a lack of mental clarity, an inability to focus and poor concentration levels, and it was very eloquently described by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I know that the Government are absolutely committed to investing in mental health services, including, in my constituency, with a record £15 million to fund acute and community mental health services. Many people suffering from a brain fog find respite by taking in fresh air and doing light exercise in green spaces with good air quality. So I am particularly keen to see more access in my constituency to the River Trent and to support environmental health projects.
If there is one thing that we have learned from this pandemic, it must be that the health of our nation is a collective responsibility and impacts each and every one of us. From our economy to our environment and the health of our communities, it is absolutely integral that we look after each other and our communities for our nation’s long-term recovery and our ability to build back strongly.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
Could I say that I am really pleased that this important debate is taking place today? We are all of course aware of the huge strain on the national health service caused by acute covid-19, but I strongly believe we must place an emphasis too on the treatment and support of long covid sufferers. Too often these patients feel forgotten.
On Tuesday, I participated in a briefing session organised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus. It was an excellent session, and we heard some really moving statements by people who are suffering from long covid, but I want to refer this afternoon to two local cases in my own constituency of Caerphilly.
The first case is of Mr Lee David Bowen from Trethomas. Lee is a first-rate opera singer—he is a tenor—but back in February last year he had a slight cough at first and was feeling a bit chesty. His doctor examined him, and said it was either a virus or reflux. A few days later in February, Lee felt extremely exhausted, could not focus and had no energy. His situation further deteriorated, and at the beginning of March he felt really hot and as if he had the flu. He went home and isolated, but the symptoms then got worse, with him becoming ill with a sore throat, a chesty cough, aches and endless fatigue. The situation since then has not got better. Only this morning, Lee contacted me to say that, 10 months later, he is still suffering from fatigue, and he has had a few days that were very bad indeed.
The second case I would like to refer to is of Maxine Simmonds. Maxine is a hospital radiographer at Velindre hospital in Cardiff. She told me, and I quote her exactly, just a few weeks ago:
“I have been Seriously ill with Covid-19 and had some help from my GP but urgently required help from the respiratory team for a CT scan to assess risk from blood clots and assess lung damage from both Covid and pneumonia. I have also been referred to cardiology but wait to even get a referral to essential neurology.”
She says her situation is getting worse, and she is no longer able to work.
I would like to say that these two cases are not isolated examples. I could refer, as other Members could also, to many other examples. I would hope that we will pay much more attention to long covid, and that we will allocate the resources to make sure that this situation is dealt with and dealt with quickly.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for bringing about the debate, which will bring at least some comfort to some of those dealing with the effects of long covid in isolation, without access to some of the NHS support that we hope they will be able to access in the future.
We know so much more about the disease now than we did at the beginning of the pandemic, including that it is not only a respiratory disease but can be a multi-system disease, which makes it even more regrettable that some persist with the false narrative that covid only affects the vulnerable. Not only is that dehumanising and dismissive of older people and those with long-term conditions, but it is also false; statistics are coming through of many people who were previously young, fit and healthy who are now experiencing these lingering symptoms more than a month after the acute phase of their illness. Members have outlined many of those symptoms, and we are seeing research from other countries about the lingering impacts and about how these compare with previous severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemics.
Members have also laid out some of the necessary courses of action on guidance and ongoing research so that those experiencing long covid can have access to a pathway. Currently, certainly in Northern Ireland, in the absence of formal definitions, there is no recording, and therefore there will be no tracking of those affected. Extrapolating from the wider numbers of those who have contracted covid, we anticipate that around 9,000 people in Northern Ireland may be experiencing long covid. That is in the context of already horrendously long NHS waiting lists. For example, we already have 20,000 people waiting for a first neurology appointment. People seeking long-term care will be added to these lists.
The key point for Members is that an adequately funded and staffed NHS is key to caring for these individuals and others in the long term. Years of underfunding have been laid bare as the NHS struggles to cope with the peaks of the pandemic. We owe it to those who have contracted covid and those who are living with long covid and other long-term conditions, and crucially to NHS staff, to ensure that it is never again left in such a perilous state.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for having applied for and secured the debate, and also for setting up the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which is so important in giving this House a voice in the detailed response to the issues thrown up by the covid pandemic.
One point that I really want to get across in the short time available to me is that so little is yet known about long covid. We have an emerging picture, but those in Government have to demonstrate a bit of humility in their response, accepting that we do not yet know the full picture of how this will affect people. There must be more flexibility in how the system responds to people who are affected in this way. The point has been made to me by constituents that there is a lot of crossover between the symptoms and treatment of people with long covid and those who suffer from ME; I think that point was also made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Certainly, looking back over the years at the way in which the benefits system has coped with people who suffer from ME, let alone the medical profession, we can see that this will be a problem with which we shall have to come to terms for some considerable time.
I want to share with the House one email I received from a constituent, which illustrates very well the way in which, unfortunately, people are so often left to fall between the gaps. This constituent had two part-time jobs. She worked as a tourist guide and had another job on two days a week. She wrote:
“Because of the 50-50 rule I wasn’t eligible for SEISS, so, when I was made redundant…at the end of my Furlough, I sent my P45 in hoping for Job Seekers Allowance. I have just had a phone call to say that I am ineligible for JSA as my Class 2 contributions as a self-employed person don’t count and I wasn’t”
making class 1 contributions for
“long enough… I pointed out that I paid Class 1 contributions and tax for over 40 years. She apologised and said that only the last 2 years count! I’m ineligible for UC due to my husband’s pensions (he’s 77). That means I will have to take out my minimal work pensions (the total in one pot is about £65!) in order to survive until my State Pension kicks in in 13 months.”
I am afraid that that shows the way in which too many people have been left behind and excluded from the provision that the Government have made.
Things could have been so different if only the Government had been prepared to listen to those of us who said at the start that there was a role for a universal basic income in meeting the challenge to our society.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it in the Chamber so that all MPs can take part.
The debate is important and timely as we pass the grim milestone of 100,000 covid-19 deaths and well over 3 million confirmed cases. We should remember each of those 100,000 deaths as the human tragedy it is as well as a sign of the failure to control the virus.
Together with colleagues who are taking part in the debate, I have heard evidence of the impact of long covid from witnesses to the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus. The impact on their lives is profound, and their numbers are growing rapidly.
It is important to recognise that covid-19 is not binary, with people either dying or recovering fully. We still have little idea about how covid-19 affects those who survive it in the longer term. Even people who start with mild covid symptoms may end up suffering noticeable effects and developing new or worse symptoms for months.
Among the many issues that witnesses with long covid raised at the APPG, an important factor is where they contracted the disease. Our witnesses this week all worked in the NHS, and we heard that the doctors’ long covid group is expanding rapidly. It is right to ask whether the conditions on the frontline might mean that long covid is more prevalent among those who acquire it at work.
Given the devastating impact of long covid, we need to establish whether it is an occupationally acquired disease. If it is, it should be reported on, monitored and protected against, as any other workplace-acquired disease would be. Will the Minister therefore set out what the Government are doing to require employers, including the NHS, to monitor long covid among their staff, and what steps will be taken to support frontline staff with long covid?
As I said, covid is not a binary disease. It is simply not the case that people either die from it or recover fully. We must remember every covid death as the tragedy that it is, but we must also fully acknowledge and deal with the long-term impacts that the disease can have. People are living with the effects of the virus for months, and perhaps even years. They need our support. They need a health system that can identify long covid and research so that we can begin to treat it effectively. They need financial support if they cannot work.
We need a covid strategy that goes beyond preventing deaths. We need to drive cases down, even when the most vulnerable are vaccinated, so that we do not create a new generation of people living with long-term health conditions. We particularly need to establish covid-19 as an occupational disease and support the frontline staff with long covid who cannot work because of their symptoms. They must not be forgotten.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid we must now move to our last Back-Bench speaker.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for arranging this important debate, which I hope will raise awareness of the issue, and cause the Government to reassess the rate of sickness benefit and to invest in research.
Long covid can affect anyone who has caught the virus. It is another one of those invisible illnesses that people cannot see, and many still do not know it exists. Constituents, friends and family have reached out to tell me of their physical and mental struggles with long covid. Persistent breathing problems and coughing, fatigue, dizziness, chest pains and insomnia are some of the things that have been mentioned to me. Even getting a diagnosis has been challenging, with people having to go through all manner of scans and tests. The lack of explanations and solutions has led to support groups being created online, where people with long covid can connect with one another and share their difficulties. But not everyone has online access and not everyone is able to communicate their experiences. Low public awareness of long covid leaves sufferers feeling even more isolated. I would be grateful to hear from the Government how they will raise the profile of this illness.
The NHS is desperate to help these patients, but it needs help from the Government to do this. The Government need to ring-fence funding for research into the illnesses and find treatments. People with long covid also often find their ability to work seriously affected. The economy suffers from this section of the workforce being incapacitated. Sick pay is £95.85 per week. My constituent’s rent in a shared home is £900, with bills, each month they are short of more than £500, and their situation is not dissimilar to that of others, which means that the sickness pay rate is inadequate.
Another constituent asks me:
“How much longer is our society going to keep treating people with illness as a burden? How long are people going to face such hard decisions just to keep living?”.
Although I cannot give my constituent all the answers they need, I, along with colleagues today, call on the Government to recognise this illness, commit to reassessing the sick pay rate, and fund research treatments to cure and help sufferers with long covid.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I realise that a number of colleagues have not been able to get into this debate. As I have said, we had a very short time for it. The Front Benchers have agreed to speak for less time than they normally would, and I now call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Neale Hanvey.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this important debate. Long covid is a prevalent and growing concern that is every bit as important as community transmission rates, excess mortality rates and the consequential impacts on other life-saving services, such as cancer services. It is evident in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. Bailey-Lee Robb, an 18-year-old student from Lochgelly, tested positive in October. He was isolated originally in his university accommodation, but he has now returned home to recuperate. He told me:
“Due to Long Covid I’m on painkillers as I have bad lower back and knee pain; I still have a loss of smell; shortness of breath; short-term memory loss; insomnia; and some of my body randomly breaks out in rashes. While I try to lead a normal life, some days I can’t leave bed because I’m that sore and exhausted. It’s horrible!”
He felt that the impact on young people is important. Even if fewer young people are dying from covid-19, long covid could be with them for a lifetime. There is a pressing need for Governments to raise public awareness of long covid, to urge lockdown compliance and to limit community transmission.
Research suggests that 10% of the infected population will suffer from long covid and, in line with other post-viral syndromes such as ME, it may become a chronic, potentially lifelong condition. The president of the British Society for Immunology has said:
“As the pandemic has gone on, it has become clear that…Covid-19 is more far reaching than affecting just the respiratory system”.
They went on to note that this may be a consequence of a generalised systemic inflammatory response, mediated by the body’s “cytokine storm” against covid. Shortness of breath can lead to pulmonary fibrosis, and circulatory, cardiovascular, renal, neurological and mental health impacts, and very real survivorship challenges, including depression and suicidal thoughts.
The British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation and others also recognise the role that inflammation plays in the disease’s progression. Anyone working in an intensive therapy unit knew long before covid that such a systemic inflammatory response can lead to multi-organ failure and death.
Long covid is real, and it also affects young people such as Bailey-Lee. There is limited empirical evidence on how to diagnose, support, treat and rehabilitate sufferers. In Scotland, we advocate an holistic approach, and we are currently considering the organisation of services. More than 70,000 Scots will be provided with free vitamin D, which is recognised as having a role in prevention and moderation of morbidity. This week, Food Standards Scotland launched a vitamin D campaign for the general public. The Scottish Chief Scientist Office recently concluded research calls into the long-term effects of covid-19, with funding totalling £2.5 million being recommended for nine projects across Scottish universities. In addition to that funding, the Scottish Government are supporting an ongoing study on the longer-term lung health of covid-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors, and they are also supporting Scottish participation in the UK-wide post-hospitalisation covid-19 study.
Of course, it is also key to listen to those living through the condition, such as Long Covid Scotland and the Post Covid Syndrome Support Group. That is vital to improve understanding of the longer-term effects and develop effective clinical interventions to support recovery and rehabilitation. Post Covid Syndrome Support Group founder Louise Barnes has called for a shift to effective treatment after she made contact with a clinical team in South Africa regarding a peer-reviewed study looking at the use of a six-vitamin stack protocol. Despite being sceptical, Louise felt that she had nothing to lose so participated in the trial. Within three days, she saw notable improvement:
“I felt within days almost back to normal”.
That study is promising, as we know from leukaemia treatment the valuable role that vitamins or micronutrients can play. Of course, a six-vitamin stack will not suit big pharma unless they develop an analogue of the vitamin stack that they can patent. I have not looked into the detail of the study, but it is very positive and deserves serious consideration.
What is the UK Government’s strategy? It is clear that we must take action now. We must properly record, research and develop means to defeat the mechanisms of long covid. Otherwise, we are creating further resource and financial burdens for the NHS well into the future. Will the UK Government develop appropriate additional support and funding for the NHS to meet these challenges, however they are to be delivered? Will the Government now accept the pressing need for continuation of the £20 universal credit uplift and its extension to legacy benefits, in the light of long covid?
We also need action on sick pay rates. The UK has one of the lowest sick pay rates in the OECD. The SNP has continuously called on the UK Government to increase SSP in line with the real living wage. It is a disgrace. The UK Government’s meagre £95.85 rate of SSP is poverty pay in comparison with Ireland, where the rate is £266, and other countries such as Germany and Austria, where it is more than £280. Long-term, meaningful economic support must be put in place for long covid sufferers. Will the UK Government immediately increase SSP, so that long covid sufferers have financial support? Most importantly, will the UK Government match the Scottish Government’s ambition and fund research into post-covid syndrome, allowing sufferers hope that their new normal is not post-covid syndrome or long covid?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their very personal contributions.
For thousands, covid-19 is something neither succumbed to nor overcome in a matter of days. For many, it has lasting mental and physical impacts that affect the body many months after initial infection. It is nearly a year since the first case of coronavirus was recorded in the UK, and still very little is known about the debilitating post-covid syndrome. I pay tribute to the LongCovidSOS group and all the online support groups that work tirelessly to raise this issue and support one another.
At this stage, we cannot say with any real certainty what exactly long covid is. Nor we can accurately predict the true number of people suffering symptoms of long covid. The Office for National Statistics has published estimations suggesting that the proportion of people displaying symptoms for a period of over 12 weeks could be as many as one in 10. Let us be clear, this is not a syndrome being experienced by a small minority of people. There is also finite evidence on the best way to treat the condition, which has vastly varied symptoms. Without a clear understanding of exactly what the condition is, this makes it far more difficult for health professionals to manage and support those who are affected by it. With better data collection and further research, and by listening to those living with long covid, we can begin to effectively treat the condition. Will the Minister please outline what work the Government are doing to close this gap in knowledge?
What we do know for certain is that the symptoms of long covid can be severe, completely debilitating and utterly crippling, preventing people from living their normal lives. This impact can have a detrimental effect on people’s mental health, their wellbeing and, as we have heard today, their physical wellbeing. It leaves many unable to return to work months after their initial battle with the virus and causes a great deal of uncertainty in already anxious minds. It is crucial to understand that this stress and anxiety can cause relapses in the condition, as sufferers themselves have told me.
Many people with long covid do not know when or if they will return to work. Without action from the Government, the long-term social and economic consequences of this could be grave. Key workers have an increased risk of catching covid. NHS workers in particular are at least three times more likely to contract it than the general population, and this could wreak havoc on our frontline workforce. What steps are the Government taking not only to protect the NHS workforce further but to ensure that staffing levels are such that patients continue to be treated and the population continues to be vaccinated?
The availability of treatment and care for individuals experiencing long covid must be a matter of immediate concern to the Government, and I urge them to adopt a patient-led approach. Could the Minister please outline what progress has been made on setting up long covid clinics, and what plans the Government have to extend this programme in 2021? There simply cannot be a postcode lottery of service provision for long covid sufferers. No one person’s life is more valuable than another, and the Government must ensure that that is reflected in access to treatment.
Some long covid patients are being denied referral because they never had a positive covid test. For the many people who suffered with covid in the first wave back in March and April and were not eligible for testing at the time, that is proving incredibly frustrating. Will the Minister outline what measures the Government will take to ensure that people do not miss out on much needed treatment, particularly if they fall into the category of people who were unable to have a covid test in the first wave?
The Government have to step up and show leadership. There has to be clear messaging to the public to ensure that they are sufficiently informed about the condition and about where to seek help if they need it. That messaging needs to combat the misinformation about covid that is out there presenting it as a myth or similar to the flu. I would like to pay tribute to the former MP for Leigh, Jo Platt, who, along with LongCovidSOS and support groups on Facebook, is campaigning tirelessly on this issue. As Jo told me, there are no words to describe how covid deniers have made her feel. She said: “For people to seriously deny our experiences has been soul-destroying.” We have to get this right.
It is also essential that healthcare professionals at every level of the NHS are properly trained to treat long covid, distinguishing between the different conditions that fall under the term. This includes frontline mental health workers, as the mental health implications of long covid can be severe. Within an acute crisis, it is far too easy to push longer-term concerns to the periphery. Should the Government continue to do this with long covid, they do so at their peril.
Throughout this crisis, far too many people have felt that their voices have been silenced. For the sake of the health and wellbeing of all those living with long covid, please do not silence them. There is still so much that is unknown about this virus and how it affects us, but one thing that is certain is that long covid should be a matter of serious concern, and without concerted action by the Government we may be living with the consequences of this for many years to come. We are still learning so much more about the impact of covid-19 on our communities, our bodies and our wellbeing. There are thousands of people out there currently suffering with long covid. They are relying on us, and on the Government, to get it right for them.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank the hon. Members who tabled today’s debate on this very important topic. We know that long covid can have a significant impact on the people affected, and I am proud that this Government are committed to doing everything possible to support people who are still suffering with effects on their mental and physical health.
Covid-19 is still a new disease. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) began by identifying that the disease pathway of covid is so new that we still do not have the evidence to understand fully what long covid is. It is not yet clear what the medical, psychological and rehabilitation needs will be for those experiencing long-term effects of the virus.
Typically, the time to recover from covid-19 is 10 to 14 days for mild and moderate cases; however, some people may experience lasting impacts on their health. Long covid describes a mix of mental and physical health effects. Research from the ONS has shown that one in 10 people has covid-19 symptoms for 12 weeks or longer, and it estimated in mid-November that around 186,000 people were experiencing symptoms between five and 12 weeks post infection.
I will start by giving an update on the important work that the Government and the NHS are leading into long covid. We continue to work closely with the NHS and other stakeholders to develop and deliver high-quality services for patients, to make rapid progress in terms of research, and to ensure effective communications and engagement with the public and the workforce. The NHS launched a five-point plan for dealing with long covid and providing support on 7 October 2020 and, just as it rapidly stood up specialist care for acutely ill covid-19 patients at the start of the pandemic, it is now responding sensitively and effectively to long covid.
The NICE guidelines for long covid, and how to manage it, were published on 18 December. For the first time, we have clinical definitions and terms for the initial illness and long covid at different stages. The guidelines describe the most commonly reported symptoms of acute covid-19 and long covid. Acute covid-19 covers the signs and symptoms for up to four weeks; long covid, or post-covid syndrome, is commonly used to describe the signs and symptoms that continue after acute covid-19. The guidelines also set out the support that long covid patients should receive.
The NHS announced the “Your COVID Recovery” online service on 5 July. That online tailored rehabilitation programme enables patients to be monitored by their local rehabilitation teams, and phase 2 was rolled out in November to provide further support for people with long covid. In October, NHS England announced £10 million to fund a network of assessment service centres in each part of England. Those new services bring together doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists to offer both physical and psychological assessments, and refer patients to the right pathway of treatment and rehabilitation.
The Secretary of State spoke to the House in October about his visit to the cutting-edge long covid clinic at University College hospital. There he met people in their 20s and 30s who are living with the long-term effects of the virus. It has completely changed their lives. There are now 69 centres operating across England, where hundreds of patients are already receiving treatment. Those centres are assessing and diagnosing people experiencing long-term health effects as a result of a covid-19 infection.
A further 12 sites are earmarked to launch in early 2021, and they will be in the east midlands, Lancashire, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight. The NHS and the wider scientific community are currently working to better understand the disease: the course of the covid-19 virus, including symptoms, severity and duration, long-term effects, and how best to support recovery. NICE and UK Research and Innovation have invested £8.4 million in a post-hospitalisation covid-19 study at the University of Leicester. This is one of the world’s largest comprehensive studies of the long-term health impacts of covid-19 on hospitalised patients. The study aims to better understand and improve long-term outcomes for survivors following hospitalisation with covid-19. The National Institute for Health Research and UKRI have also announced a joint research funding call for ambitious and comprehensive research into the long-term physical and mental effects of covid-19 in non-hospitalised patients. The panel is currently reviewing the bids and projects and this is expected to commence in early 2021.
The NHS has launched a long covid taskforce to help to lead the NHS response to long covid. It will produce information and support material for patients and healthcare professionals and develop a wider understanding of the condition. Led by the director of primary care at NHS England, Dr Nikita Kanani, the long covid taskforce brings together patients, charities, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and the royal colleges to provide an advisory function and to support the delivery of the NHS five-point plan. My colleague the noble Lord Bethell continues to hold monthly long covid roundtables to provide updates from NHS England, NHS Improvement and others working on various areas of long covid.
The covid-19 vaccine marks the start of a fightback against the pandemic. The NHS is deploying vaccines right across the UK and this has reached 3 million today in line with the founding mission to support people according to clinical need, not ability to pay.
Long covid is a new challenge for healthcare systems all over the world, not just in the UK. The UK is committed to listening to people with long covid and leading the way in excellent research, treatment and care. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of the NHS staff who set up these services to quickly meet sufferers’ medical needs all over England, to the researchers working hard to better understand this issue, and to the people living with long covid for sharing their insight and their experience with us. Combined with further research, the NHS England long covid taskforce, and the additional services and funding that we are providing, we hope to improve lives and aid in and fight against this global pandemic.
Layla Moran [V]
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate, but also all those who were unable to contribute. When we put in for it, we thought that it would be well subscribed, given that, I would wager, most Members in this House will have been contacted by a constituent, or more than one constituent, who now has long covid. For all those with long covid who are watching today, I hope they have the assurance that this House will continue to listen and encourage the Government to take action as our understanding of this disease improves.
We certainly heard some powerful stories today. There is obviously not time to go through all of them. I was struck, as we always are, by the contribution from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who brings the subject to life with his own experience but also rightly asks: what about those who do not have the flexible working that is afforded to us as MPs?
Several Members mentioned that there are learnings that we must take from other conditions. In particular, ME was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), among others. I thank her for her work and leadership on the all-party parliamentary group on ME. There is a lot that we can learn from that.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) rightly raised mental health, and the trauma that people face as a result of being hospitalised with covid. I think that almost all Members mentioned financial support, and many highlighted the failure of the welfare system to cope with this changing landscape. That is an area that we continue to need to push on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) put it very well when he said that the Government need to take a humble approach to the changing picture.
I thank the Front Bench spokespeople, and particularly the Minister for her response and for listening so diligently to the debate. I thank her for the update on the research and the NHS response. It is clear that we are finally getting going, but I hope that she also recognises that we need to continue to finesse and change as our understanding evolves. I hope she will take a personal interest in that. Finally, it would be wonderful if she would consider a meeting with me and others in the all-party group, to talk about the areas that she did not cover, in particular publishing the register, if that is possible, and a recognition by employers that long covid could be an occupational disease, and the support that would be needed by those who suffer from it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for winding up the debate, but we now need to move on because we have another full debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered long covid.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We will now have a two-minute suspension to allow preparation for the next debate.
Covid-19: Dental Services
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on dental services.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) who co-sponsored the application for this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank many MPs from across the House for their support for this important and timely debate.
I am speaking on behalf of everyone who has suffered toothache under lockdown, or who will suffer it this year, for all the children whose orthodontal treatment has been delayed or is in disarray—that includes two children in my own house—and for all those whose more serious dental problems would have been spotted in routine check-ups, but who have not yet had them spotted. I speak also on behalf of dental practitioners and laboratories in my constituency and across the country who have felt ignored during the pandemic, and not treated as the frontline health workers they are.
During the pandemic, one constituent told me that he had to pull out his own tooth, and a local dentist told me of an elderly lady whose dental pain meant that she could not eat solid food throughout the lockdown, and had lost weight as a result. There are serious consequences to the implications of covid-19 on dental practices. I would like to thank the dentists in my constituency and across the country, who have kept going in very difficult and stressful times, and often against all the odds.
My message today is simple: we are sleepwalking into the biggest oral health crisis since the creation of the NHS. Unless the Government begin to recognise that dentistry is an essential health service, the sector will collapse. For now, the current activity targets are unattainable and need to be scrapped—I am sure other Members will be talking about them today. In the longer term, we also need better targeted financial support to save the sector. Overall, we need a national dentistry recovery plan to provide safety for dentists and patients, funding to stop closures, and ways to address the huge backlog of dental appointments. There is an NHS England phased recovery plan, but it does not address the whole dental sector. Dental care is not a middle-class luxury, but it is moving that way. It is a fundamental aspect of good health and a key indicator of health equality. We neglect it at our peril.
From March to June last year, all routine dental care in England was paused and according to the British Dental Association over 20 million appointments were lost between March and November. That has created a huge backlog that will take years to clear unless it is addressed now. In my own borough of Wandsworth, nearly 6,000 fewer courses of treatment took place in the final quarter of 2020. It did not have to be this way. For example, in Germany, personal protective equipment and guidance was put in place straightaway and dentists were not shut. Funding of PPE and ventilators remains a major issue for enabling dentists to function and see patients even during the pandemic.
Dentists have faced acute financial problems. They are both frontline health services and important high street businesses in all our communities, yet they did not receive the same funding as other frontline health services or high street businesses. Financial support remains either absent or uneven. As many as 53% of dental practices estimate that they can only maintain their financial stability for 12 months or less in the face of lower patient numbers and higher overheads. Beyond access to the furlough scheme and Government credit, support for private practice has been close to non-existent. There has been a failure to recognise the mixed economy on which dentistry is based. Dentists are among the only businesses on the high street that continue to pay business rates. That is totally unfair. Many of my local practices have not received any financial support, such as business grants, and this must be renewed.
Now, on top of that, there are targets. In December, NHS dental practices were instructed by the Government to deliver 45% of all their targets, based on pre-covid levels, to earn their contract value from January to April. This was a hasty, not negotiated and widely discredited target-based dental contract, and it is incompatible with providing safe and sustainable services for patients during the pandemic. I understand that the targets were set before lockdown, but now is the time for the Minister to tell us that they will be reconsidered, they are not achievable and there will be a change of policy. The targets need to be scrapped.
Most dental practices are small high street buildings and they cannot expand to meet the guidelines on social distancing and fallow time as well as meeting the targets. The British Dental Association found in a recent practice poll that 40% of practices in London alone have seen more than half their capacity wiped out by cancellations, staff sickness, self-isolation and difficulties accessing childcare. If there was ever an excuse not to visit the dentist, we have one now. We have told everyone to stay at home, so they are staying at home and they are not going to the dentist, but that is just building up huge problems for us in the future. Dentists cannot be financially penalised because of that.
The latest UK data show high levels of cancellation and non-attendance during lockdown. One local dentist told me that at absolutely full stretch before Christmas he was able to meet 30% of pre-covid activity levels. He cannot meet them now, and he is worried about being penalised and losing money retrospectively, because he is obviously having to pay out for those contracts during these months. We would all like more people to be able to see dentists. We would like them to reach 100% of the targets and to clear the backlog, but the targets are simply unachievable at the moment and will put the future of dental practices at risk. By implementing this target, the Government are effectively removing the safety net from NHS dentistry at a time when covid-19 rates are surging. It is important to note as well that the target is set not by the chief dental officer, but by the Government. The wider implications of these issues extend beyond just bad oral health or a bit of toothache. It is predicted that it will increase emergency attendances at hospital A&E, increase antibiotic prescribing, increase admission to hospitals and longer stays, and increase missed oral cancer diagnoses, which is really worrying. The Oral Health Foundation found that mouth cancer referrals fell by 56% during the lockdown.
In my constituency, the waiting list for tooth extractions by children’s tertiary care is now two years and growing —that is an almost emergency treatment. I met with dentists in my own constituency in the lead-up to this debate, and they made it clear that the 45% target is just unacceptable. One said to me:
“How can the dental profession be expected to transition to this flawed quota system? Practices that fail to reach targets, through no fault of their own, will face penalties and clawbacks which will result in mass closure of dental practices as the funding to provide dental care will not make it viable to stay open. This is a reckless and unsafe decision”.
Today, the Faculty of General Dental Practice UK, the College of General Dentistry and the Royal College of Surgeons Of England issued a joint statement saying that
“safety must take a clear priority over dental activity levels during the…lockdown.”
There is a universal call to scrap the targets, and I hope that we will hear about that from the Minister later.
To wrap up, I have five demands of the Minister. First, we need a national plan for dentistry following the pandemic and a way that the backlog of appointments will be addressed, created in full consultation with the national professional dental bodies. Secondly, the activity levels for January to April must be scrapped. The 45% target will undermine patient care and safety. Thirdly, we must provide urgent support to practices to enable them to increase the number of patients that they can see. That means supplies of PPE and ventilation equipment to keep fallow time down. Fourthly, we need to be clear that all dental teams, including receptionists, must be given priority access to covid vaccines alongside other healthcare professionals. Fifthly, we need to maintain and expand the business rates holiday to dental practices and backdate it to late March.
In conclusion, many parts of the country already had poor access to dental care before the pandemic. Current levels of capacity across the service mean that, unless something is done now, problems are likely to reach an unprecedented scale in every community up and down the country, and we will see a whole generation growing up with poor dental health. Let us recognise the dental sector as the essential frontline health care service that it is and do everything in our power to support it through this crisis and for our future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have a few housekeeping notes. The wind-ups will start at 4.42. There will be eight minutes each for the Front Bench teams, two minutes for Fleur to wind up, and a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions starting now.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Three minutes means that I cannot answer the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I congratulate her on obtaining the debate. I am chair of the all-party group for dentistry and oral health. I have a surgery in the Putney constituency—she did not visit me. Sensibly, dental surgeries, after the initial lockdown, have remained open, but, as she has mentioned, there are costly new anti-covid requirements. Currently, the figures of the backlog of appointments are staggering and, in response to those figures, new NHS targets have been set. Understandably, they are high. I have seen the British Dental Association’s sponsored letter. I went for a pinch of salt when it arrived on my desk. I understand that 60% of the practices are actually meeting those targets and that those that are unable to meet the targets can obtain dispensation. Scaremongering on safety in surgeries is just that—scaremongering. Dentists are medical professionals. They are overseen by the Care Quality Commission and by the General Dental Council. Safety is paramount. Most alarming—and this has been mentioned—is the drop by a third, as I understand it, of oral cancer detection and referral.
My next concern is that many of the clinical teaching staff at our hospital dental schools were drawn away to assist in urgent dental care and covid patient care. As a result, many of our final-year students are facing graduation with a clinical educational deficit.
However, I think it is worth looking forward. First, I thank the Minister for helping to move inoculations for dentists and all staff into category 2, which is a recognition of the dangers of the aerosol dispersal spray. Secondly, can she look into the long fallow time? Other nations have managed to make this somewhat shorter and safe. Next, we need to look after the children who require hospital general anaesthetics. In the long term, that has to mean prevention, and the very best long-term means of prevention is to introduce fluoridation into water supplies, particularly in deprived areas. While this backlog must—and in time, will—be cleared, prevention has to be the long-term aim. Caries is preventable, and it is something we can do something about in this nation as is progressively being done in others, by teaching children to brush their teeth and to use a fluoride toothpaste, and putting fluoride into the water supply.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the increasingly urgent problems with dental care in my constituency. Portsmouth is a densely populated city, and pre-existing problems with patient access and the retention and recruitment of dentists have been exacerbated by this pandemic. Figures from the BDA suggest that 43% of adults in Portsmouth had seen a NHS dentist in the past two years up to June 2020, compared with 48% across England. Figures also show that the fall in the proportion of patients seen in my city during the pandemic has been greater than the average across England. I am very concerned that Portsmouth has been disproportionately affected by the weakness of the current contract system, and that we face the prospect of generational damage to patient care.
The recently imposed NHS activity cut targets are particularly illogical, with practices facing steep financial penalties if they fail to hit 45% of their pre-pandemic NHS activity during the current quarter. Those targets effectively force NHS practices to prioritise volume over need, leaving them with little choice but to conduct routine check-ups instead of clearing the backlog of more time-consuming treatments. This creates an unsustainable situation, in which patients are unable to access the treatment they need while practitioners are in a race against time to maintain their financial viability. Although the Government have committed to reforming the system, we have seen no action and little appetite to do so.
Earlier this week, I met with the BDA’s local dental practice committee and Healthwatch Portsmouth. They told me that the situation is untenable, and practices are increasingly concerned that they will not survive beyond the pandemic, which will further restrict patient access. With nowhere else to turn, one constituent contacted me to help arrange a dental appointment over Christmas. Having been unable to register for a NHS dentist, another constituent joined the 7.6% of English households that have attempted a do-it-yourself tooth extraction using pliers to relieve their pain.
While these stories are anecdotal, they increasingly reflect the reality of dental care in my community. Without urgent change, NHS dentistry in my constituency and across the country could be decimated, permanently damaging patient care for decades to come. I call on the Minister to take action to protect patients and dental practices in Portsmouth, and to hear my concerns today.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
May I take this opportunity to thank all in the dental profession for all they have done and, in particular, for how they have adapted to implement the huge changes needed to be covid-secure? I have direct experience of this, having received urgent care both during the first lockdown and yesterday. I know that I am not alone in thanking them, as several of my constituents have told me of their own experiences. On behalf of all of us, I thank them very much for what they are doing during these trying times.
At the beginning of the pandemic, dental practices across the country were instructed to close. This meant that dentists took a huge financial hit, which was compounded by the fact that many were ineligible for the Government’s financial support package. This was particularly true of private dentists. We rely on these practices as much as NHS ones to meet local demand, and that should be considered going forward.
NHS dentists have recently been asked to fulfil their contractual obligations in the last quarter of the financial year. However, in order to meet additional safety guidelines, they now see fewer patients. Indeed, 64% of practices surveyed by the British Dental Association last year estimated that they could only treat less than half the patients they saw before the pandemic. Practices also have to cater for the self-isolation of staff and patients, the general fear of older residents leaving their home for any reason and cancellations at short notice for all of the above.
I emphasise that dental practices are safe and continue to be so. I am grateful to the Leicestershire and Rutland Local Dental Committee, which allowed me to attend its Zoom meeting last night and hear the concerns of 112 local dentists. In an online vote, 80% of those dentists said they would not be able to hit the target for quarter 4. The added dimension is that should dentists miss the target by as little as 1%, they receive considerably less revenue for the work they have already carried out. Dentists are also given no leeway for last-minute cancellations and no-shows in their contracts, even though that may lead to those missed targets. I therefore ask that that be urgently reviewed, so that dentists are not punished for trying their hardest to continue to provide the care needed.
I can fully understand why the target was set when it was put in place just before Christmas. At that time, little was known about the new variant of covid and the case rate was dropping at a rapid rate. If it had remained in that arena, I certainly would have been clamouring for tier 2 in Loughborough and fighting to get as many businesses and facilities open as possible. Unfortunately, the new variant has put paid to that idea and a national lockdown has ensued. I ask that the target for dentists be reviewed in light of the current situation.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—(Inaudible)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Scott, you sound like a Dalek, and I do not mean that unkindly. There is clearly a communications problem. We will switch to the next speaker and then we will get you back, Scott.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
The Book of Proverbs says:
“Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth.”
We are in a time of trouble and there are lots of broken teeth. While I make no aspersions about the fidelity of the Prime Minister, I can tell him that confidence in his Government, even before covid, was already at an all-time low with the dentists I speak to in Brent. There has been a total lack of investment in dental laboratories, a failure to recruit and train dental technicians, flawed dental contracts and chronic underfunding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has lucidly set out the key demands of the British Dental Association: abandon the activity targets; support practices to increase the number of patients they can see safely; prioritise access to the vaccine; safeguard the supplies of PPE; and extend the business rates holidays to dentists. I will not rehearse and repeat her excellent arguments; I want to give voice to the frustration felt by the dentists who continue to serve my constituents in Brent so well.
The BDA has catalogued the failure to properly communicate with the public, but what I had not appreciated until I spoke with my local dental committee is just how poor the Government’s communication with dentists themselves had been. I quote from their letters. One said that
“dental services have often been treated as an afterthought with no understanding of the NHS contract imposed on the profession. Dental practitioners found out in May on the news, at the same time as patients that they were to reopen in June…The panic and frustration this caused is deplorable. Dental practices, despite being high risk because of the aerosol generating procedures, were not able to access PPE from the Government portal until September and the vital FFP3 masks were not added to that until November. It is clear that little thought, if any, had been given to dentists and their teams.”
One dentist wrote:
“When on the 8th June our high street practices in England were allowed to resume face-to-face care, the reality of what a new normal might look like hit…fallow time means the number of patients able to be seen is significantly reduced. It was anything but ‘business as usual’. I ask myself, at this time, what would be the worst thing to impose on dental practices? Very high up on my list would be precisely what the government has decided to impose—targets. The emphasis on targets from the NHS clearly prioritises a metric and finance over patient interest. To achieve targets, footfall would have to increase and non-urgent patients be prioritised.”
My local dental committee tells me:
“Many practices are already finding the conflicting strain too much, and this comes on top of the emotional and physical drain of wearing full PPE for hours every day…The imposition of a target at this time serves no purpose whatsoever other than to destabilise, perhaps terminally, NHS dental provision, and to demoralise an already exhausted profession further.”
Covid-19 has been felt most severely by those who were already more likely to have poor health outcomes—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, Barry; we are going to have to leave it there because we have run out of time. I will call James Wild next, and then hopefully we will get Scott Mann back on the line.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Access to dentists in North West Norfolk, particularly for children, was one of the issues that I raised in my maiden speech, when I reported that constituents were being advised to register in Skegness. As I said at the time, that remains good advice for pink-footed geese, but it is not very practical. Prior to covid, my constituency had the highest population per dentist across Norfolk and Waveney. West Norfolk was the second lowest area for dental activity actually delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted activity carried out, and it had the highest percentage of patients who were unsuccessful when trying to get an NHS dental appointment. That was before covid.
During the pandemic, access to services has become even more severely limited, as the early results of a survey that I am carrying out in my constituency show. Many patients are unable to get treatment. The British Dental Association has said that 20 million appointments have been lost nationally, and access to emergency dental care has also been very challenging. I have helped constituents to access the urgent dental care that was there, but the General Dental Council reported that 50% of people did not know that it existed, which may explain why a fifth of people experienced pain or even took action into their own hands.
It is crystal clear that the level of provision in North West Norfolk is simply not good enough. This is a long-running issue. I have spoken on numerous occasions to the NHS east of England direct commissioning group, whose responsibility it is to commission those services, to underline the need for improved local access. I certainly acknowledge that there are challenges in attracting and recruiting dentists in North West Norfolk, and there have been positive developments, such as the opening of the surgery at Marham, which my constituents have been using successfully. I know that the commissioning group is actively exploring the increased use of training places to play a part in the sustainable approach to this issue, but it is of course important that the significant backlog due to covid is addressed and done so safely. Like other hon. Members, I have been contacted by dentists in my constituency, who are concerned about the activity levels that they are being asked to deliver and question whether they will be achievable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those concerns in her remarks.
What my constituents really want is a commitment to short, medium and long-term improvements, so they can actually see a dentist. My dentist in King’s Lynn high street closed in November, and the money for that should be used to recommission services locally. Prior to covid, the NHS planned to open another practice by the summer and to issue a procurement exercise offering in-perpetuity contracts, which should be more attractive to providers in the long term. Understandably, those plans are now on hold, which is disappointing for my constituents. They want a public commitment to address these issues, so that they know improved provision will be coming. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to meet me to discuss these issues so that we can urgently address the provision, which is certainly inadequate for my constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Let us see whether Scott Mann’s audio is less scary.
Scott Mann
Apologies from North Cornwall, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for bringing forward this very important debate. In the three minutes that I have got, I would like to address the wider issues around covid and NHS dentistry in places like Cornwall, the 2006 contract, and the challenges of recruitment and retention in rural areas.
We have exceptionally long waiting lists for NHS treatment in places like North Cornwall, with many people waiting years on the NHS list, and at the moment we have a limited number of dentists providing that NHS work. Many of the practices and dentists in my constituency are servicing more than 8,000 or 9,000 patients. That is not sustainable in the long term. Population growth in Cornwall has compounded that issue. Having met many dentists in my constituency, I am aware of the problems, and I look forward to working with the diligent Minister on the Treasury Bench to resolve some of them. The 45% target should be looked at again, because meeting those demands in the current environment is quite tough.
Those local issues are magnified in the national picture. Normally, someone presenting to an NHS dentist needs emergency work, which takes quite a lot of time. The contract is onerous. The 2006 contract was not great when it was introduced, but with time it has become less and less effective. It needs to be reviewed. I know Cornwall is not unique, but the problems become more acute the further one gets from the big cities. We do not want oral health inequalities across the country. The levelling-up challenge is an economic one, but we need to be aware that there are health shortcomings affecting those who live remote areas.
Looking at solutions, I have picked up on the fact that we used to have a scheme to recruit dentists in the short-term from the Commonwealth. Now that we have left the European Union, we can look again at the rules that apply, and I think we should do so. We should also look again at the 2006 contract and work with the General Dental Council to see whether we can fast-track people becoming dentists and working in practices.
We should consider how we can manage costs. Someone who earns £100,000 a year has as much chance of having an NHS dentist as someone on a low income. We could handle that better. All power to the Minister—I know she gets this. I look forward to working with her to get better dental health outcomes in North Cornwall.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate.
Before the pandemic, my engagement with the dental sector led me to form a number of views on how it served our communities. Those who work in dentistry are highly competent and well qualified professionals, but there are problems in recruitment, and it is increasingly difficult to find an NHS dentist. When good and highly respected dentists retire, they are hard to replace. There is a lack of accountability in NHS England and NHS Improvement, and the world of UDAs—units of dental activity—is opaque and difficult to understand.
One readily reaches the conclusion that in normal times, the system does not work in the best interests of local communities and public health. Covid-19 presents those working in dentistry with enormous challenges. They are placed in a position of significant health risk, there is a dramatic reduction in capacity, and there have been some problems with those working in the sector being recognised as key workers.
The Government were right to set up a network of urgent dental centres, and in many respects this has worked well, although I have received a lot of complaints about where and how to find them, being kept waiting on the phone for seemingly hours on end, and then difficulties getting an appointment. Not only is there the challenge of getting through the current lockdown, but the shadow of covid will hang over the sector for a very long time. There is an enormous backlog of work, and yes, although some of that may be classed as non-emergency, it is important to bear in mind that it is often a routine visit to the dentist that picks up cancer at an early stage.
The position has been exacerbated by the Government writing to dentists before Christmas seeking to impose a 45% target of UDAs for January, February and March. The proposal has been described to me by dentists in my constituency as “completely irresponsible”, “disrespectful”, “neglectful”, “unsafe” and “inconsiderate”. It should be dropped. The Government need to work with dentists to come up with, first, a short-term plan to get through the immediate crisis, and then a long-term plan that is easy to understand, provides proper accountability and full national coverage of NHS dentistry, and ensures the recruitment and retention of highly trained professional staff.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Like so many aspects of our lives over the last year, the pandemic has meant changes for dentists and for our constituents as patients. During the first lockdown last year, dental care was paused and emergency dental hubs were set up as back-up, naturally creating a backlog of patients in the system. Already in this new lockdown, practices are facing patient cancellations and staff sickness and self-isolation. It is clear that Government support is needed. No patient or dental practice should be put out for doing the right thing during the pandemic.
Over the last year, I have met dentists and heard from practice managers across Luton North, who have told me about the challenges of keeping people’s mouths healthy during a global pandemic. One Luton North practice got in touch this week to tell me that dentists have been told that they must still hit their targets of 45% for dentistry and 70% for orthodontics, even in this new lockdown. That seems grossly unfair.
Across all health services right now, patients are reluctant to attend appointments for non-emergency treatment. Many GPs are not seeing patients face to face unless absolutely necessary, but the Government and the NHS are asking dental staff to put themselves at risk. The new obstacles that covid has brought are preventing dentists from being able to do their best for their patients. Will the Minister take these issues away and consult dentists?
I was shocked to find that dentists are not recognised as key workers, so they will not be in the highest priority groups for the covid-19 vaccine. I understand that priority must be given to those most at risk of serious illness or loss of life, but dentists are healthcare workers. Dentists are essential, and they are put in high-risk situations with respect to covid on a daily basis. Will the Minister please lobby her colleagues and NHS England to put dental workers on the same level as healthcare workers when it comes to vaccinations?
Let me finish with an even bigger ask. We know that dental health is a determinant of other health and public health issues and matches up with other health inequalities that are caused by or can lead to poverty and other kinds of ill health. I therefore want to see the Government listen and rise to the challenge that dentists in Luton North have put to me over the last year.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate.
The impact of covid on the dental sector has been profound, from the sector’s closure in March to the 20 million lost appointments, the 15 million-appointment backlog and the year-on-year decrease in those who visit the dentist. In previous years, being able to avoid the dentist may have seemed an art form, but it is rapidly becoming a significant and desperately serious problem, with mouth cancer diagnoses significantly down and major operations being put on hold or just avoided due to lack of access.
It is right that we have to clear the significant backlog. While I do not oppose the concept of a UDA target, I do oppose the mechanism that penalises dentists who do not meet that target. I respectfully ask the Minister to consider whether the target could be rejigged so that people have the security and understanding that if they are unable to meet it, they will not see a loss of salary or any penalisation from the Government. Of course, we have already heard that 50% of dental practices are meeting that target, so we have seen an ability to deliver.
The intent is right, but the mechanism is wrong and only adds to the extra stress that those who work in dental practices are already suffering. I do not deny that dental practices in my constituency are safe, but the individual set-up of each is very different; things such as the air purification systems that they implement will mean that they have different fallow times and will therefore also impact the UDA issue. There is a result here whereby different circumstances will mean that the overall target is unable to be met.
I ask the Government to consider taking away the penalisation mechanism of UDAs, reimbursing the VAT costs faced by dentists on PPE, and ensuring that our dentists are treated as part of the primary healthcare network. We hope to encourage people to stay in this sector. We want them to do so—we do not want them to go towards private alone—so I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me and many of the dental practices in my constituency.
Dentists are not asking for any more than anyone else, but they have received significantly less than many of those out there. All that we ask the Government today is to treat our dental sector with the respect that it deserves and to help it deliver for those who most need it across the whole United Kingdom.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]
I will start by commenting on the imposition of activity targets. On 17 December 2020, during a statement on coronavirus, I called on the Secretary of State to reverse this shocking and unacceptable decision. With a new national lockdown that could well last months, this situation is now more acute than ever. In his response, the Secretary of State said that an
“agreement…has been reached with the dentists”—[Official Report, 17 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 410.]
However, that is not how the dental profession interpreted the end to negotiations. The BDA has made it clear that it could not agree to such terms and that new contract requirements had been imposed on them. That in no way, shape or form constitutes an agreement. In the interests of accuracy, will the Minister clarify today that no such agreement was reached and that these targets have been imposed on dentists against their will?
Dental practices are now being asked to deliver 45% of their annual UDA target in order to receive their usual contract value. Surely the Government must recognise that this is simply impossible during a national lockdown. Many contract holders will hit a financial cliff edge and be required to return the majority of their contract value. Other practices will be forced to prioritise routine work such as check-ups for lower-risk patients, at the expense of urgent care and preventive work, simply to survive financially. For some years now, the Government have accepted that the dental contract needs reforming and that we need to move away from flawed UDAs. It is therefore unbelievable that the Government have decided to enforce a system based on UDAs in the middle of a pandemic. These are the wrong targets at the wrong time, and the Government should think again.
Unfortunately I know all too well about the crisis in access, because barely a week goes by when I do not have a constituent contacting me because they are unable to get a dental appointment for either themselves or their families, and often they are in severe pain and discomfort. Just last week, I was contacted by a nurse at a mental health hospital who is unable to get dental appointments for her patients. The shortage of community dentists, who are too thinly stretched, and high street practices that have to prioritise reaching UDA targets means that these vulnerable patients have no access to dental treatment at all.
That is one shocking example of what many Members know is true: it is increasingly difficult for our constituents to get an NHS dental appointment at all. The choice the Government now face is to either allow the situation to keep getting worse or to act now and bring in a new contract that does away with UDAs, to ensure that every patient gets the care and treatment they need.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
I feel compelled to speak in this debate following my meeting with several dentists from Don Valley last week. I want to start by commending the work of NHS England and the British Dental Association in reaching a compromise in July, which saw the abatement figure agreed at 16.75% for the period when dental practices were instructed to close. At the time, the British Dental Association stated that this was a “fair number”. However, it is my understanding that the abatement has not yet been collected from the practices. Can the Minister provide greater clarity to practices and state when the abatement will be expected to be paid?
As Members will know, dentists are currently being expected to hit 45% of pre-pandemic activity, at a time when people are being told to stay at home, and triage activity is no longer being included in activity measures. If activity falls below 36%, practices will have to return the majority of the NHS funding they receive in the first three months of this year. That policy will directly put NHS dental practices at risk of closure, as the clawback is potentially disproportionate. With the country now in full lockdown, patients’ reluctance to leave home is leading to many missed and cancelled appointments, so for many practices this demand is impossible. In fact, figures from NHS England show that the demand for dental practices to reach 45% of pre-pandemic activity is already failing.
Penalising dental practices at this difficult time will not help reduce the backlog. The Government have continually adopted a pragmatic approach throughout this pandemic. Would it not therefore be reasonable to abandon the activity target of 45% while the country remains in full lockdown, and include triage as part of the activity measures? Increased targets should be delayed until 1 April, when there has been more vaccine roll-out and the virus is under better control. Again, I would appreciate a comment on this from the Minister.
I would like to finish by stating something I saw scrawled on a wall in one of our many public houses: “A man with toothache thinks everyone’s happy whose teeth are sound”. We would be wise to remember this, as we could all be in a very sad state if we lost our dentists.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Can I, too, express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this debate? Dentistry often does not get the attention it deserves when we are looking at health provision for the country, and today is an opportunity to address that.
Clearly, the pressure on dental services preceded covid-19, but the pandemic has exacerbated it. In normal times—if we can remember them—the demand for NHS dentistry in Sheffield was huge, with unmet need amounting to more than 35,000 patients. That clearly has a long-term impact on oral health, and one that is particularly worrying for children.
Then came covid-19, which has hit the sector hard. Frankly, to choose this time to impose new targets, without warning or consultation, shows either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard for the consequences. The 45% target will disrupt the priorities of dentists by imposing penalties for failing to hit levels of what are described as normal NHS activity in what are blatantly abnormal times. It will threaten the viability of practices, and worsen access to dental care across Sheffield and the rest of England.
Dental practices have made huge efforts to be covid-secure, with cleaning and air-clearing procedures that mean they cannot see as many patients as usual. Many have therefore prioritised emergency and urgent care, and this normal activity target will skew their priorities away from those patients most in need. As one dentist explained it to me, they will be
“forced to stop seeing emergency patients…and to push the limits of the sound infection control procedures brought in to protect patients and staff”.
Another simply said:
“These targets are the wrong choice at the wrong time”.
This is not scaremongering, as has been suggested, but a real and genuine concern from dental professionals who care about the services they provide.
Sheffield Central is in the top 10% of areas where NHS dental care was most impacted by the pandemic, according to a survey, and the Association of Dental Groups says that problems are particularly acute in the most deprived urban, coastal and rural areas. Imposing this target will hit those most in need—levelling down, not levelling up. We need to be growing our dental services, not threatening them with damaging targets.
I have great regard for the Minister—we have worked together on other issues, and I know she takes her responsibilities seriously—so I do hope that she will listen to the concerns she has heard today from both sides of the House, talk to colleagues and review this contract.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to be able to speak on this topic, but I have to admit to a slight conflict of interests, as my father, who worked as an NHS dentist for 39 years, is now deservedly enjoying his NHS pension.
Dentists were allowed to return to work on 8 June, with all sorts of new conditions in place—for example, PPE having to be put on and removed, deep cleaning of surgeries between patients and a period of fallow time for each surgery. Special regulations for aerosol-generating procedures and social distancing in waiting rooms meant that accurate timings were necessary to avoid people having to wait outside for too long. All these things meant a big impact on the number of people who could be treated, so there was less ability to complete target numbers. Additionally, on returning to work, there was a huge backlog of emergency-type dentistry.
Dentists were adapting to these new conditions and striving to meet new targets when suddenly, just before Christmas, and without agreement from the profession, their target of activity was increased from the original 20% to 45%, and it had to be completed by 31 March. This has angered the profession. Now, with the lockdown, it is worse. Some dentists operate a shift system in surgeries, allowing time for cleaning and fallowing, but older patients, of whom there are more in my constituency than any other in the country, may not want to come at unsocial hours and wait outside at this time of year, or they may be shielding and fearful of infection, with rates rising. All this contributes to dentists’ difficulty in reaching targets. It is no wonder that they are not happy. What does this mean? That safety could be compromised if dentists are forced to cut corners to achieve targets. With a lack of NHS dentists already in North Norfolk, this situation will only make problems worse.
I will quickly touch on the real problem of the lack of NHS dentists in my constituency. There may be many problems, but I have constituents simply not able to get treatment and having to go private for services. One surgery told me that they have not had a UK graduate apply in 10 years, as they want to work in London. What can be done to help that situation? Here is my plea: if you are a graduate dentist wanting to work, do not go to London, come to North Norfolk, where you will have a better quality, will be paid well and will have a lower cost of living, and your patients will be eternally grateful to see you.
Despite all this, patients overwhelmingly express appreciation for the efforts dentists are making at this challenging time. They and the patients deserve proper assistance from us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Other areas are available. Good try, Duncan!
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The breakdown of talks on NHS dentistry targets between NHS England and the General Dental Practice Committee is a failure of leadership on the Government’s behalf. The Government should intervene to reach agreement and alleviate the concerns shared widely across our dedicated dental profession.
Like others, I have been contacted by a dentist in my constituency who is concerned that, with the new covid variant being highly transmissible, and with the national restrictions, or lockdown, it is
“unfathomable that the government has chosen this time to introduce an increase in the target for activity required by dental practices holding an NHS Contract, by effectively more than doubling the minimum requirement of activity to 45%”.
I agree that, with covid rates still high, many patients will be understandably reluctant to go to the dentist. Indeed, British Dental Association analysis shows that more than 20 million appointments were lost between March and November 2020, more than half the treatment in a typical year. I agree with my constituent who queries why Ministers are encouraging potentially unsafe volumes of patients into NHS dentist practices under the imposed new activity targets.
The imposition of severe penalties for not reaching these minimum targets will be untenable for many practices already struggling to meet additional costs due to covid. Many will be at increased risk of closing for good. This would be a terrible situation for my constituents in Luton South, as Luton struggles with a very high level of poor oral health in our children: the severity of tooth decay in children aged five years is above the national average, at four teeth affected. Evidence suggests that deprivation accounts for 40% of the variation in levels of dental decay. Children aged five years living in the most deprived areas of Luton have higher rates of tooth decay than their counterparts in the least deprived areas and are two and a half times more likely to have experienced dental decay. If dental practices are forced to close, it will be harder for my constituents and their children to access the vital dental care they need. The long-term impact of poor oral health affects people not only physically but psychologically, as it influences how they look, speak, eat and socialise.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, access to dental care must not become a middle-class luxury. The current target and penalties are bad for practices and patients. I urge the Minister to get back round the negotiating table and revisit the activity targets for January to April to protect our vital dental practices during the pandemic and give them the support they need.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
One of the very first issues I was contacted about as MP for North Devon was poor NHS dentistry provision, long before covid took hold. I knew that was the case because the only NHS dentist practice I could register with is a 45-minute journey from home.
This time last year, a dental nurse contacted me to advise:
“We are seeing more new patients with severe treatment requirements and high levels of decay because they have had to wait so long to get a dentist and cannot afford private treatment. This leaves patients in pain and at risk of sepsis in some cases. Dental Nurses in North Devon are poorly paid as there is no band structure like other nurses, this means there is a high staff turnover”.
She was concerned that dental nurses could earn more in a bar or supermarket, but with less responsibility.
Now, during covid and heading towards post-covid, it is nearly impossible to get anything other than emergency NHS dental treatment in North Devon. I was fortunate enough to see an NHS dentist in London, but my constituents should be able to access NHS services here in North Devon. Private dentists have begun to fill the gap here and NHS dentists are moving to the private sector.
Those in the private sector are also now in contact with my office with their concerns about the dental health of patients here. One advised:
“As a private dental surgery owner we have been very quick to return to near normal levels of service despite carefully implementing the increased Covid secure measures. NHS services have not! As a result we have been inundated with poor patients in pain and unable to access their NHS services. When they have been treated many are being forced to pay private charges. For too long NHS practices were allocated I believe 80% of the contract value for delivering 25% of the contract and for Q4 of the contract year they now have to only deliver 45%. This is woefully inadequate as it is far more profitable for these surgeries to not deliver care than it is for them to open.”
There are concerns that NHS patient contributions are not being charged correctly and that patients simply cannot access the treatment they need from their NHS dentists.
We had to travel long distances to get dental treatment in North Devon long before the pandemic. Distance and now cost are stopping far too many people seeking the dental treatment they need, and I hope steps can rapidly be taken to address the situation with NHS dentists in North Devon as well as the wider position described in the Chamber today.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
One of the more surprising effects of covid-19 is that I miss going to the dentist—a phrase I never expected to use. Although we might recognise the impact on ourselves, we should be in no doubt about how difficult the situation has been for those who continue to work and provide vital dental services in the pandemic. It is different from the situation in hospitals, but still difficult and exhausting, and it carries the constant underlying worry of infection.
The situation affects the whole UK. I hope that the Government will take the impact on dental health into account in discussions with Holyrood. That is a significant motivation for me today, because we have accounts of problems across the UK. James Craig of the Scottish Dental Association has described the experience of wearing a respiratory mask so tight that it was like breathing through a pillow. Another dentist felt that the profession had been thrown under a bus. Dentists have had to try to deal with public demand and then abuse when they cannot deliver through no fault of their own.
We must also accept that there are wider consequences for our health services as existing NHS dental health care becomes stretched, meaning that NHS-commissioned activity targeted at oral health inequality will be at risk. Many of us could find it difficult to get timely access to urgent, unscheduled dental work. As that begins to take hold, increased unmet care will have a widespread impact on our general health and wellbeing, leading to more and more people turning to GPs, emergency care and potentially hospital admissions.
Research shows that, as with so many of the impacts and so much of the collateral damage from covid-19, the vulnerable will suffer most. That will exacerbate the health inequality on which the pandemic has brought a stark focus.
Recently, I was contacted about an issue that young dentists assure me affects them across the UK. Associate dentists’ earnings have been halved because their payment is based on the work they carry out and the number of NHS patients on their books. We are currently awaiting the outcome of discussions between Holyrood and BDA Scotland to find a solution. Like everyone else affected by the pandemic, they need a solution soon.
I once put off having a toothache checked out, because it was not much of a nuisance and I was busy with other more important and pressing stuff; I would mention it at my next check-up. Before that was due, it flared up, became much worse, and I needed emergency root canal treatment. I also got a lecture from my dentist about leaving problems so that they escalate and become more serious. It is sound advice that we should perhaps listen to in this situation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Janet Daby. Janet, I will stop you at 4.42 pm, so please ignore the clock at the bottom of the left-hand side. Then we will come to the Front-Bench contributions.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. She has been a persistent advocate for dental care during the pandemic.
We are all aware of the widespread impact of the coronavirus pandemic. A&E departments are overwhelmed, intensive care units have been described as warzones, and essential operations, for example on cancer patients, are being postponed at great cost. In the midst of the sprawling crisis, the effect on dentistry has been overlooked. People have not received the essential dental care that they need, and dental practices have experienced crippling blows to their finances during the pandemic.
The Association of Dental Groups has found that dental practices in England suffered from an average of 45% losses in 2020. Dentists are crying out for Government support, but the Chancellor’s recent announcement applies only to the hospitality and retail sectors. Dental practices will receive no grants and no business rates exemption. The Government need to act so that it does not have a negative effect on our economy.
The ADG found that 35% of business owners expect to employ fewer staff next year, with some planning redundancies. We will lose practices from our high streets, and communities will be deprived of the care that they need. That needs urgent Government intervention and attention. The Department of Health and Social Care must work with other Departments to provide business support grants and relief. Additionally, dentists are still not acknowledged to be critical care workers in this lockdown—a matter that has already been mentioned by other Members, and that the Secretary of State needs to review. Patients have also had to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, Janet; 4.42 pm has been reached. I do apologise. We move on to the Front-Bench contributions. I call Alex Norris.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I join colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate. Timing is everything in politics, and this is well timed indeed. I will cover the point that she made about imposed targets shortly, but I do not want to miss the contributions that she made about health inequalities and cancer, which I thought were really important.
I do not think that it is a great surprise that there was cross-party coverage and, frankly, a lot of consensus. Concerns about the targets were expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), the hon. Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I must say, though, that a spirited case for the defence was made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford).
I was glad to hear dental labs brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I will address them myself, but they are too often lost in this conversation. I also thought that important contributions were made by the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) about the pre-covid status quo not being what we should aspire to. Again, I shall address that myself.
Dentistry, like every industry, has had to battle its way through this pandemic—closed at first, worried for jobs and livelihoods, reopening desperate to address growing need, and innovating to do that as safely possible in challenging circumstances. We should be very grateful for the work that dentists and their staff have done and are doing, but even with that work 20 million appointments were lost between March and November. That is a backlog that we will live with for many years.
Although the dental profession has adapted well to provide urgent care through covid, the crisis has highlighted the need to do things differently and to do things better. As we rebuild post covid, we have a unique opportunity to not return to business as normal but instead shift the focus of dentistry in this country from the short term to the long term, and from the reactive to the preventative. I strongly believe that a more prevention-focused approach is something that many dentists across the country want for the benefit of their patients. I know that the chief dental officer is a big advocate of prevention being at the heart of NHS dentistry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand. There are some 6,000 registered dental technicians who provide dental implants such as crowns and bridges to 80% of UK patients. It is predicted that 1,000 of them will lose their jobs by July 2021. If that happens, we will be unable to address the issue of dentistry in the future.
Alex Norris
I completely share that perspective, and I will cover that in my final points.
On prevention, I hope that the Minister will make a commitment that the Government want to move towards a preventative model. If she does that, the Opposition will work with her to deliver it.
Of course, there is a more immediate issue at hand. On 17 December, as colleagues have said, NHS England imposed new activity targets on NHS dental practices, which took effect at the beginning of this month. At the beginning of the pandemic the Government were right to step in and offer dentists their full contract for a much smaller proportion of their usual activity. We supported that then and we still do. It is also right to seek to increase capacity to help tackle the backlog, and avoid NHS patients being pushed into the private sector. However, what has followed is a mess, with negotiations between NHS England and the General Dental Practice Committee breaking down, and so targets being imposed on the sector, with practices needing to hit 45% of their pre-pandemic activity targets in the first quarter of this year.
Allowing negotiations to break down like that, rather than intervening to ensure that an agreement was found, is a failure of leadership by this Government. Where have they been on this issue? Whether we think that dentists are right or wrong in their perspective, and whether we think the figure should be 45%, 55% or 35%, surely we would agree that an imposed target is a failure of leadership.
It simply will not do that such a crucial part of our health service has working arrangements that discomfort it so greatly. NHS England would never pursue a work pattern that is dangerous, but there are reasonable questions about how practical it is. It is not just dentists raising that; we have had public pronouncements of concern from the faculty and the colleges. There should have been a negotiated deal that found common ground. I know the Minister is a consensus builder and I enjoy working with her. I hope she will say that she will step in to build consensus and fix this, and Labour will support her in that venture.
In the meantime, I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance on areas of concern relating to this: first, if practices do not hit that 45% of pre-covid activity, and instead land at between 36% and 45%, any reduction will be proportionate to the full payment; it will be downscaled in ratio. However, below 36%, a practice will drop off the cliff edge and not get its contract. That is concerning because in November that would have applied to 40% of practices. Those targets were put in prior to the third wave of the pandemic gripping, and we know that is having an impact. Eight in 10 practices have seen increased cancellations or missed appointments, and three quarters of practices have experienced staff absences this month alone.
Will the Minister therefore reassure the House that she will look again at that element to ensure that dentists have a fair chance of meeting targets and are not unfairly penalised if they do not, through no fault of their own? I know there will be a regional analysis of whether there are extraneous factors. I hope the Minister will endorse and double underscore that today.
Secondly, will the Minister offer reassurances that the use of units of dental activity will not incentivise just the treatments that fit in a little more easily—for example, check-ups that do not require fallow periods—while disincentivising more urgent complex care, and care that does not count towards the target? Thirdly, I am concerned about the wellbeing of dentists and their staff, because 45% of UK dental professionals feel that their mental wellbeing is worse compared with the start of the pandemic. What steps are in place to support our workforce? We have a duty of care towards them.
I will conclude with a point about dental laboratories. They make the crowns, bridges, dentures, and more, on which dentistry relies. While the Government acted quickly to protect the dental industry—as I said, we supported them on that—there has been nothing for dental labs, which have seen their orders collapse. Many have shuttered and will never reopen. People are leaving that skilled profession, but we are going to need them again, and in greater volumes as we catch up. Instead, we will now buy those products from the continent and beyond, all around the world, and we will have lost skilled work because we let it wither. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity today to announce relief for that.
Dentistry is a vital part of our NHS. Dentists and their staff have fought valiantly to keep the industry going in unprecedented times. Now they are at a crossroads and need political help. The Government must step up and resolve the contracting issue, and work with dentists to build a new exciting future for dentistry, preventing ill health, rather than chasing it. If they meet the moment, we will support them, but if they do not we will call them out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and indeed the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important Back-Bench debate. It is the second debate we have had on dentistry in about 10 weeks. Access to dentistry is, I think, something that unites us across the House. There has been something of a paradox during the debate, however. On the one hand, we have spoken about how patients cannot access the service they need and how we have seen demand rise so that now we essentially have only urgent and essential care waiting out there for us when we get through the pandemic; and then we have spoken about the fact that it is challenging—I agree, it is challenging—to reach 11.25% of an annual quota in the next three months. I hope to explain how we are ensuring that that is to support patients. I was quite saddened that support for patients was perhaps a quieter voice in the debate than support for the profession. This is only going to work if we support them both.
The pandemic has had, and continues to have, a significant impact on dentistry. First, I want to put on record my gratitude to dentists and their teams for their work in this difficult year. Dentists and their staff kept vital care going through the initial peak both remotely and in frontline urgent dental care centres. In addition, many volunteered to be deployed, if needed, on frontline covid services. Their contribution as healthcare professionals has been, and continues to be, greatly appreciated.
In early 2020, the nature of the novel virus that causes covid-19, and consequently the risks for dentistry, were unknown. However, we knew that the risk of transmission via aerosols, which are frequently generated in dental procedures, was high. As a result, face-to-face urgent care at the start of the pandemic was restricted to designated urgent dental care centres. Over 600 were stood up and they remain open to support all our constituents. The remainder of NHS high street practices were asked to provide remote consultations, complemented by the triple As: advice, analgesics and, where appropriate, antimicrobials.
In the initial guidance issued by Public Health England, dentists had to wear enhanced PPE and, crucially, to upgrade transmission-based precautions through their practices. This meant, obviously, that there was more time between patients and fewer patients could be serviced. I would just like to clarify a point. All NHS dentists can access free PPE from the e-portal, which has now delivered over 1 billion items to our frontline NHS services. To reduce the risk of subsequent transmission by airborne or droplet route, a post-procedure fallow time is needed.
All dental practices, as we have heard, were able to start offering face-to-face NHS care from 8 June, providing they had the appropriate PPE and infection prevention and control procedures in place. All dentistry could start, including private dentistry. Most dentists—this has not come out today, particularly—operate a mixed NHS and private model, but whether private or NHS, as a profession, dentists put their patients’ needs first and they resumed their services as soon as they could.
All NHS dental practices in England should now be offering face-to-face care, but during this difficult period practices have been asked to prioritise urgent care, address any delayed planned care and ensure provision for vulnerable groups. So they are not taking the easy route of just doing the routine, but focusing on the people who need it most. Actually, dentistry was difficult beforehand in rural and coastal areas. The UDA introduced in 2006 does not work particularly effectively, but we cannot change that here and now, so we have to try to provide care to as many people and as many of the most vulnerable as we can.
Between 1 April and 31 December, dental contracts were paid in full, minus the abatement—the agreed deduction for running costs—in the initial lockdown period. As stated, that has not yet been taken. The focus is now on increasing dental provision as safely as possible. Important work has been done to determine how we reduce those fallow times in surgery. The advice has been made available through the UK infection prevention and control guidance for dental settings set by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. It is a national benchmark for infection prevention and control that is applicable to patient care in all practices in England. The consensus on fallow time published in the IPC guidance has allowed for a reduction in the time between patients and in some cases, if possible—particularly where there is ventilation—to reduce it to 10 minutes from the time the dentist places their equipment down, perhaps while the patient leaves the room, until they pick it up again for the next patient. This is an important step forward.
We have been working closely with NHSE on what level of NHS dental services can be safely delivered to the end of March. The letter was published in December setting out the requirements for NHS dental contractors in the next three months, and where activity targets are not met, perhaps through sickness or other challenges, an exceptions process is quite rightly in place. We are asking dentists to record the DNAs—patients who did not attend—sickness and all other things that might militate against them being able to deliver 11.25% down to 9%, so less than 10% of the activity they were delivering last year.
I hope that provides reassurance, and I hope that all hon. Members will understand that at the forefront of these considerations is the safety of patients and the safety of dentists and their dental teams. They are essential workers. They are in category 2, they are patient-facing frontline health workers and they are to be vaccinated in the first swathe. Indeed, I know that the chief executive of my own CCG is contacting all the dental surgeries that have been listed so that they cannot be missed. Obviously there is little jurisdiction over private practices; we have an influence over NHS practices, but not over how private businesses proceed.
My personal view is that a transformation in dentistry is necessary, particularly if we are to address the challenges that the pandemic has highlighted and the inequalities, particularly around children’s oral health. I wish to see a change in the way we approach dentistry and oral health. I have asked officials and NHSE to ensure that high-quality preventive work is at the forefront of future provision and that a transformation in commissioning takes place. We have an enormously talented profession out there whose skills are not being utilised. They can help us not only with the mouth cancers that are not getting diagnosed if they are not seeing patients but with dietary advice. They can do so much more. They diagnose conditions such as diabetes, by noticing the inflammatory nature of the mouth. There is a huge opportunity to deliver a greater range of health advice, monitoring and support, using dentists and their teams. Arrangements for 2021-22 and beyond are being worked on, and I expect this to be done despite the pandemic and worked on urgently.
Before I close, I would just like to add my support to the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for fluoridation. That is something I am extremely sympathetic towards, for the benefit of children’s health. I am clear that, in looking at these options, nothing should be ruled out and patients should be our first priority.
Fleur Anderson
I thank all the MPs who have spoken in this debate from across the country, showing a lot of cross-party agreement on what we are asking for today. The message from all those people who contacted their MPs about this debate—dentists and patients—is loud and clear: dentists cannot reach their targets at the moment. That will mean financial insecurity and the destabilisation of dental provision that already has problems, which will impact patients. I say respectfully to the Minister that she has not heard the patients’ voice, and that actually, patients really want their dentist to be there in the future. That is the risk that we face at the moment.
I welcome what the Minister said about free PPE—I hope that includes ventilators—and the commitment to vaccinating dental staff, but I respectfully say that I do not think she has provided reassurance. The exceptions process has been demanded by dentists contacting all the MPs we have heard from today. So it is going to be a massive application with a huge amount of red tape. It does not allow for the space constraints of dentists, the sickness being faced by dental staff during lockdown, and the message to stay at home, which is stopping people going to the dentist. I ask her to reflect on the whole debate, to rethink the decision, to get around the table with the British Dental Association, to look again at those targets and to meet me, if possible, to talk about this further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of covid-19 on dental services.
Vitamin D: Covid-19
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
May I start by giving my thanks to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who cannot be with us today, but who is a fantastic ally of mine in this campaign to help protect our public?
Today, the nation is facing the second peak in the worst health crisis in living memory. To date, nearly 85,000 people have died. In November, the death rate was 175 fatalities per million, in December that figure was 222, and it looks as though January will be more than 324. To deal with this catastrophe, the Government are reluctantly instituting tough lockdowns and considering even tougher ones. Whether these measures work is disputed by some, but there is no doubt that they are incredibly costly—in economic damage, in individual freedom, in mental health, and even in lives lost to other causes.
As the death rate per million climbs month by month, from 175 in November to 324 now, the strategy certainly is not working as well as we would hope. Compare that with the province of Andalusia, a Spanish province of more than 8 million people. It started in November with a situation worse than ours—189 deaths per million as against 175—but which cut its death rate by at least two thirds while ours was doubling. That reduction, from between 50 and 70 deaths a day in November to between five and 15 deaths a day currently, started immediately after it initiated a programme of issuing calcifediol, the fast-acting high potency form of vitamin D, to at risk groups including care home residents.
The first thing that I will ask the Minister to do—not today obviously, but afterwards—is to look closely at that policy experiment and see whether vitamin D was the key to what is a spectacular success in cutting death rates by anybody’s measure. I believe that the Government in Madrid are reviewing it. So should we.
For decades, researchers and medical professionals have been warning that there is a pandemic in vitamin D deficiency, with more than 1 billion people worldwide being vitamin D deficient. The warning bells for this ignored pandemic had been ringing long before the World Health Organisation declared the outbreak of covid-19 as an official pandemic on 11 March last year. Those warnings should have been especially loud in the UK, as our vitamin deficiency levels have been described in a recent research study as “alarmingly high.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given that children have been precluded, for very obvious reasons, from taking the vaccine, we need to be proactive in building up their immune system? Will he join me in asking the Minister and the Health and Social Care Department to work with the Education Department to provide free vitamin D to every school-age child? I have asked the Minister in Northern Ireland to do the very same.
Mr Davis
It is an excellent idea and I do join him in that request.
On the question of medical education, it has long been understood that vitamin D plays a critical role in calcium uptake and the prevention of diseases such as rickets and osteoporosis. That was what was thought to be its main effect. Since1983, there has been a large amount of research demonstrating its critical involvement in the body’s immune system. Many of the mechanisms involved are now very well understood. By 2017, it had been clearly shown in a number of randomised clinical trials that vitamin D deficiency was a very significant issue in acute respiratory disorders such as flu, colds, pneumonia—the lot—and correcting the deficiency with supplementation could reduce the severity of symptoms by as much as 70%. This and other research showed that vitamin D had a critical role in the activation of both the innate and the adaptive immune systems and in modulating some of their responses, most notably the now infamous cytokine storms. Deficiency in vitamin D led to compromised immune systems and, as a result, susceptibility to a number of diseases, most particularly respiratory diseases but of course also covid-19. Despite this evidence to suggest that vitamin D has wider health benefits than just bone health, and despite our particularly exposed situation in the UK, our public health bodies have done little to correct this problem.
At the beginning of the covid-19 crisis, several well-respected research teams noticed a high correspondence between low vitamin D levels—deficiency—in the blood and severity of covid-19 symptoms in patients. Early evidence suggested a strong link between the two, with studies showing that 40% of patients who suffered severe covid-19 outcomes were vitamin D deficient compared with 4% of those with sufficient levels of vitamin D. Moreover, mortality rates of vitamin D deficient patients were dramatically higher than for patients who had sufficient levels of vitamin D. These were correlational studies, so they were not proof of causality, but they were massively indicative given the prior evidence of the importance of vitamin D to the immune system. So this was startling evidence.
Therefore, in early May last year, I wrote to the Health Secretary calling on the Government to urgently review the available evidence to assess the role that vitamin D could play in helping us to combat this dreaded virus. The Health Secretary, quite reasonably, handed this work to his health advisers and ordered them to undertake a rapid review of the evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence attempted to analyse the statistical data and came back unconvinced. The problem is that correlation is not a proof of cause and effect, and a correlation, albeit a strong one, was all that we had at that point. In effect, NICE said that more data was necessary. One would think that at this point it would have initiated a large, well-designed random control trial to pin down the question: is vitamin D a causal factor in bad covid outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality? After all, it is an incredibly serious disease and this is a very cheap and safe treatment. Not only did it not do this, but two applications for funding to carry out random control trials were turned down. Since then, more general global evidence in many other countries has grown in strength, which makes the inaction all the more questionable. Several studies have been published showing how low vitamin D levels lead to poorer outcomes for covid-19 victims.
In September 2020, the results of the world’s first randomised control trial—the gold standard of medical research—on vitamin D and covid-19 were published. The trial, conducted in the south of Spain at a hospital in Córdoba, involved 76 patients suffering from covid-19 sufficiently badly to have been hospitalised. Fifty of the patients were given vitamin D and the remaining 26 were not. Half of those not given vitamin D became so ill that they needed to be put in intensive care. By comparison, only one person of the 50 given vitamin D required ICU admission—just one. To put it another way, the use of vitamin D seemed to reduce a patient’s risk of needing intensive care twenty-fivefold.
Other studies have shown, at a statistically significant level, large reductions in mortality too. There was an experimental study conducted at a nursing home in France with 66 participants. The outcome of that study was that taking regular vitamin D supplements was associated with less severe covid and a better survival rate. Evidence from the United Memorial Medical Center and Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, both in the US, showed that they could get a more than 75% absolute risk-of-death reduction and reduction in mortality when treating patients with a cocktail of treatments including vitamin D. Researchers at Eastern Virginia Medical School who designed the protocol estimate that if their approach, including vitamin D-to-patient management, had been widely implemented at the start of the pandemic, it could have saved many, many thousands of lives.
The results of these studies are stark and clear-cut, and what was originally dismissed in some quarters is now backed by leading medics around the globe. Richard Carmona, the 17th surgeon-general of the United States, has said:
“The response to the pandemic…should include an effort to aggressively eliminate what is becoming apparent as a morbidity and mortality risk factor in COVID-19—vitamin D deficiency.”
Dr Carmona pointed out that the classical criteria for dealing with correlation evidence was, ironically, drawn up in this country by the great British physicians Sir Austin Bradford Hill and Sir Richard Doll in their study of smoking and lung cancer. They deduced that it was possible to use correlational data to show causality if certain other conditions could be shown: consistency of evidence, specificity of evidence, dose responsiveness and what they called temporality, which basically means that what happens first is the cause and what happens second is the effect—it is fairly obvious when you put it in English.
The simple fact is that we can show that all the Bradford Hill criteria are met for vitamin D and covid-19 if we look at the many separate individually small but collectively persuasive studies. Every single one of the criteria can be seen to be met. That is presumably why Dr Anthony Fauci, famously the head of the US Coronavirus Task Force—a difficult job at the time—has said:
“There is good evidence that if you have a low vitamin D level… you have more of a propensity to get infected”.
These are serious voices that are now backed up by serious evidence.
To give the Government proper credit, they have instigated the provision of a supplement free of charge to the clinically extremely vulnerable in care homes. However, if supplementation is to have any material effect, the dosage has to be sufficient to correct the existing deficiency. Sadly, with the Government’s programme for the clinically extremely vulnerable, the supplementation falls far short of this. The Government are providing supplements of 400 international units, or IU. That is in line with what the national health service currently recommends to tackle issues surrounding bone health. By contrast, the American health authorities recommend 600 IU to 800 IU depending on age. The latest research from the Royal College of Physicians recommends that health authorities should urgently recommend a higher supplementation of 800 IU to 1,000 IU a day, which would more than double the current daily recommended dose of vitamin D.
However, even that dose—based on bone health—is not high enough to provide the additional benefits and protect against respiratory disorders such as covid-19 for those with existing deficiencies; it must be much, much higher. We are not aiming to protect elderly people in care homes from rickets. We are aiming to protect them from a lethal disease, which is a very different issue.
The vitamin is safe in quite high doses. In the summer months, a person could sunbathe for 30 minutes and get the equivalent of 20,000 IU—much more than would be taken in a daily dose. All the modern toxicological evidence indicates that if there are any deleterious effects at all, they do not happen until a much higher dose than 20,000 IU. Even the NHS, which is very cautious on this, accepts that a dosage of 4,000 IU a day is perfectly safe; it says so on its website. What is needed to provide adequate protection against covid-19 is a significantly higher dose of up to 4,000 IU per day, particularly for those vulnerable groups that tend to be deficient in the vitamin—namely, the elderly, ethnic minorities and those suffering from a number of medical conditions.
Providing the supplement to the clinically extremely vulnerable in care homes is a small step in the right direction. However, it is a drop in the ocean compared with the action the Government should be taking overall. There needs to be a wider scheme providing supplements to all at-risk populations, including the elderly, the obese, minority ethnic groups, diabetics and people with high blood pressure. That would be a tiny cost compared with other health initiatives. A year’s supply of a daily dose is likely to cost about £15 a person, so allocating it to the identified risk groups would amount to £45 million. Allocating it to those groups plus every ethnic minority citizen would cost about £200 million, and to every clinically obese person and at-risk people in other categories would cost a little more. However, those figures could be halved if the risk is more severe during the winter months and we just gave the dose then. The benefits would be enormous. That cost is a mere rounding error when we measure it against the cost of not defeating the pandemic or the cost of a lockdown.
It is by no means a coincidence that the United Kingdom has one of the worst mortality rates in the world. After all, we have one of the worst rates of vitamin D deficiency in the world—about 40% of the population—and with that, very high levels of people with compromised immune systems. However, Public Health England continues to refuse to acknowledge the growing evidence linking vitamin D deficiency and poorer covid-19 outcomes, and for this, we are now paying the price.
Vitamin D could be one of the tools that helps turn the tide in the fight against this terrible virus. Vaccines, of course, are now being rolled out, but it will still take some time to reach levels sufficient that lockdowns are no longer needed. The Government are doing a great job on vaccines, but there are limits to what they can do, and unlike the general effect of vitamin D sufficiency on the immune system, vaccines are very specific. If a person has a specific mutation, the vaccine can be rendered obsolete; that is not true of vitamin D. In the meantime, vitamin D supplements could be provided to all at-risk groups more quickly, and at a lower cost.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the UK has now had nearly 85,000 covid deaths. It is long past the point where we try anything with even a marginal chance of success to prevent those deaths rising even higher. Well, vitamin D has much more than a marginal chance of success: we now have good reason to believe that vitamin D supplementation will help reduce mortality from covid-19 and cut susceptibility to infection. It will save lives, improve population immunity, and help reduce the medical and economic impact as we continue the universal roll-out of vaccines.
There is now no reason not to act. After all, in the Secretary of State’s own words, supplementation has “no downsides”—he was right. The surgeon general whom I quoted earlier said that we should not let covid-19 patients die with vitamin D deficiency while we “wait for perfect evidence”. Vitamin D is cheap; it is safe; it has many other proven health benefits; and, as the Government of Andalucía have shown, it could be a dramatically effective weapon in our fight against covid. There is no more time to waste. The time to act is now, Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for having secured this debate, as well as to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); it would not be an Adjournment debate if he did not play his part.
As we have always said, the Government consistently review the latest data and information on covid-19 as it emerges. This, of course, includes the progress there has been in treatments for those suffering with the virus, as well as preventive measures. I would like to express my thanks to health and care workers and to the scientific community, whose dedication and hard work has made this possible, and I am sure right hon. and hon. Members from across the House will join me in doing so. Over the past months, there have been reports about vitamin D potentially reducing the risk of coronavirus, and I am aware of colleagues’ interest in the relationship between vitamin D and covid-19. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it today because, as my right hon. Friend says, nothing should be taken off the table, and we should be constantly vigilant when it comes to new science and information.
Several nutrients are involved in the normal functioning of the immune system; however, there is currently insufficient evidence that taking vitamin D will mitigate the effects of covid-19. In collaboration with Public Health England and the scientific advisory community on nutrition, NICE has published a rapid guideline on vitamin D in relation to covid-19, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. That data was reviewed by an expert panel and included the best available scientific advice published so far, including both randomised control trials and observational trials. That expert panel supported current Government advice, and the recommendation for everyone to take a 10 microgram vitamin D supplement throughout autumn and winter. However, it concluded that there is not currently enough evidence to support taking vitamin D in order to help, or treat, covid-19. There are still significant gaps in the current evidence, and studies to date have not reached the high level of data quality required to revise the guidance.
I heard what my right hon. Friend said about not wasting time, but as he mentioned, the Spanish study to which he alluded only included 76 participants. The smaller the sample group, the more challenging it can be to draw conclusions about the effect. We are also dealing with very poorly people, with multiple different factors affecting how they are responding and what they are responding to, so it is important to ensure that we can rely on that data. Indeed, there was a good double-blind trial before Christmas that showed no effect. However, there is a large-scale trial currently at Queen Mary University of London. I hope that it will give us some good clarity when it reports later in the year.
The current evidence base is mixed, and dominated by studies that are not always of great quality, with substantial concerns about bias and confounding. At the moment, they are unable to demonstrate that causal relationship between vitamin D and covid-19, because many risk factors for severe covid-19 outcomes are the same as for low vitamin D status. Due to the lack of reliable evidence, the NICE guideline recommends that more research is conducted. Government guidance continues to stress the use of high-quality randomised controlled trials in future studies. There are 70 trials under way in the UK and internationally, including some very high-quality ones that will answer key questions from NICE, Public Health England and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, and they are monitoring this new evidence. My right hon. Friend asked for my assurance that we are doing that, and I can give him that.
The long-standing Government advice is that, between October and early March, everyone should take a supplement containing 10 micrograms, or 400 international units, of vitamin D a day. Vitamin D helps to regulate the amount of calcium and phosphate in the body, and protects bone and muscle health. In April and autumn 2020, PHE reiterated its advice. It also ran a marketing campaign throughout December 2020. This had a specific focus on the communities mentioned by my right hon. Friend, in particular the BAME community, for whom vitamin D supplementation is very important. PHE advice to continue taking vitamin D supplements is important for those who are shielding, care home residents and prisoners, as well as for those who choose to cover most of their skin when outdoors. As he said, BAME individuals have a greater risk of not having high enough levels of vitamin D, and are advised to take a supplement all year round.
We are actively supporting the uptake of PHE’s recommendations to ensure that those who need vitamin D supplementation receive it. The Government are providing a free four-month supply of 10 microgram vitamin D supplements to all adults on the clinically extremely vulnerable list, going far beyond care home residents who have opted in, residents in residential and nursing care homes in England, and the prison population; Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service have made supplements available across England and Wales. Through this commitment, this winter we have offered 2.7 million eligible people in England free vitamin D supplements, and to further drive uptake we have extended the registration period to 21 February so that even more people can benefit.
The Government have prioritised groups who were asked to stay indoors more than usual in the spring and summer due to national restrictions. In addition, recipients of the Healthy Start scheme are also offered access to vitamin supplements by the Government, and of course GPs and pharmacists may be approached for general advice on taking vitamin D. However, we do not expect this measure to place any additional burden on either group, as they are under some pressure during the current pandemic. Guidance can be found online and we encourage individuals to buy 10 microgram vitamin D supplements, which are easily available from supermarkets, chemists, and health food shops.
We must keep looking at the evidence, and as research into the impact of vitamin D on covid-19 continues, we will continue to monitor it as it is published in real time. We have committed to keep this under review. PHE, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and NICE will update advice if and when necessary. Of course, I welcome any further studies into this emerging area.
I know my right hon. Friend wants us to move at pace. He embarks on everything he does with enthusiasm and vigour. However, I am sure he will agree that we are nudging along and some progress has been made. Future decisions should and must be based on robust evidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Recognition of sub postmasters
Support for post offices
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 14th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2021 - (14 Jan 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings of this Committee. I would also like to remind Members of the need to observe the rules on physical distancing, both in this room and when entering and leaving via the marked entrance and exit doors. It is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly in order to avoid delays for other Members and staff. Date Time Witness Thursday 14 January Until no later than 12.30 pm Three; O2; Vodafone Thursday 14 January Until no later than 1.00 pm British Telecommunications Thursday 14 January Until no later than 2.45 pm Mobile UK; TechUK Thursday 14 January Until no later than 3.30 pm Mavenir; NEC Europe Ltd Thursday 14 January Until no later than 4.15 pm Small Cell Forum; Digital Policy Alliance Thursday 14 January Until no later than 4.45 pm British Standards Institution; Royal United Services Institute Tuesday 19 January Until no later than 10.10 am Webb Search; Oxford Information Labs Tuesday 19 January Until no later than 10.45 am Dr Alexi Drew, the Centre for Science and Security Studies, King’s College London Tuesday 19 January Until no later than 11.25 am The Office of Communications Tuesday 19 January Until no later than 2.45 pm Catapult Compound Semiconductor Applications; Dr Nick Johnson; UtterBerry Tuesday 19 January Until no later than 3.30 pm MWE Media Ltd; Lumenisity; Dr David Cleevely CBE Tuesday 19 January Until no later than 4.00 pm Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions, before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope, but cannot insist, that we take those matters without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed on Tuesday by the Programming Sub-Committee for this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30am on Thursday 14 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 January;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 January;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 January;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 January;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 January;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following table:
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 28 January.—(Matt Warman.)
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I have no problem with the programme motion, because it is sensible, but I want to put it on record that it is frankly nonsense for us to come in today and sit in a room to take evidence from virtual witnesses, as we will do next week as well. There is no reason why evidence sittings, particularly, could not happen remotely. I have attended two meetings this week, including a meeting on Tuesday of the Defence Committee, which took evidence from witnesses virtually.
I understand that things are being done in this way at the insistence of the Leader of the House. I think he is hiding behind the usual channels having sorted it out. I want to put it on the record that that is not true and that objections have been raised by the official Opposition, certainly about evidence sittings being done in this way. If we are to travel long distances, as many of those present have, to get here today and next week, that flies in the face of the advice of not only the Government but Public Health England about moving between areas.
I do not know whether, at this late stage, we could at least consider whether next week’s evidence could be taken virtually, because it is a bit ironic that we are sitting in a room here—I accept your rulings about social distancing and so on, Mr Hollobone—and that the evidence that we shall listen to from the witnesses today and next week will be given virtually.
The Chair
Mr Jones, I note your remarks and know that many others will share your view. As the Chair of the Committee I can operate only under the rules that I have been given by the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Matt Warman.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to Members by email and made available here in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Matt Warman.)
The Chair
All our witnesses today will be giving evidence by video link. Before calling the first panel of witnesses, I should first like to remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has just agreed. For this first panel, we have until 12.30 pm. Secondly, may I ask whether any hon. Members on the Committee wish to declare now any relevant interests in connection with this Bill?
I now call the first panel of witnesses: Patrick Binchy, technical services director at Three, Derek McManus, chief operating officer at O2 and Andrea Donà, UK head of networks at Vodafone. Would the witnesses please be kind enough to introduce themselves for the record?
Patrick Binchy: Good morning. I am Patrick Binchy, and I work for Three, as you said, as the technical services director. I do not know what happened previously, but we lost some degree of ability to hear what you were saying. I think it was Chi Onwurah who was talking, but we could not hear what she was saying, and then it went completely silent for about two minutes.
The Chair
Patrick, I think that was because we were in private session, deciding how we were going to conduct our affairs. You were not cut off out of any rudeness; it was simply that we were going through some procedural matters. May I ask Derek McManus to introduce himself, please?
Derek McManus: Good morning. My name is Derek McManus; I am the chief operating officer of O2 in the UK, and part of my responsibility is therefore network.
The Chair
Thank you. Andrea Donà?
Andrea Donà: Good morning, everyone. I am Andrea Donà; I head up networks for Vodafone UK. I would like to thank you all for inviting us today; I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee.
The Chair
Q
Patrick Binchy: Other than thanking you for the ability to represent the industry here, I do not have anything to add, thank you.
Derek McManus: I will add my thanks too. As I have said, my name is Derek McManus, chief operating officer. My teams run the network and the roll-out of 5G and maintain the security and integrity of the network. I am here to answer questions on the Bill and the impact from a business and operational perspective. The security Bill and associated diversification strategy need to be viewed as part of wider powers and requirements being introduced via the Telecommunications (Security) Bill.
The telecoms sector faces considerable costs—resources and time, among other things—in introducing new security measures in the Bill while removing HRVs from networks and looking into diversifying. A balanced approach that gives the sector time to implement the new measures in a cost-effective manner is essential if the Government want the same individuals and companies to develop and roll out ORAN while maintaining and building a secure network.
Andrea Donà: Vodafone accepts the UK Government’s policy on high-risk vendors and continues to work actively with the NCSC and the Government on maintaining the highest security standards in our network. We want to ensure that the objectives of the Bill are fulfilled. We also welcomed the Government’s recently published 5G diversification strategy and the policy framework that comes with it. The strategy sets out ways in which the Government plan to work with industry, and we very much welcome that. We also support the Government’s drive for higher minimum security standards in the telecoms network, and we are continuing to work with DCMS, the NCSC and Ofcom to ensure that all those relevant measures to protect our customers are implemented.
The Chair
Thank you. We have three superb witnesses from Three, O2 and Vodafone. I am now in the hands of Members.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Q
I should have mentioned, as an interest, that I spent 20 years working in the telecoms industry within four network operators and vendors, as well as Ofcom, the regulator. I also may know personally some of the witnesses.
The Chair
It sounds like you might be dangerously over-qualified to take part in this Committee.
Chi Onwurah
You make a very good point, Mr Hollobone. I am going to try to keep my engineering and technical interest as much to the back as possible.
I am the shadow Minister for digital, and I am leading for Labour on this Bill. I will focus on the costs of removing Huawei and the diversification strategy, and Opposition colleagues will be focusing on different areas. I thank you for your presence and expertise. I want to ask two somewhat related questions.
First, some have given estimates of the costs of removing Huawei from your networks, and I want to verify whether those are the most up-to-date estimates. I also want to know whether they include opportunity costs, and the time and resources from your boards and others in your organisations. Are they the full costs, if you like, of the removal of Huawei? How can we minimise the economic impact, in your view? Are there other significant costs associated with the Bill and the implementation of a new security framework?
Secondly, your mobile network procurement is currently made through what I will call full-service providers, such as Huawei, Ericsson and Nokia. They basically design and make a network, and provide it to you—I know it is not quite as simple as that. Do you think the removal of Huawei or the develop of open RAN will change that? Critically, is the Government’s diversification strategy likely to lead to the emergence of significant full-service suppliers that will compete head on with the remaining suppliers, Ericsson and Nokia? If not, what other measures should the Government consider taking? How best can the Government work with partners around the world to achieve their goals? That is quite a lot in two questions.
Patrick Binchy: There was quite a lot in those questions. I guess the first thing is that the costs are obviously commercially sensitive, and we cannot disclose them in a public environment, but we would be very happy to respond to any of the Members or the Committee in private to give the detail behind that. At a more generic level, there will, of course, be cost to the industry and to Three. We had selected Huawei to build our 5G network, and we have now selected a second vendor, Ericsson. We have to go through the process of mobilising Ericsson and removing the Huawei equipment, which has a cost to it and will have an impact.
In terms of the diversification of the market, there are really only two players in the UK market now. As you rightly point out, there are service as well as equipment capabilities within those suppliers. As we look for diversification, we need to diversify across all those aspects of the market. We are working with the Government, NCSC and DCMS in terms of how to approach that and how to build that. We will continue to support that as we go forward.
Derek McManus: We have similar commercial sensitivities on cost. You may or may not be aware that we are not indebted to Huawei. For our network, the cost of removing from the radio network is relatively small compared to some of our competitors. So, I will focus more on your second question, if that is okay.
You are absolutely right that we tend to buy end-to-end service in the current mobile environment. ORAN today is set up with a quite separate and different supply chain, with different companies specialising in software, different companies specialising in hardware and specialists doing the integration. It is likely to change the nature and relationship that we will have with supplies. ORAN is relatively immature in its development. As it is technically and commercially ready for scale deployment, that may well change. But we see today that the leaders in ORAN tend to be smaller companies specialising in the hardware or, more specifically, the software.
Andrea Donà: Very much like my colleagues, I am more than happy to write to the Committee in the future, once we have completed our procurement process, with the details on the cost for replacing our high-risk vendor. More specifically, when it comes to the diversification strategy and the role that open RAN has, we at Vodafone believe that the UK should seek to be a leader in open RAN. We are, indeed, leading the way, and have committed to swapping out 2,600 of our base stations to an open RAN technology.
In order to fulfil that ambition, the current timescales for removing the high-risk vendor equipment must remain unchanged. We need the stability and the time, as Derek rightly points out, to allow industry and Government to develop a diverse supply chain and allow the technology to mature, both in its functionality and its capability, as well as the possibility of scaling industrially. The legacy vendors have had a lot of time in the market to develop their competence. We need to support any new entrants in the open RAN space with appropriate investment incentives and a policy framework that attracts and supports new entrants in the open RAN space.
The Chair
Three Members have indicated that they would like to ask questions. We will take them in the following order: James Sunderland, Miriam Cates and Kevan Jones.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Q
Patrick Binchy: I think, initially, it is not for the industry to comment on and define national security and risk. That is for the Government. However, we absolutely support whatever is put in place beyond that. I think that this Bill, in the way that it is structured, very much helps with that, because not giving a definition, and the way that it will be able to include additional vendors and additional technologies, gives it the flexibility to move forward and to adapt to threats, whether they are technical or through suppliers in the future. In that way, it is well constructed.
Irrespective of the Bill itself, we work with the security bodies on a regular basis—on a day-to-day basis—and we continue to do that, to protect the British public from any and all security threats. And I would add that the UK is actually very well advanced in terms of protecting itself and its security posture.
Derek McManus: Similarly, I am the COO of a commercial organisation; I am really not best placed to answer that point specifically. But what I will say is that we run our business by security by design—it is a key part of the evolution of our network and all of our services. I believe that as an industry we are actively engaged with the security forces to deliver a good track record in terms of national security from telecoms. It is important that we continue to do that. Everyone who is connected closely to security knows that it constantly evolves as technology evolves, and the continued collaboration between the industry, the Government and the security forces is essential beyond the completion of the Bill.
Andrea Donà: Similarly to my colleagues, I am not in a position to comment on national security. What I would say is that Vodafone worked very closely with Government on how the Bill best enables us to secure our networks in practice. I think it is very important that we maintain a very close collaboration as we work in implementing the Bill.
We believe the Bill is sufficiently flexible for the Secretary of State and Ofcom to interpret the security threats and issue notices to providers to deal with them. Reviewing the legislation at regular intervals to assess its efficacy in the face of new technological challenges, and also in the light of new strategic aims by Government and that constant review involving the industry, will be very welcome for us. Our continual engagement will enable us to ensure that the new regulations can be enforced in practice effectively to achieve the scope of the Bill.
The Chair
Thank you. We will come to Miriam Cates next. Then, after Miriam, the order will be Kevan Jones, David Johnston, Christian Matheson, Dean Russell and James Wild.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Q
Patrick Binchy: In line with the previous answer, I cannot go through the specific commercials—they are commercially and competitively sensitive. But I would be happy to take such questions offline if you want to follow up on that.
Regarding the 2027 deadline, I think there is a balance here between UK connectivity and UK security. First and foremost, I would say that we have a security regime in place today. We use the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre to check all of the technology that comes through Huawei and goes into UK networks, and we work closely with the security authorities to make sure that we are protecting the UK public today. We also have full visibility of any traffic that is transiting our network, either incoming or outgoing, so we are confident that we have the security in place today that is necessary.
In terms of achieving the 2027 timeline, that is a challenge. It is not going to be easy, because we need to balance that national connectivity against security and do it in a way that ensures that we continue to provide good-quality connectivity to the public.
There are a number of timelines within the legislation. We do not think the timeline for 2021 in terms of using equipment is a major issue. The 2023 35% cap and the 2027 are challenging, but we have plans in place. We have put our second vendor in place. They are already rolling our 5G network out in Manchester, Glasgow and Reading, and we are confident that we can meet those timelines and supply good-quality connectivity to the UK public.
Derek McManus: I think everybody, particularly in this environment, understands the immediate value of connectivity in the situation that we as UK society face. In terms of the opportunity for that connectivity to be part of economic growth as we evolve 5G and help build the economy, those are two of the competing challenges that we have to balance, while also removing HRVs and delivering diversification.
Yes, it is a matter of balancing costs in terms of investment, but we also have to recognise the customer disruption caused by removal of equipment. It is important that we maintain those other two key criteria—that important connectivity and that support to economic growth. By working together and taking the right balance, the Bill’s timescales are appropriate. I cannot, obviously, talk about the plans of individual businesses to meet the deadlines, but as an industry, I think it is appropriate.
Andrea Donà: At Vodafone, we believe that the Government’s decision to set a timeframe of 2027 truly reflects the complexity of what we have been asked to do. It is important that the deadline of 2027 does not change further. We need certainty and a fixed time plan so that we can plan for the future. Any further changes will disrupt our investment plans and will also cause undesired further disruption, as we attempt to accelerate a swap out that is, in itself, very complex, and will deliver inevitable disruption to our customers—the businesses and the public services. We are actively working with all the involved parties—the Government, Ofcom, NCSC and DCMS—to ensure that we minimise disruption. It is a complicated and difficult effort from a technology perspective, but also from the perspective of the practical implementation on the ground.
If the Government truly share our ambition to be a leader in digital infrastructure, we need to ensure that we give the high-risk vendor enough time to carry out the plans, under a very well-defined timescale and, as I said earlier, in parallel, allow the diversification agenda to grow, as well as the stability, to allow new entrants to come in and be a viable alternative to the incumbent high-risk vendor that we are swapping out.
The Chair
We will come on to Kevan Jones. Now I am getting the hang of this now, I do not think it is fair to always ask Patrick to be the first out of the blocks to answer the questions, so I will try to rotate so that everyone has a chance of going first.
Mr Jones
Q
Having met many of you at a previous Committee and taken evidence from you, it is clear that there is little profit to be made on the hardware side because we all want cheaper phone calls, and you obviously react to customer demand to try to get costs down. What are the realistic prospects of any UK-based company or other vendor coming into the hardware side? On open RAN, I accept that it is for the future, but what timescales are we talking about for that having an impact on how our telecoms networks are organised?
Derek McManus: On timescales for ORAN, I think we are very early in the evolution of that technology. There are trials in the UK, as there are in various markets across the world. In our view, it will be at least a couple of years before you have a viable technical and commercial product, focused initially on rural. To have diversification in a meaningful way, you have to have scale, and scale will take a number of years beyond that—I would say five to eight years to get a real, viable-scale vendor to challenge the two incumbents.
On your previous question about the likelihood of there being UK players in that market, the UK used to have a very healthy telecoms supply industry, which sadly over time has faded away. I think it is more likely that the UK could play in the software part of the future of radio, and particularly ORAN, than in the hardware part. I cannot see today a viable UK hardware provider. Actually, there are not that many UK telecoms suppliers around. But software is a bigger opportunity. Part of the diversification work that is going on with the industry and Government is looking at ways to encourage the inclusion of UK business in that emerging opportunity.
Mr Jones
Q
Derek McManus: Yes, and if you look at the scale of mobile growth, the fact that there are only two remaining viable competitors is an indication of how difficult it is to have competition in today’s marketplace. That is technical and, to meet the economic challenges, that requires scale, too. There are other providers in the marketplace, but only two provide the 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G capability that the current UK markets require.
Andrea Donà: To answer the specific question on timescales, Vodafone UK is pioneering the development of open RAN. We were the first operator to achieve a commercial open RAN solution, in August last year, having delivered the first commercial open RAN unit on the ground radiating and carrying traffic at the Royal Welsh showground. We recently developed and announced plans to deploy open RAN across 2,600 sites. It is a promising innovation, but it is not yet mature enough to match the traditional vendors in terms of functionality and efficiency on an industrial scale.
However, if the UK wants to lead in this field and take advantage of the existing advantage that it has when it comes to design, it should continue putting its weight behind this promising technology and allow partnerships to be formed, where the incumbent vendors are asked to play a role in the architecture of this new technology. That will allow other parts of the technology chain—as Derek said, software, the baseband or the antennas—to attract and welcome new entrants through appropriate policy frameworks and the diversification strategy.
With new entrants, as we open this technology, we fuel innovation. If the UK keeps ahead of that, it will be able to be at the forefront of exciting new innovation. We welcome the steps that were outlined by Government to try to press this technology ahead. You could do that through trials or through incentives for the MNOs to use their technology. We can work together to create local research and development centres to fuel this new technology.
Mr Jones
Q
Andrea Donà: There is an opportunity for British companies to play an active role in the open RAN ecosystem. As we open up the interfaces of the technology, it creates a golden opportunity for British companies, with British support and know-how, to come and contribute to the development of this new technology.
Patrick Binchy: My views are broadly aligned with the previous answers. The reality of the situation that we find ourselves in is that there are only two practical vendors for the next couple of years. As both my colleagues have said, beyond that there is opportunity for ORAN.
I am not sure if it came across in the previous answers, but I would stress strongly that the first thing we need is the R&D. We need to understand how we can move this technology forward. As Derek said, trials are primarily operating in rural capacity, but to be a true competitor to the incumbents we have to be able to use it in deep urban areas, under significant loads, which needs a lot of development.
The Government can support trials and help build the ecosystem around them, but the first thing that we need is to get the research and development that will feed the trials. In terms of the Government’s development of opportunities in ORAN, it is key that they look at working with international partners. This has to be scaleable; otherwise, it is never going to be commercially viable. The UK market will not be big enough to drive that scale and commerciality.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Q
Andrea Donà: Specifically on the incident you are referring to, which was in April 2019, it was a Telnet protocol, which is used by many vendors in the industry to perform diagnostic functions. It is important to note that it would have not been accessible from the internet. Detailed analysis showed that it was simply a failure to remove a function that is used, as I said, for performing diagnostics after it had been developed.
On the broader question of security and our concerns, we have always maintained the very highest level of security policies, security processes and security procurement mechanisms and frameworks. We use a layered approach to our security needs, whereby we secure by design. All our systems and process put in place guarantee the highest security standards, end to end. The UK networks and standards are the highest in the world. We constantly work hand in glove with the NCSC, and abide by all the latest NCSC guidance and policies to keep those minimum standards high every time. We have worked very closely with the NCSC to set up HCSEC, an ad hoc centre where any new Huawei equipment or software goes through rigorous checks, audits and assurances, in line and in close collaboration with NCSC.
Patrick Binchy: I do not have much to add to that. We are similarly aligned in terms of our processes, from procurement to deployment. We have security checks throughout, and separate functions to make sure that we are adhering to those. We work very closely with the NSCS and HCSEC in terms of the technologies that are in the network. Going forward, we will continue to do so. We will be reviewing the software and hardware versions that we have in place and ensuring that those are fully checked and validated. As I said earlier, we also have a full, independent view of the traffic traversing our network, so if something untoward were to start happening, we would immediately have a view of it, and would be able to shut it down independently.
Derek McManus: As I said earlier, we do not have sufficient numbers in the UK. We have fewer than 10 Huawei base stations, so although we perform all the necessary checks, we are not exposed on the scale of others in the market.
The Chair
I propose drawing this part of our deliberations to a close at 12.30 pm. We have five Members seeking to ask questions. If our panellists keep each of their answers to one minute, we will get everybody in—and we will get all the answers as well. I call Christian Matheson.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Q
Gentlemen, can I assume that you have done an audit—an asset register, if you like—and that you know where all the at-risk equipment is in your networks, so that once the Government push through an order, you know exactly where to go to address the requirements of that order? How interconnected are your networks? Are you as confident as Mr McManus, who says that the integrity is fairly good? Do you all rely on each other to maintain an overall integrity? What if one is insecure ?
Patrick Binchy: Of course, the networks are interconnected. As I said, we have full visibility and control of what transverses between the networks, so we can maintain full control over that. I do not think there are any significant risks in this space, because of all the security checks that we do on the equipment that comes into the network. We maintain a regular relationship with NCSC in terms of any future threats or concerns that it has. We all have our asset registers, and an understanding of what we have in our networks. We maintain and update those on an ongoing basis as the technology changes and evolves.
Christian Matheson
Q
Patrick Binchy: We know where all the equipment is for our main supplier, yes.
Derek McManus: On the question on the asset register, absolutely. As for whether networks are interconnected, Patrick gave a good answer. The O2 and Vodafone networks are somewhat different, in that we work together on a network share; the O2 team manages and maintains a network in a certain geography, and the Vodafone team manages and maintains a physical network in another geography. In that sense, the O2 and Vodafone networks are very interconnected.
Andrea Donà: It is vital that the secondary legislation that accompanies the Bill clarifies assets in the telecoms network architecture that will be in scope of the security requirement, so that we can work knowing what we have audited, and knowing that the auditors always shared with NCSC. We need a clear understanding between Ofcom and us as providers before the legislation is enforced, so that we understand exactly the boundaries and the scope, and we all work together, having done the audits, to close any vulnerabilities that we might have. That is a clear aspect of our working together: ensuring that the assets in the telecoms network infrastructure that are in scope are very well defined.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Q
Derek McManus: There are a number of different security threats. I will talk about network from a physical point of view, though there are obviously also scams and threats through direct human contact. It is mostly penetration of the physical network either from attack or from virus software. Attack is where foreign agencies or bodies look for vulnerabilities or holes in your defences. The role of the telecoms operator is to ensure that all its physical equipment and software are of the highest support and variation that defends from attack. We see quite a high volume of attack, either DDoS or penetration, on a regular basis. As I said, we do cyber-security by design. It is built into the fundamental processes of expanding and adding to our network, to protect us from those very things.
Andrea Donà: To add to what Derek says, it is also important that Government play a role in securing the additional security needs across the whole ecosystem of the supply chain, including the vendors. With the ever-changing nature of the threats we are exposed to, as Derek explained in layman’s terms, we have to change the protocols and the rules by which we and our vendors implement our defence mechanisms.
It is important that the Government do not leave providers such as us alone to reinforce these additional minimum security standards; they should play an active role in ensuring that vendors adapt their technology road map, so that things are done in a much more future-ready, cyber-security-compliant manner, because we face an ever-changing picture and ever-changing scenarios.
Patrick Binchy: In terms of the threats and penetration, as Derek said, the key things are that they get into the networks, either to bring the networks down and create chaos for the UK economy, or to extract information from the networks. All our security, as both my colleagues have said, is built into design, right from the very start of the procurement process. How do we protect against, and build networks that are able to detect, avoid and block, any of those risks and threats? We do that through our knowledge, the knowledge of NCSC and the authorities, and the knowledge of the wider industry on what is going on beyond the UK and in the international regime. We are constantly reviewing and updating our capability to protect against any of those threats.
The Chair
Gentlemen, we are right up against the clock. We have seven minutes left. Your answers are superb, but they need to be pithy, because we have three sets of questions coming and we need to get the answers in, and I am afraid that 12.30 pm is a hard cut-off; I am not allowed to extend beyond that.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Q
Patrick Binchy: I do not think it is quite as simple as yes or no; there are some challenges in how those rules and laws are articulated, and whether that allows us to move away from our commercial obligations. Of course we work with NCSC, and so far, what is in place is fully aligned with the direction taken by the Government and the Bill, so in this case, we believe it is sufficient.
Derek McManus: I refer you to Patrick’s answer. I have nothing specific to add. It depends on the circumstances. We continue to collaborate, and to speak with the authorities to ensure that we align with current and future needs, from a security point of view.
Andrea Donà: We will abide by the requirements.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Derek McManus: Basically, we have not seen anything directly like the UK legislation, although various forms of it can be seen internationally. The second question was on standards. We operate in 23 countries, and as you can imagine, their standards are key to us. We hold a lot of expertise, from a Telefónica group point of view, that the UK team is able to rely on and work with to ensure that we are at the very edge of developing the right standard.
Andrea Donà: As the Government plan to take a lead in enhancing the minimum security requirements, and in diversifying their telecoms strategy, we as a global company are happy to support the standard setting, and to advise on the practical implementation of the additional security requirements.
Patrick Binchy: I refer to Derek’s answer. We have a very similar position with regard to the UK legislation: we have not seen quite the same in the other countries. On standards, we play an active role, and we have a number of UK staff who act actively in standards setting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Q
Andrea Donà: We need the clarification that I mentioned of what is, and what is not, in scope, so that we have absolute clarity from the word go. We all work together to understand the profile of that implementation. It cannot be a big bang—everything complying from day one. We obviously need to do a detailed risk assessment of the areas that we need to work on immediately on the Bill’s coming into force, and of what can afford to be done at a secondary stage, based on the risk assessment and the risk management analysis of the various assets in our network.
Derek McManus: As I said in my opening remarks, collaboration to date on getting the Bill to this stage has been positive. We should continue that. My request is for flexibility to help us execute effectively, while balancing the other demands on the industry.
The Chair
You have 30 seconds, I am afraid, Patrick Binchy.
Patrick Binchy: Again, very similarly, we have to balance good connectivity with security. We are confident that our plans will meet the needs, but we will continue to work with Government and security on how we achieve and deliver that. It will be challenging, but we are confident that we can do it.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses very much indeed for their evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Howard Watson and Alex Towers gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Howard Watson: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman. My name is Howard Watson, and I am BT Group’s chief technology officer.
We at BT support the principles of the Bill. We echo what the other operators have said—I have just listened in to the previous session—about the importance of having realistic timeframes, and we are pleased that the Government have listened on that. We have some outstanding questions, but they are pretty much about the detail of the implementation of the Bill. There is also need for some further reassurance about the proportionality across the rich landscape of operators that we have in the UK in how that regulation will be applied.
Alex Towers: Hello, my name is Alex Towers and I am director of policy and public affairs at BT Group. I have not really got anything to add to Howard’s opening statement. I think that covers it.
The Chair
Lovely. I am now in the hands of Members. I am very happy to give preference to Members who did not ask a question in the previous session. First out of the blocks is Sara Britcliffe.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Q
Howard Watson: I note that some of this was answered by my colleagues earlier. Threats to the network include physical access. We all saw earlier this year a lot of attacks on our physical infrastructure, which were highly regrettable. I mean by that the setting alight of some of our infrastructure. We also faced logical threats, such as malware implants, DDoS attacks and what are called advanced persistent threats, which is an actor embedding themself into parts of the environment, staying hidden for a while and potentially collecting credentials—think of the SolarWinds hack that is in the news at the moment.
We take all those threats extremely seriously at BT. For as long as we have operated, we have worked very closely with all aspects of Government, and in particular with the National Cyber Security Centre. We take a sort of defence in depth approach. We have a red team who are ethically hacking us, and we are part of the TBEST scheme.
We think that the UK has a good track record here, but we also welcome the strengthening of that in the Bill. We think that some of the specific items about protecting even more against potential insider threat, looking hard at the vendors we use in the supply chain and having specific rigour about that, and the reporting mechanisms and requirements in the Bill, specifically around telecoms security requirements, will enhance that for all operators in the UK.
Alex Towers: I do not have much to add to that, except to say that, as Howard says, lots of the attention in the debate in the run-up to this Bill has been focused on a small number of very specific, clearly high-risk vendors. It is right that we take steps to protect ourselves around them, but just as important in the Bill will be the telecoms security requirements that stretch well beyond those specific vendors into all manner of aspects in which operators run their networks. Putting those two things together will be important.
The Chair
Thank you. The running order is Dean Russell, Miriam Cates, Kevan Jones, Christian Matheson and Chi Onwurah.
Dean Russell
Q
Alex Towers: I think we see long term that diversification of vendors would be good for the operators in the marketplace if we can get to that point. It is important to say, I suppose, as the other operators were doing earlier on, that we are not at that point right now, so we are having to manage a situation where with the market as it stands we have a small number of very large-scale, important vendors and suppliers and we are having to remove one of them, clearly, from the 5G marketplace. That creates a degree of complexity and engineering difficulty that we need to just work our way through; so there is a lot of work to do just to manage within the current market framework to replace Huawei and to bring Nokia and Ericsson to the point we want. While we are doing that, if we can at the same time create the prospects of, in the longer term, a more open marketplace with a wider range of vendors—with other-scale vendors that do not quite work at the minute in the UK market, and Howard could probably explain exactly why that is, as well as with the potential for open RAN and other types of technology and software-based models to be developed—that is good for the whole industry and could be good for UK jobs and potential UK companies and therefore also for the citizen.
Howard Watson: I certainly welcome the Government’s supply chain diversification initiative here. It is concerning that we are moving from, essentially, three suppliers in the mobile supply chain down to only two. Our network going forward will use both of those. So widening that choice over time, for all the operators in the UK, is I think a critical opportunity. Please bear in mind that most operators quite like to have a primary source and a second source. It is unlikely that we will all start deploying equipment from four or five different vendors, because the operational challenge of the person in the van maintaining that tends to limit you to a choice of two; but being able to choose two from six is a lot better than choosing two from two, of course.
We welcome the three initiatives, which I will summarise. The first is whether we can we encourage Samsung, NEC and other large vendors who build mobile networks elsewhere to enter the UK market. The second is open RAN and it really just creates through more open standards the ability to have more players in that end-to-end solution. The third area really is to have a thriving research agenda for the UK. We really welcome the £250 million allocated in the recent spending review. We already have a thriving research capability in the UK and I think continuing to focus that on antenna design, optoelectronics and semiconductors will have a role to play in diversification going forward.
Miriam Cates
Q
Howard Watson: I actually think the structure of the Bill accommodates that quite well. It allows secondary legislation and guidelines to be upgraded. We note the critical role of the National Cyber Security Centre working with Government in doing that. I think, actually, you have taken care of that well with the way the Bill is structured.
Alex Towers: Yes, I would completely agree with that. I suppose our concern, slightly, at the minute, is to see some of the detail that is going to sit underneath the Bill in terms of a code of practice, in particular, and secondary legislation, because that is where it will become clear exactly what the implications are for operators. The sooner we can see some of that detail and get into the teeth of that, that would be great; but the way the Bill is structured, to allow that sort of detail to be updated on a regular basis as the world changes around us, seems totally sensible.
Mr Jones
Q
Howard Watson: Let me work through that. First, from our perspective, given that we do have quite a large amount of BT in our mobile network, which is with the high-risk vendor, we have a large swap-out programme already under way. Effectively, we already use Nokia to extend their reach, but also to introduce Ericsson. That essentially means that I will be replacing a significant amount of my network over the next seven years.
It is quite difficult for me to start introducing new opportunities and new options into that, certainly in the early part of that. For my network, I see the opportunities in the latter part of this decade, not the early part. That does not mean that there will not be opportunities to try open RAN in some of the rural areas or to conduct some trials with the other vendors that we have talked about. It is very much an industry approach that we are taking here. Some of my colleagues may be able to move a bit earlier. It is important that we collaborate and work as a UK set of operators with the Government to make sure that we have the right rich set of solutions.
We would not want to come down to just one vendor. That would certainly be a worry for many reasons, so we need to continue to ensure that, in the short term, we absolutely have the choice of two.
Alex Towers: Given the timeframes that Howard has described, it is a five to seven-year cycle of replacement for the vendor. That is why it makes sense, we think, to go big now on large-scale trials of things like open RAN. The important investment in R&D and the £250 million is a good step towards that, but we will probably need some more, because we need to be ready for the next cycle if it is going to be a workable solution in future.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Secondly, we heard from Sir Richard Dearlove, the previous head of MI5, that when Huawei was first used as a vendor or equipment supplier by BT, it was not considered worth informing Ministers of that fact, despite what he considered to be evident security concerns. Can you say what in the Bill changes that so that the Government of the day will be better aware of ongoing and future security concerns?
Thirdly, on behalf of Catherine West, on international collaboration, what presence do you have on standards bodies? Can you say what your budget is for research and development so that we can see how that compares with the £250 million on offer?
Alex Towers: I will defer to Howard on the questions about standards and technical details. On your point about the relationship with Government, I do not think that any of us were around in 2005, but I know that there is some sort of contested story about exactly who was told what about the introduction of Huawei. You would—[Inaudible.] We have moved a long way on that. We have a very close working relationship with the NCSC and with other parts of Government, and we would be very confident that we are constantly in contact with them about exactly the mix of suppliers that we are using. The introduction through the Bill of TSRs will take that even further, so we would be very confident that we have got a good enough structure there to ensure that any concerns that any part of Government had would be captured and dealt with, and Ofcom is also now in a position to regulate.
The question about relying on just the one supplier is less a concern about security and more one about the commercial resilience of that position. Howard can probably say a little bit more about the standards and the technical questions around that.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Alex Towers: I think they overlap and that is one of our questions about the drafting of the Bill. There is clearly a relationship between those two things, and the concern about the timeframes for the removal of Huawei, for example, has been partly about ensuring that we have operational resilience during what is going to be a very complicated engineering programme to take out all its kit without losing resilience, in the sense of outages and blackouts for customers. Some of the Bill’s provisions talk about outages, but there is a difference between outages for operational maintenance and updating of kit and outages because of a security issue or attack. It is going to be quite important to pull those threads apart a little bit.
Howard Watson: On the vendor point, to summarise the approach that we are taking, we stopped purchase at the end of December, we will stop deployment in September of this year, we get down to 35% by two years hence from the end of next week, and then we have it removed from the mobile network by December 2027. I think that timeframe works well for us with introducing effectively a third supplier into our mobile network in terms of that 2027 point. It certainly helps mitigate any future steps in terms of a two-to-one.
I would not bank on it taking a full eight years to have an open RAN opportunity. As we heard from Andrea, colleagues at Vodafone have already started deployment . The real challenge there is about being able to use open RAN in dense urban areas where the technology works at its hardest, shall we say.
On your final question about research, we are in the top five investors in R&D in the UK—we invest in excess of £500 million a year across both research and development. In fact, the only companies that research more than us in the UK are the pharmaceuticals. I have 280 researchers based in the BT labs at Adastral Park near Ipswich and they, plus a standards organisation —we also draw in from engineers across my organisation—remain really actively involved in the standards bodies. I welcome what colleagues from the other operators say and think it is really important that we maintain that as a UK presence and as a European presence to ensure that we are not lost in the middle of any risk of divergence between the US and eastern and Asian countries and China. I would implore us all to work hard to ensure that that does not happen.
Matt Warman
Q
Howard Watson: Let me take the final part of that question first, Minister. We are very much aware that that is a deadline, not a target, but we welcome the fact that the deadline is 2027. I have given evidence previously and have talked with Government significantly about the real risks to the availability of service if we pull that date forward.
We have a lot of infrastructure. That deadline allows us to plan carefully how we can switch off a site, if we have to, to replace it and swap it out, so that the spike has overlapping coverage from adjacent sites. Were we to be required to bring those timescales forward, we would be talking about mobile blackouts in the UK, which clearly we all want to avoid, given the increasing dependence of UK citizens on networks. We have a plan that gets us to that. The 35% by 28 January 2023, just two years away, is a little bit more challenging, but we have a plan to get us there. The pandemic is making that challenging, but right now we are on track for that too. I think that answers the second question.
In answer to your first question, the ambition that we have, and what will become requirements across the TSRs, will put the UK ahead of the pack, in being a safe place for people to work and run businesses, secure in the knowledge that we have a high level of protection against cyber-threats. We welcome that, particularly in the environment in which we are now operating.
We have remaining questions—we raised some of those in our written evidence—about the sequence by which the requirements will be applied. We think it is critically important that there is a strong baseline level of compliance that applies to everybody who operates a network in the UK. We do not want to have entry points through weak links across our environment.
Alex Towers: A large majority of what is in the TSRs reflects current best practice and we are already complying with it. There are some places where there is a stretch for us to do more, which is good. The key point, I suppose, concerns Howard’s point about making sure that the baseline for all operators is higher and strong enough, given that these are inter-connected network, as you have already heard this morning. The whole edifice is only as strong as its weakest point. We are concerned about the idea that the code of practice might not apply to some operators, for example. That is the sort of detail that we will begin to see debated further as the Bill goes through.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Howard Watson: We do believe that fixed networks, whether full-fibre or fibre-to-the-cabinet, have a different risk profile—a lower risk profile—from mobile networks. Please remember that it is only in the access part of the network, so the fibre—the device in the exchange that connects to that. In the core of the fixed network, we have no presence of high-risk vendors. So we do believe that is manageable. We worked really closely with DCMS and NCSC to arrive at the 35% threshold that was published a year ago, and we think maintaining that in the fixed network is proportionate and sufficient to ensure security there, combined with the oversight that, again, we continue to support from the HCSEC and NCSC to ensure that we are inspecting everything that goes into the network.
I will also say that it is essential that we do take that approach because, as you know, we have large ambitions to increase full-fibre coverage in the UK. Ofcom reported in December that that was now at 18%. We at BT have now built for 3.5 million homes. We have a plan, which we have talked about—this is with the right conditions—to get to 20 million. We do need that 35% to be part of that plan because, again, introducing alternative vendors is challenging.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Howard Watson: Fundamentally, you are dealing with a customer that is a fixed end point, so you are not having to provide handover between different sites as you do in mobile. Essentially, we are taking an electrical signal, modulating it into optical and converting it back to electrical at the other end, in very standard ethernet-based protocols. It is therefore really easy to see if there is a problem, so if something was infiltrating the network, we would spot it very quickly. Also, it is a very segmented network. The FTTC network has a granularity of over 85,000 cabinets in the UK, and the FTTP network has splitters for every 32 homes. Any issues are very easy to spot and so it is much easier to keep secure.
Chi Onwurah
Q
The Chair
I am afraid you have only about a minute to respond. Which of you gentlemen would like to answer?
Howard Watson: I will take that. You are right. We want two vendors to be consistently in the market, so that we can continue to deploy. If one of them were to fail—well, we insist on commercial and physical measures being in place such that we could step in and run the equipment that was already in the network, so it would not be switched off in the short term or anything like that; there would be no immediate threat to the existing network. It is the ability to build forward that is important.
As I think Alex mentioned earlier, the primary reason, which relates to the second part of your question, is that we want competition on pricing. As we have looked to have the two remaining vendors compete with each other for replacement of our Huawei estate, that has actually worked quite well as we have put in place contracts for that replacement.
The Chair
Gentlemen, I am afraid we have reached the limit of our own bandwidth this morning. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank both gentlemen for their evidence. The Committee will next meet in this room at 2 o’clock this afternoon to take further evidence. Members will be delighted to know that they will have a far more accomplished and competent Chairman present.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maria Caulfield.)
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 14th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2021 - (14 Jan 2021)
The Chair
Order. We will now hear from Hamish MacLeod, the director of Mobile UK, and Matthew Evans, the director of market programmes at techUK. We have until 2.45 pm for this session, and I will try to alternate as best I can. May I ask the witnesses in turn to introduce themselves for the record?
Hamish MacLeod: I am Hamish MacLeod, and I am the director of Mobile UK, which is the trade body for the UK’s four mobile network operators.
Matthew Evans: My name is Matthew Evans, and I am director of markets at techUK, the trade association for the wider technology sector, which has several telecom-related members.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Q
Matthew Evans: I am happy to take that question. From the principle point of view, the principles of cyber-security are the same regardless of the network: having security built in by design, but also having a zero-trust principle and good assurance that your defences are looking inwards as well as outwards. On a principle basis, they are very similar.
Hamish MacLeod: I have nothing to add to what Matt said.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Q
Matthew Evans: I am happy to take that as well. We completely agree with the overall objective of the Bill, which we think provides clarity to the sector and helps us to further enhance the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunication networks. Obviously, as more and more services and applications are used over our fixed and mobile networks, ensuring their security and resilience is incredibly important. That is why we are pleased to welcome the Bill and the associated diversification strategy alongside it, which is obviously separate to the Bill but intrinsic to matters of resilience as we seek to broaden the supply chain.
Hamish MacLeod: I should perhaps reiterate what my colleague said this morning—that the mobile sector very much welcomes the Bill. Security has always been a top priority for mobile operators. We have always worked closed closely with the National Cyber Security Centre, but this is a great opportunity to formalise the arrangements and to make them more structured and transparent.
The Chair
Chi Onwurah, did I detect that you were going to ask questions on behalf of Catherine West?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Evans: From techUK’s point of view, obviously our members—you heard from some of them this morning, and you have more this afternoon—operate across a number of different territories. We seem to be the furthest, or the most advanced, in bringing into place quite a holistic security regime. That is in the first half of the Bill. Obviously, the conversation about high-risk vendors is prevalent in other areas, but I would say that in terms of bringing in a regime that covers the entire telecoms sector, this seems to be a world-leading initiative.
Hamish MacLeod: Chi, I am certainly aware of what other countries are doing as regards high-risk vendors. The operators absolutely accept the Government’s policy and the 2027 timeline. The important thing now is to stick to that timeline, because it allows not only for an orderly removal of the HRV equipment, but for alternatives to develop and emerge as viable competitors to the remaining companies.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Hamish MacLeod: The States, New Zealand and Australia have all excluded Huawei, among others. We could supply you with a full list if that is needed.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Q
Matthew Evans: Thank you for that question. As I said at the start, we welcome the Government’s diversification strategy. It looks to tackle four issues, really, which are supporting incumbent suppliers to the UK market; attracting other global-scale suppliers; accelerating open interfaces and interoperability; and then the fourth area, which we could probably do with more detail on, which is really building on that domestic capability. I know that the taskforce that helped Government to frame the strategy is working on that aspect of it. As I say, I think we could do with some more detail.
However, we welcome the funding that has come alongside that strategy, and I think that we have a real opportunity in the UK in some of the areas where we have traditional strengths, in the software side in particular, to build some world-leading capability. As for the Bill itself, I do not think that it necessarily presents a barrier to that domestic capability; it is more in how we develop the strategy that sits alongside the Bill.
Hamish MacLeod: Just to add to what Matt said, yes, we very much welcome the diversification strategy. It is an absolutely necessary step to mitigate the risks of having to rely on two incumbents. It gives the UK an opportunity to have a leadership role in the development of exciting new technologies, such as open RAN, and, as Matt said, to grow the supplier base in the UK in the mobile sector.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Q
Hamish MacLeod: Yes. As I just said, the 2027 deadline is very important, because that will give time for realistic competitive alternatives to develop. The open RAN is being deployed in the UK in sort of rural areas and in the less high-performance environments, and that will change over time. The investments that this diversification strategy talks about in research and development will help to develop open RAN, and also in the test bed programmes. All these things will help to build the capability of alternative vendors.
Matthew Evans: Just to add to Hamish’s answer, there is a reason that we have a relatively constricted number of scale providers for telecoms, and it is the level of R&D required—that is the risk associated with each generation of technology if it is not taken up on a global scale by operators. To be realistic, we are likely to be focused around two incumbent vendors in the short term.
I think that what the diversification strategy sets out, though, and in fairness it is a strategy and not a complete plan, is a path to open up the UK market to those scale providers who at the moment do not participate in it. That is through trying to reduce the commercial and regulatory barriers that we face, such as on spectrum defragmentation and on providing a single RAN solution —at the moment in the UK, there are obviously 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G. But it also then opens up the possibility of greater use of technologies such as open RAN, which really breaks away from that proprietary architecture, whereby we have both the hardware and the software from the same provider.
That will be a challenge in the short term, but in the medium to long term there are actions that can be taken both to attract the scale providers not in the UK market and to make the UK market attractive to people who work in the open RAN area as well. So I think a dual-track approach helps to bring diversification to the UK market.
Mr Jones
Q
The Chair
Mr Evans, let us go to you first.
Matthew Evans: Is it going to be easy? No is the short answer. Is it possible to increase that diversification? Yes. We would like to see more commercial incentives for operators, who will have to change and adapt. This will be a change for operators as they diversify their vendor base. Part of the strategy has to be around the scales and the commercial incentives for operators to do so. We have certainly seen, as we heard from the witnesses this morning, UK operators really pushing the boundaries in terms of what open RAN trials can deliver. As I said, I suspect it will not be a short-term solution, but it is promising to see the trials that are already under way in the UK.
Hamish MacLeod: I would also like to highlight the Government’s commitment to taking a greater part in the process of international standard setting and driving scale across the global market. Although we expect the operators to do the technical heavy lifting, the Government can leverage our international relationships, and the actual resource makes the whole standardisation process move along more quickly.
Mr Jones
Q
Matthew Evans: I think the £250 million is clearly initially focused on the R&D ecosystem. That is a big commercial barrier when you look at the testing environment and the time it often takes for operators, understandably, to feel confident in deploying equipment into their networks, because they are ultimately responsible for the integrity of them. If we can supercharge the testing environment in the UK, we should be able to shorten the time to market, but open RAN in particular is going to require a boost in funding to accelerate the maturity of that technology.
The other part of the diversification strategy is the scale vendors that may be operating in other parts of the world but are not present in the UK today. That is why it is also important to tackle some of the regulatory or commercial barriers that exist and prevent them from entering the market today.
Hamish MacLeod: I do not think I really have anything to add to what Matt just said.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Q
Hamish MacLeod: One of the things about open RAN and more open architecture generally is that you generate competition in the hardware and in the software—it is not one package—so I think it is realistic to expect more competition, particularly in the software side of things.
The Chair
Do you have anything to add, Mr Evans?
Matthew Evans: Not too much. It is hard to put a number on it, but success would be where we clearly have a greater number of vendors than today, and that is a mix of open and proprietary technology. As Hamish says, the reason it is hard to put a number on it is that in that open stack, you could have competition within the stack, rather than between vendors that sell the consolidated package.
David Johnston
Q
Hamish MacLeod: The analogy that has sometimes been used with me is looking back 40 years to the computer market. We all used to buy IBM computers and you got the computer and all the software integrated, and then the two separated out. There was interoperability and you create a lot more competition and innovation. That is a potential analogy—a rough analogy, I would say.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Evans: The strategy sets out the outline of what the industry would like to see. There are commercial and regulatory barriers that need to be removed or analysed. That includes things like how the lifespan of 2G, 3G and 4G in the UK is going to exist, and setting out a road map. That will allow people to develop technologies in 5G and future generation without having to invest in what are still very good technologies—those that have already been deployed.
What we would like to see in the strategy—this is where the funding is really important—is the R&D and testing ecosystem. We would like to see something like the Future Networks Initiative, which is a proposal for a series of test centres around the UK specialising in different areas of telecoms, particularly open RAN. As I said before, that should help accelerate the adoption of new products and services when utilised in conjunction with the National Telecoms Lab. That is key. As Hamish has said, standards are also really important. Again, we need closer collaboration between the Government and industry, because the technical side is naturally going to be driven by industry.
The Chair
Mr MacLeod, do you have anything to add?
Hamish MacLeod: Very little to add. Personally, I can say that the recent 5G testbed programme that the Government have been initiating to generate interest, applications and scale is a good model. We expect to see that being replicated; indeed, the two might work hand in hand going forward.
The Chair
Thank you. I am going to switch to the Minister and shadow Minister. If there is time left, I will come back to other Members, but I want to be sure that we do this fairly. I call Chi Onwurah.
Chi Onwurah
Q
I am also really interested in what you said, Mr Evans, with regard to research and development. I absolutely agree with you that we clearly need investment in research and development if we are to lead in hardware and in open RAN and software. You said that the £250 million was focused on R&D, but it is actually focused on testing. It does not really do much for research at all, as far as I can see. You also referred to the diversification strategy as a strategy and not a plan, so do we need investment in research and development? Is the £250 million, which I think—I am looking at the Minister now—is over five years, a significant amount of investment in research and development for the mobile sector and tech sector generally?
Finally, the Bill gives the Secretary the State a huge amount of powers to set out requirements to remove vendors and for Ofcom to inspect what operators are doing. Do you think that might have an impact on international foreign investment in the UK telecoms sector, and are you confident that the right sort of technical, security and democratic scrutiny is in place? That is three things: hardware, research and development, and scrutiny.
The Chair
Shall we start with you, Mr MacLeod?
Hamish MacLeod: I think the question that was directed at me was whether it is possible to have a secure supply chain. I will not try to gainsay Chi’s knowledge on this, but my understanding is that that is the role that the proposed National Telecoms Lab will perform, to validate that security aspect.
Matthew Evans: I agree with Hamish on that first point, to answer Chi’s questions on R&D. We do not yet know how the £250 million is going to be spent. We believe that we will need to accelerate the maturity of technologies such as open RAN, to make them deployable and commercially viable. Yes, we do need to see more, but as I said, that has to be alongside testing, because accelerating the maturity of it does not really matter if the operators do not get that confidence in either the hardware or the software.
In terms of the Secretary of State’s powers, we are broadly comfortable. We would like to see some thresholds on what amounts to a security compromise, particularly in terms of Ofcom’s powers of oversight. From our point of view, and this is also relevant to the foreign direct investment question, if it is evidence-based, as transparent as possible—we know that we will not see all that evidence, particularly that element in the security services—and the actions are proportionate, that is also important. We believe that that builds into the best practice that we see in other areas of national security.
In terms of the technical expertise, we know that NCSC is going to work closely with Ofcom, in terms of providing that oversight. We are comfortable with the experience that we have had over the past couple of years, as the telecoms supply chain has gone through, in terms of the expertise and the overall regime that this Bill seeks to put in place.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Matthew Evans: I think it sends quite a strong signal to the market of the Government’s intent. If we published the strategy without the funding, it would not have sent the same signal. We have seen NEC, for instance, commit to opening an open RAN test centre in the UK. I think that is a signal of how the market is starting to react. This needs to work with the grain of industry, so it is important that industry is able to participate in this funding. I think it sent a strong signal.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Q
Hamish MacLeod: My meeting following this hearing is with the operators addressing that very point. This is something that we want to work extremely closely with the Government on. We are meeting officials next week to continue the conversation on doing things such as setting out the road map for what needs to be done R&D-wise to develop open RAN, what needs to be done from the point of view of the test programme, and what needs to be done on the standardisation road map. We will be taking a very close interest, both as individual operators and jointly.
Matthew Evans: To add to that, I echo that we have had excellent engagement with the Minister’s officials. It is about keeping the momentum up while working with the grain of industry and making sure that we are getting the incentives on the supply side, in the R&D and in the testing, and also in the demand side. That is all about making sure that we have the right commercial incentives for operators, but also that we have the right skills and, if necessary, reinforcing the operators on some of those points as well.
Chi Onwurah
Q
I respect your reluctance, if you like, to voice criticisms at this stage, but can I just get a further idea on the level of R&D spend in the sector? We heard from British Telecom this morning that it spends £500 million a year. I imagine it is not the only company to spend. Do you have a view of the level of R&D spend? You talk about the £250 million being a signal. Am I right in thinking that a lot more investment needs to be attracted into the UK telecoms sector in order to really move the dial? That is what we are talking about, is it not—really moving the dial on UK telecoms capability?
Hamish MacLeod: Absolutely. The £250 million was very much described as an initial £250 million, because you are right that moving the dial will take significant investment. With R&D, there is pure R&D—what you do in labs—but there is also the testbed activity, which is a very important aspect, and trials at scale and all those things. Working with the operators, bringing in international partners and leveraging what is going on elsewhere in the world will all be important.
Matthew Evans: The important word there is “leveraging”. Telecom spend on R&D, both traditional and in open RAN, runs into billions and billions of pounds each year, but we can use that £250 million to leverage greater investment. It has to be with the grain of what the industry is delivering, so we can attract more of that investment. If we can be world leaders in the adoption of open RAN, that is key, and we will attract that investment. That is why I think the supply has to match up with the demand side fully.
The Chair
Does anyone else have any other questions? No. In that case, I thank both our witnesses for their evidence. We are extremely grateful to you. We will end this session and move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Stefano Cantarelli, John Baker, Pardeep Kohli and Chris Jackson gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear from Stefano Cantarelli, global chief marketing officer, John Baker, head of RAN business development, and Pardeep Kohli, chief executive officer, of Mavenir. Joining them is Chris Jackson, president and chief executive officer of NEC Europe Ltd. We will use the same format as last time, although if you want to direct your question to a specific witness, that might be helpful. We have until 3.30 pm for this session. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves.
Stefano Cantarelli: Good afternoon everybody. My name is Stefano Cantarelli. I am the chief marketing officer for Mavenir. I have spent the last 30 years of my life in telecommunications, of which 20 years have been in the UK, in both fixed and mobile networks.
John Baker: Good afternoon. I head up business development for Mavenir. I was instrumental in setting up the UK industry back in the ’80s for manufacturing and R&D for Nokia, and with Vodafone and Orbitel. I have long experience in the industry and I have been leading the open RAN initiatives from the US globally. I am a member of the open RAN policy coalition board.
Pardeep Kohli: I am Pardeep Kohli, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mavenir. I have been with the company since 2005. The company is over 20 years old and employs about 4,500 people. We have a good presence in the UK. We have been providing software for telecoms applications to UK operators for over 20 years. All operators use our software today for making phone calls, sending messages and voicemail. We started working on open RAN five years ago and now we have deployment in the UK, which has been provided in the test sites. We are building networks in other parts of the world as well, based on open RAN.
Chris Jackson: Good afternoon. I am Chris Jackson, CEO of NEC Europe. I have worked for NEC for 12 years. I took on the role of CEO for Europe on 1 April last year. In terms of my opening statement, I fully support the principles of the Bill. It has been well constructed. The additional powers that the Government and Ofcom now have are much more wide-ranging, and we absolutely support that. We very much promote the vendor diversification strategy, and we are supportive of the aims and objectives behind it.
The Chair
Who wants to go first? It looks like it is Mr Johnston. Can I just ask you to say which of the witnesses you are directing your question to?
David Johnston
Yes, although I was going to ask them who they think is best to answer it.
David Johnston
Q
John Baker: Perhaps I could take that one. This is falling in line with what is going on globally. We see initiatives coming from Spain, the EU and the US. The US is further ahead in terms of passing law on trusted suppliers, and it is now setting timelines and budgets for taking suppliers out of the network. That rip-and-replace programme is now under way. The money for that was approved in December, and operators are looking at open RAN as solutions for that. That is very similar to the activities that you are planning through this Bill in the UK.
Chris Jackson: What we have seen in Japan is strong support for this direction, but I think the UK Government have taken the lead in terms of putting forward an aggressive stance on this to ensure that the security of the country is protected. The UK is doing everything that we would expect it to, and we fully support that.
Stefano Cantarelli: Some of the things said about the diversification of the supply chain are particularly important in terms of the ability to create competition and, as such, innovation. The interoperability of interfaces is fundamental in order to boost data and to be able to create more competition. We strongly believe that competition is based in innovation, and innovation these days can create a very powerful cycle of technology. It is not like how it was in the old days when it took maybe a year, two years or three years to get things into deployment; today, in less than a year a trial can become a commercial deployment.
Pardeep Kohli: I agree with the other gentlemen. In a number of countries, operators have made the decision that, going forward, they will only buy open RAN-based solutions. Governments are supporting that in many parts of the world.
Mr Jones
Q
Pardeep Kohli: Let me start. You are right that until now it was all about hardware, because people were building proprietary hardware to supply radio products. When you do hardware-based solutions, the scale matters, because you need logistics, manufacturing capability and factories, and obviously Huawei, Ericsson and Nokia had a strong base and the logistics set up.
When you do open RAN, it is more software leaning on general-purpose hardware. Companies like us do not need manufacturing plants any more because we are only providing software, and we have the advantage that our software can run on a private cloud that an operator can build on, for example, standard Dell servers—there are plenty of them, and people can build those—or we can run it on a public cloud on Amazon or Google. If you look at the scale that Google, Amazon and Azure have, Huawei is nowhere close to their scale. In that sense, the whole matter of Huawei’s scale does not matter at all the moment you move a hardware problem to a software problem.
The same thing happens with logistics and people. For us, hardware-based solutions need people to carry the hardware around, bolt it and everything. For software, with the click of a button you can distribute it to 2,000 sites; you do not need people and logistics to drive hardware around. This is how with what we are doing—for example, we are working with Dish to build a nationwide network, and we will have 50,000 sites deployed in less than two years—not that many people are required to do all this, because the problem has moved from hardware to software.
We would like the Government and other people to understand that there is no way any company can beat Huawei with the presence it has in China alone if they take on the problem as a hardware problem. It must be converted into a software problem—that is the only way it can be solved.
On your question about how we convince operators, it is always on the point about proof. We are a 20-year-old company working with operators all over the world. We handle 60% of the world’s operators’ messaging. If you look at SMS, for example, we carry that traffic for all the operators in the UK, and voice calling. We already do more critical services: radio is important, of course, because of the connectivity, but operators are relying on us for the day-to-day services. Now we are working with them to prove that our software is as good or better than what they can get on from the incumbents. Of course, we are expecting them to participate in the journey and work with us so that we can prove to them that we are good. We have done that in all other layers of the software, so we feel that if somebody engages with us, within six to nine months we will prove to them that we are good and it works.
That is working; in terms of the whole idea that the technology does not exist, we have crossed that hurdle. Now it is more about, “Okay, does it work for this use case or that use case?”, or, “In my network, I may have some proprietary stuff I have done with existing vendors, and I want you to do that as well.” So it may take six to nine months, or even 12 months, to get there, but I think we are beyond the point where we need to prove that it works. We know it works.
Mr Jones
Q
Pardeep Kohli: If you look at investments, because of Dish, the US is making the most investments; the Government have now surpassed $1.9 billion on rip-and-replace to replace Huawei equipment, so that will create an ecosystem. In Japan, with Rakuten, they are building a whole nationwide network based on open RAN. We have seen Deutsche Telekom, for example, announce in Germany that it is building an ORAN town, so it will have a whole city that will have only ORAN components in a due timeframe. We have systems applied now in Sri Lanka, in India and in Malaysia. A lot of countries are looking at the economics: obviously, volume makes the numbers different, and with higher volume you will improve the economics further, but if you include the opex cost as well to go along with the capex cost, there is no way to compare what you can get with this technology compared with the legacy one.
The Chair
I am just conscious of time; do any of the other witnesses have anything they want to add to what we have heard from Mr Kohli?
John Baker: I would just like to add that Vodafone has been very much in the lead with the development of open RAN solutions. We have been engaging with Vodafone for three and a half years in test labs and specifying the technology, and so on. The UK has been very much part of bringing this technology forward, as well as BT with the Telecom Infra Project labs.
Chris Jackson: Coming back to your question, I would not like to speculate as to how long it would take for open RAN to become standardised and commonplace within the UK. The Government are setting up a national telecoms lab and SONIC. There are a number of companies like ourselves, NEC, who have just set up our 5G global centre of excellence here in the UK, and the operators have all set up laboratories. If we can start to encourage and bring all those parties together, that is the key to accelerating the technology.
Incentives definitely play a part in this; to comment on Japan for a moment, I know the Japanese Government have incentivised companies to embrace open RAN, and that might well explain why companies such as Rakuten and NTT DOCOMO have been very successful in launching the technology. That proves it can be done and shows that where there is a willingness, there is a way, but if we can drive all those different parties coming together, that is how we will get traction.
Stefano Cantarelli: I just want to say quickly that we are part of some of the initiatives Chris has mentioned, such as SONIC with DCMS and so on, and we think they are particularly useful to give visibility on the status of open RAN. My last comment is about the hardware; I heard a few comments this morning, and I want to underline that hardware is still quite a profitable business. If we look at what happened to IT servers in the IT industry, there are companies that are much more than profitable in those spaces. Commoditisation of a hardware does not mean that there is no profitable business behind it.
The Chair
Thank you. I am going to Mr Sunderland. I will come back to you if you want to come back later.
James Sunderland
Q
James Sunderland
Mr Baker is the obvious candidate.
John Baker: I think the legislation, as you have it written, is good and supportive. The underlying thread of this is all about open interfaces. Having open interfaces fully specified makes the ability for testing of elements in the network simpler and easier, because you open up the testing community, the vendors, to produce interoperable equipment, so you can compare equipment side by side. This has been the basis of the whole open RAN discussion. Open RAN is about open and interoperable interfaces. If you follow that philosophy through into this Bill, you should be able to test each of the elements and the network end to end, from a security perspective, so we are fully supportive of the activities that you have in place.
The Chair
Anyone else?
Stefano Cantarelli: I will just add that of course, when we say “open interfaces” and “open and interoperable”, “open” means standardised and well known, not open in the sense of open sources or whatever else people can think of. As far as the Bill is concerned, I believe that it is quite appropriate for the specific actions and conditions that will be triggered. I would just suggest that you make sure that it is followed up by secondary legislation to make sure that in some cases there are very tangible and specific examples that will be able to make it a bit more specific and will give directions within the framework that the Bill itself provides.
The Chair
What about Mr Jackson or Mr Kohli? Do you have anything to add to that?
Pardeep Kohli: I was about to read something to you about the example offered by the Government of Japan. I am just reading the wording of the document. It says:
“The Government of Japan cites the need for equipment to be interoperable, based on open architecture, and utilize international standards to be certified. MNOs and private network owners are eligible for tax benefits, which include the following…Tax deductions of 15% or special depreciation of 30%... Fixed property tax exemption of 50% for 3 years”.
That is how the Government of Japan have passed the law.
Chris Jackson: I have nothing further to add to what Pardeep has just said. He has succinctly put basically what we need to do.
Chi Onwurah
Catherine is always interested to understand what international comparisons there are, but I think that that has already been addressed, so thank you; she will be grateful to you.
Miriam Cates
Q
Chris Jackson: First of all, the answer is yes in terms of, “Do I think it is a game changer?” Absolutely. You only have to look at what happened in the IT industry to see what open standards have done for that, so I absolutely think it is the right thing to do and we very much support it.
In terms of NEC’s capability, if you look at the work that we have done with Rakuten and NTT DOCOMO in Japan, we have shown that we have proven experience and open RAN capabilities. We also have a long history of R&D capability, and we have the capability on the ground now, with the launch of the global open RAN centre of excellence, to take that development further forward in the UK. Those are the main reasons I think the NEC is well placed to take advantage.
A final point that I would make is that, one of the things that we are going to see, which we would want to see, is a lot of smaller companies coming into this marketplace. That is very healthy, and they would certainly play an important part in driving innovation. There is also definitely a need for large companies with strong balance sheets, and NEC certainly ticks that box.
The Chair
Q
John Baker: Yes, I will jump in. Mavenir is heavily invested in the UK as well. We have addressed the 2G, 3G, 4G solution with the recent acquisition of ip.access in Cambridge. We are building up a significant open RAN solution centre in the UK and we have made several press announcements about that.
In terms of hardware versus software, we have demonstrated that with some of the networks that we have deployed, such as T-Mobile in the US, which has 150 million subscribers essentially running on disaggregated software and hardware platforms. That demonstrates that you can build secure, reliable mobile networks with a software architecture. That is the way of the future. Obviously, that now has to fit into the cycles of deployment and rip and replace that the various carriers have.
The Chair
Who is next? If there are no pressing answers, I will go to the shadow Minister.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Pardeep Kohli: Maybe I can take that. To answer your question, if there is a greenfield operator in the UK that is similar to Dish, which we are working with in the US, we can definitely provide that. Dish, for example, is doing only 5G, but we obviously look at requirements all over the world and we appreciate that, in certain parts of the world, there is still a lot of 2G and 3G presence, and, of course, 4G will be there for a long time. We have a solution that can handle 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, and if you are talking about a 12-month window, we can definitely provide a complete greenfield solution for those four technologies.
Regarding the hardware aspect, everything other than the real radio that goes on the tower and does the transmitting and receiving is largely general computing open silicon—
Chi Onwurah
Sorry—say that again. I could not hear that. What is the rest of it?
Pardeep Kohli: It is general-purpose open compute; it is already available hardware.
Chi Onwurah
It is computing—it is processors.
Pardeep Kohli: That is correct. You get processors for CPU or general-purpose computing, or even if there are some accelerators, which we use for some specific algorithms, even though they are openly available from companies like Xilinx and Nvidia. They make those chips and we can use them to do some of the functions; but they are openly available, and you can buy that today. That is what carriers are doing. They are building the new networks.
Regarding the hardware that goes on the tower, that depends on the frequency band you allocate, so if there is an operator coming in that is on a frequency band that the existing operators do not have, whoever the vendor is would have to build those radios anyway, and it takes about nine to 12 months to build those.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Pardeep Kohli: Today, because it has always been proprietary solutions, that is where the challenge comes for companies like us, because it is demand and supply. Until open RAN came in, you really could not build this channel on radio, because there was no demand for it. So today the radios get built only by companies like Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia—I know NEC is building a few of them; but now, with open RAN, there are new players coming up. NEC, for example, is building radios outside of the Japan market. Fujitsu has now started building radios. We are actually building some radios ourselves for the frequency bands that are not available from our partners, so if NEC has a radio we use the NEC radio, but if it does not have a radio and Fujitsu does not have a radio and if you want to get into that market, we start building some of those radios ourselves. So we actually have, now, opened a centre in the UK, to build some of those radios, and we are working with Facebook and together we are building some of the radios for a frequency band not currently open.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Pardeep Kohli: So if the frequency band radios are available today, which are right, then we can actually build it in 12 months—the complete network; but if the bands are not available and we have to build those radios then, maybe, by the end of next year.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Chris Jackson: Just to add to what Pardeep has been saying, I think open RAN is not about, necessarily, any one company providing an all-encompassing solution. So at the moment, for NEC, we would provide 4G and 5G radios, but in terms of 2G and 3G we will work with our partners to provide that solution, so we would leverage third parties in order to provide that all-encompassing solution. I think that is the way that open RAN will work moving forward. As I say, you will not see any one company dominating one particular area. It is about bringing best of breed together. In terms of the actual hardware platform, in terms of 4G and 5G, NEC will provide that radio, but as I mentioned for 2G and 3G we would look to other vendors to provide.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Chris Jackson: The majority would be US-based now, but again, we are not restricted to that. As a systems integrator, which is what you will basically need, moving forward, we would work with whichever vendors were the best of breed for that particular scenario.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Chris Jackson: We would not compete with Nokia and Ericsson in terms of standard RAN, but the whole idea is that we would look to bring open RAN technology. That is the direction that NEC is supporting. If you ask me whether we could step in today and provide that capability, we believe yes, we could.
Matt Warman
Q
Chris Jackson: First of all, thank you very much indeed, Minister, for support in that particular trial. We believe that this is very important, because it has given us the opportunity to showcase 4G and 5G open RAN capability with multi vendors, and we are doing it in supporting the share of your network, which we know is an important KPI for the UK Government, in terms of increasing that capability across the UK. They want to ensure that the investment is targeted at areas within the UK—where the UK will receive the most benefit—and, more importantly, or as importantly, an opportunity for a trial that brings multiple companies together. So, although NEC is leading this particular trial, we are working with a number of other companies to bring this overall solution together. That is exactly what open RAN is trying to embrace, and that is the way forward. We would be delighted to work with Mavenir; we are already involved with Mavenir as well. That is not a hurdle or obstacle for us.
Stefano Cantarelli: There are several angles. The first one is the neutral hosting. I would like to draw attention to the fact that we have already done work with British Telecom, two years back, on neutral hosting, so that has now been talked about for a long time. Also, you might have noticed in the market that companies—the one that comes to mind is Vilicom—have been doing this type of thing, where they deploy Mavenir infrastructure to provide neutral hosting capabilities. So, we are fully supportive and believe that this kind of funding is particularly important.
We understand that that there is some interesting funding. We are in discussion with DCMS. We are discussing some projects that we believe will boost a lot of the innovation in this space. For example, we are trying to get funding for our R&D activities for open source software that could boost the availability of radio units. We say that the radio unit is hardware, but in reality there is of course a bit of software on top. This type of software, which is mainly interfaced towards the rest of the software and the control of the operation and maintenance activities, is not differentiated for each radio unit; it is just standard. By having an open source like that, you can fundamentally get the radio vendors to focus on their IPR for analogue development and being able to produce a radio unit with different frequencies, as Pardeep said before, which we believe could boost the market. That type of funding is particularly useful, because it is aimed at boosting the market and giving availability in the open RAN of these radio units.
I would also like to add that most of the frequencies that are used today in the UK are available in our view for open RAN, so I do not see that as a problem. But that type of investment is particularly important—in R&D—so the trial that you have funded in the first round of the 5G Create programmes is particularly useful to get learning and experience. As I said, in the SONIC, we are particularly active, although that is not a 5G Create programme but a different one. We believe that in the second round, you can focus on funding some R&D specifically to boost the ecosystem of the open RAN.
Matt Warman
Q
Stefano Cantarelli: First, remember that, as John mentioned, we acquired ip.access, which is a British company that has been in hardware for some time, so there is still space for hardware as well. Software is definitely where the majority of the innovations are. That is particularly clear—Chris mentioned this—in the IT space, where they moved from generic servers. I want to reinstate that, with servers generically available everywhere. The whole thing has really flipped on to different software. That will definitely boost the ability of a lot of companies to bring innovation.
As we always repeat, competition means innovation, and innovation is the only way. Many years ago, I was part of Vodafone. I built the 3G network for Vodafone in the UK, and at that time I had only one supplier in my network—I will not say who. I introduced another one, and it was only then that the other suppliers started to be active. Some legacy suppliers—I would say most of them—start to sit down and lie back if they are the only one in the network, because there is no motivation. From my experience from all these 30 years, that component is so important.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Stefano Cantarelli: Let me just address that initially before anyone else. We are a supplier in other places in the network, so they consider us a reliable supplier. We supply voice services, messaging services and everything else. You mentioned the initial deployment of open RAN by Vodafone this morning. That relates to us, because we are the supplier that it has deployed and is continuing to deploy. We are actually deploying sites for it.
I think that you have to look at two aspects when you are on an operator’s side. I am speaking from experience. It is not just about the technology; it is also about your processes and how you are able to move forward and change your mindset. I think that operators have a lot of complexity. We sympathise with them, of course—it is not an easy environment—but there are a couple of mindsets that they need to over-pass, if you let me use that word.
First, the world is changing. It is not hardware and software together; it is software and hardware disaggregated, and that of course requires some different capabilities. It is the same as when we passed from circuit voice to packet voice. Some people here may not get the example completely, but it is just a different point of view. That does not mean that it is more complex or whatever; it is just a different point of view, and you need to change. We know that change is not an easy thing. That is the first aspect that we need to take into consideration.
The second aspect is that, despite the technology that is available, you still need to consider the in-life service that you need to swap over. You have to consider that you did some planning or design based on certain principles that were available before, and you need to rethink how you are going to do that. For example, most of the 5G deployed today just uses additional frequencies on the existing sites that they have deployed with 4G, 3G and 2G. This is not what I consider full 5G, with all the characteristics of low latencies and so on. You need to start to think about the densification of sites. The Government can help a lot—with policies, by helping to define new capabilities, and by allowing the operators to change their architecture by enabling them to get more sites, and get permits more easily to build new sites.
These sites will not be like sites today; on these sites, there will be lot of carriers, a lot of technologies, and a lot of frequencies. As Pardeep said, a site today is probably just a radio unit that connects, through an internet connection—not necessarily just fibre—to a software data centre. These things are more important, and they are the reason why, although operators are in the middle of that transformation, it is taking a bit of time.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Stefano Cantarelli: Not only with fibre. The open RAN interface is such that you are not forced to use fibre only. You can also use internet connectivity. The internet is what you use when you are in a building.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Stefano Cantarelli: I add that this transformation in the core infrastructure has already almost happened. Already, most of the core infrastructure of the MNOs is running on general-purpose hardware, such as Dell servers and so on, with software on top of it. The RAN is really the last one to be transformed, for the reason that I gave, and also because, as I said, the market has been dominated by some suppliers who have been providing hardware and software, because they work with better interfaces between the radio access component.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you. That is very helpful. That makes me think that there are security issues arising from, for example, having our cloud infrastructure dominated by one vendor, such as Amazon Web Services. Those are perhaps future security issues that we need to look at. I now understand much better what you need to support your transition, so thank you very much for that.
The Chair
Q
Pardeep Kohli: I would just add that I understand the operators’ point of view as well. They are familiar with these vendors; they have been using them and they understand their processes. The vendors know each other. Obviously, we have to gain their trust. We spend over $300 million on research and development every year on open RAN, so we are fully committed, and we will seek any help that you can provide on engaging with operators in the UK market.
Chris Jackson: Can I come in on the NEC side of things? Frankly speaking, we are re-entering this market, and one of the reasons why is because we believe that open RAN, and particularly the Bill, now provides the framework and conditions to enable us to compete. It is probably similar for the operators; it is a change for them to actively work with companies such as NEC, as opposed to the companies they have previously been working with, but we are starting that process. We are actively engaged with the operators, and more support from the Government, through the Bill, is the way to move this forward.
John Baker: One last comment. Open RAN is all-inclusive, so this is not excluding the incumbents of the network. As soon as Nokia and Ericsson add open RAN interfaces to their products, we will be very happy to work with those guys. That will speed up the ability to deliver open RAN solutions in the marketplace.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, it remains for me to thank all our witnesses. We are extremely grateful to you.
The Chair
We will now hear from Julius Robson, who is the chief strategy officer of the Small Cell Forum, and Dr Louise Bennett, who is the director of the Digital Policy Alliance, and we have until 4.15 pm for this session. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record? Julius, could we start with you?
Julius Robson: I am Julius Robson, the chief strategy officer for the Small Cell Forum. We are a global organisation of component, equipment and service providers, all working to make mobile infrastructure more accessible to public and private sector organisations of all sizes. We see diversity as being really essential if we are to deliver on the promise of 5G connecting cities and communities, and to provide smart industry and the internet of things.
We welcome the publication at the same time of the Bill and the 5G diversification strategy; it is really important to consider both together, so that we can arrive at the best of both worlds. Two angles have not really been represented to the Committee so far, but are important to diversification. To fuel open RAN, we need chipsets for base stations. We also need to think about diversification at service provider level, so that in addition to mobile operators there are other service providers, particularly neutral hosts and private networks, which can help with this diversification agenda. Those are the topics of which I would like the Committee to be aware.
The Chair
Thank you. Dr Bennett?
Dr Bennett: I am Louise Bennett, and I have worked in computers all my career, with a focus on security and risk management. I am attending as a director of the Digital Policy Alliance. The DPA is an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that alerts parliamentarians and policy makers to the potential impacts, implications and unintended consequences of policies associated with online and digital technologies. I am very grateful to have been asked to give evidence.
DPA is broadly supportive of the intentions of the Bill, because it baselines the security measures required by law in the UK telecoms network, and anything that encourages security to be top of mind for vendors in multiple supply chains is a very good idea.
There are four areas that are absolutely key to telecoms security and on which I hope to answer questions in this sitting. The first is the security of network architecture. The Bill really focuses on this, but in our opinion it does not cover everything adequately. The second is the security of data—both data about the network and data going across the network. The latter is covered to quite a large extent, but the former, which I would characterise as begin about the network asset database, is not adequately covered, and if it is not properly covered, I do not think that you will succeed in your intentions.
The third area is the processes for maintaining, over time, the security needed time—that is not adequately covered, either—and appropriate scrutiny of how that is done. The fourth area is operational costs and other impacts of compliance, which I do not think have been fully considered.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Okay, who wants to go first?
Dr Bennett: I am happy to go first.
The Chair
I think it is possibly better if I get one of the Members to put a question to you first. David.
David Johnston
Q
The Chair
I think that is primarily to Dr Bennett.
Dr Bennett: It is because I care very much about you succeeding with this. I think everyone in the telecoms industry wants your intentions to be met, but we have to remember that when it comes to something as complex as security in the UK telecoms network, even if everyone follows best practice, it is a question of not if there will be a security breach, but when, and how quickly you can mitigate it. The reason is that our communications network has grown like Topsy. It has multiple digital infrastructures sitting on a lot of legacy systems, including analogue systems and copper. It is a very complex system of systems, with multiple, ill-defined interfaces and literally billions of end points, many of which have no security at all; the internet of things is an example.
The question is how you can minimise the likelihood of breaches. To do that in this very complex situation, you need a balance between light-touch regulation, which Ofcom seems to prefer, particularly with tier 3 suppliers, and the absolute need for security. Looking at our absolute need for security and the recent SolarWinds compromise, the inclusion of SolarWinds Orion products in networks was considered by everyone to be perfectly sensible. It was a trusted supplier. However, the latest things that I have seen say that thousands of networks have been compromised by that. As it seems to have been a spying attack, only about 10 networks are known to have been breached, but it will take months for all of those networks to be secured, and there are other potential breaches. The NCSC recently put out a note about that to all end users.
That is typical of the kind of things we will face. If we want an infrastructure that can cope with that, we need to do a lot of things. There needs to be a very honest and open dialogue between all the telecoms suppliers, their supply chains, their subcontractors, the Government, Ofcom and other agencies.
The Chair
Q
Julius Robson: Security is about resilience, and it is not a question of whether something will go wrong; it is a question of when. When we realise that one of our vendors is high-risk, will it take seven years to fix that problem? That is not a healthy place for our industry to be in. We want a rich diversity of suppliers working together, so that when we identify a suspect component or part in our network, there is something sitting there, warmed up and already integrated, ready to be swapped over. That is where we want to get to.
Dr Louise Bennett pointed out that there are many parts to this network; it has lots of legacy pieces. It is not a bad thing that our network is comprised of many diverse parts—that makes it less vulnerable to a single point of failure. Someone pointed out earlier that there is the idea of the weakest link—something is only as good as its weakest link—but actually, a diverse system with many different types of vendors involved is harder to take down. Maybe you can take down part of that network, but the whole thing will not fail if just one part is compromised. I think diversity is the answer to resilience in this case, and we should be looking to head in that direction.
David Johnston
Q
Dr Bennett: It is partly to do with what the whole sector is doing, but I think some things have not had enough emphasis in the Bill. One of them is what I have called the asset database. Those of us who were involved with the millennium bug know that we spent a hell of a lot of time trying to understand what the asset database for all our networks was, in order to find the components that were likely to cause a problem. I assume that the tier 1 suppliers and our main network suppliers have a comprehensive asset database, but you actually need a well-secured asset database that goes down to the component level. Over time, as you maintain it and move some components out and other components in, you need to be clear about what has happened to them.
At a subcontractor level, that can often be extremely difficult to do. You can find someone who thinks, “Oh, it’s okay; I’ve replaced that with something, and the spec looks similar.” The spec may look similar, but when someone says, “Actually, it is version so and so of such and such a component from such and such a supplier that you now need to take out,” you will find that you do not know in your asset database that you have some of those components in it. I could not see anything in the Bill that talks about the asset databases of the companies that supply the networks we are using, and I think that omission needs to be dealt with.
That leads to another point, which is about the processes for maintaining security over time. You may now be taking out all the Huawei kit and putting other things in its place, but that is happening all the time—that maintenance is going on all the time. There is no mention in the Bill of a technical advisory board focused on the provisions of the Bill, and that would be a very helpful addition. The board would perhaps be able to point out that there were new types of components coming in that ought to be looked at or considered and that ought to be recorded in people’s asset databases, and people should make sure that happens.
Leading on from that, I also think that the processes are not as transparent as they ought to be for Parliament. It would be helpful if there was a commissioner, such as the Information Commissioner or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That would be helpful in keeping an eye on what is going on here, and in order to be able to help policy makers and the Secretary of State to make the right changes.
The Chair
I am just going to interrupt you there, because I am conscious of time and a couple of Members are indicating that they want to come in. I call Christian Matheson.
Christian Matheson
Q
Dr Bennett: I would hope that those at the top level are clear about it, but I would be surprised if there were not occasions when they had used subcontractors to do maintenance and the imperative had been to sort out the fault ASAP. Knowing precisely what components had gone in could be wrong, and that might come up in an audit. I think it becomes more important as you flow down the levels.
When there is this desire, quite rightly, to bring in new and additional suppliers, those suppliers will need help to ensure that their parts of the network are working well. Again, I would suggest that something that is not in the Bill but should be there is the type of sandpit that the City of London has done for FinTech companies, where new entrants can test their equipment against the type of networks that they will be interacting with. That would reduce the risks of security problems in that area and give everyone confidence that the lower tier suppliers are compatible and have the same level of security as the top level of suppliers.
Christian Matheson
Q
Dr Bennett: Yes.
Christian Matheson
Q
Dr Bennett: This is the type of thing that would be done by a commissioner. I think NCSC is well placed to be involved in that and things like sandpits. I am not sure whether Ofcom has all the resources it would need to be able to do that. But we also must remember that audits and responses to audits are quite expensive things. If we want the infrastructure to be secure over time, as we all do, we have to agree that that is an expense that we will have. That will make the whole system more expensive to maintain, because it is an important job.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Robson, do you want to add anything to that?
Julius Robson: I think it is very important. One of our angles on this security Bill is that we see diversity as important not just for building resilience, but for delivering on the promise of 5G, which is to take mobile—which currently is about voice and data for people—and deliver it into organisations, to have e-health, smart industry and connected communities. To do that, you need a diversity in service providers. It is fair to say that mobile operators have done a great job of the outdoor national network, but perhaps not so much delivering into enterprise.
We want to ensure that when we implement new policies, like the telecoms security Bill, we are not introducing large barriers to entry to those smaller players that will come in and diversify our network. This talk of making everyone auditable is a workload that will drive us back towards a monolithic industry, where you have a small number of service providers, and only the largest vendors are able to service that. We need to ensure that whatever policy we implement looks forward and is workable for this diverse ecosystem that we aim for in 2025 and beyond, not the monolithic one we have today.
James Sunderland
Q
The Chair
Who wants to go first? Dr Bennett, I think that was mostly directed at you.
Dr Bennett: I appreciate that it is a framework, but it is a framework that does not say that powers in certain areas are going to happen and how you might do it. I think the Secretary of State and the whole industry actually needs a lot of help to do this. The whole tenor of wanting to have things like the telecoms diversification taskforce and the 5G diversification strategy is absolutely right, but as you do that you are bringing in people to do these things who have less resources than the people currently in there. As Mr Robson said, they can afford the expense of the barriers to entry, whereas smaller players require assistance from the Government to enter this world without going out of business because of the impacts of the cost of compliance.
The Chair
Q
Julius Robson: It is a good point. I recognise that the Bill essentially describes a process of setting codes of practice and does not actually say what those codes of practice are. One thing I noticed is that the language of the Bill speaks very much to the problem we have today that there are only one or two viable vendors of networks. The open RAN movement is about ensuring that your network is comprised of parts from many different vendors, with hardware from some people and software from others, and a mix of providers doing similar things. The Bill must ensure that it represents that world. So where it talks of “public electronic communications network” providers, do we assume that you have to be a network provider—an end-to-end network—to play in this game.
I did read that the code of practice will define three tiers of telecom providers, with the biggest and most important providers subject to the most intense scrutiny and oversight. That is not expressed in the Bill—it is in the notes—so I assume it will come out in the codes of practice, but at the moment we do not have visibility of what that will look like. From our point of view, it is important to encourage companies of all sizes to be able to play in this game, so proportionate legislation is important.
Chi Onwurah
Q
I have questions for both of you, but let me start with Dr Bennett. I was impressed by your structured list of things that are missing from the Bill, because we are here to scrutinise the Bill and see how we can improve it. I think you talked about the breadth of the security challenge and how this Bill, as it stands, might not meet the full breadth of it. You had four areas, and I think you have run through two of them in more detail. Could I ask you to summarise again the areas that you think are missing? In particular, could you talk a little bit more about the need for improved scrutiny? Could you just summarise that and then go into more detail on the ones where you have not yet?
Dr Bennett: I said that the areas that needed to be covered were network architecture, which is the Bill’s focus, the security of the asset databases that make up the network, how to ensure security of the data passing over the network, the maintenance of security over time, and the operational costs and other impacts of compliance. I have touched on all of them, but perhaps not very much on the operational costs and impacts of compliance.
The more diversified your network, and the more small vendors there are, the harder it will be for them to maintain the level of scrutiny, record-keeping and general security that is required as their bits of the network develop and the interfaces they have with other bits of the network change over time. That is an area where the Government should consider giving help to people to cover those costs. I have said that audit is needed of the assets in the network. The costs of being audited and of dealing with audits are very high, and they are costs that small companies may not have the resources to meet.
If the Government suddenly say, “All components from supplier X must now be removed from the network because of x, y and z,” it is incumbent on the Government to have some funding to help people to do that and to ensure that that really does happen, because it could be a step too far if you have a lot of very small suppliers that do not have the resources of skills, time or money to do it. You need to think about that and about how you can ensure that they are not squeezed out of the network—this diverse network that we want—by those costs.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Dr Bennett: I think most people would agree that the diversity of end points, of interfaces and of applications running over complex networks all pose security problem areas. The more of those you have, the more resilient your network might be on the one hand, because there are multiple parts, but on the other hand, the harder it is to maintain them adequately.
We see some of these problems today in the decision to move the copper out of the network. Applications that are very important to many users, notably alarm signals, are ones that often assume they have an underlying network of a particular type, and if it is not there those applications do not work and they do not work suddenly. These types of things are very complicated but are actually very important for the end users. It may be an alarm that says an elderly person has fallen in their home; it may be an alarm that says your bank has been attacked by a criminal gang. Who knows what it may be? But those types of things are the types of applications that run over these very complex networks, and unintended consequences can happen as you change the network architecture. If those tier 3 suppliers and the people providing key applications over the network are not involved in this conversation at the CNI level with the top-level suppliers, all sorts of unintended things can happen.
It is a question of how you make sure that you minimise the number of these unintended consequences and support people to realise what they need to do early on, so that they are not caught out by them.
The Chair
Q
Julius Robson: We are discussing the use of the mobile network for new and innovative services, such as worker alarms or falling-over alarms. Actually, there are some smaller players working in specialised industries that understand those customer requirements probably better than mobile operators, and that are very used to dealing with them. In fact, many of the applications for mobile are those that already exist in proprietary and bespoke wireless systems today and that we would want to move on to mobile. Some of the newcomers probably understand these things better than others and the diversification policy is about bringing in that expertise—those industry specialists who understand these requirements.
I would also say that, yes, the network is complicated—radio wireless networks, with lots of endpoints—but intrinsically the wireless medium is insecure. Anyone can listen in to it; it is possible to modify the signal. It has been designed so that everything going over it is secure and protected, and those security paradigms are locked up in the core, so that there are parts of the network that you do not have to worry about, because the information has been secured at a higher level.
I think this was mentioned by Andrea from Vodafone this morning: it is really important for us to understand which parts of the network are in scope of the security rules and which bits we do not need to worry about. The air—anything in the airwaves—is intrinsically already easy to eavesdrop on or modify. So obviously that is out of scope. I think we do not have to get too worried about certain parts of the network.
The Chair
I am just going to go to the Minister; if there is time, I will come back. Minister.
Matt Warman
Q
Julius Robson: I think it is important. What we are looking at in the 5G era is the application of mobile technologies for specialist industries, and it is entirely relevant that those industries have their own requirements for security and other requirements that apply on top of what is necessary in the basic mobile network. I do not think we need to duplicate that effort. Where we are using mobile in certain scenarios, the scenario should define the requirements. The base level of mobile connectivity should be something suitable, and affordable, for the consumers and the masses.
Dr Bennett: I am aware of the work you have been doing on security for the internet of things. I think it is complementary and extremely important. Everything should have security by design in it. It is very important to cover these types of points.
Matt Warman
Q
I would have expected you to say, if I can put words in your mouth, that you would like the agility of the regulator’s ability to update those codes of practice, to be able to say to networks, “This is what secure looks like. If you are complying with these kinds of codes of practice, then we will be able to understand that you are meeting the requirement.” You seem to actually be saying that you want greater rigidity. I am interested to understand whether you would like the codes of practice to have the flexibility offered by the writing from the regulator or whether you would like to see them on the face of the Bill.
Dr Bennett: I think we actually want both. There should be mention in the Bill of some of the ones that I think are key, so that people realise that there is going to be a code of practice on that they should follow. It is very important to be able to be agile and to get early information, from something like a technology reference panel, about things that are coming along, in order that you think about them before they get attached to the network. Trying to do it after you have attached something to the network is frankly a nightmare, so you need to be anticipating. It is not clear that there are mechanisms for that anticipation in the Bill.
Given the SolarWinds Orion hacking, which is a recent example of something that will take a long time to sort out and is precisely what you do not want to happen in the future, it would be sensible to get someone like NCSC to test whether the things in the Bill, and things that should be in the Bill, would have enabled the mitigation of that problem to happen faster than it has. The Bill ought to be doing something like what the Americans are doing in response to that now. The Government should consider a rapid response, co-ordinated unit to deal with similar incidents in the future, because they will happen. That is the kind of thing that ought to be in the Bill to say, “This is how we are going to be able to mitigate these problems when they happen, as quickly and sensibly as possible.”
Matt Warman
Q
Dr Bennett: Yes, and anticipating things as early as possible.
The Chair
Chi, we have time for another quick question. I think you had a point that you wanted to come back to.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Julius Robson: Thank you for that question. I have mentioned chipsets, which are important, and lots of people have talked about software and open RAN. The specialist base station chipsets are an important component, and if we can make them available at scale, which is something that we work on with our FAPI—our functional application programming interface—I think that will really help to fuel the diversity of equipment providers. That is one aspect.
Another aspect—I am not sure how well it is coped with in the consideration of the supply chain—is diversification at service provider level. As I have mentioned, mobile operators are the main service providers for mobile services, but they partner with other providers, particularly ones that work in specialist environments. There is a particular type called neutral hosts that can offer multi-operator services. If you wanted to connect to a hospital, it would not be any good to have just one operator service and have only a quarter of the people served. You need all of them served, and that needs to be done affordably. We want to make sure that the partners of mobile operators, such as neutral hosts, are supported in legislation.
It is also about recognising, as has been mentioned, the challenges of getting the hardware out. You can scale software just by selling it to more people, but hardware needs more feet on the streets and more deployers. We have to look at how we go about enabling more people to deploy mobile infrastructure into communities and industry, so that more people are aware of how it works, which means making the system simpler. From a security perspective, we need to recognise that there are parts of the network that need to be kept secure, and there are parts of the network that are out of scope of that.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Julius Robson: Just to make the point that you do not have to worry about every last resistor—components were mentioned—and every piece of equipment you have. As I pointed out, the radio airwaves themselves are also not secure. The whole system is designed to securely operate over an untrusted environment. In standards, we have the concepts of trusted and untrusted networks. Typically, you can operate your mobile network over the internet, which is considered untrusted. It is important that we recognise that paradigm.
I would say that all service providers are well accustomed to working with the level of security that the mobile operators and the regulatory regime demand, so we are happy with that. I just hope that we do not introduce new burdens with this legislation that stand in a way of diversification.
The Chair
Looking around the room, I think that is it. In that case, I thank Dr Bennett and Mr Robson for their evidence. We are extremely grateful to you. Thank you both very much indeed. That brings this session to a close.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Scott Steedman and Charles Parton gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move to the sixth and final panel of the day, which consists of Dr Scott Steedman CBE, who is the director of standards for the British Standards Institution, and Charles Parton from the Royal United Services Institute. We have until 4.45 pm for this session. Again, I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record. May we start with Dr Steedman, please?
Dr Steedman: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to attend the Committee this afternoon. My name is Scott Steedman. I am director-general of standards at BSI, the British Standards Institution. In my role, I have primary responsibility for the activities of the National Standards Body, which provides the UK experts—industry, Government and consumer experts—to participate in the development and maintenance of standards at the national, regional and global level.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Parton?
Charles Parton: Good afternoon. My name is Charlie Parton. I used to work as a diplomat, for 37 years, and the vast majority of that was working on China. Since I left diplomacy in 2017, I have continued to work on China. My “Mastermind” special subject, I suppose, is the Chinese Communist party and domestic politics, but of late, in the past couple of years, I have also been looking at strategy—UK relations with China—and, in that context, the question of Huawei and how we deal with technology and divergence.
Dean Russell
Q
Charles Parton: I think you are absolutely right to focus on our Five Eyes allies, in particular America and Australia—Canada and New Zealand at the moment are a little bit undeclared—which have come out very forthrightly to say that we really should not be entertaining Huawei in our systems. We have now followed them—even if only by 2027—and I think that is very much the right decision for a number of reasons, which I could go into if you wish me to.
I am not a technologist, and look at it much more from the political angle. It seems to me, if I may say briefly on the technology and the 5G system that is going to last us for the best part of 25 years and on which, no doubt, 6G will be built, that the idea that we can stay ahead in technology and be absolutely certain for the next two or three decades that we are ahead of the game and can keep them out of manipulating our data or using it in some advantageous fashion, is one of very great trust in our own abilities—first, they are putting enormous resources into it.
There are other reasons why the decision to get rid of Huawei was correct, and one is what I call the “black vulture of policy”. We have seen the way in which China will bully and sit on those countries that go against its wishes, in whatever field—way outside telecom. If you are dependent on another country’s systems, whether for getting equipment on time, or upgrades—let alone the more devious aspects of possible interference—I think that you will be looking at that black vulture and thinking, “Is it safe to pursue a policy that is very much in my interests, on telecoms, if I am going to be hit hard in other areas?” We have seen that: Australia, at the moment, is under the cosh; the UK was under the cosh when the Dalai Lama visited in 2012; Norway has been under the cosh, and so on.
In that context, are we saying that Huawei rules the Chinese Communist party’s policies? Of course not, but they are very intimately linked. I think that if the Chinese Communist party says to Huawei, “Jump!”, the only response from Huawei is, “Yes, sir! In what direction and how high?” You might look at the national security laws and say that those of course oblige them to co-operate and all that, but I do not think that matters so much—if the Communist party says, “Do it!”, they have no choice. If you look at how close they are, as another illustration, look at what is happening in Canada with the two hostages and the chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou. Again, I could go into more detail if you want.
Also, there is the financial support that Huawei has received over the years, in terms of cheap finance, loans to customers, tax rebates and so on. Why does it do that? Because the Communist party wants to dominate the technology of the future, and Huawei is its tool for doing that. So I think that to trust Huawei in the long term would be a very unwise decision.
Dr Steedman: Can I take us back to the Bill and talk in that context? We are in a period of very rapid technological development and evolution. Many countries, including the Five Eyes countries, have allowed the market to drive this forward and not perhaps paid attention to it. While this was a hardware-driven sort of infrastructure, that was possibly manageable, and we have managed it over the last few years fairly satisfactorily. But looking ahead to the 5G and, perhaps—who knows?—the 6G world, we have moved to a much more vulnerable position away from hardware and towards software.
I welcome this Bill because I think it is incumbent on countries that want to protect themselves with secure and resilient infrastructure, and because it puts in place a structure of regulation, guidance and standards, which I represent, that will enable a transformation in the industry of the United Kingdom. It will enable us to use technology and software from providers all over the world, but also from SMEs and start-ups in the UK that we can encourage, and create a really innovation-friendly future. But to do that we have to create a market framework that is structured under a quality piece of regulation that enables that to take place in a clear way—clear for the market, clear for the regulator Ofcom, and clear for the Department that manages it on behalf of the Government.
In this Bill we see clear statements about new duties, codes of practice and guidance—another form of standard —to be approved by a Secretary of State for the industry, and also indications about the use of industry standards to support and deliver a new policy. We can really play to our strength in the UK, where we work in a very performance-based market structure, and we can enable a pro-innovation culture that will stimulate and deliver the diversification, security and resilience that we are looking for.
It is not unusual in the world that major commercial players, given free rein, try to influence things in the direction that suits them best. It is not unusual. We are talking about China specifically, but it is not unusual. The key to this is ensuring that in the standards landscape, which is used to support the delivery of regulatory bodies, the governance and processes of the development of those standards is managed and influenced with UK stakeholder interest at heart. In the big landscape of standards, which we might want to talk about further, there is a very wide range of organisations developing standards, from the fringes to the formal systems, and we can discuss and deploy that in a coherent and consistent way.
There is evidence from other Departments of how this works in a co-regulatory manner, supporting industry, Government, Departments and the regulator to deliver the outcomes that we as a nation desperately want.
Christian Matheson
Q
Charles Parton: Of course, Huawei got the headlines because of the urgent need for 5G, but you are absolutely right that it is not the only player in telecoms, and indeed telecoms is not the only subject. I think that we need to look much more seriously at the whole question of technological co-operation with China. This gets into the whole question of divergence, or decoupling if you are American.
We have to recognise that, whereas our aim in China relations is to maximise trade, investment, global goods and so on, there are increasingly limits because divergence is happening. The intention of the Chinese Communist party is to dominate. As Xi Jinping in fact said in his first speech to the Politburo, the intention is to dominate western capitalism. He said that the Chinese system will take the superior position. Clearly, technology and its advance is a very important way of doing that, so it is not just Huawei and 5G. Therefore, we have to look very carefully at the whole question—that, I suppose, is what lies behind the National Security and Investment Bill—of how we co-operate on technology with China.
I have called for this a number of times, as many others have. The Government will need to set up a body and give much clearer guidance on which subjects in this field of technology we can co-operate happily with China, as well as which organisations—many are connected with the military, and the distinction between civil and military technology is eroding—and which individuals, because there are a number of individuals who have taken back or collected technology to help the Chinese security apparatus develop it.
You are absolutely right that it is really important to look much more broadly than Huawei. The company that comes immediately to mind is Hikvision, because it has such a large amount of the CCTV market. Secretary of State Dominic Raab made an interesting point in his speech the other day about the reputational harm that could be done to some of our companies if they are co-operating with Chinese companies that are deeply involved in the surveillance state, of which of course Huawei and Hikvision are two. Huawei has three laboratories with the public security bureau in Xinjiang, and is devising for them technology that will enable them to pick out Uyghur faces in crowds. That is on that side.
I think your second question was, why has Huawei been successful?
Christian Matheson
Q
Charles Parton: I think the Chinese state very strongly supported Huawei through its financing provisions and tax breaks, and indeed worldwide by giving cheap tied loans to countries and companies that would use its equipment. Of course, Huawei has been very successful because it is enabled thereby to provide very cheap goods, and it works extremely hard and quickly. I have to say also that there have been times when we have helped it. I am not a great supporter of the Huawei security cell that checks it. I think Huawei must be delighted with that, because some of the best brains in Britain are paid to pick out the holes in its shoddy system. It does not necessarily have to do the work and it can plough ahead with speed, in the knowledge that the Brits will very kindly point out where its systems are deficient and demand that it fills them. It is a great model, and we need to think a bit more carefully about that in future.
Dr Steedman: Technology companies that secure major positions in the market, wherever they come from, do so either because the market is not being monitored or regulated carefully enough, or because they win the contracts. You would need to ask market experts about why Huawei achieved the position that it did.
Perhaps I could focus on the diversification question and looking to the future. There are very effective ways and means to manage the market structures in our country, and they require a combination of regulation, guidance and standards. You can do that through procurement routes on both the technical side and the supply chain side, and you can do it through the contractual routes. Although we have a very successful and professional regulator in Ofcom—its role is to police the regulatory environment—we can also encourage, through the supply chain channels, the use of standards on specific technical requirements and on specific contractual requirements which encourage better business behaviour.
The Government in the UK use a small proportion of the British standards catalogue—perhaps 10% or 15% of the 37,000 standards that I am responsible for—in support of regulation. This is the area where co-operation can take place in a very effective way between UK experts, industry experts, consumer experts, regulators, academics and other countries of our choosing. Indeed, in the international domain, I have 1,200 committees. The UK chairs, hosts and manages 200 international committees, and a lot of the action, in terms of co-operation outside individual companies and universities working in their laboratories, takes place in the international standards system. It is in this system that we can seek to increase UK participation, co-ordination and influence, in order to get the results that we want. We want to ensure that the standards used are open and interoperable, that their governance is managed in an independent and neutral way, and that British stakeholders have the opportunity to influence the content of those standards.
The key to international co-operation is managing and influencing the international standards through which technologies, software and business processes are all delivered around the world. That is the plug- and-play global economy—trade, innovation and so on. It is an enabler; it is not a level playing field. The Telecommunications (Security) Bill will provide the level playing field for parties in the UK, and standards provide the opportunity. I would encourage us to see beyond the Bill’s provisions on rules, guides and guidance and to see the role of standards as a tool for us to help stimulate the diversification, security, resilience and quality that we are looking for in a future market environment in the UK. That is an area where the diversification taskforce under Lord Livingston, which I am privileged to be a member of, has been working very hard. We have some ideas emerging from that taskforce to support the 5G strategy, which I hope in the medium term will see British influence in international co-operation on standards really ramped out. We look forward to that.
The Chair
I think I might interrupt you there, because we have only until 4.45 pm. I would really like to bring in Mr Sunderland, the Minister and the shadow Minister, so we need very tight questions and very succinct answers.
James Sunderland
Q
James Sunderland
The important question from me is: what will be the reaction to the Bill within the Five Eyes community?
Dr Steedman: I will lead on that. I think the Five Eyes community will welcome the Bill, and it may well begin to set a model for the way that the UK and like-minded nations can create a pro-innovation market framework which has sufficient regulatory powers, backed up by industry standards, to deliver the environment that we want and that will, particularly in the UK’s case, stimulate new entrants, SMEs and innovation. That is a really critical part of future diversification, because we have no incumbent major players based out of the UK, so we need to stimulate our own industry as well.
Charles Parton: I do not have a great deal to add to that, other than, as a side note, that I do not think we should underestimate American bipartisan attitudes to the whole question of China and technology. I think we are going to have to take that into account in the broader context, because they are long-standing allies and sharers of the same values as us.
Chi Onwurah
Q
I start with a question to Mr Parton on behalf of Catherine West, which relates to the last point you made. As we know, the Government were moved to ban Huawei entirely from the network following US sanctions instigated by President Trump. What changes do you see the Biden Administration having on the US’s outlook on China, if any? Can you also squeeze in a reference to Chinese influence on academic research and development in this country? Then I have another question for Dr Steedman, which I will ask afterwards, if I may.
Charles Parton: A very quick response to that. I am more an expert on China than America, but nothing in the last couple of years has suggested to me that the Democrats will take a very much different position from the Republicans on the question of technology. I think they see it as a very great threat, as the Chinese have said. I think nothing will change there.
On the question of academic influence, I really do not think we should underestimate that. I wrote a paper on it about two years ago and much of what I sketched out there exists. For that reason, if I may repeat the point I made earlier, a great deal of effort has to be made, particularly in the STEM subjects. We could talk about the arts subjects and the clampdown, or the influences, on the freedom of speech and the self-censorship there, but in the STEM subjects it is really very urgent that we give our universities good guidance on what subjects, what organisations and what people they can co-operate with in the China context. As some of the research has shown, in terms of what is going on in our universities, there are subjects that we perhaps should not be helping on. GAIT technology with Huawei is an example. What can GAIT technology be used for? Surveillance. Not always, but it is very important in surveillance when you cannot see someone’s face because they are wearing a mask or it is bad weather. We have to be very much more on the ball in that area.
Chi Onwurah
As I said, I am a massive fan of standards development. I have worked in the area, with the ITU. I agree that it is essential to enable open RAN and diversification. The Government have said that standards are driven by vendors. We heard this morning from the network operators that their standards presence was driven by their headquarters—their owners. We do not have a UK vendor. When you say that we need to improve our presence in standards bodies, who is going to do that and how is it going to be funded?
Dr Steedman: Actually, we have excellent people in the UK who participate in international standards work. The challenge is that there is a huge breadth of organisations, fora, consortia and formal bodies that generate, develop and maintain the standards that are then used in the evolution of the equipment—hardware, software and so on. We need to pick those organisations that are doing the critical work, particularly perhaps the ones around security, and ensure that we have British voices in there. It is true that if you look at a consortia model, you will find that the consortia that develop standards are what we call pay to play: companies pay to join a consortium, and together they sit and write a standard. But actually there are other organisations that have more governance and more formal mechanisms for national representation, national voice and consumer voice, as well as industry voices. This spectrum is the piece that is often not well understood.
Our ambition, on the diversification taskforce, is to look to co-ordinate UK voices, which are currently fragmented in these multiple organisations, and to see what we can do to target, to focus, on the areas of standards development that we know are going to support the ambition of security, resilience and diversification in the UK—and, frankly, to allow other areas of standards development to carry on as they will. People write standards to suit themselves. But where we need formal standards to support a market structure in the UK, we must be absolutely sure that those standards have had UK stakeholder voices in the process, and that is part of the formal process.
You mentioned the ITU-T. That is where the DCMS, of course, is representing the Government. And the BSI represents the UK in ISO/IEC JTC 1 and in and the European regional organisations, including ETSI. So there is a big opportunity for us to take those lessons that we have learned in influencing these great international organisations and extend that policy of influence through co-ordination of the UK voice in other spaces. The ORAN-ALLIANCE is one example of where we need to improve our co-ordination. Who is going to pay for it?
The Chair
I am going to interrupt you. I am sorry, but I want to let the Minister get a last question in. My apologies.
Matt Warman
Q
Dr Steedman: Thank you, Minister. I might suggest that this is very much a matter of horses for courses. There is a range of organisations. I mentioned the ORAN-ALLIANCE; that is clearly one. We know, obviously, about 3GPP and the role of ETSI and 3GPP; that is another. And there may be roles for the formal bodies. We need to discuss the ITU-T, the UK participation in ITU-T and how we can strengthen that. With respect, this is an area that we need to work further on; and in the diversification taskforce, we are talking about the detail of that and how we might approach it from a United Kingdom perspective.
I am optimistic that the initiatives that have been taken today with the diversification taskforce, under Lord Livingston’s leadership, are going to produce for you really quite powerful ideas and initiatives to be taken forward in the years ahead. This is possibly the first time that the UK has really co-ordinated its input in this way to try to achieve some industry transformation and behavioural change.
The other areas I have mentioned, Minister, that are really important are in the area of procurement. This is not just about the technical standards; it is also about the way standards are used in the supply chain to stimulate behaviours and to enable SMEs to participate, rather than our just being locked into large-scale providers. I am very keen that we should comment on and discuss that, and those standards are not in the technical environment; they tend to be more in the business environment, where the UK has a very strong position already in global business standards. So there is another tool in our tool shed, to be used when we come to looking at shaping the market. I am looking forward to discussing that further with you in the taskforce.
Matt Warman
Q
Charles Parton: I cannot possibly deal with this in one minute. Obviously, telecoms is a very crucial—an increasingly crucial—part of critical national infrastructure, so they are very closely linked. It goes back to what I was saying earlier. There is this question of where in the science and technology field and our research and development we allow ourselves to co-operate with China, given that its attitude is one, I think, that is really quite risky. So, when the DCMS talks about the extremely fine idea of setting up a national telecoms laboratory, I do hope that, in setting it up—it talks about co-operating widely internationally—it takes that sort of thing into account, too. I think that there will have to be great restrictions there.
This might be another example. I am well out of my field here, but we have designated high-risk and non-high-risk vendors, but what happens if some of the Chinese—they do not have to be Chinese—higher-risk vendors try to sneak under the wire by purchasing or using proxies? Again, I think that needs to be considered.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings the time for this witness session to a close. I think that we could all have done with a bit longer with both of you gentlemen, but thank you very much for your evidence. We are extremely grateful to you. That brings the formal part of the proceedings to a close.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maria Caulfield.)
Written Statements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Indemnity for Police Area Returning Officers and Local Returning Officers: 2021 Police and Crime
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
It is necessary for the Cabinet Office to indemnify police area returning officers (PAROs) and local returning officers (LROs) in England and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in police and crime commissioner (PCC) elections. This is because for the purposes of PCC elections, PAROs and LROs are statutorily independent officers and are separate from both central and local government. As such, they are personally liable for the conduct of the PCC elections. They are therefore potentially exposed to a variety of legal risks and challenges. Existing insurance that covers PAROs and LROs in discharging their statutory duties as returning officers at local elections will not, in most cases, cover them at the PCC election.
In the light of this, the Cabinet Office proposes to continue to indemnify PAROs and LROs at the forthcoming PCC elections on 6 May 2021, and any subsequent by-elections taking place before the next scheduled elections on 1 May 2024, against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties where existing insurance cover does not apply. Where a PARO or LRO already holds insurance which covers liabilities incurred at the PCC election, they will be required to claim under that insurance (or to seek to claim under it) before making a claim against this indemnity. Insurance for specific elections has historically provided extremely poor value for money, with claims made under such cover being smaller than the cost of the insurance premium. An indemnity therefore provides better value for money and this approach has been taken for elections since 2009.
On this basis, I have today laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s intention to extend the current arrangements which indemnify PAROs and LROs against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in relation to the PCC elections.
In Wales, PAROs and LROs will be conducting Welsh parliamentary elections in combination with PCC elections on 6 May 2021. The Welsh Government will provide their own indemnity to returning officers working on the Welsh parliamentary polls. Where a claim is made against the actions or conduct of a returning officer in relation to both Welsh parliamentary and PCC elections, any losses, liability, damages, costs, claims, proceedings or expenses incurred in relation to the combined polls will be apportioned equally, so far as that is reasonable.
The indemnity will provide PAROs and LROs with cover for:
Amounts that exceed the upper limits on any existing insurance policies held by them, or local authorities on their behalf, that will provide coverage;
Any reasonable costs resulting from their liabilities to the public, as an employer or in their professional role.
The indemnity will only apply so far as any charges are not otherwise recoverable under the charges provisions contained in section 55 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and is subject to exclusions set out in the departmental minute. The indemnity is otherwise unlimited in terms of the maximum amount covered per claim.
We will also provide a certificate confirming that we will bear any employee liabilities of the PARO or LRO which would otherwise be covered by insurance procured under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
[HCWS706]
Indemnity for Returning Officers and Acting Returning Officers: UK Parliamentary Elections
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
It is necessary for the Cabinet Office to indemnify returning officers in England, Scotland and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in the course of a UK parliamentary election or by-election. This is because for purposes of UK parliamentary elections, returning officers and acting returning officers throughout Great Britain (referred to below as “ROs” and “AROs”) are statutorily independent officers. They are separate from both central and local government. As a result, they are exposed to a variety of legal risks varying from minor claims for injury, to significant election petitions and associated legal costs.
ROs and AROs make their own arrangements to insure themselves against any risks they face in taking forward their statutory duties at local and UK parliamentary elections. The cover obtained usually forms part of the local authority’s own insurance arrangements. While this insurance will cover certain risks to which ROs and AROs may be exposed at UK parliamentary elections, they could ultimately be liable for claims of a type not covered by insurance policies. They could also be liable for claims that exceed the insurance limits in existing cover.
In the light of this, the Cabinet Office proposes to continue to provide ROs and AROs with a specific indemnity for UK parliamentary elections to supplement the insurance policies that have been arranged locally. On this basis, I have today laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s intention to extend the current arrangements which indemnify ROs and AROs against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in relation to UK parliamentary elections.
The indemnity will cover ROs’ and AROs’ costs (including reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses) incurred in connection with a UK parliamentary election, which arise in relation to their discharge of responsibilities as RO or ARO but fall outside of the scope of the insurance cover which they have arranged locally, and where all other forms of recourse have been exhausted. The indemnity will be limited to the extent set out in the departmental minute.
The indemnity will cover costs arising in relation to UK parliamentary elections, including byelections, where the date of the poll is on or before 1 May 2024. The indemnity is subject to exceptions identified in the minute, but is unlimited in terms of the maximum amount it covers per claim. If the liability is called, provision for any payment is to be met from the Consolidated Fund.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
[HCWS707]
Domestic Abuse Victims: Workplace Support
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members, to bring to their attention the Government’s report into support in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse.
This report, which I am publishing today, sets out the key findings from the review conducted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy this year, as well as the areas of work which Government will take forward as a result of this review.
This review is part of the Government’s agenda to raise awareness and build understanding about the devastating impact of domestic abuse on victims and their families. The landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, aims to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward and report their experiences, safe in the knowledge that the state will do everything it can, both to support them and their children and to pursue the abuser. The Bill includes a wide range of measures to better protect and support victims of domestic abuse and their children for the long term.
Alongside the measures in the Bill, we know that accessing and remaining in work is vital for victims of domestic abuse. Work provides not only an income, and the security that brings, but also opportunities to make social connections, and maintain health and wellbeing. For individuals experiencing domestic abuse, the workplace itself can also be a place of safety and respite from the abuser, and a place where they can make the arrangements they need and contact specialist services.
To inform this report, BEIS launched a call for evidence in June seeking evidence of how workplaces can most effectively support victims of domestic abuse. This received 126 written responses from individuals, representatives of victims, employers and their representatives, trade unions and others with interest. We also held a series of roundtables and meetings to discuss the issues in more depth with the designate domestic abuse commissioner, the victims commissioner, trade unions, specialist charities and service providers, employers and their representatives across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
With the right support and encouragement, employers can play a key role in helping to lift the lid on this often hidden and always hideous crime. The report considers what pragmatic, effective new measures could be put in place in the workplace by Government and employers. It is structured around three main themes:
Raising awareness and understanding of the impacts that domestic abuse can have on individuals and employers.
Building and sharing best practice among employers.
The role that employment rights play in addressing the needs of victims of domestic abuse.
The work does not end with this report. We will work together with employers, representatives of victims and trade unions to continue to build awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and drive good practice across the board. The evidence provided showed that flexibility can help victims in situations where they need to access services. We will take forward the manifesto commitment to consult on ways to ensure that flexible working becomes the default for everyone, which we know will benefit individuals experiencing domestic abuse. We will also prepare a consultation on further steps to help victims of domestic abuse in the workplace, for example on how to support them to access existing employment rights such as flexible working more effectively.
I shall place copies of the report in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS711]
Second-hand Margin Scheme in Northern Ireland: Motor Vehicles Sourced from Great Britain
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
My noble Friend the Minister of State (Lord Agnew of Oulton) has today made the following written ministerial statement.
Under the Northern Ireland protocol (“the protocol”), EU VAT rules in respect of goods will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the UK’s VAT system.
As set out in the 10 December 2020 Command Paper [CP 346] , the Government are aware of concerns regarding the use of the second-hand margin scheme in Northern Ireland, with respect to motor vehicles sourced in Great Britain. The Government understand the impact this may have on Northern Ireland traders and consumers, and are therefore exploring options to minimise this.
As an interim measure, the Government will be issuing guidance to traders on how they can continue to apply the margin scheme in relation to motor vehicles sold since the end of the transition period.
Following initial engagement this week, the Government will also seek to agree a long-term derogation with the European Commission from EU VAT rules to allow the margin scheme in Northern Ireland to apply in respect of motor vehicles sourced in Great Britain.
In line with this approach, the Government will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity on the use of the margin scheme in Northern Ireland with respect to motor vehicles sourced in Great Britain. Consistent with the Government’s intentions to apply for a derogation, this legislation will be retrospective and apply from 11pm on 31 December 2020.
[HCWS710]
Reforming Pre-charge Bail
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
In February of last year, this Government launched a consultation seeking views on reforming pre-charge bail. A number of cases had highlighted that the existing system was not working for victims, law enforcement, or suspects. It is of great importance to this Government that the public have confidence in the criminal justice system, and I am clear that the welfare of victims should be at its heart.
The consultation sought views on a number of aspects of the pre-charge bail process—in particular addressing the reduced reliance on pre-charge bail, and the growing number of suspects being released under investigation (RUI). Under RUI, conditions and restrictions, which could be used to protect the victim, cannot be imposed on a suspect, and this has meant that in a number of cases victims have not had the right safeguards in place.
We received feedback from a range of stakeholders—from charities and victim services to lawyers and the judiciary and police—which we have used to inform our response. The Government have listened, and now we are taking action.
We will be bringing forward the following reforms, legislating where necessary at the earliest opportunity, to ensure victims can feel better protected and suspects will not be placed under endless suspicion.
We will remove the current presumption against use of pre-charge bail to ensure that law enforcement can take a balanced decision depending on the circumstances of the case. This will help reduce the numbers of those released under investigation (RUI).
We will adjust the timescales and authorisation levels for pre-charge bail to better reflect the operational realities faced by investigating officers, while maintaining rigorous oversight of decisions to extend bail timelines.
We will ensure that victims play a key role in the pre-charge bail process, that they are fully informed as the case progresses and are able to ask questions and provide views. This is so officers can take into account any safeguarding concerns to ensure appropriate measures are in place.
We are determined to give the police the right tools to keep the public safe. These changes are designed to make the pre-charge bail regime more effective and to provide more confidence for all involved.
Further detail of the changes we are making can be found in the consultation response. The consultation response will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-powers-pre-charge-bail. A copy will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS708]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I give notice that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government intends to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund to fund previously announced covid-19 expenditure on local government DEL that is above the level of the net cash requirement approved at the main estimate. The Department requires an advance of its cash requirement pending parliamentary approval of the supplementary estimate 2020-21.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £3,559,984,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3,559,984,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS712]
Criminal Legal Aid: Independent Review
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Following the accelerated package of measures amending the criminal legal aid fee schemes announced in August, I announced that the next phase of the criminal legal aid review would involve an independently led review. On 21 December 2020, I published the terms of reference for that review, and announced via press notice that it would be chaired by Sir Christopher Bellamy QC. I am today following up that announcement.
The first phase of the criminal legal aid review has delivered up to £51 million to practitioners, and the independently led review will build on the data and insights collected so far. It will be far reaching in scope, assessing the criminal legal aid market in its entirety; the service being provided, how it is procured and how it is administered. It will develop and continue the original aims of the first phase of the criminal legal aid review.
Over the last few years, concerns have been raised about the long-term sustainability of criminal legal aid. Against this backdrop, and the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, it is important that we do what is necessary to ensure the criminal legal aid system is efficient, effective, and sustainable.
The ultimate objective for the criminal legal aid system is to provide legal advice and representation to those who need it, in line with my statutory duty to ensure legal aid is made available in order to ensure and uphold access to justice. This objective will provide the foundation for the review’s analysis and recommendations. The review will aim to ensure that defendants receive high-quality advice and representation from a diverse set of practitioners, both now and in the future, while also making sure that the criminal legal aid system is sustainable and provides value for money to the taxpayer and contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The themes and objectives of the review are outlined in detail in the terms of reference, which I have placed in the Library of the House.
The review will be chaired by Sir Christopher Bellamy QC. Sir Christopher is a former judge with a wealth of legal experience. He has recently stepped down as chairman of Linklaters global competition practice and joined Monckton Chambers to focus on mediation and arbitration. Sir Christopher will lead a dedicated review team within Government which will support him as he delivers the review’s recommendations.
I am working to establish an expert advisory panel as soon as possible who will provide support to the review by testing and challenging the review’s analysis and recommendations. The panel will be composed of individuals with a range of backgrounds, skills and experience that will aid the review in its analysis of the criminal legal aid system.
The review will report this year and the Ministry of Justice will aim to publish the report, alongside the Government’s response, by the end of 2021.
[HCWS708]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded at any point, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish the Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain absolutely committed to looking at the broader aspects of the constitution and the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts, as pledged in our manifesto. We are taking forward the work via a range of work- streams, some of which have already been announced, such as the Independent Review of Administrative Law. Others will be announced in due course.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, our manifesto said:
“In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission.”
This was confirmed on 29 January last year, when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
“We will set up the commission within this Government’s first year. Further announcements will be made in due course.”—[Official Report, 29/1/20; col. 1437.]
Since then, silence. But the Library tells me that the Government have established seven other independent reviews and one public inquiry. So, for the fourth time, I ask the Government for a debate in which they set out their emerging thoughts and your Lordships set out their priorities. We can then move forward on a broad basis of support that commands public confidence.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as a very experienced Minister himself, my noble friend knows that debates are matters for the usual channels. He asked about progress with a constitutional review. I have indicated that the Government are determined to pursue this in a range of independent workstreams. That has begun in the first year with the Independent Review of Administrative Law.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and urge a cross-party and non-party approach to these issues; otherwise, what emerges from the Government’s plans will lack credibility. Before we lurch into any more divisive or closely fought referendums, can we please try to have cross-party and wide agreement on when referendums should be used in our parliamentary democracy, perhaps by following some of the recommendations in the report of the House of Lords cross-party Constitution Committee published a few years ago?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government are not seeking referendums, although I understand that another political party in the kingdom is. We will not go in that direction. I certainly agree that cross-party approaches are desirable. Another constitutional issue that we are addressing is fixed-term Parliaments, which the Government have put forward for pre-legislative scrutiny by a cross-party Joint Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham [V]
My Lords, I welcome the request from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for a cross-party, independent approach to this. Were the commission to make a primary objective strengthening the union and a Parliament working for the whole United Kingdom, does the Minister agree that it should give serious consideration to the devolution of power in England away from Westminster, whether to regional mayors, assemblies or even an English assembly?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, those concepts are obviously extremely important and are no doubt the subject of continuing discussion in and across all parties. As the right reverend Prelate will know, regional assemblies were proposed by a previous Government and rejected by the electorate.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the sheer scale of the disparate constitutional reforms that have taken place in recent decades and that derive from no intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change, does my noble friend agree that we need a body that can stand back and make sense of where we are, that is grounded in an understanding of our constitution—qua constitution—and that does not rush in with knee-jerk reactions and ill-thought-through proposals for more change?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure about the proposition of a body. I think that, ultimately, authority to determine must reside in Parliament and in part in your Lordships’ House. I hope that we will have debates and discussion. I agree with my noble friend that a lot of change was ill thought through, but I assure noble Lords that the Government intend to proceed cautiously and with independent advice.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Cabinet Office recognise that more piecemeal changes to the constitution and to electoral law, such as No. 10 taking back control of the Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament, weakening controls on election spending and attacking the independence and integrity of the Electoral Commission, break the manifesto promise, which has been referred to, of a comprehensive constitution commission, set up to take evidence in the first 12 months of this Government?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords. I do not accept the characterisation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I must say that the Liberal Democrat party has never been slow to come forward with radical changes to the constitution with very little consultation with others.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is a big canvas but, given the enormous impact of the communications revolution and the ever more powerful media platforms’ monopolies on trust in government, on parliamentary constitutional authority, on the unity of the UK itself and on our future national direction, can we be assured that the commission’s remit when it is set up covers these fundamental issues, as many people are asking for, as well as more conventional areas of constitutional reform?
Lord True (Con)
Aside from the question of whether it be under the ambit of a commission, I believe that my noble friend puts his finger on something that is profoundly important about the way in which the context of politics and government is changing. Without treading on anyone’s feet, I would certainly be interested to hear your Lordships’ opinion on that in a future debate.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
Please could the noble Lord explain simply to a perplexed audience the relationship between Sir Peter Gross’s review of the Human Rights Act, the review by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, of administrative law and the constitution, democracy and human rights commission being discussed today?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, those are two separate workstreams as part of the constitutional reform consideration that we are undertaking. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, we are eating the elephant in chunks. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act review is another part, so there are already three strands and they each deserve careful and individual attention.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Assuming that the commission will go ahead—although I am not absolutely sure, from what the Minister said, that it will—then, following up on what my noble friend Lady Quin and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said, it will have public support only if it is truly independent. Will the Government commit that the commission, when it is appointed, will be independent and non-partisan and ensure that its members are not beholden either to the Government or indeed to any other special interest?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have said that the Government are delivering the commitment in the manifesto to look at the broader aspects of the constitution in a range of separate workstreams. Obviously, this and others to be announced in due course will all reflect what the noble Baroness has said and what I have said—indeed, that is the case for those reviews that have been set up already and the cross-party Joint Committee that is looking at the FTPA.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said in his opening question, which is that any constitutional reform needs to have broad-based support that inspires public confidence. How do the Conservative Party and its associated right-wing think tanks, eating the elephant in chunks and bending the conventions of the constitution in the way that it has in the last year, begin to deal with public alienation from politics and holding the union of Great Britain together?
Lord True (Con)
I think that on reflection the noble Lord will think that he does a disservice to those serving on the Independent Review of Administrative Law, those reviewing under Sir Peter Gross the operation of the Human Rights Act and indeed Members of both Houses on the Joint Committee when he characterises them in that way.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the broad and radical mandate of the proposed commission would indeed be better managed in bite sizes, as the Minister has suggested. Do Her Majesty’s Government have plans to expand the deliberative democracy initiatives that they have so far sponsored in Dudley, Cambridge and the Test Valley?
Lord True (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for the approach that I have outlined. On her specific question, I cannot give a commitment on that at the Dispatch Box now, but I will repeat what I have said to the House: other workstreams on constitutional review will be announced in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Foreign Policy: UK-EU Dialogue
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what formal arrangements they have put in place to enable regular dialogue between the United Kingdom and the European Union about foreign policy matters.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we have agreed with the European Union that we shall co-operate on current and emerging global issues of common interest, including co-ordinating positions and maintaining dialogue in multilateral organisations. We do not need overly institutionalised formal arrangements or a treaty framework within the EU to continue to co-operate closely with allies on foreign policy matters, including EU member states. We shall continue to discuss shared foreign policy challenges and threats and we look forward to a future relationship based on constructive co-operation between sovereign and independent allies.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The 2019 political declaration, which the Prime Minister said he supported, proposed a partnership between the UK and the EU on foreign policy, security and defence matters. Why then did the United Kingdom not take forward a formal arrangement despite EU willingness? Will the Government now do so? If not, how do they plan to protect and promote our interests in Hong Kong or on sanctions and other issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the practical terms that the noble Baroness mentioned, she will be aware that we are working closely with EU partners and other allies on issues of sanctions and indeed issues relating to Hong Kong. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement affirms our mutual commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we are already working closely on many important issues—including issues of human rights, which are part of my portfolio—both bilaterally and through multilateral organisations.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, an unstable and unruly world needs strong alliances between countries seeking international stability and co-operation rather than competition. The Biden Administration will expect the UK not to behave in a way that weakens the EU. As all but six members of the EU are members of NATO, we have already integrated sufficient elements of our defence. Does the Minister agree that formal arrangements of co-operation between us on security and foreign policy are inevitable? He certainly did so in October 2019, when he strongly supported deep co-operation as set out in the revised UK-EU political declaration.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from his own experience as a Minister and as a Defence Secretary, and as he rightly articulated, NATO is the cornerstone of our relationship on the defence of Europe and the democratic values that we stand for. We remain committed to and at the centre of that NATO alliance, working with EU colleagues as well as other nations, most notably the United States. I reiterate our commitment to co-operation with our EU allies and others on important issues that currently confront the world.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister reiterates the Government’s commitment to co-operation with the European Union, but now that we no longer have a seat at the table, what mechanisms is the FCDO putting in place to ensure that we have regular contact with our bilateral partners in the EU 27 and individual member states?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already alluded to in my original Answer, formality of mechanisms is not a necessity for having close alliances, not least as demonstrated by our alliances with the United States, Canada and Australia in our meetings through the Five Eyes. We will continue to co-operate with our EU colleagues, as we have done on important statements on the JCPOA and on support for human rights issues around the world, including a recent statement in relation to Xinjiang.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
My Lords, is it not the case that, for the most part, the whole idea of a common EU foreign policy was always more of an aspiration or a myth than a reality, particularly when one looks at the divisions over EU policy towards Kosovo, Syria, Iraq and Russia, not to mention the shambles of EU policy towards Ukraine? Nevertheless, is it not possible and in our interest—without getting bogged down in the rather impractical bureaucracy of the common security and foreign policy—for there to be some formal mechanism for discussing policy with those with whom, after all, we share certain fundamental values as well as the same geographical space?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend speaks from insight and experience and I listen carefully to his suggestions. Let me assure him that we are already working closely with EU colleagues. As the new relationship evolves, I am sure that we will look at how we can further strengthen co-operation on the very issues that he has outlined for reasons of proximity. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, we want to be the best ally and the closest friend of the EU.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, of course co-operation is a good thing, but now that we are free, we can diverge for the better and hope to persuade the EU to take a better path; for example, in relation to China. Only yesterday, we heard of the atrocities taking place there from the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, but the EU has signed an investment agreement with China disregarding its crimes. Does the Minister agree that we must form an Anglo-American alliance and other alliances against Chinese atrocities and against buying Chinese-tainted goods and technology?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point about creating alliances against the human rights abuses that we have seen in places such as Xinjiang and the continued suppression of democratic movements within Hong Kong, but it is not just about further strengthening our alliances with the US; it is about building international alliances and co-operation. Let me assure the noble Baroness that we are doing just that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the JCPOA, and, of course, with the new US Administration, there is renewed optimism that it could be revived. The Government have been working recently with France and Germany in relation to Iran’s non-compliance. Could this E3 format be extended to other areas of mutual interest and concern?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a practical suggestion. I am sure that in time, as we see the strength of E3 co-operation and with the new Administration in the United States, there will be areas of further co-operation in this respect. We look forward to forging alliances with the E3 and with other European states, both bilaterally and within the context of the European Union, as well as with the new US Administration when it takes charge after President-elect Biden’s inauguration.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, now that we are no longer members of the European Union, what influence will we have, for example, in preventing the creation of defence structures which would duplicate NATO?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we liaise closely not just on issues of defence but on other areas. The global human rights sanctions regime that we led on and that is now being taken forward by the European Union is a good practical example of that. We will continue to co-operate on defence and other matters with the EU to ensure non-duplication, as the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister detail the nature of future structured or unstructured engagement with the EU on foreign policy around the issues of security and human rights?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already alluded to that, but I assure the noble Baroness that we engage regularly. As a Minister responsible for human rights, I engage personally with the European Union human rights lead, Eamon Gilmore, and will continue to do so.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, just before Christmas, and after 16 years, the United Kingdom left the EU-led military mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Separately, there are reports that the FCDO expects to cut expenditure on its western Balkans programme from the current £80 million to under £50 million or possibly even £35 million. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that these reports of cuts are true and, if so, can I urge the Government to reconsider this step, which would have a damaging effect on our influence in the region and with our allies and risk being interpreted as yet further proof that the United Kingdom is turning its back on the EU and the western Balkans?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we continue to engage on the Balkans. On the specifics of my noble friend’s question, I shall write to her.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the United Kingdom has one of the finest and largest diplomatic forces in the world, something of which we should be proud. Does the Minister agree that Britain has always been seen as a gateway to the EU and that now is an opportunity, with a new US Administration, for Britain to partner with the United States and the European Union on many areas, including security and foreign policy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord and I look forward to working with him on important priorities in terms both of trade and strengthening relationships, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. Looking at the position of global Britain, it is worth reflecting that in under two years we have agreed 63 trade deals, which are valued at £885 billion. No country has done this; this is in less than two years. We still have trade deals being finalised with the United States and Australia to come. The picture for global Britain in terms of the facts on the ground is very positive. We look forward to strengthening our co-operation further with all partners across the world and working with your Lordships’ House, with the experience it brings, on strengthening global Britain and its place on the world stage.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Construction Industry: Retention Payments
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Aberdare
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken since the publication on 26 February 2020 of the responses to their consultation on retention payments in the construction industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The Government, in conjunction with the Construction Leadership Council, are working to develop a sustainable strategy on retentions for the whole sector. During the current pandemic we have also provided guidance to the industry on responsible and fair contractual behaviour, including in relation to retentions. We are committed to improving payment practices and working with the construction industry to take this important matter forward.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, it is three years since the Government’s consultation on retentions ended and, as we have been reminded today, three years since the collapse of Carillion, which led to small construction firms losing hundreds of millions of pounds in retentions. Retentions limit their ability to invest, grow, train staff, take on apprentices and, all too often, survive. The actions mentioned by the Minister are better than nothing but do not go nearly far enough. I have two questions. What are the Government doing now to prevent small construction firms, already under pressure from the pandemic, being crippled because funds properly belonging to them are being used by larger clients to prop up their own cash flows? When will the Government introduce the legislation reform that is recognised as the only way of bringing proper ongoing relief to these small firms?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the noble Lord has been active for many years on this important issue. This has been a slower process than we might have liked, in part due to the complexity of the issues associated with the practice of cash retentions and the wide range of interested parties. While most in the construction industry favour or could accept change, unfortunately no consensus on a preferred solution has emerged from industry to date.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, what happened to the suggestion in the Murray review of 2017 that retention payments for subcontractors and vendors on major projects should be held in a designated trust account? As far as retention payments are concerned, will it help to develop the system of financial rewards for those who settle accounts earlier?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is indeed one of the policy suggestions we are looking at, but given the complexity of the policy issues, it is premature to commit to the introduction of a retention deposit scheme. We will continue to seek consensus and work with industry to find a way forward.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
Can the Minister estimate the construction payments retained by the public sector, specifying the extent of the payments to Carillion retained by the Government? Given that there were only 55 responses to a consultation that concluded in February 2018, why did it take two years to publish those findings on what he terms an “important matter”?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not have figures for the public sector, but not withholding retentions is government policy—although I am aware that some departments and agencies do. Unfortunately, we do not have the power to instruct local authorities in this matter. If there are any figures available, I will of course let her have them.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as my wife is a construction lawyer. This issue was raised regularly by the late Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, and I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we miss him. The consultation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is highly critical of current practice. It also stresses that the pandemic raises major insolvency worries. Why do the Government not use their Covid-19 emergency powers either to introduce an RDS or to abolish retention payments and try out this new policy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to the work of the late Lord O’Neill: as the president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, he was active on this issue for many years and instigated an inquiry on it in 2002. As I have said, given the complexity of the policy issues, there remains no consensus on the way forward, but we will continue to examine the issues, to work with industry and to seek a solution to this problem.
Lord German (LD)
The last two paragraphs of the Government’s responses paper lay out only two policy options: the retention deposit scheme or phasing out retentions completely. May I follow the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in pressing the Minister? He already has the responses and knows the two options before him. Can he tell us when the legislation will come forward to make this happen? It is much needed and will avoid late payments, non-payments and insolvencies.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Those are two of the alternatives that have been suggested as a policy response. Changes in this area would require primary legislation, and there is always pressure on the Government’s legislative timetable. We think that working with the industry to seek a consensus is a good way forward, but there is not yet a consensus: some notable companies are against a deposit retention scheme or the other policy option the noble Lord mentioned.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I would like to thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for referring to Lord O’Neill. We miss him and I am sure the industry misses him.
This has been going on for decades. The large construction companies that owe money to subcontractors use it as working capital. Having a retention fund would stabilise the industry and prevent job losses and redundancies. What priority will the Government give to taking long overdue action?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: this has been going on for a long time and under many different Governments. The complexity of the issues is one reason why no action has been taken so far. As I said, we are committed to working with industry to find a consensus, and we are working with the Construction Leadership Council. We are committed to addressing the related issue of late payments, and we will try to find a consensus on a way forward.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, although the consultation process was quite wide, only seven individuals contributed. Does my noble friend agree that, particularly at this time, any arbitrary or unfair retention of moneys due to individual tradesmen and women—whose skills we must retain in the construction industry—exerts a disproportionate pressure on them and the continuation of their specialist services? Is it not time to alleviate the pressures on these people in particular?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. We understand that the practice of cash retention can create problems for individuals and businesses in the construction supply chain, due to late payment or non-payment. We are committed to improving payment practices and working with the construction industry to try to take this matter forward.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I understand the attraction of looking for consensus among all the players, but it is obvious that the current system is unjust and has a particular impact on smaller businesses, which need the money desperately. Why do the Government not just take a lead and govern as they should?
Lord Callanan (Con)
At the risk of repeating myself, it would require primary legislation and there is pressure on the legislative timetable. There are a number of different options to take this forward. We are committed to ending the practice of late payment and we will work with industry to try to find a solution to this problem.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
The Minister’s answers so far have been deeply disappointing. Of course there is no consensus within the industry, because there are winners and losers. The winners of the present system are the big companies; the losers are everybody else. The current retention system undermines trust and confidence, destroys capacity and deters long-term investment in training and skills. Having heard noble Lords today, will the Minister agree to come back to your Lordships’ House before the end of this Session and say exactly how and when the Government plan to mitigate the damage caused by the current system? He cannot sit on his hands and say he is waiting for other people to come to their decisions first.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are not waiting for other people to come to their decisions. We are actively working with the Construction Leadership Council to try to find a solution to this problem.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is clearly a serious problem. In the meantime, the building industry has committed to achieving zero cash retention by 2025. Can the Minister inform us how that process is being pursued? What success are we having?
Lord Callanan (Con)
A lot of discussions are taking place between the Government, the Construction Leadership Council and different parts of the industry; we are actively exploring possible solutions and are committed to improving payment practices and working with the construction industry to take this forward. Of course, any solution has to work for the industry and its clients, and it has to be sustainable, addressing all of the issues: the need for surety and fair, prompt payment. As I said earlier, several policy options are being considered, including a possible retention deposit scheme and, of course, phasing out retentions completely. During the current pandemic, the Government, in conjunction with the Construction Leadership Council, have provided guidance to the industry on responsible and fair contractual behaviour, which, of course, includes retentions.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked, and we move to the fourth Oral Question.
Biodiversity: Impact of Neonicotinoids
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they made of the impact on biodiversity of the decision to grant authorisation to use a product containing a neonicotinoid to treat sugar beet in 2021.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
The Government considered the impact on biodiversity and the environment posed by the use of the product Cruiser SB on the basis of expert scientific assessment. The Government concluded that, when mitigated by the strict conditions attached to the emergency authorisations, the impacts were outweighed by the benefits of use. The Government remain committed to tight controls on neonicotinoids and have no intention of lifting the restrictions that were put in place in 2018.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I draw attention to my environmental interests, as laid down in the register. My noble friend cannot be unaware of the immense frustration, and even anger, felt by many at this decision. While I understand the plight of beet growers, can he acknowledge that there are no safeguards to prevent this dangerous substance entering watercourses? Even his own department acknowledges that this treatment is massively harmful to wildlife. Will my noble friend commit to publishing the NFU 2020 application and any detailed advice from the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides and English Nature, so that we can have full transparency to understand the decision-making process?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I will certainly convey the noble Lord’s request in relation to the NFU application, but I am afraid that is not a decision I can make here and now. The Government are committed, in the way that they were last month, last year and the year before, to the neonicotinoid restrictions that were put in place in 2018. This emergency authorisation has been approved for a very limited period for one specific crop, sugar beet, which does not flower and is grown only in the east of England. Tight controls are part of the conditions of the authorisation to minimise environmental and biodiversity impacts.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, this initiative is for England only, of course, but it will certainly have a knock-on effect on Wales. Does the Minister accept that the neonicotinoids used on sugar beet will leach into the soil and water at the base of the crop, contaminating flowering weeds, with implications for other wildlife and pollinators and triggering further pesticide treatment? The Government contend that this will be avoided by ensuring that flowering crops will not be planted in fields previously supporting sugar beet—how will this be enforced?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
If Cruiser SB were to be used by everyone who is covered by the emergency authorisation that has been provided, the amount used would be around 6% of the quantity applied in each of the years running up to the ban on neonicotinoids—so we are talking about very specific circumstances. The conditions include a reduced application rate, as well as a 22-month prohibition on any flowering crop being planted after a treated sugar beet crop. For oilseed rape, which, as you know, is particularly attractive to pollinating insects, the prohibition extends to 32 months. No one likes pesticides, but the conditions that Defra has applied will limit whatever potential negatives exist.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my farming interests in the register. Given that the derogation for sugar beet was broadly supported by members of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides at its meeting in November, will my noble friend confirm that this is in sharp contrast to the emergency derogation granted by Defra earlier in 2020 to spray copper hydroxide as a blight fungicide on organic potato crops, which was opposed by members of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides because of environmental concerns over acute aquatic toxicity? Would he agree that the way to get both conventional and organic farmers to use less pesticide is to enable innovative breeding technologies?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord makes an important point. The Government’s goal and the purpose of our pesticides programme action plan is to minimise the use of pesticides. A big part of this is specified in our 25-year environment plan, which commits us to prioritising integrated pest management to maximise the use of non-chemical control techniques and to minimise the use of chemical pesticides. In plain English, that means increasing the use of nature-friendly methods with the potential to enhance biodiversity, including benefiting pollinators. This approach is laid out in the revised national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides, which is currently out for consultation. I encourage the noble Lord to take part in it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, whose scientists proved to Syngenta and the world that neonicotinoids did indeed reduce the overwintering and reproduction success of both honey bees and wild bees—and that a decline in pollinators could cost us billions of pounds. Bearing in mind that new breeding techniques could soon solve the issue of virus yellows in sugar beet, I ask the Minister: what are the limitations to this neonicotinoid authorisation, in relation to a sunset clause and whether there are any geographic boundaries drawn around it?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The authorisation that has been provided is for a specific and limited period of time, covering one season, and there are no plans to extend that emergency authorisation. The purpose of this authorisation was to allow time for the industry, as the noble Lord says, to develop alternatives; it is urgently seeking to do so now. As I said in my opening remarks, we have absolutely no intention—and indeed we will not—to go back on the restrictions and bans that were brought in in 2018, which have been translated into UK law.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, how is this decision compliant with the Aarhus convention on environmental justice, given that the application documents and the chief scientist’s advice to the Government are being kept secret, and that, while the NFU lobbied undercover, the public could not participate in the process?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The ability to consider this emergency authorisation comes from EU legislation. It is not a case of reducing our standards after leaving the EU, since 10 EU countries including Belgium, Denmark and Spain granted emergency authorisations for neonicotinoid seed treatments used on sugar beet in 2020, just as we have done this year. Our position on these pesticides remains exactly the same; there is no divergence. We supported restrictions in 2018 and this is a narrow emergency authorisation, which has been made on the merits of the case.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a rather poor amateur beekeeper, for environmental reasons. Give that the evidence is that neonics are highly toxic to bees—5,000 to 10,000 times more than DDT—the importance of pollinators, and that we know that the residue which is lethal to bees will lie on leaves for several days, is it really sensible to even consider opening the door to the use of this lethal material? I appreciate that there is no evidence that the bee colony collapse is entirely related to this material but, given the pressures on bee populations, is it not rather irresponsible to consider making a derogation even as limited as this?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Pollinators have an almost unimaginable and incalculable importance. They are an essential part of our environment; they play a crucial role in food production and have suffered huge decline. There have been some promising signs over the last two or three years. Nevertheless, the news for pollinators in this country is bad. We have a national pollinator strategy with a 10-year plan, which involves significant ramping up of our efforts to create habitat for pollinators, strengthening the monitoring and management of honey bee diseases and threats from invasive non-native species such as the Asian hornet. The decision we are discussing was assessed by the Health and Safety Executive, Defra scientists and the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. They all considered that evidence, and the view was that the conditions placed were sufficient to remove the threat that noble Lords are concerned about.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement at Rothamsted. Can I follow up the question put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which I do not think he fully answered? Given the direct negative consequences of this policy on bees, which as we know are already in serious decline in the UK, will the Government commit to publishing urgently the full scientific assessment by the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides of this policy change on our natural environment, so that there is transparency about how the decision was made?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I can commit to conveying that request to the department. I see no reason why the assessment should not be made public, but it is not for me to unilaterally make that decision here and now.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
I declare my interest as recorded on the register. I thank the Minister but can he confirm that standards of production, including constraints on pesticide use, will apply to imported crops, including sugar, so that UK producers are not disadvantaged?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. The Government are guided, as they pursue new free trade agreements and seek to expand our trading relationships around the world, by a commitment to ensuring that imports do not compromise or undermine the standards that we are proud to apply here in the United Kingdom, whether in environmental or animal welfare standards.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Free School Meals: Food Parcels
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to monitor the quality of food parcels currently being supplied to families in lieu of free school meals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the images circulating of poor-quality food parcels are unacceptable. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has met leading suppliers to insist on urgent action to ensure that parcels meet standards expected. We have guidance in place allowing schools to decide the best approach for supporting free school meal pupils; this can be through lunch parcels, locally arranged vouchers or the national voucher scheme, which will be up and running next week.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a case of another week, another U-turn, this time resulting from the scandal of companies that supply free school meals parcels being exposed as profiteering. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the jointly prepared DfE guidance for the contents of food parcels, which is strikingly similar to the meagre items in parcels described as “disgraceful” by the Prime Minister, is still online. National food vouchers are to be reintroduced next week, two weeks after schools moved to remote learning. It seems that the Government’s own lockdown took them by surprise. It will be at least a week from today before parents can actually use the vouchers, so why will the Government not put their trust in families and give them the money for free school meals? Children are going hungry now, and any decent Government would know that they cannot wait.
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, the voucher scheme that the noble Lord outlines is one option that has been given to schools so that they can meet the needs of pupils who require food. It has been quite clear—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children and Families met the particular supplier and made it clear that those standards were not acceptable. We have given these options to schools so they can best meet the needs of their pupils, as they know them best. In fact, schools can re-register this week for the national voucher scheme, and vouchers will be redeemable as of Monday. We have left it to schools to choose the best means to deliver free school meals to their pupils.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the company providing these meals will not get compensated for the cancellation of the contract, thereby getting money for nothing on top of money for little food? Furthermore, does she agree with Marcus Rashford that now is the time for a full review of the free school meals system?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have outlined, views were made clear about the quality of the food parcels. I make it clear that the department does not enter into contracts with any of these suppliers—it is done at local level. The standards that food needs to meet are outlined in statute, and the guidance is under that, so it is quite clear what should be provided. I must pay tribute to school staff and catering staff who are delivering meals to those free school meals pupils who are in school. Often the option of delivering food parcels to the door is the best way to meet the needs of a vulnerable child, particularly because it keeps the school in contact with them directly.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, government figures show that more than 4 million children in the UK live in poverty, and many of them will be living with food insecurity. However, there are no official figures. Therefore, could the Minister tell us when the Government will publish their assessment of how many children in the UK are living without enough healthy food, and could she tell us what policies they will implement to tackle the problem in both the short and the long term?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are awaiting the second part of the national food strategy, and we have said that we will respond with a White Paper within six weeks of that strategy being published. We have expanded the entitlement to free school meals; at the moment, 1.4 million children receive free school meals. We have given the undertaking that any family that moves from legacy benefits on to universal credit will have an entitlement to free school meals. So we are meeting the needs of children. In addition to that, there are the holiday activity clubs that we have expanded, as of the Easter holidays of this year. So we are looking to meet the needs of those in our society who need food.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm how this affects food waste? Am I right in understanding that much of this food, which of course is designed for lunches only, had been ordered or bought well in advance?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. One key reason why the Government gave schools the choice was that they were aware of the operation of their own school catering staff—but also, certain suppliers had already purchased food and they had already paid for it so, obviously, moving to a voucher system immediately could have resulted in food waste. Giving the flexibility to schools in terms of local vouchers enables them to use local suppliers and to support their local economy.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that Marcus Rashford is doing a better job at holding the Government to account than the Official Opposition. Does that mean that the Prime Minister is now prepared to accept Mr Rashford’s advice that a major review of free school meals and, indeed, child poverty, might be undertaken by them as a result of mistakes recently made? While on my feet, I point out that the Government add insult to injury by handing out these disgraceful bags, which would have been an insult to those receiving them. Whenever policies are directed towards those trapped in poverty, they should never forget the dignity of those receiving them and to treat them with respect.
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the work of Marcus Rashford, which was recognised in the latest honours that he was given. In relation to the flexibility that we have given to schools here, it is important to remember that schools know their children best; they know whether food parcels are best. Obviously, receipt of a food parcel can be vital if the parent at home at the moment is extremely clinically vulnerable, so a voucher perhaps would not be best. Schools generally do not want to deal in cash. Yet we have also seen the use of food parcels that are not necessarily synonymous with a lack of dignity in terms of the clinically vulnerable people in the first stage of the pandemic—and also businesses have sprung up during the pandemic using food that was potentially to supply restaurants and delivering it door to door. So although there needs to be sensitivity in each situation, it is not synonymous with a lack of dignity to offer actual food to people.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The noble Lord is muted.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
Well, I unmuted myself, as agreed, and somebody muted me again, so I have unmuted again. It needs sorting out.
My Lords, there does not appear to be a major problem in Lancashire, because Lancashire County Council—and I congratulate it on this—set up a county-wide voucher scheme for schools when the schools closed again, after the first day. If Lancashire could do this on a county-wide basis, why could the Government not do it straightaway nationally?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I applaud the example that the noble Lord has given, and I have outlined why it is important that these three options are open to schools. As I have said, schools can re-register this week for the national voucher system and reactivate their accounts, and vouchers will be redeemable and available from Monday. Also, of course, where there is a free school meal entitlement for those who also qualify for the breakfast club, that food should also be provided. This has been stood up as soon as we can. In the last phase of the pandemic we distributed more than £380 million through a national voucher scheme. Noble Lords made it clear that there were downsides to that, because it meant that the business was given only to supermarkets. So it is important that we use the food and do food parcels, local vouchers and national vouchers.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I commend the Government’s decision to provide lunches to school- children. However, sadly, due to the carelessness of caterers, there has been a great deal of variation in the contents of the food parcels. What steps are the Government taking to tighten this up and be more specific, to stop this happening again? Alternatively, would they consider a voucher scheme again? That would go some way to alleviating this problem, as some schools still prefer to use their own caterers, which also helps save jobs.
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Lord for outlining the role that school caterers have at the moment. Some of them obviously want to be involved in the delivery of free school meals to qualifying children who are at home. It is clear that the standard of food that should be provided is based on a statutory requirement. The association of school food and caterers was part of putting that together. The provision of food should obviously be sensitive to dietary requirements and allergies, and to religious and cultural sensitivities, so that the food provided, whether in school or by way of delivery, is appropriate for the children.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, this recent episode has, once again, highlighted the importance of an effective free school meals programme. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering the recommendation, outlined in the National Food Strategy: Part One, to expand eligibility for the free school meals scheme to include every child from a household where the parent or guardian is in receipt of universal credit?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are indeed considering the first part of the national food strategy. We expect part two to be with us, potentially, later this month and the Government have made a commitment to respond to it. We will be carefully considering that suggestion, but it must be borne in mind that there is a long taper for benefits with the universal credit system, rather than a cliff edge. There is data available that suggests that half the school population would then be eligible for free school meals, including some from households in receipt of income in excess of £40,000 a year. We need to consider carefully whether those suggestions are the best use of public funds.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, returning to my noble friend’s Question, one parent described their treatment as “humiliating”. They asked: “Why should you decide for us? Why not give us the money?” That, in the words of an academic expert, is the best way of ensuring that families are supported with dignity, respect and freedom of choice. Why not give parents the money? Do the Government not trust them?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, of course the Government trust parents. That is why we have given schools these options of how to deliver this. If there is any complaint about their treatment, parents should raise that with the school. There are also further avenues for them to make representations. However, as I have outlined, schools do not want to deal with distributing cash to parents, particularly during the pandemic. That is why a local or national voucher system is by far the best option for monetary support, rather than cash.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the national voucher scheme will be operating through the same private company as last time? Can she also reassure me that its computer system will be adequate, and that school staff or parents will not find themselves having to log on at 3 am or 4 am as the only time it is possible to get into the system? Given that it is a for-profit company, what does the Minister consider a reasonable profit for it to be making on the scheme: 5%, 10% or more?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that, as I have outlined, from Monday e-codes will be issued that can be redeemed against supermarket vouchers. The department is closely monitoring the logistics of the scheme being set up. We anticipate thousands of schools wanting to access that portal as soon as they can, but we are monitoring this properly. In the emergency of the pandemic, we stood up a system that delivered vouchers worth £380 million last time.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision to issue families with food vouchers, allowing them to choose the food to feed their children with a daily main meal. The quantity of food eaten by a six year-old girl is not the same as that eaten by a 14 year-old boy. Can the Minister reassure the House that the value of the vouchers will take account of the age of the child and the quantity of the food they require?
Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, the value of the voucher has actually been raised from the normal £11.50—a free school meal—to £15, recognising that schools and catering suppliers have economies of scale that a family would not have. I asked about this just this morning and, in terms of food supplied through a food parcel, we would expect schools to deliver appropriate food. A primary school food parcel would look very different from a secondary school one.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Protocol on Northern Ireland: Disruption to Trade
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, shoppers in Northern Ireland supermarkets were surprised to find competitors’ products on the shelves. Of greater concern, some products have disappeared entirely, with the Government saying that
“the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.”
This is unacceptable. Michael Gove admitted yesterday that mistakes had been made, but that is not good enough and it fails to explain why the Government did not prepare for something that they had been warned about for more than a year. It is just shambolic. The protocol is not perfect, but it needs to be made to work. I have two questions for the Minister. Why did Ministers spend so much of last year denying the challenges, leaving it to business to make contingency plans? I also ask him to explain what urgent steps the Government are taking to get shelves stocked and trade moving today.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we are clear about the overall picture. One must not overstate individual anecdotes into a systemic picture. I acknowledge that there have been issues—that was never denied—but, overall, goods are continuing to flow effectively. Supermarkets are able to move their lorries into Northern Ireland. There are some specific issues, as we have seen with individual suppliers, but it is holding up well overall. The UK Government will continue to work with supermarkets, retailers and suppliers to move in the longer run to end-to-end digital systems that enable goods to be moved in accordance with the protocol in the most streamlined way possible.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government, led by the Prime Minister, put ideology over practicality and deception over honesty in the pursuit of Brexit. The claim made by the noble Lord, Lord True, in last Friday’s debate that,
“the flow of goods under the Northern Ireland protocol is smooth overall”—[Official Report, 8/1/21; col. 442.]—
an answer he has just repeated—is contested by seven supermarket bosses. The Answer to this UQ is somewhat of an improvement on those rather complacent claims, but only when the Government are totally honest about the fact that there is a border within the UK can they start to resolve the practical difficulties of the protocol. When will that total honesty appear?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been honest and have not been ideological. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister simply implemented the instructions of the British people—some noble Lords have not yet caught up with that. Goods are flowing effectively between Great Britain and Northern Ireland overall, with more than 1,000 trucks a day. I have acknowledged that there are certain difficulties and issues, but we must not overstate them and we are working pragmatically to address them.
Baroness Meyer (Con) [V]
Can the Minister reassure the House that nothing in the Northern Ireland protocol will prevent Northern Ireland businesses taking advantage of the UK’s new trade agreements? Can he also confirm that its businesses will not suffer any harm resulting from possible tariff retaliation against the EU by states such as the US?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm for my noble friend that Northern Ireland exporters will, as will those in the rest of the United Kingdom, be able to take full advantage of trade deals we strike with third countries. Certainly, we will not be participating in trade wars between third countries.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
One of the key lessons I took when briefly a Minister in Northern Ireland was the vital importance of attention to detail. Is not the Prime Minister’s lack of attention to detail the cause of chucking the Falklands to the Argentine, Gibraltar to Spain and Northern Ireland to the Republic? What is the Cabinet Office doing about the effect of Annexe 7 on the operation of Article 16 of the protocol?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord in his overall characterisation of the position. This Government are absolutely resolute that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom and will remain so as long as its people determine. As I have acknowledged to the House, certain practical issues have arisen; these are being addressed maturely and sensibly by the Government, suppliers and business, and I believe that that is the way we should proceed, without, at this stage, talking about Article 16.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s efforts to iron out what we all hope are teething troubles, and also the commitments made yesterday by the Prime Minister that they will do whatever is necessary to ensure that goods can move freely from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Whatever one’s view of the protocol, can my noble friend assure the House that it does not in any way change Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, which, under the terms of the Acts of Union and the consent provisions of the Belfast agreement, remains a full and integral part of our United Kingdom?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, my noble friend is right: the protocol and our implementation of it fully protects Northern Ireland’s status as an integral part of our United Kingdom. That must remain the case. As I have said, there are teething problems and we have to address these, but if they ever become disproportionate, then that is the time, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, when further action would have to be considered.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
The Minister has acknowledged that there are problems and difficulties at the ports and elsewhere, and it is reported that some freight companies are losing tens of thousands of pounds per week because of the confusion that reigns there. We also have a problem with a Secretary of State who refuses to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a border at all. Will the Minister give his assessment today of the impact that the protocol and the sea border will have on the Northern Ireland economy? In light of the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, will he clarify the specific conditions in which the Government would act to invoke Article 16 of the protocol and restore unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that we will work extremely hard to overcome difficulties. As I just said in reply to my noble friend Lord Caine, the Prime Minister stated the position on the record in the House of Commons yesterday as far as Article 16 is concerned. Obviously, I stand by his words. As for movement of traffic, everybody should feel that they can and must send goods to every part of our kingdom normally. Flows of trucks into Belfast are now normal. There have been issues at Holyhead, but movements there are increasing and we hope to see that trend continue.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I apologise for leap-frogging over the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will my noble friend remind the House that the Northern Ireland protocol, as was made clear by our Attorney-General and the EU itself, is intrinsically temporary because the EU, under Article 50, was unable to enter into permanent trade agreements? This is why it could not even start negotiating a trade agreement with us until after we had left. However, as we resolve, by patches and devices, the structural problems that will grow because of the differences between EU legislation and our own, to avoid a barrier in the Irish Sea we will develop means that will enable us to apply the same mechanisms to avoid having a barrier or any infrastructure between Northern Ireland and the Republic when the Northern Ireland protocol fades away.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we are addressing specific issues—for example, steel announcements and groupage announcements are imminent—and there will be what my noble friend calls “patches”. Obviously, in the longer run the protocol’s existence will be determined by the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend explain what will happen at the end of the three-month grace period if there is no rollover of the EU’s decision not to apply its rules in full? Does he accept that this situation is already arising, when our standards have not yet diverged from those of the EU, and will accelerate after any divergence? I reiterate my apology to the people of Northern Ireland for the fact that the implications of Brexit were never fully and openly explained, although they must have been obvious right at the start.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not following any further the comment that people did not understand where they were when decisions were taken on whether to leave. I believe that we should all leave that behind us. On the specific question, at the end of the grace period, as I said in an earlier reply, the UK will continue to work with supermarkets and retailers. We have a dedicated group of officials working on this. We are seeking new end-to-end digital systems that will enable goods to be moved in accordance with the protocol in the most streamlined way, and this will be backed by a major injection of UK government funding as part of a broader support package. However, it behoves all sides under this agreement, including the EU, to behave in a proportionate manner.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Elections: May 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this May has a record number of polls, involving every elector in the country. If America can organise its massive ballot, surely we can also vote, especially since some of these elections are now a year overdue. I therefore ask the Government to assure the House that they will not run away from these votes. Will they also ensure that we use all the normal polling stations and not reduce their number, as I hear is happening in some places? That would not only produce dangerous crowds but would also disfranchise those who could not travel further to polling stations, particularly, of course, people with a disability.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I certainly assure the noble Baroness that the Government believe that safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of any democracy. The law is that these elections should go ahead on this date. The Prime Minister said that all matters are always under review, as they are in a pandemic. People then seemed to ride away and say that that was an indication that they would be postponed, but, as the Minister for the Constitution said in the other place yesterday, a very high bar would have to be set to not proceed with these elections. As far as her comments about returning officers, they obviously look at polling stations, but I will take note of the points the noble Baroness made. Certainly, voting should be easy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
I hope I can get the Minister to add that local democracy is absolutely part of the foundation to any effective constitutional democracy, which is one of the reasons why we have to be very careful about postponing these elections further. I thank the Minister for the Statement and I thank Bradford Council for the very extensive briefing it gave me this morning on the difficulties. Can the Minister assure us that, since elections are so fundamental to democracy, as such, any decision will be taken not by the Government alone but in full consultation with all other parties contesting the elections? Given the difficulty of campaigning under current circumstances, will the Government be prepared to consider providing, for example, two pieces of free post to every nominated candidate, to make sure that parties which have more easy access to funds do not get disproportionate benefits from being able to pay for post?
Lord True (Con)
As the noble Lord knew I would, I thoroughly endorse the first remark he made. I believe local democracy is the cornerstone, and I wish that were more widely recognised. The Government will continue to engage with political parties to ensure that people are able to campaign safely and securely and to secure information. As far as his specific proposal is concerned, I will certainly make sure that that is fed into consideration.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s response to the Urgent Question yesterday—both the commitment to having elections on 6 May and to minimising unnecessary face-to-face campaigning. In that spirit, may I ask a question similar to one asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in a Written Question, a few weeks ago? Will the Government urgently introduce changes to the requirement for registered parties to seek large numbers of nomination signatures for each campaign? We already have election campaigns where signatures are not necessary, and I request that similar procedures are introduced for all elections on 6 May.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. There are no plans to change the number of signatures required for nomination in May 2021, or to allow nominations to be accepted by email. Although returning officers may allow parts of the nominations process to be carried out online, such as the arrangement of necessary documents, final nomination papers have to be delivered in person. The Government have considered these issues with the electoral sector and Public Health England, and they are of the view that the current process can be carried out in a Covid-secure way.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I suspect that we have another definite maybe from the Prime Minister, who says “We will go ahead”. And yet, if the Government proceed with the elections in May in the normal fashion, in the midst of a pandemic, with half the electorate not yet vaccinated, unlike what the Minister said yesterday—
“the very idea that somebody would be forced to choose between their health and their vote is simply not an issue”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/21; col. 314.]
there will be precisely that issue. Can the Government give us a definite answer—for once—and get ahead of the curve and make a definite decision now whether they are to proceed or to put alternative arrangements in place in good time? Another late U-turn will cause great anger and great confusion.
Lord True (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that clarity is important. The planning assumption in the law is that we are proceeding with these elections. I take the point that he makes about people who are shielding or unable to go to the polling station. That is why, under the current considerations, we are looking at, for example, enhanced arrangements for proxy voting for those affected by Covid. We believe, in concert with those authorities involved, that it would be possible to proceed safely.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, it must be right to encourage as many people as possible to vote by post, as Covid will still be with us and many people will not have been vaccinated. When local authorities send out the council tax demand at the beginning of March, should they not include details of how to register for postal votes, and perhaps even include a form?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, characteristically, my noble friend makes an interesting and novel suggestion, which I will certainly ensure is passed on to those involved. But I repeat: we must have a high bar for even a short postponement of democracy, and any such decision would certainly never be taken lightly or rushed into. The Government will continue to work with the electoral community on the matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, since health conditions are likely to be similar throughout the whole of the United Kingdom in May, and there are parliamentary elections planned for Wales and Scotland, what discussions are Her Majesty’s Government having with the devolved Administrations to make sure that there is a uniform decision throughout the United Kingdom as far as elections are concerned?
Lord True (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, there have been by-elections in Scotland. But it is for the Scottish and Welsh Governments to take decisions around polls which are within their competence. I can assure him that, in line with our approach elsewhere, all three Governments will try to co-ordinate our work, where possible. The UK Government continue to have regular discussions with counterparts in Scotland and Wales on delivering the polls in May.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, following on from the last question, in the interests of public health, what consideration has been given to holding the elections in May this year in England and Wales over a period of days, as opposed to on a single day, as is being proposed in Scotland?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, our belief is that the elections can go ahead in the normal way in a safe and secure manner—and that is our objective—with the kinds of safeguards to which I have referred for those shielding and others.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My local GP surgery is not allowed to give the Covid vaccine under NHS England guidelines because it has only one door in and the same door out. The building next to it is the local polling station, with exactly the same entrance and exit situation. Why have returning officers not been given the same guidance that GP practices have about which buildings are safe for polling using the NHS criteria?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the electoral authorities are in contact with those in local government who are involved in delivering places for the vote, which ultimately is returning officers. They will take a number of factors into account in considering the safety of premises, and I am sure that they will secure safety.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that returning officers and political parties need the maximum notice to prepare for elections? The Minister used the expression “the planning assumption”. That seems to be bureaucratic gobbledegook for saying “We have not quite made up our minds”. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we have a clear indication for local authorities and political parties as soon as possible, so we all know where we are in preparation for the campaign?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for being guilty of bureaucratic gobbledegook. At the risk of repeating an earlier answer, the most unprecedented pandemic for generations is raging in this country. Occasionally, the Government are taken to task for not being cautious and advisory, but—I repeat—the Government’s position is that the elections can go ahead in a safe and secure way; there would have to be a very high bar for that not to happen. But I accept the noble Lord’s point that total clarity is always the ideal.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2020
Baroness Penn
That the draft order laid before the House on 26 November 2020 be approved.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 January.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We come to day 2 of Report on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding and it is not possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on a group.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Thursday 14th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 154-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (12 Jan 2021)
15:22 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 18 agreed.
Baroness Thornton
“Strategy for tackling vaccination disinformation
(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy outlining plans to prevent the promotion of disinformation related to human vaccines.(2) The overarching objective of the strategy must be safe- guarding public health.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.(4) In formulating the strategy under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must include proposals to—(a) build public trust and encourage uptake of vaccines;(b) require social media companies to promptly remove disinformation related to vaccines that has been reported to them by an appropriate authority, employees or other social media users, including financial and criminal penalties if they fail to act; and(c) prohibit social media users or companies from directly profiting from vaccine disinformation through advertising revenue.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for tackling anti-vaccination disinformation within one month of the Bill passing.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for tackling anti-vax disinformation within one month of the Bill passing, to safeguard public health. The strategy should include proposals to build public trust and encourage uptake of vaccines, require social media platforms and companies to promptly remove anti-vax disinformation, and prevent profiting from vaccine disinformation through advertising revenue. The context to this amendment is the problem that lies designed to erode trust in vaccines and persuade people not to protect themselves and their families are being broadcast to millions of people online every day.
Covid-19 has been a “growth opportunity” for anti-vaxxers, according to research by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which estimates that the largest English-language social media accounts promoting vaccine scepticism have increased their followers by nearly a fifth over the past year. Intelligence assessments suggest that while the majority of anti-vax propaganda seen by UK internet users comes from within Britain, a small proportion of it is being amplified or initiated by hostile states, notably Russia.
Whereas the normal vaccine debate is largely limited to the parents of young children and teenagers, the Covid-19 pandemic is a rare instance where the entirety of a society has to choose whether they wish to be vaccinated. The spread of disinformation online presents a “real and present danger” to vaccination efforts. This is why action must urgently be taken to tackle anti-vax campaigns and build public confidence to save lives.
Disinformation is distinct from legitimate scientific questions and scrutiny, although valid concerns can be and often are manipulated. Disinformation encompasses the full spectrum of—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we appear to have lost the connection to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, so I suggest that we adjourn for five minutes.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think I am back now. I apologise: I have no idea what happened then, but the trusty old iPad is coming in useful. I think that when I lost my link I was talking about media companies, so I will pick up with that.
Despite the Government’s and social media companies’ announcement last week of new measures to tackle the issue, dedicated anti-vaccine groups with hundreds of thousands of members on social media are still churning out disinformation—100,000 Facebook users and 180,000 on TikTok. Although the Government have talked about online harms for a long time, it is unlikely that that legislation will have Royal Assent in time to help with this.
Finally, the situation was made clear in the Question in the House yesterday from my noble friend Lady Lawrence about the BAME community and the vaccine being rolled out. She said:
“I have heard messages from the black community about their mistrust of and lack of confidence in the vaccine. I ask Her Majesty’s Government: what proportion of those taking part in the vaccine trials were black, Asian or from ethnic minorities before the rollout?”—[Official Report, 13/1/21; col. 725.]
That was amplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who made the point that, although BAME communities were initially less likely to accept a Covid vaccine than white communities, when they had the opportunity to discuss their concerns with healthcare professionals, they were more likely than white communities to be persuaded to have the vaccine. Is the noble Lord familiar with that polling, and will he follow it up? I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I apologise to the House because this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, so I will not detain the House long. However, I support the aims of the amendment. This is something I have felt strongly about for some years.
Tackling anti-vax disinformation can be life-saving, and continuing to promote anti-vax messaging can be so damaging to public health as well as individual health. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly said in her excellent introduction—I am grateful to her for tabling the amendment—the online anti-vax messaging problem is growing. It is not just from a tiny minority in any one country; there could be systemic efforts to damage public health in our country and others. Given that those minority views can be spread, potentially to the severe detriment of the public and those who perhaps tend to support those views, believe them or be convinced by them, I should be very grateful if my noble friend would explain to the House the Government’s position. What do they believe they can do to combat the anti-vax messaging, not least as we are in the middle of this dreadful pandemic, for which the way out seems to me and many others to be to vaccinate as much of the population as we can, as soon as we can, to enhance their protection? Therefore, this is a very important and live issue, given the dreadful consequences that the pandemic is having not only on health through the virus itself, but on other aspects of public health and the country’s wider ability to support our beloved NHS.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking on the telephone, as something went wrong with my iPad.
I support Amendment 16, which is tackles anti-vaccination disinformation. For some years, this has created a problem. For example, there has been an epidemic of measles in many countries because many people, including the growing number of vegans, mistrust vaccines. Clear messages should go out about the benefits of vaccines and how they work. Some vaccines are very complicated and difficult to develop, but they are desperately needed for diseases such as HIV, TB and malaria.
Regarding these important coronavirus vaccines, I hope that the Government will be very careful that disinformation is not going out to the public about the Pfizer vaccine. Many health workers and elderly vulnerable people have had one dose, and the second dose should be given in three weeks’ time. People have signed up to that, as there are written instructions to do so, but the Government are trying to delay the second dose by up to three months, which is not recommended by Pfizer-BioNTech or the regulator.
There is a risk that with only one dose, people may become carriers and the virus may become resistant to the vaccine. The Doctors’ Association is not happy about the Government’s idea of a three-month delay. More careful monitoring and research is needed, but these mixed messages are extremely unhelpful. I hope that the Government will realise that people need to trust the information they receive.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on her comprehensive introduction, expressing the urgency of the situation, which was also stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in another interesting contribution for which I thank her. This is a difficult and hugely important issue, and it needs serious consideration on two counts. We have to look beyond the present situation with anti-vaccine campaigners and decide very carefully what is information and how we should combat damaging information being spread. Secondly, how do we reserve the right of the individual to use social media to express their personal views?
I spent six years on the Press Council, dealing with complaints. It was taxing, but today the print media is regulated to a greater extent. Even then, accountability for what should be published and what should not lay with not only the journalist who had written the article but with the editor and, in some newspapers, the owner.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I join her and other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling the amendment, which I think is largely intended to start a debate and get some focus on this terribly important issue.
My approach to the whole issue of disinformation about harmful content on the internet is slightly different from those of some of the other speakers. We need to take the same approach as we do with the vaccine, which is to think about vaccination being better than treatment—prevention being better than cure. Ensuring good public communication, information and education about Covid and many other issues is the best possible way in which to take on misinformation, rather than after the fact—after the infection—and then trying to treat it. As soon as one starts trying to combat such messages, it is difficult to avoid repeating them. As any communications professional will tell you, you are then trapped in a difficult cycle of raising the issue up the agenda and raising it up the hashtags.
When we are talking about problems on the internet more generally, we need much broader education on media literacy and critical thinking throughout our education system. That will not help us in the immediate future but, when we are talking about Covid, we can think about the nature of the Government’s communications and public information campaigns that will, in effect, inoculate people against the disinformation so prevalent in cyberspace. We need calm, factual, often quite detailed information that will educate the public about what is going on.
It is telling that we have seen a great deal of hunger among the public for briefings involving senior scientific officers and advisers. Some of them now have their own fan clubs and T-shirts. There is a real hunger for that kind of quality of information with clear scientific facts. That needs to come from all levels of the Government, including the politicians, not just the technical people. Let us trust the public with more information, data and facts, and with more of the difficulties and uncertainties, than we do now.
If one looks at the messaging in countries such as New Zealand and Germany, one can see that the level of detail and facts, and the quality of the information, given to their publics is much better than ours. Nearly every time there is a major government announcement or bit of advice, I see good technical people, senior professors and consultants on social media screaming in frustration about the quality of the presentation, data and messaging. I am talking not just about the shape of the graphs being wrong or whatever; we need to get the whole of government communications much better. That is the best way in which to tackle all these issues.
We all, even those of us with a scientific background, have learned a great deal more about IgG versus IgM versus IgA antibodies. A huge amount of information is out there, as is a hunger among people to find it. We must make sure that the good sources are there. That is the best way to tackle this problem when it comes to Covid and, indeed, much more broadly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an interesting debate and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton. We know that there is a problem with vaccine uptake, which is linked to anti-vaccine sentiment—though not necessarily always.
Looking back over the past few months, I note that there was in November a survey by Savanta ComRes on behalf of ITV News that found that almost 70% of people in the UK would like to receive a vaccination. More recently, in December, the Royal Society for Public Health published a poll showing that 76% of people would take the vaccine but, significantly, that only 57% of people from BAME backgrounds would do so. There was also a lower response among lower-income groups.
No doubt the Minister will give us figures, but my understanding is that the initial results on vaccine uptake are encouraging. However, we cannot be complacent in the face of the pernicious anti-vaccine sentiment around. Even before the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy was described by the WHO as one of the top 10 threats to global health.
We are interested in what the Government are doing. Last month, we debated this issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Leader of the House, referred to the work of a central government unit on it. I should like to hear from the Minister about what is happening. We clearly need strong pro-vaccination campaigns, and the majority of people who may be described as vaccine hesitant are not necessarily anti-vaccine. Most people who are hesitant can be persuaded by good public health messages.
However, as my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, there has been a huge amount of misinformation across social media in the past few months. This is obviously cited by survey respondents as an area of concern when it comes to levels of trust in those delivering public health messages. As Scientists for Labour pointed out, since the recovery from the false findings around the MMR vaccine and autism from Mr Andrew Wakefield, the UK overall now ought to be in a good place when it comes to routine vaccine uptake. For example, the HPV vaccine has a consistent uptake of between 80% and 85%, which is an excellent return for a vaccine that is not part of early childhood schedules.
We do not have too much in the way of well-organised anti-vaccine groups, unlike the USA or, indeed, even the Republic of Ireland, so the likelihood is that the UK population will show less hesitancy about recently introduced vaccines compared with other countries. But the level of misinformation out there is high and we have to learn lessons from other recent vaccine scares. Clearly the Government have a huge challenge in making sure that the uptake of the vaccine is as high as possible—which is why I welcome this debate and the amendment, and very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am married to a retired general practitioner.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on her proposed new clause. Whether the detail is correct is another matter, but the principle that she is promoting is absolutely right. I make my observations as someone who, before he came into politics, was a senior director in the fifth-largest advertising agency in the world. I was actually handling the UK Government’s COI account—that is, the general one for specific purposes.
I have four observations. First, all misinformation must be refuted immediately, wherever it occurs—whether it is in the main media or other media. That is not just social media; it includes radio, TV, print, posters, et cetera. Secondly, every medical professional body must make it unequivocally clear that disinformation must be refuted. Thirdly, I suggest that all medical outlets should provide a clear statement, in poster format, for hospitals, surgeries, clinics and pharmacies. Fourthly, consideration should be given to how best to communicate with schools, universities and colleges.
In conclusion, we must all remember the terrible harm that was done to the MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—programme, largely by one pioneering rogue doctor. Against that background, I plead with the Minister to ensure that we have a robust new clause and a plan, worked on now so that it can be communicated instantly, if possible.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment to require
“the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for tackling antivaccination disinformation within one month of the Bill passing.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has picked a fascinating, current topic, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, posed some pointed questions about the quality and effectiveness of the messages. I look forward to the Minister summing up on these points.
Misinformation is not new. I remember websites being used many years ago to persuade parents to ensure that their children had their childhood vaccinations at the appropriate time, and it is paramount that the Government take a robust stance against anti-vaccination disinformation. Research from Oxford University suggests that 12% of the UK population is “strongly hesitant” about taking the vaccine, with a further 16% unsure. Together, that makes 28%, a very significant proportion of the population—over a quarter. We are putting all our efforts into stopping the spread of this virus. This means that if the 28% avoid vaccination, they will run the real and severe risk of catching the virus; not only that, we will run the risk of catching it from them, so undoing all the benefits of the programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, what a helpful and instructive debate, and I thank all noble Lords who were involved.
In December 2020, we witnessed a landmark moment in our battle against Covid: the launch of an effective and safe vaccination programme, which has yielded great results. Thankfully, confidence in vaccines remains very high across the UK. None the less, some citizens have questions and there is a prevalence of misinformation. It is therefore absolutely and entirely right that we should answer those questions in the spirit of constructive dialogue, which is exactly what we seek to do.
I completely share the aspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Covid to be an inflection point in a business model moving away from late-stage acute medicine toward prevention. Vaccines play an absolutely critical role in that, and this could be a profound legacy of this awful disease.
Despite all this, I completely recognise that we have also seen a range of baseless and sometimes absurd narratives being shared, particularly through social media platforms. It is completely unacceptable that a minority of people seek to exploit legitimate questions about vaccines and spread dangerous lies about vaccines for their own malicious reasons and profit.
Noble Lords will agree that it is vital that both misinformation and disinformation about vaccines are tackled. Before I address the Government’s response on how we will handle these two challenges, I pay tribute to the cross-party alignment on this issue and the spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, moved her amendment. Noble Lords from all sides of the House have shown a strong commitment to tackling anti-vax conspiracies and I express profound thanks for this tremendous collective effort, of which we can all be proud.
Throughout this pandemic, we have remained committed to transparency around the vaccine and to ensuring that people have access to accurate information about the virus and vaccines. DHSC is leading extensive cross-government communications activity, providing advice and information to anyone who has questions about the vaccine.
I do not think it would be helpful for me to run through our efforts in this area in detail, but I reassure noble Lords that we have worked, and continue to work, extremely hard to rebut false information online. In March 2020, we stood up the Counter Disinformation Unit, bringing together cross-government monitoring and analysis capabilities to tackle misinformation and disinformation. The Government have worked tirelessly to act wherever false and harmful content appears on social media platforms, either by flagging the content to the platforms or through direct rebuttal on social media via our Rapid Response Unit.
We are particularly committed to dialogue with and the protection of communities that might be particularly susceptible to disinformation and which, coincidentally, are particularly vulnerable to the virus. I thank all those involved in those efforts, including ministerial colleagues and noble Lords. I note the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to my noble friend Lady Warsi’s optimistic update in this area.
I turn to the point the noble Baroness’s amendment makes about requiring social media platforms to remove and demonetise anti-vaccination content. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s points on this are extremely valid. The Government have already secured commitments from platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Google to the principle that no company should profit from or promote anti-vaccine misinformation and disinformation, and to respond to that content much more swiftly. We are holding platforms to these commitments and have set a series of policy forums in motion, bringing together platforms, academia and civil society organisations to better develop responses to online misinformation and disinformation. These forums are chaired by my ministerial colleagues in DCMS, to whom I give thanks. I attend them and can report back that they have a constructive and thorough approach.
I understand the concern that noble Lords have about anti-vaccination content and the harm it causes. I stress that the Government are totally committed to working with the platforms and other key stakeholders to combat that content and to build public trust in our vaccination programme. I point noble Lords to the continued high rates of Covid-19 vaccine uptake that we see, which have been achieved in part by our effective approach to tackling vaccine misinformation and disinformation. We are not complacent; we are on the case. Therefore, for that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, sees the Government’s efforts in this area and feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. I particularly thank what I can describe only as a bouquet of Baronesses—the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Bennett, Lady Masham and Lady Cumberlege—for their support. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, fear not: if I had intended to have a Division on this I would have given her pre-warning, do not worry. I also thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for his pertinent questions and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his four action points, which were instructive and useful.
This has been a useful debate that has been worth having, because we have so few opportunities to knock around issues that we all agree on and really want to support the Government to get right. That is why I tabled the amendment. I am very happy with the response to it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 7: Disclosure of information in accordance with international agreements
Amendment 17
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the Minister’s name to add a definition of “relevant person” to Clause 7 restrict the persons to whom information may be disclosed in reliance on Clause 7(2).
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 17 I will speak also to Amendments 19, 22, 23, 25, 35, 37, 38, 55, 56 and 58 to 62. All amendments in the group deal with the sharing of information outside the UK where this is required to give effect to an international agreement or arrangement.
I have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords as to further safeguards that could be provided in relation to Clauses 7, 12 and 37(5), and the amendments made in Grand Committee. I am enormously grateful to noble Lords who have met and spoken to me and my team over the weeks between Grand Committee and Christmas. Their further explanations and collaborative spirit have been enormously valuable. I can say confidently that this collaboration has definitely improved the drafting of the Bill.
It is worth saying first that the Bill introduces powers for international information sharing only where it is pursuant to international agreements or arrangements concerning the regulation of human medicines, medical devices or veterinary medicines. As such, we are starting from a place where it is in the public interest for data to be shared to support the safety of human medicines, medical devices and veterinary medicines in the UK and globally.
As I explained in earlier debates, information sharing with other regulators plays an absolutely critical role in the work of the MHRA and the VMD to protect patient safety and to support international collaboration. For example, in medical device safety investigations, international information sharing allows for better signal detection and gathering of evidence to support the safety of medical devices available on the UK market. It is worth saying that failure to share that data has been one of the contributing factors to many patient safety issues. However, it is right that we ensure that when the MHRA and the VMD share information they do so with the appropriate persons. These amendments will ensure that.
Nevertheless, I have heard the concerns about the use of the term “persons” and whether this may be subject to broad interpretation. Noble Lords will agree that including in the Bill an exhaustive list of named organisations we share data with is not practical. Therefore, we have amended Clauses 7, 12 and 37 to include a definition of “relevant person”. These amendments clarify the types of persons outside the UK that information may be shared with. In short, they make it clear that these clauses do not offer a “blank cheque”.
We also heard concerns from noble Lords in Committee about the sharing of patient-identifiable information internationally. Clauses 7 and 37 already include safeguards to protect personal and commercially sensitive information, and there are additional safeguards in data protection legislation. However, we are keen to provide additional reassurance. That is why we have tabled further amendments that ensure that patient-identifiable information can be shared only if patients have provided consent.
In the vast majority of cases patient information is anonymised before being shared. These amendments account for the rare instances where it is necessary to share patient-identifiable data internationally to support our commitment to uphold patient safety; for example, in sharing patients’ concerns with an international regulator about a clinical trial they are taking part in in another country.
Finally, Amendments 22, 37 and 59 seek to clarify that the information-sharing powers in the Bill do not limit the circumstances in which information can be shared under any other enactment or rule of law. Such housekeeping amendments can be found as standard in many Acts and will ensure that the powers in the Bill cannot be construed as replacing existing statutory, prerogative or common laws of disclosure, which is not the intention. In introducing these amendments we seek simply to remove any potential confusion over what the powers in the Bill are intended to deliver.
I say again that I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive challenge and thoughtful contributions on this subject. International information sharing is fundamental to the effective functioning of the MHRA and the VMD, but it is of vital importance that data is shared with care and that the appropriate safeguards are in place. I believe that our amendments deliver this balance. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, before I address the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I reciprocate by thanking the Minister enormously for the many meetings he and his colleagues have had with all of us who are trying better to understand what the Government are trying to do with the Bill, particularly with these amendments. I agree that there are times, including in clinical trials—I have done this—when there is a need to share information with people involved in trials not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. I will come back to that in a minute.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I support and will speak to Amendments 18, 36 and 57, which have been so well introduced and explained by him, and which I have signed, and will speak to my own Amendment 20.
We have had discussions on this Bill and the Trade Bill about health data and trade issues. The two Bills are intimately connected, and this amendment is very complementary to Amendment 11, passed on Report of the Trade Bill on 7 December. There was no debate or discussion about the new Clauses 7 and 12 and the new subsection in Clause 37 when they were introduced in Grand Committee. On both counts it is therefore vital that we get to grips with them today. I welcome the Minister’s new amendments, which he has spoken to and which take us a step further in terms of patient consent, definition of information and relevant persons. But I have signed, and these Benches support, the additional amendments to those clauses and subsection put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to ensure that we further tighten these provisions. Specifically, we want to tie this to international co-operation on pharmacovigilance or in monitoring the performance and safety of medical devices, and a public interest test put around the disclosure of health data, for all the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
As I said when the House debated these issues on Report of the Trade Bill and later passed the amendment, NHS data is a precious commodity, especially given the many transactions between technology, telecoms and pharma companies concerned with NHS data. I cited a recent report in which EY estimated that the value of NHS data could be around £10 billion a year in the benefit delivered, and the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care is preparing to publish its national health and care data strategy shortly, in which it is expected to prioritise the
“safe, effective and ethical use of data-driven technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to deliver fairer health outcomes.”
I mentioned too that, while acknowledging that the UK is a leading player in the fields of life sciences and biosciences, health professionals have strongly argued that free trade deals risk compromising the safe storage and processing of NHS data in much the way that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has mentioned.
Through the amendment to the Trade Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and likewise this amendment, the objective is to ensure that it is the NHS, not US big tech companies and drug giants, that reaps the benefit of all this data. This is especially important given what the Ada Lovelace Institute called in its report, The Data Will See You Now, the “datafication” of health, which, it says, has profound consequences for who can access data about health, how we practically and legally define health data, and our relationship with our own well-being and the healthcare system. Health information can now be inferred from non-health data, and data about health can be used for purposes beyond healthcare. Harnessing the value of healthcare data must therefore be allied with ensuring that adequate protections are put in place in trade agreements, if that value is not to be given or traded away.
At the time, I raised questions about the provisions of the UK-Japan trade agreement, and there is no doubt that these questions will linger unless an amendment of this kind, to both this Bill and the Trade Bill, goes forward.
There have been many shortcomings in the sharing of data between various parts of the health service, care sector and Civil Service. The development of the Covid-19 app and the way that the Government have procured contracts for data management with the private sector have not improved public trust in their approach to data use. That is why clear safeguards are needed to ensure that, in trade deals and international agreements, our publicly held data is safe from exploitation where it is not for public benefit.
On Tuesday, the Minister heavily emphasised the public interest test that he wanted to see applied to the sharing and use of Clause 3 information. The data covered by Clauses 7, 12 and 37 is even more important. He used the same language today and in correspondence, so I hope he can accept these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has said, we also want to see the aspect of patient consent clarified.
I turn briefly to Amendment 20. I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 19, but Amendment 20 is designed to get the Minister to further clarify what is meant by “consent” in Clause 7. Informed consent is very much a familiar concept in healthcare, especially in treatment and trials, and, indeed, that is effectively the definition on the NHS website. It depends on capacity, explanation, understanding and it being voluntary. That is why my amendment would insert the word “informed”, to make it abundantly clear that, at the very least, that is what is intended here. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this important group of amendments. I welcome the government amendments, but feel that my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is very important, as indeed are some of the others in this group.
I have always been strongly in favour of using patient information. It is a rich source of data for scientists to pursue in the search for medical advances. We all benefit, and I am sure that the great majority of the public see this and are agreeable to information being shared. But we must have appropriate safeguards, and that is why the government amendments to restrict the persons to whom information may be disclosed, and the addition of a definition of patient information and the need for individual patient consent, are all very welcome.
My understanding, however, is that information pertaining to patients can be shared where it has been rendered non-identifiable. As the University of Birmingham has commented, this may be in line with current data protection principles but there is still a danger of a care.data-type problem, in that the provisions might allow the Government to share with “relevant persons”—as they are now called—outside the UK information they hold on patient data through NHS bodies without consent when anonymised. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to some of the issues with care.data. The stricter definition of patient information may address some of the concerns that the definition of patient data—being restricted to identifiable data—left anonymised data open for use or barter as part of international agreements. Part of this broader concern is that aggregate data can reveal patterns that may allow for re-identification, especially for small patient clusters in respect of rare diseases and conditions.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I was privileged to speak at some length about the provisions of this Bill in Grand Committee, and I thank those who supported the amendments in my name, which concerned the role of cutting-edge, data-driven medical devices. The Minister has since reassured me of his intention to further explore their implications in the course of a consultation exercise about their definition and regulation over the coming year. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I want to put on record my gratitude for the way that he has facilitated these discussions.
The amendments that I rise to support today seek to protect patient information, including what is properly “special category data” in the Data Protection Act 2018, which is crucial in the development of new pharmaceutical products and medical devices.
Of course, it goes without saying that efforts to facilitate the flow of data in the context of the ongoing health emergency are vitally important. These are extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves. Today, however, we must take steps with an eye to the long term; steps that will introduce legal provisions to prevent a situation that might give rise to undue concern or restrict scrutiny of matters pertaining to patient safety in the future, both at home and overseas.
I am certain that the Minister is well aware of public sentiment concerning privacy and data protection, which are, of course, not limited to the healthcare domain. Maintaining the trustworthiness of organisations that function as stewards of the nation’s healthcare data is paramount, and a carefully considered approach to patient safety is needed to preserve that trustworthiness, as the Government move to improve upon and forge new international arrangements.
The Minister’s amendments make it mandatory for consent to be provided where patient information is being shared with territories outside the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled clarifying amendments to ensure that the purpose for which patient information is being shared is limited to patient safety and its scrutiny. For these reasons, I support Amendments 18, 36 and 57, to which I have added my name.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who has made some very cogent points, both in that speech and when we discussed these clauses in Grand Committee.
I want to make two points. The first is about the structure of Amendment 18. I am not entirely sure that I understand why pharmacovigilance has been singled out in the amendment as a reason why disclosure should be made, as distinct from, for example, public health co-operation or the pursuit of research. Indeed, the Minister referred to the sharing of information in relation to international clinical trials as a very good example. If one were to legislate in this form, it would be inevitable that the reference to pharmacovigilance would be regarded as having additional weight, and the absence of reference to other purposes for which information would be shared would be regarded as less important. I am not sure that that would be at all helpful to have in statute.
My other point is in relation to Clause 7(5). Government Amendment 22 refers to and introduces a provision that assists in understanding the relationship between this legislation and other enactments concerning the disclosure of information. Clause 7(5) states:
“Nothing in this section authorises a disclosure of information which … contravenes the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this section)”.
Noble Lords may recall the Trade Bill and, in particular, the debate we had on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act just before Christmas and new year. We passed legislation the purpose of which was, among other things, to ensure that we clarified the relationship between that enactment and others that authorise disclosures of information or, in some circumstances, prohibit such disclosures. The particular basis for the structure of that Bill was to clarify a situation where there is a statutory gateway and other enactments that put constraints on the disclosure of information.
In subsection (5) it is clear that if someone is considering a disclosure that might contravene the data protection legislation, that legislation must be considered alongside the powers in this legislation. That enables them to satisfy the test in the Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate 2016 Supreme Court decision, as referred to in my noble friend Lord Grimstone’s letter to us about the Trade Bill. In the Trade Bill, though, as is the case in this Bill, we have reference both to the data protection legislation and to the Investigatory Powers Act. In the Trade Bill, amendments were introduced on Report to ensure that the saving reference—that is, when determining whether a disclosure would contravene the legislation, it takes into account the powers in this section—was applied to both the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act. However, in this legislation—Clause 7(5)(b) —the saving reference is applied to the data protection legislation but not to the Investigatory Powers Act.
My question, which I am sorry I have not had an opportunity to give the Minister notice of, as I have started working through these issues only very recently, is this. Having dealt with this matter on the Trade Bill, I would have thought that both these subsections should have the saving reference that allows the question of the contravention of those Acts to be considered, including reference to the powers in this Bill. I wonder if he would agree.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, who speaks with such great authority both as a former Secretary of State for Health and as someone who has followed the Trade Bill and the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act so closely.
At the risk of dancing on the head of a pin, the amendments in this group are quite close, and the Minister set out every reason why we should support his Amendment 17. He said that information would be shared only in the circumstances where there is perceived to be a public need. The amendments and explanatory statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, refine that by saying that, in the context of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicines, it should be disclosed only provided that it is in the public interest to do so. A number of noble Lords have spoken with great eloquence and passion on these issues, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I have to say that I personally would draw the line at disclosing information for a commercial need as opposed to a public one.
I have a particular question about Amendment 19, which clearly states that patient information cannot be disclosed where the patient could be identified and that that information cannot be given without their consent. I remember that I was once asked to participate in a study; I signed the form and was delighted to do so, and never heard any more about it. I would just like to know how Amendment 19 would work in practice. At what point, and by whom, would the patient be contacted if that information was about to be disclosed and their consent sought?
I have reservations about this group. I remember the important debate that we had on the Trade Bill in this regard, and I am delighted to see that those issues are being considered in the context of this Bill as well. I have two concerns that I hope can be allayed. The first is that public need should not be deemed to collude with commercial need where it might not be in the interests of the patient. The second is about informed consent: how will the patient be consulted within the provisions of Amendment 19?
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting and well-informed debate, and I am quite reluctant to enter into it. I support government Amendment 19 and particularly Amendment 20 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I hope I have got this right, although I am very happy to be put right if I have not. As I understand it, Amendments 19 to 25 concern consent, relating very specifically to the disclosure of information in accordance with international agreements. This is information that I think a relevant authority such as the MHRA holds in connection with human medicines.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, he raised a question in my mind about devices. We know that pharmaceuticals are much more closely regulated than devices have been, so can the Minister tell us a bit more about instances where there is a comparable agreement, and perhaps an amendment, for medical devices? I want to know whether they are on all fours with pharmaceuticals. I suspect not. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, I think that there is more to hear on this.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who has gone into great detail on these amendments. As far as I can see, these are mainly government amendments, plus some from other parties, and they are all broadly to be welcomed. The question I ask myself is: where are the boundaries to be set?
Very helpfully, the Minister, in his opening statement, explained in some detail the extent of information-sharing outside the UK and gave the example of the safety of medical devices. Having listened to my noble friend and the others who have contributed, I am still not quite sure about Amendments 18 and 20. I can see where they are coming from and can understand what is behind them but on this occasion I will have to listen to the Minister. These are sensitive areas and certainly we in the upper House should listen. I am also not entirely clear from the Minister’s statement at the beginning what the implications of Amendment 22 are. There has already been a good deal of coverage and I will not add to it further.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
These amendments relate to the use of data and information sharing. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, my noble friend Lord Clement- Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have put their names to some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, outlined clearly in the context of trade and health the power and value of data. Data is a hugely rich source for research but also a hugely valuable commodity, so we need safeguards.
Concern was raised in Committee about the level of protection in the Bill for patient information, as regulations are able to make provision about the disclosure of such information. I am grateful to the Minister for being so willing to look at this again.
The Government have responded in two main ways: with the introduction of a definition of “relevant person”, thereby narrowing the definition of whom data can be shared with, and by defining what is meant by patient information. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, explained, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, strengthens the definition of patient information to protect information that could identify a patient, rather than just information that does.
Amendments 18, 36 and 57, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and supported by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others, would allow a relevant authority to disclose information to a person outside the UK only where required for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement or an arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicine, provided it was within the public interest so to do. Those three amendments all pass the test put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, concerning public good.
Amendment 20, from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, would take the Government’s amendment on patient consent further by ensuring that consent given in relation to identifiable information was informed consent. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just raised the issue. We should not need this. Informed consent should be the default but, as it clearly is not, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 20.
Similarly, Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would ensure that patient information could be shared by an appropriate authority only if the individual to whom it related had given their explicit consent.
These amendments strengthen the Bill and therefore patient outcomes. I will listen to the Minister to see what plans the Government have to satisfy noble Lords on this group.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will speak to the amendments in my name, and give notice that I will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 18, along with Amendments 36 and 57, all of which are supported by the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones. This is unless—of course, I always live in hope—they are agreed to by the Minister.
Turning to the other amendments in my name in this group, I just want to put on record how grateful we are on our Benches for the way that the Minister and the Bill team have worked on these important issues, and how much we support the amendments that he has tabled. We do not see these amendments as in opposition; we see them as amplification and clarification.
Amendment 24 is a probing test for whether aggregate data could identify individuals through de-identification or de-anonymisation practices. The Government’s amendments define patient information as data that
“identifies the individual or enables the individual to be identified (whether by itself or in combination with other information)”.
This represents a welcome tightening up of the definition to include scenarios where contextual information might allow de-identified data to become identifiable. This is very important given that aggregate data can reveal patterns which allow for reidentification, especially for small patient clusters as in rare diseases and conditions. Given the rapid development of sophisticated technology, my Amendment 24 probes the test for whether anonymised aggregate data could identify individuals through this. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that the appropriate safeguards and checks are in place.
Amendment 21 would ensure that patient information
“can only be shared by an appropriate authority if the individual to whom it relates has given their explicit (‘opt-in’) consent.”
We welcome the Government’s requirement for consent to share patient information. However, they have not specified how this consent mechanism will work in practice. This amendment in my name would ensure that important distinction, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords across the House. Other noble Lords have also mentioned care.data, which, because of a lack of clarity about the use of data, did not work. I hope the Government will be able to assure us that explicitly informed consent will be sought and secured.
Under Amendment 18, followed by Amendments 36 and 57, data would be disclosed to persons under international agreements or arrangements only for pharmacovigilance or if “in the public interest”. I hope the public interest bit answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg, my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords for their support for this suite of amendments.
Overall, the government amendments narrow discretion and set out in more detail the purposes for the information-sharing powers. However, in our view they still potentially allow for the disclosure of patient data without consent to commercial partners for undefined, and therefore unknown, purposes to be settled as part of international agreements or trade deals. That is why the helpful read-across to the Trade Bill by the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Patel, is so important. We recognise that information-sharing and disclosure may be necessary to allow smooth functioning and support internationally on pharmacovigilance, for example, but remain concerned that NHS data—which has been described as a treasure trove, worth perhaps £9.6 billion—could be bartered as part of commercial interests in trade deals.
Amendment 18, along with Amendments 36 and 57 in my name, would allow the Secretary of State to disclose NHS data only under the terms of an international agreement or trade deal for pharmacovigilance, of if it is otherwise in the public interest. We believe “the public interest” is a legitimate test that would offer reassurance that substantive and ethical issues relating to the sharing of data would at least be considered. I hope the Minister will recognise the value of this amendment; otherwise, as I say, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their Amendments 20 and 24 to one of my own amendments to Clause 7. These amendments seek to ensure that patient information can be shared by an appropriate authority only if the individual has given their explicit or informed consent, respectively. I completely recognise the commendable intent behind both amendments to safeguard and protect patient safety. Their intentions are benign but they are absolutely not necessary.
My lived experience for the past year has been completely aligned with the words of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg. Data is absolutely key. I have spent my time outside the Chamber working on little else: clearing the path for patient recruitment to clinical trials, so that therapies can be designed to save lives; getting data on long Covid patients from primary care to those researchers and clinicians who are trying to help them, which is an extremely complex and onerous task; getting central tracing data to local infections teams, which means transferring it between various jurisdictions; getting people to record the tests they take, which is a legal requirement but legally and technically difficult to implement; and getting test results from those who have taken them into their GP records. Most bizarrely, to me at least, I have been getting data-sharing agreements in place so that local authorities, which are crying out for the data—as their representatives here in this very Chamber cry out to me at the Dispatch Box for it—can access the dashboards with those legal agreements; or getting the data on those who may need support isolating into the hands of those charities and local authorities which are keen to support them.
Every step of the way, there has been an onerous set of legal, ethical and bureaucratic barriers. Speaking on the back of that experience, I wonder whether scientific deduction and patient safety are sometimes sidelined by other considerations. I therefore warn about measures that are driven by prejudice or secondary principles, rather than the priorities of trying to save lives and pursue science. Their unintended consequences can have a profound, stifling effect on patient safety, medical research and innovation, and on the effective running of a modern healthcare system. I can think of so many incidents where the need for data-sharing agreements, legally obtuse patient consents and all sorts of rarefied ethical reviews have caused major life-threatening obstacles and troubling issues in our response to Covid.
I know that the measures in these amendments are well intended, but I assure noble Lords that they are not necessary. For instance, Clause 7 accounts for the rare instances where it is necessary for the MHRA to share identifiable patient information internationally to support our commitment to upholding patient safety. I take this opportunity to assure noble Lords not only that this will be done only with the informed consent of the patient but that the practical implementation of some of the very measures in this Bill, such as the medical information system, will require these kinds of measures. It seems counterproductive for us to be undoing the benefits of our own information system.
Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seeks to broaden the definition of patient information to include information that could enable identification. I reassure the noble Baroness that the MHRA absolutely follows the Information Commissioner’s gold standard practices on patient data anonymisation. In order to be truly anonymised under GDPR, sufficient personal data is always stripped out so that, not only can the individual not be identified, but reasonably available means could also not enable the recipient to re-identify the individual. As such, if patient information to be shared still enables the patient to be identified, for example due to the unique nature of their condition, the amendment in my name will provide sufficient protection by requiring that patient’s consent be sought before sharing their information. The MHRA keep anonymisation processes under review in line with the ICO’s guidelines and continue to monitor advances in data technology.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones, on their Amendments 18, 36 and 57, which seek to limit the purpose for which information can be shared internationally under the powers. It is important to highlight that we could only disclose information under this power where disclosure is required in order to give effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicines, medical devices or veterinary medicines. In that regard, the clause already allows disclosure only for a particular purpose. As international co-operation in this area is important and a good, even necessary, thing, such agreements or arrangements would be in the public interest by default. The UK meeting its international obligations under these agreements and arrangements would be even more so. Furthermore, the MHRA and VMD do not share information for commercial gain—on that point I want to be absolutely categoric. Therefore, I am persuaded that these amendments are accordingly unnecessary.
We have introduced a number of amendments to these powers to clarify the types of person with whom information can be shared and, for those instances when it is necessary to share identifiable patient data internationally, introduced a lock that ensures that data can be shared only with consent. These amendments are, of course, in addition to existing data protection legislation and ICO guidance. I can assure the noble Lords that we are not complacent when it comes to the safe and appropriate use of patient data. We understand that, as technology advances, we will need to continually review the way in which we anonymise data to ensure that it remains just that.
I hope this provides noble Lords with assurance that the Bill and the additional amendments in my name provide robust safeguards to protect patient information, alongside long-standing data protection legislation already in place, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Thornton
“( ) Where information is disclosed in accordance with subsection (2) such disclosure will only be permitted where—(a) it is required as part of international cooperation for pharmacovigilance; or(b) it is in the public interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a relevant authority to disclose information to a person outside the UK where required for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicine provided it is within the public interest to do so.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I beg to move, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bethell
“(4A) Nothing in this section authorises a disclosure of patient information without the consent of the individual to whom that information relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the Minister’s name to add a definition of “patient information” to Clause 7 prevent Clause 7 authorising the disclosure of information from which patients can be identified without their consent.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wish to move Amendment 20, as an amendment to Amendment 19?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—very much about informed consent, but, nevertheless, I will not move the amendment.
Lord Bethell
“(5A) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under any other enactment or rule of law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Clause 7 does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under any other enactment or rule of law.
Lord Bethell
““patient information” means information (however recorded) which—(a) relates to—(i) the physical or mental health or condition of an individual, (ii) the diagnosis of an individual’s condition, or(iii) an individual’s care or treatment,or is (to any extent) derived directly or indirectly from information relating to any of those matters, and(b) identifies the individual or enables the individual to be identified (whether by itself or in combination with other information);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the Minister’s name adding a new subsection (4A) to Clause 7.
Lord Bethell
““relevant person” means—(a) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;(b) a person who exercises functions on behalf of such a government;(c) any other person who exercises functions or provides services relating to human medicines in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;(d) an international organisation that exercises functions or provides services relating to human medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first amendment to Clause 7 in the Minister’s name.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Patel, wish to move Amendment 26?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wish to move Amendment 27?
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I thought these amendments were part of the group that was passed on Tuesday?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct that Amendment 27 is consequential to an amendment agreed on day 1 of Report, so she may wish to move it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I think Amendment 26 is similar, possibly. We may need some guidance from the clerk. Was Amendment 26 also related to the group of amendments that were agreed on Tuesday? I apologise; it is always difficult to do these things when you are not actually in the Chamber.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My understanding is that Amendment 26 is also consequential to amendments passed on day 1 of Report, so we may wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, whether he wishes to move his amendment, which is consequential to previous amendments agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I will go back to Amendment 26. Does the noble Lord, Lord Patel, wish to move Amendment 26?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wish to move that amendment?
Baroness Thornton
“Requirement for draft consolidated legislation: human medicines
The Secretary of State must, within the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish draft legislation consolidating the regulatory regime as it applies to human medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause, and the other consolidation amendments in the name of Lord Patel, would require the Secretary of State to publish draft consolidated legislation within three years to streamline the existing regulatory framework. These amendments are linked to the amendment providing for a three year sunset provision in the name of Baroness Thornton.
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a sunset provision for Part 2 of the Bill requiring the Government to return with primary legislation. It is linked to the sunset amendments for Parts 1 and 3 of the Bill, and the amendments in the name of Lord Patel requiring consolidated legislation.
Baroness Jolly
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) that introduce significant new policy or significant changes to existing policy are subject, in relation to regulations made by the Secretary of State, to the super-affirmative procedure set out in section (Super-affirmative procedure), in relation to regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, to section (Super-affirmative procedure: Northern Ireland), and, in relation to regulations of the Secretary of State and a Northern Ireland department acting jointly, to both.”
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the appropriate authority’s overarching objective in making regulations under Clause 9 must be to promote one or more of the following: the health and welfare of animals; the health and safety of the public; the protection of the environment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 9(2) in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the word “attractive” from Clause 9(3)(c).
(i) develop veterinary medicines, or(ii) manufacture or supply veterinary medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of Clause 9(3)(c).
Lord Bethell
“(3A) Where regulations under subsection (1) may have an impact on the safety of veterinary medicines, the appropriate authority may make the regulations only if the authority considers that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the appropriate authority may make regulations that may have an impact on the safety of veterinary medicines only if the authority considers that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendment to clause 12 in the Minister’s name restrict the persons to whom information may be disclosed in reliance on Clause 12(2).
Baroness Thornton
“( ) Where information is disclosed in accordance with subsection (2) such disclosure will only be permitted where—(a) it is required as part of international cooperation for pharmacovigilance; or(b) it is in the public interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a relevant authority to disclose information to a person outside the UK where required for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicine provided it is within the public interest to do so.
Lord Bethell
“(5A) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under any other enactment or rule of law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Clause 12 does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under any other enactment or rule of law.
““relevant person” means—(a) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;(b) a person who exercises functions on behalf of such a government;(c) any other person who exercises functions or provides services relating to veterinary medicines in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;(d) an international organisation that exercises functions or provides services relating to veterinary medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the other amendment to Clause 12 in the Minister’s name.
Lord Patel
“Requirement for draft consolidated legislation: veterinary medicines
The Secretary of State must, within the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish draft legislation consolidating the regulatory regime as it applies to veterinary medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause, and the other consolidation amendments in the name of Lord Patel, would require the Secretary of State to publish draft consolidated legislation within three years to streamline the existing regulatory framework. These amendments are linked to the amendment providing for a three year sunset provision in the name of Baroness Thornton.
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a sunset provision for Part 3 of the Bill requiring the Government to return with primary legislation. It is linked to the sunset amendments for Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, and the amendments in the name of Lord Patel requiring consolidated legislation.
Baroness Jolly
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) that introduce significant new policy or significant changes to existing policy are subject, in relation to regulations made by the Secretary of State, to the super-affirmative procedure set out in section (Super-affirmative procedure), in relation to regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, to section (Super-affirmative procedure: Northern Ireland), and, in relation to regulations of the Secretary of State and a Northern Ireland department acting jointly, to both.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I should inform the House that, if Amendment 45 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment 46 by reason of pre-emption, and that the debate on the group beginning with Amendment 46 will be postponed and take place on Amendment 66.
Amendments 42 to 45
Lord Bethell
“(2) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State’s overarching objective must be safeguarding public health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s overarching objective in making regulations under Clause 14 must be safeguarding public health.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name substituting Clause 14(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the word “attractive” from Clause 14(3)(c).
(i) carry out research relating to medical devices,(ii) develop medical devices, or(iii) manufacture or supply medical devices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of Clause 14(3)(c).
Lord Bethell
“(4) Where regulations under subsection (1) may have an impact on the safety of medical devices, the Secretary of State may make the regulations only if the Secretary of State considers that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations that may have an impact on the safety of medical devices only if the Secretary of State considers that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.
Baroness Jolly
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) that introduce significant new policy or significant changes to existing policy are subject, in relation to regulations made by the Secretary of State, to the super-affirmative procedure set out in section (Super-affirmative procedure), in relation to regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, to section (Super-affirmative procedure: Northern Ireland), and, in relation to regulations of the Secretary of State and a Northern Ireland department acting jointly, to both.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 50. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 50
Lord Bethell
“Advisory committee
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish, and make other provision about, a committee to advise the Secretary of State on such matters relating to medical devices as the regulations may specify.(2) The regulations may (among other things) make provision about—(a) the membership of the committee;(b) the establishment by the committee of sub-committees;(c) matters to which the committee may, or must, have regard;(d) cooperation between the committee and the Commission on Human Medicines, and other bodies with expertise in relation to medical devices.(3) The provision mentioned in subsection (2)(a) may include—(a) provision about the number of members, their appointment, and the circumstances in which a person ceases to be a member;(b) requirements as to the independence of members from the Secretary of State;(c) provision about the payment of remuneration and allowances to members.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable regulations to be made creating a statutory committee to provide advice to the Secretary of State in relation to medical devices.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 50, I shall speak also to Amendments 64 and 96. We have spoken extensively about the critical importance of patient safety and the need to improve medical device safety in bold new regulations going forwards. The need for medical device scrutiny to the highest standards was expressed by noble Lords throughout Grand Committee and, of course, in the report of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. We recognise that improved and strengthened post-market surveillance and vigilance is essential. Equally, it is critical that we take further steps to strengthen oversight and increase transparency behind regulatory decision-making. Amendment 50 would support those efforts.
This new clause provides the Government with the power to create a statutory committee for independent expert advice on matters relating to medical devices. Historically, systems for post-market surveillance for medicines and medical devices have evolved differently. However, given scientific and technological advances and the kinds of innovative products and treatments becoming available, whether classed as medicines or medical devices, there is now need for greater assurance of equally high standards of surveillance, to ensure the upmost protection of patients.
The Commission on Human Medicines, which has a statutory basis in the human medicines regulations, provides an expert independent view to the MHRA on human medicines. It is visible and is underpinned by a statutory footing in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. There is a parallel set of experts for medical devices. The Devices Expert Advisory Committee, or DEAC, advises the MHRA on medical devices but does not have an equivalent statutory footing.
Amendment 50 would change this. Subsection (1) provides a delegated power to establish a committee to advise on matters relating to medical devices. The aim is to strengthen the vigilance system for medical devices. A statutory committee for medical devices will support structured decision-making and formal accountability, allowing for clear roles and responsibilities for independent expert advice. This will strengthen the MHRA’s ability to manage safety issues which are identified in clinical use even more effectively, ensuring that timely decisions are made and appropriate action taken to protect patients.
Proposed new subsection (2) provides that regulations may include, among other things, provision about membership, matters which the committee may or must consider, and establishment of sub-committees. This subsection also allows for provision to be made regarding co-operation with other bodies with medical devices expertise and the Commission on Human Medicines, allowing for join-up and best use of our experts.
Proposed new subsection (3) lists matters that regulations under proposed new subsection (2)(a) in relation to membership may cover. This includes the number of members, their appointment, the circumstances in which they cease to be members, and requirements as to independence from the Secretary of State. Proposed new subsection 3(c) allows for provisions to be made about payment of remuneration and allowances to committee members.
The amendment also amends Clause 41, enabling regulations relating to the advisory committee to make consequential provisions. Pursuant to Clause 45, regulations are to be made by statutory instrument and subject to the affirmative procedure. We consider it appropriate that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise regulations made under this power, given that the placing of this committee on a statutory footing will be a key element of enhancing the safety of medical devices. These regulations will be subject to all the requirements in Clause 45: public consultation and use of the affirmative procedure; and allowing patients, and other stakeholders, to comment before regulations are made to establish the Committee.
Those regulations will set out clearly, and transparently, how the statutory committee would provide advice where the regulator identifies that there is a need for scientific, technical or clinical advice. They will set out requirements to engage patients in the advisory system; for timeframes for advice on safety concerns to be issued; and requirements to communicate publicly about new and emerging risks. Rightly, the public want more transparency and accountability in regulatory decision-making. They want clearer, greater communication and explanation relating to the performance of healthcare products in clinical use. Patients deserve clear and up-to-date information on the safety of healthcare products from credible and authoritative sources. This statutory committee will meet that need. A statutory devices advisory committee will give confidence to patients, as well as clinicians and the public, that the regulator will take account of expert views on medical devices in a fast-moving area of life sciences. It will create an equilibrium in the level of external advice informing regulatory decisions across all healthcare products.
There are two other amendments in my name in this group and I do not intend to dwell on them, as they are only minor and technical. Amendment 96 provides for consequential changes to allow the DEAC to be commenced. Amendment 64 makes a technical amendment in relation to the time limits for bringing prosecutions for an offence. Time limits already exist but, as part of the clarification of the enforcement regime in Part 3, changes were made to break the link between consumer protection legislation and medical devices, and to streamline the enforcement regime. Due to an oversight, the current time limit was removed but not then reinstated by the Bill into the medical device regulations. Without this change, the system would not function correctly. I beg to move.
Amendment 51 (to Amendment 50)
Baroness Wheeler
Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to creating a statutory committee to provide advice in relation to medical devices.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving Amendment 50 enabling regulations to be made to establish the medical devices advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State and to place the existing Devices Expert Advisory Committee on a statutory footing. We welcome this proposed new clause to the information system requirements as an important step towards bringing more transparency to the devices system and ensuring that the regulator seeks independent expert advice on the safety of devices.
As will be seen from Amendments 51, 52, and 53, however—I am moving Amendment 51 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton—we want the requirement on the Secretary of State to establish the MDAC as a “must do” commitment, rather than the “may” in proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the amendment in relation to: the need for the regulations; providing advice; and making key provisions, such as how independent members should be from the Secretary of State. I know that numerous debates have been held during the course of legislation going through this House about the differences between “must” and “may”. However, “must” is surely the necessary language to require the Secretary of State to establish the committee and ensure its independence.
The Government’s briefings on the amendment—and the Minister today—as well as referring to the committee providing independent expert advice, emphasise that this will include “the views of patients”, complementing the work of the patient safety commissioner and giving patients a voice within the system of regulating medical devices. Through every stage of the Bill, noble Lords have underlined the importance of consultation with patients and end-users of medicines and medical devices. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind not including a subsection in the amendment which underlines the importance of the patient’s voice and perspective? I would also be grateful if he could tell the House what he considers will be the impact on the advisory role and scope of the change to a statutory footing for the committee.
We acknowledge the need for the two technical government Amendments 64 and 96. On Amendment 64, I note the explanation from the Minister today, and in his briefing letter to Peers of 5 January, of the need to reinstate provisions in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 extending time limits for bringing proceedings in relation to medical devices offences. Amendment 96 is a necessary consequential amendment in relation to the added clause on the MDAC under Clause 18, bringing the whole clause into force two months after the Bill is passed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to be able to take part in this debate, which allows the House to have a preliminary discussion about the future of medical devices regulation. I certainly welcome the establishment of an advisory committee, but I also welcome my noble friend’s amendment which makes sure that the rather tentative “may” is replaced by “must”. The Minister’s amendment is rather open-ended. It does not specify what matters it will advise the Secretary of State on, nor does it give any indication of the likely balance of membership. This is important because, as I have said, there has been some concern over quite a few years that the regulation of medical devices is not up to the mark, nor sufficiently protective of patient safety. The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has identified some weaknesses. In that regard, I declare my interest as president of GS1 UK, the bar-coding association.
We received a very helpful briefing from Professor Muireann Quigley and colleagues at the University of Birmingham, pointing to the rather confused state that medical devices regulation is in. The Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 came into force at the end of the EU exit transition period. These amend the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 to mirror key elements contained in EU regulations 2017/745, on medical devices, and 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. The aim of that was to make sure that there was good regulatory alignment between the UK and EU, as well as between different parts of the UK’s own regulatory framework. This Bill, when enacted, will provide an opportunity to mandate a more streamlined legislative approach. That would benefit all stakeholders, including industry, businesses and patients.
At present, the MHRA has no involvement in the pre-market phase of medical device development and there is a question as to whether it ought to have. Birmingham University colleagues are certainly proposing a proactive regulatory role for devices that is more akin to that for medicines. This would be clinically focused and, as they say, at least as stringent as the new EU medical devices regulations. Under that proposal, manufacturers could be required to apply to the MHRA before marketing their device. The MHRA could also assess the application in a way that is proportionate to the risks. It is proposed to take account of relevant factors, such as evidence-based supply, approvals in other jurisdictions and post-marketing surveillance plans. I know that that view may not necessarily be shared by industry, which would, perhaps, be concerned about the cost and delay in achieving licensing. However, we can expect a pretty intense debate about medical device regulation in the future.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who asked some relevant and useful questions about this while welcoming the new clause and the advisory committee on medical devices as a statutory body. I join him in that and think it is a very welcome move on the Government’s part. The analogy with the Commission on Human Medicines is helpful. As regards translating the Devices Expert Advisory Committee into a statutory role, in effect, in the process, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, there is considerable scope to think about how the Government’s new and expanded roles in the regulation of medical devices can be supported by the advisory committee.
I have a number of points. The first reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is that the MHRA has an enviable reputation as a regulatory authority for the approval of medical devices. If I recall correctly, among the European regulatory bodies something like 40% of the most important or significant medical devices were authorised by the MHRA. Other regulatory authorities in other countries will seek to supplant that. However, our reputation should enable us to establish an international position, and I hope that the advisory committee will not be confined to expertise from within the United Kingdom. There is a lot to be said for positioning the MHRA as a body providing internationally recognised authorisations for medical devices, and its scientific evaluation in that respect should be something that others look to. I therefore hope that that will assist if we have some international participation in the advisory committee structure.
Secondly, I recall, not least in the context of the vexed experience of the PIP breast implant issues back in 2010-11, that the role of notified bodies is very important. Hitherto they have, in essence, been regulated by the European Commission, not by the UK Government, but they fall to be UK-regulated in future. There are not many of them, but there is considerable benefit in there being an advisory committee sub-committee which is focused on the work of the notified bodies. That was the weak link that probably led to the PIP breast implant problems. The regulation is all very well but we have to have bodies that we are confident are able to deliver on these things. The few notified bodies we have in this country are highly respected but we want to make sure that that is maintained even as further notified bodies are authorised.
Thirdly, I recognise that the Devices Expert Advisory Committee has leading clinicians from Scotland and Wales in its membership. However, this must be a UK advisory function, as the MHRA is. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for there to be in addition a Northern Ireland representative on the committee and for there to be perhaps some specific mechanisms to ensure that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are represented in the regulations that establish the advisory committee.
I have one further point, which is that I hope that the various categories of medical devices are very carefully examined and the relevant expertise is available in relation to those. So, for example, on digital devices it is important that we have not only the clinical expertise to deal with the safety of medical devices we have at the moment but the technical expertise in the advisory committee to understand how digital devices will work in the future. That must also be the case in the special interests section related to in vitro diagnostic devices. I hope that that also will have its own special advisory committee function.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I support Amendments 51 to 53 because it is important that the new clause will read “must” instead of “may”, so that the advice on medical devices will be clear and should be followed. “May” means it can be optional and makes the regulations weaker, and people might miss important aspects of care. There is no doubt that clear, correct information is the way to better patient safety. In many ways, communication within the National Health Service should be improved.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and earlier speakers in welcoming this group of amendments. I support government Amendments 50, 64 and 96 and welcome the placing of the advisory committee on a statutory footing, and particularly that the affirmative procedure will be used.
My question goes to the nub of Amendment 50—in which regard, if this is correct, Amendments 51 and others in this group will not be needed. Is it for the Secretary of State to decide what goes in the regulations on which presumably Parliament will be consulted under the affirmative procedure?
I can quite understand that the use of “may” appears to be discretionary, leaving open what should be included. Having got this far, it would be helpful to understand the thinking behind the use of “may” in Amendment 50, which indicates that this may be discretionary, whereas clearly it appears to be the will of the House that this is mandatory.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, we support these amendments from the Government and from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which relate to the creation of a statutory committee to provide advice to the Secretary of State. Government Amendment 50 would allow the creation of such a committee in relation to medical devices, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in this group would require the Secretary of State to create the committee in Amendment 50, as the Government’s amendment states only that the Government “may” create the committee, not that they must.
No Secretary of State should be above independent advice. Amendment 50 is no bad thing, and of course any advisory committee on a statutory footing should consist of patients as well as experts. I understand that there might be kickback on the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but a Secretary of State will rarely have expertise in medical devices, so an ad hoc independent committee to inform, advise and warn would be very valuable. A lot of thought will need to be given to working out its terms of reference. We therefore support Amendments 51 to 53. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, it will also be critical to ensure how this committee will work alongside the MHRA.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously thankful for that constructive debate. This change to the Devices Expert Advisory Committee should be welcomed. It provides for if not equivalence then equality between the medicines and medical devices regimes. It provides for transparency, which we value enormously, and it indicates our direction of travel, the step change and the commitment to patient safety that the MHRA will enshrine.
As has been noted, the committee already exists. It currently meets, and it has an impact and an effect, but these measures mean that it will be strengthened. This change is put forward not solely by the Government; it was a recommendation in the review authored by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. It adds to the collective picture of improvements that we are making, from future regulation of devices to the medical devices information system. I reassure my noble friend Lord Lansley that we have a profound commitment to creating a regulator in the MHRA that has international influence. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that patient representatives are already on the DEAC. As Dr June Raine made clear in her briefing to noble Lords, she and the MHRA are massively committed to the patient safety agenda and to mobilising the patient safety voice through instruments such as the DEAC but not solely through it.
It is a delegated power, but one that I hope noble Lords agree is contained. It will allow us to ensure that the structure and focus of the committee can be kept under review to make best use of its impact, and the regulations will be subject to public consultation and all the steps therein.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled Amendments 51 to 53 to the government amendment, which would change the nature of the regulations such that they “must” rather than “may” be made. However, as I have set out, the committee already exists; it functions now. It will be strengthened by the regulations. We are committed to a more structured decision-making process that improves transparency. There is no equivocation or doubt; these regulations will be made.
The powers provided by Amendment 50 in my name will enable movement towards a more transparent, proactive, whole-life cycle approach to vigilance. Fundamentally, they will make a difference in the oversight of medical devices to the benefit of patients and patient safety.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have continued to shine a light on the importance of device safety. I hope that this additional tool in the arsenal demonstrates continued commitment and that I have provided sufficient reassurances for the noble Baroness to feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in this useful debate. The points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the future role of regulation were particularly pertinent, and we look forward to seeing how it develops.
I understand the Minister’s response in relation to “may” or “must” and heard loudly his reassurance that there is no doubt that the committee will be established or be upgraded. That being the case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bethell
“SCHEDULE A1 FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATIENT SAFETYPrinciples relating to core duties
1_(1) The Commissioner must prepare and publish a set of principles to govern the way in which the Commissioner will carry out the Commissioner’s core duties.(2) The Commissioner—(a) may revise the principles, and(b) must publish any revised version.(3) The Commissioner must carry out a public consultation in preparing or revising the principles.Involvement of patients
2_(1) The Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve patients in the discharge of the Commissioner’s core duties.(2) The Commissioner must in particular take reasonable steps to— (a) ensure that patients are aware of the Commissioner’s core duties and of how they may communicate with the Commissioner, and(b) consult patients, or persons who appear to the Commissioner to represent the interests of patients, on matters which the Commissioner proposes to consider in the discharge of the core duties.Supplementary functions and information
3_(1) For the purposes of carrying out the core duties, the Commissioner may—(a) make a report or recommendation to a relevant person;(b) consult or receive information from patients or any other person the Commissioner thinks appropriate;(c) request information from a relevant person;(d) share information with a relevant person.(2) A relevant person to whom a report or recommendation is made under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must provide a response to that report or recommendation within such period as the Commissioner may reasonably require.(3) A relevant person must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request by the Commissioner to provide information within such period as the Commissioner may reasonably require.(4) Nothing in this Schedule authorises a disclosure of information which contravenes the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this Schedule).(5) In this paragraph—“data protection legislation” has the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018;“health care” means all forms of health care provided for individuals, whether relating to physical or mental health, and including ancillary care;“relevant person” means—(a) a person who exercises functions of a public nature, relating to medicines or medical devices, so far as those functions are exercisable in relation to England;(b) any other person who, in the course of providing health care, provides services relating to medicines or medical devices in relation to England.Individual cases
4_(1) The Commissioner may not exercise functions in relation to an individual case.(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not prevent the Commissioner considering individual cases and drawing conclusions about them for the purpose of, or in the context of, considering a general issue.Amendments to primary legislation
5_(1) In Part 1 of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), at the appropriate place insert—“Commissioner for Patient Safety.”(2) In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying for membership), at the appropriate place insert—“Commissioner for Patient Safety.”(3) In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices: general), at the appropriate place insert—“The Commissioner for Patient Safety.”(4) In section 71 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc of certain health service bodies), in subsection (2), before paragraph (h) insert—“(ga) the Commissioner for Patient Safety,”. (5) In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to the public sector equality duty), in the group of entries under the heading “Health, social care and social security”, at the appropriate place insert—“The Commissioner for Patient Safety.”Regulations about appointment and operation
6_(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate with regard to the appointment and operation of the Commissioner.(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may (among other things) contain provision for and about—(a) the Commissioner’s terms of office;(b) remuneration or other benefits;(c) the provision of financial or other assistance, including staff, accommodation, equipment or other facilities, for the Commissioner;(d) requirements to prepare business plans;(e) requirements to prepare reports;(f) requirements to lay documents before Parliament;(g) requirements to provide documents to the Secretary of State or other persons specified in the regulations;(h) the conferring of functions on other persons in relation to the Commissioner;(i) the appointment of a board to provide advice to the Commissioner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes further provision about the Commissioner for Patient Safety established by the amendment in the Minister’s name to insert a new Part before Part 1.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment to clause 37 in the Minister’s name adding a definition of “relevant person” restrict the persons to whom information may be disclosed in reliance on Clause 37(5).
“(5A) But subsection (5) does not authorise a disclosure of patient information without the consent of the individual to whom that information relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the Minister’s name to add a definition of “patient information” to Clause 37 prevent Clause 37(5) authorising the disclosure of information from which patients can be identified without their consent.
Baroness Wheeler
“( ) Where information is disclosed in accordance with subsection (5) such disclosure will only be permitted where—(a) it is required as part of international cooperation in monitoring the performance and safety of medical devices; or(b) it is in the public interest.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a relevant authority to disclose information to a person outside the UK where required for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicine provided it is within the public interest to do so.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name adding a new subsection (5A) to Clause 37.
“(9A) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under any other enactment or rule of law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Clause 37 does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under any other enactment or rule of law.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits an unnecessary definition.
““patient information” means information (however recorded) which—(a) relates to—(i) the physical or mental health or condition of an individual,(ii) the diagnosis of an individual’s condition, or(iii) an individual’s care or treatment,or is (to any extent) derived directly or indirectly from information relating to any of those matters, and(b) identifies the individual or enables the individual to be identified (whether by itself or in combination with other information);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the Minister’s name adding a new subsection (5A) to Clause 37.
““relevant person” means—(a) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;(b) a person who exercises functions on behalf of such a government;(c) any other person who exercises functions or provides services relating to medical devices in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;(d) an international organisation that exercises functions or provides services relating to medical devices.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first amendment to Clause 37 in the Minister’s name.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Patel, wish to move to move his Amendment 63? Lord Patel? We cannot hear the noble Lord.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord may wish to know that the amendment is consequential on an amendment passed earlier on Report, so he or a fellow signatory may wish to move it.
Amendment 63
Baroness Wheeler
“Requirement for draft consolidated legislation: medical devices
The Secretary of State must, within the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish draft legislation consolidating the regulatory regime as it applies to medical devices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause, and the other consolidation amendments in the name of Lord Patel, would require the Secretary of State to publish draft consolidated legislation within three years to streamline the existing regulatory framework. These amendments are linked to the amendment providing for a three year sunset provision in the name of Baroness Thornton.
Lord Bethell
“(2A) In respect of an offence under this regulation—(a) a magistrates’ court in England and Wales may try an information laid before the earlier of—(i) the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor, and(ii) the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed;(b) a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland may hear and determine any complaint made before the earlier of—(i) the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor, and(ii) the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed;(c) in Scotland, summary proceedings for the offence may be commenced before the earlier of—(i) the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor, and(ii) the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed.(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(a)(i), (b)(i) and (c)(i)—(a) a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the date on which such evidence came to the prosecutor’s knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact, and(b) a certificate stating that matter and purporting to be so signed is to be treated as so signed until the contrary is proved.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that prosecutions for an offence under new regulation 60A of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 can be brought before the earlier of one year from the prosecutor thinking there was sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or three years of the commission of the offence, as is currently the case with regard to equivalent offences under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 66. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 66
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Availability of medicines and medical devices for human use on the National Health Service
(1) The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence must have regard to the need—(a) to address the implications of health inequalities when assessing the cost effectiveness of medicines and medical devices,(b) to support early patient access to effective new medicines and medical devices, including by accepting a greater degree of uncertainty and risk in recommending their use,(c) to ensure patients with rare diseases have access to medicines and medical devices that they need, and(d) to support the use of curative therapies involving medicines and medical devices.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report and impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament setting out how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has implemented its duty under subsection (1), in particular in its manual on process and methods for developing NICE guidelines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to ensure that its recommendations support the NHS in the ways described in subsection (1).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before I start, perhaps I may make the point to the clerks that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, needs to be unmuted every time the Deputy Speaker goes through the amendments so that she can move them or not. It is very frustrating; we can see it happening, and it is impossible for us to come in on this situation. That is why there is such a hiatus.
My Amendment 66 concerns NICE’s current view of its methods and processes as part of the agreement on the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, happily known as VPAS. If NICE is to maintain its global relevance, it is critical that the methods review delivers tangible changes to ensure that it can fairly and effectively assess the true value of innovative medicines.
The UK life sciences sector is at a crossroads. Without meaningful intervention from the Government, exiting the EU obviously presents significant threats to the attractiveness of the UK. We know that global boardrooms take a holistic approach when considering where to place their investment, including the attractiveness and speed of the commercial environment—we have debated these earlier in the Bill. The ability quickly to launch medicines and technologies into our market and to get medicines quickly to the patients who need them is one of the main factors that shape boardroom sentiment on future investment, alongside the quality of scientific research and the possibility of collaboration. It was the Labour Government who set up NICE to do that: to get innovative new medicines and devices to the NHS and implemented as quickly as possible.
But the UK risks missing out on a wave of breakthrough therapies, with the potential to transform outcomes, if the NICE review does not lead to meaningful change in the way it does its business. Not only do we risk losing our reputation as a leader at the cutting edge of medical science but, more importantly, patients will not be able to assess the most innovative treatments available elsewhere. So NICE’s approach to appraising value must take into account the strategic benefits of the NHS remaining at the forefront of medical innovation and demonstrate that the UK Government are committed to supporting a thriving, world-leading life science sector post Brexit.
In relation to my amendment, I would like to raise issues of barriers to new innovative technologies, such as gene therapy. Gene therapy is a prime example of a medical technology that the UK should embrace, and, indeed, the Government have rightfully lauded the UK’s efforts in this regard. But a procedure called the discount rate, used by NICE to adjust for future costs and health benefits when valuing treatments, discriminates against one-time therapies that offer potential long-term health benefits over many years, such as gene therapies. NICE almost always uses a 3.5% rate. It can apply a lower 1.5% rate for therapies that offer longer-term health benefits, but it has chosen to do this only on exceptionally rare occasions. I wonder whether the Minister will commit to working with NICE to review the circumstances in which the policy solution can be applied to unlock the potential of such innovations.
The VPAS was negotiated with the aim to secure a triple win for patients, government and industry. But NHS England’s current bespoke commercial agreements significantly undervalue innovation, and this is something global boardrooms look at for evidence in the NICE review—that speedy access to new medicines will be improved.
Why should the Government commit to doing an impact assessment of the changes? Well, warm words and promises from Ministers are not enough; we need a clear commitment from them that they will place the emphasis on NICE to ensure meaningful action. In Committee, the Minister argued that my amendment was not necessary, and that the issues I raised were already dealt with in existing legislation and were outside the remit of the Bill. She went on to say:
“NICE, like the rest of the health system, is constantly keeping methods under review to ensure they are appropriate and support the speed of innovation in the life sciences sector,”
and she agreed about the need to get new innovations into the hands of patients quickly. In so doing, she referred to the methods and process manual produced by NICE
“in consultation with a range of stakeholders, including industry and academics.”
She said:
“NICE will publish a revised manual and related impact assessment when that process is completed.”—[Official Report, 26/10/20; col. GC 52.]
Is that sufficient?
The Ethical Medicines Industry Group has identified that medicines and medical devices often face challenges when being assessed by NICE, due the rigid focus on cost-effectiveness. Failing to consider other factors, such as the benefits of treatment in reducing health inequalities or the wider impacts on quality of life, often hinders patients’ ability to access innovative life-saving treatments. The EMIG argues that introducing a health inequalities modifier would be critical to demonstrate that NICE recognises the importance of reducing the high levels of unmet medical needs in the population and to benefit the most disadvantaged and underserved patient groups. There is strong support for the introduction of this modifier among experts involved in the development of the consultation, with a document noting that there is evidence that people are willing to generate less health overall if the health is generated in disadvantaged groups, particularly for socioeconomic disadvantage.
My amendment seeks to build on expert support to ensure equitable access to innovative treatments for conditions that are not adequately treated, to drive down health inequalities and benefit the most marginalised patients. I argue that NICE must also review its appraisal system for rare disease treatments to ensure that the system in place enables patient access. Inherently, rare disease treatments serve small patient populations, and generating sufficient data to meet NICE’s cost-effectiveness requirements is often challenging.
I have received a briefing from another organisation, Global Blood Therapeutics, on sickle cell disease. It argues that, in relation to the UK’s most prevalent genetic disorder, SCD treatments are currently limited to managing the condition rather than addressing the underlying causes. But there is hope that a new range of therapies may change this.
On occasion, NICE has also considered treatments which may not meet its traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds but which would have a significant impact on health inequalities. But consideration of health inequalities remains rare, and I think that this needs to be revisited. If NICE is truly committed to designing an appraisal process which reduces health inequalities and provides equitable access for the most disadvantaged patients, the introduction of a health inequalities modifier, as set out in my amendment, is vital.
The UK life science sector faces a great challenge. It is a huge asset. We have to ensure that organisations such as NICE play their part in making sure that the NHS and the UK are attractive for major investment in the future. In a nutshell, that is the crunch point of my amendment. We have as well to make sure that its methodology deals with health inequalities sufficiently. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I am vice chair of the NICE review committee. Amendment 66, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, aims to ensure early access for NHS patients to medicines and medical devices. This must also involve ensuring that results of safety and efficacy from devices in real-time use—as well as in trials—are registered, published and then considered again in real time, a process that I hope will be helped and promoted by the patient safety commissioner role.
Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I tabled, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, an amendment to ensure provision for the development of a new rapid provisional two-year licensing procedure. The intention behind that amendment was to ensure that patients could more quickly access potentially life-saving medicines and medical devices.
I sincerely thank the Minister and his team for meeting with me on this, and for the other meetings they facilitated. I am reassured that the approval processes from the MHRA over device development are due to be revised completely over the coming year, with improved and streamlined processes, and I hope that today the Minister can confirm this, even with a timeframe, so that we can move forward quickly.
We have a unique opportunity to develop devices and roll them out to the NHS, but it is important that approval processes do not slow down or block patient access to improvements in treatment and management over a wide range of conditions, particularly rare disorders. Evidence from real-time use is crucial, and development and improvement can become a virtuous circle when that is rapidly fed back—so we become the intellectual innovation hothouse for our future prosperity, while also benefiting our patients. The UK can then be seen as a favourable place to develop, approve and supply medicines and medical devices.
Speeding up and widening approval processes, including two-year provisional licensing that I have been advocating with the Royal College of Physicians, would ensure that developing a new device from beginning to end—taking an idea from conception to supply—all in the UK is seen as an attractive prospect. Otherwise, we continue to risk new devices beginning their innovation journey in the UK, then being taken abroad part-way through the development process and marketed back to the UK. Keeping the entire process in the UK, with different models of fast-track approvals and provisional approvals, will allow better oversight of the safety and efficacy of devices during early access, with ongoing monitoring in real-time use. That would then facilitate moving into appropriately costed long-term approval processes.
We can innovate in the UK and stop intellectual capacity being outsourced. We can protect the safety of patients while getting them access to the latest treatments. It is patients who will suffer if we do not get this right, which is why the proposals in this amendment are so important.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and speak on this group of amendments. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, speaks with passion and some considerable knowledge and experience of NICE. But I am concerned and would just like to understand, as we have established that patient safety absolutely has to be paramount, that patient safety could not be compromised through either of the two amendments—Amendments 46 and 66—in this group.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out in the earlier amendment in Committee a two-year licensing procedure and, now that we have obtained an assurance that the approval processes are to be revised, I would imagine that the same procedure as set out under Amendment 66 should be considered as part of that review and revision of the processes. I would also like to further understand how a role for NICE as set out in Amendment 66 actually fits in with the Bill before us today and, in particular, the role as set out, and just agreed, of what the advisory committee should be.
My concern is absolutely that patient safety has to be paramount—first, foremost and bottom line. In my view, what is sought to be set out in these two amendments in this little group should be best done as part of an overall review of the processes to which the Government, as I understand, are already committed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff for alerting me to the fact that government Amendment 45 pre-empted our Amendment 46. They were grouped on different days, but I am pleased that others were thinking on the same wavelength.
I am very happy to support Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath. The availability of medicines and medical devices is top of my priority list. In fact, antibiotics have saved my life on several occasions. It is important that NICE adheres to health equality: everyone who needs medicines or medical devices should be treated equally and there should be no delay. Unfortunately, with this devious coronavirus, this has not happened, but we hope for better days.
Having experienced a member of my family dying, I know that sometimes it seems worth trying anything that might help and that is in the research process. There are many really rare diseases which need orphan drugs; they can be a lifeline to the individual. I hope that NICE will consider them without delay and realise their importance and value to these small patient groups. It is so frustrating when patients in Scotland and other European countries can get medicines and medical devices, when those in England cannot; patients here have to wait—unless the public come to their rescue by crowd funding.
Many users of devices also need instruction on their use, and staff and patients need training. Personal medicine is so important and patient safety is absolutely paramount.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, for his amendment and for the way he introduced it. It very helpfully allows us, at this very important moment, to take stock of how we secure the availability of medicines—although the legislation does not relate to NICE, and I am sure it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I do not think it is appropriate for us to legislate to tell NICE how to do its work, given its independent statutory constitution. None the less, the Bill is about the availability of medicines, and it is really important for us to identify how the NICE processes can assist in ensuring that we get medicines to those who need them.
I shall say a few words about the NICE processes. First, let me address the objective, from my point of view. When I was Secretary of State, I advocated a process called “value-based pricing”, which was to try to understand that not only were there quantitative factors measured in quality-adjusted life years—QALYs —which, if one were able to secure them, gave one a quantitative basis for understanding the value of a new medicine, but that in addition there were other qualitative aspects, which I described as the societal benefits and the innovation benefits. I still think that this is the right approach.
In the international context, many countries are trying to escape the potential downward spiral of reference pricing, where everybody is trying to pay less than the average. The net result, if we carry on down that path and if the American Administration pursue that path, will be that we end up with inadequate support for the industry for the development of new and innovative medicines.
What we need to do is to value innovation and support the industry for the value it delivers. However, we do not measure it precisely in those terms. When we look at our current structure in this country, we need to understand that there is an opportunity created by what is known as VPAS—the voluntary pricing and access scheme. If it is genuinely the case, and we have argued that it should be, that the industry has accepted a constraint on the overall growth of the medicines budget in the NHS, and if it is clear that, if that growth is exceeded, there will be a rebate and that rebate does indeed return to benefit patients, through the NHS or the innovative medicines fund, so promoting access to new medicines, then we will arrive at the point where both NICE and NHS England should be working together to try to secure the best value from that drugs budget. I think they should be working together to ensure that, where there is a mandate for a new medicine, it is one which is supported by, not imposed upon, NHS England. That is increasingly where we should be aiming to arrive: at a combined thought.
What goes into value-based pricing matters enormously as well. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to some of the important aspects. First, it is about societal values. For example, if we can deliver a health gain among the parts of our population where health outcomes are poorest, then we should ascribe additional value to that health gain. A modifier for health inequalities is consistent, for example, with the statutory responsibilities of the NHS to seek to address and reduce health inequalities.
Unmet medical need makes a difference. Incremental effectiveness of medicines is important, but to have a medicine available for those who thought that there was no opportunity for treatment available to them from the NHS can make an enormous difference, and I think we should ascribe additional value to that. Medicines which deliver innovative benefits—for example, which have a whole new mode of action—can lead to subsequent treatments, and we should have a method of qualitatively understanding where those innovations, even if they may not have dramatic incremental benefits, none the less give us long-term potential. We should reflect that in the price that we are prepared to pay.
Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, we should not apply a discount rate to quality-adjusted life years that is directly comparable with the discount rates that are applied to revenues over time. I think people's time preference for quality-adjusted life years is not so dramatically higher for gain now as opposed to gain in the future; there is a much greater degree of equivalence between health gain now and health gain that people will derive in future. That would certainly assist in promoting medicines that slow the progression of disease and help us to manage longer-term morbidity in our older population, which would be immensely helpful.
There is a whole range of such matters and there are many more one could talk about, but it is really important to distinguish between NICE’s job in undertaking a health technology assessment, which I think should be moved from the purely quantitative to the qualitative. It should include, for example, relying not only on randomised control trial data but understanding observational data and the data we receive from the use of the innovative medicines fund to see how well medicines work and what benefits and outcomes they can deliver—sometimes in relatively small populations for rare diseases—understanding that in practice and incorporating it in its assessment.
We need to support NICE in delivering what is regarded internationally, I hope, as a gold standard of health technology assessment. We need to understand that that is separate and distinct from the business of what price the NHS should pay and on what basis the industry and we, as payers for new medicines, should agree, understanding that our objective must always be to ensure that safe, effective and high-quality medicines are available to the NHS and patients.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments relate to NHS access to medical devices, and Amendment 46 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would ensure early access for NHS patients to medical devices and allow monitoring of safety and efficacy in real-time use. This amendment is pre-empted rather by the Government’s amendment, which removes the concept of attractiveness.
Amendment 66 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would require NICE to ensure that its recommendations support the NHS in the ways outlined in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause. This includes ensuring access to new medicines and medical devices for patients with rare diseases. Those of us who have been involved in rare diseases will be all too well aware of the problems of access to appropriate treatments for so few patients.
The interesting thing about this debate is that two of the House’s big health thinkers have been speaking, and both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have given us a really good big-picture look which takes us slightly above legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke of social and innovation benefits and the need to value innovation, but with innovation does not always come success: we may have to try again. He spoke about the innovative medicines fund and the necessity for NICE and NHS England to work together. When it is put like that, it sounds very straightforward: why is that not normally happening? He talked about the importance of value-based pricing and getting the best value from the drugs budget—which, after all, is finite. He also talked about the health technology assessment, which is of course qualitative, not quantitative. I valued the contribution of this debate on the fourth group of amendments, and I will read it again with great interest.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is quite right: two of our health big thinkers have laid out the issues here. My noble friend Lord Hunt gave a wonderful introduction to Amendment 66, which covered the reasons why it is important and what it will do. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, took us on a journey through how health inequalities can be addressed. The point, and the reason the amendment is on the Marshalled List today, is that it does not always work like that. Implementation is key. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, requiring NICE to support NHS access to new medicines and medical devices seems kind of obvious. The challenge for the Minister here is how to use this legislation and this discussion to make what we think is obvious work better.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I know the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has a long-term interest in and commitment to the work of NICE and, as such, will know that NICE’s remit is set out in other legislation. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments on why we do not see that as strictly for this Bill. Instead, I hope to provide some reassurance on the issues he raises with his amendment.
The noble Lord will be aware that NICE’s methods and processes for assessing the cost-effectiveness of medical technologies are internationally respected and have been developed over almost 20 years through periodic review, including extensive engagement with stakeholders, and the latest iteration of that process of periodic review of its methods is ongoing. NICE finished the first phase of its consultation on the case for change to its methods on 18 December 2020. There will be a second consultation on the case for change to its processes in the spring. The result of those will inform the final consultation on the updated methods manual in summer 2021. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by the consultative nature of that process in considering the issues he raised.
Subsection (1)(a) of the new clause proposed in his amendment would require NICE to address the implications of health inequalities when assessing the cost effectiveness of medicines and medical devices. Subsection (1)(b) would require NICE to accept a greater degree of uncertainty and risk in recommending their use. I reassure the noble Lord that NICE is already considering both of those as part of its review, and they were both consulted on as part of the consultation on the case for change that ran from 6 November to 18 December 2020.
In that consultation, NICE noted that there may be a case for a modifier that considers health inequalities. However, further work is needed to explore how this could be defined and implemented in a health technology evaluation, and under which circumstances. This will be done in NICE’s second consultation running from February to March. Such a modifier could consider the types and sources of inequality, as well as how a modifier should be applied—qualitative or quantitative. It could also consider whether such a modifier covers technologies that directly reduce inequalities—for example, by specifically targeting or providing additional benefits for a disadvantaged group; or whether indirect effects might also be considered—for example, if a technology has uniform benefits across groups, but the condition disproportionally affects a disadvantaged group. At this stage, it is not clear that there is sufficient evidence for a health inequalities modifier, but it is being explored, and will be explored further in the second stage.
I hope that level of detail on the consideration that NICE is undertaking helps to reassure the noble Lord, but of course it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review, and we want to encourage all stakeholders to respond to it.
In addition, I remind the noble Lord that a requirement to have regard to reducing health inequalities is already imposed on NICE under Section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006. This applies to NICE as a non-departmental public body of the Department of Health and Social Care.
Proposed new subsection 1(c) would require NICE to have regard to the need
“to ensure patients with rare diseases have access to medicines and medical devices”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, noted some concern during Grand Committee as to why NICE did not propose a rarity modifier in its methods review. A rarity modifier was considered by NICE prior to publication of the consultation document. However, stakeholders noted that rare diseases would be covered by the proposed severity modifier, which more accurately reflects society’s values. Although there is of course overlap between severity and rarity, not all rare conditions are severe and some severe conditions are more common. Of course, the consultation was an opportunity for all stakeholders to express their views on this point. As noted previously, NICE is also consulting on changes, such as a more accepting attitude towards uncertainty in some situations, which should benefit medicines for rare diseases.
Where there is uncertain evidence relating to a medical technology—I appreciate this can be a challenge for rare diseases—NICE and NHSE&I have developed managed access agreements. NICE has already recommended six topics for use subject to a managed access agreement outside of cancer. NHSE&I continues to use its sophisticated commercial capabilities to negotiate deals with industry that enable patients to access the most innovative new medicines and ensure that the NHS gets good value.
Proposed new subsection 1(d) would require NICE to have regard to supporting
“the use of curative therapies involving medicines and medical devices.”
The word “curative” should be used with caution, as there is no standard definition of what might be meant by it. For example, in some cases it may mean a significant amelioration in symptoms, in others that the treatment pathway is different or more tolerable.
While I appreciate that recently launched advanced therapy medicinal products hold great promise by targeting the specific cell or genetic defect, the data on long-term effectiveness is often immature at the time of marketing approval. Further, we need flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to developments in life sciences. We want to avert a situation whereby an effective therapy is not guaranteed funding because it did not meet the legal definition of a “curative therapy”. However, I think that the noble Lord was more trying to get at our support for some of these innovative approaches. Again, this is being looked at in the review of NICE’s methods.
NICE’s working group has explored whether there is a case for changing the approach to discounting, which the noble Lord asked about, in particular the impact on technologies with long-term benefits such as one-time gene therapies. This is a complex area that needs to take into account the policy-level need to support particular types of technologies or circumstances, the limitations of the current criteria for non-reference case discounting, and the effects and any accompanying policy and affordability challenges of any change. This will be covered by the second stage of the NICE methods review. Again, while we would not want to pre-empt that review, all stakeholders are encouraged to respond to it.
Briefly, proposed new subsection (2) would require the Secretary of State to lay a report and impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament, setting out how NICE has implemented its duty under proposed new subsection (1). As I said in Grand Committee, NICE will publish its revised methods and process manual, including its impact assessment, on its website for all to access, including parliamentarians, once the process has been completed. That is the correct forum.
I will briefly address Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which touches on similar issues—the importance of access to medical technologies, the future medical devices regulatory regime, and the critical nature of medical device safety. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work through her engagement with Ministers and our officials in developing government Amendment 45, which provides greater clarity on the types of activity we would intend to encourage through appropriate regulation. That includes, in respect of medical devices, carrying out research, developing medical devices, or manufacturing and supplying medical devices.
The Government support the agenda for early access to medical devices for NHS patients, as demonstrated through other mechanisms such as the rapid uptake products programme, managed by Accelerated Access Collaborative, and the medtech funding mandate, due to launch in April.
The second stated purpose of the noble Baroness’s amendment—to allow monitoring of the safety and efficacy of medical devices in real-time use—is already achieved by regulations that may be made under Clause 15(1)(i) and (j), so the mechanism to deliver this is already in place. In addition, Clause 18 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the establishment of a medical device information system by NHS Digital, which will support the monitoring of patient outcomes and patient safety.
The noble Baroness also asked about the timeframe for future devices regulation made under the Bill. I assure her we will consult on this issue this year.
I hope the reassurances I have provided, here and during Committee, are of comfort to noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wanted to stimulate a debate on the NICE review and it certainly succeeded, because we had a very high-quality debate. I am very grateful to the Minister for what was a comprehensive and encouraging response, in a number of ways.
I will start with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because she made a powerful speech and argued very convincingly for the speeding up of approval processes, alongside speeding up the introduction to the National Health Service of proven, innovative new medicines and treatments. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about patient safety, but my amendment and, I believe, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would do nothing to undermine patient safety. In the first place, the Minister has already tabled an amendment to Clause 1, which we debated on the first day of Report, which gives priority to considerations of patient safety. It is clear from the explanation given for Amendment 46 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that her proposals for a preliminary licence would allow for monitoring of safety and efficacy in real time. That could be a real bonus indeed.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked the fundamental question: why are we so slow to introduce new medicines and devices? Why are we behind so many other developed countries?
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave a very thoughtful contribution. He is absolutely right to argue that we need more support for innovative medicine. The tragedy is this. We have the excellent VPAS agreement whereby, essentially, industry accepts that if the cost of medicines goes above a certain agreed level it will pay a rebate back to the Government, or ideally the National Health Service. If this worked properly the resource going back would be used for innovation, but for reasons that I have never quite understood the money does not seem to go back directly in an identifiable form to the NHS. We have the bizarre situation where, locally, the NHS worries about its drug costs. When it goes above a certain level there is a rebate, but unfortunately that rebate does not seem to find its way back in a tangible, transparent form, to the NHS. We have not created out of the agreement the kind of win-win situation that surely was envisaged when the previous voluntary agreement was first developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned one of the big issues: the need for NICE and NHS England to work together. I do not get the impression that they do work together that well, because NHS England regards most innovation as costly and therefore tries to dampen it down. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: we need a much better partnership where we build in value for innovation and dealing with inequalities—one where NHS England would actually be on board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and my noble friend Lady Thornton talked about this being a big-picture debate. Of course, this is not something that can be solved by an amendment to a medicines Bill, but Parliament ought to debate these important issues and, at the very least, raise some issues that the review should undertake to address.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 67. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 67
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Medicines and Medical Devices Redress Agency
The Secretary of State must, by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, bring proposals before Parliament to establish a Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to come back to the debate on clinical negligence and the recommendation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her report for a redress agency. I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board.
We have reached a very serious position, with an exponential rise in clinical negligence costs. Twenty years ago, contingent liability was £3.9 billion; it is now £83 billion. Even allowing for inflation, I hardly think that we have become 20 times more negligent over that period. Indeed, the Minister, Nadine Dorries, told the House of Commons in a Written Answer last November:
“The continued rises in clinical negligence costs are eating into resources available for front-line care”.
It is not delivering for patients and their families, either. There are huge delays in getting cases settled and huge lawyers’ fees, in a quite remarkable situation where the NHS ends up paying damages in 80% of litigated clinical negligence claims. There is something wrong in the way we deal with these cases.
There have been endless reviews over the past 20 years, but precious little has happened. Seventeen years ago, an NHS redress scheme was unveiled by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. Legislation followed in 2006 but, 14 years later, it has yet to be implemented—and I doubt it ever will be. Since then, there has been much debate about the sustainability of Section 2(4) of the 1948 Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, which essentially promotes increased costs because it provides that
“there shall be disregarded, in determining the reasonableness of any expenses, the possibility of avoiding those expenses or part of them by taking advantage of facilities available under”
the NHS. In other words, the NHS tends to pay twice.
In 2017, the department and the Ministry of Justice commissioned the independent Civil Justice Council to draw up a new claims handling process for clinical negligence claims of up to £25,000, together with proposals for fixed recoverable costs for these cases. The report was published, with recommendations, in October 2019. Since then, there has been silence.
In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued in her report First Do No Harm for a redress agency to be set up on an avoidable harm basis, which looks to systematic failings rather than blaming individuals. This, she thought, would encourage reporting and provide faster resolution for claimants. She argued that this
“would provide a standing structure to administer decisions using a non-adversarial process. This model is simple for patients to access as there is one point of contact. This structure enables flexibility to adapt and respond to situations as they arise.”
The proposed scheme of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is well intentioned and has popular appeal. I recognise that details need to be spelled out in relation to eligibility, qualifying criteria or conditions of entitlement for her proposed redress scheme. Of course, causality is at the heart of any consideration of patient safety remedy. Causation is at the heart of tort. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is limited to persons disabled as a result of vaccination. Even the NHS Redress Act 2006, to which have just referred, is concerned with arrangements for redress in relation to liability in tort. The noble Baroness’s approach is of course quite different from that.
The noble Baroness the Minister in Committee was not enthusiastic. In the past 48 hours we have heard the Government’s response that they have,
“no current plans to establish a redress agency”,
as set out in the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The reply went on to say:
“The government and industry have previously established redress schemes without the need for an additional agency.”
Well, that is a rather disappointing dismissal and misses the point, because the noble Baroness was essentially calling for a wholesale reform of the current clinical negligence system. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter.
Can we really go on with the exponential rise in costs to the NHS—a system in which it loses 80% of cases that reach the courts, and where huge delays take place in patients getting access to an outcome? The system is completely bust. We need a new one and I hope that the Minister will, with his colleagues, consider what action needs to be taken to improve the current situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. His determination is awe-inspiring. I am so pleased that he has not left this issue mouldering on the Committee Floor but has picked it up again.
I understand what the noble Lord said about the Government not being enthusiastic. However, I have known other issues on which the Government have been less than enthusiastic. It is the way in which we put forward persuasive arguments—although setting up this agency will take a lot of work, with a lot of detail to be considered. However, other schemes have been successful. I think about the one in my area—thalidomide. That trust is still running and getting redress for people who need it. So I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
In our review, we tried to achieve a very simple and accessible structure for patients through the proposed redress agency. In an update on our recommendations, the Minister in the House of Commons, Nadine Dorries, said that the Department of Health and Social Care had delivered ex-gratia payments with individual schemes without the need for a redress agency. Indeed it has.
There are four or five schemes for infected blood alone, with eligibility based on whether the patient was a haemophiliac with HIV; a haemophiliac with hepatitis C; a non-haemophiliac with HIV; or a non-haemophiliac with hepatitis C. These different schemes addressed what type of payment should be awarded according to the patient’s need. What we—I am talking about my team and I—were advocating is a single point of contact for avoidably harmed patients. We felt very strongly that they had suffered enough without the necessity of finding out how to access the schemes that are relevant to them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said that something is wrong. He is right: it is wrong. This is not the way to help people who have been seriously harmed.
The problem is that, without a redress agency, each ex gratia scheme starts from scratch, which we felt was grossly inefficient. We need a standing administrative structure, funded by contributions from manufacturers and the state—both have a responsibility. At the moment, litigation is the only route, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, for injured people to get serious compensation. We know that the process is very damaging to people. They do not like going to court, they do not like having to put forward all the information that is absolutely necessary—and sometimes not so necessary—and they do not like the fact that it is an adversarial system. We felt that the redress agency could remove the need for adversarial litigation that focuses on blaming individual doctors and nurses. The agency would be non-adversarial and would look at the systems failings that led to avoidable harm. This would help develop an open culture in healthcare and facilitate learning—we are not good at that. We know that the same mistakes happen over and again, and we felt that this was another tool to ensure that there would be much less of that.
Gathering information in one place—the agency—would make it so much easier to learn from the data that is collected and would strengthen the ability of the healthcare system to learn from the mistakes made. We have only to look at the cost of litigation of some £83 billion a year—I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. We know that, often, the majority of those costs go to the law firms, not the individuals who have suffered so grievously. We felt that it would be much better if those huge sums of money, which are much needed by the NHS, should be used with a redress agency, which would have other advantages, as I have just outlined. A stand-alone agency, with a single entry point, would be a much better and more cost-effective way to award redress to those who suffer such avoidable harm—and many of them suffer for decades.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is again my great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am pleased to attach my name to Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord.
I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will mind if I explain why I am coming in on Amendments 67 and 68 in particular. It is because I was in a meeting and asked her what her next priority would be after the broad achievement of the patient safety commissioner. She said that the redress agency was in her mind as the next priority, which is why I have chosen to make it a priority in this Bill, in which I have become considerably more involved than I was originally expecting.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did, I have to describe the Government’s response to the noble Baroness’s review as very disappointing. Simply very curtly saying:
“The Government and industry have previously established redress schemes without the need for an additional agency”
really does not engage with the arguments put by the noble Baroness in her report or reflect the strong support seen in the British Medical Journal editorial on 20 August, which expressed growing support for the entire review but particularly for the idea of a redress agency.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and prior to her the movers of Amendment 67. I welcome the fact that we have this opportunity to say something about redress. Amendment 68 is to follow in the next group, and I think it important to distinguish between the need to establish a scheme of redress where the NHS or government have been responsible for something which subsequently turns out to have damaged or harmed people, and the need to establish a scheme to provide proper support to those who have been harmed. That has been done on an ex gratia basis but, if the Government sought to do so, I think it would be possible to commence the NHS Redress Act 2006 and to establish such redress schemes under a statutory footing. It is not necessary to pass legislation to make that happen.
Those are different and distinct from the process of recognising that those harmed as a result of clinical negligence or failures in treatment processes should be able to secure a remedy and redress. I say remedy advisedly because often, in my experience of talking to people who have been harmed as a result of clinical negligence—these are often cases involving harm to babies during birth—it is as important to understand what happened, to accept where responsibility lies and to understand that others will not suffer in the same way, as it is to secure redress, compensation and support, which is often support for the child throughout their life. We need to understand that that is what we are talking about, not just the question of compensation.
I am slightly surprised by Amendment 67. I wonder what we think NHS Resolution is, if not an agency within the NHS with responsibility for securing redress for those who have been harmed as a result of clinical negligence. We need to recognise the need for, and I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government have not abandoned thought of, further reform. Certainly, when we were in opposition, we argued during the passage of the NHS Redress Bill that there should be a fact-finding phase. We argued that, rather than having an adversarial process with expert witnesses and all the associated costs, we should have a phase during which a claim is brought and the facts are established on an independent basis. That could lead to arbitration procedures and a settlement, rather than court-based proceedings, and we might escape some of the burden of cost. We should remember that nearly half the total cost of compensation in the clinical negligence process through NHS Resolution is actually legal fees. If we can escape some of that through an independent fact-finding phase, an arbitration process and financial settlements which recognise the support that the NHS and taxpayers give to those who have been harmed and have enduring problems and disabilities as a result, we might escape some of the burden of cost.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the potential contingent liability—not on an annual basis, but in the future—has risen to £83 billion. It is an enormous sum. The amounts paid by way of premiums to NHS Resolution are a significant aspect of the cost of NHS providers. There continues to be a good argument that the Government should consider this area still in need of reform.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Bennett, would require the Secretary of State to introduce proposals for a redress agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, the concept of a redress agency for those harmed in such a manner has been around for many years but has not been realised. However, in the light of the Cumberlege report, which has been a great catalyst for innovation, the Government must see that now is the time. This is a really practical and common-sense move that would provide support and relief for patients while also avoiding the need for costly litigation on both sides, saving the NHS a considerable amount of money which could be better spent.
The NHS has a duty to give proper support to those in its care who have been harmed. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, there needs to be independent fact-finding, leading to a resolution process. He cited the NHS Redress Act 2006. I ask the Minister to reflect on this debate and to speak to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, perhaps using his charm to persuade him to think again.
One advantage of being at home for this debate, in front of your own computer in your own study, is the opportunity quickly to look online to see how easy it is to find the relevant website. It took me a couple of searches before I came up with NHS Resolution, but it was not hugely helpful or intuitive. Therefore, would the Minister also feed that back to the Secretary of State and the people who manage these schemes?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raises matters in Amendment 67 that he raised in Grand Committee. I completely recognise that they are of enormous concern right across the House. One could say that it is the £83 billion question. I know he is an advocate, as indeed are many noble Lords, of the conclusions of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, led by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and I commend him and other former Health Ministers in this place.
In Committee, we had a very helpful, substantial and informative discussion on the concept and merits of a redress agency. I know that the noble Lord indicated that he would return to these matters if it seemed likely that we were unable to give an update on the way in which the department is responding to the review. I understand that he seeks further assurances and I shall attempt to give them.
As I set out in Committee, we are determined to ensure the safety of medicines and devices so that harm is less likely to happen in the first place, and, when things do go wrong, we are committed to fair redress arrangements that work for all. However, for the reasons that I set out in Committee, we do not believe it is necessary to create a new body for the purpose of providing redress for medicines and devices.
First, routes already exist if patients believe they were harmed by medicines or medical devices. They can bring a legal claim in the courts either against the manufacturer on the basis of product liability or against the actions of an NHS provider or clinician.
Secondly, the Government and manufacturers already have the ability to set up redress schemes when necessary, and in fact they have done so already, where appropriate, without ever establishing an additional agency. Setting up an overarching redress agency could become an unnecessary addition to an already complex landscape.
Thirdly, we do not believe that a redress agency in this country would necessarily make products safer or drive the right incentives for industries which are usually directed from a global level. It is a fact of life that any extra costs to firms could impact the attractiveness of the UK as a place to market and manufacture products —something that we are committed to supporting.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked what, in the absence of wholesale changes, we are doing to improve things. Since its strategy, Delivering Fair Resolution and Learning From Harm, was launched in 2017, NHS Resolution has successfully reduced the number of cases going to litigation. In its 2019-20 accounts, it reported that 71% of claims are now resolved without court hearings, which is extremely encouraging.
This has been accompanied by a significant increase in the use of ADR—alternative dispute resolution, referred to by my noble friend Lord Lansley—with over 1,000 mediations undertaken by 31 March 2020, with a success rate of around 80%. This is again encouraging. As a result of the strategies employed on ADR and early resolution, overall time to resolution of cases had reduced since the NAO report by an average of 26 days. The new early notification scheme for obstetric cerebral palsy has ensured that many early admissions of liability and interim payments can be made to families within months. In answer to my noble friend Lord Lansley, we keep the whole arrangement under review and assess options all the time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, again, this has been an interesting debate. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, there are persuasive arguments to change the current approach to redress and clinical negligence more widely. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Government’s response was short and not really sweet.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to draw a distinction between schemes of redress and wider clinical negligence issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has a later amendment dealing with specific recommendations on redress for the patient groups that she examined in her report. I took her argument for a redress agency to have much wider implications and considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, expressed surprise at the wording of my Amendment 67. I simply sought to bring this back, so that we could have a wider discussion, as well as deal with the issues raised around the three patient groups in the noble Baroness’s report.
I have never understood why the redress Act was put on the statute book but never implemented. It is clear from talking to experts that it is regarded as flawed, but it is interesting that no Government have picked this up. Equally, we all accept that redress schemes for individual patient groups are an appropriate way forward. However, we are left with a system for clinical negligence that I simply do not believe works.
I heard what the Minister said about improvements for NHS Resolution, but the fundamental argument is that the system is getting more and more expensive—the £80 billion-plus question, as the Minister said. For patients and their relatives, it can be a daunting process, even though, as he said, more can be dealt with prior to going to court. But when the cases do go to court, NHS Resolution tends to lose them. We go back to the size of awards, where the issue, in essence, is that the NHS has to pay twice because of the way that the 1948 legislation was drafted.
At the end of the day, surely we need a thorough review of the whole issue of redress and clinical negligence. I can see that the Government do not yet accept the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In the end, we have to start with a clean sheet of paper to see if we can do better by patients, the NHS and all the individuals affected. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 68. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 68
Baroness Cumberlege
“Redress schemes
The Secretary of State must, by the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, bring proposals before Parliament to establish redress schemes for those avoidably harmed by—(a) hormone pregnancy tests,(b) sodium valproate, and(c) pelvic mesh.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to create redress schemes for those who have already suffered avoidable harm related to the medicines and medical devices specified in the new Clause, and would thus implement one of the recommendations made in the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is interesting that these two amendments reflect each other, but I wanted them to be separate. The debate that we have had on the agency has been really interesting.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just talked about a further review of the whole system, which probably needs doing, but I am dealing all the time—through emails, letters and phone calls—with people who are suffering now. Rather than wait for a really good scheme, which I hope a redress agency would be, I feel that we should be compassionate and really understand how people are suffering today. They will suffer tomorrow. They have suffered for decades. It is time that they had some redress to help them in the very difficult and complicated lives that they lead, with huge suffering. It is not just the individual: it is the family and it is the children, especially with sodium valproate. One must think of the home. It is therefore important for society that we as a Government understand and are happy to supply some redress now.
I thank my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who have put their names to this amendment. I look forward very much to hearing what they have to say.
In the two and a half years that we spent travelling the country, listening to tragic stories from women and their families, there was absolutely no doubt in our minds that avoidable harm had been inflicted on those who openly, honestly and with great dignity told us their life stories. I have frequently mentioned what they and their families have told us, but I will spare your Lordships on this occasion because I do not need to reiterate it. Your Lordships know what we found. It is all in our report, First Do No Harm, if you want to dig a bit deeper. Hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate and surgical mesh are three interventions that have caused avoidable psychological harm in some patients. It is also clear that surgical mesh has caused significant physical harm and that sodium valproate has caused physical and neurodevelopmental harm.
Having listened to these ruined lives, we believe that the state and manufacturers have an ethical responsibility to provide discretionary payments to those who have experienced avoidable damage in these three interventions. Each of them should have its own scheme and tailored eligibility criteria. When we have, as I hope we will, a redress agency, these schemes can be subsumed into the agency.
I make it clear that these payments are not intended to cover the costs of services that are already available free of charge. I am thinking of healthcare and social security payments, and in some cases education for children. This is rather for other needs, which could include things such as travel to medical appointments—we have heard a lot about the costs of that—respite breaks or emergency payments, when a parent has had to stop working to cover the care needed for that child or members of the family.
Patients have waited far too long for redress, some for decades, and any scheme must be set up promptly, as soon as possible. However, it should be structured so that it can be incorporated into the redress agency in future. Individuals who obtain compensation through litigation or out-of-court settlements—and we have heard of some, particularly from Johnson & Johnson and the Scottish pelvic mesh settlement—will not need recourse to these schemes. It is over and above what is already supplied by the state or is totally inadequate. So we are not setting a precedent: ex gratia payments have made by the Government to those suffering from infected blood, for example, as I mentioned in the last debate, as well as variant CJD and other areas, where treatments have caused avoidable damage.
In responding to the report’s recommendations, the Patient Safety Minister, Nadine Dorries, said that our recommendation that these schemes should be established is still under consideration. I am very heartened by her words, which give me—and, much more importantly, those who are suffering—cause for hope that the Government will do the right thing.
I ask my compassionate and noble friend the Minister if he could give us more information on this. If it has not been ruled out of court, can he tell us what plans are made to ensure that these schemes become a reality, and very soon, because they are much needed? I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I shall be brief, since I am following the powerful case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for Amendment 68, to which I am pleased to attach my name, along with the noble Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Hunt. This is not a lesser amendment than Amendment 67 but a more limited one. As the noble Baroness said, agreeing Amendment 68 would not stop Amendment 67 from happening in future. The scheme for each individual could be rolled into a broader redress agency. I join her in welcoming the initial response to her report from the Government, which says that proposals such as that in Amendment 68 remain under consideration.
The case has been made—and I am not sure that I am allowed to do this post Brexit, but I note that in France the Government already pay into a fund for valproate damage. There are other cases around the world which reflect what already happens in other instances of medical disasters that have been acknowledged.
I commend the amendment to your Lordships’ House. I do not think that we will be pressing it to a vote tonight, but I hope that the consideration that the Government continue to give will turn into action very soon.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to support and put my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. As has so often been the case in this Bill, where she leads, others follow, and I entirely endorse everything that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have said. My reason for supporting the amendment is simple: as my noble friend made clear today, there are tens of thousands of women, men and their families who are suffering from the impact of licensed medicines and medical devices that have been wrongly used.
My noble friend’s landmark review gives voice to so many people who have been ignored for too long; that is what gives it such moral power and makes the force of its arguments so irresistible. Within the final report of her review is a clear recommendation for ex gratia redress schemes to be established for those affected by the HPT, mesh and valproate scandals. To my mind, this recommendation is neither radical nor extraordinary: such schemes have been set up in the past—for the victims of thalidomide and contaminated blood. Indeed, this is a common-sense proposal, and it is urgent—because the suffering of so many continues to this day, as my noble friend pointed out.
I have spoken in the past of two women—Janet Williams and Emma Murphy—whose lives, and whose children’s lives, have been changed for ever by in utero exposure to sodium valproate. They were interviewed as part of a recent Channel 4 documentary on the challenges they face in day-to-day life, the guilt they have been made to feel and their struggle to be heard. Janet and Emma’s honesty and tenacity have been an inspiration to me since I met them, and I defy anyone to watch that programme and not be moved to tears.
I was also contacted recently by another lady, who has been harmed by mesh. Her name is Susan Morgan, and, with her permission, I convey her story. She described to me being on,
“a hideous journey that was thrust upon me without consent”,
suffering grievous, painful and irreparable damage due to a mesh that can now never be removed. Sadly, she has lost nearly everything in dealing with the consequences of this terrible, avoidable injury, and she asks only that
“the burden of fear and worry be removed so that I can find some peace”.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister: are the redress schemes proposed in the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, under serious consideration, as my honourable friend Nadine Dorries said in the other place earlier this week? I hope so. If so, when will they be introduced? Only a robust answer will be enough to satisfy those supporting this amendment. I close by imploring my noble friend to move quickly: these victims cannot wait any longer—their pain is real, and their need is urgent. Of course, a redress scheme will not change or right every wrong that has been done to Susan, Janet, Emma and thousands like them, but perhaps it might bring them some peace.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, requires the Secretary of State
“to create redress schemes for those who have already suffered avoidable harm”
related to hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The Minister has told us that there will be no redress agency. The noble Lord spoke passionately about suffering without redress. A significant amount will need to be paid through NHS Resolution to the women affected by these three interventions. Who will ensure that the women affected receive proper recompense? As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has said, they have had to pay out for travel for treatment and payment for carers, and they are seriously out of pocket for what they originally thought was standard, straightforward NHS treatment.
I fear that, if there is no scheme, the NHS will have to pay more than it would through a properly managed redress scheme. This and the previous amendment are powerful signals to the Government that they must act on this issue of redress. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will be able to share the Government’s plans with us. If they have no plans, what would he suggest that these women should do? The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, put the case very powerfully.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that this afternoon we have given a powerful signal to the Government. Certainly, from these Benches, we very much support her amendment and her efforts to get redress for people who were grievously damaged by procedures undertaken in the National Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, talked about one woman’s experience of the impact of surgical mesh, and the huge pain and damage inflicted. I was very grateful to him when I had a Question on surgical mesh, which he answered, as watching it from the Gallery were a group of women from Sling the Mesh, who I had brought in. He gave a lot of time to them afterwards; perhaps it paved the way to the inquiry established under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Like him, meeting those women and talking to them about what they had suffered made me absolutely determined to do anything I could to raise the issue.
We were very fortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, accepted the chairmanship of this inquiry, given the quality of her team and the extraordinary lengths to which she went to produce its very fine report. Anyone who has met the people involved and listened to the suffering that they have undertaken is left with a feeling that it is awful. Something must be done for them and I very much hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, what a moving and heartrending set of speeches on a very important amendment, which I take extremely seriously. It raises the issue of establishing a specific redress scheme for those medicines and medical devices considered by the review: sodium valproate, the use of pelvic mesh and hormone pregnancy tests. The stories in the review, which have been told here this afternoon, are extremely moving on every single level. I cannot but pay testimony to those who have conducted the campaign and given evidence about their own personal suffering—and who, quite reasonably, look for some form of redress.
I completely understand why my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has raised this issue and why she and other noble Lords have asked for progress on her review. I also completely understand the importance that she and her team attach to this recommendation. They rightly spent considerable time drawing on a wide range of complex evidence before reaching their recommendations. The Government feel it is only right that we also give that incredibly helpful report our full consideration before responding to its recommendations. I remind noble Lords about the timeline for a response to these kinds of reviews, which we have gone over before. I think we are well within the normal response time for such reviews, Covid notwithstanding.
In order to determine whether redress schemes should be established, the Government have a duty to ensure that the final decision is fair for patients and for citizens more generally—not just the patients and citizens affected by the three treatments that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege alluded to, but all citizens and patients; you cannot favour someone over another. This requires extremely careful consideration of any proposed scheme but also the precedent that any decision sets for future policy-making. We spoke in the previous debate about the £83 billion problem. That kind of financial impact has a profound bearing on this kind of discussion.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked when the Government will respond to her review. The Written Ministerial Statement of 11 January sets out the Government’s interim response. I emphasise to anyone who may be confused that it is just an interim response to the report of the IMMDS review. We currently plan to respond to the report later this year; that is a commitment made by my honourable friend Nadine Dorries, the Minister in the other place. The report took over two years to compile and we therefore consider it absolutely vital for the sake of patients, especially those who have suffered greatly, to give this recommendation the full consideration it deserves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the Government have established redress schemes in the past but are unwilling to commit to the schemes proposed in this amendment. I think that one is too early to call. It is right and proper for the Government to carefully consider proposals for redress schemes on their own merits to ensure a fair outcome for patients, and citizens more generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked why it is taking so long to consider the recommendations. The report took over two years to compile, so we need to consider it very carefully. I do not want to use the Covid pandemic as a catch-all excuse, but the reality is that our hospitals are overwhelmed; the Department of Health has doubled in size in the last six months and even with that it is overworked and overstretched. The resources and capacity to respond to this kind of report are, I am afraid, distracted on other matters of national health crisis. However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and other noble Lords who have spoken that work is under way and we will set out the Government’s response to this report later this year.
I could not help but be enormously moved by the testimony of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. In essence, he asked why the Government do not recognise that the patients highlighted in the report of the medicines and medical devices review suffered unavoidable harm, particularly those who took hormone pregnancy tests. The Government absolutely do regard their suffering most seriously indeed and are considering the contents of the report. I am restricted in what I can see regarding hormone pregnancy tests in particular, given the live litigation, but I want to make clear the Government’s position regarding a causal association between HPTs and adverse outcomes in pregnancy. The scientific evidence has been reviewed on a number of occasions, most notably by the Commission on Human Medicines expert working group on HPTs, which, as noble Lords will know, reporting its findings in November 2017. The EWG concluded that the scientific evidence did not support a causal association and that remains the Government’s position.
Just as Covid-19 impacted the publication of the report, it has also had an impact on the timing of our response. I know, and recognise, that that is enormously frustrating. The Government are committed to responding and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that work is under way. Our upcoming full response will address recommendation number four. We are moved by the stories; I am totally and utterly sympathetic to the situation that the patients affected by these conditions find themselves in on a day-to-day basis. They are still living through it today. I would like to regard myself as a compassionate person, but it is not appropriate to make policy on this kind of matter through primary legislation. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment and await the Government’s full response to her report.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am so grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been quite short, but it is very important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said in the previous debate on the agency, she has been involved with this Bill in a way that she did not anticipate. She has been such a stalwart, coming to my rescue on occasions, and supporting so much of what has been in the Bill from other sources. I thank her for all of that. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, made a powerful speech about the individuals he has met. We know Susan Morgan well; we have worked with Janet and Emma and many others who have led their own organisations. We think of patient groups as being a few people who got together—when we did not have lockdown—to have coffee and just discuss life generally. That is not the case.
One of the groups I know has 8,500 members—from all over the world, in fact. Other groups have an equal number of members, or numbers of that order. So these are important organisations. They know what it is to have real research. They come up with not just experiences; they beaver away at all our institutions, they look at what they are producing and they challenge. They are so valuable. In the way they work, when they are people who are in considerable pain—very often, they have complicated and difficult lives, having to deal with constant pain—they are thinking of others all the time. That really is so uplifting.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 69. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 69
Baroness Wheeler
“Northern Ireland and regulatory divergence
(1) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to Parliament on areas of regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in matters covered by this Act.(2) Where the Secretary of State has identified areas of potential regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must set out plans to mitigate the adverse effects of such divergence in the annual report.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to report on regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, which revisits the issue of regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in matters covered by the Bill, and the need for an annual report to Parliament on this matter. The amendment also places an obligation on the Secretary of State specifically to report on plans to mitigate its adverse effects.
The Government will know that there is huge concern on this issue, strongly reflected in our Committee debates through our amendment and an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, calling for an annual report. The issue was also raised in consideration of the medicines and medical devices statutory instruments before Christmas and in the deliberations on the Northern Ireland protocol and the Trade Bill.
However, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group to Clause 44, which extend reporting obligations to apply in respect of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department and to regulations under Clause 18 on the health and social care information systems. In particular, Amendment 85 specifies a Northern Ireland department and the Northern Ireland Assembly as an appropriate legislature and relevant authority in relation to regulations made under the Act.
We also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the arguments put forward by noble Lords and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the need for parliamentary scrutiny before and after delegated powers are exercised, and the introduction of a two-yearly reporting requirement in large parts of the Bill. I note that government briefings commit to the reports containing a summary of how the regulations have operated over the period under consideration, including any concerns from stakeholders and the Secretary of State’s response, as well as outlining plans for further changes.
I am speaking also on Amendment 78, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, which in Committee we submitted for inclusion in the provisions under the previous Clause 41 on consultation but which now amends the reporting requirements in Clause 44. Our amendment specifies cohorts that must be consulted in preparation of a report to Parliament, including patients and their representatives, and other key industry stakeholders from healthcare, pharmaceuticals, veterinary and medical research organisations, and healthcare providers and regulators.
Once again, we come back to the importance of ensuring that patients and end users are part of and involved in consultation and reporting relating to existing and potential new medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. The stark lessons from the Cumberlege review, the Ockenden review and many other reviews that we have had are that patients’ voices must be heard.
For the record, we feel that the Government’s reporting requirements amendment falls short of providing the reassurances that we sought in Committee, because the relevant authority still has ultimate discretion over whom it consults. This could mean that any report could be skewed or biased by those chosen at the discretion of the Government. That is why our Amendment 78 details the key stakeholders that should be consulted.
In response to that amendment, I am sure that the Minister will come back to the often stock response to the inclusion of specific stakeholders in the Bill, namely that this would be too rigid and burdensome, and would inadvertently rule out contributions from those accidentally not listed. However, in the context of a very complex Bill and the history of often poor communications with stakeholders, I urge the Minister, if she is not happy with our list, to consider a broader amendment at Third Reading that would provide the reassurance that is clearly needed.
I come back to the key issue of regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the UK and reporting on this matter. Marketing, authorisation and trading processes on medicines and medical devices between Northern Ireland, the EU and the UK are complex issues, and many remain unclear. The Northern Ireland protocol and the provision for ongoing discussions to resolve key issues mean continued uncertainty for businesses, health services and patients. In this context, an annual rather than a two-yearly report to Parliament would have been more appropriate, particularly highlighting the problems arising from regulatory divergence, and the plans and progress on addressing them.
This is not the time or occasion to go into detail on the issues covered in Committee. However, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Patel, highlighted many key matters and concerns arising from the MHRA’s guidance on regulating medical devices from 1 January 2021, issued in September 2020, before Committee. I know that the MHRA has been pretty busy of late with the vital Covid-19 vaccination authorisation, but can the Minister tell us when it is envisaged that the MHRA guidance will be updated and reissued?
We have sought and been given reassurances from the Minister that the MHRA’s staffing, resourcing and capacity have been substantially increased to meet its new obligations. It is a much-respected body, but, as we have said, it faces huge challenges under its new role, and we suspect that the £13 million additional funding provided to it by the Government up to the end of March 2021 will be just a pump-priming starter in the light of all that needs to be done. The Minister’s reassurances over the MHRA’s strategic development plans and the Government’s commitment to further funding are welcome, but this is something that we will need to keep a close watch on. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, from the outset it has been clear that there was a potential for regulatory divergence in Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK for medicines and veterinary medicines, since they are referred to separately in the Bill as reserved matters in Northern Ireland. However, it has been made clear in the last quarter of 2020 that interaction with the Northern Ireland protocol makes that divergence inevitable for medical devices as well.
Guidance published by the MHRA in October, which I referred to previously, and statutory instruments laid before Parliament in the final months of 2020, set out two different systems of market authorisation and registration, among other issues, and distinguished between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain markets for medical devices and medicines alike. The Northern Ireland protocol requires that EU regulations relating to medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices apply to Northern Ireland, while CE marks will cease to be recognised in the Great Britain market from July 2023 unless the products in question are from manufacturers based in Northern Ireland.
There are essentially two paths for manufacturers based in Northern Ireland to bring a medical device product into the Great Britain and Northern Ireland markets. The first is to go through UK-based approved bodies for their assessment and market authorisation, which will be approved for both the Great Britain and Northern Ireland markets but will not be recognised in the EU. The second is to submit an application to approved or notified bodies in the EEA to gain a CE mark and thus access to the markets of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU without further needing to apply to a UK body for approvals for the Great Britain market.
By contrast, manufacturers based in Great Britain will need approval from UK-based bodies to place their products on the market in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but will need to undertake the separate task of setting up an EU-based responsible person and apply separately for a CE mark in the EU. It appears that the recognition of a CE mark on a medicine or device coming from Northern Ireland provides easier access for Northern Ireland-based manufacturers to both the UK and EU markets. What is not clear is the extent to which this dual system between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will diverge in substance.
For these reasons and many others, the Government should clarify the position. The amendment would provide greater transparency on potential regulatory divergence, with a commitment to mitigate it where possible. Of course, I will not be surprised if the Minister does not accept the amendment, and neither do I think the noble Baroness will divide the House on it, but whether we agree with it or not, I hope the Minister will agree that somebody has to have some way to recognise what this divergence will do. Who will that be? Would she agree that this will be needed in due course?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
What does one say to the people of Northern Ireland? They voted to remain in the EU, their vote was ignored by the DUP, and they have been duped by the Government, who continue to deny that there is a border in the North Sea—when today we are debating ample evidence of such a border. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, identified, the distinction the MHRA is now having to make between the EU market, the British market and the market for Northern Ireland, as well as the bureaucracy involved and the cost for British-based companies, is undeniable.
These two very modest amendments seek to ensure that Parliament gets a regular report on how this is working in relation to medicines and medical devices regulations, and that various bodies should be consulted. However, over and above that, the Minister owes the House some explanation of how we have ended up in this bizarre situation, where Northern Ireland, which wanted to be in the EU and wanted to be listened to, has ended up in this rather parallel existence, with a border down the North Sea, food shortages in its supermarkets, and in a right mess. I hope the Minister can answer that.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to reporting requirements and consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just put the political case very clearly; the noble Lord, Lord Patel, looked at the technical and regulatory issues; I will look at the practical issues around health services on the island of Ireland.
Amendment 69 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would require the Secretary of State to report on regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Can the Minister tell us when the first report would be published, whether the Republic would be part of this consultation, and if not, why not? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I tabled this amendment to require the relevant authority to consult with patients and healthcare and industry stakeholders when preparing a report under Clause 44.
Divergence is inevitable. The situation for healthcare on the island of Ireland could become extremely complicated. In the past, patients have travelled north or south to receive treatment wherever the appropriate treatment is available. Will citizens from Northern Ireland and the Republic have to use the new GHIC, or do the Government have an agreement with the Republic so that business as usual will be the new norm—no change?
Government Amendments 75 to 77 and 79 to 85 extend the reporting requirements under Clause 44 so that they apply to regulations made by a Northern Ireland department and in respect of regulations under Clause 18. However, we cannot ignore the Republic when we talk about health in Ireland.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we now turn to the way in which reports are prepared and made on the exercise of the regulatory-making powers in the Bill.
Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would make changes to the existing requirement to report, introduced in Grand Committee. It proposes that an additional report be made by the Secretary of State to Parliament, this time on regulatory divergence with Northern Ireland introduced as a consequence of future regulations. I understand the noble Baroness’s intent. I heard the concerns raised in Grand Committee about the potential impact of regulatory divergence. The Government take that seriously. However, I will explain why this amendment is not necessary to address it.
As a reminder, the amendments made in Grand Committee provided for a reporting obligation on the operation of regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clauses 1(1), 9(1) and 14(1)—one that was both forward- and backward-looking. Those reports must include any concerns raised or proposals for change made by anyone consulted by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the report, and the response to these. It will necessarily draw Parliament’s attention to regulations that have been made.
Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill relating to human and veterinary medicines are matters transferred to Northern Ireland. As such, legislative consent was secured for the Bill earlier in its passage, but as amendments were made during Grand Committee, further legislative consent was sought. At Northern Ireland’s request, government Amendments 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 85 in this group replicate the existing reporting obligation for Northern Ireland. This means there will be a report laid in Parliament every two years on what new regulations have been made and any plans to make further related regulations. A separate report will be laid before Northern Ireland. Between our report and the report laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly, any areas of regulatory divergence between the UK and Northern Ireland regulatory regimes will be made clear. Therefore, it would be duplicative to require the Secretary of State to lay additional reports specifically on regulatory divergence for human and veterinary medicines and medical devices.
In addition, where there are concerns about the implementation of the protocol and its impact on patients and animals in Northern Ireland, there are formal channels in place. Officials meet regularly in the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee. The Specialised Committee reports to the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee and provides advice on decisions to be taken by the Joint Committee under the protocol.
Before the end of the transition period, we raised with the EU through its specialised committee the issue of the falsified medicines directive and regulatory importation requirements for medicines moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland after 1 January. We agreed with the EU a pragmatic one-year, time-limited approach to implementing these regulations that ensures no disruption to the flow of medicines to Northern Ireland. I say this to reassure noble Lords as to the effectiveness of those mechanisms under the protocol.
Noble Lords made a number of comments on the issue of regulatory divergence and I thought I would dwell on it briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave a good description of future provisions regulating devices between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. He is wrong to say that the Bill lays out Northern Ireland separately because of this. It does so because medicines and veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly and are therefore devolved. However, divergence may be an issue for the future, not least because the EU may change its own regulatory regime under the protocol that Northern Ireland will follow, and the UK may make changes here as well.
To reassure noble Lords, we have agreed a standstill period of two years for medicines and veterinary medicines and two and a half years for devices, during which we will continue to recognise EU regulations in these areas. This means that there is time for adequate consultation on regulations made under this Bill, for consultation on any future changes and for these mechanisms to operate properly. Divergence may be a matter for the future, but we have reporting to Parliament and public consultations on any regulations made under this Bill to address those questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how we ended up here. I think that question is slightly wider than the purview of this Bill. I have quite a lot of lived experience of how we ended up here and I do not intend to recount that now.
I hope the amendments I have referred to in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, coupled with these other, existing arrangements, make the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness unnecessary.
Government Amendments 77, 83 and 84, also in the name of my noble friend, are made in the same light of expanding reporting obligations. In the interests of transparency and scrutiny, amendments have been made to extend the obligation to include regulations made under Clause 18—the regulation-making power in relation to the medical devices information system. We have made this change to make clear our absolute commitment to transparency, to giving Parliament continued visibility, to understanding the assessment made of any proposals or concerns raised as to how the regulations have been working, and to ensure that the regulation-making powers specifically containing provisions that may ensure or affect device safety and post-market surveillance are treated equally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, again seeks to test us on the preparation of the reports with Amendment 78, which would add a list of stakeholders to be consulted under the obligation. Again, this is unnecessary. If her concern is that the stakeholders listed may be ignored, I reassure her that the reports must summarise concerns raised, or proposals for change made, in relation to regulations enforced during the reporting period. That information will come from engagement with relevant stakeholders. Therefore, I do not think it necessary or proportionate to add a list of specific stakeholders to be consulted for each report, which will be a summary of public consultation that will already have been responded to.
I must say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Wheeler, that the Government will not return to this issue at Third Reading, so if they wish to press it, now is the moment. However, with the number of avenues already available, I hope that they are reassured that their amendment is not needed and will not wish to press it.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. I shall not go into details now, but we know that there will be significant issues of regulatory divergence, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, have stressed. We know that it is an issue about which we will have to be very watchful. In the circumstances we currently face, an annual report would have aided the process of working through the issues and encouraged understanding of the plans to address them and the progress being made.
On Amendment 78, the Minister is obviously not going to oblige me with a tidying-up amendment at Third Reading to underline the importance of the patient voice. I think that is a mistake; it would have been helpful. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 69.
Lord Bethell
“(1) This section applies to regulations under a power in Part A1, 1, 2 or 3, apart from regulations under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments to insert a new Part before Part 1 and a new Clause after Clause 18, and would enable regulations under powers in those provisions to make consequential and other connected provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the other amendment to Clause 41 in the Minister’s name.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name inserting a new Part relating to the Commissioner for Patient Safety. It requires the Secretary of State to carry out a public consultation before making regulations about the Commissioner.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a consultation in relation to regulations under Clause 1, 9 or 14 to include a summary of the assessment of the person making the regulations of all matters mentioned in Clause 1, 9 or 14 (as the case may be), including new subsections (3A), (3A) and (4) inserted by amendments in the Minister’s name into Clauses 1, 9 and 14 respectively (overall assessment of risk-benefit analysis).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the definition of “relevant authority” to apply in relation to regulations under new Part A1 (the Commissioner for Patient Safety) and the new Clause tabled in the Minister’s name to appear after Clause 18 (advisory committee), as well as in relation to other regulations under Part 1, 2 or 3.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendments to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name extend reporting obligations under Clause 44 so they apply in respect of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department and in respect of regulations under Clause 18.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
“(5) In this section—“appropriate legislature” means—(a) in relation to a report of the Secretary of State, Parliament;(b) in relation to a report of a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly;“relevant authority” means—(a) in relation to regulations made under section 1(1) or 9(1) by the Secretary of State (whether acting alone or jointly with a Northern Ireland department), the Secretary of State; (b) in relation to regulations made under section 1(1) or 9(1) by a Northern Ireland department (whether acting alone or jointly with the Secretary of State), the Northern Ireland department;(c) in relation to regulations made under section 14(1) or 18(1), the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment to Clause 44 in the Minister’s name.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name inserting a new Part relating to the Commissioner for Patient Safety.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name inserting a new Part relating to the Commissioner for Patient Safety.
Baroness Jolly
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name inserting a new Part relating to the Commissioner for Patient Safety. It provides for regulations about the Commissioner to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
Baroness Jolly
“Super-affirmative procedure
(1) For the purposes of section 1(1), section 9(1), section 14(1) and section 18(1), the “super-affirmative procedure” is as follows.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—(a) a draft of the regulations, and(b) a document which explains the draft regulations.(3) Where a draft of the regulations is laid before Parliament under subsection (2), no statutory instrument containing the regulations is to be laid before Parliament until after the expiry of the 30-day period. (4) The Secretary of State must request a committee of either House whose remit includes health, science or technology to report on the draft regulations within the 30-day period.(5) In preparing a draft statutory instrument containing the regulations, the Secretary of State must take account of—(a) any representations,(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and(c) any recommendations of a committee under subsection (4), made within the 30-day period with regard to the draft regulations.(6) If, after the 30-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft or a revised draft, he or she must lay before Parliament a statement—(a) stating whether any representations, resolutions or recommendations were made under subsection (5);(b) giving details of any representations, resolutions or recommendations so made; and(c) explaining any changes made in any revised draft of the regulations.(7) The Secretary of State may make a statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not revised) if, after the laying of the statement required under subsection (6), a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(8) In this section, reference to “the 30-day period” in relation to any draft regulations is to the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the original draft regulations were laid before Parliament.(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.”
“Super-affirmative procedure: Northern Ireland
(1) For the purposes of section 1(1), section 9(1), section 14(1) and section 18(1), the “super-affirmative resolution procedure” in the Northern Ireland Assembly is as follows.(2) The Department must request a committee of the Assembly whose remit includes health, science or technology to report on the draft order within the 30-day period.(3) A Northern Ireland Department must take account of—(a) any representations,(b) any resolution of the Assembly, and(c) any recommendations of a committee under subsection (2), made within the 30-day period.(4) If, after the 30-day period, the Department wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, it must lay before the Assembly a statement—(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (3)(a); and(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.(5) The Department may after the laying of such a statement lay before the Assembly for approval by affirmative resolution the draft order in its initial form, or a revised draft order together with an explanation of the changes made.(6) In this section, reference to the “30-day period” in relation to any draft order is to the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the original draft order was laid before the Assembly.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or adjourned for more than four days.”
Lord Bethell
“(ba) section 5(4),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would commence the definition of “human medicines provision” from the day on which the Bill is passed.
“(za) Part A1,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the Minister’s name inserting a new Part relating to the Commissioner for Patient Safety. It provides for those amendments to come into force two months after the Act is passed.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new clause after clause 18, in Chapter 2 of Part 3, and provides for the new clause to come into force two months after the Bill is passed.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add a limb to the long title in relation to the new provisions tabled in the Minister’s name for the purpose of establishing a Commissioner for Patient Safety.
Financial Services Bill
Thursday 14th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 January 2021 - (13 Jan 2021)