House of Commons

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 27 January 2021

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)]

What assessment his Department has made of progress on the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine in Scotland.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

What assessment his Department has made of progress on the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine in Scotland.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

What assessment his Department has made of progress on the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

The Government are procuring vaccines on behalf of all parts of the United Kingdom and supplying them to the devolved Administrations. It is for the Scottish Government to manage the roll-out of the vaccines in Scotland. However, our British armed forces are supporting the NHS in Scotland in this vital task.

[Rob Roberts [V]]

The vaccine roll-out has been excellent, with the United Kingdom again having among the strongest responses in the world. As there are varying degrees of success in the four different parts of the Union, will my right hon. Friend confirm what discussions he has had with the vaccines Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—in order to guarantee that the four constituent parts of the UK will receive sufficient vaccinations to hit their targets of the first four groups by the middle of February?

[Mr Jack]

The devolved Administrations are receiving their shares of vaccine based on population, and the schedule of deliveries will fully support vaccinations of the first four priority cohorts by 15 February. All parts of the United Kingdom therefore have an equal chance of meeting that mid-February target.

[Antony Higginbotham]

Throughout this pandemic, we have seen the incredible work done by the armed forces to support us up and down the country, and in my constituency and across Lancashire, that has been help with testing. We know that in Scotland, the armed forces are now supporting vaccination centres, ensuring that life-saving treatment can get to those who need it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows the strength of the United Kingdom family, with help and assistance ready to be sent to any corner of it?

[Mr Jack]

I am absolutely delighted to echo my hon. Friend’s comments. Our British armed forces have played a number of essential roles in Scotland during the pandemic. They have airlifted patients to mainland hospitals from islands. They have delivered personal protective equipment. They have run mobile testing centres in rural areas and, at present, as he alluded to, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are setting up 80 vaccination centres across Scotland.

[Dr James Davies [V]]

The most recent statistics for the number of covid-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people stand at 11.4 for England, 9.8 for Northern Ireland, 9.2 for Wales and 8.1 for Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that directly comparable statistics across the UK can be incredibly helpful to drive up performance in the NHS, and will he outline the plans that he has to pursue this agenda further?

[Mr Jack]

Government Ministers in both the UK and the devolved Administrations are committed to transparency around the numbers of people who have been vaccinated. There are also a number of mechanisms for sharing best practice between Ministers and officials of all Administrations. The faster we can vaccinate, the more lives we can protect and the quicker we can return to normal.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

May I start by thanking the GPs and other NHS staff across the Scottish borders, who have been working incredibly hard over the last few weeks to get vaccines into people’s arms? I have been speaking to GP practices across my constituency. One of them said:

“Our English counterparts over the border seem to have access to a lot more vaccines than us and that is causing a lot of unrest within the community.”

She went on to say that

“if we could have a guarantee of a definite amount of vaccines”

from the Scottish Government, it would make it a much easier job to plan and administer. What assistance can the UK Government provide to ensure that vaccines are delivered to GPs more quickly and efficiently across Scotland?

[Mr Jack]

The UK Government are ensuring that NHS Scotland gets an equitable share of those vaccines. How it is distributed is a matter for NHS Scotland and, rightly, as health is devolved, that is a matter for the Scottish Government. If my hon. Friend’s constituents are concerned about any aspects of distribution, the best thing for them would be to take up their concerns with the Scottish Government.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What recent assessment his Department has made of the strength of the Union.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

Scotland benefits greatly from being part of a strong United Kingdom. The most obvious recent examples are the unprecedented economic support offered to people and businesses in Scotland and the rapid supply of vaccinations to all parts of the United Kingdom currently taking place. Neither of these would have been possible if Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom.

[David Linden]

Finland, a small independent country in the EU with a population comparable to Scotland, right throughout the pandemic has been paying workers’ benefits equivalent to their full pay if they are required to self-isolate. If tiny little Finland can pay people their full wage, what does it say about the strength of the Union that we pay Scots a measly £95 a week?

[Mr Jack]

There has been unprecedented support. The sort of support that the United Kingdom has delivered through the furlough scheme, the self-employment income support scheme, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, business grants and the £8.6 billion delivered to the Scottish Government to help with the pandemic has not been delivered anywhere else within the European Union.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, at a time when my constituency has its highest ever level of coronavirus infections, rather than focusing solely on beating this pandemic and planning for a recovery, Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government are prioritising another independence referendum and breaking up the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jack]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. People in Scotland want to see politicians across the United Kingdom working in partnership to focus on defeating the coronavirus. That remains the top priority of the UK Government, who have supported jobs and businesses across the United Kingdom through the pandemic —as I say, there has been unprecedented support—and now more than ever, we should be pulling together to strengthen our country, instead of trying to separate it.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]]

On this Holocaust Memorial Day, let us remember those who were persecuted and those who are persecuted now, and never forget the horrors that can happen when bigotry goes unchallenged.

I do not remember that same sense of responsibility when Brexit was being bulldozed through during the same pandemic that the Secretary of State has just mentioned. If he is so sure of the strength of the Union, why is he so afraid to test that strength in another independence referendum?

[Mr Jack]

First, I align myself with the remarks that the hon. Lady made about the holocaust.

The referendum took place in 2014. We respect that; it was a democratic outcome. The hon. Lady mentioned Brexit: that referendum took place in 2016, and again, it was a democratic outcome. We are the party that respects democracy.

[Mhairi Black]

I know the Secretary of State is aware that a lot has changed since 2014. Scotland has been taken out of the EU against its will; we have had three Tory Prime Ministers we never voted for; and now, 20 consecutive polls have shown that a majority of people in Scotland now support independence. Given that he is the defender of democracy, I ask him how, with that in mind, can the people of Scotland secure that preferred choice of independence?

[Mr Jack]

Scotland receives over £1,600 more in support per man, woman and child than the UK average—that is incredibly important. Added to that is the £8.6 billion of extra coronavirus support, and on top of that, the furlough support. An independent Scotland would have the largest deficit in the European Union, and it would break member state rules. I remind the hon. Lady of what the SNP’s own economic adviser, Andrew Wilson, said: that an independent Scotland would face austerity like it had never been seen before, with increases in taxation and cuts in public spending. I believe that as we focus on coming out of the pandemic, all being in the rowing boat together and pulling on the oars in these choppy waters is the best place for Scotland and for the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

On his birthday, let us go to Douglas Ross, who will be having a virtual cake for us.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I will share it with you when we come back to Westminster.

As we have just heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), the SNP would rather obsess over another independence referendum than focus on Scotland’s recovery from covid-19. Does the Secretary of State agree that this once again demonstrates that the nationalists’ priorities are all wrong, because right now, people want us to focus on vaccine roll-out, defeating covid-19 and rebuilding our economy?

[Mr Jack]

I wish my hon. Friend many happy returns, and my birthday present to him is to say that I could not agree with him more. Rather than waste time on a divisive separatist agenda, the Scottish Government should be working with us to defeat the pandemic and to recover our economy.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I did not quite detect an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) when she asked how the Scottish people could now secure a referendum on independence. We can dispute the merits of that, and I am sure we will, but does the Secretary of State accept that this is now what the Scottish people want? Twenty opinion polls in a row indicate that, so how do the Scottish people democratically acquire the right to have what they want in a referendum?

[Mr Jack]

I say again: now is not the time. Now is the time for us to focus on rebuilding our economy and protecting jobs. I see the hon. Gentleman up there with his gold disc behind him, and I have to say that, from Scottish questions to Scottish questions, he is beginning to sound like a broken record.

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

The UK now officially has the highest covid mortality rate anywhere in the world, and we know from the in-field accuracy of lateral flow tests that they have a 50% chance of being wrong. As the Prime Minister and his entourage are relying on such inaccurate test results, and given the PM’s disastrous handling of the pandemic, why is the Secretary of State risking lives by backing his futile Union-Jackery trip to Scotland against public health advice when he knows that the PM has the ability to insult our intelligence from London?

[Mr Jack]

That is ridiculous. The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and wherever he needs to go in his vital work against this pandemic, he will go.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for the Scottish seed potato industry.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

Ministers and officials from my Department are in regular contact with counterparts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The UK has applied for third country equivalency to overcome the ban on the export of seed potatoes to the European Union. We believe we have a strong case as British standards currently match the EU’s, and Scotland in particular has world-leading plant health provenance.

[Duncan Baker [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for that optimism. Even businesses in my constituency of North Norfolk are affected by the ban on exporting seed potatoes into the EU. It is wonderful to have a deal, but in my part of the world agriculture is an enormous way of life, so can he assure me that everything is being done to obtain an agreement on seed potatoes for Scotland and all of the UK, to give food security and flexibility to the sector and to protect our farmers and growers?

[Mr Jack]

I know this is an important issue for my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it is for many farmers in Scotland, and I can confirm that absolutely everything is being done to find a solution.

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals with other countries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

We regularly discuss opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals. This Government have already struck deals worth £217 billion a year with more than 63 countries around the world, including Canada, Japan and Singapore, and with many more to come. This will create new markets for Scotland’s exporters.

[Gary Sambrook]

For the first time in my life, we will be in control of our trade policy, which will allow us to strike ambitious trade deals, allowing us to level up all of our United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that this will help to benefit exporters, particularly in the Scottish food and drink industries, who will be able to take advantage of new markets?

[Iain Stewart]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The new free trade agreements we strike, such as those we are currently negotiating with the US, Australia and New Zealand, on top of the ones we have already done, will grow our GDP, increase our trade with the rest of the world and create new opportunities for our exporters. This is particularly true for the Scottish food and drink sector.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) [V]]

Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, as we have heard, and we should use this day to remember the horrors of the holocaust by lighting a candle in our windows at 8 pm tonight, as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust has asked us to do. I am sure that the Secretary of State will join us in that. Also, I wonder if I may just wish my fellow shadow Scotland Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), all the best, as his wife is due to have a baby in the next seven days.

One of the jewels in the crown of the Scottish economy is the Scotch whisky industry, and distillers are deeply angry that they continue to pay the price for a trade dispute with the United States that is not of their making. They are losing £30 million a month in trade with the imposition of tariffs, and that is on top of the collapse of their markets due to covid. No progress has been made, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government are fully singing from the same hymn sheet to end tariffs on Scotch whisky?

[Iain Stewart]

First, may I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the holocaust?

On whisky, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a vital industry for Scotland’s economy and the tariffs are hurting. Britain unilaterally made a bold and generous offer to the US to try to break its impasse with the EU. Unfortunately, we were not able to secure a deal with President Trump before he left office, but I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade yesterday, and she reassured me that it will be her top priority in engaging with the new Biden Administration.

[Ian Murray]

The UK has taken all the tariffs off US products but there are still tariffs on Scottish products, so I hope they are able to resolve this soon. Of course, trade deals with other countries will not make up for what we have lost by leaving the EU. Day after day, we see chaos at our ports, exporters being overwhelmed by paperwork and, as a result, Scottish businesses being damaged. This Government’s lack of planning and no provision for services, matched with growing bureaucracy at our borders, is severely hampering our industries. The Prime Minister said on Christmas eve that the EU Brexit deal would mean

“no non-tariff barriers to trade”.

That is demonstrably false. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to Scottish exporters, who are completely hampered by the very non-tariff barriers to trade that the Prime Minister said would not exist? What are the Government doing to resolve these issues today?

[Iain Stewart]

First, on the US point, there was an impasse with the EU, and we decided it was the right move to make a unilateral offer to try to break that impasse. I hope the new Biden Administration will engage positively with us on that.

Secondly, I do not think it is fair to paint a picture of chaos and tailbacks at the ports. The traffic is flowing freely at most ports. There have been some short-term issues with paperwork, and any new system has some short-term bumps, but we are engaging directly with the exporters affected. We are providing compensation, where necessary, and what we need is some confidence across all sectors.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers on the covid-19 vaccination programme in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

I was sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman had contracted coronavirus at Christmas, and I hope he is making a full and speedy recovery.

I and other UK Government Ministers are in frequent contact with Scottish Ministers on all aspects of the response to covid, including the vaccination programme. The virus will be combated most effectively by the UK Government and all the devolved Administrations working together as closely as possible.

[Mr Perkins [V]]

I thank the Minister for his kind words, and I assure him that I am in rude health.

The Minister will be aware that Scotland’s over-80s population has been left more vulnerable than those in England due to far fewer being vaccinated. If the rate of over-80s vaccination in Scotland were equivalent to that in England, 28,875 of the most elderly people in Scotland would now have been vaccinated. What steps can the Minister take to ensure that the Scottish Government get on with protecting the most vulnerable?

[Iain Stewart]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is very much on the path to recovery. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a few moments ago, the supply of vaccines is done equitably across all parts of the UK, but the administration is a matter for the Scottish Government. We have already provided many practical measures to help combat covid in Scotland, and we stand ready to supply any additional help that the Scottish Government may require.

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

What discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) industry leaders on the effect of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement on Scottish exports.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

We regularly speak to ministerial colleagues and industry leaders on this matter. We are beginning a new chapter in our national story, one of great opportunity. This is an unparalleled chance for us to do things differently and better, increasing businesses’ access to new markets and boosting our national prosperity.

[Martyn Day [V]]

Scottish exporters need clarity and certainty on how long it will take the UK Government to resolve the calamitous situation that has been created at the UK-EU border, so my question to the Minister is: has anyone in the Scotland Office worked out how long a piece of string is yet?

[Iain Stewart]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman the reply I gave a few moments ago: we are engaging directly and providing very practical support to exporters who have encountered some short-term difficulties as they adjust to the new system. In the case of the fish and seafood sector, we have provided them with compensation for any losses that they encountered.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) [V]]

The Minister will be fully aware of the chaos that Scottish fishing exports have been thrown into over the past few weeks because of his Government’s broken promises on Brexit to the industry. I understand he has already said that the Department has announced an injection of funding for the hardest hit, but this is about timing and reputation as well, so how is he working with potential buyers of these world-class fishing exports to promote the sector? How is he ensuring that extra support reaches those hardest hit as quickly as possible, given the absolute devastation that these businesses have faced in this year so far?

[Iain Stewart]

First, may I wish the hon. Gentleman and his family every success and good fortune in the arrival of the new addition to their family?

As I have said, we are providing very practical support. This is not affecting the whole industry. The industry faces many challenges at the moment, not least the loss of some of its markets because top-end restaurants, at home and abroad, are having to close because of covid. In addition to that short-term compensation, we are providing a £100 million fund to grow and boost the capacity of our seafood sector. We have not broken promises to it. We were taking back control of our waters. We are out of the common fisheries policy and British fishermen will land more stocks year on year.

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

The EU is still our closest and most important trading partner, but Scottish businesses are suffering because of this disastrous Brexit we did not vote for, and the inability and unwillingness of the Minister’s Government to effectively use the transition period. Will he now push for the grace period that businesses are urgently calling for? If not, why not? What is his answer to them?

[Iain Stewart]

As I have said repeatedly, we are engaging with all sectors to help them prepare for this transition. I respectfully point out to the hon. Lady that she voted for a no-deal Brexit, and she and her fellow separatists want to impose additional trade barriers within Britain.

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

What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement on the Scottish economy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

We have agreed a deal with the EU that fully delivers for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Our deal provides Scottish businesses with exceptional access to the EU’s market: it is the first time the EU has ever agreed a zero-tariffs, zero-quota deal. But of course we also now have the freedom to strike new deals with the fastest-growing parts of the global economy.

[Rachael Maskell [V]]

But almost one in six jobs in Scotland is based in the financial and business services sector, which is dependent on the UK Government negotiating a trade in services agreement with the EU, having failed to do so before the end of last year. What progress have the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues made since leaving the transition arrangements in this area? What further steps is he taking to ensure that these jobs are secure for the future?

[Iain Stewart]

Alongside the agreement, we agreed a joint declaration on regulatory co-operation in the area of financial services. The parties will codify that in a memorandum of understanding by March.

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

I have frequent discussions with colleagues about the opportunities that COP26 offers for Scotland and the whole of the UK. The Government are committed to delivering an all-UK COP26 event in Glasgow. This will bring significant economic benefits to the community in Glasgow and those across Britain.

[Angela Richardson [V]]

My constituents in Guildford take a keen interest in environmental concerns and, along with me, are delighted that Glasgow is hosting COP26 this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are better placed to tackle climate change as a strong Union of nations?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should also point out that it is disgraceful that, while we will be showcasing our global leadership on climate change and the world’s gaze will be on Glasgow, the SNP would rather be pitting community against community in another divisive referendum.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Today, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I know that the whole House will want to join me in solemnly remembering the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the holocaust, and all other victims of Nazi persecution. Last week, I had the privilege of hearing from holocaust survivor Renee Salt and from Ian Forsyth, one of the last living British servicemen who liberated the camp at Bergen-Belsen. Their courage to share their testimonies must inspire us all never to forget the holocaust and the fight against all forms of hatred and prejudice, wherever they are found.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Rehman Chishti]

I associate myself entirely with all that the Prime Minister said.

I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for all their hard work in these difficult and challenging times with regard to the delivery of the covid-19 vaccination. However, my constituents in Gillingham and Rainham and the wider-Medway towns would like me, as their Member of Parliament, to raise their concerns with regard to the availability of the vaccine in our local towns. I have constituents who are in their 80s and 90s who have not yet had the vaccination. Medway was one of the hardest-hit areas in the country, the mutant variant was discovered in Kent, and North Kent has some of the highest health inequalities in the country. Will the Prime Minister please ensure that we have a mass vaccination centre in Medway?

[The Prime Minister]

I share my hon. Friend’s sense of frustration about the pace of the vaccine roll-out. In spite of the fact that we have the fastest roll-out anywhere in Europe, it is entirely right that a constituency MP should want to see more done as fast as possible. I can tell my hon. Friend that we have vaccinated more than 80% of those over 80 across the country, and we are certainly looking at establishing a large-scale vaccination centre near him. In his immediate vicinity, we have done 127,000 vaccines already, providing the hope of long-term immunity for the people of Medway and Gillingham and Rainham.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) [V]]

May I begin by joining the Prime Minister in his remarks about Holocaust Memorial Day? This evening, I will be joining the UK ceremony and lighting a candle to remember the 6 million Jews murdered in the holocaust, along with, of course, the other genocides and persecutions that have taken place around the world.

Yesterday, we passed the tragic milestone of 100,000 covid deaths in the United Kingdom. That is not just a statistic: behind every death is a grieving family—a mum, a dad, a sister, a brother, a friend, a colleague, a neighbour. The question on everyone’s lips this morning is: why? The Prime Minister must have thought about that question a lot, so will he tell us why he thinks that the United Kingdom has ended up with a death toll of 100,000—the highest number in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I mourn every death in this pandemic and we share the grief of all those who have been bereaved. Let him and the House be in no doubt that I and the Government take full responsibility for all the actions that we have taken during this pandemic to fight this disease. Yes, there will indeed be a time when we must learn the lessons of what has happened, reflect on them and prepare. I do not think that moment is now, when we are in the throes of fighting this wave of the new variant, when 37,000 people are struggling with covid in our hospitals. What the country wants is for us to come together as a Parliament and as politicians and to work to keep the virus under control, as we are, and to continue to roll out the fastest vaccination programme in Europe. That is where the minds of the public are fixed.

[Keir Starmer]

I am sure that the Prime Minister regrets the fact that 100,000 people have lost their lives. The question is: why—why has the United Kingdom the highest number of deaths in Europe? Why has the United Kingdom a death rate that is higher than almost anywhere in the world? The Prime Minister is going to have to answer that question one day and he should have the decency to answer it today. A few days ago, the chief scientific officer said, and this was his view: prepare to give it now. The lesson, he said, is:

“You’ve got to go hard, early and broader if you’re going to get on top of this. Waiting and watching simply doesn’t work.”

Does the Prime Minister agree with that?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, when you have a new virus and, indeed, when you have a new variant of that virus of the kind that we have in this country, and when you have dilemmas as hard and as heavy as this Government have had to face over the last year, I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are no easy answers. A perpetual lockdown is no answer, but we will continue to do, as I have said to the House and to you, Mr Speaker, everything we can to roll out our vaccine programme to give the public the protection that they want and deserve. As I speak to you today, Mr Speaker, 6.9 million people in our country have had the vaccine. We are on target, if we can get the supplies, to deliver the target of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on groups 1 to 4, the most vulnerable groups, by 15 February. I hope very much to set out in the next few weeks in much more detail how this country can exit now from the pandemic.

[Keir Starmer]

The problem with the Prime Minister avoiding the question of why is that vital lessons will not be learned. The reality is this: the Prime Minister was slow into the first lockdown last March; slow in getting protective equipment to the frontline; slow to protect our care homes; slow on testing and tracing; slow into the second lockdown in the autumn; slow to change the Christmas-mixing rules; and slow again into this third lockdown, delaying 13 days from 22 December before implementing it. I fear that he still has not learned that lesson. The latest example is the continued delay in securing our borders. We have known about the variants to the virus since early December, when it was announced in the House of Commons. We know some of those variants are coming from abroad, but we do not know the route. Surely the Prime Minister can see that what is required now is that everybody coming into the country from anywhere in the world should be tested and subject to quarantine in a hotel. Why can that not be put in place today?

[The Prime Minister]

Throughout this pandemic, it has been the habit of the Opposition first to support one approach and then to attack it and to twist and to turn. It was only recently that the shadow Transport Secretary was saying that quarantine measures should be relaxed. We have one of the toughest regimes in the world. We ask people to test 72 hours before they fly. They have to produce a passenger locator form, otherwise they are kicked off the flight. They already have to quarantine for 10 days and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be setting out later today, if the right hon. and learned Gentlemen cares to wait for that, even tougher measures for those red list countries where we are particularly concerned about new variants. Again, what the people of this country want us now to do is to come together as a Government, as a Parliament, and to get this thing done.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister complains about the Opposition, but the greatest criticism of the Prime Minister at the moment in relation to borders is coming from his own Home Secretary. She is busy telling anyone who will listen that the Prime Minister did not do enough in relation to the borders last year. I fear that the Prime Minister is repeating the same mistake in relation to the new variants of the virus.

Let me turn to schools. Everybody agrees that reopening our schools should be a national priority, but that requires a plan, and the Prime Minister has not got a plan. So as a first step—as a first step—does he agree with me that, once the first four categories of the most vulnerable have been vaccinated by mid-February, he should bring forward the vaccination of key workers and use the window of the February half-term to vaccinate all teachers and all school staff?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course it follows that all teachers in JCVI groups 1 to 9 will be vaccinated as a matter of priority. I pay tribute, by the way, to the huge efforts that parents are making across the country struggling to educate their kids. I know how deeply frustrating it is: the extra burden that we have placed on families by closing the schools. No one has worked harder than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to keep schools open. We all want to open schools. I think what we want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition is that he will say loudly and clearly what he has refused to say so many times and what the public need to hear—that schools are safe. It is absolutly critical that he says that.

[Keir Starmer]

I am sorry, but I am none the wiser as to whether the Prime Minister agrees with me that school teachers and school staff should be vaccinated, taking advantage of the February half-term. That is two or three weeks away. It is a fantastic opportunity, and I am no wiser as to whether the Prime Minister thinks that is a good idea or a bad idea.

In the meantime, the Government have a duty to ensure that every single child can learn from home. Without access to a laptop, a computer or the internet, that cannot happen. The Government were challenged on this last summer; they were challenged on it last autumn; and here we are, nearly at the end of January—the best part of a year into this pandemic—and a third of families say they do not have enough laptops or home computers, and over 400,000 children still cannot get online at home. Does the Prime Minister realise how angry many families are that he still has not got to grips with this?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said just now, I do fully understand the frustration and impatience of families across the country who are educating their kids at home. I know how difficult it is. I know how frustrated teachers are with educating through remote learning as well. That is why we have provided 1.3 million laptops. That is why we have provided a £1 billion catch-up fund. I will be making a statement in the House in just a few minutes setting out what more we propose to do with the reopening of schools and the way forward with schools, and what more we propose to do by way of supporting pupils and teachers and parents, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will just wait a few minutes. But he has missed his opportunity, once again, to say what I think people need to hear if we are to get schools to reopen, because that is the best thing for pupils and the best thing for families across the country. I would like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, in defiance of his union paymasters, that schools are safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I just remind the Prime Minister: it is Prime Minister’s questions.

[Keir Starmer]

Every week the Prime Minister comes with his pre-prepared lines. I think when 100,000 people have died he should take the time to answer the question. When one in three families are saying that they do not have enough laptops or computers, his answers are simply not good enough. We are nearly a year into this pandemic—this has not happened in the last few weeks—and one and three families say they do not have the wherewithal to do home teaching. Those children are going without home schooling. That is the question that the Prime Minister should be answering. The UK is the first country in Europe to record 100,000 covid deaths. We also have the deepest recession of any major economy. Our schools are closed and our borders are open. My biggest concern is that the Prime Minister still has not learned the lessons of last year. I fear that as a result we will see more tragedy and more grim milestones.

This afternoon, I will be speaking to families who have lost loved ones to covid. The last time I did that, I asked the Prime Minister what he would like me to say to them on his behalf. He replied with a pre-prepared, childish gag. I can tell the Prime Minister just how badly that went down with those families when I spoke to them later that afternoon. I ask him again—I hope that this time he will have the decency to answer them properly—what would he like me to say to those bereaved families on his behalf this afternoon?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting the families of the bereaved, as I have done and I know Members of the House have done throughout the pandemic. It is important that we do that. The message that I would give those families is the same that I have given everybody I have met: I of course deeply personally regret the loss of life and the suffering of their families, but I think the best thing that we can do to honour the memory of those who have died and to honour those who are currently grieving is to work together to bring this virus down and to keep it under control in the way that we are. Throughout this pandemic, I am sad to say that the Leader of the Opposition has never failed in his efforts to try to score political points when he could be doing just that. He has twisted, and he has turned. One week, he calls for tougher border measures after the shadow Transport Secretary called for a looser quarantine. He calls for schools to go back, but he will not even say this morning that schools are safe. He tries to associate himself now with the vaccine programme, because he senses that that may be going well, but he stood on a manifesto to unbundle the pharmaceutical companies—the big pharma—that made those vaccines possible.

I know you want me to sit down, Mr Speaker, but I want to make this point, because I tried to make it last week. The right hon. and learned Gentleman even attacked the vaccine taskforce for spending £675,000 on an effort to discover whether hard-to-reach groups would take a vaccine. I really cannot think of a better investment right now of public funds, and I hope that later on this afternoon, he might think of apologising for what he did and for that attack on the vaccine taskforce. The Opposition and the right hon. and learned Gentleman can go on making their party political points. We will go on, with or without his help, in taking this country forward, fighting the pandemic and getting coronavirus down.

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

The importance of levelling up to constituencies like mine is critical as we look to build back better from covid. With that in mind, can the Prime Minister commit to delivering the eastern leg of HS2 in full, creating 150,000 jobs and billions of pounds of investment in the midlands and the north, as well as unlocking the capacity for local transport schemes in Derbyshire, in which cycling and walking must play a crucial part?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is right to be militating for the eastern leg of HS2. We will be publishing the integrated rail plan early this year, and I am delighted that the £161 million from the transforming cities fund for Nottingham and Derby includes £10 million for a new cycle route between Nottingham, Derby and East Midlands airport. I look forward to cycling it with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

And the Chief Whip, I would expect.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the holocaust? We all remember the 6 million Jews who lost their lives and those terrible crimes against humanity. We should never forget that, nor, indeed, those who have sadly followed them in genocides around the world.

Last night, the Prime Minister claimed that

“we truly did everything we could”

to avoid the deaths of 100,000 people across the UK from covid-19, but we all know that that is simply not true. The UK Government response has been defined by a lack of leadership, last-minute U-turns, mixed messaging and devastating policies. All of this has had an effect on the scale of the pandemic. Professor Linda Bauld has said that nearly a quarter of all deaths we have seen have occurred in the last month. Since the start of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has promised to always follow the advice of scientists. This morning, scientists have said that this Government are responsible for a “legacy of poor decisions” during the pandemic. Does the Prime Minister still agree with the scientists?

[The Prime Minister]

We have throughout followed scientific advice and done everything we can to minimise disease and suffering throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my answer to the Leader of the Opposition: there are no easy solutions when we are facing dilemmas as tragic as the ones being confronted by countries around the world. But I think that everywhere in the UK can be proud of the efforts now being made by the NHS, by the Army, by volunteers and by pharmacists to roll out the fastest vaccination programme in Europe. That is something that the Government must do, can do, are doing and will do.

[Ian Blackford]

I must respectfully say that this is not about apportioning blame for honest mistakes; it is about learning lessons from a Prime Minister who has repeatedly ignored the scientific advice. When we called on the Prime Minister to introduce tough border controls last spring, he refused. When we told the Prime Minister it was a mistake to end lockdown prematurely and push millions of workers back to the office, he ignored us. When we said that tough restrictions and full furlough support were still needed, he dithered, delayed and left it too late. People have been asked to make huge sacrifices by his Government. They at least now deserve financial certainty. Tell people straight, Prime Minister: will this UK Government extend furlough, maintain the universal credit uplift and finally offer support to the 3 million excluded, or will he leave families struggling with the uncertainty while he dithers and delays?

[The Prime Minister]

On the subject of dithering and delaying, I am delighted that the British Army is helping the Scottish National party Government to roll out the vaccine faster. That is extremely important and one of the benefits of the Union of the UK.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the support for people and families across this country, I do not think anybody could seriously deny that this Government have given absolutely unprecedented—and unequalled, by global standards—support throughout the pandemic. We will continue to put our arms around people across the whole UK throughout this crisis.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]]

  The Government have put in place an extensive system of support to help employers and employees through the pandemic. However, a group that has been overlooked, many of whom are now really struggling, are those self- employed who set up their own businesses after April 2019 and were unable to submit a complete tax return. Ten months on, that obstacle to providing support no longer applies. To assist them, will the Prime Minister emulate the Northern Ireland Government’s newly self-employed support scheme, which is subject to straight- forward criteria and guards against fraud?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns, because there are some people in the self-employed group whom it has been hard to reach and to support in the way that we want. They are fewer in number than is sometimes suggested in this House, and I can tell him that 2.7 million self-employed people have received support totalling over £18.5 billion. But the ideas that he suggests will, I know, be taken up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and he can expect to hear more on 3 March.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

There is a yawning gulf between the Government’s green rhetoric and their action. Hot on the heels of sanctioning the first deep coalmine in 30 years, Ministers have broken yet another election manifesto promise and will keep sending plastic waste to developing countries, where they are regularly dumped or burnt. Nine-year-old schoolgirl Lizzie knows that this is wrong, and she has a simple message for the Prime Minister: protect our oceans and people living in poorer countries by banning these dirty plastic exports now. Will he listen to Lizzie and to the 90,000 signatories to her petition and stop this damaging and unethical practice—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I must absolutely contest and deny what the hon. Member has said about action. She talks about coalmines, and she may not know that in 1970—I was alive; she may not have been alive—this country got 90% of its energy from fossil fuels, from coal, and we now get 5%. That is thanks to the green, active, technologically optimistic policies driven by Conservative Governments, and I am very proud of it. I am also proud of what we are doing to ban plastic and ban the export of plastic waste around the world, which is in our Conservative party manifesto, which we will fulfil.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]]

My constituent David Hopkins lives with grade 4 glioblastoma. The pioneering immunotherapy treatment he needs is not yet available in the UK. He and his wife Nicki continue to fundraise for his treatments in Germany, and I know that the wonderful people of Scunthorpe have been incredibly supportive in this. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing the Hopkins family well, and will he work with me and the Brain Tumour Charity to improve research and treatments for patients like David?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for what she is doing to campaign for such an excellent charity and, indeed, for her constituent David. I can tell her that the Department of Health is working with Tessa Jowell’s Brain Cancer Mission, announcing £40 million over five years on brain tumours of the type that she describes. I would encourage my hon. Friend to continue the excellent work that she is doing in this area.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

Can I associate myself and the Liberal Democrats with the Prime Minister’s comments on the holocaust?A year ago next week, in a speech at Greenwich, the Prime Minister said that it was “high time” that the US“cut their punitive tariffs on Scotch whisky.”Since then, the industry has lost half a billion pounds in exports to the US, and the Government have failed to reach a deal to have the 25% tariff on single malt removed. So will the Prime Minister commit to working urgently with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to comply with the World Trade Organisation rules that led to the issue, and can he promise that in the Budget his Government will take steps to support this vital industry and employer?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want to anticipate the Budget, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor habitually does things to support fantastic industries such as Scotch whisky. But one of the reasons for leaving the EU is that we will be able to do a free trade deal with the US and to obviate tariffs of the kind that the hon. Member describes, which would be there in perpetuity if the Scottish nationalist party were to get its way and to take Scotland back into the EU.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]]

This week, Kent’s first covid mass vaccination centre opened in Folkestone, and is working now along with our three GP-led hubs in Folkestone, Hythe and Lydd. As we accelerate the delivery of this protection against the virus, does my right hon. Friend agree with the vaccines Minister that we need greater sharing of data at local level so that we can target the resources of the largest vaccination programme in our history at both hard-to-reach groups of individuals and the most vulnerable communities?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I know that it is something that everybody wants to see across this House—the sharing of data at local levels. There are particular problems, obviously, with sharing medical records—detailed medical records—with local government, but what we are doing is giving public health officials at local level all the information we can give them, without breaching that confidentiality, to find those hard-to-reach groups, and to get them and encourage them to take vaccines. Wonderful work is being done to get people to take vaccines. I encourage all Members, in your constituencies, to get your constituents to take up this offer.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Almost four years on from the Grenfell tragedy, Government inaction on the cladding crisis means that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, including my constituents, remain trapped in unsafe, unsellable blocks. Ministers have promised at least 15 times that leaseholders will not have to pay unfair costs, but, as ever with this Government, there have been a lot of promises not matched by delivery. So will the Prime Minister finally act, end this injustice and come forward with a plan to fix the cladding crisis that does not burden leaseholders with the cost?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be bringing forward a plan very shortly. It is also important that mortgage companies do not unreasonably refuse mortgages on properties that are perfectly safe.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]]

This has been an extraordinarily difficult year for both the Prime Minister and the people of this country, since the coronavirus was first detected, and their fortitude is being severely tested. People need to know when they can get their children back to school and businesses can start to reopen. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when he announces his comprehensive plan in mid-February, it will deal with how we lift every area out of its tier, and with the long- term problems with covid with which we will have to live? Furthermore, can we try to avoid making changes in future with 24 hours’ notice, so that at long last the people of this country can start to plan their daily lives?

[The Prime Minister]

In a few moments, later this afternoon, I will set out in more detail what my hon. Friend would like to know about our approach to schools, and in the course of the next few weeks, assuming that the vaccine roll-out continues well, and assuming that we do not find new variants of concern or have to change our calculations, I will be setting out a broader roadmap for a way forward for the whole country, of a kind that I think my hon. Friend and his constituents would appreciate.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]]

  My grand- mother received a war widow’s pension for 67 years. My mother received one for 49 years. Two of my nephews are veterans, and a veterans’ network operates in my constituency. They would agree that a pension should be paid at UK rates, wherever a veteran, or any pensioner, lives in the world. When will 96-year-old Anne Puckridge, a world war two veteran who lives in Canada, and 60,000 other veterans who served their country courageously and live abroad, stop being treated as second-class veterans and get the full pension they deserve? Will the Prime Minister commit to ending that injustice, and agree to meet representatives from the End Frozen Pensions campaign? As a start, that is the very least that a British Prime Minister could do for Britain’s greatest generation.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I have come across this problem before, but the case he describes is obviously acute and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he desires with the relevant Minister.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]]

In my constituency, Chapman’s of Rye is acting as an export hub for consignments of local fish going across the English channel, but it is proving extremely challenging, expensive, and time consuming. Mr Chapman is creating an opportunity to develop Rye as a vital export hub for Kent and Sussex fishermen, but he is burdened with red tape. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support opportunities such as those in Rye to make exporting easier? Would he accept an invitation to visit that fantastic enterprise?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, because in the last few weeks this has been an issue for many fishing businesses and communities. There has been too much red tape, and we are providing an immediate £23 million to help businesses with the problems they are encountering through no fault of their own. We are also investing £100 million in a long-term programme for the UK fishing industry, to help with equipment and processing, and to enable this country to be in a position to take advantage of the incredible access to our fisheries that we will have as the years go by.

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

  Will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and commit to making the £20 a week uplift to universal credit permanent, or will he be responsible for pushing thousands of Scottish families further into an income crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat what I have said before: we will continue to look after the people of this country throughout this pandemic, and it is a feature of the strength of the UK Treasury that we can continue to do this.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

  I commend the Prime Minister for reaffirming his commitment to levelling up the nation. The best way to level up is through a good local education. The town of Radcliffe in my constituency has been without a high school since 2014. As the bidding process for free schools remains in the final stages, will my right hon. Friend help by supporting my campaign, alongside the people of Radcliffe, for the new school that the town desperately needs?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic campaigner for his constituents. I can tell him that we are indeed looking at expanding the free school programme—wave 14 of free schools will be announced very shortly—and I hope that he will not have too long to wait.

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

Alison Powell’s tax return showed that she was paid £10 more as an employee than her earnings in self- employment. As a result, she did not qualify, and still does not qualify, for any financial support. It is no good the Prime Minister saying that his Government have done “whatever it takes”. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said just today, 1.8 million self-employed people and 700,000 owner-managers have not had financial support. When are the Government going to start supporting those who have been financially excluded so that Alison Powell and millions of people like her can afford to stay at home and play their part in restricting this virus while the vaccine is rolled out?

[The Prime Minister]

I am conscious that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there have been difficult cases with self-employed people who have not qualified for some of the support that we have offered. I would invite him to send the details of Alison’s case to us and we will see what we can do, but I must remind the House that we have spent about £18 billion supporting self-employed people throughout this pandemic and, as I say, we will continue to put our arms around the British people for the duration of the crisis.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]]

  My constituents recognise the need for lockdown but are increasingly concerned about their mental health. Many of them asked me to raise this today. On Monday, more than 20 Peterborough schoolchildren told me how it was affecting them. They had organised their own mental health summit with me and the local clinical commissioning group. Does the Prime Minister agree that the country’s mental health is suffering and should be a factor in deciding when to end specific restrictions?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the stress that people are under—not just school pupils, whom my hon. Friend is right to raise, but particularly NHS workers—during this current wave of the pandemic. It has been really gruelling the last few weeks and months. We are investing hugely in mental health support; on top of the £13.3 billion in 2019-20, we will see a further £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24, and that will support 380,000 adults and 345,000 children.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]]

Given that the Prime Minister has already said today that he will take full responsibility for all the actions his Government have taken during the pandemic, will he confirm that that will include the woeful and reckless management of the covid outbreak at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency sites—Government sites—in my constituency? Will he also ensure that his Transport Secretary is held accountable for the inexcusable damage and devastation that that has caused?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that question with me. May I offer her, by the way, my condolences on the death her father? I can tell her that we have been working flat out on the problem at the DVLA. All staff who can work from home are doing so, measures have been taken to minimise the number of people on the site at any one time, and more than 2,000 tests have been carried out by the DVLA in the last fortnight alone, with all the results so far coming back negative.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

12:39

Sitting suspended.

Russian Federation: Human Rights

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

12:43

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Roger Gale, who has two minutes.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what further sanctions he will impose upon the Russian Federation following the arrest, over the weekend, of Alexei Navalny, his wife and hundreds of his supporters in clear and gross breach of the European convention on human rights.

The G7 has condemned the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny, and reminded Mr Putin that he is bound by international obligations to respect human rights. One of those obligations is to the Council of Europe. Tomorrow, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will discuss the credentials of the Russian Federation. Does my hon. Friend agree that a nation that engages in state murder and that imprisons its political opponents and their supporters is in gross breach of the European convention on human rights and has forfeited its right to be a member of an Assembly that is founded on the very principles of democracy?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

The UK is appalled by the politically motivated detention of Alexei Navalny on arbitrary charges. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, Mr Navalny is the victim of a despicable crime, and we call for his immediate and unconditional release.

The Foreign Secretary has also condemned the Russian authorities’ unacceptable use of violence against peaceful protesters and journalists last weekend, and we have called on the Russian Government to respect their international commitments and to release those detained during peaceful demonstrations.

The UK has galvanised the international community in condemnation of these deplorable detentions. As G7 president, the UK issued a G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement on 26 January, emphasising our deep concern at these developments and calling on Russia to adhere to its national and international obligations.

The UK has led international efforts in response to Mr Navalny’s poisoning in August. We have worked closely with our international partners at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to urge Russia to uphold its obligations under the chemical weapons convention. Last December, the UK led a joint statement in the OPCW, supported by 58 states parties, calling for Russia to be held to account.

We have also taken robust, bilateral action. In October, the UK enforced asset freezes and travel bans on six individuals responsible for the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, as well on one Russian organisation. We keep further sanctions designations under constant review. However, it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage on possible future designations, as that could undermine their impact. We carefully consider all options under the relevant sanctions regimes.

The UK has been clear in condemning in the strongest possible terms the chemical weapons attack against Mr Navalny last year. He was the victim of a nerve agent attack, and the UK has called repeatedly for the Russian authorities to investigate and explain the use of a chemical weapon on Russian soil and to declare its Novichok programme to the OPCW.

The confirmed use of chemical weapons against opposition figures further undermines democracy and political plurality in Russia. More broadly, Mr Navalny’s detention is a further demonstration of the concerning deterioration in the human rights situation in Russia. We raise that regularly with the Russian Government, making it clear that Russia must uphold its international human rights responsibilities. I raised the issue myself during my visit to Moscow in November 2020, and our ambassador to Moscow raised Mr Navalny’s case immediately prior to his return to Russia, to underline that the UK was closely monitoring Russia’s actions.

We condemn the detention of thousands of peaceful protestors and journalists on 23 January and the Russian Government’s continued disregard for the fundamental rights of its people to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The UK has also urged Russia to fulfil its commitments under the international covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention on human rights and all the relevant instruments of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to guarantee those rights, including the right to freedom of expression, to its citizens.

The UK’s policy towards Russia is clear: we want a different relationship, but Russia must stop its destabilising behaviour towards the UK and its partners. Russia’s pattern of aggressive behaviour undermines its claim that it is a responsible international partner upholding the rules-based international system.

[Mr Speaker]

We will go back to Sir Roger, in case he wishes to add something.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am very grateful for that powerful statement. I am concerned because I spoke with the Russian ambassador, Andrei Kelin, who chose to call me this morning. He made it absolutely plain to me during that call that the Russians regarded Mr Navalny as a prisoner who had broken his bail conditions and therefore would not be released. Under those circumstances, I have to say that I still regard this as a gross breach of the European convention on human rights. I hope that my hon. Friend will do everything in her power to underscore that and make it plain that this conduct is completely unacceptable.

[Wendy Morton]

I would like to come back briefly on that point. We have been very clear. The Foreign Secretary has condemned the Russian authorities’ unacceptable use of violence against peaceful protestors. We really have been leading from the front when it comes to taking action against this situation. We are absolutely appalled by the politically motivated detention of Alexei Navalny on arbitrary charges.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister, who has two minutes.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for his urgent question. Labour colleagues and I condemn the shocking but sadly predictable arrest of Mr Navalny, his wife and the many thousands of brave Russians who took to the streets at the weekend to protest at the detention. We welcome the Government’s condemnation of Mr Navalny’s arrest and the condemnation by the new Administration in the United States. We also welcome the statement today from the Minister, and we want to emphasise the brutal nature of the police response last weekend. We understand that there will be similar protestations this weekend.

The House is united in condemnation of the attacks, but we would like to see action on the Russia report, which goes to the heart of the matter. In the end, warm words in the House will not assist Mr Navalny in his tireless campaign against corruption. Only the disruption of the corrupt financial networks and the flow of dirty money into the UK will put pressure on the Russian Government to change course. In 15 months, not a single one of the 21 recommendations in the Russian report has been fully implemented: no action on foreign agents; no action on golden visas; and the London laundromat is still very much open for business. The lack of urgency is truly staggering.

We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to this. I have four brief questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit today to the review and expansion of Magnitsky sanctions to include the corruption heading? Secondly, will they commit to identifying and sanctioning those implicated in the attempted killing of Mr Navalny? Thirdly, will the Government commit to cleaning up the illicit money in UK jurisdictions, including London, identified both by the Russia report and the Panama papers? Finally, by what date can we as parliamentarians expect the Government to implement the 21 recommendations in the Russia report?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the actions that we have taken in respect of the detention of Alexei Navalny. I set out the clear steps that the UK Government have taken. The Foreign Secretary has been leading from the front in that regard. The Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia was published on the same day as its release, on 21 July 2020.

Let me make it absolutely clear that Russia is a top national security priority for the Government. We will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to tackle the evolving threat of hostile activity by foreign states. That Bill will modernise existing offences to deal more effectively with the espionage threat, and create new offences to criminalise other harmful activity conducted by and on behalf of states. We continue to step up our activity, both domestically and internationally, to tackle illicit finance entering our country. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites, and I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes that. We are also reviewing all tier-1 investor visas granted before 5 April 2015

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Tom Tugendhat.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]]

It is welcome to hear the Minister’s condemnation of the attack on Alexei Navalny, whose crime, it appears, is to survive an assassination attempt by the state that now holds him prisoner.

This is not the first of these incidents. Litvinenko, Skripal and now Navalny are three names that speak of Russia’s brutality towards its own citizens. When will we see a proper list of the ill-gotten gains that President Putin has stolen from the Russian people over the past 20 years? When will we see a breakdown of his hidden wealth through UK jurisdictions or in areas where the UK has influence, so that the Russian people can know how much money has been stolen from them by this gangster elite, and when it will be held in trust, to be returned to them as soon as he is gone?

[Wendy Morton]

I think that I have set out very clearly the action that we are taking in response to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. I have set out very clearly the sanctions that we have put in place against six individuals and one organisation. As for any future sanctions or measures that we may put in place, it would be wrong for me to speculate further at this stage.

[Mr Speaker]

The SNP spokesperson, Alyn Smith, has one minute.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on bringing this important issue forward. I welcome the Minister’s statement as far as it goes. I agree with it and support the measures she has outlined. I do not doubt her sincerity in tackling this matter and I think it is important to put that on the record.

I declare an interest as one of the co-litigants in the case that is taking the UK Government to court in the High Court over the non-implementation of the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into Russian interference. It really does beggar belief that the UK Government can say they have been leading from the front on this. I really do not recognise that description. It staggers me that so few of the recommendations of that credible and serious report have not been implemented by the Government. I urge the Minister to commit to making a further statement to the House on the implementation of those recommendations.

I also ask the Minister for reassurance. I appreciate she will not indulge in speculation, but she needs to be aware that there is considerable support across the House for further Magnitsky sanctions against individuals. We all support Mr Navalny and the protestors across Russia. They need to be sure that there will be action, not just warm words.

[Wendy Morton]

When it comes to election interference, one of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, the Government concluded that

“it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 General Election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked”

UK-US trade documents. As he rightly recognises, however, where a criminal investigation is ongoing it would be inappropriate of me to comment.

On the Russia report, I should perhaps just reiterate that we published our response on the same day as its release, 21 July. Russia is a top national security priority for the Government. We will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]]

Chemical weapons were used on British soil in Salisbury. Now, it appears they have been used on Russian soil. The Foreign Secretary tweeted on 18 January:

“Rather than persecute Mr Navalny, Russia should explain how a chemical weapon came to be used on Russian soil.”

Has the Minister’s Department received an answer to that? More broadly, what is her assessment of the worrying use of chemical weapons on British soil and abroad?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We have been very clear that the use of chemical weapons is an unacceptable breach of international norms. Russia absolutely must respond fully to the OPCW demand for a transparent investigation and, crucially, explain how a chemical weapon was used against a Russian citizen on Russian soil.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

Chelsea football club has been in the news a lot this week, though largely not for this issue. However, Alexei Navalny and his team released a list of names, drawn up by Navalny just days before his return and arrest, which included Chelsea FC’s owner Roman Abramovich and Everton FC’s Alisher Usmanov among those whom they believe should be sanctioned. Both individuals were described as

“key enablers…with significant ties and assets in the West.”

Is the Minister taking those allegations seriously? Will she provide an assurance that anyone, no matter their wealth or position, would be considered for Magnitsky sanctions?

[Wendy Morton]

As I have made clear in relation to Alexei Navalny, we enforced asset freezes and travel bans against six individuals and an entity involved with the poisoning and attempted murder of Mr Navalny on 15 October 2020. We did that under the EU’s chemical weapons sanctions regime. As the hon. Lady will recognise, try as she might to press me to speculate on further listings, alas I am not going to do that as it would be inappropriate.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]]

It is appalling that Alexei Navalny, the victim of a despicable crime, has been detained by the Russian authorities. His politically motivated arrest provokes further concerns about Russia’s respect for the rule of law and human rights. Will the Minister join me in calling for his immediate release?

[Wendy Morton]

We have been absolutely clear—the Foreign Secretary made it clear—that Mr Navalny is the victim of a despicable crime, and we call for his immediate and unconditional release. It is really important that Russia must account for itself and its activities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Minister very much for the firm response and strong words in response to the urgent question. We stand alongside the protesters and, in particular, Alexei Navalny. We value democracy; Russia clearly does not. Further to the early-day motion that I tabled just yesterday on the treatment of protesters by the Russian police, will she outline whether any of those arrested are British citizens; what the status of any British citizens is in those areas; and further, what support is available for our people who are there?

[Wendy Morton]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in human rights, as do so many on both sides of the Chamber. We are not aware of any British nationals requiring consular support as a result of detentions during the protest, but we always keep our travel advice under constant review.

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) is absolutely right to bring to the House this matter and that of the very brave Alexei Navalny, whose rights under the UN convention on human rights have been trampled underfoot and so grievously disrespected by a fellow member of the United Nations Security Council. Will the Minister confirm that she is co-ordinating collective action with our allies on this matter to hold the Russian leadership to account? Will she also confirm that, through the Magnitsky measures and other ways, not just Russia’s leaders but other officials who abuse Alexei Navalny’s human rights can be held to account in a similar way?

[Wendy Morton]

I know that my right hon. Friend has taken the issue of sanctions and Magnitsky seriously for some time and championed it. When it comes to the case of Alexei Navalny, we have been absolutely clear from the start in terms of mobilising the international community. We galvanised the international community in condemnation of these deplorable detentions with the statement on 26 January through our role as G7 president. In that statement, we emphasised our deep concern about these developments, but we were also very instrumental in leading international efforts in response to his poisoning in August last year, when we worked closely with our international partners at the OPCW to urge Russia to uphold its obligations under the chemical weapons convention.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]]

The Minister’s angry condemnation of the Russian regime is unlikely to cause much lost sleep in Moscow while the British Government’s actions are so feeble. Last week, the Foreign Secretary was unable to name a single element of the Russia report that had been fully implemented. What we really need today, do we not, Minister, is not strong words, but the promise of actions to get the Russia report fully implemented?

[Wendy Morton]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We have been very clear. We set out the six sanctions against individuals and then an entity involved in the poisoning and attempted murder of Mr Navalny. We have been very clear in our message to Russia that we want to see action, and we also want to see it respond to the OPCW demand for a transparent investigation. In addition, we have been very clear when it comes the ISC report of last year. On the day that it was published, the UK Government issued a response, and we have set out the actions that we will take in terms of introducing new legislation. We have increased the number of investigations through the National Crime Agency into corrupt elites and we are reviewing all tier 1 investor visas granted before 5 April 2015.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Thirty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian regime murders its opponents abroad. It poisons its challengers at home. It still has armed forces on the sovereign territory of the Ukraine and Georgia. It believes in the Soviet concept of a near abroad and presents a clear threat to continental Europe’s security. Does my hon. Friend have a message for those in Europe who still support the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will make Europe more dependent on Russian gas and give economic comfort to Putin’s gangster regime?

[Wendy Morton]

The UK remains concerned about the impact that Nord Stream 2 will have on European energy security, and particularly on the interests of Ukraine. Our focus continues to be supporting resilient European energy markets, including measures that strengthen and diversify gas supply and competition. Obviously, this is a matter for Germany, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we remain concerned about the impacts of Nord Stream 2.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

There are some hon. Members on the Tory Benches who are openly rejoicing at the prospect of Brexit allowing deregulation of financial and investment markets. Given the massive flows of capital between Russian oligarchs and the City of London, how will the Government ensure that Russian officials responsible for human rights abuses are not allowed to profit in this way, and that there will be no diluting of standards and regulations that would get in the way of applying Magnitsky-style scandals?

[Wendy Morton]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to step up our activity, both domestically and internationally, to tackle illicit finance and dirty money entering our country. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites, and under the Criminal Finances Act 2017, we introduced a number of instruments that are being used to tackle illicit finance, including unexplained wealth orders.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]]

The Biden Administration have already made clear that they are going to take a more robust line with Russia, and the subjects of Russia’s treatment of Ukraine and Mr Navalny’s arrest were discussed by President Biden and President Putin during a call earlier this week. What joint steps does the Minister think the US and the UK can take, and has the Foreign Secretary yet had an opportunity to speak to Mr Blinken at the State Department?

[Wendy Morton]

We have already demonstrated the way in which the UK has been leading the international effort on the issue of Alexei Navalny, through the OPCW and also through the G7 statement of 26 January. Our Prime Minister spoke with President Biden on 23 January, and the Foreign Secretary spoke with the new US national security adviser on 22 January. During both calls, they agreed on the need to work together on shared foreign and security priorities, such as Russia.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]]

Many people across Newport West and our country commend Mr Navalny and his supporters for their extraordinary bravery in standing up against this corrupt and repressive Government in Moscow. Will the Minister show the same bravery, and set out in clear terms what action this Government, with international partners, will take to demand their immediate release?

[Wendy Morton]

The Foreign Secretary has made it absolutely clear that Mr Navalny is the victim of a despicable crime, and we will continue to call for his immediate and unconditional release. The Foreign Secretary has also condemned the Russian authorities’ unacceptable use of violence against peaceful protesters and journalists, which I am sure many of the hon. Lady’s constituents, like mine, have seen in the media. We have called on the Russian Government to respect their international commitments and release those who have been detained during peaceful demonstrations.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]]

The UK, supported by 58 countries, led the joint statement in December calling for Russia to be held to account for what it does. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the whole House to support and commend the UK on the leading role it is taking in these efforts, sending a very clear message to the Russian Government?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the need for a joined-up approach, and in supporting an international effort to tackle this issue. He is right to recognise that the UK did indeed lead the effort with respect to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, as well as that joint statement in the OPCW, which was supported by no fewer than 58 state parties all calling for Russia to be held to account.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]]

Is not the reason that the Government have failed to implement a single recommendation of the now 15-month-old Russia report and have failed to apply Magnitsky sanctions to the eight individuals to whom Alexei Navalny himself had requested they be applied a simple one—that London is awash with dirty Russian money, as is the Conservative party?

[Wendy Morton]

I do not accept the assertion made by the right hon. Gentleman. The ISC Russia report, to which he refers, was released on 21 July, and the Government responded on the very same date. We have set out very clearly what our response is and that Russia remains a top national security priority for the Government. We have issued sanctions against six individuals and one organisation in relation to Alexei Navalny and, as I have made very clear, we will not speculate on who else we may or may not sanction.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her statements. Is it not clear that the lesson of watching Russia for the past few years is that Russia—or China, for that matter—does not have any respect for an adversary unless it can show strength? What do all our words of condemnation mean without much more comprehensive action? When will the integrated defence and security review be published, and will it address the role of the City of London in looted Russian money? What will we do to strengthen all our alliances to bring the free world together against both Russia’s internal and external aggression?

[Wendy Morton]

We have been very clear on our policy towards Russia. It is that we want a very different relationship with Russia and that Russia must stop its destabilising behaviour towards the UK and its partners. While that continues, there can be no normalisation of our bilateral relationship. We will continue to support human rights in Russia and those who seek to defend them. My hon. Friend attempts to draw me on the integrated review, but I am sure he knows me better than to think that I would speculate on when that may be published.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

As a long-standing Member of Parliament, I do not know what the Government’s policy is towards Russia. It is a corrupt regime that poisons people in our country and poisons its democratic citizens in other parts of the world. Is it not about time that we accepted that there is a Russian elite in London, in control of money in property, coming in on private jets with no hindrance, and that we took them on? Then the leaders, particularly Putin, would listen to what we say.

[Wendy Morton]

When it comes to the case of Alexei Navalny, we have been very clear about our action. We took the lead on the OPCW in signing up member states to demand that Russia follow up with a transparent investigation. We led the way with the G7 statement yesterday. In addition, we have put in place six sanctions against individuals and one organisation. We have been leading from the front when it comes to the case of Alexei Navalny, and when it comes to Russia, again, I have been very clear about our policy: we want a different relationship with Russia and there can be no normalisation in our bilateral relationship until its passive-aggressive behaviour changes.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Russia should continue to be allowed a seat at the table of international partnerships only if it ceases its malign activities?

[Wendy Morton]

Again, we have been very clear what our expectations are when it comes to Russia and Russian behaviour. When it comes to the case of Alexei Navalny, Russia must fully respond to the OPCW demands for a transparent investigation and explain how a chemical weapon came to be used against a Russian citizen on Russian soil. Russia must start to account for itself.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

The best way in which we can show our support for Alexei Navalny is not by words but by actions, and not by investigations but by convictions. Navalny himself has said that he wants the international community to use sanctions against complicit Russian kleptocrats who live outside Russia. He has named Abramovich and Usmanov, both of whom have considerable wealth, property and links to English football clubs. On Facebook, Navalny has said that the sanctions have not worked because

“the West has refrained from sanctioning the people with the money” .

Is that true?

[Wendy Morton]

Sanctions send a clear message to those responsible that the use of chemical weapons is an egregious violation of the international obligations that we must all uphold to keep societies safe. We continue to work to protect human rights and civil society in Russia. We are considering all options for further action, but as I have said, and as I am sure the right hon. Lady is aware, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on any future listings.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]]

The arrest of Mr Navalny is a disgraceful act by a Putin regime that is clearly terrified of being held to account by the Russian people. Last year, when Mr Navalny was poisoned, the Government took steps to freeze assets of senior figures in the Russian Government. Can the Minister confirm whether further asset freezes of both individuals and organisations are an option that the UK is prepared to consider this time?

[Wendy Morton]

When it comes to sanctions, we continue to look at this matter. We continue to work to protect and promote human rights, and we are considering all options for further actions. However, it would be inappropriate to speculate on future listings.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]]

The Minister said that she is “appalled” by what has happened to Mr Navalny and described the event as “despicable”. She went on to pray in aid the United Kingdom’s current G7 presidency as “leading from the front” on Russia and said that the UK has “galvanised the international community”. We only have to listen to what Members have said so far to know that it is not the international community that the Government need to galvanise—they need to galvanise themselves. They will not be trembling in Moscow at anything the Minister, who I like, has had to say this afternoon, and there certainly will not be any winds of relief in Mr Navalny’s prison cell from what she has said. I do not want her to speculate; I want her to do something. I want her to implement the full recommendations of the ISC report. She owes this House and those protesting in Russia at the weekend an explanation as to why the Government flatly refuse to do so.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman quotes my words, so I will re-quote them: the UK has galvanised the international community in condemnation of these deplorable detentions. As the G7 president, we issued a G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement on 26 January. When it comes to the issue of the Russia report, as I have set out very clearly, Russia is a top national security priority for the Government. We will be introducing new legislation; I have made that very clear. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites, and we are also reviewing all tier 1 investor visas granted before 5 April 2015.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]]

I agree with the Minister that Russia is a destabilising force with little regard for human rights and international law. Of course, that affects us, especially as Russia continues to use its veto to stall the United Nations in investigating genocide. Does the Minister agree with the Government’s position that the determination of genocide falls to international courts, but when they are in paralysis, with countries such as Russia having a hold over them, the obligation to investigate and prevent a genocide falls to domestic courts?

[Wendy Morton]

This particular urgent question in respect of Russia is very much about the issue of Navalny and the action that the UK has been taking. I have been clear about the way we approach this issue and have set out that we absolutely condemn the action and call for Navalny’s immediate release.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I support everything that the Minister has said in her condemnation of the Putin regime in relation to Mr Navalny, and commend her balanced approach.

Ever since I married my Russian Orthodox wife, I have tried to understand Russia and the sensitivities of the Russian people. Will the Minister make it clear that, while we condemn the Putin regime, there will be nothing Russophobe about our attitude? That means we need to understand Russian cultural and historical sensitivities. On the Council of Europe, engagement with Russian parliamentarians may sometimes be useful—as Winston Churchill said, “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have set out today the fact that we want a different relationship with Russia, but I absolutely accept that there are often people-to-people links, which are something entirely different, and when it comes to culture there are many links between our two countries. But let me be absolutely clear that Russia’s pattern of aggressive behaviour undermines its claim that it is a responsible international partner that upholds the rules-based international system. We in the UK will continue to support human rights in Russia and those who seek to defend them.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

00:05

Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Update

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

13:26

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s measures to safeguard our United Kingdom against the new variants of covid until we have administered enough vaccinations to free ourselves from the virus.

I am acutely conscious that at this moment parents are balancing the demands of working from home with supporting the education of their children, businesspeople are enduring the sight of their shops or restaurants or other enterprises standing empty and idle, and, sadly, too many are coping with the anxiety of illness or the tragedy of bereavement.

I am deeply sorry to say that the number of people that have been taken from us has surpassed 100,000, as the House was discussing only an hour or so ago. I know that the House will join me in offering condolences to all those who have lost loved ones. The most important thing we can do to honour their memory is to persevere against this virus with ever greater resolve.

That is why we have launched the biggest vaccination programme in British history. Three weeks ago, I reported that the UK had immunised 1.3 million people; now that figure has multiplied more than fivefold to exceed 6.8 million people—more than any other country in Europe and over 13% of the entire adult population. In England we have now delivered first doses to over four fifths of those aged 80 or over, over half of those aged between 75 and 79, and three quarters of elderly care home residents. Though it remains an exacting target, we are on track to achieve our goal of offering a first dose to everyone in the top four priority groups by the middle of February.

I can also reassure the House that all current evidence shows that both the vaccines we are administering remain effective against the new variant that was first identified in London and the south-east, by means of our world-leading capability in genomic sequencing. The UK has now sequenced over half of all covid-19 viral genomes that have been submitted to the global database—10 times more than any other country. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary announced our new variant assessment platform, through which we will work with the World Health Organisation to offer our expertise to help other countries, because a new variant anywhere poses a potential threat everywhere.

To guard against this danger, we must also take additional steps to strengthen our borders to stop those strains from entering the UK. We have already temporarily closed all travel corridors, and we are already requiring anyone coming to this country to have proof of a negative covid test taken in the 72 hours before leaving. They must also complete a passenger locator form which must be checked before they board, and then quarantine on arrival for 10 days. I want to make it clear that under the stay-at-home regulations, it is illegal to leave home to travel abroad for leisure purposes. We will enforce this at ports and airports by asking people why they are leaving and instructing them to return home if they do not have a valid reason to travel.

We have also banned all travel from 22 countries where there is a risk of known variants, including South Africa, Portugal and South American nations. In order to reduce the risk posed by UK nationals and residents returning home from these countries, I can announce that we will require all such arrivals who cannot be refused entry to isolate in Government-provided accommodation such as hotels for 10 days, without exception. They will be met at the airport and transported directly into quarantine. The Department of Health and Social Care is working to establish these facilities as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will set out the details of our plans in her statement shortly. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has this morning spoken to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and, as we have throughout this pandemic, we will be working closely with the devolved Administrations to implement these new measures so that, where possible, we continue with a UK-wide approach.

It was the emergence of a new variant that is up to 70% more transmissible that forced England back into lockdown, and I know that everyone yearns to know how much longer they must endure these restrictions, with all their consequences for jobs and livelihoods and, most tragically of all, for the life chances of our children. We will not persist for a day longer than is necessary, but nor can we relax too soon, because if we do, we run the risk of our NHS coming under still greater pressure, compelling us to reimpose every restriction and sustain those restrictions for longer.

So far, our efforts do appear to have reduced the R rate, but we do not yet have enough data to know exactly how soon it will be safe to reopen our society and economy. At this point, we do not have enough data to judge the full effect of vaccines in blocking transmission, nor the extent and speed with which the vaccines will reduce hospitalisations and deaths, nor how quickly the combination of vaccinations and the lockdown can be expected to ease the pressure on the NHS.

What we do know is that we remain in a perilous situation, with more than 37,000 patients now in hospital with covid, almost double the peak of the first wave, but the overall picture should be clearer by mid-February. By then, we will know much more about the effect of vaccines in preventing hospitalisations and deaths, using data from the UK but also other nations such as Israel. We will know how successful the current restrictions have been in driving down infections. We will also know how many people are still in hospital with covid, which we simply cannot predict with certainty today. We will then be in a better position to chart a course out of lockdown without risking a further surge that would overwhelm the NHS.

When I announced the lockdown, I said that we would review its measures in mid-February, once the most vulnerable had been offered the first dose of the vaccine, so I can tell the House that when Parliament returns from recess in the week commencing 22 February, subject to the full agreement of the House, we intend to set out the results of that review and publish our plan for taking the country out of lockdown. That plan will, of course, depend on the continued success of our vaccination programme, on the capacity of the NHS and on deaths falling at the pace we would expect as more people are inoculated.

Our aim will be to set out a gradual and phased approach towards easing the restrictions in a sustainable way, guided by the principles we have observed throughout the pandemic and beginning with the most important principle of all: that reopening schools must be our national priority. The first sign of normality beginning to return should be pupils going back to their classrooms. I know how parents and teachers need as much certainty as possible, including two weeks’ notice of the return of face-to-face teaching. I must inform the House that, for the reasons I have outlined, it will not be possible to reopen schools immediately after the February half-term. I know how frustrating that will be for pupils and teachers, who want nothing more than to get back to the classroom, and for parents and carers who have spent so many months juggling their day jobs not only with home schooling but with meeting the myriad other demands of their children from breakfast until bedtime.

I know, too, the worries we all share about the mental health of our young people during this prolonged period of being stuck at home, so our plan for leaving the lockdown will set out our approach towards re-opening schools. If we achieve our target of vaccinating everyone in the four most vulnerable groups with their first dose by 15 February—and every passing day sees more progress towards that goal—those groups will have developed immunity from the virus by about three weeks later, that is by 8 March. We hope it will therefore be safe to begin the reopening of schools from Monday 8 March, with other economic and social restrictions being removed then or thereafter, as and when the data permits.

As we are extending the period of remote learning beyond the middle of February, I can confirm that the Government will prolong arrangements for providing free school meals for those eligible children not in school, including food parcels and the national voucher scheme, until they have returned to the classroom. We can also commit now that, as we did this financial year, we will provide a programme of catch-up over the next financial year. This will involve a further £300 million of new money to schools for tutoring, and we will work in collaboration with the education sector to develop, as appropriate, specific initiatives for summer schools and a covid premium to support catch-up. But we recognise that these extended school closures have had a huge impact on children’s learning, which will take more than a year to make up, so we will work with parents, teachers and schools to develop a long-term plan to make sure pupils have the chance to make up their learning over the course of this Parliament.

I know that the measures I am setting out today will be deeply frustrating to many hon. Friends and colleagues, and disappointing for all of us. But the way forward has been clear ever since the vaccines arrived, and as we inoculate more people hour by hour, this is the time to hold our nerve in the end game of the battle against the virus. Our goal now must be to buy the extra weeks we need to immunise the most vulnerable and get this virus under control, so that together we can defeat this most wretched disease and reclaim our lives, once and for all. I commend this statement to the House.

13:37

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. To lose 100,000 people to this virus is nothing short of a national tragedy. It is a stark number: an empty chair at the kitchen table; a person obviously taken before their time. Today, we should remember that, and we should mark the moment by learning the lessons of the last year to make sure that the same mistakes are not made again.

Of course, any Government would have struggled with this pandemic—I get that and the British people get that—but the reality is that Britain is the first country in Europe to suffer 100,000 deaths, and we have one of the highest death rates in the world. The Prime Minister often says that he has been balancing the health restrictions against economic risks, but that simply does not wash, because alongside that high death toll we also have the deepest recession of any major economy and the lowest growth of any major economy, and we are on course to have one of the slowest recoveries of any major economy.

So for all the contrition and sympathy that the Prime Minister expresses, and I recognise how heartfelt that is, the truth is that this was not inevitable—it was not just bad luck. It is the result of a huge number of mistakes by the Prime Minister during the course of this pandemic. We were too slow into lockdown last March, too slow to get protective equipment to the front line and, of course, too slow to protect our care homes—20% of deaths in this pandemic have come from care home residents. I really do not think that the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary understand just how offensive it was to pretend that there was a protective ring around our care homes.

The Government had the chance over the summer to learn from those mistakes in the first wave and prepare for a second wave and a challenging winter. I put that challenge to the Prime Minister in June, but that chance was wasted. The Government then went on to fail to deliver an effective test, trace and isolate system, despite all the warnings. They failed to deliver clear and reliable public messaging, crucial in a pandemic—one minute telling people to go to work, then to do the complete opposite.

The Prime Minister has failed on a number of occasions to follow the scientific advice that the virus was getting out of control. First, in September, when that advice was given, they failed to implement a circuit break or lockdown over half-term as we suggested. Then in December, we had the fiasco over Christmas mixing. Once again, we had the 13-day delay from 22 December, when that further medical advice was given, to when the third national lockdown was finally introduced. As a result, we have seen a third wave more deadly than the first and second waves. Fifty thousand people have died since 11 November. That is 50,000 deaths in 77 days. That is a scarcely believable toll on the British people.

In isolation, any of these mistakes are perhaps understandable. Taken together, it is a damning indictment of how the Government have handled this pandemic. The Prime Minister says, “Well, now is not the time to answer the question why.” That is the answer he gave back in the summer after the first wave. He said the same after the second wave, and he says it again now, each time repeating the mistakes over and over again. That is why now is the time to ask and answer the question why.

The way out of this nightmare has now been provided by our amazing scientists, our NHS, our armed forces and hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The vaccine programme is making incredible progress. The British people have come together to deliver what is the largest peacetime effort in our history. Despite the Prime Minister’s constant complaining, all of us—all of us—are doing whatever we can to help the vaccine roll out as swiftly and as safely as possible.

On schools, first I have to say that even for this Prime Minister it is quite something to open schools one day and close them the next, to call them vectors of transmission and then to challenge me to say that the schools he has closed are safe, only now to give a statement where he says that schools cannot open until 8 March at the earliest because it is not safe to do so. That is his analysis. It is the sort of nonsense that has led us to the highest death toll in Europe and the worst recession.

We of course welcome any steps forward in reopening schools, and we will look at the detail of how the Education Secretary plans to deliver that and the plans to deliver online learning. I also hope that the Prime Minister will take seriously our proposal—echoed, incidentally, by the Children’s Commissioner and the Conservative Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—that once the first four categories of the most vulnerable have been vaccinated by mid-February, he should bring forward the vaccination of key workers and use that window of the February half-term to vaccinate all school staff, including every teacher and teaching assistant. There is a clear week there when that could be done, and it should be done.

On borders, we will look at the detail—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments are coming to an end; he is well past the five minutes allocated.

[Keir Starmer]

On borders, we will look at the Prime Minister’s statement in detail, and obviously hear what the Home Secretary has to say, but in due course there will be a public inquiry. The Prime Minister will have to answer the question. I hope that he can finally answer this very simple and direct question, because yesterday he was maintaining that the Government had done

“everything we could to save lives.”

Is he really saying to those grieving families that their loss was just inevitable and that none of the 100,000 deaths could have been avoided?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about mistakes, and I have said that there will be a time to reflect, to analyse, to learn lessons and to prepare. However, I say to him that I think the biggest mistake he has made is in seeking continually to attack what the Government have been trying to do at every opportunity, supporting one week and then attacking the very same policy the next week. He complains about confusion of messages. How much has he actually done, as Leader of the Opposition, to reassure the public, for example, about NHS Test and Trace, which has done a very good job, I notice, of confining him for the third time? What has he done to reassure people about messaging, rather than attacking, causing confusion and trying to sow doubt about what the Government are doing? There was a very different path open to him at the beginning of this pandemic and it is a great pity he has not taken it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the problem is not that schools are unsafe. They are not unsafe. Schools are safe—he should say it, and his union paymasters should hear him say it loud and clear. The problem is that schools bring communities together, obviously, and large numbers of kids are a considerable vector of transmission. It is not that there is any particular extra risk to those involved in education.

I heard with interest what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about his proposal for changing the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation priority list, and I really think he should reflect on what he is saying. The JCVI priority list, one to nine, is designed by experts and clinicians to prioritise those groups who are most likely to die or suffer from coronavirus. By trying to change that, and saying that he now wants to bring in other groups of public sector workers, to be decided by politicians, rather than the JCVI, he has to explain which vaccines he would take from which vulnerable groups, to make sense of his policy. That is what he is doing and that is what the Labour proposal would involve.

Indeed, by making it more difficult for us to vaccinate all those vulnerable groups in the fastest possible way, that Labour policy would delay our route out of lockdown and delay our ability to get kids back into school in the way they want. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again, or at least to explain which members of those vulnerable groups would be deprived of vaccines in order to follow the Labour policy.

All I can say, having listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say, is that everybody will have to answer questions at the end of this and—let me put it this way—all politicians will be asked what they did, and what we did collaboratively, working together for the people of our country, to beat this virus. I am not sure that, on reflection, his choice was the right one for either his party or the country.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]]

On Monday, Baroness Harding said that 40% of the people asked to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace were not fully doing so. That works out at a worrying 30,000 people every day who are potentially still spreading the virus, many of them still going to work. Because that is such a big threat to our containment strategy for the virus, could the Prime Minister say what he thinks we need to do to deal with that issue? In particular, is it now time to consider making a blanket offer to those asked to self-isolate, that we will make good any salary they lose? In the end, that may be cheaper than having to extend furlough if the case rate remains high.

[The Prime Minister]

I very much respect my right hon. Friend’s suggestion and I understand the logic of what he is saying, but I believe that the people of this country should be self-isolating, in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is rightly doing, on the basis that it is the right thing for themselves, for their families and for the country. They do get support, where needed, of £500, and there are very considerable fines for failing to do it. I think that is the right way forward and I hope he will join me in commending prompt action by everybody who is asked to self-isolate. It is the right thing to do for you, for your family and for the country.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

Let me thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement.

As we know, yesterday the UK reached yet another terrible milestone—100,000 covid-related deaths. Today, it is only right that we reflect on all those who have lost their lives during this pandemic. Our thoughts and prayers are most especially with their families and those who are left with the heaviest burden of grief. In time, there will be a reckoning on the UK Government’s response to this virus and it is clear that that verdict may well be damning. In the here and now, though, it remains our job to focus on how we can support and save as many people as possible in the weeks and months ahead. That means a renewed commitment to maintaining public health, but it also must mean a renewed package of financial support for all those—all those, Prime Minister—who have been left behind by this Tory Government.

Right now, covid is the immediate threat to life, but poverty remains a killer, too. In 2019, the Institute for Public Policy Research revealed that Tory austerity cuts over the previous decade had resulted in as many as 130,000 preventable deaths. The Prime Minister promised not to repeat Tory austerity. If people are to believe him, he should start by making three important announcements today: extend the furlough scheme for the full duration of the pandemic; maintain the uplift to universal credit and apply it to legacy benefits; and put in place a package of support for the 3 million excluded.

Prime Minister, eleventh-hour announcements have to stop. These decisions cannot wait until the Budget in March. People need certainty now. I asked the Prime Minister these same questions at Prime Minister’s questions, but I failed to get a straight answer, so please try again, Prime Minister. Will his Government extend furlough, maintain the universal credit uplift and offer support for the 3 million excluded? Finally, on international travel, both the Scottish and Welsh Governments want to go further on quarantining measures than what his UK Government are proposing. Will the Prime Minister stop his half measures and join the Governments in Scotland and Wales in stricter enforcements on international travel? That, Prime Minister, would be leadership.

[The Prime Minister]

I look forward to what the devolved Administrations do later, but I can tell the House that we are putting in the toughest measures virtually anywhere in the world, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be setting out the detail in due course.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this country, through the might of the UK Treasury, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said many times, has been able to look after people across the UK. It is thanks to the UK Government that we have the furlough scheme, the bounce back loans and the many other forms of support. It is thanks to the UK that we have, for instance, the Army able to move people in distress with covid in remote parts of Scotland to the hospitals where they need to get to, and indeed the British Army helping across Scotland, I am proud to say, to distribute the vaccines that are so essential for our fight back from this virus. So I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will abandon his narrow nationalist position and look at the achievements of the UK overall, and I think it is a fine, fine thing. It would be a wonderful thing, by the way, if the Scottish nationalist party for a moment stopped talking about its desire for a referendum while we are trying to deal with a pandemic.

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

The Prime Minister is very properly concerned to protect our national health service, and particularly to prevent hospitals and intensive care units from being overwhelmed this winter. My question is about the scope to enhance primary care to reduce the need for covid patients to go to hospital in the first place. New Canadian studies of 4,500 people published this week show that the use of colchicine has cut hospital admissions by 25% and death rates by almost half. Similarly, some ivermectin studies have shown 75% reductions in death rates. What scope is there to act quickly this winter—this winter, not next winter—to enhance our primary care level to protect populations and hospitals?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The therapeutics taskforce is currently reviewing both the drugs that he mentions, and I will make sure that he is kept up to speed with its findings.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]]

As of 6.30 pm yesterday, the UK has the worst recorded death rate by head of population in the world. This is a grave moment for our country. I am sure all our hearts go out to the families who have lost loved ones. Last week, the Prime Minister told me he was still not prepared to launch the inquiry into the covid crisis that he promised six months ago. Instead, will he at least tell the country today that he will launch that inquiry sometime this year, so that we can find out why our country has seen the worst death rate from covid in the world, learn the lessons, and give bereaved families the answers and the justice that he owes them?

[The Prime Minister]

Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has the answer contained in his question. This country is going through a grievous bout of a deadly pandemic. He rightly draws attention to the death toll of 100,000 and, as he knows, there are currently 37,000 people in hospital. The entire British state is working flat out to bring the virus under control, and to get us through this pandemic and out the other side. As I have told him before, now is not the right time to consecrate the energies and efforts of officialdom, which would be huge, to an inquiry, though as I have said before—I said it last night and I will reassure him again today—of course there will be a time to learn lessons, to reflect, to understand and to prepare.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]]

I welcome and thank my right hon. Friend for his upbeat statement, which offers much-needed hope to a beleaguered nation, rather contrary to Captain Hindsight’s contribution. With a successful inoculation programme in full swing, my right hon. Friend’s plan to break free from lockdowns and restrictions is critical. Variants or no variants, does he agree that the lives and livelihoods of millions of our citizens now depend on a more proportionate response to this pandemic, which will require political courage to initiate?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much respect the point of view of my hon. Friend, who has long been a keen and justified campaigner for liberty. I share his instincts very strongly, but I must tell him that we will continue to be cautious in our approach because we do not wish to see more lives lost than we can possibly avoid. That is why we will continue with the roll-out of the vaccine programme —the fastest in Europe currently—and on 15 February, as I have just said to the House, we will look at where we are. We will be setting out a road map, which I hope will be useful to him and to all colleagues throughout the House, on 22 February.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Would he confirm what discussions have taken place with his counterparts in education to give ample time for teachers to plan their online teaching, with special reference to children who cannot or will not be able to access their online classes? I agree with him that it is better that the children are back in their classrooms, but can he ensure that all the teaching staff, especially the special needs teachers, will be a priority for the vaccine roll-out? Can he also confirm that there will be no shortage of vaccine, as was indicated in the press today?

[The Prime Minister]

We are rolling out 1.3 million laptops, and we are making sure that kids—pupils—have access to online learning wherever possible. The most important thing, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, is to get kids back into school as soon as we sensibly can. That is what the Government are determined to do.

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the vaccination programme. He mentioned anxieties about supply. As I stand before you today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am confident that we will deliver on the 15 February pledge, and that we will continue to be able to drive up—[Interruption.] I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is responsible for the vaccine roll-out, is confirming that we will be able to continue that accelerating curve of supply as well.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I join Members across the House in sending my deepest condolences to the families and friends of each and every individual who had tragically passed away as a result of covid. However, during this extremely difficult time I have nothing but admiration for the army of volunteers working tirelessly in my constituency and across the country. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking organisations such as The Fed, the Jewish Volunteering Network, Headsup and Porch Boxes, along with all those who have done so much to protect the vulnerable and needy in Prestwich, Radcliffe and Whitefield?

[The Prime Minister]

I will indeed join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those volunteers in his constituency. They join a huge constellation of shining points of light across our country. It has been one of the most extraordinary things; one of the few consolations of this crisis is the upsurge in volunteering.

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

May I associate my remarks with others that have been made, and express my sincerest condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one, particularly the constituents to whom I spoke last night?

Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s recent report pointed to four drivers that have contributed to the high and unequal death toll in the UK. He identified the governance and political culture that have damaged social cohesion and inclusivity; the widening inequalities in power, money and resources; the regressive austerity policies over the past 10 years; and the declining life expectancy—and of the healthy life expectancy—of the poorest, particularly women, which is among the worst in all comparable economies. Professor Marmot has called for the Government to address those issues and to build back fairer, so will the Prime Minister and his Cabinet listen to him?

[The Prime Minister]

I have a very high regard for Michael Marmot, and worked closely with him for many years. I believe that his advice is invaluable, and we will indeed make sure that as we come through the pandemic we look at the way in which it has impacted on the poorest and most vulnerable. We will indeed build back fairer.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]]

The vaccine roll-out now offers hope and relief to vulnerable people who have spent months living in fear and isolation. We hear that 6.8 million vaccines have been delivered, which is an amazing achievement, and I thank everyone involved in the roll-out. The mass vaccination hubs are an important part of the scheme, but many of my constituents with mobility issues are worried that they are going to miss out on their vaccine, as they cannot make the journey to one of those larger hubs. Can the Prime Minister give them reassurance that they will be offered a vaccine locally—even in their own home—and that anyone unable to travel will be fully supported?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I hope that she will give reassurance to her constituents that they need have no anxieties about that. They do not have to go to the vaccination centres. They can either go to their GP surgery or, indeed, they will be visited in their own home.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]]

May I add my condolences to those already expressed to the victims, and their families and friends, of this awful illness? One of the challenges for children and adults working from home—the time now for children extended today by the Prime Minister—is, in addition to devices and connectivity, a lack of digital skills. This week I was made aware of an online scam asking people to put their financial information into a very plausible fake NHS website to get the vaccine. What is the Prime Minister doing to tackle this criminal activity, preying on often vulnerable people waiting for the vaccine? What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that individuals, young and old, have the digital skills they need to protect themselves, learn from home and work from home?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of digital skills and connectivity. That is why we are, for instance, massively increasing superfast gigabit broadband across the country and making sure that people have the technology they need. She raises a particularly important point about online scams. These are a problem. I can tell her that we are working across Government, led by the Cabinet Office, to beat the fraudsters and root them out. If she would be kind enough to send me details of the case she mentions, we will feed it into our system immediately.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Do we have the sound working for Mr Clark? [Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. We appear to be hearing the sound engineers. Perhaps we will leave that for a moment and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Meanwhile, we will go to York, hopefully, to Rachael Maskell.

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

The evidence shows that the Government’s approach to easing the lockdown before Christmas meant that crowds of people came to York despite my warnings, spreading infection in the retail, hospitality and transport sectors because they could travel to a lower tier and were off guard in my community. The result has been devastating. It was completely unsafe and completely avoidable. Will the Prime Minister commit not to return to a tiered system where people can freely move the infection from one place to another? What steps will he take to avoid this catastrophe from happening again? Can I meet one of his Ministers to discuss York’s tragic experience over Christmas?

[The Prime Minister]

As soon as we were informed of the extra transmissibility—50% to 70% faster—of the new variant, we took all the action we could. I would just remind the hon. Lady that the best thing we can do for the people of York now is to ensure we keep the virus under control with the tough measures we have and ensure we all come forward for the vaccine. I urge her to get her constituents to come forward and take that vaccine. They are going great guns in Yorkshire. My memory is that in Yorkshire I think they have taken more vaccine than virtually anywhere else in the country. I congratulate the people of Yorkshire on what they are doing. We are now coming into the last furlong of the JCVI one to four and it would be great to get 100% of the people of Yorkshire in the course of the next few days.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Now we go to my esteemed constituency neighbour, Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In all the gloom of the tragedy of covid, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the staff and volunteers who are working so hard to scale up the programme of vaccinations in Harlow and delivering the life-saving vaccines to thousands of residents in our new mass vaccination centre? I know he wants schools and colleges to open sooner rather than later. I really welcome what he has said today about catch-up, the extra funding, free school meals and, above all, the education plan for a covid recovery. Will he ensure the catch-up fund also helps children with mental health problems? Will he work with a coalition of the willing, such as the Children’s Commissioner and other educationalists, to get all our children back in the classroom?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed, I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating not just the NHS, the Army and the pharmacies but the volunteers who are making the vaccine roll-out possible. We are putting extra funding into tackling mental health problems, particularly for children and young people, and the funding that we have announced of over £3 billion extra every year will go to help 345,000 children as well.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]]

Office for National Statistics data shows that key workers and those in manual and public-facing jobs are at the highest risk of dying from coronavirus. Bradford is a key worker city, and tragically, more than 1,000 Bradfordians have now died from the virus. When the most vulnerable groups have been vaccinated, will the Prime Minister ensure that priority is given to frontline workers who have played such a key role in keeping the country going during the pandemic, often with a high risk to their personal safety, including police officers, teachers, shop workers, bus and taxi drivers and many others who are unable to work from home? When will he publish his plan for the next stage of the vaccine roll-out?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on being so much more sensible than her party leader, who is saying that he wants to interrupt the vaccine roll-out for the vulnerable groups and decide politically who should get the vaccine. I think we should leave it to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to decide the most vulnerable groups. That is what we are going to do. That is the fastest way to deal with those who are most likely to die. I saw that she was shaking her head; she perhaps disagrees with the suggestion that she has just made, but I think that it is an excellent suggestion, and she should stick to it.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to reopen schools as soon as possible and for the vaccine roll-out. I am asking this question on behalf of children everywhere. As the mother of a nine-year-old, I can see that young children are struggling. Their cognitive development is determined at this age. We are storing up a lifetime of problems—anxiety, mental health issues and obesity—by having all our primary-age children at home. May I urge the Prime Minister to have courage in these final months and bring children—particularly primary-age children—back to school as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and I know that she speaks for millions of mothers and millions of parents across the country who want our kids to be back in school and who are anxious about the gaps in their learning that may be arising as a result of this pandemic. We are going to do everything we can to plug those gaps. She has heard what I have said about catch-up funds and the investments we are making in one-to-one tutorials, and that will go on not just this year but next year and throughout this Parliament, until we have made up the ground for those kids, because they deserve it. We will, of course, work as fast as possible to get schools open, but we must do it in a way that is cautious and proportionate.

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

Many people on low incomes and in precarious work still cannot afford to self-isolate on the UK’s meagre level of statutory sick pay, and some are not even entitled to it. What impact does the Prime Minister feel that the UK’s having one of the lowest rates of statutory sick pay has had on the death rate? Will he increase it as a matter of urgency, to help people do the right thing and stay safe?

[The Prime Minister]

In addition to statutory sick pay and universal credit, there is the £500 that we make available to those in need of it, and that is the right way forward. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not right in what she says about the level of statutory sick pay in this country; it compares favourably with countries around the world.

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

The Government ordered the covid vaccine early, they have delivered it efficiently, and 11% of the population are now vaccinated. Compare that with the European Union. Because of the EU’s bureaucracy, inefficiency and petty politics, it ordered the vaccine late, delivered it inefficiently and has only vaccinated 2% of its population. Prime Minister, it is not just a great credit to your leadership and your Government that we have delivered the vaccination so quickly. Is it not also one of the great advantages of having left the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

What I will say is that we certainly were able to use speed and agility to deliver on the programme that we needed. It would have been a great pity if we had followed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party, who said, “Stay in the EU vaccines programme”, who wanted to get rid of big pharmaceutical companies in the crazed Corbynite agenda on which the Leader of the Opposition stood at the last election, and who attacked the vaccines taskforce that secured 367 million doses of vaccine.

So I do think that we have been able to do things differently and better, in some ways, but it is early days and it is very important to remember that these vaccines are an international venture. We depend on our friends and partners and we will continue to work with those friends and partners, in the EU and beyond.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) while he was in full virtual, rhetorical flow, but he knows that he must not address the Prime Minister as “you”—he must not say, “What are you doing Prime Minister?” He must address the Chair. He is setting a bad example as a senior Member of this House, as are many senior Members, to new Members who have yet to learn the proper mode of address. We must be careful during this time of virtual proceedings not to let standards fall.

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

I support the vaccination programme. My clinical commissioning groups have been among the best in England at rolling out the covid vaccine—a real success story for the communities that I represent, who have been placed under restrictions since 29 July. But today the NHS has said that it will cut by one third the future vaccine supplies to the north-west, so that the rest can catch up. That is worrying, if true.

Can I ask the Prime Minister about logistics? What impact does he think withholding vaccines to the north-west will have? Will second jabs be delayed still further or will the next cohort of first jabs need to be rescheduled, leaving those people unprotected for longer?

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we will make sure that his constituents get exactly what they need for the roll-out to groups 1 to 4. I am assured by the Minister for vaccines, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), that there is no such delay.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman now supports the vaccination programme; perhaps he could repudiate the policy, on which he stood, to destroy the pharmaceutical companies that have made the vaccines possible. Perhaps he could dissociate himself from previous Labour attacks on the vaccine taskforce, which secured the doses on which he now relies.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the emphasis today on school return, which is absolutely vital; we know the devastating impact that being out of school has on children’s mental health. The Prime Minister is absolutely right: schools are safe to return. There is now firm evidence that primary schools in particular do not contribute to the spread of this vicious disease. Will the Prime Minister commit to sharing that evidence with teachers, parents and students, so that they can be reassured that, regardless of vaccines, schools are safe to return?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Schools are safe. The only issue with opening them is that, as I said to the House earlier, they add to the overall budget of transmission because lots of households are brought together—that, obviously, is what a school does. But schools are safe. They are wonderful places, and I support my hon. Friend in wanting to get them open as soon as possible.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

I have self-employed constituents who are coming up to a year without support, businesses in supply chains that are unable to furlough staff and newly established businesses and others that have fallen foul of administrative deadlines, as obviously do other hon. Members. I welcome the support that has been provided, but will the Prime Minister agree to consider those who have fallen through the gaps? In answering, may I ask him not to repeat the list of what has been done but to say what he will do now to support those who have been excluded, including considering the cross-party proposal for a targeted income grant scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and one that has been made many times on both sides of the House. We will, of course, do everything we can to assist those who are hard to identify and whose incomes and entitlements, for HMRC purposes, are therefore not easy to calculate. The group is, in fact, far smaller than we sometimes hear in this House, and the cases can be very complex, but we remain committed to doing everything we can to help people throughout the pandemic.

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

I join my right hon. Friend in celebrating the success of our vaccination programme, which is working well in Southend. I also welcome his remarks about education. However, will he join me in reminding people that if they accept an invitation to be vaccinated, they should keep that appointment? We should all help elderly people to do that, otherwise vaccinators will have to make a very difficult decision at short notice on what to do with those spare vaccines.

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and we must get people to take up their appointments and take up the vaccines when they are offered. Some groups are proving tough to reach, and I look forward to all hon. Members on both sides of the House working together to encourage people of the advantages of a vaccine. It is a wonderful thing. Go and get it, if you get a message to do so.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]]

Healthy life expectancy for men at birth in the Hirst ward of my Wansbeck constituency is 52 years, whereas in Ickenham in the Prime Minister’s constituency it is 71 years, and that trend looks only to be getting wider. Can the Prime Minister explain to the people of my constituency why his Government are so eager to avoid a vaccine postcode lottery by diverting our supply from the north-east southwards to more prosperous regions of the country, simply because the NHS in our area has done an absolutely fantastic job, while at the same time the Government have done nothing to tackle the postcode lottery of healthy life expectancy, which varies so widely across this country? Can I urge him to consider whether the same actions would have been taken if the shoe had been on the other foot?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question, I must beg for shorter questions from hon. Members. I know they are sitting at home and that the opportunity makes them want to speak for longer once they have the attention of the House, but we will never get on to the next statement or let the Prime Minister complete all the promises he has made today if we do not get this statement finished.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and I share an ambition. We want to unite and level up across the whole UK, and that is the mission of this Government. I am afraid he is totally wrong in what he says about the roll-out of the vaccines. We are making sure that everywhere gets what they need for JCVI groups 1 to 4 by 15 February. That is what we are doing and will continue to do. I am delighted by his conversion to the vaccine. I seem to have read somewhere that he seemed a bit sceptical. There he goes smirking away. It is not a smirking matter. It is absolutely crucial. He should tell his constituents to get a vaccination.

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

To lift lockdown, will my right hon. Friend focus exclusively on the progress of vaccinations of those who are most likely to be hospitalised if infected? Is it not the case that mission creep beyond hospitalisations would inevitably lead to the diminution of our sense of urgency to lift the restrictions?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right and he gets to the heart of the problem in the pretend policy that has been announced by the Opposition party. If we were to interfere with the JCVI 1 to 9 list, which is intended to target those most vulnerable and those most at risk of dying or of hospitalisation, we would, of course, interpolate it with other people appointed by politicians, taking vaccines away from the more vulnerable groups and, as he has rightly said, delay our ability to move forward out of lockdown. He is spot on.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]]

In Luton, like many places, we are challenged to reduce cases of covid as a large number of people work in jobs where it is not possible to work from home. What are the Government doing to support businesses to reduce workplace transmission? Will those plans include decent sick pay and the rolling out of home rapid test kits to small and medium-sized employers to support reducing this risk?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the need to roll out rapid test kits. That is happening in communities, towns and cities across the country, and I commend her for supporting them. They may not be the total answer— of course not—to fighting this disease, but they are extremely useful in isolating asymptomatic cases and helping us to drive down the R rate in local communities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask my good and right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether priority lists for vaccinations will be reviewed after groups 1 to 4 are complete, particularly for groups from whom we are having emails, such as police officers, supermarket cashiers, teachers, home carers and people with learning disabilities, some of whom seem to be disproportionately afflicted by covid-19?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course my hon. Friend is right to raise that. I thank him, but I will just repeat what I said earlier to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. It follows from everything that I have said that teachers are in that list of vulnerable groups 1 to 9; police officers are in those groups, as are supermarket workers, cashiers, and people with learning disabilities. They are our priority because it is by vaccinating them that we will be able to reduce—I am afraid—the tragic death toll that we would otherwise see.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

Staff at Hull Royal Infirmary and Castle Hill Hospital have been magnificent during this pandemic. They are used to making people better, however, and the number of deaths is taking its toll on staff, who are physically exhausted. What is the Prime Minister planning to do to support exhausted staff in dealing with the ever-growing waiting list that they will face once the covid threat has subsided?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady very much. I think it was Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, who put it best yesterday when he talked about the best thing that we can do for our NHS staff. She is absolutely right in what she says about the stress and the pressure that the NHS has been operating under in these past few weeks. The best thing that we can do is to keep this infection rate going down, to roll out the vaccination programme and, indeed, to make sure that all NHS staff are vaccinated. As she knows, they are in the JCVI 1 to 4 group and are our priority for 15 February.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

The roll-out of the vaccine has been a truly heroic effort by absolutely everybody involved, not least to remain on track to get the top four priority groups their first dose by the middle of February. Every vaccine brings hope, but there is also an incredible amount of anxiety in the country, not least among business owners unable to trade, and families juggling home learning with holding down jobs. I urge my right hon. Friend, as he looks at rightly lifting the restrictions, to be really clear with all our constituents precisely what “when the data permits” means, so that there can be absolute clarity on what needs to happen to lift each tier of restrictions.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will of course set all this out in the course of the next few weeks. What I can tell the House are some obvious things that the House can see for itself. We need to be sure that the vaccine roll-out continues to go at the pace, and with the success, that it currently is. We need to ensure that we are targeting all those groups, reducing the overall level of vulnerability in the population.

We need to ensure, clearly, that the vaccine is working—or the vaccines are working, because there are at least two now—in the sense that they are driving down the mortality rate in those elderly and vulnerable groups. We need to start to see that. There are promising signs from Israel. In this country, we have not yet seen the data that would help us to be absolutely confident of that point.

Then, of course, there are the pressures on the NHS and other important considerations—to say nothing of the very important economic considerations that my hon. Friend raises. I assure him that we will set out much more in the course of the next weeks to give reassurance and certainty, as far as we can, to all our constituents.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

When Australia had a second wave it held an inquiry that showed the failures of the private contractors in the system of quarantine that they were running. Australia learned from it, the Minister resigned, and it is better. Now, it is almost covid-free. The Prime Minister is so right in saying that of course every Government will make mistakes, but why will he not open an inquiry now so that we can learn from those mistakes, not keep repeating them, like delays in lockdown and in schools opening, and actually start to turn this thing around? Will he commit here and now to do a short, sharp public inquiry, as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, suggested, so that we can all be the better for it?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and indeed for the work of his Committee. I know that those conclusions, along with many others, will be studied with care. I know that you want brief answers, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I direct him to the answers that I have already given on that point to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to many others throughout the day. Of course we will learn the lessons, but at the height of the pandemic we would have to concentrate a huge amount of official and health sector time to an inquiry, when we need to get on with beating the virus.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) [V]]

The roll-out of the vaccine has been an undoubted success for the Government, but it brings us to a point where people want to understand the path ahead to give them something to aim towards. I welcome the clarity that the Prime Minister has given on schools, but in the coming days can he give a clear route map that sets out the potential for further easing of restrictions, such as when outdoor exercise facilities such as golf courses can resume, hospitality events can restart and our high streets can reopen, to reassure people that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that they will shortly realise some of the benefits of the incredible sacrifices that they have had to make over recent months?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right in what he asks for, and I will supply, I hope, exactly that. He will recall how last year we set out a series of dates by which we hoped to do certain things at the earliest—4 July for opening hospitality, and so on and so forth. I hope that in the course of the next few weeks we will be able to populate the diary ahead with some more milestones and assumptions about what we may be able to do, which I hope will give reassurance to him, to businesses in his constituency, and to us all.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]]

The First Minister of Scotland has today reinforced her message, telling people not to travel

“when it’s not really, really, really, really essential”.

With new border restrictions, it is likely that there will be a reduction in the amount of travel into the UK, which will harm aviation and travel firms. Is sector-specific support coming in light of these new policies, Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

We have supported the aviation sector throughout, through the time to pay scheme and others, and we have just introduced particular support for airfields with runways that are not in as much use as they could be. However, as the hon. Lady knows, the best way to get that sector and all others bouncing back is to continue on the path we are on, drive the virus down, vaccinate the population and open up sensibly.

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

I should declare an interest, as I am a chair of school governors and trustee of a joint schools board. In my youth, I was a Scout, and our motto was “Be prepared.” I congratulate school leaders and their staff on keeping schools open for vulnerable children and children of key workers where possible during the lockdown. Could the Prime Minister get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to share with school leaders as soon as possible his plan for the reopening of schools—because he tells us he has a plan—so that those school leaders will be prepared to put in place the measures necessary to reopen schools fully, in such a way that parents, children and school staff can have confidence that their schools will be ready and truly safe for everyone?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating schools on what they have done to make themselves covid-secure, and the incredible amount of work they are doing to educate the 14% of kids who are in school now, to say nothing of all the home learning that is going on thanks to the efforts of teachers. I thank our schools for that.

I think you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have set out a little bit today about what we plan to do to get schools back—the extra support we are giving, and the timetable. However, of course, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will say more in due course.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]]

The pubs, restaurants, hairdressers, gyms, and many excellent shops of Aylesbury are desperate to reopen. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that the measures he has announced today, combined with the vaccination roll-out, will speed up when that will happen, and that there is a route out of lockdown for us all?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think I could agree more vehemently with my hon. Friend if I tried; I have nothing to add to his excellent question. Yes, of course that is the way ahead.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]]

Is the Prime Minister proud that he spent half a billion pounds of public money on the eat out to help out scheme, which it is now estimated increased the spread of the virus by up to 17%?

[The Prime Minister]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady is proud of attacking the vaccines taskforce for spending £675,000 on whether vaccines would reach the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]]

Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the British military personnel who have performed an incredible service in helping to roll out the vaccine at pace across every part of the UK, including the 92 personnel helping in Wales, and does he agree that their service shows how the UK is stronger when all four of our nations work together in the fight against this pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

As I say, it has been one of the few consolations of this pandemic to see the way the country has come together to fight it, particularly to see the way that great national institutions—great UK institutions—such as the British Army have been absolutely indispensable in Wales, in Scotland and around the whole of the UK in fighting this pandemic. I know that it is appreciated across the whole of the UK.

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

In Greater Manchester, there are 20,000 pupils out of schools and with no decent access to online learning. Can the Prime Minister assure me that the £300 million that he has just announced in catch-up and tutoring money will be targeted at areas like Greater Manchester, where pupils have suffered disproportionately because of deprivation and because of high rates of infections that cause multiple periods of isolation, keeping them off school?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the problem of differential learning. Unquestionably, some kids, and some families, in some parts of the country have suffered more of a break in their education than others; there is absolutely no doubt about it. That is why we are going to focus so much on the catch-up funds that I have identified. Of course, Greater Manchester will be targeted for all the measures that we have outlined this morning and more to come.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) [V]]

Across Watford we have incredible teachers. Will the Prime Minister, like me, thank them for the incredible work they have been doing in keeping schools open for key workers’ children? Will he also confirm his priority to make sure that schools can reopen as soon as it is safe to do so, in line with the advice from our scientific and medical advisers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend and I have visited wonderful schools in his constituency together; we know the fantastic job they are doing. I know from talking to those teachers and those pupils how much they will be looking forward now to getting back into school. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to speed it up, but we must be cautious; we must make sure that we do it in tandem—pari passu—with the roll-out of the vaccine.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister has talked about the important support from the British Army in the vaccination roll-out. Salford’s programme has been supported by troops from the Royal Lancers. We do appreciate that, but we have been told that this military support is being withdrawn next Monday, giving less than a week to recruit and train 30 people—and that would mean that Salford would be able to deliver 500 fewer vaccines a day. Delays to vaccinations cost lives, so will he ensure that this vital military support is not withdrawn from Salford?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very doubtful that the people of Salford would be deprived in the way that the hon. Lady describes, but I will of course look into it urgently and my hon. Friend the vaccine Minister will be taking it up immediately.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Many parents will have faced home schooling last year with a sense of necessary resignation. My sense is that many of them are now quite desperately worried about their children. So it is fantastic news that the Prime Minister has said today that as the vaccines roll out and the most vulnerable are protected, that will move in lockstep and we will get the country back to school. However, do all schools have to wait for the 8 March date, even primary, given that we all agree, as he has said today at the Dispatch Box, that schools are safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I hear my hon. Friend loud and clear. I know his views will be shared by many in this House. I just want to go back to the key thing that we need to establish: it will not, alas, be until the middle of February that we have real, material evidence that the vaccines are working in terms of driving down the mortality rate among those crucial groups. So if we were to give schools decent notice to come back, we are driven more towards 8 March by that logic rather than coming back earlier. Believe me, we have been round and round this many times, and it is about as fast as we think we can prudently go. I think that is what the country would want; people would want schools open but they would want them open in a cautious and sensible way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will now suspend the House in order that arrangements for the next item of business can be made.

14:44

Sitting suspended.

Health Measures at UK Borders

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

14:48

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement. First, I want to begin by echoing the Prime Minister’s remarks. The scale of the suffering that this virus has inflicted is truly heart-breaking, and my thoughts are with those who have tragically lost loved ones.

Yesterday, when I addressed the House, I said that the Government’s focus was on protecting the UK’s world-leading vaccination programme—a programme that we should be proud of—and reducing the risk of the new strain of the virus being transmitted from someone coming into the UK. Yesterday, the Foreign Office announced support for more countries to access the UK’s world-leading gene sequencing capabilities to increase early identification of any new strains of the virus. This is a vital step forward to support the global response to coronavirus, but it is simply not enough on its own to reduce risks to the United Kingdom.

It is clear that there are still too many people coming in and out of our country each day. Today I am announcing further action to strengthen the health measures that we already have at the border, in order to reduce passenger flow—so that only the small number of people for whom it is absolutely essential to travel are doing so—and therefore reduce the risk to our world-leading vaccine programme.

For those entering the UK, there will be a number of measures. First, the police have stepped up checks and are carrying out more physical checks at addresses to ensure that people are complying with the rules on self-isolation. Secondly, we will continue to refuse entry to non-UK residents from red list countries that are already subject to the UK travel ban. Thirdly, as the Prime Minister has said, we will introduce a new managed isolation process in hotels for those who cannot be refused entry, including those arriving home from countries where we have already imposed international travel bans. They will be required to isolate for 10 days, without exception. The Department of Health and Social Care will set out further details on this approach next week.

For those travelling out of the UK, we will also be enhancing and stepping up enforcement of the rules, because despite the stay-at-home regulations, we are still seeing people not complying with the rules. The rules are clear: people should be staying at home unless they have a valid reason to leave. Going on holiday is not a valid reason.

We will introduce a new requirement so that people wishing to travel must first make a declaration as to why they need to travel. This “reason for travel” will be checked by carriers prior to departure. That approach effectively mirrors the checks on arrivals that are already in place with the passenger locator form. Secondly, working with policing partners, we will increase the police presence at ports and at airports, fining those in breach of the stay-at-home regulations. Anyone who does not have a valid reason for travel will be directed to return home or they will face a fine. Thirdly, we will urgently review the list of travel exemptions to make sure that only the most important and exceptional reasons are included.

These are crucial new measures to protect us all. They also complement the robust action that we have consistently taken at the border. While these new measures are being operationalised, I would like to remind anyone seeking to enter our country to comply with the rules. This includes providing evidence of a negative covid test before entering the United Kingdom, self-isolation on arrival for 10 days and the completion of the passenger locator form. Immediately stepping up enforcement means that if someone does not follow the regulations, they will face a fine.

These new measures at the border are a necessary step to protect the public and our world-class vaccination programme. Every layer of protection that we have put in place will help to reduce the risk of transmission of this virus and any new potential strain from entering the UK. As we have done throughout this global health emergency, we will continue to take all steps necessary to protect the public and help prevent the spread of the virus. I commend the statement to the House.

14:52

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. We stand here today with knowledge of the terrible fact that more than 100,000 people have died as a result of this awful virus. We mourn all those lost and think of the families for whom life will never be the same again. In marking that fact, it is not enough to say, “Let us wait to find out why Britain has fared so badly.” We must learn from past mistakes and, crucially, act now. One of the key areas where the Government have clearly fallen short is on protecting our borders. I am deeply concerned that the measures outlined today are yet another example of that—too little, too late.

Yet again, the Government are lurching from one crisis to another, devoid of strategy. Limiting hotel quarantining to only the countries from which travel for non-UK residents was already banned means that the Home Secretary’s proposals do not go anywhere near far enough. Perhaps that is why it appears that there has been briefing to newspapers that the Home Secretary is personally not in support of the policy that she is now advocating to the public.

Mutations of the virus risk undermining the efficacy of the vaccines, threatening life and hope. We cannot know where these mutations will emerge from next. The truth is that the Government are once again behind the curve. Labour is calling for comprehensive hotel quarantining. Today’s announcement is too limited. It leaves huge gaps in our defences against emerging strains. We know that the strains that emerged in South Africa and Brazil have already reached these shores. That is little wonder given that controls have been so lax, with just three in every 100 people quarantining having been successfully contacted and border testing introduced only 10 months after our first lockdown—and even then the start had to be delayed, because the Government could not get the necessary systems in place.

We have seen this reluctance to be decisive from the start of crisis. From 1 January to 23 March last year, only 273 people were formally quarantined, when more than 18 million people entered the country by air. That was at a time when the Government’s chief scientific adviser said:

“A lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China…They actually came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK around that time.”

In April, I wrote to the Home Secretary to ask her to learn the lessons, but by May the UK still was an international outlier, with no travel controls.

As the Home Secretary today belatedly announces very limited hotel quarantining, many questions remain, and I would appreciate it if she would address them. First, how can we be assured that travellers will not arrive with emergent strains via countries that are not on the control list? Secondly, what support is being made available to ensure improvements to quarantine compliance and the isolation assurance service? Frankly, why has it taken so long to step up checks, as the Home Secretary said today, when we know that the system has been failing for months? What discussions have taken place with hotel chains to ensure the availability of rooms? Again, for those travelling out of the UK, why is the enforcement being stepped up only now?

Will the Home Secretary ensure that sufficient support and resources are made available for these very important tasks? When will the Government announce a sector-specific support package for aviation? Getting this policy right is absolutely crucial. The Government cannot allow our border policy to continue to be the Achilles heel of the heroic efforts of the British people during this pandemic.

[Priti Patel]

I would like to make a number of comments before I come to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I was here yesterday reeling off the endless measures at the border that have been put in place since January last year, including Foreign Office advice; statutory instruments, regulations and powers under the Coronavirus Act 2020; quarantine; passenger locator forms; test and release; and banning flights and travel from specific countries. It is important to recognise the incredible work we have done in this country on the vaccine, with our world-leading vaccine programme.

However, we are in a very different situation from last year because of the additional risk to public health caused by new variants. We should be focused on the new variants, because they could be less susceptible to and have implications for the vaccine. So it is important that we reduce risk by reducing the number of people who enter our country who could be a new threat in terms of the variants and mutations. We have already implemented numerous measures and protections to reduce that risk, but we are announcing today a number of new, additional levels of protection at our disposal. Some are forthcoming with regard to hotels, and I will come on to the specifics in a moment.

The hon. Gentleman made the point about travel. The fact of the matter is that there are reductions in travel already; the number of people travelling has reduced by 90% compared with the number travelling at this time last year, but obviously that number will become lower through the various travel bans that have been put in place. He has touched on enforcement measures, the isolation assurance service and police enforcement. A number of new measures—enhanced measures, I should say—will increase the checks that will take place. For example, from tomorrow the IAS will be checking more than 5,000 people and will also contact those who have arrived 10 days prior, in the way in which it has been doing and is naturally being asked to do with regards to self-isolation.

I have spoken today about an enhanced police presence at ports, borders and airports. There will be an increase of about 1,000 targeted follow-up visits a day, and that at a time when the numbers are reducing. That speaks about the stringency of these measures and speaks to the point about giving assurance on these particular enforcement measures.

It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman, naturally, is being critical of Government measures. As I said yesterday, and as I have said on a number of occasions and will say again today, from January last year we have had a layered approach to our measures at the border. That is clearly about the travel ban—a ban on travel from countries that pose a risk, or high-risk countries. Measures are in place that I have outlined, and we are building on those. For Labour Members to claim that they have been calling for tougher restrictions since the start of the pandemic is nonsense; that is simply not the case. Labour has been flip-flopping, as I said yesterday, by calling quarantine a blunt tool or a blunt instrument. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), said that quarantine measures should be lessened. There is clearly inconsistency in the position of the Labour party, and we have always taken an approach of managing risk.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made a point about support packages, and work is taking place with other Government Departments—we are working together on that. Discussions with hotel chains are naturally under way. It is not for me to talk about them right now, but a lot of work is taking place. Again, it is important to recognise that these measures—indeed, all measures—have logistical and operational implications as well as challenges. We will work through those practicalities with all our stakeholders and partners. My colleagues in government will come to the House, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, to provide those updates, whether that is on hotels, sectoral packages, or the dialogues that are taking place.

The British public recognise that this is a deeply challenging period for our country. No one would dispute that these are difficult times throughout the global pandemic, but there is no simple or single binary approach that can be taken. It is right that we manage risk and that we do so with this layered approach. The British public, our constituents, would like all political parties to come together at this important time, to consider how we can bring in and support these measures, so that we can protect public health.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I welcome the evidenced and nuance-based approach that she has outlined today, as opposed to the blanket approach that seems to be advocated by the shadow Foreign Secretary, which I believe would lead to impacts on trade and those who need essential business, as well as on our ability to hotel quarantine so many people. I know that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) takes seriously the needs of the aviation industry, and I do not believe that a blanket approach would do anything for that. I welcome the Government’s approach.

Given that some countries may be added to or removed from the list of countries from which hotel quarantine is required, will those criteria be published? Will they be subject to further scrutiny, and perhaps to votes in this place?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises some important points, and he is right. I stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday, speaking about the importance of freight and the work that the Government have done over recent months, and in the run-up to Christmas, to keep freight moving, despite the various border closures that took place. Indeed, that makes my hon. Friend’s point, because we simply cannot have that approach—there are logistical and operational challenges, and the Government are working through many of those.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about changes to guidance and advice across Government, and the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office all play an important role in public communications and assurances regarding countries and any changes that take place. Clearly, the Government will publish that information and come to the House to share it. However, current guidance is clear that people should be staying at home unless they have exceptional reasons to travel. Going on holiday is not a justifiable excuse or reason.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. My Scottish Government colleagues are concerned, as she knows, that her proposals do not go far enough; I would be grateful if she would confirm that she will listen to their representations.

It is, of course, the Home Secretary’s Department’s responsibility to control the United Kingdom’s external borders. Her Department holds the passenger data and the UK Border Force reports to her, so it is right that the Home Secretary should be the one to address the risks raised by the transmission of the virus by arrivals from abroad. I am going to repeat the questions that I asked during the exchanges on yesterday’s urgent question on this same topic, which the Home Secretary did not answer. I hope that, having had 24 hours’ notice to think about my questions and discuss them with her colleagues and advisers, she will now answer them.

In April and May of last year, I wrote to the Home Secretary asking for comprehensive health protections at the UK’s external borders, and I referred to the measures that were being introduced in other countries in Europe and around the world. Other Home Affairs Committee members were making similar requests, backed up by evidence. Last week, the Home Secretary admitted that we were right, and said that she thought that the United Kingdom should have closed its borders earlier, so why did she fail to take precautions that she knew were needed at the start of the pandemic? What stopped her from closing the borders? Was it her Cabinet colleagues? If so, why did she not resign and speak out, given the risk of increased transmission from people entering the country?

Finally, have the Government commissioned an assessment of what contribution the failure to close the borders earlier has made to the dreadful death toll across the United Kingdom? Will the Home Secretary put the results in the public domain? These questions concern not just my constituents and those of my SNP colleagues, but people throughout the four nations, so will she please answer them?

[Priti Patel]

First, I very much repeat what I said yesterday about working with all the devolved Administrations —clearly the Government are doing that, and the right hon. and learned Lady will be well aware of that.

With regard to everyone now going retrospective in thinking that they were the first advocates of bringing in health measures at the border, that was clearly not the case, as I recall from the Select Committee last April—I mentioned that yesterday, too. If I may, I shall reacquaint the right hon. and learned Lady with the measures that were brought in from January 2020: from the minute that self-isolation advice was given by the FCO at the time to the SAGE recommendations on self-isolation for those coming from specific countries; the new regulations and statutory instruments that were brought in on 10 February, with new powers for medical professionals and the police to detain individuals suspected of covid symptoms; the guidance to UK airports; and the travel advice put out by the FCDO—all between February and March.

Self-isolation measures were introduced for specific countries; we introduced mandatory quarantine and the passenger locator form back in June last year; we closed the border to Denmark after the first identification of a new strain—which, of course, we were able to deal with because of our genomic sequencing capacity in the UK; we introduced test and release and the ban on flights from South Africa, which clearly is still in place; and we introduced carrier liability for pre-travel testing.

Each of the measures we have introduced has added another layer of protection against transmission of the virus, and that reduces the risk of dangerous new strains being imported into the UK. The right hon. and learned Lady should reflect on the fact that there is not one single measure that mitigates risk entirely. Every measure that has been brought in helps to reduce risk, protect the vaccine and, importantly, protect the British public and public health.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I agree with the Chairman of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman): with a million British jobs and much of British commerce dependent on aviation, the Government must be right to be taking an evidence-based approach, not a blanket approach.

We all hope we will discover that the new variants are combated just as effectively by the vaccines as the existing variants in this country, but if new countries need to be added to the red list, will the Home Secretary speak urgently to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the support that our aviation sector will need to prevent a massive haemorrhaging of jobs and prospects throughout much of the country?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in speaking of the sector, for which he is a powerful advocate. I know of his constituency interest in respect of Manchester Airports Group and the work that he has conducted with it. There is no question, as I said yesterday—I will emphasise it again—but that the sector is our partner. It is an operational partner with which we work every single day. My colleagues in Border Force, for example, work with the sector.

On new additional lists or travel bans to specific countries, that work is always under review. Alongside that, we continue to work with our operational partners and discuss with them the implications of this. Those discussions will always continue, and Government will always step up in whatever way they can to provide the necessary support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Now we go to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome these measures, but they do not go far enough to deliver a comprehensive system. The Brazil and South Africa variants have been identified across several continents, and in the first wave, less than 1% of new cases came from China. The overwhelming majority came from European countries that the Government said were low risk at the time. May I ask the Home Secretary about the number of people likely still to be arriving who are not covered by quarantine hotels, who do not have to take further tests on arrival, and who will be able to go straight on to the public transport system from Heathrow or wherever they arrive? Can she confirm that that is likely still to be thousands of people each day, and does she think that that is wise?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. First, it is important—and I come back to this point—that every measure that has been introduced across Government has provided degrees of protection; various layers and levels of protection against transmission of the virus. She has heard me say that travel is down 90% compared with this time last year. Travel bans are in place for countries that are red-listed, and that will continue. The announcement today will reduce the number of travelling passengers—I want to emphasise that—because people should simply not be travelling.

Border Force has given me examples, and I will call out some of them. At St Pancras, people have even been turning up with their skis, which is clearly not acceptable. We see plenty of influencers on social media showing off where they are in the world—mainly sunny places. Going on holiday is not an exemption, and it is important that people stay at home.

Regarding the measures that have been announced today and quarantining, the hotel measures and package in particular are under discussion right now, including their application and administration. The right hon. Lady speaks about people getting on to public transport. We want absolutely to reduce the risk of people travelling in that way, so the Government are working through measures right now on how people can travel to hotels and how they will quarantine. I have already spoken about the checks that will be put in place for individuals who are in self-isolation.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Marjorie from Crook got in touch with me today. Like many of my North West Durham constituents, she is fed up with Labour playing politics with coronavirus. The shadow Home Secretary has criticised our border measures before as a “blunt tool”; today, he says that they do not go far enough. It is like some twisted version of “Goldilocks”, where the Government solution is never just right. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Marjorie that it is irresponsible to play politics with coronavirus, and will she ensure that if these measures need to be extended to other countries, that will be done at the earliest opportunity?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree with everything he says about the Opposition’s flip-flopping and their claims. I praise Marjorie for the points that she has made. She speaks for the British public, who are fed up with party politics being played at this critical time. They want to see unity, rather than the type of gripes we are hearing, or the approach of armchair generals in particular.

My hon. Friend asked an important question about rolling out travel bans to other countries. The Government will absolutely not hesitate. If new strains emerge in other countries the Government will take action, which is exactly what Marjorie and the British public would expect.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Many of those who will be caught by these new measures will be travelling as the result of family bereavement and will already have incurred substantial costs, very often at short notice. Can she tell me if there will be some sort of financial assistance available for people of modest means who find themselves in this position at that most difficult of times?

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the exceptional and sad examples of circumstances in which people travel, bereavement being a terrible case. The Government are already in discussions with regard to exemptions, support packages and things of that nature. I am unable to confirm the details right now, because this work is under way, but it is a matter of time before my colleagues notify the House and share further information on that.

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

I very much support and welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of restrictions at our borders as a result of the current health crisis. Would she reassure me that regional airports, such as Southend, will be tasked to strictly enforce those rules, as a number of local residents have expressed concerns that coronavirus infections may be transmitted by arrivals through the airport?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand why he raises the importance of regional airports throughout the pandemic. They have played an important role. All airport operators take responsibility for the way in which they work with us, but also for enforcing coronavirus measures and restrictions, such as social distancing and keeping passengers apart, particularly as they go up to PCPs—primary control points—and then come across Border Force officers. It is absolutely right that airports, who are our operational partners, work with us to take responsibility—that shared responsibility I have spoken about so frequently—in terms of checking with the carriers that the passenger locator form is completed, but also to ensure that they themselves put those protective measures in place to stop the spread of the virus.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

I am very concerned about the continued threat of covid-19 to frontline Border Force staff at Heathrow, as the new draconian fixed-team working rosters have made social distancing difficult at the same time as covid transmission rates have been at their highest. Can the Home Secretary confirm reports that covid-secure bubbles have repeatedly been breached due to understaffing and the new fixed rosters, and specifically outline what assessment she has made of the adequacy of all Border Force staff’s working conditions?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important question. Border Force staff are on the frontline day in, day out trying to protect the public from the spread of the virus. They are doing exceptional work, and yesterday I thanked them for the work they are doing. In terms of measures that are in place to protect them, I am absolutely focused on protecting our Border Force staff. It is absolutely right that that takes place. The head of Border Force and my colleagues across the Border Force team have been working assiduously with all Border Force colleagues, particularly at Heathrow airport, because it is a busy airport as we saw that on Saturday night, when queues formed because we are enforcing 100% compliance checks. With that, of course, I come back to my point about working with Heathrow Airport Ltd on the measures it is putting in place for social distancing, keeping passengers distanced from Border Force staff and, of course, ensuring that my staff are protected. That is my No. 1 priority.

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

I support the proportionate approach my right hon. Friend has adopted, but can she help me in relation to two linked matters? She said that she will be looking urgently at the exceptions. Will she particularly bear in mind the need to make provision for those who may be repatriated for urgent medical treatment? Should the extension—we hope it does not—involve any British overseas territory, will she bear in mind the need for early consultation with them? We hope it never comes to it, but we have medical and other obligations in some cases to them.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cases of medical exemptions and emergencies have always been on the exemption list, and the exemption list is under review right now. Colleagues across all Government Departments are reviewing the exemption list. When changes are made, they will be publicised through the usual channels. Anything that would also affect overseas territories will also be under consideration, and that will also be put in the public domain.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]]

I listened very carefully to the Home Secretary’s earlier answer to the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and she did not answer a rather direct and important question, which she will have estimates for, because this will be a policy based on evidence. How many people does the Home Secretary expect each day to have to go into quarantine in a hotel, and how many people entering the UK each day does she estimate will not have to go into quarantine under these new measures?

[Priti Patel]

First, it is important to recognise that we do have numbers in terms of how many people are coming through our border every single day. These new measures—it is important to put this in context—will bring those numbers even further down. We still have a lot of British nationals who are travelling, and the advice and the guidance are clear that people should not be travelling and should be staying at home. Through the enforcement measures, that will reduce dramatically. The Government are already working out capacity in terms of hotel accommodation in the light of the period of self-isolation that will be required. The Government will happily share those figures with colleagues in due course.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]]

It is absolutely right that the Government take the necessary and appropriate steps to keep our country safe from these new variants of the virus that are emerging around the world, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but she will know that any additional restrictions on travel will further damage the aviation sector, which has been deeply impacted by this pandemic. When businesses in other sectors have been forced to close or are unable to trade because of restrictions, specific financial support has been made available, so will the Home Secretary talk to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor to see what specific support can now be provided for airlines and airports to ensure that they are in a position to help lead our recovery in the future?

[Priti Patel]

I give my hon. Friend every assurance that we are working together across Transport, the Treasury and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the aviation and travel sector. Conversations and discussions are under way. As I said earlier, they are our operational partners. We work collectively with them, so those discussions are under way, and I just give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

How will the quarantine hotels be selected? Will the Home Secretary set a limit on how far such a hotel can be from the arrival airport, so as to minimise risks during transfers, for which I assume she will also be responsible?

[Priti Patel]

With regard to hotels and these measures, as I have already indicated, that work is under way in terms of looking at the procurement of hotels, who the partners are going to be and also further information around them. Government will be setting out over the coming days further information with regard to hotels and the processes around them. As I indicated earlier, discussions on logistical and operational aspects of that work are under way right now, so my colleagues will come back to the House and provide that information.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Protecting the British people quite rightly has to be our priority, so it is right that our border measures have been under constant review since the pandemic began. In the light of today’s announcement, can my right hon. Friend confirm that Border Force and other frontline emergency workers will be given all the support they need to enforce these rules, so that they can keep themselves and the British public safe?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Border Force is doing incredible work on the frontline; I am seeing that and getting reports of that every single day. It is important that its staff stay safe, which is why we have strong measures in place for them. Enforcement, whether it is through policing or the IAS, has been accelerated, along with the checks. The fact of the matter is that we have clear checks: the passenger locator form must be completed, there are fines for non-compliance, and there is a requirement for self-isolation for arrivals. These measures and checks are in place, and they will be increased to protect public health.

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

It has been widely reported that the Home Secretary called for tougher sanctions at the border than these somewhat reduced measures she has announced today. Has she been overruled and undermined yet again?

[Priti Patel]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement and the measures that have been announced. It is important to recognise that every single measure that has been put in place, including a ban on international travel for high-risk countries, is to protect the British public. Those measures, along with all the other measures announced today, are part of the layer of protection to reduce transmission of the virus and reduce the risk of a new, dangerous variant coming into the United Kingdom.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State said that a layered approach has been taken since January last year, but we saw rugby fans coming from Italy, and we saw football fans coming from Spain in early March. Those may not have been identified as dangerous or high-risk countries, but clearly they were. We seem to be shutting the arrivals gate after the virus has bolted. How does she suggest we will identify those nations across the globe where new variants will be developing? Clearly it is not just Brazil and South Africa. People continue to travel around the world.

[Priti Patel]

I mentioned in my statement that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department of Health and Social Care are now supporting other countries around the world when it comes to gene sequencing and genomic testing capabilities, which will help to identify new strains and new variants. That is important, because it is a vital step in the global response, in terms of not just protecting our public here but identifying new and dangerous strains that could go around the world and then come to the UK.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I welcome the proportionate nature of the Home Secretary’s statement. May I take her back to the question I asked her during the urgent question yesterday? Given that these measures are to deal with the risk of a new strain of the virus coming to the United Kingdom that might not be susceptible to the vaccine, and given that the UK chief scientific adviser said that the virus will be with us forever, is this a permanent regime, with countries being added to and taken off the red list as appropriate? If it is not permanent, what is the trigger for removing it in the future?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend asks a very important question. In terms of permanency, we are living with this virus; that is a fact. In better news, we are just weeks away from seeing people who have had the vaccine develop immunity, so circumstances are changing. We have known throughout this situation that things change, so we keep all our measures under review—whether it is changes to travel bans for specific countries or other measures, they will always be under review. The Government will not hesitate to take measures when it comes to preventing a new strain from coming to the United Kingdom once it has been identified and making sure that we take the right measures to protect the public. As I have said a number of times, at every stage we will keep the House informed and, importantly, we will make sure that advice is communicated to the British public, so that when things change, including at the border, they are kept informed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]]

Last week, the Home Secretary told a private meeting of Conservative party members that she was calling for borders to be closed back in March 2020. If it was right then, it must apply even more so in the face of this new variant. So can she reassure the House that she has told her Cabinet colleagues that the measures that she has announced today are sufficient to protect our borders and prevent a new variant from entering the country?

[Priti Patel]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier that there is no single measure that mitigates risk or eradicates risk entirely. I think that is a really important point to emphasise. Every aspect, every measure that has been brought into place, since January last year and more recently, has helped to reduce the risk of the spread of coronavirus and protect our world-leading vaccine programme. These measures today, within the context of the vaccine that we have—measures to protect the public—are absolutely the right measures. Of course, as I have said throughout, I appreciate that his party may want to write their own history on their positions on measures at the border and action on coronavirus, but the fact of the matter is they have been wrong throughout.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]]

While I recognise the negative impact on businesses and individuals, I give my right hon. Friend my full support on these proposals and I am confident that that would be the overwhelming view of my constituents. Could I turn to those people who will be resident in hotels? Clearly, there will be an element of contact between them, however well policed it is. Could she give an assurance that there will be appropriate measures in place to limit mixing to the absolute minimum?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right because it is social contact—contact with people—that spreads this virus, which is why the measures in place, but also the current advice with lockdown, are to stay at home and not to travel. I just want to restate: we are working quickly across Government right now—across the whole of Government—with the industry and with partners and organisations within the sector to bring in these new measures and work on the hotel package. Of course, further detail will be put out in due course.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]]

Last month, the World Health Organisation and the EU Transport Commissioner censured France for its border closures, which disrupted vital food, medicine and other goods, as well as causing Christmas chaos at the door of the Dover border. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK’s proportionate public health border measures continue to exempt hauliers in line with recommended international practice during the pandemic, and will she join me in calling on France to follow the UK’s lead and remove unnecessary trade restrictions on the Dover-Calais route?

[Priti Patel]

That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend, like me, will recognise the incredible work that took place in December, and actually is still taking place when it comes to testing road hauliers to allow the flow of goods and freight, which is incredibly important. She is also right about the position of the World Health Organisation and the EU Transport Commissioner, because it is that proportionality approach that is required when it comes to the flow of goods. We have good international practice behind us now, which is something that should be commended, but also something that should be shared with other countries.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]]

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) wrote to the Home Secretary last April raising concerns about passengers entering the UK via airports without health checks or quarantining. Five weeks later, the Home Secretary replied to her stating that, in her view, 8 June was the right time to introduce a requirement on passengers to self-isolate for 14 days, that they could be contacted to ensure compliance, and that any breach of compliance was punishable with a £1,000 fine. Can she update the House: how many £1,000 fines were issued as a result of this, and does she regret her role in the Government’s dithering over quarantine while covid accessed our communities through airports?

[Priti Patel]

On Government health measures at the border, the hon. Gentleman will be very clear—I suggest that he reads my statement yesterday and the points that were made then—on the measures that have been brought in since January last year. The dithering is on his side in terms of actually reflecting the work that has been undertaken. On checks at the border, Border Force has checked over 3.7 million passengers and, specifically with regard to fixed penalty notices, thousands of FPNs have been issued; fines have been issued as well. As I have said repeatedly, Border Force is now enforcing 100% checks on passengers, which is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]]

As the Home Secretary knows, more than 8,000 people entered the UK last year by crossing the channel in small vessels in order to claim asylum when they arrived. Will she say what impact her statement today will have on the system for managing quarantine for people who arrive and enter the asylum system? Given the recent major outbreak of coronavirus at Napier barracks in Folkestone, where many have been accommodated, will she confirm that the Home Office is working to reduce the number of asylum claimants at Napier and that there will be no new people arriving until the covid outbreak is under control?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of clandestine entry. First of all, rules will apply, and testing will apply, to everyone with regard to illegal entry to the United Kingdom and those seeking to claim asylum, although our policy is clear: they should be claiming asylum in the first safe country, not risking their lives by travelling by small boat or illegally being trafficked by people traffickers.

Secondly, with regard to Napier, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have covid-compliant measures in place already, in line with Public Health England. I commend our partner, Kent County Council, for the work that it is doing with us on safeguarding people at Napier, and we are going to enhance our measures even further to prevent the spread of coronavirus and protect public health. I give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I am very happy to speak to him further if he has any other questions that he would like to raise with me about Napier.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

In the week when we have counted 100,000 dead, the Home Secretary’s announcement is, of course, welcome—better late than never—but these measures will not work without 100% compliance with isolation. Currently, only one in five people asked to self-isolate in the UK does so. Evidence that we have examined in the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus shows clearly that carrots are often very much more effective than sticks when it comes to such measures, so does she agree that if the Government ensured that there was no loss of earnings from isolation, as other countries do, that might help improve compliance with self-isolation and so cut those chains of transmission?

[Priti Patel]

It is important to put this into the context of travel and the measures and checks that we have put in place around compliance. I have already stated that Border Force is undertaking 100% checks at PCPs. Also, when it comes to carriers, there is now a carrier liability measure in place; they have that burden, and they will be given a fine if they do not check their travellers before they get on their planes, in particular. These are stringent measures with significant penalties and significant fines in place, and the carriers, which are also operational partners that we work with, are very clear about that. However, the hon. Lady is right about self-isolation. Self-isolation must take place, and that is why across Government—not just the Home Office but health and the isolation assurance service, along with the police—we are working collaboratively across the board to ensure that those measures are being adhered to and enforced.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. On the draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021, the Ayes were 553 and the Noes were 2, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Point of Order

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

15:40

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 10 December, when responding to my question on a recent Information Commissioner’s Office report into political parties’ data collection, the Minister for Media and Data, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), claimed that, when the Conservative party collected the personal data of more than 10 million people based on their race and religion,

“the Information Commissioner…did not find that any breaches of the law had occurred.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 978.]

He repeated a version of that claim when appearing before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, the Information Commissioner appeared before that Committee yesterday and confirmed to me that the Conservative party had acted illegally—indeed, she had required the party to delete the data that it had illegally collected.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be mortified to learn that he has inadvertently misled the House on this important matter. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether he could be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his false claim and commit that the Conservative party will not conduct illegal racial and religious profiling in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order and for confirming to me that he has also given notice of his intention to raise this matter to the Minister concerned, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).

I can answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. In general terms, I can certainly confirm that, in the event that the answer that a Minister has given here in the Chamber transpires to be, for some reason, inaccurate, that Minister should, of course, correct the record at the earliest opportunity. But the hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that it is not, of course, for the Chair to adjudicate on whether that general injunction applies in any particular instance; I cannot confirm whether or not it applies in this instance.

However, I am quite certain that, if the right hon. Member for Maldon has inadvertently said something in the House that has transpired to be inaccurate, he will take the opportunity to correct the record as soon as possible. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter.

To allow the Chamber to be prepared for the next item of business, I will now suspend the House for three minutes.

15:42

Sitting suspended.

Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers)

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

15:46

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a Minister to give make an oral statement to Parliament if a contract is awarded under emergency statutory powers to a person in whom, or a company in which, a Minister has a personal, political or financial interest.

Today, I present an important Bill, which would help safeguard against the risk of procurement corruption and restore some trust in the integrity of our democratic processes at a time when that trust has been rocked to the core. Anyone in public office should be there to serve the public good, not to exploit their position to line the pockets of themselves, their pals, or their party donors. Yet during this crisis we have seen lucrative contracts go to firms with little experience in public procurement, but with very clear links to people in power. Issues with cronyism are not new, but there has been nothing of this scale before, nothing so blatantly disregarding due process. It could be said that a crony virus is threatening the health of our public services and emergency action is needed to get the Government under control.

I fully understand that there was a need to procure goods at a scale and speed never done before when the pandemic struck, so the usual processes to ensure best value for the public purse had to be set aside. But to many, it looks suspiciously like the emergency has been used as a catch-all excuse by this Government to bypass due process at every turn. The National Audit Office reported that a staggering £10 billion-worth of contracts had been awarded without competition by the end of July last year and more than a few of them have raised eyebrows. There are serious questions to be answered about why politically connected and relatively new companies with no track record in procurement were among those awarded contracts to supply our NHS.

To give just a few examples, the Good Law Project reports that, within two weeks of inviting tenders in March last year, the Government had 24,000 offers from 16,000 suppliers, many of whom had a wealth of experience in providing personal protective equipment for healthcare professionals. Yet three of the biggest beneficiaries of Government contract awards were a Florida-based jewellery company, with no experience of supplying PPE, a tiny vermin control operation called PestFix, valued at just £19,000, and an opaque family office owned through a tax haven, Ayanda Capital, whose senior adviser, also by chance, had a role on the Board of Trade. To make matters worse, 50 million masks purchased from Ayanda failed to meet NHS specifications and were never able to be used. Then, as reported in The Guardian, there was the awarding of a £30 million contract to the Health Secretary’s former neighbour, who used to run a local pub in his constituency, after an initial conversation over WhatsApp. Now he may well be the best person for that role, but without greater scrutiny and clarity it is no wonder that questions are raised about the legitimacy of such deals.

In many ways, we could be forgiven for thinking that being a donor to the Tory party must carry an inherent specialism on delivering covid contracts, as Tory donors have really done very well out of this crisis. Millions have been awarded to firms such as Globus (Shetland), which donated £400,000 to the Conservatives, or P14 Medical, owned by a Conservative councillor. Those issues and details are public only thanks to the efforts of many public-spirited citizens, academics, legal experts and investigative journalists, who are working so hard to shine a light on what is going on in the murky corridors, such as Byline Times, openDemocracy, Transparency International UK and the Good Law Project.

There are many more examples that deserve far greater time and scrutiny than I could give today as I present the Bill, so I look forward to its passing for a Second Reading, so that there is a chance for further debate and more hon. Members have the chance to have their say on the issue. In the full light of day, it may well be a scandal to rival or even surpass the MP expenses scandal, but even if it is not we should at least get the regulations in order to prevent any suggestion of corruption setting in. When processes to protect the public purse and ensure fairness are stripped away, it leaves open the clear risk of unscrupulous individuals exploiting the system for private gain, so it is important that the Government do all that they can to mitigate those risks. Instead, sadly, they seem to have revelled in the freedom to bypass due process.

The need for greater scrutiny is clear. The anti-corruption organisation Transparency International UK has been looking at the publicly available contract data since February last year, and found that at least 68 contracts, worth over £3 billion of public money, deserve further investigation. The Department of Health and Social Care awarded 57 of those contracts, 47 of which were for personal protective equipment, totalling £2.1 billion. It was found that 17 of those, worth just under £1 billion, relate to companies with political connections. There is no public record to tell us which of them were referred via the high priority VIP lane, which the Government set up to allow suppliers with links to politicians and senior officials to pitch directly. The criteria for that are not clear, and its existence was not mentioned in the Cabinet Office guidance note. In fact, we know about VIP lanes only as a result of the report from the National Audit Office.

We do know, though, that the mysterious VIP lane was the best bet for getting a contract. One in 10 offers were successful compared with just 0.7% through the normal channels. It is simply appalling that, while underpaid frontline staff struggle, billions of pounds in public contracts seem to be handed out like sweeties to people with friends in high places. People with questionable experience but unquestionable links to power were fast-tracked towards big money deals to supply lifesaving equipment, without competition, behind closed doors and often producing faulty or substandard goods.

Meanwhile, those with a track record in public procurement or an expertise in NHS supplies, but who do not happen to rub shoulders with the right people, have struggled to get a toe in the door. It seems to be much more about who they know than what they know. There should be absolutely no question mark about the motivation behind covid-19 contracts. It cuts to the heart of how a Government operate and what their priorities are. Either it is in the best interests of the public, or it is in the interests of lining the pockets of their pals. All of us will pay for these contracts through our taxes for years to come, and tragically some have paid with their lives for PPE mistakes. The Government must be held to account for the decisions that they have taken.

The great thing about the Bill is that if the right people and companies are getting the jobs it should put an end to any question marks hanging over the decision-making process—something that surely the Government would welcome. It is about Ministers having to answer in Parliament for their reasoning—taking back control. They will have a chance to convince us that it is a mere coincidence that a contract has been given to an old school chum, the local pub landlord, a colleague’s wife, a Tory donor, or perhaps even a Vote Leave campaign colleague. If they are the best person for the job, it should be clear from their credentials, skills and record. There is nothing to fear from the Bill if there is nothing to hide. Indeed, I imagine the Government will want to seize the opportunity to put this simple measure into law. Given the damage being done to public trust, they will be keen to help to set the record straight and show that there is nothing shifty going on.

For the moment, these contracts look like public scandals being hidden in an overgrown, privileged public schoolboy arena. Those of us asking inconvenient questions are not going away. Of course, much more needs to be done to improve transparency over public contracts, both during and after the emergency. The UK is well behind the curve internationally on this front, but declaring ministerial interests is one simple, important and effective step we could take now, with no cost, to enshrine greater accountability in law. I very much welcome the cross-party support that this proposal has received, from every single party in this place except the governing one. This is a chance for us to restore some badly bruised faith in democracy, and bring back the principles of accountability, public service, and public good and fairness for all. I urge the House to back this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Owen Thompson, Dan Carden, Deidre Brock, Liz Saville Roberts, Wendy Chamberlain, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Farry, Claire Hanna, Jim Shannon, Patrick Grady, Alyn Smith and Richard Thomson present the Bill.

Owen Thompson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 247).

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (Programme) (NO.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5 October 2020 (Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments.

Clause 1

Authorisation of Criminal Conduct

15:57

[The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 5, and Government amendment (b) thereto.

Lords amendments 6 to 14.

[The Solicitor General]

This Bill is an important piece of legislation that places a long-standing tactic on a clear and consistent statutory basis. It provides certainty for those who engage in important and dangerous operations on our behalf that they are able to utilise the tools needed to keep us safe and prevent crime. It also rightly provides assurance to the men and women who may find themselves in risky and dangerous situations in order to provide vital intelligence that the state will not prosecute them for activity that the state has asked them to commit.

Since March 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism police have together thwarted 28 terror attacks, a figure that is higher than that which the Government provided on Second Reading a few months ago. As the director general of MI5 said when this Bill was first introduced:

“Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt, many of these attacks would not have been prevented”.

There is a real threat out there, and it is critical that our partners have the tools they need to stop it.

I thank the other place for its detailed and thoughtful debate on this legislation. The other place considered the Bill at length, and has brought forward several amendments to it, which I will now speak to in turn. However, I will first take the opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is the Bill Minister on this legislation and has taken a typically collaborative and thoughtful approach to it. I think I can say on behalf of the whole House that we wish James all the best for a speedy recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Lords amendment 1 introduces the requirement that an authorising officer must “reasonably” believe that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. The Government cannot support this amendment because it is both unnecessary and risks creating inconsistency, thereby casting legal doubt on the position in other legislation.

16:00

As I previously confirmed in this House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General, it is indeed the case that the belief of an authorising officer should be reasonable. That is, as it were, axiomatic. The revised code of practice confirms this and, in response to concerns raised in the other place, it was further amended to make that clear.

The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment, as it creates problematic inconsistency with the position in other legislation. For example, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the belief of an authorising officer that an authorisation for the general use and conduct of a covert human intelligence source is necessary and proportionate must be reasonable. Section 29 of that Act simply states that there must be a belief, but it does not use the word “reasonable”. If the word “reasonable” were to be added before the word “belief” in this Bill, it would cast into doubt whether the belief must be reasonable where it is not specified elsewhere.

However, I make it clear that the legal position is already that the belief must be reasonable, as a matter of public law. I say that clearly from the Dispatch Box, as I have done before in answer to a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, the former Attorney General. That is why we cannot support Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 2 places express limits on the conduct that can be authorised under the Bill. This House has already discussed the issue in some detail, but I will reiterate the reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. First, the limits on what could be authorised under the Bill are provided by the requirement that any authorisation must be necessary and proportionate, and must comply with the Human Rights Act. Any authorisation that is not compliant with the Human Rights Act would be unlawful, and nothing in this Bill seeks to undermine the important protections in that Act.

However, were we to place explicit limits on the face of the Bill, it would create a risk to the operational tactics involved and, I might add, to the safety of the covert human intelligence source and the general public at large. This assessment has been put to the Government explicitly by operational partners—the people who are actually operating these tactics. The decisions we have made throughout this Bill, particularly on this issue, are based entirely on the reality that our operational partners have experienced in the field, and that is what they are telling us.

By creating a checklist on the face of the Bill, Lords amendment 2 makes it very easy for criminal gangs and others to develop initiation tests. It will certainly be the case that some criminals, in seeking to demonstrate that they are not a covert human intelligence source, will go away and do what is asked of them, and perhaps even commit rape or another serious offence to demonstrate their loyalty to the cause and prove, as it were, that they are not a CHIS—a covert source. Those who do not will instead risk the consequences of wrongly being thought to be a source. Of course, that does not mean that if a covert human intelligence source were asked to commit any crime as part of an initiation process, they could do so, not least because the Human Rights Act 1998 and the test of necessity and proportionality already provide limits. It is not as though there are no limits, because the Human Rights Act and the test of necessity and proportionality provide those limits; it is simply that we need to avoid presenting criminals and criminal gangs with a means to test those people they suspect are agents. The consequence of presenting such a checklist would be felt ultimately by the public, because this tactic will not be able to be deployed to the same degree, and so more successful crimes, terrorist attacks and serious crimes would be committed.

Amendment 3 seeks to confirm that a person who is, at present, able to access the criminal injuries compensation scheme will be unaffected in their ability to access it because of this Bill. As I have outlined, it is dangerous to get into a discussion of the limits of conduct of our operational sources—those that can be authorised—but I will say that, in practice, the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is unaffected by the Bill, and the amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 4 deals with the safeguards in place for the rare occasions when a juvenile is authorised to participate in criminal conduct. It also deals with the authorisation of vulnerable adults. I recognise that this is an important and emotive issue. None of us likes to contemplate a juvenile being involved in criminal activity. I understand and respect the honourable motivation behind these concerns; it is, no doubt, a desire to protect young people, and Her Majesty’s Government also have that motivation. The Bill does not seek to give public authorities new powers to authorise juveniles as covert human intelligence sources; it simply creates a clear and consistent legal basis for the authorisation of a covert human intelligence source to participate in criminal conduct where that is necessary and proportionate. The Bill also introduces increased safeguards from those that existed before, such as the requirement for all authorisations to be notified to the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner in close to real time.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

On juveniles, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct that the Bill does not give authorisation to allow for CHIS, because it happens already under the CHIS code of practice, which is also legally enforceable under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000. Given some of the concerns that people rightly have, would it not help to put that into the Bill?

[The Solicitor General]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, as he very often does. The issue with putting the code of conduct into the Bill is, in part, that the code of conduct is, I think, hundreds of pages long. There are also issues of precedent in terms of codes of practice and codes of conduct elsewhere. However, I will give careful consideration to what he says and hope to come back to it.

Juveniles are authorised as covert human intelligence sources only in exceptional circumstances. There are significant additional safeguards in place for these authorisations, including authorisation that must be given by a more senior-level officer, an enhanced risk assessment process, and a shorter authorisation of only four months, with reviews of that authorisation having to take place at least monthly. Several safeguards will be in place, over and above, in respect of juveniles. There is also a requirement that an appropriate adult would be present in any discussions between the handlers and a young person under 16 years of age, and a rebuttable presumption that this is the case for 16 and 17-year-olds. Let me be clear on this point: the presumption is that an appropriate adult will be in place for meetings with 16 and 17-year-olds. That is the default position, if I can put it that way. If the public authority deems that it is necessary to derogate from that position, the rationale detailing the reasons why should be documented and then considered by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The commissioner confirmed that, in practice, juveniles are not tasked to participate in criminality that they are not already involved in.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy—Mr Deputy Speaker. Forgive me—a slip of the tongue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As always.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me—I am on my knees.

Having done this sort of thing, albeit in a relatively minor way, I want to clarify one thing. Often, information was given to people who were doing this kind of work in the field by juveniles. That does not make the juvenile a source. That information can still obviously be passed on, but clearly there are restrictions on using that juvenile in future. However, the information given by juveniles certainly must not be stopped.

[The Solicitor General]

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend makes a very powerful point by dint of his experience in these matters, and in a moment I will give an example that he might find interesting on that exact point. As I said, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner confirmed that, in practice, juveniles are not tasked to participate in criminality that they are not already involved in. The commissioner also noted that decisions to authorise were only made when that was the best option for breaking the cycle of crime and danger for the young person involved.

To demonstrate how authorisations for juvenile covert human intelligence sources are managed in reality by the police, let me give an example that can also be found in the IPC’s most recent annual report:

“In one…case, a juvenile was carrying out activity on behalf of a ‘county line’ drug supply group”—

a gang. The juvenile owed money to the gang. He or she

“approached the police wishing to provide information. A referral under the Modern Slavery Act was made by the police and a care plan was drawn up with Children’s Services, including relocating the juvenile and finding them a training course. Once this had been done, as an authorised CHIS, the juvenile was able to provide intelligence to the police regarding the ‘county line’ crime group.”

That is a particularly instructive example of the sort of circumstances in which that can apply.

Lords amendment 4 seeks to add further safeguards for the authorisation of juveniles and vulnerable adults when they are granted a criminal conduct authorisation. While the Government recognise the spirit of these amendments, Lords amendment 4 as drafted creates operational issues. For example, the amendment defines exceptional circumstances as

“where all other methods to gain information have been exhausted”.

That requirement has a tendency to risk the workability of the power and, crucially, the safety of the juvenile because there may be occasions, in the cut and thrust of these things, where there are other ways to gain the information, but those other ways may not be the safest way to extricate the juvenile from the situation that he or she finds themselves in and to lead to the best outcome for the juvenile involved. The words in the amendment are too prescriptive and creative operational and workability issues.

16:15

Similarly, the requirement for an appropriate adult to be present in all meetings with all vulnerable adults risks unintended consequences. The definition of a “vulnerable individual” in our legislation in this country is deliberately quite broad, to ensure that the additional safeguards apply to a wide group of people. Let me confirm that it includes victims of modern slavery. It is not clear, however, who could be approached to be an appropriate adult for all vulnerable individuals, bearing in mind, as I know the House will want to do, the duty of care that a public authority, be it the police or any other public authority, has to protect the identity of the CHIS—the covert human intelligence source. The fact is that these individuals may not have a parent, guardian or other person who is responsible for their welfare. So widening the number of people who are aware that a person is a CHIS is undesirable, to say the least, and it increases the risk of disclosure of their identity.

However, the Government are listening and I am listening. The Government are continuing to listen to the views of Parliament on this issue. I thank, in particular, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her detailed engagement on it, as well as colleagues on the Government Benches behind me. The Government recognise and agree with the spirit of the amendments, understanding the motivation behind them. I commit to continuing to work with parliamentarians in advance of the Bill returning to the other place. Her Majesty’s Government are willing to provide further additional safeguards on the authorisation of any juvenile or vulnerable adult, but Members of this honourable House will, I hope, agree that in doing so we need to get the right balance. We have to have the right balance to ensure that the result of the terminology here does not unwittingly create an unintended consequence for the safety of the CHIS or for the operational workability of this important tactic.

Lords amendment 5 would add further independent oversight to the authorisation process. Both this House and the other place considered and voted on the issue of prior judicial approval, and both Houses voted against that, recognising the operational challenge it would have created. The Government do, however, recognise the need for confidence as to the oversight process for this important power. As such, we supported amendments from Lord Anderson of Ipswich in the other place which require all authorisations to be notified to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable, and within seven days. That will provide the IPC with real-time oversight of every authorisation. So the Government are bringing back an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 5 that retains the notification process but removes the power of the commissioner to cancel an authorisation and stop activity. The cancellation provision to Lords amendment 5 rendered the notification process unworkable. Although this House should be in no doubt as to the seriousness with which public authorities hold the views of the IPC and the strong collaborative nature of their interactions to resolve any issues, the authorising officer has to be, and is, best placed to consider not only the necessity and proportionality of an authorisation, but the live operational environment and the safety of that CHIS. It has to be the authorising officer who has that responsibility. On the extremely rare occasions where a judicial commissioner may find issue with an authorisation, the public authority will consult with the commissioner and may indeed stop, or not commence, the activity that they planned to commence. However, this should not be at the expense of the safety of the CHIS. We think, therefore, that the existing process of close collaboration to agree a way to resolve outstanding issues is the right approach.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome what the Minister has said, but would that information be contained in the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner?

[The Solicitor General]

That is a perfectly reasonable question, but I cannot speak to what might feature in the report of the Commissioner. However, there has been a clear indication from looking at previous reports that he has been as full and frank in his reports as one might expect in the circumstances. I think that is all I can say about what might feature in his reports.

The remaining amendments are either consequential on those discussed or they carve out devolved activity in Scotland. The Government have engaged extensively with the Scottish Government on this legislation, and we are disappointed that we have had to bring forward these amendments, but we do so in respect of the Sewel convention. The Scottish Government were unwilling to recommend legislative consent, despite movement from the UK Government on several issues, as they are requiring express limits on the face of the Bill. As I have mentioned, the Government’s approach to this is driven solely by the advice that we are getting from our operational partners—the people at the coalface, the brave men and women who are doing the job—and I note that operational partners from all parts of this kingdom have advised of the risks to covert human intelligence sources and to the general public of this approach. So it will now be for the Scottish Government to bring forward their own legislation if they wish to place devolved activity on an express statutory basis. I hope and expect that, like the Government, they will strongly follow the advice of their operational partners to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom retain access to a workable form of this vital tactic.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with the Minister on this point, but can he clarify whether the non-adoption of this in Scotland will affect the operational impact on, for example, MI5? I understand that that is a national jurisdiction, and not controlled by Scotland.

[The Solicitor General]

What I can say is that the Scottish Government will need to bring forward their own legislation if they wish to place devolved activity on an express statutory basis.

I hope I have outlined in some detail the issues and amendments that the House needs to consider today. The Government have shown a willingness to compromise on the Bill where that helps to reassure Parliament, but only where it does not threaten the operation of this critical tool that prevents crime and saves lives.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Initially, I will not be putting a time limit on Back-Bench contributions, but if Members could be concise, that would be welcome.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Solicitor General, but I am sure he will understand when I say that I would much prefer to have been following the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). We wish him well, and I want to thank him for his engagement with me and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), on the progress of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to colleagues in the other place who have shown their customary high standards of diligence and ensured that the Bill contains some robust and vital checks. It returns to us in substantially better shape than when it left us.

As I have said throughout the Bill’s passage, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has made it clear that security is a top priority for the Labour party. Under his leadership and that of the shadow Home Secretary, we will support a robust policy in fighting terrorism and crime in all its forms. We consider it our first responsibility to keep this country, its citizens and our community safe. We are, of course, grateful to those in the police, the security services and wider law enforcement who put their own safety and lives at risk to protect us, and we will meet our duty to support them.

It is the responsibility of Members of Parliament to ensure that there is a system in place that allows our law enforcement to uncover, disrupt and ultimately bring to justice illegal and dangerous activity that threatens the safety and security of the British people. The Solicitor General reminded us of the sobering context of this debate, given the number of terror plots that have been disrupted. The latest figures show that in the last year alone covert human intelligence sources foiled 30 threats to life. It is therefore right that, finally, we should put on a statutory footing the activity of those who work to disrupt some of the vilest crimes imaginable. It is vital that through this process, in creating a statutory framework for the operation of the CHIS, we seek to make sure that there are formal checks, balances and safeguards that ensure that the Bill is fair and protects those who work under its jurisdiction, as well as innocent parties who may be affected by their activity.

Lords amendment 1 was proposed by Cross-Bench peers, and it seeks to ensure a fair and reasonable frame- work for those making an authorisation. It adds the word, “reasonably” so that, with an order to grant an authorisation, the person authorising would need reasonably to believe that it was necessary and proportionate. Without confusing the House with the use of too many “reasonables”, that would seem eminently reasonable. When dealing with sensitive matters of this nature, that places trust in those authorising the activity required, but ensures that their judgment is guided by the parameters of what is deemed appropriate or reasonable.

Lords amendment 2 progresses an amendment that we tabled in the Commons on Report, and which has received support in both Houses. It adds so-called Canada-style limitations to the Bill, including on death, grievous bodily harm, perverting the course of justice, sexual offences, torture and the deprivation of liberty. The Solicitor General has sought to assure us that the Bill is explicit about the fact that the Human Rights Act is applicable in all circumstances, but there is merit at least in exploring the setting-out of specific limitations on the Bill for the sake of clarity and reassurance. Like him, I do not want to see circumstances in which these horrendous offences are set as a test for the CHIS in the field—I know that that view is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—but if countries that are our allies, with similar criminal justice systems and with whom we co-operate on security matters, can do this, the Government need to set out a little more forcefully why we should not.

Lords amendment 3 builds on amendments that we introduced in the Commons, and ensures that victims of violent crime in particular are not ineligible for criminal injuries compensation by virtue of the fact that the crime was the subject of a criminal conduct authorisation. We heard many powerful arguments for the amendment during the passage of the Bill. It is vital that, as well as clarifying permissible action for agents working to keep us safe, the Bill ensures that victims are properly protected and can seek redress and compensation if those boundaries are broken. The amendment would ensure that victims can seek adequate redress from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. All victims deserve an unimpeded pass to attaining justice. Despite the unique and rare circumstances of what we are discussing, the provision none the less protects victims of any criminal acts with proper and due process.

Lords amendment 4 makes a change to the Bill that would ensure an authorisation involving children and vulnerable people could be authorised only in exceptional circumstances. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), as the Solicitor General has done, for her strong campaigning, along with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), other Government Members and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, who has taken part in intensive discussions and lobbied on these incredibly important matters.

The amendment has also been supported by the Children’s Commissioner, because it provides the necessary safeguards. The Children’s Society urged the Government to look at the complex interrelationships between different forms of exploitation and abuse, and suggested that they need to be properly considered in policy, policing and child protection. The anomaly that would see 16 and 17-year-olds treated differently if they commit a criminal offence of their own volition, rather than one they are instructed to commit as CHIS, needs to be addressed. I hope the Government listen to the concerns of Parliament, as the Solicitor General outlined, and to those of experts, children’s advocates and wider civil society on this issue.

16:30

We also welcome Lords amendment 5, which we pushed for in this place on Report, which sets out that people granted criminal conduct authorisations must inform a judicial commissioner within seven days of the granting of the authorisation. That is vital to ensuring the immediate accountability of the authorisation and to enabling the commissioner to undertake proper scrutiny of decisions. There should be no reason why authorisation cannot be registered within that timeframe, and the amendment provides a clear and efficient process of record. It is right that, if a judicial commissioner thinks upon notification that the authority should not have been authorised, those activities cease forthwith. I am glad that the Government have noted that proposal and amendment—again, it was something that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary raised on Second Reading. It gives necessary transparency to the process, and further assurances on the necessity and proportionality of what is being authorised.

Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 builds on that spirit of oversight by ensuring criminal conduct authorisations may not take place until a warrant has first been issued by a judicial commissioner. We very much appreciate the fast pace at which developments move in an operational sense. However, I think it is similarly important to recognise that in many areas of law we have judges available 24 hours a day to give judgments on urgent matters and emergencies. Such prior judicial oversight in this process would provide even higher standards and additional reassurances, while having minimal impact operationally.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is welcome that, under new management in the Labour party, the country can probably rest assured that after an interlude the Labour party have returned to the attitude that prevailed under the Blair and Brown leaderships and can be trusted on security issues. I hope therefore, in that spirit of bipartisanship, the Labour party will think carefully about dividing the House and recognise that many of the arguments promoted by the Solicitor General actually made a lot of sense. We might put our agents’ lives at risk if we were to set limits on what could be authorised, so I hope the hon. Gentleman can give me a reassuring reply on that.

[Conor McGinn]

I think I might put the first part of what the right hon. Gentleman said on my election leaflets the next time around. On the second part of what he said, I respect entirely the point he made. I listened carefully to the Solicitor General and I will explain in my conclusion our approach to the Bill, which I think has been one where we have sought to co-operate, given its serious and sensitive nature. We rightly and understandably wanted to scrutinise the Bill in its entirety and would seek to improve it were we in the position of introducing it. I hope that will make sense in the next few minutes.

Before I come to that conclusion, let me say that it is unfortunate and disappointing that the Government and the Scottish Government have not been able to reach an agreement. We encouraged those discussions from the outset to ensure that the Bill covered the entirety of the United Kingdom. Even at this late stage, I urge them to work together, because it is important that the public in Scotland have confidence not only that their safety and security is protected, but that they have the safeguards that other parts of the United Kingdom will have, too.

In conclusion, we feel that the Bill has been improved by the amendments. It is not perfect—far from it—but it does provide an important legal framework for activity that previously operated with none. We recognise that it provides formal safeguards and protections for those who operate in this field at this precise moment and who seek to keep us all safe. It provides clarity and guidance for those who have to make difficult decisions in the interests of law enforcement in areas of serious and highly organised terrorism and crime, and it provides protection and the potential for recompense for those who may be adversely affected.

As I have said before, this is uncomfortable territory for the whole House and for many of us personally. It covers activity that operates, frankly, in the shadows, tackling serious and deadly crime and some of the most heinous and awful offences imaginable. The Opposition are committed to working in the national interest to keep people, their families, our communities and the country safe. We know that it is not just the Government who have to make difficult decisions to do this but us as well. I want to be clear: we would and will put forward a different Bill with the safeguards we have outlined at its heart. But when it comes to national security and keeping the public safe, we are not prepared to allow these matters to remain outside parliamentary scrutiny and without any statutory footing. We have a duty to the public and to those who keep us safe.

We acknowledge the importance of putting CHIS activities on a statutory footing, and we have unapologetically worked to scrutinise robustly and responsibly the way in which that is done. We have hopefully ensured some vital safeguards, accountability and protections, and we will continue, as always, to place national security, human rights and support for victims at the centre of our approach to these matters.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I entirely endorse the tributes and good wishes paid by the Solicitor General and the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). His professionalism, calmness and dedication as Security Minister and in other roles are a model for us all. We admire him greatly and wish him the best of health.

Despite extraordinary technical advances in surveillance and espionage methods, human sources in intelligence operations remain indispensable, especially in the counter-terrorist work of our Security Service. Going undercover to join terrorist groups or remaining in a terrorist group, having become disillusioned with its objectives, in order to frustrate them, calls for courage of the highest order. The Intelligence and Security Committee has been briefed by MI5 on specific instances of this, and we accept that, without the use of covert human intelligence sources, many of the attacks foiled in recent years would have succeeded in their horrific aims. That is what justifies the authorisation of specified criminal acts, on occasion, in order to maintain an agent’s cover and in proportion to the potential harm that he or she is working to prevent.

As pointed out on Second Reading on 5 October, the report on Northern Ireland-related terrorism compiled by our predecessor Committee and presented to Parliament that same day firmly concluded at paragraph 39:

“While there are, rightly, concerns that criminal activity may somehow be being legitimised, the need for such authorisations is clear. What is key is that authorisations are properly circumscribed, used only when necessary and proportionate, and subject to proper scrutiny.”

Precisely because covert human intelligence sources are so effective, ruthless terrorist organisations have no qualms in devising tests of the utmost depravity to flush out agents infiltrating their ranks. That is why the provisions of Lords amendment 2 to prohibit the granting of criminal conduct authorisations, or CCAs, are certain to be as counterproductive as they are well-intentioned.

What the amendment proposes, if enacted, would soon come to constitute a checklist of atrocities that could be used to expose undercover agents known to be forbidden from carrying them out. As sure as night follows day, it would also increase the number of such atrocities committed. In order to flush out MI5 agents by putting suspects to the test, paranoid extremists would resort to testing more and more of their group members, if they felt that their organisation was coming under pressure and suffering setbacks.

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

My right hon. Friend does great service to this House and the Committee. Given what he has just said, does he believe that these terrorists are unable to read the Human Rights Act?

[Dr Lewis]

I have the advantage of having been present when my right hon. Friend made that very point on Second Reading, and therefore I was entirely prepared for that intervention. I will give a response that is perhaps slightly unorthodox, despite the emphasis put on the Human Rights Act by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General.

In my previous role as Chair of the Defence Committee, it became more and more obvious that the Human Rights Act, and the European convention on human rights, had had serious, and perhaps largely unanticipated, adverse consequences for the operations of our military. I suspect that if applied too literally, they would have equally adverse effects on the operations of our security and intelligence services. As the years go by, and as experience shows, I fully expect that there will have to be amendments to the Human Rights Act. I believe that although terrorists could indeed read it, they would take rather more seriously a categoric list of forbidden offences in the Bill than they would the rather generalised content of the Human Rights Act. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to be wholly satisfied with that, but it is my honest opinion.

Consequently, terrorist groups whose operations might have been compromised by technical means, rather than by human infiltration, would be likely to ask their genuine members to commit more and more forbidden offences, simply to prove their loyalty. The outcome would inevitably be an increase in murders and other serious offences on their lordships’ list, which would not have happened but for the incorporation in statute of such a collection of prohibited crimes.

As I said earlier, the ISC has had a comprehensive briefing from MI5, explaining how those authorisations are used in practice. We are convinced that the Security Service uses them appropriately and proportionately. We are also reassured that the measures in the Bill legalise only what is specified in each criminal conduct authorisation. That means that any other criminal behaviour not covered by the terms of a CCA may be subject to prosecution—a safeguard that will hopefully encourage the House to reject Lords amendment 2. This is one of those occasions when it is necessary—really necessary—to keep our enemies guessing.

[Joanna Cherry [V]]

I mean no disrespect to the Solicitor General when I say that, like others, I am sorry not to see the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on the Government Front Bench today. He is a thoroughly decent man. I wish him all the best, and I have been in touch to tell him that privately.

The Scottish National party will support the Lords amendments, but we do not support the Bill. We voted against it on Third Reading for reasons that I set out in some detail in Committee. We regard it as another milestone in the British Government’s retreat from support for such basic rule-of-law principles as equality before the law, and another milestone in the rolling back of human rights protections. That is not to say that we do not see the necessity for some legislation, given the ongoing court proceedings, but we do not think the balance is right in this legislation at all.

00:04

The Lords amendments go some way to addressing some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), and by me, during the Bill’s passage through this House, and on that basis we will support them. However, by no means do they meet all our concerns.

The speeches from the Front Benchers and others have already addressed in some detail the scope of the Lords amendments, so I shall not waste time by going into that, but given the careful consideration that was given to the matter in the other place, we very much regret that the Government oppose Lords amendments 1 to 4 and seek to remove the second part of Lords amendment 5.

As we have heard already, the remaining Lords amendments remove the Bill’s provisions in relation to matters devolved to Scotland. It is nice, for once, to see what is these days the rare sight of the Sewel convention actually being respected. The reasons why the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold consent to the Bill, on the recommendation of the Scottish Government, were set out in some detail in the Scottish Parliament last week, particularly in the speech of my friend and colleague, the Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf. It is noteworthy that all parties in the Scottish Parliament, apart from the Conservative and Unionist party, shared the Scottish Government’s concerns about the Bill. Notably, the Labour party in Scotland has taken rather a tougher line than its colleagues in this place.

As I said, I outlined the SNP concerns regarding the Bill during its passage through this House. I am afraid to say that although the House of Lords amendments address some of those concerns, they do not go nearly far enough. For a rule of law and human rights-compliant system, we would like to see, among other things, prior judicial authorisation; the removal of the grounds of “preventing disorder” and “economic well-being”; and proper protections for trade union and other activist activities.

In respect of the speech by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for whom I have the greatest respect, I should point out that the Bill is out of step with international practice, including that of other Five Eyes countries. The Government are being misleading when they seek to reassure the House that the Human Rights Act will provide sufficient safeguards to address concerns about the Bill. I explained in detail in Committee why that is wrong, and furthermore pointed out that the Government are in the course of reviewing that Act, so their arguments about it being a safeguard are far from reassuring.

It has been good to see the Lords address the concern about child covert human intelligence sources, and to see protections for children added to the Bill, which the SNP supports with great enthusiasm. However, our party has always stood up for women’s rights, so I emphasise that in the light of the spy cops scandal there is real concern that the Bill could affect a woman’s right to know the true identity of the man with whom she wishes to form a sexual relationship. I do not see anything to address that in the Lords amendments.

Women Against Rape has signed a statement objecting to the Bill that has the support of more than 50 organisations, including the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Black Lives Matter groups and disability, women’s and environmental justice campaigners. Of course, such groups worked hard with the Lords to ameliorate some of the Bill’s effects, but I know that the unions will not be completely satisfied with the outcome in the Lords. Nevertheless, all those who worked to achieve the Lords amendments are to be commended. The SNP will support them, and we urge the Government to withdraw their opposition to Lords amendments 1 to 5.

We will support the amendments, but we do not support the Bill. Very real concerns remain in Scotland, and indeed across the four nations, that this Bill could be used to suppress dissent. That is not part of Scotland’s enlightenment tradition, and we will not see it done in Scotland’s name. The Scottish Parliament has withheld its consent, and in so far as the current litigation requires changes to the law of Scotland, we will deal with that ourselves in our own Parliament.

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

This is a very important Bill, not least because it touches on that really difficult balance that we often have to struggle with—perhaps not to this degree very often, in a democracy—between keeping the nation and our fellow citizens safe and our commitment to the rule of law. There are rare occasions when those can rub up against each other, sometimes uneasily, but whenever possible, I think we would all agree, the rule of law ought to be as paramount as it can be, subject to that duty to protect our citizens and our national interests. So are there ways in which we can reconcile this?

Can I, too, refer to my good and personal friend and constituency next-door neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and wish him well? I think the consensual and constructive approach that he adopted has done a great deal to smooth the passage of this Bill through potentially difficult matters.

I welcome the approach that the Solicitor General adopted in his opening speech, but can I perhaps press him on one or two matters precisely from the rule of law point of view? I would not seek to trespass on some of the expertise of others in relation to operational matters of the security services. I do not think anyone would wish to make life harder for those brave men and women who put their lives at risk to protect ourselves, and sometimes have to authorise operations that otherwise we might find unpalatable. I recognise that, but there are still rule of law issues that I think need to be addressed and ventilated. They were in the upper place, and we need at least to pay attention to them here.

In relation to Lords amendment 1, I hear what the Solicitor General says, but I am struggling at the moment to see why it is convincing to say that it is not reasonable to have, as the shadow Minister said, a reasonableness test. One would have thought that it was logical, if we are to have a statutory scheme, that that scheme should set out what the test shall be. By and large, I would have thought that an objective test, of a high but well-established standard, would be sensible and potentially a safeguard for operatives should their use of the test subsequently be challenged.

I note and understand the Solicitor General’s point about the potential inconsistency with the terms of different parts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, but as Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd pointed out in the other place—both highly experienced lawyers and people with experience in sensitive matters—there is potentially a greater inconsistency between the wording in the Bill, and therefore potentially the governing statute when it comes into law, and the code of practice. The code of practice, at paragraph 6.4, provides that

“it is expected that the person granting the authorisation should hold a reasonable belief that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate.”

As Lord Anderson pointed out, that of course is not law, but it is something that, should there be any challenge, would doubtless be taken into account. It seems undesirable that there should be a difference in wording between the code of practice and the statute that governs it.

Would the Solicitor General think again about what is so objectionable about the existence of a reasonableness test and how that would actually compromise the effective operation of operatives in the field? I do not see that. As Lord Thomas put it, at the end of the day

“it is very important to make sure that the language of the statute is clear. Nothing could be less desirable than the language of paragraph 6.4…using the words ‘it is expected’”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 2021; Vol. 809, c. 553.]

Basically, if it is a statutory scheme, the statute ought to be clear. I would like to hear some further justification from the Solicitor General on that, because it seems to me that if we are creating one inconsistency, we are potentially creating another. I think the words of the former Lord Chief Justice deserve some consideration.

In relation to Lords amendment 2, what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, is right. Although the amendment is well intentioned, it seems to me that practical risks could arise. Those of us who have some experience of serious organised crime will know the lengths to which these gangs are prepared to go to prevent infiltration and the ruthlessness with which they operate. On balance, I think the Government’s case against that amendment is made out.

In relation to Lords amendment 3, I do not think anyone would wish to have a situation where villains—people who would do us great harm, either as terrorists or as serious organised criminals—might seek an opportunity to use the criminal injuries compensation scheme or some other scheme to make claims against the state for circumstances that, in effect, they brought upon themselves, such as injury which they brought upon themselves because of the activities in which they were engaged. I am sure we would all agree with that.

I hope the Solicitor General will address the issue raised by Lord Cormack and others in the debate in the other place: what about the innocent victim, the person who is collateral damage? Say that in pursuant to a properly granted authorisation, a CHIS carries out an activity that unintentionally—perhaps as a result of a car chase, which is the example that Lord Cormack gave—causes injury to a passer-by, a bystander or someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Surely the Government would accept that morally there can be no justification for that person not being properly compensated. What is the scheme, therefore, by which they are to be properly compensated? I would have thought there was a way forward for the Government to achieve compromise on this. The suggestion is that the Government say, “There are means of doing this”, and I hope the Solicitor General can spell that out.

The person ought at least to be able to go to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I am told that in Australia and some other jurisdictions, there is a separate indemnity scheme. Either way, the innocent victim of work that is necessarily and properly undertaken to protect the broader interests of the state and its citizens should not go without the scope for recompense. I hope the Solicitor General will address that when he responds to the debate.

Lords amendment 4 raises very sensitive issues. We all accept that there have to be particular protections in law for children and vulnerable people, so I am very sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but I do listen to what the Solicitor General says, and I take on board in particular the view of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as to what actually happens in practice. I hope that the Solicitor General will undertake that the Government will continue to keep a most careful watch on how young people and potentially vulnerable people are used on the very rare occasions when it might be thought necessary to authorise activity involving them.

That brings me to Lords amendment 5 and the amendment in lieu, where it is the second part that is the issue. It was generally accepted that although in an ideal world judicial pre-authorisation would be preferable from a legal point of view, there were arguments about operational difficulties that could arise. Could the Solicitor General do more to address the very important point that Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd made in moving his amendment, which the Government seek to reverse by the amendment in lieu? We have set up a system with a judicial commissioner, who is to be notified, and who then has a duty to consider that notification and come to a view on it. If they are under a duty to do that, and their conclusion is that the authorisation should not have been granted, are we really to leave it hanging there and to leave it to a rather fudged system of, “Let’s have a word and see what can be done”? If a judicial commissioner—in effect a judge, as Lord Thomas pointed out—says that something was not lawful, because that would be the ground on which they would find that was to be the case, are we then to have a means where something that is unlawful is to carry on, but without more ado? That does not seem to be consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

00:05

The Solicitor General made the point about the risk of safely unravelling that activity. I understand that point, but that is not the same as saying that the commissioner should not be able to insist on unlawful activity—improperly authorised activity—ceasing to take place. Rather than simply rejecting this in the way that is proposed, would it not be more constructive of the Government to seek a means by which that might be balanced? If an Investigatory Powers Commissioner of the quality of Sir Brian Leveson, arguably the most significant criminal judge of his generation, or one of his deputies were to find that there was an improper authorisation, that would not be done lightly and I would have very great confidence indeed in any such finding and there ought to be action in consequence of it. At the moment, though, the Bill does not provide a satisfactory scheme for that being done. I would have thought that a commitment to upholding the rule of law would require there to be a satisfactory scheme to achieve that, and, given the gravity of the matters, that really ought to be—in some form or another—in the statute. Those are the areas where I hope that the Government will think again about their stance on improving the Bill and perhaps give appropriate assurances to us that could be addressed if the Bill goes back to the other place.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I join colleagues in the House in sending best wishes to the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), for a speedy recovery?

In his contribution to this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said that we were talking about issues that take place in the shadows. Well, we are, because many of the activities that our security services undertake cannot, quite rightly, be talked about publicly. I wish to put on record my thanks to the men and women of our services who protect us.

The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said that covert human intelligence is important. It is, but there is an emphasis these days that, because we have electronic eavesdropping, data collection and everything else, it is a thing of the past. May I recommend that you, Mr Speaker, and other Members read John Ferris’s excellent new book on the history of GCHQ? It was always the case, even during the second world war, that human intelligence along with intercept was the way in which we got the full picture around intelligence. That is important.

Why do people become covert human intelligence sources? Having seen some of the cases, I can say that the reasons vary. In some cases, they are very brave individuals who put their lives at risk to protect others, and the interface with our security services is vital. I said on Second Reading that, sadly, certain labels got stuck on this Bill right from the beginning. It was felt that, somehow, it would allow the state suddenly to authorise everything from torture to murder. Certainly in my party, it is felt that if a Member is a true socialist on the left, they would have to oppose this Bill every step of the way. I am sorry, but I think that that is very unfortunate. People should read what is in the Bill. We should be welcoming the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North said. What it is doing is putting on a statutory footing what is taking place anyway. If we look at the law as it stands at the moment, certain authorisation of and participation in criminality by CHISs has always been accepted as necessary by UK courts as long as it is proportionate to the safeguarding of the public. However, it is not on a statutory basis, so actually people who have concerns about the operation of our security services should welcome the Bill. Certainly, in MI5’s case there is an implication about this in the Security Service Act 1989, but the Bill, for the first time, puts it on a statutory footing, which we should welcome.

Having said that, there are aspects of the Bill that need to be improved. Will there be situations in which the individuals that we are talking about have to be part of criminal activity? Yes, there will be. I have been a member of the ISC for a number of years now. I have been briefed, along with other Members, by MI5 not just on this Bill but on others. I have also, in a previous inquiry, read the transcripts between handlers and CHISs. I will not divulge their contents; all I can say is that the information and intelligence obtained in the transcripts that I read was vital to disrupt a number of terrorist plots. This will not go away if we just think that it is too hot to handle; it has a real impact on our daily lives in this country in terms of national security.

I understand what those who tabled Lords amendment 1 want. They want some protection in the Bill so that the list of things that can be authorised can be a checklist. As the Solicitor General and the right hon. Member for New Forest East have already referred to, setting that checklist will make the operation of CHISs very difficult. I do not necessarily agree with what the right hon. Member for New Forest East said about the Human Rights Act, but the idea that the Bill will allow murder, rape and everything else is just not true. That assures me that the justifiable and proportional approach in the Bill is important. We also have the cover-all in terms of the Human Rights Act, so I do not accept, for practical reasons, that Lords amendment 2 would either improve the Bill or make it easier for our security services to operate.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who happens to be a good friend, for letting me intervene. I am slightly worried that if we put something into statute and law, it would be utterly tragic if someone who was operating covertly was killed as a result of having a constraint on him or her—there are hers too—that identifies them, and the next thing we know they are stuck in a ditch somewhere with a round in the back of their head. That is the dilemma we face.

[Mr Jones]

It is, and there is another thing of which I would like to reassure the House, from a security point of view and from my position on the ISC. As I think I said on Second Reading, such decisions are not taken lightly by the security services. Senior officers authorise and control CHISs for good reasons. Do they have some difficult calls to make? Certainly, from one of the transcripts that I read, they do. Do they, on occasions, withdraw authorisation? Yes, if they think that the individual is doing something that is not justifiable or proportionate.

The other point is that we, and a lot of the Bill’s opponents, have concentrated on the security services, but remember that it will be used by the police and others.

[Mr David Davis]

As I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s very thoughtful speech, it occurred to me that it might be a mistake to have the same Bill cover the security services and everything up to and including the Food Safety Agency.

[Mr Jones]

I have to agree. One thing I do not agree with about the Bill is the scope in terms of some of the organisations that it covers; I raised my concerns about that on Second Reading.

Use of CHISs disrupts child exploitation, county lines, organised crime and—increasingly, when it comes to the security services—right-wing extremism, for which human intelligence is part of the suite of intelligence gathering that those services need to use. I do not agree with Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 4 is about juveniles. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has raised what is clearly an emotive issue. I think that covert human intelligence sources should be authorised for the investigation of juvenile criminality only in very exceptional circumstances. But as the Solicitor General said, the impression being given again is that somehow the Bill for the first time gives our security services or police the ability to authorise juvenile covert human intelligence sources. It does not: the ability is there already.

When I intervened on the Solicitor General, I referred to the CHIS code of practice. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000 sets out the additional safeguards relating to junior CHISs. The Government need to find some way of incorporating that in the Bill. The Solicitor General said that it was rather long, but something needs to be there, to answer the issues being raised. I accept—I have seen evidence of this—that there are occasions when junior CHISs are needed: work around county lines gangs is just one example. But the provisions need strengthening, and I ask the Solicitor General to look at that when the Bill goes back to the other place.

Lords amendment 5, on judicial oversight, is important. It is important that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner looks at these issues. Personally, I am not in favour of pre-authorisation because, having spoken to MI5 and seen the transcripts of at least one of the interviews in one terrorist case, I see that these situations are dynamic. It would be very difficult if authorisation had to be obtained every time.

However, I am very much in favour of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner having scrutiny over the authorisations afterwards; that would allow an extra tier of judicial oversight, which would certainly knock on the head some of the nonsense we have heard about the Government or the security services being given the powers to murder people. I asked the Solicitor General about the annual report because it is important for public transparency and scrutiny of this place. I welcome what the Solicitor General said about bringing back an amendment on the issue. That would also allow us on the Intelligence and Security Committee to have some scrutiny.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North, I am a little disappointed that Scotland has not agreed to this; to protect the public, it is vital that it does. However, I am reassured by what the Minister said in the House of Lords about that not in any way limiting MI5 operations in Scotland in the national security interests of the whole UK.

Finally, I turn to the issue just raised by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). If I have one big concern about the Bill, it is the Christmas tree of other agencies that are to have these powers; I have not yet personally been given a good explanation of why the Food Standards Agency needs them, for example. I am quite comfortable and satisfied not only that the security services, police and other agencies are able to run CHISs, but that they do it. They know what to do, they do it on a regular basis, and they have officers with huge experience. That gives me some reassurance that the operation of the Bill, when it becomes law, will be done properly. I would like some convincing that the Food Standards Agency and others that use these powers on a less regular basis will necessarily have that thoroughness.

Let me conclude by again thanking the Solicitor General and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who have interacted on the Bill with Members across the House, and by once again thanking the men and women of our security services.

17:15

[Mr David Davis]

May I, too, start by paying proper credit to the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? James is a very old friend, a very long-standing colleague and an old protégé of mine. I spoke to him only a few days ago, and I have to tell the House that, given the seriousness of the operation that he is facing, he is both calmer and braver than I would be. We wish him well.

The origins of this Bill are, to say the least, somewhat doubtful. It started out with a circumstance where the state faced the prospect of being taken to the English courts over its current practice of giving many state agencies, including the Food Standards Agency, the right to authorise any criminal activity by their informants or agents, and having that power taken away from it. That is the origin of this Bill; that is where it comes from.

So what did the Government do? They cobbled together all the existing practices of their various police, intelligence and other agencies, good and bad—there were both good and bad—and set out to put them into law. That is not just theoretically problematic; it does not work perfectly today. For example, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner uncovered a case a couple of years ago where an MI6 agent or informant clearly very seriously broke the law, in breach of the guidelines he had been given, and the agency did not even inform the Minister before it carried on and allowed him to do the same again.

I am not prissy about the operation of our intelligence and police agencies. I was one of the Ministers who took through this House the Intelligence Services Act 1994. That is the one with the so-called licence-to-kill clause—the 007 clause, section 7 of that Act—which explicitly permits the action of the agencies to commit crimes under English law, but with restrictions and ministerial oversight built into it.

Nevertheless, this Bill, unamended, in my view goes too far, as is demonstrated by the fact that the amendments in front of us today were voted for in the Lords by a past Cabinet Secretary, a past Home Office permanent secretary, a past Foreign Office permanent secretary, a past National Security Adviser, a past Director of Public Prosecutions and a past reviewer of our counter-terrorism legislation—every single one of them more familiar at a close and tactical level than any Minister serving in Government. That is not meant as an insult; it is just a fact of life.

I have sympathy with many of the Lords amendments, but the business before us today contains, in my view, two vital amendments passed in the other place: Lords amendment 4, concerning the use of children as agents; and Lords amendment 2, placing limits on the type of crime that can be sanctioned. Both are entirely sensible amendments that significantly improve the Bill.

Let me start with child spies. The use of children as undercover informants is, in my view, very largely a morally repugnant policy. It results in children being put in dangerous positions during the investigation of serious and violent crimes with, frankly, minimal safeguards in place. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has already confirmed that child spies can themselves often be part of violent gangs, or continuing victims—continuing: that is the important point—of child sexual abuse, when they are recruited as intelligence sources. We should normally be seeking to move heaven and earth to remove these children from their horrible situations. Instead, the Bill would allow them to be sent back into harm’s way with minimal safeguards in place.

I am speaking from memory here, so I hope I get this exactly right, but in the other place, an example was given of a 17-year-old who was basically sold for sex to a variety of people, along with a number of other young women and children—legally, children—under one of these CHIS arrangements, and this was allowed to continue. The result was that the child involved was the witness to a murder, and not just the witness: she was effectively coerced by her circumstance into helping to cover up the murder, having to hide the evidence and so on. This was a youngster who had been a product of the care system, who had bounced from authority to authority—as we have seen happen in so many terrible cases—yet she was left in these circumstances in pursuit of getting more information about the criminal she was under the control of.

The Bill also raises the possibility of 16 and 17-year-olds being authorised by any of a number of different agencies to spy on their parents. These agencies include police forces and the intelligence services, but it also extends to the others that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to earlier. Do we really want to give such arbitrary and unfettered powers to such agencies? I, for one, do not under any circumstances. Amendment 4 would limit the deployment of child spies to exceptional circumstances, where all other methods to gain information have failed, and only if there is no risk of any reasonably foreseeable harm. We are not talking about MI5 or MI6 here, but about police agencies that are dealing with people, no doubt in county lines operations, sex trafficking operations and so on. Their first duty is to rescue the child, so it is an entirely sensible amendment, which I will support. It introduces real, meaningful safeguards that have been endorsed by the Children’s Commissioner.

However, on its own, amendment 4 is not enough. In its current form, the Bill also allows organisations to permit their employees and informants to commit criminal activity, with no express limit on the crimes that can be authorised—a point addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In my view, this lack of an express limit is wrong. It can never be right for the state to authorise the gravest of crimes—we are talking about a narrow group of crimes here: torture, murder, or sexual violence—yet that is precisely what this Bill will do if left unamended. I am as sceptical about the human rights protections as my right hon. Friend, but for different reasons, and I will explain why. For a start, allowing this type of behaviour puts us out of step with our international allies. Our Five Eyes security partners recognise the need for limits. Australia, Canada, and nowadays America all have common-sense limits on what their covert agents can do to prevent this line from being crossed. We must now do the same.

Lord Carlile of Berriew, who frankly is a long-standing opponent of mine in these things—he mostly takes the authoritarian state line, despite the fact that he is nominally a liberal—has described this Bill as the most constitutionally dangerous legislation presented in his working life. I agree, which is why I support Lords amendment 2, which places clear, common-sense limits on the crimes that covert agents can be authorised to commit, ensuring that the worst crimes such as murder, torture and rape can never be authorised. It mirrors an amendment I tabled in Committee in the Commons, and if the CHIS Bill becomes law without those limits, it is almost certain to be challenged in the courts and may eventually be overturned. This will not be the first time we have been here: those who have been here for some years will remember the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which went through the same process. Tom Watson and I took it to court; we won, and the Government had to rewrite it. I hope we do not have to do the same with this Bill—it would be unwise to repeat that experience.

Let me explain why that is a risk. The argument made by some hon. Members, particularly those on the Intelligence and Security Committee—who have close involvement with this issue, and whose experience I recognise—has to be put up against one test: if it is impossible for us, why is it not impossible for Australia, America and Canada? They can operate; why can’t we? The Government have to answer that question, otherwise I think they will find that this Bill will not stand.

There are real risks to providing these powers without limit. At the end of last year, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner reported that he had identified several weaknesses in MI6’s agent-running practices in the UK, leading to several errors, and, even worse, that high-risk covert agents had indulged in serious criminality overseas. Only this morning, MI5 confirmed in court that it would authorise one of its informants to carry out murder as part of its activities. So much, frankly, for the safeguards of the Human Rights Act. If MI5 is willing to say that in court, where in this exercise is the protection of the Human Rights Act, which was the Government’s defence last time and, indeed, the Minister’s defence today?

There is a real need for legislation in this area; I agree about that with pretty much everybody who has spoken. This is better in law than in some standard written inside an agency, with all the influences that being inside an agency brings to bear on it. There is a need for legislation, but this legislation is, bluntly, thrown together. In many ways, it incorporates some of the worst elements of the preceding arrangements, which need to be put right. The Minister kindly said that he will be listening before the Bill goes back to the Lords for amendment. I think there are amendments that could meet most of the concerns of those who have spoken, and that is what I would like to see before it goes back to the Lords.

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

The House is considering this Bill and these amendments at a time when we recognise the difficult job that we ask our security services, and indeed our police, to do to keep us safe. However, these practices have gone on for some years and it is right to legislate to give the protection of a framework as to how they can happen. It is important that that framework is protected. I therefore want to speak in support of amendment 4, tabled in the other place by Baroness Kidron and supported by a cross-party group including Lord Young, Lord Kennedy and Baroness Hamwee, which sets out the protections and safeguards that we should ask for if we expect children or vulnerable people to commit crimes on our behalf. Like others, I thank the people in the Lords who have done a huge amount of work to get us to this place on these protections. I also thank the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and his counterpart in the Lords, Baroness Williams, both of whom have listened to concerns with regard to this amendment. I know that the Minister has come to this matter late and he wants to listen too.

That is why I want to put on record how sorry I am that we have not yet got to agreement across this House and across this Parliament. If the Minister was listening to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who I recognise also has strong feelings about this, he would see that there is concern across this House about how we best protect children. I think that everyone in this House knows that when it comes to other people’s children, it is a fundamental principle that we should want for them what we want for our own. Sadly, some children will not be as loved as others, as well cared for as others or as well-behaved as others, but they are all children.

That is why, although I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on amendment 4 and why he will not accept it, I want the Government to go further and give assurances about what will happen next. Ministers have yet to acknowledge that if we do not include amendment 4 in the Bill, there is no alternative provision to cover this scenario and the inconsistencies in the arguments that they are making today. The Minister has said that there are no new powers in the Bill with regard to child CHISes, but there are no protections either. He will be well aware that the Government were taken to court by Just For Kids and the court said that children were put in harm’s way as a result of these proposals. Therefore, this House does have to act. The Government’s own guidance accepts that participation in criminality is an inescapable feature of being a CHIS, including for children. Ministers have said that there is increasing scope for young people to be used as they are increasingly being involved in criminality—that as the criminals use more children, so should we.

17:30

That is particularly the case when it comes to county lines. The Children’s Society estimates that there are 46,000 children involved in such gangs, with 4,000 in London alone. The Government are asking us to treat these often broken and scared young people as capable of consenting to engage in criminal behaviour. We spend so much of our time trying to get children out of harm, but the Government are now trying to argue that, in order for that to happen, we must put them directly in harm’s way. There is almost a risk in what the Solicitor General said of implying that these children have to help the police in order to be helped by the police; I am sure that that is not what he wishes to say. Many of us may argue, why use them at all? There is merit in the simplicity of simply prohibiting children from being CHIS, but we recognise that there may be circumstances—exceptional circumstances—in which we would consider that to be necessary, with careful supervision. That is what Lords amendment 4 does. It writes on the face of the Bill the principle that no child should be asked by the state to commit a crime except in exceptional circumstances, and by “exceptional” we mean when there can be no doubt that the child would not come to harm. It upholds our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to treat all people under 18 as children.

Currently, if a child is arrested for shoplifting at the age of 16 or 17, an appropriate adult would oversee their interactions with the police. That is because we recognise that there is a fundamental power imbalance between anybody who is working with the police and a child. Under the Government’s plans, the police will be under no obligation to appoint such a person for those 16 or 17-year-olds. That means that a 16 or 17-year-old could be recruited without anybody knowing—not their parents or a social worker. They could be asked to inform on anyone, including their own parents, or asked to remain in dangerous situations at great personal risk, without any legal advice, independent voice or help to say no if they want to.

Baroness Hamwee set out the case, described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), of a young girl who was in a sexually exploitative relationship with a man and eventually witnessed a murder as a result of being in that relationship. She was maintained in that relationship in order to provide information to the police. What is crucial to our debate is that that young girl was 17. Under the Government’s proposals, there is no guarantee that there would be an appropriate adult overseeing that relationship with her and raising the necessary questions. The Government say that this is because, by the time a child is 16 or 17, they become increasingly independent and mature. Are we really comfortable with the argument that if a child shoplifts, they are childish and need a guardian when they talk to the police, but if they spy and commit crimes for the police, they are mature and they do not?

Ministers simply cannot have it both ways: there is an apparent presumption of an appropriate adult, so we do not need to write that on the face of the Bill, and having an appropriate adult with a child raises the risk that they will be revealed as a source. When the Solicitor General makes that argument, he fails to explain why we then require an appropriate adult for under-16-year-olds. If having an appropriate adult involved raises the risk of a child being unveiled as a CHIS, that is surely true at any age, so why deny this to a 16 or 17-year-old?

By including Lords amendment 4 in the Bill, we would be in line with our obligations under the UN convention, which defines every person under 18 as a child. I hope Ministers can tell us whether a child rights impact assessment has been carried out on the legislation and, if so, why the Home Office feels that it can ignore those obligations to the UN when the Department for Education has recently said that we must reaffirm them.

Lords amendment 4 also extends the protection of having a second pair of eyes and the principle of exceptional circumstances, so as not to put somebody in the face of foreseeable harm, to vulnerable people and victims of trafficking or modern slavery. Those people may be older than 18 but are no less at risk of being placed in harm’s way, and they, too, may struggle with notions of consent when faced with state authorities.

Lords amendment 4 is not prohibition. It is rooted in the real and dangerous world of criminality in which many of these children and vulnerable people already live. If the Government will not accept it, they must commit today to put on the face of the Bill the protections that they claim exist—the protection of not putting somebody knowingly in harm’s way, the protection of an appropriate adult for all under-18-year-olds and the protection of the presumption that they would have that person. If what the Solicitor General says is true, none of those requirements should be onerous, and then he can understand why his objection and resistance to doing that is so worrying.

The Government argue that these children often want to help, and the more people who know that they are involved, the more at risk they are. But with the police offering them money for their work, and being in the scheme the sole arbiter of what is in their best interests, the conflicts of interest in this are manifest. That is why it is right that MPs should step in. Every one of us has a responsibility, to all the children we know, not knowingly to put them in harm’s way. We act in loco parentis as if they are our child and ensure that their welfare comes first, even if it means that an investigation might be denied their insight. Today, every MP has an opportunity to let children be children, not child spies.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I would like to associate myself with the arguments that have been adduced today by the Solicitor General and by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I am afraid that I must disagree with my other very good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Nobody doubts his complete honesty and passion in these matters, and I hope that he does not accuse me of being an authoritarian, because I really am not. I hope I am as committed to civil liberties as anybody, but we are under a ruthless attack. The Minister mentioned 28 attacks, and we all know the appalling atrocities that have been committed on our streets in recent years. We all know about the Manchester bombing and about Lee Rigby. The list is endless. We all know that there are absolutely ruthless people who care nothing about our values and who are prepared to destroy and kill innocent people. This is not a game of cricket, and we cannot play and defeat these people by traditional policing methods. We cannot rely simply on bugging their mobile phones. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who speaks with more experience than anybody else as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said, we rely absolutely on covert intelligence sources: people going into these organisations and acting with extraordinary bravery.

I understand the motivation of what has been said in the other place, and I can understand why people are adducing these arguments based on human rights, but there is a possibility that if we were to accept these Lords amendments we would be putting the lives of our own people at risk. The most powerful point made by the Solicitor General was almost at the beginning of his speech when he said that the state should not prosecute people for actions that the state asks them to do. These people are working for us. They are working to defend our people, and I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that if it is a choice between my daughters being blown up on the London tube and there being some slight and occasional infringement of the human rights of terrorists and potential terrorists, I know where my choice is. I think that the public are also on this space.

[Mr David Davis]

I do not think that my right hon. Friend was in the Chamber for the beginning of my speech, because I was going to refer to him and tell him that I did not agree with him that the Blairite approach to terrorism worked at all. Indeed, I think it made it considerably worse. In my speech I listed a whole series of people—the Home Office, the Foreign Office, security and prosecution specialists—who knew their way around this like the back of their hand, and they were not making the recommendations because they thought they needed to uphold some civil liberty. They were making the recommendations because they thought that what they were proposing worked better than what the Government were proposing, and that is what I think, too.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I apologise for missing that. I was summoned in to see the Speaker, as I warned the Deputy Speaker, so I missed that part of my right hon. Friend’s speech, but I listened to everything that was said in the early part of the debate, and I followed it carefully. I made an intervention on the Opposition spokesman, and I still believe it. I frankly trust Mr Blair and Mr Brown more than I trust the former leader of the Labour party on these issues.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

In support of my right hon. Friend, it will come as no surprise that I would simply say that, whether one trusts this expert or that expert, or this or that Committee Chairman, that is what is known in philosophical terms as the appeal to authority. I am happy to rely on the argument that I put forward, which is that, if we create a list of things that agents cannot do, we invite terrorists to use it as a checklist to test their own membership for spies and infiltrators.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I agree with that, and I wanted to make that point as best I could. It is quite a weak argument to say that, because certain people who have been in authoritative positions make a certain argument, that it is therefore a clincher in argumentation. Actually, the point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East was far more powerful, frankly. He was adducing a specific example. If it is laid down in statute that a covert agent cannot take a particular action, that is an invitation to terrorist or gangster groups to have an initiation ceremony based precisely on what is forbidden by Parliament. I thought that that was a completely unanswerable argument.

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

But if my right hon. Friend wants to defeat it, let us hear it.

[Mr Davis]

I knew my right hon. Friend would liven up the debate. The test is not the test of authority. It is an empirical test. America, Australia and the other Five Eyes all have these limitations, and their intelligence agencies seem to work perfectly well.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

So he says, but I am no expert.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Just because an ally has a system that may leave its agents vulnerable to exposure and death, that does not mean that we should copy that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Exactly, and I hazard a guess—as we have seen with the covid outbreak—we are a uniquely open society. We have very large levels of immigration. We have large minority communities. By the way, 99.9% totally oppose terrorists, do not believe in that and all the rest of it, but we know we are fundamentally and hugely vulnerable as a nation, probably much more vulnerable than Australia or New Zealand, so the fact that Australia does certain things does not apply. Personally, speaking for myself, I would rather listen to arguments from my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who has been briefed by MI5 and MI6, than to arguments adduced at second hand by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who tells me that in New Zealand and Australia they do things in a different way and are at no higher risk. In any court of law, the evidence adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East is more powerful than the arguments adduced by my other right hon. Friend.

We have just heard a passionate defence of children. No one denies the commitment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) to the welfare of children, but when I was reading about this debate in some Sunday papers and other parts of the media at the weekend, it gave the impression that we were almost going back to Stalin’s Russia, and getting children to spy on their parents. This is ridiculous—we have to have a sense of proportion. We live in the United Kingdom. We have a system of law. Can we not trust our operatives in MI5, MI6 or the police force to act proportionately and in a necessary way?

[Mr David Davis]

No. That is why we have the law

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sorry, we already have human rights legislation—my right hon. Friend places a lot of faith in that. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, I think we have seen numerous instances where our armed forces have been treated appallingly in the past. There is great public concern about that. We do not want to put our security services, who are living in an infinitely more dangerous world, in the same position in which we put our armed forces. The Bill as it stands is proportionate and reasonable, and there has to be an element of trust. Personally, I think that it is extraordinarily unlikely in our country that MI5, MI6 or the police forces would act in such a way that if we knew what they were doing we would be horrified and think it was corrupt or that they were somehow abusing children. I suspect that if we use minors who are 16 or 17 in a certain way that is done very carefully. I suspect that we are not initiating any new behaviour at all and we are rescuing young people from cruel fate.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my really good friend, my right hon. Friend, for letting me intervene. I speak from experience, because I have run an organisation—I will not be too precise—and there were several hundred people on my books. Not one was a child. We did not need a law to tell us not to use children. We did not use children, and there was no flipping law that stopped us.

17:45

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think that is powerful evidence. This is about common sense; it is about proportionality and being reasonable. We cannot use law or statute to provide a sort of envelope around every action that the security services do. In the real world that does not work. It may be counterproductive, dangerous, and could put our own people at danger.

Finally, perhaps the Minister can comment on the fact that Lords amendment 5 would require all criminal conduct authorisation to be notified to the judicial commissioners, as set out in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Again, that sounds reasonable, but it also provides the judicial commissioners with the power to cancel an authorisation if they determine that it should not have been granted. That would require the covert activity to cease immediately. Such authorisations would only need to be notified to the judicial commissioners within seven days of them being granted. That means that they might cancel an authorisation, and insist that the activities carried out under it cease immediately, in the middle of the very acts in question. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the amendment would therefore undermine the very ability of our security services to recruit covert human intelligence sources. I mention that point because am not sure that it has already been raised in this debate. Let us be reasonable and proportionate, and let us leave the Bill as it is.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I confess that I am slightly frustrated sitting here in my sitting room in Orkney. I suspect that if I were with you on the green Benches, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have joined the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) in engaging in the debate as it went along. Such is the nature of the times in which we find ourselves.

The thesis that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough offers the House tonight proceeds on the basis that it is necessary to empower those who engage in protecting us through the work of the security services, by offering them unlimited power and leaving everything up to their discretion. The thesis that I offer in rebuttal to that—this is very much in line with what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said—is that we best serve the people who put themselves in the way of danger by laying down the limits with which we authorise their activity. It seems to me that to leave everything to their discretion means that we abdicate our duties as parliamentarians, and subcontract them to those who do not have the authority that we have, and who as a consequence are left exposed.

May I add my name to the long list of those who send good wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? He is a Minister who brings an incredible amount of diligence, care and thoughtfulness to his work in the House, and it was a matter of significant regret and sadness when I heard that he found himself again unwell. No Member of the House would not concur in sending him the very best of wishes.

I thank their lordships in the other place for the manner in which they have further scrutinised the Bill. They did so in a typically thoughtful and reasoned manner, and I invite the Solicitor General to consider the nature of those who have sent us these amendments. They include Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Paddick and Baroness Hamwee, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, a former Lord Chief Justice, a former senior police officer, and a distinguished legal practitioner of many decades and experience. This is not some cabal of over-zealous radicals and anarchists. These are people, men and women, who have significant experience in the realities—the practicalities—of those matters before the House. I suggest gently to the Solicitor General that their views require rather more substantial and considered rebuttal than we have heard from those on the Treasury Bench today.

I will canter through the different amendments that come to our House tonight from their lordships. On Lords amendment 1, inserting the word “reasonably” would effectively turn a subjective test into an objective test. This comes back to the point that I made at the start. It is for the benefit and protection of those who are required to engage covert human intelligence sources and send them out into the field that there should be some objective measures that they know their conduct and judgments can be measured against.

Lords amendment 2 introduces a number of limitations —Canadian-style, essentially. I thought that the objections that we heard from those on the Treasury Bench in relation to this were somewhat synthetic. In terms of our standing in the world community and as important protectors of the concept of the rule of law, I suggest again to the Minister that this is something that really requires a bit more care for our reputation on the world stage.

Lords amendment 3 is different from all the others, because all the others relate to the practice and conduct of people who are the sources, whereas this relates to those who are victims. It is entirely right that protections should be put in the Bill for those who are victims—innocent victims, in particular—of this sort of criminality. Again, I ask the Minister to reconsider the position on what is a very modest protection, but an important one none the less for those who will find themselves in that position.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a powerful and impassioned case on Lords amendment 4. It is a well-accepted principle throughout the criminal and civil law of this country that we treat children differently. I again suggest that the Government need to be a bit more circumspect in relation to that.

I thought that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) dealt very effectively and eloquently with Lords amendment 5. In the event that conduct is deemed to have been unlawful, even retrospectively, surely that is the point at which it should be stopped. The Government’s case that our intelligence services can serve the national interest by continuing with conduct that has been considered by a judicial authority to be unlawful undermines the force of their arguments.

I want to remind the House of the genesis of this legislation. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) touched on, the third direction by the former Prime Minister was being tested in the investigatory powers tribunal. The Government had what I think would be best described as a narrow squeak there, and it was then, as a measure of some panic, that they decided to bring in this legislation in anticipation of the fact, or in fear, that their position would be overturned in the Appeal Court. I think that that was a not unreasonable view to be taken by the Government in all the circumstances. It is worth noting, in relation to the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act as a protection in this area of law, that not only is the Human Rights Act itself under review by the Government, but that the reliance on the Human Rights Act in Parliament stands in very stark contrast to the repudiation of it being applicable in their pleadings in the tribunal. I do not think the Government can have it both ways. The bringing of the Bill is in itself is a good and worthy ideal, but these are matters that should be regulated by Parliament. We realise that this is not done for any sort of Damascene conversion, but that it is, in fact, a panic measure.

The thinking behind the Bill seems to be that the Government accept that there has to be change inasmuch as the regulation of this activity has to be put on to a statutory footing. At the same time, however, they want to do it in such a way that nothing actually changes. It is done on a fairly crude world view, if I may say that. Somehow or other, law enforcement is always about good guys doing good things, pursuing bad guys who have done bad things. Those of us who have worked in the criminal courts and elsewhere know that is often a bit more nuanced than that. The sort of world view that brings this legislation is one which very quickly brings us to the point where the end can be seen always to justify the means. The bottom line is that those who are involved in these difficult areas of judgment very often do get them wrong.

I offer not a directly applicable example here, but one that I think should give the House cause to pause: the operation under the Blair Governments of extraordinary rendition and the cases of Boudchar and Belhaj. Jack Straw, as Foreign Secretary, and Mark Allen were essentially responsible for the rendition of Belhaj and Boudchar to Libya—incredibly, to say it now—and they did so in contravention of every stated Government policy. Ultimately, those cases were required to be settled with non-disclosure agreements and substantial amounts of public money paid in compensation.

Those cases illustrate the fact that there is a need for us as Parliament to put limits on what can be done by those who we charge to operate in this field. It should not be prescriptive, but it should be something that is there to which they can have reference, so that we can have security of knowledge that the work they do on our behalf is done properly. That is what these amendments are about. That is why this Bill has gone so badly wrong. The amendments from the other place seek to improve the Bill and my party will this evening vote in support of maintaining them.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I do not want to breach the consensus that has emerged, but I have to say that in my view the Bill brings new powers that are unnecessary, disproportionate and open to abuse, and brings operatives beyond the rule of law, which is unnecessary. I have already opposed the Bill in the past and I very much support the amendments to provide some constraints on prospective abuses.

I should say at the outset that we all very much welcome and applaud the covert human intelligence sources, and the fantastic work they have done over the past few years in thwarting 28 terrorist attempts. However, that, of course, was all achieved under the current law, with safeguards. The problem with the Bill is that it actually removes the law and the safeguards, and I therefore cannot support it. In a nutshell, the Bill allows new powers—not existing powers—for Ministers and officials to confer immunity from prosecution for people to commit serious crimes.

Those crimes can be authorised in the name of national security, which we understand, of crime prevention and detection—yes, perhaps—and of the

“economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

In other words, crimes could be committed against anti-frackers and Extinction Rebellion and so on, so this is much too broadly defined.

18:00

Furthermore, this provision is unnecessary, because we already have statutory powers to authorise criminal acts, where necessary, controlled by the third direction policy and enforceable in court, as was found in respect of the MI5 policy—the two-test policy about things being “necessary” and “proportionate” in terms of the public interest. It is also claimed that the Human Rights Act will somehow protect us, but the Government came in on a manifesto of abolishing or repealing that Act, and a review of it is going on at the moment. Furthermore, during the third direction test case the Government argued that the Human Rights Act did not constitute a basis against the Government for a CHIS offence. Therefore, I do not support the Bill; and I support the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to exclude murder, grievous bodily harm, sexual violence, torture and depriving someone of their liberty from these authorisations. Even if the amendment is accepted, Ministers can still be empowered to harass political opponents and suppress dissent. I support Lords amendments 1, 5, 12 and 14, which seek to improve judicial scrutiny, so that we have a report to judicial commissioners and objective tests—not just subjective ones—on the basis of reasonable belief, which can be tested, so that judges can rule whether an action is lawful and exercise a power to remove the authority to commit a crime that is not reasonable. But of course the judicial commissioners will be appointed by the Prime Minister—they will not be independent judges—which again blurs the division between the Executive and the judiciary. That is not normal in modern democracies—or in any democracies for that matter.

Amendment (a) relates to the issue of having authorisations in respect of juveniles and vulnerable individuals in only “exceptional circumstances”. I would support that of course, but I fail to imagine where we should be using juvenile and vulnerable individuals—getting them to spy on their parents, be in drug gangs or whatever it is. I do not think that is something we should be authorising. Clearly, if we are, there need to be constraints. For the reasons I have already outlined, I respect the position of Scotland: if it is not bust, don’t fix it.

Lords amendment 3 is on criminal injuries compensation for victims of crimes authorised. Clearly, there should be compensation if crimes are authorised that are disproportionate and unnecessary—and we may never know. On the overall situation, clearly, we have a duty to protect the public, and we must balance security, liberty and human rights. In a democracy, we should certainly support the Lords amendments, to put constraints on the Bill, which other democracies have not adopted and which we would not like to see applied in less liberal environments than our own.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]]

I would like to take a moment to wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) a speedy recovery and thank him for all his hard work in his role as Minister for Security.

This Bill provides our operational agencies with the powers required to enhance our national security, protecting British citizens from those who seek to do them harm. When a story relating to covert intelligence breaks in the news, there follow lazy and ill-informed references to James Bond and a licence to kill. We in Parliament have a duty to keep the discourse on this topic sensible. James Bond is a magnificent manifestation of the United Kingdom’s creative arts. He does not, however, reflect the reality of the serious work that goes on in the intelligence services. Those brave men and women do not have a licence to kill or needlessly commit crimes, but have chosen to put themselves at risk for our common safety. The best way to express our gratitude to those who serve this country is for us to help stop sensationalising this issue. It pollutes the debate and does nothing to help pass effective legislation that simultaneously safeguards security and human rights. I am committed to both, and it is a mistaken belief to maintain that security and human rights are mutually exclusive, for in truth they are mutually reinforcing.

Covert human intelligence sources operations have proven their effectiveness. CHIS-led operations have allowed the National Crime Agency to disrupt over 30 threats to life, safeguard over 200 people and seize 60 firearms from those who may use them to do harm. Between 2017 and 2019, HMRC CHIS have prevented hundreds of millions of pounds in tax loss, including one case that was estimated to have prevented a loss of over £100 million.

I recognise that some of the amendments sent by the Lords wished to safeguard vulnerable and juvenile CHIS and ensure that operatives do not take part in the worst type of crimes, such as rape or murder. Certainly, I understand the thinking behind these amendments, but I do not support them. With regard to juvenile and vulnerable CHIS, Her Majesty’s Government have put forward substantial amendments to the Bill to ensure that robust safeguards are established for the very rare circumstances when juvenile CHIS may be tasked with participating in criminal activities.

The Government amendments leave no doubt that the authorising officer has a duty to safeguard and protect the best interests of the juvenile. This duty is a key factor in any decision for the authorisation of a mission. The amendment proposed by the Lords certainly raises the importance of ensuring that CHIS are adequately protected from harm, but ultimately it would undermine our ability to tackle criminal activities. I have an extract from the report from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner that demonstrates the importance of juvenile CHIS:

“In one such case, a juvenile was carrying out activity on behalf of a ‘county line’ drug supply group. The juvenile owed money to the group and approached the police wishing to provide information. A referral under the Modern Slavery Act was made by the police and a care plan was drawn up with Children’s Services, including relocating the juvenile and finding them a training course. Once this had been done, as an authorised CHIS, the juvenile was able to provide intelligence to the police regarding the ‘county line’ crime group.”

With regard to concerns that the Bill allows operatives to get away with the worst types of crimes, let me say this: the Bill has already outlined that authorisation is only granted by highly trained authorising officers, who work within and maintain strict operating parameters. Crucially, there are clear and regulated limits to the types of criminal activities that may be conducted. As part of our obligations under the European convention on human rights, the prohibition of torture and subjection of individuals to degrading treatment is strictly enforced. Further, all activity is overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who ensures that accountability is maintained throughout the process of any such operation. It is crucial that the ISC and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner have proper oversight and that such oversight is published.

In ensuring greater accountability, more effective oversight should be promoted. I am not alone in taking that view, but share it with those possessed of particular understanding and expertise in these matters. For example, that view is at the centre of the research by Professor Rory Cormac of the University of Nottingham, who is one of the country’s leading experts on covert intelligence. A number of points that I have made are mentioned in his research, including his book “Disrupt and Deny”, which I recommend to colleagues. One point stressed by Professor Cormac is that CHIS have to be able to commit certain crimes in order to be credible, gain information and/or engage in covert operations.

Regulation is certainly crucial to prevent problems such as the collusion in Northern Ireland from ever arising again. Any co-operation with violent non-state actors must be properly regulated to prevent officers and agents from getting ahead of themselves and interpreting their own parameters too broadly. The Bill would make such activity less likely, while allowing those who take risks with their lives to keep us safe the support that they need to be successful. I do not doubt the well-meaning intentions of the Lords amendments or the concerns surrounding the Bill; however, the Bill will ensure that regulations and processes are effectively enforced, preventing officers from acting autonomously or beyond their remit.

As I have said previously, protocols are already in existence that ensure that the interests and safety of juvenile and vulnerable CHIS are maintained; however, I am gladdened that additional measures are being considered to bolster the existing provision. Without such operatives working within strict parameters and with the necessary oversight, as outlined in the Bill, we, and all that we care about most, would be less secure.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

I speak in support of Lords amendments 1 to 6, and particularly Lords amendment 3.

I have repeatedly spoken out and voted against the Bill because I believe it to be fundamentally unjust. The Government have claimed that the Bill is

“a continuation of existing practice”

that it puts on a “statutory footing”. For many, though, the existing legislation was not fit for purpose in the first place. The Government’s approach to the Lords amendments does not go far enough to recognise the extent to which the Bill still undermines human rights.

Public inquiries into the nature and impact of the criminal actions of covert human intelligence operatives are still under way. We in this House have not had the opportunity to consider any of the findings of those inquiries, nor any that they may produce in future, but it is clear that those inquiries have come about because there are lessons to be learned from serious cases involving our operatives engaging in sexual relationships. It would therefore be helpful if the Solicitor General outlined in his closing statement whether the Government will commit to reviewing the Bill in the light of any findings produced by inquiries in the future.

It is not clear how any provisions of the Bill, even with the Lords amendments that the Government are indicating they are willing to listen to, will ensure that innocent victims can seek redress. The Solicitor General said in his speech earlier that Lords amendment 3 is unnecessary. Government Front Benchers have also said that the Human Rights Act provides sufficient safeguards, but that Act, significant as it is as a piece of legislation, contains no provision for prosecutions to be brought against individuals. For example, if an innocent victim—a woman or a child—believes that they have been exploited for the collection of intelligence, they cannot bring a covert operative or a public body in front of the courts under the Human Rights Act. For that reason, Lords amendment 3 is absolutely necessary to ensure that the door of justice is open for such victims.

So far in this debate, many Members have rightly highlighted the threats posed by terrorism, but they have failed to mention the scope of the authorities to which the Bill provides powers—not just MI5 and MI6 but authorities such as the Food Standards Agency. The Government should consider the impact of the Bill, even with all the Lords amendments, and how it goes much further beyond the very serious threat of terrorism.

There has been little, if any, mention of the communities that are likely to be most impacted by the Bill—communities that are already experiencing marginalisation in society. Among them is a community that is extremely and excessively policed and unduly spied on. They have had their homes raided and their children targeted in schools. They have unduly borne the brunt of security and counter- terrorism legislation, particularly over the past two decades —I recognise that that has been under successive Governments. That community is the Muslim community. The Government’s Prevent programme has fostered discrimination against Muslims by perpetuating Islamo- phobic stereotypes. This Bill, even with the amendments that the Government have conceded, does not address the environment of hostility that the community will be further subject to or the threats to their human rights in particular.

I conclude by saying that for as long as I am a Member of this House, I will continue to speak out about these concerns on behalf of such communities in the east London constituency that I represent. For as long as they continue to experience the erosion of their human rights, I will continue to oppose this legislation as it continues its journey in this House and the other. I will do so as a Member of this House, in proud, socialist, Labour tradition.

18:15

[The Solicitor General]

With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would now like to make some closing remarks. I thank colleagues from across the House for the thoughtful and considered contributions made this afternoon.

First, I shall address remarks about limits and the conduct that can be authorised under the Bill. I make the point again, because it is important: the limits on what could be authorised under this legislation are provided by the requirement for all authorisations to be necessary, proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act. There are limits, and they are defined in that way. Nothing in the Bill seeks to undermine the important protections in the Human Rights Act; the Government have been consistently clear on that. Public authorities will not and cannot act in a way that breaches their legal obligations under the Human Rights Act. I say this clearly on the record, from the Dispatch Box: any authorisation that was not compliant with the Human Rights Act would be unlawful.

Let me take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for the important oversight role that his important Committee plays and in particular for his remarks about the difficulties concomitant on placing, or seeking to place, limits in a Bill such as this—he articulated those with typical clarity. Those points were also well made by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), as is usually the case. As we know, both right hon. Members contribute insight from their roles on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) asked me to set out why we cannot have limits in this legislation similar to those in the legislation of some of our partners, such as our great ally Canada. I do not think it particularly useful or helpful to compare UK legislation with legislation in other countries because each country has its own unique laws, public authorities and current threat picture.

We know that covert human intelligence source testing takes place in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to the unique challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. It is important that we legislate for the particular circumstances in which we need our operational partners to operate, to keep the public safe. Our advice on this issue is based solely on the advice of our operational partners. I hope that all Members place the weight that the Government have placed on their assessment of this issue.

I greatly respect the vast experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in these areas. He is not in his place at the moment, but he raised information presented in argument to the Court of Appeal today. The House will understand that my position as Solicitor General means that I cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings, but I can confirm that MI5 did not say what my right hon. Friend articulated it had said.

Let me respond now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on this issue of putting reasonable belief into the Bill.

I will, if I may, confirm again that the Government do not dispute that the test for these authorisations should be one of reasonable belief. We do not support the amendment simply because we need to ensure that legislation is consistent across the board. We cannot have some Acts of Parliament using one form of words, and other Acts of Parliament using another form of words, because then others might interpret those Acts of Parliament to mean different things.

My hon. Friend also asked about civil redress. The Bill does not prevent those who have been impacted by a criminal conduct authorisation from seeking redress where that is appropriate. Any person or organisation can make a complaint, for example, to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is a judicial body that operates totally independently of the Government and provides a right of redress for anyone who believes that they have been a victim of unlawful action by a public authority that has been using covert intelligence or investigative techniques. With regards to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, let me confirm that, in practice, access to that scheme is unaffected by this Bill.

Let me turn now to the important issue of juveniles, which many colleagues have raised, and respond to the points raised on the authorisation of juvenile CHIS. This Bill is not providing a new power for juveniles to be authorised as CHIS. What it does is seek to place on an explicit statutory basis the framework and safeguards for the very rare occasions where a juvenile may participate in criminal conduct in their role as a covert human intelligence source. There are also additional safeguards in place for the authorisation of juvenile CHIS and any authorisation of a juvenile as a source requires additional safeguards, as set out in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000 and considered by Parliament in 2018. That authorisation is required before a criminal conduct authorisation can be granted. Equally, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will consider every authorisation of a juvenile.

I note that the High Court of Justice considered the safeguards for juvenile CHIS in 2019, as noted by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in her virtual contribution. I also note that the court expressly found them to be lawful. In fact, Mr Justice Supperstone explicitly rejected the contention that the scheme is inadequate in its safeguarding of the interests and welfare of juvenile CHIS.

The High Court also set out its view that it was clear that the principal focus of the framework for juvenile CHIS is to ensure that appropriate weight is given to a child’s best interests and that the practical effect of the enhanced risk assessment is that juveniles are utilised only in extreme circumstances and when other potential sources of information have been exhausted. The IPC has concluded similarly.

Let me say specifically that police CHIS handlers are separate from their operational teams and they have a duty to safeguard and promote the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, and the aim of an authorisation is to remove them from the harm that they are already in, not to put them in greater harm.

[Conor McGinn]

I appreciate the Solicitor General giving way and I am reassured by much of what he says, but having just said that the Government would not accept amendment 1 because of the need to be consistent across the law, will he comment on the fact that it is still an anomaly that 16 and 17-year-olds who commit a crime of their own volition are entitled to different protections from 16 and 17-year-olds who commit a crime as a result of a criminal conduct authorisation?

[The Solicitor General]

The reality, of course, is that the safeguards that I have adumbrated in regard to CHIS are very relevant here and, as I have mentioned, there are considerable safeguards that form the protections that we can say with confidence mean that those 16 and 17-year-olds will have very good protection.

I will now turn specifically to the point raised by the requirement for an appropriate adult to be placed for sources aged 16 or 17, which I would like to explore a little bit more. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order sets out a requirement for an appropriate adult to be in attendance at all meetings between a public authority and a source below the age of 16. It must be considered on a case-by-case basis for sources aged 16 or 17, and this is the case for any general authorisation of the CHIS and any specific additional authorisation for participation in criminal conduct, which is what we are debating in this Bill.

Let me be clear, though, that when each case is being considered carefully, there is a presumption that there will be an appropriate adult in place—that is the default position, unless there is a justification for not having an appropriate adult in place. An example of such a justification might be that doing so would not be in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child are always at the heart of the decision making. If the authorising officer believes that an appropriate adult should not be in place, that justification must be documented, and can be considered by the IPC.

I would caution the House against using examples, whether real or hypothetical—it does tend to be risky to do so, and puts young people at risk—but criminal gangs will seek to apply the scenario that has been set out to their own experience, which could result in them wrongly identifying and putting at risk of harm anyone suspected of being a CHIS. As such, the example suggested by the hon. Member for Walthamstow and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden does not fit with the framework of safeguards that is in place for juvenile CHIS. This could not happen, and we do not recognise the example given.

However, as I said in my earlier remarks, the Government are listening. We will continue to listen, and will do so by means through which we can provide further reassurance about these authorisations. I hope these conversations can continue, and that we can find a means of providing additional reassurance while not risking the safety of a juvenile CHIS. While it is not appropriate to put all 74 pages of the code of practice into the Bill—I think I said “hundreds” earlier, but it is actually only 74 pages— I agree with the right hon. Member for North Durham that it may be appropriate to include some of those safeguards, including confirmation that a juvenile could only be authorised in exceptional circumstances. Not all of the code of practice applies to this Bill, but some parts may, so the right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point.

Turning briefly to Lords amendment 5, I think there is consensus that the additional oversight provided by the requirement to notify a judicial commissioner is reassuring. The commissioner will see all authorisations of juvenile CHIS, and likewise will be able to confirm that all authorisations are compliant with the Human Rights Act.

In response to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, let me offer reassurance about what would happen if the IPC or a judicial commissioner did not agree with an authorisation when notified of its grant. A judicial commissioner would flag any concerns to the authorising officer, and they would work collaboratively to address such concerns. If an authorisation has been granted but the activity not yet started, the judicial commissioner and authorising officer will work together to address those concerns. If the activity has started, the authorising officer must take into account any concerns that have been raised, and will continue to discuss these with the judicial commissioner. It would not be the case that a public authority would simply ignore feedback from the IPCO: it is a collaborative process, and the views of the commissioners carry serious weight. However, ultimately, it would be a matter for the court to determine.



Finally, in response to the right hon. Member for North Durham, who asked whether any concerns raised by the IPC will feature in the annual report, I can confirm that the IPC must include statistics on the use of this power, including any errors and areas where improvement has been recommended.

I hope that I have been able to provide additional clarity and reassurance on these issues, and that the House will vote to reject these amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

18:30

Division 219

Ayes: 367

---

Conservative: 359
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 265

---

Labour: 198
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(The Solicitor General.)

18:41

Division 220

Ayes: 363

---

Conservative: 354
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 267

---

Labour: 198
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Conservative: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3—(Solicitor General.)

18:51

Division 221

Ayes: 367

---

Conservative: 359
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 265

---

Labour: 197
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

19:01

More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

After Clause 2

Notification to a Judicial Commissioner

Amendment (b) proposed to Lords amendment 5.— (Michael Ellis.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:02

Division 222

Ayes: 366

---

Conservative: 358
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 265

---

Labour: 198
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 5.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Lords amendment 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 1

Authorisation of Criminal Conduct

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.—(Michael Ellis.)

19:12

Division 223

Ayes: 361

---

Conservative: 353
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 267

---

Labour: 198
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Conservative: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 4 disagreed to.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Lords amendments 6 to 14 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1 to 4;

That Michael Ellis, Tom Pursglove, Paul Holmes, Mark Tami and David Linden be members of the Committee;

That Michael Ellis be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Rebecca Harris .)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Programme) (NO.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 March 2020 (Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Programme)), as amended by the Order of 22 April 2020 (Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1 and 54. If any amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered into the Journal.

Before Clause 1

Establishment and core duties etc

19:24

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3.

Lords amendments 4 to 10.

Lords amendment 11, and Government amendments (a) to (d) thereto.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 12.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 13.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 14.

Lords amendments 15 to 21.

Lords amendment 22, and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 23.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 24.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 25.

Lords amendments 26 to 29.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 30 and 31.

Lords amendment 32, and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

Lords amendments 33 to 39.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 40.

Lords amendments 41 to 47.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 48.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 49.

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 50.

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 3, 12 to 14, 23 to 25, 30, 40 and 48 to 50.

Lords amendments 51 to 56.

[Jo Churchill]

I am extremely pleased to be back at the Dispatch Box to speak to this Bill. It is a changed Bill since we last looked at it but one that still has the patient at its heart. I am pleased that it comes back to us with the same spirit of consensus and collaboration that it left us with.

Since we had the Bill’s Third Reading, the pandemic’s evolution and the importance of the regulation of clinical trials, the roll-out and regulatory approval of a vaccine, and the ability of healthcare professionals to get medicines into patients has bought into sharp focus precisely how essential this Bill is. The Government made a number of amendments to the Bill through the other place in response to Committees of the House, the report of the independent medicines and medical devices review, led by Baroness Cumberlege, and, importantly, as a result of genuine, cross-party discussions on how to make this Bill better.

I am glad to say that the Bill still—and for those who know me, this is my passion—puts patients first: patients who will have the opportunity to trial new treatments; patients whose safety is paramount; patients who need to see quick and effective action from regulators in the event of an emergency. The Bill that left us on Report had a new change to it, anticipating Baroness Cumberlege’s report. The medical device information system, which will transform post-market surveillance of medical devices and improve the ability to track down patients and prevent harm, followed talks across this House and in the other place. I reiterate my thanks in particular to the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for their contributions to that effort.

We said on Report that we awaited the conclusions of the Cumberlege review and that we would take steps when the review was published. I can tell the House now that we have, and Lords amendment 1 establishes a Patient Safety Commissioner—a champion for patients in relation to medicines and medical devices. I pay tribute to all those who have spoken here and in the other place of the impact of harm on patients and on women—those who have not been listened to whose stories are difficult and heart-wrenching. Much was said during the Bill’s passage in the other place about the whole system change to enshrine the voice of patients at the heart of the process and our commitment to it. The Patient Safety Commissioner will act within and outside the system. They will be an advocate for patients and ensure that the patient voice is primary. The commissioner will be able to seek information, make reports without fear or favour and expect responses, and, more importantly, get change.

Lords amendments 1, 41, 47, 54 and 56 together provide for both the appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner and regulations to support this appointment. I congratulate Baroness Cumberlege and her team, and thank her and others who contributed to getting this into the Bill so quickly after her report.

Lords amendment 31 provides for a small but important change that was also recommended in that review: a power to put the devices expert advisory committee on to a legislative footing.

I am very conscious of the passion and commitment shown by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) when we were last discussing the Bill. She has shown admirable determination. I am pleased to draw her attention to Lords amendment 8, which the Government were happy to support in the other place. That important amendment provides for provisions about the origin and treatment to be made in relation to the regulation of human medicines.

We have had two reports, one from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and one from the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

19:30

When we last stood opposite each other, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) challenged me on how to make it clear that patient safety was the absolute priority. I thank him and his team, and those who work in the other place, for their constructive dialogue on these issues. We all want to see patients receiving effective, safe medicines and medical devices, and we all want to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of pharmaceutical innovation. Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28 and 29 all change the nature of the regulatory powers in clauses 1, 8 and 12. They introduce an objective to safeguard public health, putting it at the heart of regulations. They remove the word “attractiveness” from the Bill and set out what I hope is as agreeable here as it was in the other place—a list of the types of activity we would hope the UK would be a favourable place to conduct. Importantly, they apply a safety lock. Regulations that affect the safety of a medicine or a medical device can be made only if the benefits outweigh the risks.

Hon. Members here were very clear that we should go further to demonstrate that patient safety was absolutely paramount. These changes do that, but they also assist in turning a Bill that was called a skeleton Bill into a true framework Bill that makes it clear how delegated powers will be used and how, in making regulatory changes, safeguarding public health remains key. These changes better reflect the discussions in this House and the other place, and answer the criticisms of the DPRR and the Constitution Committee.

We have also made changes to criminal offences—another area of earlier concern. Amendments 9, 10, 20, 21 and 55 clarify the maximum penalty that may be created by regulations. Both the DPRR and the Constitution Committee recommended increased parliamentary scrutiny, and the shadow Minister’s colleagues also pressed for public involvement.

Amendments 44, 45 and 46 all provide for Parliament to have multiple opportunities to inform, and be informed by, the Government’s plans for regulatory changes. First, consultations have become public consultations under clause 44. Secondly, the appropriate authority is obliged to produce an assessment of how the regulatory proposal meets the overarching framework considerations at the time of going out for consultation. As Members are aware, the Government prepare a response to the consultation, and how the consultation responses are considered will be made public in that way. The amendments introduce a reporting requirement that means a separate report back to Parliament every two years summarising how regulations made under clauses 1, 8, 12 and 18 have been operating during that time. It must include any concerns raised, what has been done as a consequence, and any plans for further changes to regulations. This gives the flexibility for Parliament to be interested in—and if individual Members or Committees wish it, to submit responses to—any individual consultation, without requiring it to.

Last time we discussed this Bill, the hon. Member for Nottingham North asked whether we could accept a sunset clause as a way of settling his colleagues’ concerns as to how we might use the powers contained in the Bill. I hope that he can agree that how these powers can be used has materially changed as a result of the Bill’s going through the other place. Another option that was put forward in the other place, as well as a sunset clause, was a requirement to bring forward and publish draft legislation. Unfortunately, we cannot accept these changes. Three years is simply not long enough to have a fully settled regime in a steady state to make reassessment practical, and amendments 2, 12, 13, 23, 24 and 40 would definitely introduce a cliff edge for new legislation. That is not the best way to go about legislation in general, but in this Bill, where essential changes could be needed to protect patients, there are better and more effective alternatives. Lords amendments 3, 14, 25, 30 and 48 to 50 also introduce the use of the super-affirmative procedure for regulatory changes that introduce significant new policy or changes to policy. Quite aside from how difficult it would be to assess what “significant” means, it is very much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—as we are often guilty of doing in this place. In both cases, I have heard the arguments for these amendments. People are concerned about the lack of detail in the new likely changes to the existing regulatory regimes, in particular for medical devices, and therefore Parliament wants greater visibility of what happens next. We have stressed the critical importance of consultation and have made changes there, and we have provided the reporting, as I have outlined.

Amendment (b) in lieu, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, proposes an alternative that goes further. This would require a report to be prepared within five years of Royal Assent that looked at the operation of the legislation. It would oblige the Secretary of State to take into account a report of any parliamentary Committee. That could mean, for example, a Select Committee choosing a report on the basis of a post-legislative scrutiny memorandum, and that report would need to address a series of considerations, such as whether the legislation needs restructuring or consolidating, whether certain parts of the legislation should be an Act of Parliament, and whether any of the powers in the Bill need amending or repealing. That provides the time needed to get the regulatory system into a steady state. It allows for consideration of how the system works on the ground and of all the factors that the hon. Member for Nottingham North and others have fairly raised in arguing in support of their amendments. I hope that he will support this solution.

I do not intend to spend very long on Lords amendments 11, 22 and 32 to 39, not because they are not important, but because they have been arrived at with significant consensus. We introduced these important powers to allow for information to be shared with relevant persons, such as regulators and regulatory networks outside of the UK, in order to give effect to international arrangements. These amendments provide safeguards on data shared by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. They define patient information. They provide a definition of relevant persons with whom information can be shared. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 11 would remove the reference to pharmaco-vigilance from the requirement to share information in the public interest, as, of course, pharmacovigilance is in the public interest and therefore covered.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to spend any time at all—you may be glad to hear—on Lords amendments 51 to 53, which make consequential commencement changes.

To finish, the Bill has gone through with a great deal of well-informed, well-intentioned debate and changes. I am pleased that the constructive discussions that we had before it left us have continued. The other place has brought something back to us that I hope we can agree delivers for UK patients and the UK life sciences industry, which is vital and enables us to build a stand-alone regulatory system for the UK for the future and one that has patients absolutely at its heart.

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

It is a pleasure to resume proceedings on this Bill, and we are now very close indeed to the finish line. For us and, I think, for all Members, this has always been about patient safety and about making sure that people of the United Kingdom have the best access to medicines and medical devices. The exchanges so far have been of a high quality in both content and tone. As the Minister has characterised, the Bill started as a skeleton, but it is certainly thin no more. There is much in there that will make a significant difference to our country.

I have been proud to take the lead for the Opposition since the Committee stage, and I thank my predecessor in the earlier rounds, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for setting the tone for us. I am also grateful to the Minister for her level of engagement and for giving us generous access to her officials and the Government in general throughout this process. The stages of the Bill through the Commons were of a high quality, and clearly considerable progress has been made in the other place, which we consider today. 

I welcome the Government’s concessions on the Bill, and I congratulate my colleagues in the other place, particularly Baronesses Thornton and Wheeler and Lord Hunt, on their hard work on and dedication to securing these vital amendments. That hard work will ensure that the Bill will promote patient safety and privacy, as well as proper consultation and scrutiny. I might even be mischievous enough to say that I tabled a number of these amendments in Committee, but I was unable to get them accepted at that point. I am therefore delighted to see them accepted at this stage.

We will support the Lords amendments where the Government have indicated their support, and where they have tabled amendments in lieu we will accept those as a reasonable compromise. I therefore do not intend to divide the House this evening. Similarly, I do not intend to speak to all 56 amendments, but I might cover a few of the pertinent major themes.

The Minister was right to say that in previous exchanges I challenged her to demonstrate that safeguarding public health and, critically, patient safety was uppermost, and that is reflected in Lords amendments 4 and 5. I knew from the outset that that was the Minister’s intention, and I think the amendments improve and make the Bill clearer, as well as future-proofing it for future Ministers and—dare I say it?—future Governments. It is important that that was done, and we appreciate that.

On Lords amendment 1, it is welcome that the Government have heeded the second recommendation in the Cumberlege review, and legislated for an independent Patient Safety Commissioner. We were lucky to have a review as seismic as that one, which crystallised many decades of suffering and pain for lots of people who had been crying in the darkness and ignored for a long time. That report was a cathartic moment, but it cannot remain just a report, and the fact that we had primary legislation that was the perfect vehicle for the independent Patient Safety Commissioner was a real blessing. I am pleased we were able to find a way to include that.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people he said were in the dark often felt that they were on their own, and it was only when groups were set up that they realised otherwise? Many doctors were telling them there was not a problem.

[Alex Norris]

Yes, and I met as many of those groups as I possibly could. That commonality in the story of people often being ignored and left alone, or told that they were wrong, lying or making it up, added insult to the significant injuries that they had suffered. That collective action was a big part of people getting their salvation and securing that review which then vindicated them so strongly. That is so important. The presence of the independent commissioner will ensure that patient wellbeing is prioritised and there will be a voice for those citizens. That is an essential step forward to ensure that our wonderful national health care system is responsive and hears challenging messages, even if perhaps it does not always want to. That will give people a voice, which is important.

We welcome the amendments on transparency and accountability, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for her leadership at other stages of the Bill. Frequent reporting will ensure that the system is monitored and accountable, which is good. With Lords amendment 31 the Bill will provide for the establishment of the independent statutory device expert advisory committee, to ensure that the regulation of devices is transparent, and that decision making is better structured and more accountable. That can only be a good thing. Making urgent regulation subject to positive affirmation, as in amendment (a) in lieu, will allow the regulatory system to respond to changing situations, while ensuring proper accountability and scrutiny.

As the Minister says, amendment (b) in lieu sweeps up and replaces the Lords amendments that relate to sunset clauses and clauses on the super-affirmation procedure. It was not quite what I was after, but I think it is a pretty fair deal. It is certainly more than I thought I would get—perhaps I should not say that before the amendments have been made. As a former trade union negotiator, I always thought that going in and getting 60%, 70% or 80% for our members was a pretty good outcome, so we will certainly take that. The five-year review is a good thing as it gives the Government more time—those arguments were well made by the Minister, and on reflection I think they are right.

At the root of this, the Secretary of State is acquiring significant powers, and it is right to review that as well as to have scrutiny down the line, and an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to determine whether the system might need consolidating or restructuring. That is vital to improve the quality of the regulatory system. I am really pleased that we got there, and with where we have arrived. I welcome the opportunity in Lords amendment 8 for the use of human tissue in medicine to be further regulated, thus preventing the NHS from being compromised by the trade in harvested organs, including those from ethnic minorities and political prisoners in authoritarian states. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) will be pleased with that inclusion. It is her hard work that made that happen, and I commend her for it, as she battled away. She feels strongly about this, and what has come out is very positive indeed. As I say, I commend her greatly for that.

00:01

Briefly, I shall pick up a couple of outstanding things from the medicines and medical devices safety review, which the Minister may deal with in her response. Again, significant progress has been made in the Bill and in associated regulations to make those recommendations a reality, but there are still a number of things outstanding that are accompanied by the words “in due course”, so I would be keen to get a sense from the Minister of when that is. She will be asked about that by others, as will her colleague, the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, and many right hon and hon. Members. It is an important part of finishing the process that those recommendations are adopted. The decision has clearly been made that they were not within the scope of the Bill or that the Bill was not the best place for them. I hope that when she closes the debate the Minister will detail the Government’s plans or at least a timetable for plans to address that.

Finally, the Bill—certainly the guidance relating to it—has advanced the idea of making fundamental change to community pharmacy by moving towards a hub and spoke model. I will say what I said in Committee and on Report. The Government have chosen not to include that in the Bill—that is their decision—but I believe that they intend to do it, and it will be a seismic change for community pharmacy. I hope to hear from the Minister a clear commitment to something so significant that it requires wide-ranging consultation with all manner of stakeholders to make sure that we do it right. I think that that is the case, but I am keen to have on-the-record clarity.

In conclusion, the Bill deals with patient safety and making sure that the British people have access to the best medicines and medical devices. We have fought hard to make it the best Bill that we can, and I am really proud and pleased with the progress that we have made.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), and to have followed the Bill from afar. It is a shining example of cross-party support, and to see it emerge from a skeleton Bill into a framework Bill is a credit to everyone who participated in Committee and in the House of Lords, and to Members across the House.

It is, in short, a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate, and I support Lords amendments 1 and 54. The creation of a commissioner for patient safety has long been sought, and it will not only enhance the fact that the NHS is viewed as one of the safest healthcare systems in the world but will reinforce the view that it is an organisation that can learn from its mistakes. One such mistake is the unconsented and experimental use of TVT mesh. The intent was for the best of purposes, but in fact it caused utter devastation, both physically and emotionally, to those who suffered adverse side effects. Those effects went unreported and were misdiagnosed for a great length of time, and change was down to people such as Janet Peck and Susan Morgan—two of my constituents and victims themselves—who fought hard for action to be taken. Their determination and hard work have resulted in the excellent report by Baroness Cumberlege, which calls for the appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner, which the Bill seeks to put in place, to ensure that scenarios such as those surrounding TVT mesh become never events.

The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health gave a heart-felt and meaningful apology to those who have been failed by medical treatments as outlined by the Cumberlege report last year. The new position will be welcomed by patients and practitioners alike, and I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will go further and explain the commissioner’s remit and the parameters of their work, and how recruitment will find a suitable person to report back. I welcome the fact that the Government will respond further to the independent medicines and medical devices safety review. Finally—much of what I wanted to say has already been said—I pay tribute to Susan and Janet. Their fortitude and determination have helped to shape the Cumberlege report and shape this Bill and, as we have already heard, their repeated efforts to ensure that patient safety is put first have allowed the Bill to be created in such a way that it will have a long and meaningful impact on those who seek the best service possible from the NHS. As has already been said, the cross-party support is a credit to this House. I congratulate all Members who have taken a significant step in helping to shape the Bill.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]]

In 2018, the imported bodies of political prisoners and human rights abuse victims in China were on display in Birmingham. It was supposed to be a Real Bodies exhibition, to inform the public about biology, yet in reality it was a barbaric travelling circus. The British public unknowingly paid £15 each to view the remains of these poor souls.

Since I learned of that horrific display, I have become determined to work on behalf of these human rights abuse victims to end forced tissue and organ harvesting. Our nation and the people who live here must not be complicit in the brutal acts of the Chinese communist regime. The first step is to put a stop to the importing of tissue and organs of human rights abuse victims. Currently, neither the human tissue regulations nor the Human Tissue Act 2004 requires appropriate consent for imported human tissues to be used in medicines. After several attempts to bring forward an amendment to achieve this, both here and in the other place, the Government have finally included a negotiated amendment in this Bill, which I welcome.

That amendment provides the opportunity to prevent complicity in this crime within the UK medicine industry, and gives Ministers the powers to do the right thing. It is important to stress that the amendment has not dealt with the issue of organ transplant tourism, or the issue of plastinated unclaimed bodies being imported and commercially displayed, as we saw in Birmingham. The amendment is a welcome start, but it is only the beginning; there is much more to do.

I hope the House will forgive me if I place my thanks on record, as securing that amendment has been a long, drawn-out battle across both Chambers. First, I congratulate Lord Hunt of King’s Heath for persevering so tenaciously, along with his co-signatories Lady Finlay, Lady Northover and Lord Ribeiro. I also thank Lord Alton and Lord Collins for their tireless efforts on this issue. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his support and advice.

One of my predecessors as MP for my home town, St Helens, was Sir Hartley Shawcross, the chief British prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. Just like the Nazis he prosecuted for, among many reasons, using human beings for medical experiments, I hope and pray that one day, those responsible for these despicable, heinous acts will be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity, for that is what forced organ harvesting is. Last year, the China tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, a former lead prosecutor at The Hague, concluded that

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply”,

and that

“In regard to the Uyghurs the Tribunal had evidence of medical testing on a scale that could allow them, amongst other uses, to become an ‘organ bank’.”

The amendment sends a very clear message that we will not tolerate such appalling acts against humanity and that we will deliver for the people of China, not for the Communist party of China. Let the amendment truly mark the beginning of a new relationship with China—a relationship that is not naive. Today, Holocaust Memorial Day, is the day when the world says “Never again” to genocide. Let this be the start of the Government putting those words into practice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Minister for all the work that she has done on the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his dedication.

The Bill seeks to address the regulatory gap by introducing dedicated regulation-making powers covering the fields of human medicines, including clinical trials of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. That is clearly absolutely necessary, and the most pertinent reason is one about which I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care just last week: the ability of my young constituent Sophia Gibson to have continued access to her medication post Brexit. Her family were informed that there would be issues sourcing the medication—medicinal cannabis—that has made such a difference to her life. Her parents began their battle, still traumatised from their last battle to source this life-saving medication, and we began to work on it. The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department of Health have worked hard, and initial reports are that we will produce the medication here, in co-ordination with the lab that creates it in the Hague. That is good news, although I await confirmation. It would appear that this is just one story that is working out, but it flags the necessity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland creating and prescribing our own medications. That is why this legislation is vital.

I echo and support wholeheartedly the comments of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) in relation to the commercial forced organ harvesting that is happening in China against Falun Gong members, Christians and Uyghur Muslims. We need to address that, and I know that the Minister and other Ministers have that responsibility. It is very worrying, and I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about that.

I know that the thousands of people who believe that their quality of life has been affected by mesh, for example, will wonder why this legislation has not been in place before. I ask for clarity that the aim of the Bill will be achieved and that it will allow for much greater scrutiny and accountability in the world of medical devices.

The Lords amendments make a few suggested additions to the Bill. There is an understanding that we must allow our medical field the ability to produce medication and medical devices, but also that it must be better regulated and offer better protection to those who rely on these devices. The Bill extends to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Parts 1 and 2, relating to human medicines and veterinary medicines respectively, are within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. A legislative consent motion has been sought for those parts, and I welcome that following close on the heels of this debate.

Our goal is not simply to pass continuity legislation post Brexit but to improve and upgrade our legislation, and that is what the Bill achieves. The Government indicated in the background briefing to the Queen’s Speech and in a press release that they intend to use these powers to support the development of medicines and medical devices in the NHS and amend prescribing power. That needs to happen, and it needs to happen now; will the Minister confirm that that is the case? The Government stated in the explanatory notes to the Bill that they intend to use these powers to keep the existing regulatory frameworks updated, while consolidating the enforcement regime for medical devices. In addition, the Bill will provide the Secretary of State with the ability to impose civil sanctions as an alternative to criminal prosecution for breaches of the medical device regime.

I have long worked with those who believe that the use of mesh in their bodies has caused substantial harm—not just females and ladies, but males. I have had a number of meetings with them about that. We are all aware that, when something is termed a medical device and not a medication, the testing is less stringent. The civil sanctions will provide the emphasis that we all want to see, to ensure that any device placed in a person’s body has been tested to a high standard before widespread use. I commend the Government, and I commend all Members for their contributions.

20:00

[Jo Churchill]

When taking a Bill through the House, we always hope that it will be one that hon. Members from both sides can understand, support and improve. Our intention to have a gold standard of medicines and medical device regulation in this country, and to put the patient at the heart of it, has been long understood and has very much formed the foundation stone of the Bill.

I am very grateful for the support of hon. Members here; the spirit of collaboration is how we get this Bill done now—today. I would like to address one or two of the questions that hon. Members brought up. I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). He was right when he said that the timing of the Cumberlege report was fortuitous. In this House, we have been able to make sure that patient safety has been addressed. He was also right to say that it was a collective effort, and he and other Members were right in saying that the Bill very much reflects the voice of campaigners who often feel that their voices go unheard. Today, they have not gone unheard.

[Mark Tami]

May I also mention the former Member for Pontypridd, Owen Smith, who is no longer in the House? He set up the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh implants, which did so much work to highlight this issue.

[Jo Churchill]

Indeed.

This has been a long time coming, and Members from both this House and the other place have been involved. I pay particular tribute to Janet Peck and Susan Morgan, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), and their quiet determination to make sure that their challenges were seen and noticed. The Government then took the right decisions in helping them make sure that this does not happen to others. That was the right thing to do.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked me to address two or three points. We plan to respond in full to the report later in 2021. It has been incredibly impactful and has already served to put patient safety at the top of the agenda for the whole health and care system. If it had not been for the covid-19 pandemic, I think we would be discussing little else than patient safety because of the Bill before us. Just as covid-19 impacted on the publication of the report, it has impacted our response time. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that that response will come later in the year.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the speed of the appointment of a patient safety commissioner. I very much want the right person. I cannot give a precise time, but I want to underscore the importance of patient safety and our belief that the patient safety commissioner will and must be effective in amplifying the voice of patients and improving patient safety in the use of medicines and medical devices. I hope that the process will not take too long, but we must appoint the right person, who will truly give the right voice.

On hub and spoke, which the hon. Gentleman and I both agree is so important, there will be a full public consultation. The Government will then report to Parliament, and include a summary of the concerns raised in the public consultation. To ensure that we get the right model to assist pharmacy going forward, we intend to be totally transparent.

To the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can give an unequivocal yes. We have a thriving life science sector in the UK, contributing over £80 billion a year to the economy and over a quarter of a million jobs. We want to ensure that the UK remains an important market for medicines and medical devices, and to bring products to market here.

As I close, it is perhaps unusual to be pleased that there have been quite so many changes or challenges on a Bill, but I think they have been the right changes and the right challenges. To that end, I thank all hon. Members who have challenged and who have assisted in those changes. I also thank all those who have assisted behind the scenes—the Bill team, my officials and so on. We have arrived at a Bill that I think carries the support of all sides and of both ends of the Parliament, and one where patients, the sector and the public can understand how we do good work and how this Bill will work for them.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 4 to 10 agreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (d) made to Lords amendment 11.

Lords amendment 11, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 12 to 14 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 15 to 21 agreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made to Lords amendment 22.

Lords amendment 22, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 23 to 25 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 26 to 29 agreed to.

Lords amendment 30 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 31 agreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made to Lords amendment 32.

Lords amendment 32, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 33 to 39 agreed to.

Lords amendment 40 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 41 to 47 agreed to.

Lords amendments 48 to 50 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 3, 12 to 14, 23 to 25, 30, 40 and 48 to 50.

Lords amendments 51 to 56 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 54.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 15), dated 7 January 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Golf Tourism

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

20:16

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am very proud to represent North East Fife and the town of St Andrews, which is known worldwide as the home of golf. As the local Member of Parliament, I have to declare a rather unusual interest: the St Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974, passed in this place, designates the local MP as one of the eight trustees of the St Andrews Links Trust, which manages the seven courses in the town, including the Old Course.

This is a special year for the home of golf, because we are celebrating the bicentenary of the birth of Old Tom Morris, the founding father of golf. Old Tom won The Open four times, and his victory in 1867 at the age of 46 means that he is the oldest person to have ever won the claret jug. He finished runner up in 1868, behind the youngest ever winner, his 17-year-old son, Young Tom Morris. Old Tom was also a prolific course designer, contributing to more than 50 courses across the UK and Ireland, including with the famous 18th hole on the Old Course, which bears his name.

It is the story of legends such as Old Tom that make golf in Fife world famous. When people come and play they become part of a history that stretches all the way back to the 15th century, encompassing on its way Old Tom, Young Tom and the modern greats of the game, who are set to return to Fife when the 150th Open is held in St Andrews in 2022. It is a living history, too. Anyone who knows me knows that I am much more likely to be picking up a shinty stick than a golf club, but any member of the public can get a tee time for the links course in St Andrews. There is now far more recognition of women’s golf than ever before, although work on that front is still ongoing, and an increasingly strong emphasis on accessibility, as I saw last year when I attended part of the Phoenix cup, disability golf’s equivalent of the Ryder cup. I was pleased that the organisers, including Scottish Disability Golf & Curling, were able to go ahead with the tournament, in the face of huge logistical challenges.

When we put all these things together, we see that it is no wonder that Fife and St Andrews are the No. 1 destinations on many a golfer’s bucket list. From April to October, tourists, predominantly from overseas and particularly from North America, travel to Fife and contribute to our local economy. A whole ecosystem is built up around golf tourism. Of course that means the golf clubs, but it also means the inbound tour operators, who arrange tee times, hotels and travel for many international tourists; the minibus drivers; the caddies; the B&Bs; the guest houses and hotels; the brilliant local restaurants; our fantastic Fife distilleries; and all their employees and suppliers. Every pound spent by a golf tourist has a huge multiplier effect. Up to 100 golf facilities attract almost all overseas golf tourists to Scotland and generate at least £300 million in revenues. As the House can imagine, when the coronavirus pandemic hit, the impact on clubs, small business owners, the people of my constituency and other areas around Scotland and the UK where golf plays an important part was huge.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way in what is a brilliant speech so far; I look forward to the rest of it. I stress that although I may be the proxy of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) tonight, I speak in my own capacity as the Member for North Antrim.

Golf tourism in Northern Ireland is, as the hon. Member has indicated in respect of other parts of the UK, absolutely stunning. It has changed the economy, especially in North Antrim and other parts of the country. In fact, we look forward to the return of the ISPS Handa cup, the Northern Ireland Open, the Irish Open and, indeed, the Open in the foreseeable future. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must get behind promoting and developing golf tourism, because it is one of the key ways in which we will lift our economy post covid?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have already made my apologies, via the hon. Gentleman, to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for the fact that my physical participation this evening has prevented him from contributing virtually. Yes, I absolutely agree: obviously, I believe that Fife and St Andrews are top of any golfer’s bucket list, but clearly all parts of the UK are. We are a worldwide leader in the sport.

Golf tourism’s particular reliance on international tourism—and particularly on American tourists, who were subject to quarantine restrictions—meant that in effect the 2020 season was sadly over before it began. That has had a particular impact on inbound tour operators, many of which operate in my constituency. Last year, I organised a roundtable with the Scottish Incoming Golf Tour Operators Association—SIGTOA—and a number of local operators, and they told me of the difficulties they had faced over the previous months.

One tour operator said to me,

“as of yesterday and today, I have received two separate cancellations from Australian groups who had rescheduled from this year to 2021…Yet again this is a prime example that Golf Tourism and our businesses are being crippled, and will continue to be crippled, not just for 6 months but what is likely to be 18-24 months.”

Another Fife-based company told me:

“With nearly 40 years in package tourism, we have experienced a number of challenges as the business was affected by various national and international events. We simply battened down the hatches and worked through it all, using our own resources and never a penny piece of public money.

Our company (as with those of our fellow operators) has proved very resilient—but Covid is stress-testing that resilience to breaking point.”

The picture for them is pretty bleak.

It is worth mentioning that, under the current restrictions in Scotland, people can play golf, with very strict limitations. When the all-party parliamentary group on golf, of which I am a vice-chair, shared information on this debate on social media, many people got in touch regarding the current restrictions in Wales, England and Northern Ireland, which exclude golf from the sports currently permitted. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate what plans the Government have for golf’s reopening.

Part of the difficulty is that financial support is not getting to where it needs to—and this applies not just to tour operators but across the sector. For instance, the furlough has been less useful in an industry in which there is much seasonal employment and self-employment, as I have said previously in Parliament. In some respects, clubs themselves have had the best of it, particularly those whose business models are weighted towards membership, as subscriptions can be utilised to retain staff and maintain the facilities. Clearly, though, there will be pressures on subscriptions going forward, and many clubs have a mixed business model in which visitor income plays a significant part. Crail Golfing Society was founded in 1786 and is the seventh oldest club in the world; it lost £600,000 in visitor revenue in 2020.

Scottish Government support has not always hit the mark either. Back in May, I met golf clubs from across Fife, and they explained that many of them were ineligible for business grants because their rateable values were too high as a result of the land taken up by the courses. They needed support but were sadly excluded.

I was contacted by one constituent who runs a golf tourism business in St Andrews. Some 95% of his customers are from America. He provides travel services, but because his business is vehicles, he does not have premises or pay rates, which means he is not classed as part of the tourism and hospitality sector. He has found himself excluded from support. He told me:

“My business is highly reliant on”—

tourism—

“being open and available as I am part of the tourist supply chain for some major hotels and premises in St Andrews...my business has had no clients at all in 2020.”

It is clear that there are huge challenges.

I welcomed the Scottish Government’s December announcement of further support for tourism and hospitality, including a specific fund for inbound tour operators, but that money was initially promised on 9 December and the fund opened for offers of interest only last week. January is a challenging month at the best of times, and I doubt that any operator will receive money until February—that is two months after the first announcement.

At least support for Scottish operators is on its way. The UK Government are yet to provide specific funding for inbound tour operators, so I encourage the Minister to engage with UKinbound’s proposals for a £45 million resilience fund. That surely is an investment worth making, given that normally, international visitors contribute £28 billion to the UK economy every year and support half a million jobs directly. That would have an impact on my constituency too, because lots of UK-wide operators run tours that incorporate England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland.

The need for support has only increased following today’s announcement about tightening border restrictions. Back in the autumn, the whole focus for clubs, operators and businesses was, “Let’s make it through to the 2021 season.” March and April 2021 promised a potential return to viability. That expectation only increased following the incredibly positive news in November about the development and approval of covid-19 vaccines. Now, as we administer hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses a day, the prospect of relaxing restrictions when the warmer weather is here looks more possible.

The sector had been positive. Operators’ assessment of the situation has been that the demand for international customers is very much there if people can find a safe and direct way to travel. Operators previously hoped that that would be secured by a combination of the vaccine roll-out and increased testing. Clearly, it is much more challenging now. Quite simply, if the 2021 season is also cancelled due to travel restrictions, as seems increasingly likely, then unless further support is given, many of the businesses I have mentioned will have to close.

That is true not just for tour operators but for many of those businesses that rely on the income generated by those tourists. Let me give another example. I was contacted by a very small tourism business operating in St Andrews and all over Scotland. My constituent and her husband drive golfers and tourists about, and they work for three different tour operators. They are currently on universal credit and previously received a self-employment support grant. She told me:

“I see that foreign travel may not happen til 2022. Being as our business depends on foreign travel there is no way without adequate funding we can make it til 2022. So it’s about time we heard some facts so people can decide about their business as we are just getting into untold debt and don’t know what to do.”

Yesterday, in the urgent question on border restrictions, I told the Home Secretary that what business operators and the public needed was clarity, certainty and notice. Given the expectation that the Scottish Government are considering more stringent travel restrictions, coupled with the Home Secretary’s subsequent statement today, I am concerned that we have none of those things.

Uncertainty is corrosive to these businesses, and it is a huge source of stress and anxiety to small business owners across the country. As we marked the tragic threshold of 100,000 deaths in the UK yesterday, I appreciate how fine the margins of such decisions are and the ongoing need to ensure public health, but I hope that the Minister can set out the likely considerations for a return to international tourism.

With the new travel restrictions, clubs and businesses that rely on international tourism face an increasingly bleak picture for summer 2021. With the prospect of domestic restrictions being lifted as the population is vaccinated, the Government must commit to supporting the golf industry, which relies so much on inbound international tourism. We cannot on the one hand start opening up the economy domestically this summer, while on the other failing to provide support to those businesses that rely on inbound tourism. It would be a disaster for so many of them and would potentially devastate the domestic market too.

That means listening to the businesses. One problem that I am aware of is with deposits. Many customers were initially happy to roll over their 2020 bookings into 2021. They have spent money on deposits to secure tickets, bookings, hotel accommodation—all manner of things—for trips this summer. The businesses do not currently have or hold that money. If customers start to cancel, the Government will need to support inbound tourism businesses that are struggling to return those deposits. They will also need to support the golf clubs that were relying on the prospect of inbound tourism this summer.

There is a real opportunity here. If these businesses survive until summer 2022, we will hopefully see the Open return to St Andrews for its 150th edition. That will be a huge opportunity for celebration, but if we are going to get there, the Government need to take those steps on clarity, support and listening to the concerns and needs of businesses in the sector. If the Government can do that, we can make sure that the fantastic, vibrant golf businesses of the home of golf and elsewhere across the UK make it through their biggest challenge yet. I urge the Government to listen and to take those steps, and I hope that the Minister will be able to meet me and businesses in my constituency to discuss what further steps might be taken.

20:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to respond on the Government’s behalf to this debate on golf tourism, which fits neatly within my portfolio as the Minister for both sport and tourism, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing it. She spoke eloquently and with passion and knowledge about all dimensions of tourism and golf. She gave us a good history of golf, which I very much appreciated, and I particularly appreciated her highlighting the increasing importance of women’s golf and disability golf.

I make it clear from the outset that tourism and sport are devolved matters, meaning that the devolved Administrations are responsible for any targeted policy intervention in their respective nations, but, as the hon. Lady pointed out, a number of matters are also UK-wide, so I will talk broadly.

I will start by highlighting the valuable contribution of sport to the UK tourism sector before moving on to address the current pandemic’s impact on inbound tourism and the Government’s response. Turning to the second half of the debate, or perhaps I should say the back nine, I will summarise the Government’s work to help sports clubs through this period and reiterate our commitment to reopening golf courses and other sports facilities as soon as the broader health situation allows. That is absolutely our goal, which I know is shared by all hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The UK’s sporting calendar is recognised as one of our greatest tourism assets. In 2017, the last year for which we have detailed figures available, over 2 million visitors attended a live sporting event as part of their trip to the UK, accounting for 6% of all visits that year. In particular, 18,000 of these international visitors watched a live golf event during their stay, perhaps in the hon. Lady’s constituency, spending at least £30 million.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will appreciate my saying that the Open championship, held in Royal Portrush in Northern Ireland in 2019, served as a major tourist draw, and he mentioned how important tourism and golf tourism are for Northern Ireland.

As well as attending prestigious events, international visitors also come here to get involved in the sporting action themselves. Over 350,000 inbound visitors played golf during a trip to the UK in 2017, spending about £418 million, which is an immense sum and hence the importance of this debate. Given the stunning scenery to be found right across the country, golf tourists are spoiled for choice when it comes to choosing where to go for a round, although I am sure that many will have made the pilgrimage to St Andrews in the constituency of the hon. Member for North East Fife.

In England, the £45 million Discover England fund has helped businesses to tap into the lucrative golf tourism market. The Golf Tourism England project, in particular, helps businesses to create bookable itineraries aimed at international audiences, connecting visitors with destinations across the country.

Although I wish I could use this speech to point to an upward trend in golf tourism, we all know that the events of the past year have clearly overshadowed proceedings. Inbound tourism was one of the first industries to be hit by covid, with the effects on bookings and confidence felt even before we entered the first lockdown last March. The subsequent drop in international arrivals had a devastating impact on tourism businesses and suppliers—in this case, the tour operators, the coach drivers, the hotels and many other businesses that contribute to delivering the golf tourism experience, as the hon. Lady articulated.

The Government acted quickly to help businesses through lockdown with a comprehensive package of support, much of which the hon. Lady mentioned. When the sector reopened in July we took targeted fiscal action to aid the sector further, including cutting the rate of VAT on tourism and hospitality-related activities to 5% until the end of March this year.

Although summer may have gone well for some businesses with a domestic focus, many in this sector, particularly those highly dependent on international travel, continued to struggle and are still struggling. Last autumn, to help chart a path forward for these businesses, the Transport Secretary launched a global travel taskforce to consider what steps the Government could take to enable the safe and sustainable recovery of international travel.

In November, the taskforce published its report outlining 14 recommendations focused on ensuring clear public health measures, increasing demand safely and taking the lead on global standards. My Department, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, continues to work closely with the Department for Transport on progressing these recommendations, including the development of a tourism recovery plan, which we are currently working on, and, at the appropriate time, running a flagship overseas marketing campaign to promote the UK as an attractive and safe place to visit.

[Ian Paisley]

I am following closely the serious points that the Minister is making. In order to assist golf courses and, indeed, people and their wellbeing at the present time, and while he is on that holy ground of golf tonight, may I tell him that people do not yet appreciate why they can walk around supermarkets and be in close contact with many people, yet they cannot walk out in the fresh air and golf in a socially distanced, safe way that would keep their local course open? Can he explain that and help us to get out of this pandemic?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Of course, nobody wanted to close down golf courses. It is vital that we let people get out and exercise. The problem was that we would have had confusing messages. The fundamental clear message is to stay at home unless you have to leave for certain reasons or for a limited number of low-impact exercises, and there would have been confusing messages had we done anything else. As I say, the goal is to try to get golf and other sports open as soon as possible; that is absolutely the shared aim.

Before we can welcome back international visitors, we first need to help the tourism sector through the final stretch of the pandemic. At a UK-wide level, the Chancellor has implemented further support for businesses and individuals in the light of the winter’s heightened restrictions, including extending various Government-backed loans as well as extending the furlough and self-employed schemes. In England, the Chancellor has also announced one-off top-up grants for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses worth up to £9,000 per property, plus a further £594 million discretionary fund to support other impacted businesses. That builds on the £1.1 billion discretionary fund that local authorities in England have already received to help impacted businesses.

The guidance for these additional restrictions grants encourages local authorities to develop discretionary schemes to help those businesses that are perhaps not legally forced to close but are none the less severely impacted by the restrictions put in place to control the spread of covid. These could include, for example, businesses that supply the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors or businesses in the events sector. On this point, I have received a number of reports that some tourism-related businesses, which might not be ratepayers and are not explicitly mentioned in the guidance on these grant schemes, are being deemed ineligible by some local authorities. To be clear to those local authorities and those businesses, although the ultimate decision is at the local authority’s discretion, the fund can, and in my opinion certainly should, be used to provide grants to tour operators, coach operators, school travel companies, English language schools, event organisers and similar businesses, all of which serve as vital facilitators to the tourism industry even if they do not sell to consumers directly on a specific premise. I therefore encourage and expect local authorities to be sympathetic to applications from those businesses and others that have been impacted by covid-19 restrictions but are ineligible for the other grant schemes. We had a debate on a similar issue with funfairs and other sectors in Westminster Hall recently.

We also know that these remain incredibly challenging conditions for the golf clubs themselves. No Government would want to be in a position of needing to close sports facilities such as golf courses. Golf has great reach across society, as people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities can take part in the game. It brings people together to experience the outdoors and enjoy nature, and makes great contributions to mental health.

Golf courses were one of the first sports facilities to be reopened following the initial lockdown, and they were able to stay open in the local tiered restrictions, including and up to tier 4; however, the current spread of the virus risks the healthcare system becoming overwhelmed, which we cannot allow to happen. That is why the current national lockdown was introduced. I understand the frustrations of those who are desperate to get back on the course. As I said, we want to get them back on the courses as soon as possible and start lifting restrictions, and grassroots sports will be among the first to return.

To support the return of grassroots sport, including golf courses, the Government have supported businesses through unprecedented pan-economic measures, on top of the funding that Sport England has provided, which represents over £220 million in direct support for the sport and physical activity sector, with £35 million set aside as a community emergency fund. In addition, just yesterday Sport England published its strategy “Uniting the Movement”, as part of which it has committed an extra £50 million to help grassroots sports clubs and organisations affected by the pandemic. Further information on how to apply to those funds will be released shortly, and I am aware that similar funds are available in other parts of the country.

Golf tourism is a hugely valuable activity, which supports a whole chain of tourism businesses and jobs. We will continue to engage with tourism sector stakeholders as we look into how we can most effectively support the inbound sector through covid and beyond, and we hope to share our tourism recovery plan in due course. I would be delighted to have a meeting with the hon. Lady, as she requested, and I assure all hon. Members that the Government overall are listening and will continue to work with stakeholders on ideas further to support all strands of inbound tourism.

Question put and agreed to.

20:40

House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

Member eligible for proxy vote	Nominated proxy
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)	Chris Loder
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)	Mark Tami
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)	Ben Everitt
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)	Patrick Grady
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)	Stuart Andrew
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Tami (Ogmore) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)	Wendy Chamberlain
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)	Stuart Andrew
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)	Ben Lake
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)	Mark Tami
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)	Mark Tami
John Howell (Henley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)	Mark Tami
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)	Mr William Wragg
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)	Patrick Grady
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)	Chris Loder
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)	Mark Tami
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)	Mark Tami
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)	Ben Lake
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)	Mark Tami
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)	Mark Tami
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)	Ben Lake
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)	Ian Paisley
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)	Rachel Hopkins
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)	Mark Tami
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)	Mark Tami

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

Division 218

Ayes: 553

---

Conservative: 344
Labour: 198
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 2

---

Conservative: 2

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 27 January 2021

Education

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Skills for Jobs White Paper

The following is an extract from the oral statement on the Skills for Jobs White Paper on Thursday 21 January 2021.

[Neil O'Brien]

Level 4 apprentices go on to earn more than the average undergraduate. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 30% of undergraduate degrees lead to negative returns overall. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rebalancing the system towards our neglected technical education sector is the right thing for young people and the right thing for the country?

[Gavin Williamson]

I absolutely agree. It is a real Achilles heel of this country. In this country, 10% of the 18 to 65 workforce has higher technical qualifications, as compared with 20% in Germany and 34% in Canada.

[Official Report, 21 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 1164.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien).

The correct response should have been:

[Gavin Williamson]

I absolutely agree. It is a real Achilles heel of this country. In this country, 10% of 20 to 45-year-olds hold higher technical qualifications as their highest qualifications, as compared with around 20% in Germany and 34% in Canada.

Petition

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Petitions

Wednesday 27 January 2021

Waste incinerator on Portland

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Petitions

The petition of residents of the constituency of South Dorset,

Declares that the proposal to build a waste incinerator on Portland should not go ahead and that the Government should review its support for incinerators more generally; notes that almost 7,000 people have signed a corresponding online petition to stop the waste incinerator; further declares that South Dorset is a beautiful part of the world and that it should remain a healthy place for our children, grandchildren and ourselves; further that research has shown that a waste incinerator will cause the release of tiny dangerous particles into the air; further that a waste incinerator will cause a small increase in health risks for children; further that it will bring more lorries thundering along already busy roads; further that there is a possible need for the incinerator to be “fed” in the future by waste imported from outside the UK; further that it will create a big, unsightly blot on our beautiful landscape and coast; further that it will discourage recycling; and further that it will not create many jobs for local residents.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to rethink its support for incinerators and look towards a greener, circular economy.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Richard Drax, Official Report, 8 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 804.]

[P002634]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice):

Thank you very much for sharing the petition of residents of the constituency of South Dorset regarding a proposal to build a waste incinerator on Portland, South Dorset.

The Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy (RWS), published in 2018, set out plans to preserve material resources by minimising waste, promoting resource efficiency and moving towards a circular economy. The RWS includes the Government’s approach to energy from waste (EfW).

A key principle of the RWS is to prevent waste occurring in the first place. This is in keeping with the waste hierarchy, which ranks options for waste management according to their environmental impact. Where waste does occur, it needs to be managed in the most resource-efficient way possible while minimising environmental harm. After waste prevention, priority goes to preparing waste for reuse, recycling and then recovery. Disposal, for example in landfill, is regarded as the worst option.

Through the landmark Environment Bill, the Government are taking the powers necessary to deliver on many of the commitments in the RWS, such as introducing a deposit return scheme, reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system, and introducing greater consistency in recycling collections in England. These measures are aimed at reducing waste and increasing recycling rates—with a 65% municipal waste recycling target by 2035.

However, even after achieving higher recycling rates, there will still be some residual waste to deal with that cannot be recycled or reused because, for example, it is contaminated or there are no end markets for the material. This residual waste is generally dealt with in three main ways: landfill, incineration with energy recovery (i.e. EfW) or exported as refuse derived fuel.

For most residual waste, EfW is generally considered the best management option, in terms of environmental impact and getting value from the waste as a resource. EfW does therefore play an important role in diverting waste from landfill. Nevertheless, the Government are very clear that EfW should not compete with greater waste prevention, reuse or recycling.

In relation to decisions on new EfW plants, established planning and permitting processes should be followed. Determining planning applications is a matter for the relevant local planning authority. Development proposals should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is for the planning authority to take material planning considerations into account. This includes the assessment of the impact of traffic generated by this type of proposed development, along with all other relevant considerations.

Planning applications for waste management facilities of this type are often subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 EIA Regulations), which means that the planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement that addresses a range of environmental factors.

In terms of permitting, all EfW plants in England are regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and must comply with the strict emissions limits set out in legislation. Each permit application is assessed to ensure that the proposed plant will use the best available techniques (BAT) to minimise emissions, and that it will not have a significant effect on local air quality.

Permits contain limits for a number of pollutants, including total particulate matter (TPM) which includes particulates of all sizes, including PM_2.5 and smaller. The EA will not issue a permit if the plant could have a significant effect on the environment or human health.

The EA consults Public Health England (PHE) on every permit application it receives. PHE’s position is that modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from these incinerators completely, any potential effect for people living close by is likely to be very small. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that waste incinerators make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants.

Once operational, EfW plants are closely regulated through a programme of regular inspections and audits carried out by the EA, who also carefully check the results of the continuous air emissions monitoring which all plants must do to meet the conditions of their environmental permit.

In 2019, the Government’s Clean Air Strategy (CAS) set out new and ambitious goals, legislation, investment and policies to improve air quality faster and more effectively. The Environment Bill delivers key parts of the CAS by establishing a duty to set a target on PM_2.5, alongside a long-term target on air quality, as part of the wider framework for setting legally binding environmental targets.

In summary, EfW has its place in managing residual waste as part of a holistic waste management system delivering value from waste as a resource—but only where that waste cannot be reused or recycled. However, the Government are committed to closely monitoring EfW capacity as they take action to continue the shift away from a take, make, use, throw system to a greener, more circular economy.

Registers of Births and Deaths Bill (First sitting)

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Esther McVey

† Baynes, Simon (Clwyd South) (Con)

† Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con)

Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab)

Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

Creasy, Stella (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Holmes, Paul (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Loder, Chris (West Dorset) (Con)

† McGovern, Alison (Wirral South) (Lab)

† Mitchell, Mr Andrew (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

† Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

† Sambrook, Gary (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

† Spellar, John (Warley) (Lab)

Webb, Suzanne (Stourbridge) (Con)

† Wilson, Munira (Twickenham) (LD)

Wood, Mike (Dudley South) (Con)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 27 January 2021

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Registers of Births and Deaths Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Registers of Births and Deaths Bill. Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked with a tick. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee whenever you are not speaking. Notes should be passed only electronically. The Hansard Reporters would be most grateful if Members emailed all copies of their notes to [e-mail] The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. In this case, no amendments have been tabled and I have grouped all the clauses and the schedule together, in a single debate. Formal decisions on the clauses and schedule will be taken at the end. There will, however, be no further debate.

Clause 1

Form in which registers are to be kept

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 7 stand part.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

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

May I first say, on behalf of the whole Committee, what a pleasure it is to serve under your benign chairmanship, Ms McVey, and welcome you to the Chair? May I also express my admiration and gratitude to hon. Members from all parts of the House who have physically made the journey to the Committee today? Under the rules of the House, we all have to be here physically to conduct the Committee stage, and I am immensely grateful to all those who have made the journey, whose names will be recorded in Hansard.

I also thank colleagues from both sides of the House for their co-operation in working on the Bill and, in particular, the Opposition for their support. That includes the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who unfortunately cannot be with us today, but who led for the Opposition on Second Reading.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), cannot be here today either, for reasons that the Committee will readily understand and accept, but in his absence we are joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, who is double-hatting—of course, a Government Whip is also a Minister. We are extremely grateful to him for, at short notice, taking on this speaking part, which is somewhat unusual for the Government Whips Office or, indeed, any Whips Office. I believe I am right in saying that, before he was a Government Whip, he was a very distinguished vice-chairman of the youth wing of our party. That was my first parliamentary job when I first came into the House at, I think, about the time when my hon. Friend was born, so we are very grateful indeed to him for being here today and helping to take this Bill through Committee.

This is a very difficult time. I therefore hope that you will allow me, Ms McVey, to express a couple of thanks to those who put together the arrangements for this morning so that the Committee could take place: from the Clerks Department, Adam Mellows-Facer, and Yohanna Sallberg from the Committee of Selection; Linda Edwards and Saskia Molekamp from the Home Office; and of course Jonathan Carter, who drafted the Bill and whom I should have mentioned on Second Reading. I am also very grateful that our former colleague Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton has generously agreed to take the Bill through the House of peers, should it get assent in this House.

The Second Reading debate made clear—at least I hope it did—that the Bill was conceived in the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, my constituency, where the registry office was closed back in 2014. As a result of that, many of my constituents, at a difficult time in their lives, had to make the long journey from Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham to register a birth or a death. A day like today, the day after we have all had to come to terms with the terrible news about the scale of covid deaths in our country, brings it home to us that at a difficult time, of great sadness often, having to go physically into a registry office to register a death or, indeed, a birth is a hardship. Of course, as a result of the Bill, that will all be able to be done online. In addition, of course, as I made clear on Second Reading, the Bill will save the taxpayer—the Treasury—some £200 million over 10 years, which is an important point to bear in mind.

While the Bill was conceived in the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, it was definitely born in the Home Office, which strongly supports it. Indeed, the Home Office has been enormously helpful and, as I say, I pay particular tribute to Linda Edwards for the time and effort that she has taken, both in briefing me and ensuring that we get the terms of these seven clauses and the schedule right today.

I will now address the clauses and the schedule in granular detail. As I am sure members of the Committee will understand, we are changing the law of the land, and therefore it is most important that we set down what is intended in this very technical area. Therefore, I hope that I will be relatively brief but also extremely clear.

Currently, under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the Registrar General for England and Wales provides the local registration service with paper birth and death registers, and paper forms for making certified copies of the register entries, which are more commonly known as birth and death certificates. The registers have been paper-based since 1837. Since 2009, registrars in England and Wales have also recorded the birth and death registration information electronically, in parallel with the paper-based system, due to the existing outdated legislation requiring the paper-based system, which is a duplication of effort for registrars.

Clause 1(2) amends the 1953 Act and substitutes section 25 with a new section 25. The new section allows the Registrar General to determine how registers of live births, stillbirths and deaths are to be kept, and contains additional provision that is appropriate for registers being in electronic form only. This will allow the duplication of processes to be removed, by allowing the Registrar General to remove the requirement for paper registers and to move to electronic birth and death registers. Subsection (2) allows the Registrar General to require that registrars keep information in a form that will allow the Registrar General and the superintendent registrar to have immediate access to all birth and death entries as soon as the registrar has entered the details in the electronic register.

In the case of stillbirths, subsection (2)(b) of proposed new section 25 allows only the registrar to have immediate access to the entries in the register. Currently, the superintendent registrar and Registrar General would have access to the birth and death entries only upon receipt of the quarterly returns.

Subsection (3) of proposed new section 25 provides that

“where a register is kept in such form”,

for example in electronic form, any information in that register made available to the Registrar General and superintendent registrar is deemed to be

“held by that person (as well as by the registrar)”

when carrying out that person’s functions—in other words, for the issuing of certified copies and for data-sharing powers. Subsection (4) provides that is required for the purpose of creating and maintaining the birth and death registers, for example providing registrars with the electronic system, is the responsibility of the Registrar General. Subsection (5) also places a responsibility on the Registrar General to provide the required forms to produce certified copies of entries, for example birth and death certificates.

Sections 26 and 27 of the 1953 Act set out the requirements for quarterly returns. Currently, copies of all the entries of live births, stillbirths and deaths made in the paper registers are transmitted by the registrar to the superintendent registrar. The superintendent registrar is required to certify the entries as a true copy and deliver them to the Registrar General on a quarterly basis. The process of quarterly returns is completed electronically. The Registrar General holds a central repository of all births and deaths that have been registered in England and Wales, from which certificates can be issued.

Clause 1(3)(a) and (b) omit sections 26 and 27 of the Act, which set out the requirements for the quarterly returns made by a registrar and superintendent registrar, as they will no longer be needed, due to the entries for all births and deaths being held on a single electronic register, which will give the superintendent registrar and the Registrar General immediate access to the records, as provided for by subsection (2). Clause 1(3)(c) omits section 28 of the Act, which sets out how paper birth and death registers need to be stored by registrars, superintendent registrars and the Registrar General. With the introduction of an electronic register, this provision will no longer be required. The requirements for the retention and storage of existing paper registers are covered in clause 4, which I will cover later.

Clause 2 inserts a new section 11A into the 1953 Act. Subsections (1) and (2) set out how the council of every non-metropolitan county and metropolitan district, subject to the provisions of local scheme arrangements, must provide and maintain equipment or facilities that the Registrar General considers necessary for a superintendent registrar or registrar to carry out their functions—for example, the IT equipment needed to host the electronic register. It should be noted that this equipment is already in place in register offices, as births and deaths are currently registered electronically in parallel with the paper registers. This requirement applies across each register office or sub-district of a registrar.

Clause 3 makes provision for the signing by the informant of registers of births and deaths that are not kept in paper form, as we move towards digital methods of registering births and deaths, and the introduction of an electronic register. Currently, numerous sections of the Act require the paper registers of births and deaths to be signed by an informant, when attending to register a birth or death. The Act places a duty on the informant to provide the particulars required to be registered through a registrar and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register.

Clause 3(2) inserts a new section 38B in the Act, entitled “Requirements to sign register.” This section empowers the Minister to make regulations in relation to registers of births and deaths not kept in paper form. New section 38B(1)(a) provides that a duty to sign the paper birth or death register

“at any time is to have effect as a duty to comply with specified requirements”.

“Specified” means specified in regulations made under this section. New section 38B(1)(b) provides that a person who complies with these specified requirements

“is to be treated…as having signed the register…and…to have done so in the presence of the registrar”.

Under new section 38B(2)(a) and (b) provisions that may be made by regulations include

“requiring a person to sign something other than the register,”

and

“requiring a person to provide…evidence of identity”

to be specified in the regulations when attending to register a birth or death. New section 38B(3) clarifies that:

“In this section ‘specified’ means specified in regulations under this section.”

Clause 3(3) inserts a new subsection (6) in section 39A of the Act. Subsection (6) states that regulations made by the Minister under section 38B are subject to the affirmative procedure. The regulations may not be made unless they have been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I reassure hon. Members that this will ensure full parliamentary oversight of the content, as the Committee will understand.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May I seek clarity about whether the right hon. Gentleman envisages that, under future regulations, people would be able to register online? Might that make the process more open to fraud than a requirement to attend in person?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no doubt an overwhelming benefit for our constituents to be able to do this online, but there are provisions for checking and following up on fraud. I shall come to some of them during my remarks.

I have completed the detailed coverage of clause 3, so I turn to clause 4, which covers the treatment of the existing registers of births, stillbirths and deaths records. Currently, under section 28 of the Act, registrars are required to keep safely all registers of live births, stillbirths and deaths in their custody. When not in use, they must keep the registers securely in the register box provided by the Registrar General.

When a registrar fills the register of births or deaths, the registrar must deliver it to the superintendent registrar. The register is then kept in perpetuity, with the records of the office. It is from these paper registers that all certified copies, for example birth and death certificates, are issued. This will continue to be the case in the future. When a register of stillbirths is filled, the registrar delivers it to the superintendent registrar, who forwards it to the Registrar General to keep in the General Register Office, from which all requests for certified copies are issued.

The registrar provides the superintendent registrar with copies of all the birth and death registrations, known as quarterly returns. The superintendent registrar certifies them as true copies of the entries in the registers and forwards them to the Registrar General. These are kept at the General Register Office to create a national record of all births and deaths. These returns used to be paper-based and completed quarterly, but with the introduction of the electronic register in 2009, these returns are now done electronically within seven days. As we discussed earlier, sections 26, 27 and 28 are repealed by clause 1, as the process of quarterly returns and the custody of paper registers will no longer be required with the move to an electronic system.

Clause 4(1)(a) specifies that the repeal of section 28 of the Act does not affect the existing requirement under section 28(2) for every superintendent registrar to continue to keep any registers of live births or deaths in their custody with the records of the office immediately before the repeal comes into force.

Clause 4(1)(b) specifies that the repeal of section 28 of the Act does not affect the existing requirement under section 28(4) for the Registrar General to continue to keep any certified copies that he has received under section 27 in the possession of the Registrar General, and any registers of stillbirths forwarded to the Registrar General before the coming into force of the repeal.

Subsection (2) requires all registrars to send any unfilled paper registers of births and deaths in their possession to the superintendent registrar to be kept with the records of the office. In the case of stillbirths, subsection (3) of the clause requires all registrars to send any unfilled paper registers of stillbirths in their possession to the Registrar General, who will keep them at the General Register Office in such order and manner as he or she thinks fit.

Subsection (4) allows the Registrar General to dispose of any certified copies of stillbirth entries in any register of stillbirths, as the Registrar General will also hold the completed paper registers of stillbirths. Subsection (4) also allows the Registrar General to dispose of any paper stillbirth records that are held in electronic format by virtue of section 27 of the 1953 Act.

Since 1 July 2009, registrations of births and deaths have been held in both paper and electronic format. The Bill removes the requirement for birth and death entries to be held in paper format, removing the duplication in the process.

Subsection (5) specifies how copies of birth and death records that have been held in a format other than hard copy paper form, such as electronically, are to be treated on and after the day on which clause 1 of the Bill comes into force. Subsection (5)(a) provides that those copies of birth and death registers held in electronic form are to be treated as the register for the sub-district on and after the day that clause 1 of the Bill comes into force.

Subsection 5(b) provides that where a copy of a register of births or register of deaths was kept otherwise than in a hard copy form during the period of 1 July 2009 until immediately before the day that clause 1 comes into force, the register is to be treated for the purposes of section 25(3) of the Act as being kept in the form in which the copy was kept—for example, in electronic form.

Subsection (5)(c) provides that any entry in the register signed by a person before clause 1 comes into force is to continue to be regarded as having been signed by the person for the purposes of the Act. Subsection (5)(d) allows the Registrar General to dispose of any certified copies of births and deaths received under section 27 of the Act, and any information contained in those entries that is kept in electronic form. This will negate the need for the Registrar General to hold entries of births and deaths in both paper and electronic form. Subsection (6) outlines the period previously mentioned in subsection (5) as beginning on 1 July 2009 and ending immediately before the day clause 1 comes into force.

Clause 5 introduces the schedule, which contains minor and consequential amendments to primary legislation as a consequence of the move from paper registers to the registration of births and deaths in an electronic register. It includes amendments to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the Registration Service Act 1953, and minor amendments to other Acts.

Clause 6 delegates to the Secretary of State the power to make further consequential provisions by regulations on any provision of the Bill. Regulations that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation must be made according to the affirmative procedure. Regulations that do not amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation are to be made according to the negative procedure. I am sure the Committee will agree that that gets the balance right in this case.

Clause 7 covers extent, commencement and short title. Clause 7(1) sets out that clauses 1 to 4 extend to England and Wales only, except as provided in any amendments or repeals set out in the schedule. The remaining clauses extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The clause sets out the coming into force dates and the way in which the Bill may be cited.

That is a run-through of the granular details of what the Bill will do. I very much hope it will secure the approval of the Committee.

09:41

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. You will know that it is a bit of a novelty for a member of the Government Whips Office to perform these duties, but I feel in good company with a former Chief Whip, a former deputy Chief Whip, a former Comptroller of the Household, and Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, who was my Whip for about five minutes when I was first elected in 2015, before he went on to greater things at the Ministry of Defence.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for his continuing support in bringing forward changes to the way in which births and deaths are registered. The Government are supportive of his Bill and delighted that it has reached this stage. I noted yesterday from reading the Second Reading debate that this is only his second private Member’s Bill outing since March 1991, but he is recording an impressive personal best here and leading the charge for his Bill with great passion and skill.

Under the present legislation, all births and deaths must be registered by an informant through personal attendance at the register office and the signing of the register in the presence of the registrar, as has been the case since 1837. This situation is outdated. The Bill will reform how births and deaths are registered, removing the requirement for paper registers and moving to digital methods of registration that will enable all births and deaths to be registered in a single electronic register. It will move the registration of births and deaths into the 21st century, which is a step I am sure all members of the Committee will see the benefit of, particularly in the present circumstances.

As my right hon. Friend said, the electronic register is already in place and has been since 2009. However, primary legislation still requires a paper record of the event to be kept. We need to rectify this anomaly as it is a duplication of effort for registrars. As well as creating a simpler, more efficient process, it will make the registration of births and deaths much more secure than it is today with the reliance on paper registers. It should be noted that when civil partnerships were introduced in 2005, the opportunity was taken to modernise the process of registration and an electronic register was introduced with no requirement for a separate paper copy to be held. Similar plans are also in place for marriages to move to electronic means of registration.

The covid-19 pandemic has clearly highlighted the limitations and inflexibility of the now outdated primary legislation. There is a need to be able to offer more flexibility in how births and deaths are registered by removing the requirement for face-to-face registration. The Bill removes the requirement for the signing of a birth or death register by an informant in the presence of a registrar if specified requirements are met. That paves the way for the introduction of online registration in which informants would be able to register an event online at a time to suit themselves from the comfort of their own home. That will provide more choice and convenience for informants, particularly in difficult and upsetting times such as when registering a death. However, the provision to attend personally at the register office will remain if that is the informant’s preferred option. The current legislation is restrictive and does not reflect modern society.

[John Spellar]

Once again, the Minister says, “If that is the informant’s preferred option.” If a registrar cannot see the individual in person, and perhaps form an impression as well, does that not at least raise the possibility of fraud?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right that the intention remains that people will be able to register in person, but we want to give people the choice of registering from the comfort of their own home, depending on the circumstances. Of course, the regulations, which will follow, will set out a lot of this information and address the requirements to be met for people to be able to register remotely. I am sure he will want to be part of that debate when we reach it.

[John Spellar]

May I reinforce that point to the Minister? The Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency moved to electronic registration and did away with the paper licence. They are saving a few million pounds a year in printing and dispatching, but they are losing something like £100 million a year through increases in evasion. Sometimes the simplistic move to digital and electronic recording does not always bring benefits and can be much more expensive than what may seem, on the face of it, to be a more cumbersome system.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful for the intervention and will relay that to the Minister responsible, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has heard those comments as well.

[Mr Mitchell]

In view of what the right hon. Member for Warley has said, it is worth clarifying that issues of fraud when registering births and deaths are different from registering car ownership. The point made about the DVLA is clear and right. On Report and at Third Reading, we may explain to the House the additional steps available to the registrars for combating fraud. It is up to them to determine the steps taken, and if they require secondary legislation, the Minister will look favourably on that.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—the Member in charge—for setting out that position. The current legislation is restrictive and does not reflect on society. I know that right hon. and hon. Members recognise the importance of the changes to modernise the process of registering births and deaths. The Government are supportive of this Bill and look forward to it passing today. I wish my right hon. Friend well in its speedy passage.

[Mr Mitchell]

I hope, Ms McVey, that you feel the issues that should have been raised in this Committee have been, and that we can proceed to vote on the various clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

09:52

Committee rose.

Written Statements

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Written Statements

Wednesday 27 January 2021

Electronic Communications Code Consultation

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)]

The Government have ambitious plans to achieve nationwide roll-out of future-proof, gigabit-capable broadband and 5G networks as soon as possible to unlock the huge economic and social benefits this will bring. As we emerge from the covid-19 pandemic, ensuring the whole country has access to world-class digital infrastructure will be critical to our economic recovery.

We are working with industry to target a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025 and to get as close to 100% as possible. We are also aiming to ensure that 95% of the UK’s geographic landmass has 4G coverage from at least one mobile network operator by 2025 and that the majority of the UK population has 5G coverage by 2027.

My Department is making significant progress, through the implementation of the recommendations made in our “Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review” published in 2018. However, in order to accelerate this work it is important that we deliver the changes that are needed to speed up commercial and public investment in gigabit-capable networks.

The electronic communications code (“the code”) is the legal framework underpinning the rights of telecoms operators to install and keep electronic communications apparatus on public and private land, and to carry out other activities needed to maintain and improve digital communications networks. The code was substantially reformed in 2017. Those reforms specifically recognised the increasing importance of access to fast and reliable digital services for society and the economy. While there have been no substantive changes to the policy underpinning the 2017 reforms, feedback from a wide range of stakeholders suggests further changes may be needed.

I am pleased to inform the House that we have today published a consultation to examine the scope for further legislative changes to the electronic communications code. If we decide changes to the code are needed, these will be focused on supporting our digital networks and ensuring the aims of the 2017 reforms are realised.

Telecommunications policy is reserved and the electronic communications code applies and extends across the UK. As with the 2017 reforms, we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to develop the finalised policy.

I have placed a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-01-27/HCWS739/.

[HCWS739]

Bovine TB

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I am updating the House on publication of a consultation on delivery of the next phase of our 25-year strategy to eradicate bovine TB (bTB) in England by 2038.

BTB is one of the most difficult and intractable animal health challenges that England faces today. In the last year, we compulsorily slaughtered over 27,000 cattle in England to tackle the disease. This causes devastation and distress for hard-working farmers and rural communities and is damaging our reputation as world leaders in high standards of animal health and welfare.

The bTB eradication strategy we published in 2014 is making progress. We are now seeing sustained improvements in the high-risk area. We need to build on this momentum to achieve bTB free status for England by 2038.

In 2018, my predecessor commissioned Professor Sir Charles Godfray to conduct an independent review of our strategy (“the Godfray review”). In March 2020, we published a response setting out key priorities for the next phase. Today, I am launching a public consultation and a call for views on a range of proposals and longer-term options in keeping with that response, to take us into this next phase.

I am also pleased to report that work on developing a deployable cattle bTB vaccine continues and is on track to be completed within the next five years. Our goal is to deliver on the significant investment we have made to date in developing a candidate diagnostic test to detect infected animals among vaccinated animals to enable use of the vaccine. Although a cattle bTB vaccine will not be the single solution to the problem of bTB, it will be a strong additional tool at our disposal. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) has awarded a contract to Eville & Jones to run veterinary field trials aimed at generating the necessary evidence to enable UK marketing authorisations. The trials are scheduled to get under way in the coming months.

Badger culling is one of the most contentious and divisive policies within our bTB eradication strategy. Our current policy enables four-year intensive cull licences in defined areas with scope for a further five years of supplementary culling. The consultation sets out proposals for Natural England (NE) to stop issuing the current intensive cull licences for new areas post 2022 and enable new licences issued to be cut short if the chief veterinary officer considers this acceptable. Furthermore, I am proposing to restrict any new supplementary cull licences to two years and cease re-issuing such licences in any areas in which supplementary culling has previously been licensed.

As proposed in the Government’s response to the Godfray review, APHA recently released a new analysis showing the estimated distribution of TB infection in badgers in England’s bTB edge area. This will be of assistance to NE in assessing applications for badger culling and vaccination licences in the future.

The farming community has invested heavily in badger culling, which the evidence shows has played a critical role in helping to start to turn the tide on this terrible disease. But we were clear that culling badgers indefinitely is not acceptable. My proposed approach will enable us to complete the objective we set out to achieve when we started the culls. It will also support our stated intention of phasing out culling over the next few years. I envisage that in future some form of culling would be an option in exceptional circumstances to address any local disease flare-ups. This transitional period will also give us time to undertake badger vaccination pilots and develop our future badger vaccination policy. The end of widespread culling is also anticipated to coincide with changes in cattle measures, including our timeline for a deployable cattle bTB vaccine. Taken together, it is anticipated that these cattle and badger measures should preserve the benefits from intensive culling.

I am also proposing some targeted changes to our cattle bTB testing policy, to ensure we root out the disease more effectively in herds with recurring problems, and further help protect lower bTB risk areas.

In parallel to the consultation, I am also seeking views to explore other options for further accelerating eradication of disease. These include possible further changes and improvements to bTB testing, supporting responsible cattle movements and rewarding low-risk cattle purchasing behaviour. Our call for views also discusses ways we can continue to adapt how we reward farmers for “best practice”, in line with our wider agricultural transition plan.

There is no single solution to the scourge of bTB, but by deploying a range of policy interventions we can continue to turn the tide on this terrible disease and achieve our long-term objective of eradicating it in England by 2038.

[HCWS738]

Contingencies Fund Advance

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

UK Export Finance is seeking a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £500,000. The requirement has arisen due to an urgent need to refresh its existing IT equipment (laptops) to meet the needs of the Department and manage its response to covid-19.



Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £500,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for UK Export Finance. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.



The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Bill.

[HCWS737]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Wednesday 27 January 2021

The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

14:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.

Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

14:31

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The content of this SI is reserved, but a draft version was shared with devolved Administrations for comment; only minor drafting points were raised, which we addressed in full. I make it clear that these regulations do not change our policy or make new policy; instead, they principally amend retained EU legislation to ensure that the relevant regulations operate in Great Britain.

The amendments made by this instrument primarily concern geographical indications, or GIs. They also include transitioning obligations in EU wines and spirits agreements and extend to trade between the UK and the EU in wine and organic products. GIs are a form of intellectual property protection for the names of food, drink and agricultural products with qualities attributable to the place where they are produced or to the traditional methods by which they are made.

Until the end of the transition period, we operated under the EU’s GI schemes. The EU and the UK have not included a section on GIs in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This means that UK GIs which were on the EU register at the end of the transition period remain protected in the EU and vice versa, but there is no automatic protection for names registered after the end of the transition period. We have instead included a review clause which allows us to agree rules on the protection of GIs in future, should we so wish. The UK retains full autonomy over its own GI regimes.

As of 1 January, the UK has had an independent, fully functioning GI regime. As the competent authority, Defra manages the schemes with the devolved Administrations and handles domestic and international applications. Guidance on the application process is online. The schemes cover spirits, wines, aromatised wines, and food and agricultural products. Examples range from Wensleydale cheese to products such as native Shetland wool. There are many more; I am sure that many noble Lords have GIs of their own that are special to them.

This instrument amends existing GI regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose and work as intended. It also allows the UK to use bridging arrangements to continue to protect GIs from countries where a trade deal was agreed but is not yet ratified, at the end of the transition period. This will ensure that GIs already protected in the UK do not lose their protection due to a long ratification process.

This instrument also adds an additional category of GI to ensure that the Japanese GI Kumamoto rush remains protected in the UK. This is a long-stemmed grass that is traditionally dried and woven into mats in the Kumamoto region of Japan. It can be grown only in that region. This was previously protected in the EU under the EU-Japan trade agreement, but it did not fit within any of the GI product categories which the UK inherited from the EU. The addition of this category provides a clear basis on which to continue to protect the GI under the UK-Japan agreement. This does not change our policy; we are simply correcting a deficiency in EU legislation.

On spirit drinks, this instrument provides for the ongoing protection of US product names, and Mexican names once transitioned in the UK, to reflect the transitional EU agreements. It also enables the retained EU spirit drinks regulations for GIs to function correctly in relation to protection and enforcement. For wines, this instrument amends retained EU regulations that provide a basis for protecting US wine names of origin in the UK to make them operable. In doing that, it also creates the necessary basis for enforcement in the UK.

This instrument also includes several non-GI provisions. It introduces a six-month easement on the new requirement for EU wines imported to the UK to be accompanied by a VI-1 certificate. This certificate provides information on the type and analytical composition of a wine. We worked with the wine trade to assess the impacts of this certification requirement on the industry. As a result, we have introduced this easement to minimise the potential for disruption to the UK market by allowing EU imports to arrive under the same commercial documents used while the UK was a member state. New and simplified certification arrangements are set out in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement to cover movements of EU and UK origin wines.

On organics, we have extended our recognition of the EU and EEA states as equivalent and updated their list of control bodies. We have also ensured that organic products from the EU, EEA and Switzerland are able to continue to flow smoothly into Great Britain by providing a six-month easement on the requirement for certificates of inspection for such products.

The amendments made by this instrument are essential for a smooth transition. Without them, international obligations would not be met, retained EU legislation would not be operable and vital transitional provisions would not be in place. For those reasons, I commend the instrument to your Lordships. I beg to move.

14:38

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his patience and consideration in introducing this SI to us today. It is very much appreciated. Once again, we are essentially considering a piece of legislation which aims to protect the British public and producers in light of our having left the European Union. This is an incredibly difficult but necessary task if we are to retain the benefits of trade with the European Union and attempt to increase our trade with the rest of the world.

I appreciate that this is more or less a technical SI that does not introduce any new policy. It appears particularly comprehensive, with so much emphasis on GIs, as well as relating to wines and spirits. Geographical indications are very important for Britain as we go forward and extend our trade into the wider world; they are already very extensive, with the UK list covering over 104 pages. As the Minister says, it offers protection to food and drink manufacturers in particular locations and their means of production in the UK, the European Union and the wider world. These stretch from Arbroath smokies through to Cornish pasties, Cumberland sausages and even Yorkshire forced rhubarb. I am glad that the Government are committed to this. Can he confirm that the Government are committed to the GI system of protection and have already signed a number of trade agreements with the European Union and other countries which encompass it? Am I right in thinking also that this SI provides a bridging route for such agreements which are still in the process of transition?

14:40

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to clarify the parts of these regulations relating to the movement of wine into this country from the EU. I also have a question relating to the shipment of wine from Great Britain to the EU. This industry is important. The UK is a major global hub for wine. In the UK we consume 12 million bottles of wine a day, and about half of those come from the EU. In the first two weeks of this year, businesses were able to import only 144,000 bottles from the EU, meaning stocks were depleted by some 11.7 million bottles a day during this period. Can the Minister provide the latest information on amounts imported? The obvious outcome of stock depletion at this rate is scarcity and an increase in prices, as has been pointed out by south Wales wine importer Daniel Lambert in many media outlets.

As for trade in the other direction, wine is the sixth most important food and drink export from Great Britain—more valuable than beer and beef. The main question I wish to pose about these regulations is on the nature of this six-month easement. Is it an opportunity to get a new smoother procedure in place, or is it simply to provide a period for the wine trade to get used to handling the proposed new system? Will policy change? Will there be further negotiation to remove the non-tariff barriers that trade is now facing?

The VI-1 form, which was used to protect EU wine from cheap imports, is proposed to be largely replicated save for the lab test requirement for alcohol content. This is a cumbersome approach. The clunky government CHIEF system operated by HMRC is already proving very difficult for the wine trade. Parts of it are impenetrable or not functioning adequately, and this will have contributed to the drastic reduction in the number of bottles imported into Great Britain. Is there now a telephone hotline for advice in place, or must the trade rely on an email system which returns queries within five days? Article 3 of annexe TBT-5 to the TCA refers to a preference for an electronic system for documentation. That would be a major improvement. Paperwork is a major non-tariff barrier, and I would be grateful for an explanation of whether the Government intend to achieve that electronic process within the six-month period.

The Minister will be aware that wines from countries such as Chile are imported tariff-free into the UK in bulk, bottled at a UK bottling plant and then re-exported to the EU. There are great fears that the additional costs of re-exporting will endanger this trade and bottling plants in Great Britain. Can he provide any reassurance to this part of the industry?

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association is finding it very difficult to be able to express its concerns to Ministers. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and its representatives to discuss their concerns? This would be a really important indication that the Government wished to allay the fears of the sector.

I realise I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister and I hope that, if he cannot reply today, he can do so in writing.

14:44

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his presentation. Many of us in different capacities, as elected as well as unelected representatives, have fought for recognition of various UK products under GI and the protection it affords them. Some examples are Melton Mowbray pork pies, Cornish pasties and, of most interest to me, Yorkshire Wensleydale cheese—not to forget as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned, Yorkshire rhubarb.

In the EU, four separate schemes protect particular European brands and products. I am therefore pleased that the Government, with EU assistance, seem determined to maintain a scheme that carries over this mutual protection, thus saving us from Wensleydale cheese from Normandy or Melton Mowbray pies from Bavaria.

I think that this SI sets down only the instruments for final agreement to be reached on this arrangement. It certainly introduces a new domestic registration process, accessible by home and overseas providers, which is very important bearing in mind that geographically protected goods are no less than 25% of our food and drink exports each year, worth several billion pounds. However, the infrastructure to carry out the registration of current and new GI products may not be fully in place yet. Can my noble friend clarify this?

Can my noble friend also confirm how current EU GI products are to be reregistered in the UK? Are these changes, which the Government seem to be suggesting will make the process quicker and easier than under EU control, likely to be more expensive for applicants? In the event of an appeal process being utilised, what extra costs are envisaged? Will such a process be as equally streamlined as the basic application process? How will the implementation of these new arrangements be monitored, so that they are seen to work as fairly and as well as those that preceded them? In view of the need to alter promotional material, including with a new logo, what assistance and resources might the Government offer to assist business, especially the smaller and more specialist businesses, which are often the GI stars?

As a result of European law there was always a built-in equity, where GIs were granted to avoid unfair competition. Are the Government happy that this will be the case in future? This is so that European products such as Parmigiano-Reggiano, Polish vodka, Bavarian beer and champagne, which are no doubt enjoyed by many UK citizens—though in the latter case, I think not by Members of your Lordships’ House—will continue to be properly protected and not suffer any discrimination or lack of supply. Of course, we all wish to encourage the consumption of our own food and wine, but as a global nation now we should also facilitate the cosmopolitan tastes of our citizens as far as possible.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

14:47

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the statutory instrument so expertly. I will leave the organic question to when we discuss the next statutory instrument. I declare my interest as I chair the board of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, a member of which is the Wine and Spirit Trade Association.

Like others, I have been involved as a former MEP with trying to protect geographic indicators. I pay tribute to the imagination of some producers such as Shepherds Purse Cheeses, which was unable to retain the denomination of Yorkshire feta, as obviously it is produced in North Yorkshire near Thirsk and not in Greece. It changed the name to Yorkshire Fettle. We have yet to successfully obtain the badge for Yorkshire pudding.

I would like to put two small requests to the Minister regarding the wine trade here. The first relates to the removal of the form VI-1 for non-EU wines. Now we have left the European Union and reached the end of the transition period, why are we seeking to automatically roll over EU regulations—especially when they work to the disadvantage of British importers and consumers? I understand that 99% of the wine consumed in the UK is imported and that half that wine is from the European Union. It would make sense not just to keep this under review, but to remove the requirement set out in form VI-1. When this was discussed in the House of Commons, my honourable friend the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said in reply:

“we will consider in due course whether there is a case for revisiting the requirements of the VI-1 certification.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 25/1/21; col. 8.]

I put it to the Minister today that there is no time like the present. Can we review it and scrap the requirements of VI-1?

My second request is to look at what was set out by the noble Lord, Lord German, so I will not repeat the technical details. But on annexe TBT-5 and the requirements for an electronic system, can my noble friend put a date on when that will come into effect? If it is within the next six months or slightly beyond that, can we again look at dispensing with the paper form requirements, which we have seen cause such difficulties since 1 January and leapfrog over to introduce the electronic system as soon as possible? Let us hope that it will not have the same teething problems as we have experienced with other customs requirements since 1 January.

14:50

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his by now traditional and felicitous introduction of these regulations, which one supports. When I was in another place for 31 years, the NFU would take me each year to four or five farms, both estuarine and hill. Thus one knows enough of farming to know that one does not know.

The persuasive Ms Minette Batters, the NFU president, tells us that food and drink is Britain’s largest manufacturing sector, raising £120 billion annually and employing nearly 4 million fellow citizens. These are massive figures and thus the regulations are urgent. The Economist magazine of 28 November 2020 states that Britain grows or produces some two-thirds of its own food and drink. Surely, we should not let that share fall further. The Royal Agricultural Society would confirm that, in 1984, Britain could have survived for 306 days solely on British produce—its own food and drink. Today, that figure is 233 days, so the respected RAS says. These figures say it all. So much now depends on the recent radical ground-breaking Agriculture Act. Britain’s food and drink security is vital.

To conclude, I make the strongest plea—not for the first time—for the upland farmers and especially their product: sheep meat? They are superb food producers and very much part of British agriculture. The hill farms of the Peak, the Lakes, the moors of the Dart and Ex, and my own homeland—the lovely land of Wales; geographic indeed—are always up against it. Heavy rainfall, ferocious gales, cruel frosts, and snowstorms for ever challenge this most heroic segment of the industry. Yet they deliver—they always deliver. These shepherds at altitude—she and he—need the best possible deal. They remain the backbone of their communities and sustain an especial culture, one that is distinct and ancient. In my homeland, there is also the language of heaven, which must prosper. Of course, our Welsh lamb is the very best, especially with a good red wine.

14:54

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

In his introduction, the Minister referred to the GI regime. As I understand it, we have effectively acknowledged each other’s position as at the end of the transition period. However, he indicated that there will now be a separation, so the obvious question is, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, which regime will it be subjected to? Will it follow what the European Union decides in terms of GIs or will it follow what Great Britain decides?

Part 4 of the instrument has three chapters and—as has been the case with all the SIs in recent months—one of them, chapter 3, makes amendments that extend to Northern Ireland, while chapter 2 makes amendments that extend to Great Britain. We are all Peers of the United Kingdom as opposed to Peers of any particular region, but we have now built up a massive amount of technical instruments where there are differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate it if the Minister and his department could prepare, when these SIs are concluded, a compendium of differences between the areas, because it is extremely difficult to follow.

As time goes by, each day brings a new challenge. Today’s comes from Amazon, which—as one of the most sophisticated retailers in the world—says that it will have to withdraw a number of products. It has already stopped selling alcohol because it would be subject to two amounts of excise duty. We will not even be able to have our busy Lizzies and begonias introduced from Great Britain because British soil is no longer allowed. This is happening every day and, naturally enough, people are asking us where all this is going and what it means. Can the Minister prevail upon his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to desist from maintaining that there is no border in the Irish Sea? It is becoming increasingly a source of anger and dismay among our business community and the general public that we are trying to pretend—like King Canute—that the tide has not come in, when in fact it is there every day for hauliers and businesspeople to deal with.

14:57

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing these SIs in his normal clear way. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey, with his insistence that we should acknowledge the obvious: there is now a border in the Irish Sea. Sad though this may be, it is there and it is causing problems every day, as he said.

These are important instruments, because they affect the future of our food and drink exports. GI products represent around a quarter of UK food and drink exports—they certainly did in 2019. Perhaps I should declare an interest here as someone with a great affection for stilton cheese, Welsh lamb and many of the other delicious that we manufacture in this country.

These regulations, however, like everything to do with our future trade with Europe, do not make life easier for our exporters. They may provide a streamlined process for those who want to sell their products only in Great Britain, but very few food producers will not be interested in exporting, and the European Union will be the established market for very many of them.

The withdrawal agreement was reassuring on the future of GI recognition on both sides, but the trade and co-operation agreement is—as in so many aspects—sketchy. It has just four lines dealing with the issue of GIs, which say that the EU and the UK

“may jointly use reasonable endeavours to agree rules for the protection and effective domestic enforcement of their geographical indications.”

The Minister told us that existing GIs recognised in Europe would continue to be recognised in the new regime. I would be grateful if he could tell the House on what grounds he remains to sanguine about the prospects for UK producers in their export to the EU.

The EU is currently proposing to revise its rules on GIs, in part to reflect sustainability. The UK is of course increasingly committed to sustainability, but can the Minister say whether the UK’s new GI recognition rules will incorporate sustainability and whether they will mirror the EU’s proposed rules? If not, can he say what the consequences might be for UK producers?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.

15:00

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I note from doing some research in advance of the debate that apparently they build on the previous regulations that could not deal specifically with GI matters. In his submission, he referred to this instrument being reserved, there having been discussions with the devolved Administrations and, as a consequence, there being only minor drafting points. Could he outline what those were and say whether Northern Ireland is subject to the rules of the protocol or the exact rules of this statutory instrument? References have already been made to that by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

I note the reference in the SI to organic food and feed. Is the Minister aware that one of the UK’s biggest health food businesses says that the new post-Brexit system for sending organic food from GB to Northern Ireland is a “nightmare” as a consequence of the Brexit protocol? It requires a certificate of inspection and the UK Government have said that they will talk to the EU about streamlining the process. No doubt it needs to be streamlined and resolved. Does he know or can he find out whether such discussions have taken place, and their outcome?

Organic foods imported into Northern Ireland require a large degree of complexity. The exporter has to make an entry on an EU system known as TRACES NT, and key in details such as weight, origin and whether any goods are high risk. For a consignment going to retailers, that will involve dozens or even hundreds of individual entries. Details then need to be checked and approved by a certification body such as the Soil Association. When the goods arrive in Northern Ireland, a certified importer must confirm that they have been received. At the moment, they are looking at a three-month grace period, but what happens when April arrives and that is over?

Will this piece of technical legislation help to alleviate the problems experienced by those involved in the organic farming and food industry?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. Oh, we have a difficulty with that, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, with respect, I should speak now. I replaced the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. That was agreed by the authorities. Could I please have my three minutes? It has been on the official list since lunchtime.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we will proceed with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, while we resolve the issue around other speakers on the list.

15:04

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for arranging with his officials a debrief on the SIs in advance of today. That was extremely helpful. I certainly do not oppose this SI. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, it is a complex task to find a system that protects both consumers and traders as we move post Brexit. However, this is the second such SI in less than two months. I am glad that the Minister has not said what a colleague of his said on the earlier one—that he was confident that these statutory instruments had been drafted to make the new system work. It is clear that this is complex and that we will need more of them. This SI recognises in a welcome way the mutual recognition of organic standards between the EU and the UK until the end of the year. As some noble Lords will know, the TCA recognises those mutual standards until the end of 2023, so we will certainly need another SI in the future, if not the near future, on that.

The bridging arrangements proposed are reasonable, as are the proposals for the new category for the Japanese rush grass. I particularly commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the future arrangements for wine. However, as Baroness Parminter, of Godalming, I fear I should declare an interest, given that the Sainsbury’s food survey at the end of 2020 showed that Godalming took the title for having consumed the most wine in the whole year.

One figure that was not referred to by my noble friend Lord German about just how much wine came to the UK from the EU was the number of bottles, which puts into perspective for me the amount we are talking about. Yes, over half our wine comes from the EU, but on an annual basis that is just under a billion bottles, so how these matters are handled is significant. Given that wine importers were not previously required to have certification for coming from the EU, that could well be another cost from Brexit passed on to consumers. I certainly echo my noble friend’s comments and hope that the matter can be pursued speedily with the relevant wine association.

The issue that I want to raise that has not been touched on by noble Lords is the fact that the SI amends the regulations concerning geographic indications. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum specifically refers—I apologise in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—to Lough Neagh eels. I learned today that, due to Brexit and the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland fishermen will not be able to sell one-fifth of their catch in Britain. In the past, it has gone to Billingsgate for sale as jellied eels, and there are issues about restocking the lough with juvenile fish, which previously came from other parts of the UK. On the SI on 30 November we discussed this, the issue of GI logos post Brexit—including four Northern Ireland products, one of which being Lough Neagh eels—the requirement to carry on using the EU logo and being under EU regulations for any implementation of the GI scheme, and the possibility of joining the UK GI scheme as well if that were wished.

The Explanatory Memorandum of the 30 November SI also mentioned Lough Neagh eels, yet there was no mention then or today of this problem being a result of Brexit and the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Given that the ban of sales with any country outside the EU has been as part of the wider conservation measures in EU legislation since 2010, I must ask the Minister why the issue was not mentioned in the debate on the previous SI or today. Given that those specific GI eels cannot be sold now in the UK, does Brexit mean that jellied eels are off the menu in Britain, or is he confident that there are adequate supplies in the rest of the UK so that the British appetite for those jellied eels can be satisfied?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We had technical difficulties of various kinds earlier with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Naseby, so I will see whether we can deal with that now. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. No? We do not seem to be having much luck there, so let us move on to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

15:10

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will focus only on the wine aspect. I declare an interest as a member of WineGB and as a small grower myself. However, I am particularly interested in two aspects: French wines—I am an active member of the Champagne group, Bordeaux and Tastevin, which is of course Burgundy—and Chile. The noble Lord, Lord German, quite rightly made the point about Chile. I run an organisation called the Cofradia del Vino Chileno, which is a wine-drinking operation. Chile is a vital friend of this country, and a significant amount of gallonage is bottled here in the UK and exported to France. That trade is vital for Chile and for us. I ask noble Lords to read and listen to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord German.

On the wider aspect of the other dimensions of wine, we are talking about the bridging arrangements, which are very important. Nevertheless, it is the judgment of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association—which, as we know, states that 99% of all wine consumed in the UK is imported—that it makes little sense to roll over EU-based legislation. It asserts and hopes that the Government agree that the so-called new simplified approach to wine import documentation in the trade and co-operation—[Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

Lord Naseby, we seem to have lost your sound.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

I was talking about the trade and co-operation agreement and that continuing requirement, which is burdensome. Wine importers have to fill out costly VI-1 forms. The trade association therefore suggests that the requirement should be removed completely, and recommends that the wine import documentation from the EU should be held over until the electronic systems foreseen for trade in wine can be introduced. I hope that the Minister will answer that important point in writing if he cannot answer it today.

I thank your Lordships and apologise for the challenge this afternoon.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I will try the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, again. He has had some technical problems but we will have one more go. Lord Bhatia. No? I fear we will have to move on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.

15:13

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his helpful briefing with officials beforehand.

This SI was approved using the procedure in place for reasons of urgency but it is nevertheless important that we give its content due scrutiny. As noble Lords have said, it covers a range of trade issues, focusing on their designation of origin or geographical indications. These can be hugely important in adding value to agricultural products, so it is important that we do all we can to protect the trading opportunities of UK producers. That point was very well made by a number of noble Lords in the debate, and we all have our own local produce that we hold dear.

The point on the particular problems across the Northern Ireland border, which was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seems to be a running theme in some of the debates we are having around Defra SIs. I hope that the Minister in his response will be able to provide reassurance that what I hope are teething problems across the border in the Irish Sea can be addressed in short order.

In the meantime, I have some specific questions. First, the Minister made reference to the trade and co-operation agreement. It is a lengthy document but can he clarify how we will implement its contents? Will there be a succession of SIs to deliver all the references to food and agriculture trade in the agreement and how do the Government intend to roll that agreement out?

Secondly, as has been said, the SI sets out the interim bridging arrangements to protect third-country GIs where a trade continuity agreement has been made but not ratified. There is no date for the end of the bridging arrangements, so can the Minister clarify when he anticipates that these interim arrangements will cease?

Thirdly, the Minister explained the actions necessary to protect Kumamoto rush as part of the UK-Japan trade deal. This involved having to create a separate GI project category. Given that that seems a rather bureaucratic way to approach this issue, has the department given any thought to rationalising and simplifying the GI product categories for the future so that we do not have to have a lot of separate categories for specialist products?

Fourthly, I was interested to read that a UK-USA wine agreement will into force on 1 February 2021—I had not been aware of that up until that point. I am sure that that is very welcome, but can the Minister explain how it feeds into the overall UK-USA trade negotiations? As we know, they have been subject to much press attention and remain unresolved. Is the plan that there will continue to be separate individual product agreements outside the main negotiations, along the lines of the one that clearly has been made on wine?

Fifthly, with regard to the trade and co-operation agreement, it seems that the proposal that EU wine will need to have a VI-1 certificate to be imported here is overly bureaucratic and not in the UK’s interests. Indeed, as a number of noble Lords said, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has been in touch, saying much the same thing. In its briefing, it says that while it understood the need to have an import certificate from third countries while we were part of the EU, now that we have left it makes no sense for the EU legislation to be automatically rolled over, particularly when it disadvantages British importers and consumers. It goes on to say that annexe TBT-5 of the TCA says that either party “may” introduce wine certification but not that it is necessary. Can the Minister explain why it was felt necessary to introduce these measures at this time, and can he explain the timetable for renewing that decision given that there is so much disquiet about it?

Also, there are proposals in annexe TBT-5 for a self-certification system to be put in place. Can the Minister clarify when those arrangements will come into effect and whether he feels that this will indeed address some of the concerns that have been raised today? The annexe also states that no later than three years from the agreement, the parties will consider further steps to facilitate trade in wine between the parties. Does the Minister accept that, given the strength of feeling on this issue that has been raised in the debate today, that review should happen sooner rather than later?

We will return to the issue of organics in the debate later, when I will make my comments on that. I am pleased, however, that separate arrangements have been put in place to protect the EU market for UK organic exports. Part of this will need to be developing an identifiable UK organic logo in the longer term. In the meantime, I want to ask the Minister about the views of the UK Organic Certifiers Group. The EM says that it has been consulted on the proposals, but it does not say that it has approved them. Can the Minister clarify its views on the proposals before us today? I look forward to his response.

15:19

[Lord Gardiner (Con) [V]]

Yet again, we have had a thought-provoking debate. In the time I have, I am not going to be able to address some of the more detailed and technical questions, but I shall write very fully on all outstanding points.

I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, at the very beginning about the importance of the protection of the public and, indeed, producers, was very important. I can certainly give the Government’s commitment to the GI system. It is a very important feature, and an indicator. All noble Lords have raised so many products, and I have no time to talk about them or many more, but the GI system plays an important role as an exemplar of our quality produce.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned farmers who, in difficult weather are, thank goodness, producing food for the nation. All I would say is that our diet has become much more varied. Noble Lords have expressed the need for imports, and I agree with that, but may I plug the importance of eating seasonally as well? There are some very good UK products that I think are very satisfactory. We might think about that in terms of the point made by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft about sustainability, which is about many of these things and how we work sustainably.

The other point raised by many noble Lords was about border issues. I am very conscious of that, which is why not a single day goes by, probably not a single hour, when officials at Defra and Ministers are not engaged with individual businesses. Rightly, people want to import and export between parts of the United Kingdom. No one could be more fervent in their view on that than me, and I say that particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I will take back again the points that have been raised, as well as the points raised about the Lough Neagh eels and, obviously, jellied eels. I do not want to fall out with jellied eel consumers. I have a feeling that they have a very strong feeling about products such as Lough Neagh eels, so I take that very seriously indeed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about time limits on bridging arrangements. There is no time limit on how long bridging arrangements last, but it would not be in the interests of either party to extend the bridging arrangements longer than necessary.

On the point of Kumamoto rush and the category, the reason why we came forward with the category was that it was very loose ended and we wanted to signify the importance of that rush in terms of the UK-Japan agreement, so I will take that back.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that I would be the first to say that we should keep the number of SIs to a direct purpose and try to co-ordinate them. Some of the provisions, including those on bridging arrangements, amending previous GI SIs, and others, were subject to negotiations concluding, so could not be raised earlier. I think that is a legitimate point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement on a piecemeal basis and whether the agreement needs to be phased in over separate pieces of legislation. Our view is that, when an agreement requires changes to legislation in a number of sectors, it is normal for these changes to be made within the relevant sectoral legislation. This ensures that those affected by them know where to find the rules, but it does not mean that implementation is unco-ordinated. That is very important.

One point that I made a note of was when my noble friend Lord Empey asked what the differences were in the compendium. All we are seeking to do is to make all parts of the United Kingdom trade freely, well and prosperously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the UK Organic Certifiers Group. We in Defra meet it fortnightly and, obviously, this instrument was discussed with the group. I can confirm that it agreed to the instrument.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about consultations with the devolved Administrations, which have been and continue to be very dynamic. They attend the UK Organic Certifiers Group, and we regularly discuss in that forum ways in which to take the UK’s world-class standards to a further level. I will take back and write about the minor drafting points; I do not have them to hand.

I had a number of points about Northern Ireland. GB applications can now be made to the EU scheme, so long as they are first protected in GB, while Northern Ireland applications can be made directly to the EU schemes as well as to the GB schemes.

My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked about EU GIs. The UK schemes welcome new applications from around the world as long as they are first protected as a GI in their own country of origin—there is more on that, which I shall write about to my noble friend.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about wine and the VI-1. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association welcomed our plans to issue an easement on the need for VI-1 certificates to accompany imports of wines from the EU, as set out in agreements. Similarly, it also welcomed the introduction of simplified VI-1 certification arrangements for the EU and UK.

There was a question on electronics. I absolutely agree that we need to find ways in which to ensure that anything that we can do digitally, we do in that way.

I should say, on eels, that nothing in this instrument prevents the sale of eels in the UK. As I have said, I shall look into that.

The USA wine trade agreement has been carried over and is in force to cover trade between the US and the UK. Again on the question of VI-1 requirement, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord German, raised, we will be able to look critically at the laws that we have inherited through retained regulations to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. In due course, we will consider whether there is a case to revisit the requirement for VI-1 certification. The requirement was retained as indications were that the EU would require VI-1 forms to accompany UK exports. Furthermore, VI-1s are already established for imports of wines for other non-EU sources. We will look at that, and I shall come back to noble Lords with further details.

On the Northern Ireland protocol, NI producers will continue to apply to the EU schemes to have new products protected in Northern Ireland across the UK. To protect their new product names in GB, Northern Ireland producers will need to apply separately under the UK GI schemes, and I would of course encourage that.

I have to conclude soon. However, while on the subject of Northern Ireland, I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that we have introduced an easement, as she knows. We are monitoring the situation and investigating all options to ensure smooth movements from GB to Northern Ireland.

I can take away many points from today’s debate. Frankly, in the time I have, I have not dealt with some of the technical points, but it may be better if I answer them in long form in letters. I am very conscious of some of the key points that have been made on some of the technical points on wines and other matters. However, I hope that this instrument commands support.

Motion agreed.

15:29

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.

Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:46

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this instrument ensured that current organic standards were in force for the end of the transition period. I should make it clear that the instrument does not make any changes to our policies; it is purely technical in nature. The Government strongly support organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK and adopted by the EU. The UK has world-recognised standards of food production and labelling, which we wish to see maintained.

There are 6,000 predominantly small and medium-sized UK organic businesses, which in 2019 contributed over £2.5 billion to the UK economy, including exports worth £250 million. These businesses are flourishing. Over the past year, as healthy and nutritious food has risen up the menu, organic sales have grown by 12.9%. This reflects a global trend for sustainable food, with countries such as the United States of America and Germany also seeing significant growth in organics.

The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which includes an annexe on the organics trade, provides a platform to build on this strong growth. British businesses will be able to continue to export organic products—whether organic Welsh lamb or key ingredients for organic food processing that happens in the EU such as milk for baby food destined for China—until 31 December 2023, while EU organic products, also including ingredients for the supply chain, will be able to continue to flow into GB.

We have removed the requirements for a certificate of inspection for organic products coming from the EU, EEA and Switzerland for six months until 1 July 2021. This means that ports and local authorities will have time to become familiar with the new manual importing system when checking organic products from other third countries. Meanwhile, consumers will continue to have access to a wide choice of organic food.

Together with the powers set out in the Agriculture Act, and while working closely with representatives from the sector and the devolved Administrations, we will seek to modernise how we regulate the production of organic food, animals and livestock. Our organic legislation sets out the requirements for organic production, processing, labelling and imports, as well as the control systems that must be in place to ensure that the requirements are met. It stipulates that organic food must be inspected and certified within the scope of a tightly regulated framework, and originate from businesses registered and approved by organic control bodies on the basis of rigorous annual inspections.

The instrument amended this legislation as it applies to the labelling of organic products. How organic products are labelled is an important part of organic certification, giving consumers confidence that they can trust that the organic products they buy in supermarkets and smaller retailers are organic. That is why this is a “made affirmative” instrument. We had to ensure that the UK’s organic labelling regulations were updated for the end of the transition period.

The specific amendments in the instrument removed the mandatory requirement for the EU organic logo to be featured on organic products sold in GB, and provided the legal framework for a new UK organic logo when it is developed. They amended the requirement to include an EU statement of agricultural origin, so that such statements reference the UK rather than the EU. For example, where the organic product has been farmed in the UK, organic operators should now use “UK agriculture” on the product’s packaging; or, where it has been partly farmed in a third country, including countries in the EU, and partly farmed in the UK, organic operators should use “UK/non-UK agriculture”.

The trade and co-operation agreement means that organic businesses now have the option to use the EU organic logo. If the EU logo is used, the relevant EU statement of agricultural origin must also be included, as required by the relevant EU rules. This logo is well recognised and will help grow UK organic exports to the EU.

The instrument contains devolved matters, so the devolved Administrations were closely engaged in its development and gave their consent for it to be made.

Although the instrument is relatively straightforward, the amendments were vital for the UK’s organic legislation and for what we all desire: for the organic sector to prosper under our future arrangements, at home and in this important export market. I beg to move.

15:51

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is vital that we support the organic industry, given that it is critical to meeting our climate and ecological challenges while producing the food we need. It is to be applauded for using fewer pesticides, reducing soil erosion, and helping us to tackle biodiversity loss. I do not oppose—in many regards, I welcome—this statutory instrument, but I query why it has been tabled with urgency and therefore without a draft instrument being laid in advance.

I query that because the SI removes the mandatory EU logo being placed on UK organic produce, yet we have agreed an equivalence of standards with the rest of Europe until the end of 2023—which I am pleased about. I understand why we might wish to remove the mandatory element, but I am not sure why it has to be so urgent. Similarly, I cannot understand why it is urgent to make this SI, given that, when we had a meeting with the Minister and his team in advance of another SI, he kindly informed us that Defra had “no plans, at present” to bring forward a logo.

It is puzzling, because the Explanatory Memorandum itself sets out no rationale for the UK to introduce its own organic logo. When the EU introduced its logo, 10 years ago, it was absolutely clear. It had a strategy to increase the percentage of organic farming in the European Union and, given that there was a plethora of organic labels, it decided to create one EU logo and promote it vociferously to consumers. Indeed, this year, I understand that the EU is hoping to introduce a new organic farm action plan with a target of 25% of agricultural land in the EU being put into organic farming by 2030. It has set aside €40 million for the promotion of organic farming. On the last day before I stopped coming into the Lords because of the lockdown, I remember standing on Godalming station facing a massive poster for the promotion of EU organic apples. Yet here in the UK, we have no strategy to increase organic farming and there is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum of any guaranteed funding for any logo that might result from it.

Equally, we have no design, yet we know that designing logos is controversial, given that it will relate to issues of land and identity and will require the consent of the devolved Administrations. Nor is there any mention of any commitment to consult the public, yet the public are the people who must understand any resulting logo. When we had an SI recently on the three new logos for geographical indications and foods that the Government produced, they had already consulted on the logos, including with the public, and the designs are available for all of us to see on the government website. Yet in this instance, it is somehow urgent to make a requirement that people in future use a logo, but we as parliamentarians have had no guarantees on who will be consulted on a controversial issue and no sight of said logos, when we had that for the three GI protected logos which were produced recently.

Similarly, I should like the Minister to reassure me that this is not a case of putting the cart before the horse, given the Government’s welcome commitment to introduce mandatory “method of production” labelling in future. They said that proposals for consultation would come forward fairly shortly, so why insist on doing this organic logo in advance? We could well end up with logo proliferation such as we see on a young person’s Scout sleeve.

In conclusion, as I said, I do not oppose this SI, but I very much hope that the Minister will be able to commit in his remarks that no logo will be produced in the absence of a strategy to increase organic farming or without a commitment to full public consultation and guaranteed funding to promote the logo and, through it, the valuable organic farm businesses that we need to support. Without those three things, this SI will not achieve what I hope all of us in the Grand Committee want, which is an increase in the percentage of farmed land in the UK given up to organic farming.

15:56

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who speaks with such knowledge on these issues. I pay tribute to my noble friend and his department for what they have achieved for the free movement of organics. My understanding is that, at one stage, it looked as though there would not be uninterrupted, unfettered access to the UK market from the EU, and for our organic products over there. The fact that that has been recognised and redeemed is worthy of congratulation, because I am sure it would have taken some time to achieve.

For the most part, I support the contents of the limited instrument before us today, but I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said about the degree of urgency. It would be helpful to know about that. I am slightly concerned that there will be two dates that organic producers have to be aware of. My noble friend said—and I am sure this is welcome—that there is a deferral until 1 July, which I presume extends to organic products from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland for the certification set out. Yet I understand that the trade and co-operation agreement has extended the mutual recognition of organic standards until the end of 2023. Does that mean that those organic products will have to be subject to these new import processes from 1 July 2021, and will the certification be in paper format? We have already encountered a number of difficulties at ports, in particular, and I fear that we will experience the same difficulties again. I do not know whether my understanding is correct there, but it would be very helpful to know whether that is the case.

I am slightly surprised that the Explanatory Memorandum says that no consultation has been undertaken—other than, I presume, the usual engagement that my noble friend and the department have with organic producers. It will be interesting to know how often they meet and what their reaction has been to the contents of the instrument.

This is undoubtedly a very important sector, for the reasons my noble friend gave, in terms of worth to the UK economy and the value of UK exports alone, so it would be helpful to know that access since 1 January from the UK to our export market in the EU has been smooth.

Finally, I note something raised by our honourable friend the Minister in the Commons who replied to the little debate on this instrument there. She alluded to what the Government hope to do through the Agriculture Act 2020:

“We will use the Agriculture Act 2020 to set an ambitious new course for the organic sector. We are working to ensure that organic goods can continue to move freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In terms of movement into Northern Ireland, through the Joint Committee agreement and the UK-EU TCA, we have secured easements to allow time for adjustments to take place.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25/1/21; col. 8.]


To press my noble friend on that, is he expecting more regulations to flow under the Agriculture Act’s provisions? Presumably there will have to be regulations before the end of June, or will this automatically fall into place so that we do not need to revise any current regulation in place? I would be very interested to know the extent.

I entirely support an ambitious new course for the organic sector; it has done quite well and is a jewel in the crown. I am sure any support the department can give will be very welcome—personally, I think it has always been considered fairly niche. When might we expect thinking to become more concrete and see the regulations give effect to what the Government have in mind?

I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations and for giving us the chance to scrutinise them.

16:02

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; I agree with a large proportion of what she said. I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction to this SI and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing on it.

Organic food production is at last increasing in the UK. At the start of the process of the Agriculture Act we were informed that the UK had the lowest rate of organic production of any of the EU countries engaged in organic farming. I am delighted that more producers are engaging with organics—there has been a 12% increase in the last year. There is, of course, great demand for organically produced Welsh lamb, although currently getting it through the customs regulations is a bit of a sticking point.

My noble friend Lady Parminter queried why the SI is being introduced so urgently. I share her concern.

When I read the SI, I was prematurely delighted that all organic produce was to be labelled as such, along with a UK organic logo, and that the place where the agricultural raw materials had been farmed would appear on the packaging. This would ensure that some of our iconic UK produce would be safeguarded and its authenticity proved. However, this was short lived; although the SI refers to a UK organic logo, this logo has not yet been produced but is being “developed”. The most obvious question, which I am sure the Minister is prepared for, is: how long will it take to get agreement from the organic producers on this logo? It is vital that the increasing sector has reassurance that its produce will be recognised. Even if the instrument provided for UK organic products to be so labelled, this is undermined by there being no specific, easily recognisable logo, as my noble friend Lady Parminter flagged.

The instrument states that the organic sector is worth £2.3 billion per annum to the UK economy and represents over 6,000 operators. The SI protects them to some extent, but it could go much further, including on consulting the public and the devolved Administrations.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Organic food and feed must be inspected and certified within the scope of a regulated framework.”


The Minister has referred to this already, but can he say whether this will mean more or less paperwork for the producers? We have all seen the problems occurring at border points, with the correct paperwork not being readily available. It is important that these “teething problems”, as the Government put it, are sorted out quickly to the benefit of our producers trying to supply the markets they set up prior to Brexit.

I understand there has been consultation with the United Kingdom organic certifiers group. However, its response is not recorded. Can the Minister give an update on the view of the UKOCG?

The SI states that the impact has no changes on direct costs. I presume this relates only to labelling and that there are no changes to other paperwork. Can the Minister confirm this is the case?

I welcome the change the SI makes to ensure that UK organic produce properly labels its origin and that it is organically sourced, but I remain very concerned that the agreement on a certified organic logo is still under review. I would like the Minister to give a definitive date when this will be agreed and begin to be widely used. I fully support my noble friend Lady Parminter’s comments. This is an important issue, which should be progressed urgently.

16:06

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing with officials beforehand. As he said, this is an important issue for the thriving organics sector in the UK and it is important that we do everything we can to support and grow the market, particularly in the EU. As the SI makes clear, this sector is worth £2.3 billion per annum to the UK economy, with exports worth £250 million a year. The UK undoubtedly has a respected reputation globally for the quality of its organic produce; it is vital that this is maintained.

As has been said, this SI was signed off on 31 December and appears before us on the “made affirmative” basis, as there was an immediate need at the end of the transition for continuity. We understand that argument, but I have a number of questions about the post-implementation of the SI.

On dates, we have seen several times in previous SIs a provision for a six-month transition before new customs and border control certifications come into effect, but this SI, at the end of paragraph 2.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, refers to the UK recognising the EU and EEA as equivalent for the purposes of trade until 31 December 2021. Can the Minister explain why those dates differ from other applicable dates?

Also, in annexe 4 of the trade and co-operation agreement there are specific and separate arrangements for fostering trade in organic produce. It refers to the provision for labelling and equivalence being reassessed by each party by 31 December 2023. Could the Minister explain what is due to happen between 2021 and 2023? Is it intended that we would need a separate SI to provide that continuity for organic trade until December 2023?

Organic Farmers & Growers has signalled that, although the continuity until 2023 is welcome, it is only 36 months away and will leave many UK organic businesses unable to secure long-term supply contracts. Can the Minister say when the work to secure a long-term agreement will begin and when he thinks he will be able to give the growers the long-term certainty they need to access the markets?

Organic Farmers & Growers also raised concerns about the end of the UK trader scheme on 31 March, which facilitates the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland. It argues that it is not practical to produce daily certificates of inspection for every shipment. Can the Minister say whether it is intended that this scheme should be extended? Otherwise, many retailers will simply stop transporting organic goods to Northern Ireland.

As a number of noble Lords have said, it seems a missed opportunity that we do not yet have a UK organic logo agreed. While we understand the complexity of reaching agreement, it is hoped that this work can proceed at pace. However, we welcome the fact that the trade and co-operation agreement undertakes to protect the use of the EU’s organic logo and any UK logo when it is finally agreed. Indeed, continued use of the EU logo would enable UK producers to continue to use the well-recognised routes to market.

Meanwhile, could the Minister update us on any discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations on this issue? Have we had an indications as to whether they would be content to have one UK logo, or do they envisage having separate ones for each nation?

Whatever the outcome, I hope the Minister agrees that any solution should optimise our marketing and trade opportunities, and should therefore have widespread recognition and impact. This is particularly important in the context of the EU’s new €182 million fund to promote agri-foods outside the EU, much of which will focus on its Green Deal ambitions and the farm to fork initiative. Can the Minister say whether a similar UK fund is being considered to capitalise on our reputation for high standards and integrity, which are integral to our good farming practice? This should particularly benefit the organics sector. As other noble Lords said, if we do not move fast, we will get left behind in this area.

I do not have anything further to say. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:11

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. If I do not fully pick up any matters of detail, I will, of course, write. I am grateful for the general welcome of the instrument. I should say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who raised this first, that the SI was made under the emergency procedure to correct operability issues and to ensure that the current organic standards were in force at the end of the transition period. The emergency procedure allowed us to ensure that the legislation was in force on 1 January. We believe it is important to make sure that the amendments, which are, I agree, uncontroversial corrections to efficiencies, take effect promptly.

On that, the whole point of the instrument was to make the retained EU organic regime operable. It ensured that strict regulations for organics were maintained at the end of the transition period.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised dates. I will spend a little time on this because it is important. There are two key dates in the instrument. The first, 1 July 2021, relates to the six-month easement that we have introduced on the requirement for certificates of inspection for organic products coming into Great Britain from the EU, EEA and Switzerland. Imports from other third countries require a GB COI from 1 January 2021, which is a manual process until an electronic system is available. I will mention that in a moment. This six-month waiver was a pragmatic decision, which allowed EU businesses time to adjust to the new system and therefore reduced the risk of congestion at ports.

The second date, 31 December 2021, relates to the one-year extension to the UK’s recognition of the EU as equivalent for organics that we unilaterally provided. This was to ensure that organic products could continue to be imported into GB after 1 January this year without a trade deal in place. It has been included in this instrument and not in any previous instruments due to the sensitivities around the negotiations with the EU leading up to the end of the transition period.

The big “however” is that, of course, on 24 December we signed the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. We agreed mutual recognition for organics as an annexe in the “technical barriers to trade” section. This means that we can continue to trade organic food and feed with the EU as equivalent until 31 December 2023. Later this year we will bring in a new piece of legislation to update this recognition date. There was insufficient time to amend the instrument after the trade and co-operation agreement was signed.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised the UK organic certifiers group. We meet this group fortnightly and we previously discussed the instrument. It was very supportive of this legislative change. We regularly engage with key stakeholders because we want to make the organics legislation work for the UK organics sector.

The noble Baronesses raised the UK organics logo, with slightly different emphasis. Our consideration was that organic operators and consumers face a number of substantial changes, so we felt that it was not the right time to bring forward an early introduction of a new organic logo. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly asked about consultation, which feeds into this point. In my view and that of the Government, it would be a mistake to introduce a UK organic logo just like that. It needs to have full and proper consultation across a very wide range of interested parties. In an earlier debate, we mentioned 6,000 SMEs. We need to do this properly for it to stand the test of time, and obviously we need to work with the devolved Administrations in the widest sense. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, we are very proud of our organic food, so when we come forward with a UK organic logo we need to make sure we have worked on this basis.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about paperwork. My heart sinks on paperwork, of course. We are in very strong dialogue with all interested parties as we seek to ensure that the changing arrangements work successfully for businesses. This instrument will not lead to a significant impact on organic businesses as it merely updates existing rules on labelling to reference the UK rather than the EU. Labelling is a crucial part of the certification and gives consumers confidence. Again, we will work with businesses, because it is very important that that is practical.

In terms of the inspections, again, this does not introduce any new policy, but we have put in place, and are extending to the end of 2021, temporary easements to the process of verifying organic products to support the organic sector. This is pragmatic during this terrible pandemic.

On the importance of trade between the UK and EU, like in many parts of the economy, the UK and the EU share a close trading partnership and relationship in organic products. EU organic ingredients are incredibly important for GB organic producers, such as those making organic yoghurt, so this is a key interest. UK organic produce is also hugely important for EU organic producers, which is why we need to work closely on this.

In terms of work on the Agriculture Act 2020, which the Minister, Victoria Prentis, and I both raised, and which my noble friend Lady McIntosh and others have mentioned, this Act sets out how farmers and land managers will be paid for public goods through the environmental land management scheme. Organic farmers will be well placed to benefit from the new system and the provision of environmental benefits and services, such as biodiversity and habitats. The ELMS will have a strong connection with organic production and we will be engaged in tests and trials as we bring forward its full rollout in 2024.

We are working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations on this instrument. Indeed, they attend the United Kingdom Organic Certifiers Group where we work very closely. We are meeting fortnightly with the devolved Administrations to ensure that all issues and development in this sector are well understood.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised a point about agricultural land, extending organic farming and the EU’s own ambition. We believe that this is a new chapter for UK agriculture and the Agriculture Act 2020 provides a strong reason for that. We currently support organic production through the Countryside Stewardship scheme.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about Northern Ireland. Where organic products are from GB, or originate in the EU but have been cleared for use in GB, an EU certificate of inspection is required to move the products to Northern Ireland. However, we have introduced an easement so that some organic products, including those moving to Northern Ireland retailers and their trusted suppliers, will not require a certificate of inspection until 1 April 2021. We are working closely with all interested parties to make sure that Northern Ireland traffic is smooth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the impact on businesses. This instrument maintains existing regulatory standards, so there is no direct financial impact on businesses from these instruments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the issue of what happens after 31 December 2023. We remain committed to securing a more permanent arrangement in the interim and will start discussions with the EU in due course. This is obviously a matter that is in progress and I am well seized of the points made by the noble Baronesses.

Regarding enforcement across all parts of the UK, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, supervision in GB is performed by organic control bodies appointed by Defra acting as the GB competent authority. There are currently six control bodies operating in GB. They are approved to certify GB organic operators. It is the same in Northern Ireland, with Defra acting as the NI competent authority and appointing organic control bodies to operate in the territory. This includes two from the Republic of Ireland.

I will look at Hansard to see if there are any other points that I may not have covered sufficiently because of technical detail. In the meantime, I beg to move.

Motion agreed

16:23

Sitting suspended.

Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2021

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:45

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2021.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, the draft order makes changes to the Welsh devolution settlement by amending Schedules 7A and 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 in light of the EU exit. This includes removing references that are no longer relevant now that the UK has left the EU, and modifying consenting arrangements in relation to concurrent powers and in relation to the controller of plant variety rights. The order also corrects some minor errors in both schedules. I shall take each element in turn.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the need, in light of our exit from the EU, to amend references to the EU and its institutions as they appear throughout the statute book. A number of such references appear in the list of reservations in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006. For example, at paragraph 20, the schedule reserves powers to the UK Parliament to legislate over elections to the European Parliament; clearly such a reference is no longer necessary. While the majority of the EU references in the Government of Wales Act 2006 were corrected through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it amended only the list of reservations where there was a direct read-across to the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland. The Government committed to correcting the remaining references in Schedule 7A through this order to enable the Senedd to have a direct say over the amendments. I make it clear that our approach to these changes is that they are devolution-neutral. Removing these references will not result in the Senedd gaining any additional competence, nor take away any powers that it currently has.

As well as making corrections to the schedule that are necessary as a result of EU exit, we are also taking the opportunity presented by this order to rectify a small number of minor errors in Schedules 7A and 7B which have come to light since the Wales Act 2017 gained Royal Assent. These errors have not affected the competence of the Senedd and their correction will similarly be devolution-neutral.

I now turn to matters related to the consent requirements in Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Paragraph 11 of the schedule prevents the Senedd from modifying or removing functions of a Minister of the Crown that relate to a qualified devolved function without the UK Government’s consent. A qualified devolved function is defined as one conferred on the First Minister, Welsh Ministers or the Counsel General and is to any extent exercisable concurrently or jointly with the Minister of the Crown or only with the consent of, or following consultation with, the Minister of the Crown. The need for UK government consent was put in place to protect the concurrent and joint functions set out in Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.

EU exit, however, has resulted in many more concurrent functions being established both through statutory instruments made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and in the UK Government’s programme of primary legislation. This approach was taken to allow for UK-wide approaches to be implemented in a number of areas, principally where powers have returned from the EU. The Welsh Government have raised concerns, however, over the Senedd’s ability to break these concurrent arrangements in future in light of the restrictions that I have already outlined. The UK Government agree that, in these circumstances, the consent requirements are not appropriate.

This order therefore provides that the consent requirements do not apply where the Senedd seeks to remove, or confers a power to remove, a function of a Minister of the Crown that is exercisable concurrently with Welsh Ministers and established through one of the enactments specified in the order. These specified enactments are: statutory instruments made under Sections 8 to 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 or in regulations made under it, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, the Coronavirus Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020, the Agriculture Act 2020, and the Act of Parliament that will result from the Trade Bill, currently in ping-pong. I should make it clear that this carve-out applies only where the Senedd seeks to remove the function of a Minister of the Crown and thereby break the concurrency. It will not apply to any wider modifications that the Senedd may wish to legislate for.

Also, in respect of the Fisheries Act 2020, this carve-out from the consent requirement does not apply to the removal of a Minister of the Crown function to regulate British fishing boats, excluding Welsh fishing boats, in Welsh waters. This is consistent with the protections for the Secretary of State’s wider concurrent functions to regulate fishing boats of a devolved Administration outside that Administration’s waters. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to carry out a review of concurrent fisheries functions to consider whether these arrangements are indeed still appropriate.

Many of the concurrent functions that have been established through the specified enactments provide that the relevant Secretary of State can exercise them only with the consent of the Welsh Ministers. A number also require the Welsh Ministers to consult or to seek consent of a Minister of the Crown before exercising them.

Restrictions in paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 7B provide that the Senedd cannot confer, impose, modify or remove functions specifically exercisable in relation to a reserved authority without the consent of the UK Government. Welsh Ministers’ ability to give consent to the Secretary of State, as well as requirements to consult or seek the consent of a Minister of the Crown, constitutes a function in relation to a reserved authority. As a result, this order also provides that these restrictions do not apply when the Senedd seeks to remove a concurrent function of a Minister of the Crown established through the specified enactments. The Government believe that it is appropriate that the relevant Minister is informed of plans to remove their functions. As such, under the provisions of the order, the Welsh Government must consult the relevant UK Government Minister before a Senedd Bill can remove such a function.

The order also makes changes to the consent arrangements in relation to the Controller of Plant Variety Rights. The Controller of Plant Variety Rights is the UK-wide body responsible for administering UK plant breeders’ rights. Intellectual property as it relates to plant varieties is a devolved matter. However, as the controller operates on a UK-wide basis, and therefore undertakes functions for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland which are outside the Senedd’s competence, it is classified as a reserved authority under the Welsh devolution settlement.

As I have already noted, Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 places restrictions on the Senedd’s ability to impose, modify or remove functions of reserved authorities without the consent of the UK Government. There are however a small number of reserved authorities that are carved out of these consent requirements because they exercise a mix of devolved and reserved functions. These include the Electoral Commission and the Food Standards Agency. In the light of the devolution boundary in this area, it is appropriate that the Senedd be able to modify the devolved functions of the Controller of Plant Variety Rights without needing the consent of a UK Government Minister. The order therefore adds the controller to the list of mixed function authorities.

The order is the result of significant and very positive engagement between both Governments and has been laid before the Senedd for its approval. I beg to move.

16:52

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for her succinct and clear explanation, and I hope it will not astonish her or your Lordships if I start by congratulating the Government on bringing forward this order—I am not in the habit of congratulating this Government. The order represents a rare example over recent months of the Government working constructively with the Welsh Government to preserve and protect the rights of the Senedd, the elected Parliament of Wales. It is also a reminder, perhaps, of how Brexit has up-ended much of the conventional wisdom about how our constitution should function.

When what was to become the Wales Act 2017 was introduced in the other place in 2016, the assumption was that concurrent powers between devolved and UK Ministers were a constitutional oddity which were on the wane. However, with the regrettable necessity of ensuring that there would be a functioning statute book after the end of the EU transition period, using concurrent powers was agreed by all four Governments in the UK as a necessary way of amending legislation, much of it from before devolution, which is now within devolved competence.

The Wales Act 2006—for which I was responsible as Secretary of State for Wales and introduced—provided for the full-law making powers Wales now has. It contained a provision which is unparalleled in the settlements in Scotland and Northern Ireland: that if the Senedd, in legislating, wished to remove concurrent powers from UK Ministers, it could do so only with their consent—something which is clearly anomalous when we are talking about issues wholly within devolved competence. That is why this Order in Council is necessary: to amend the legislation so concurrent powers created as a result of Brexit-related legislation can be removed by the Senedd if and when it so chooses.

One might imagine that this Government might have decided that this toe-hold was one which could be used in future as a bargaining chip, so I am pleased that a commitment entered into by, I believe, Theresa May’s Government, to bring forward this order has been honoured. I therefore commend this way of working to the Minister as an example of how to deal with the devolved Administrations in future. I make no personal observation about her, because it is her highers and betters who have been responsible for damaging the relationship with the devolved Governments. I commend it rather than, for example, following the appallingly arrogant precedent set by the UK internal market Act —where, as noble Lords will remember, the Government first undertook a tokenistic public consultation on a set of proposals which the devolved Governments had had no prior sight of; next, failed to publish the responses; then introduced a Bill within days of the consultation closing; went on to ignore the closely argued and rational objections of the devolved Governments to their approach; and only after three rounds of ping-pong produced some limited compromise amendments. Now, I understand that, having exhausted the political process, the Welsh Government are taking the Secretary of State to court on the basis that if he had wanted to diminish the Senedd’s powers, he should have done so overtly, not by legislation which pretends to leave them untouched. I am sure that many in your Lordships’ House will wish—as I do—the Welsh Government well.

I conclude by simply asking the Minister whether she recognises the damage done to the United Kingdom by that legislation and whether she agrees that the consensual way of proceeding which we have reflected in the order is a much better precedent for the Government to follow in future.

16:57

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is a complex order, and although I have been involved in all the devolution legislation since 1998, it is not easy to follow. This is a problem in Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, just explained. I entirely concur with his comments on the internal market Act.

To try to define the problem, the consequence of the proposed repatriation of powers from Brussels was a lorry-load of legislation pushed through at breakneck speed in Westminster. We all suffered for it. The Welsh Government co-operated in giving consent in devolved areas where it was necessary, but the result was that the Minister of the Crown in Westminster acquired from Brussels concurrent powers with Welsh Ministers in devolved areas. As a result, Welsh Ministers are restricted in the exercise of their devolved powers, long established by a number of Government of Wales Acts since 1998. In a wide area of policy where there are concurrent powers, the consent of the Minister of the Crown would now be required for Welsh Ministers to exercise their long-established powers, if it were not for this order.

The original purpose of the order was limited. Originally, it was intended to correct a number of deficiencies arising from the UK’s exit from the European Union and to change some drafting errors in the 2006 Act, as amended in 2017. However, the order has been extended to provide a carve-out from the consent requirements, mainly in respect of current and concurrent- plus functions created by the EU exit legislation, but also by the swathes of coronavirus legislation through which we have been wading.

My understanding, therefore, is that the order removes the need for the Minister of the Crown’s consent to the exercise by Welsh Ministers of their powers where concurrency is caused mainly by Brexit. I hope I am right in that.

The illustration of the purpose of the order given in the report of the legislative committee of the Senedd was in relation to fisheries. Power over British fisheries was taken back from Brussels so that British Ministers could exercise full powers over UK fishing—pause for a sea shanty or two, followed by a chorus of “Rule Britannia” by those British fishermen who are now expressing such delight at the predicted failure by the Prime Minister in the negotiations.

In Wales, those ex-Brussels powers run concurrently with the powers of Welsh Ministers—for example, for the regulation of Welsh fishing vessels in the so-called Welsh zone. Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of this order, the British Fisheries Minister will not interfere with Welsh Ministers in regulating Welsh fisheries and that Welsh Ministers will be able to get on with their job without needing Westminster consent? I understood her to say that the Westminster Government will concurrently control British fish in Welsh waters. I do not know what will happen if there is a clash; I am not sure which side the Royal Navy will be on.

This principle of non-interference applies not just to fisheries but to the whole range of Welsh devolved competences. The Senedd report referred in particular to the Trade Bill going through Parliament, but there will be others, as the Minister has pointed out. In giving evidence to that committee, the Welsh Counsel General said there would be a need for a further order after the end of the transition period. Was he right? Is there another order now on the stocks?

Is it the Government’s policy in future to ensure that Welsh Ministers do not require the consent of a Westminster Minister to legislate in any devolved matter? If the answer to that question is yes—and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, seems to think it is—and that such permission is not required, a large number of concerns in Wales will be assuaged. If the answer is no, or is qualified in some way, it will mean that Westminster Ministers have a power of veto over the exercise by Welsh Ministers of their devolved powers. Further, it will mean that central government envisage exercising their newly acquired concurrent powers derived from Brussels in Wales. It is obvious that there is a vital constitutional question wrapped up in this order. It gives meaning to the charge of power grab, which the Government have so hotly resented and denied. I hope to be enlightened.

17:02

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and am so glad to see that he is in such fine fettle following the ill health that he suffered last year. It is also good to have a Minister in charge of this debate who has a genuine interest in Wales and wants to make the devolved settlement work, in contrast to one of two of her party’s candidates in the Senedd election next May, who seem hell-bent on destroying devolution, and in contrast to our recent experiences with other legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right in relation to the veto.

I am particularly glad to acknowledge the significant role played by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in the formulation and passage of the 2006 Act. I was at that time very much involved in the lobbying process agitating for a new enactment following the recommendations of the Richard commission on the need to enable the National Assembly, as it then was, to pass primary legislation in those matters devolved to it. Fortuitously, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was in the right place at the right time to bring forward such a Bill earlier than had been generally expected, and his opportunism was widely saluted in Wales, as the 2006 Act found its way on to the statute book. In many ways, it was only a bridging exercise leading on to more comprehensive legislative powers being devolved following the 2011 referendum, which gave a thumping 2:1 endorsement to change the National Assembly into a legislative Parliament.

It is in that context that we should see the order today. First, I acknowledge that, as the Minister asserted, the Welsh Government broadly support the provisions of the order, so I am in no way challenging the need for such adjustments. However, there are a couple of points on which I would be grateful for clarification.

The wording of the order provides for amending Schedule 7A on reserved matters to omit the words

“and obligations under EU law.”

I accept that regrettably, following Brexit, EU regulations, however sensible they may have been, no longer hold sway, that henceforward legislation formulated and adopted in these islands will deal with matters previously covered by European legislation, and that in non-reserved matters, Wales’s Senedd should draft and enact such legislation. Can the Minister confirm that it will indeed be Senedd Cymru that will take such steps in each and every instance and that, in areas where competence is not reserved, legislation drawn up at Westminster will not be imposed on it?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that every single EU obligation has been or is being reconstituted into UK law at Westminster for reserved matters and in Senedd Cymru for all other matters, unless a specific decision is taken to amend or annul them—decisions made in Senedd Cymru for all non-reserved matters? If the Minister can give me such undertakings, my reservations are not so much about the mechanics of the order before us today but to ask whether by themselves they cover all the ground that needs to be covered by such orders and that nothing will fall in between the tracks, those between the EU and the UK and those between Westminster and Senedd Cymru. I will be grateful for such assurances.

17:06

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

First, I thank the Minister for her very clear exposition of this somewhat arcane order and for dealing with anything that involves amending the Government of Wales Acts, which are so inherently complex. I thank the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom for bringing this forward, primarily to correct an anomaly that has arisen in the devolution legislation, and for doing so at the behest of the Welsh Government. It is right on this occasion to say thank you. This is a good example of what can be achieved by acting pragmatically, consulting properly and resolving issues consensually. That is the message I wanted to convey—not much more and certainly nothing less. I hope for the future that this is the example of the way the four nations of the United Kingdom can move forward together. Indeed, we must move forward in this way at a time when the union is subject to such great strain.

There will be opportunities to say that such an approach of working together is the way of the future. It will arise very soon—for example, in relation to further steps needed as a result of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, such as the undertakings given in respect of the Act itself, the common frameworks being developed, and the new competition regime. A particularly good example of the need for this new way of working is what is to happen in relation to procurement, where there is a draft common framework in existence but also, as the White Paper explains, the possibility of new legislation. There can be little doubt that there is a real need to simplify the legislative framework which sets out the current devolution settlement. I hope the Minister will appreciate this when she has had to explain this complicated instrument. There may also be a need for new and better structures, but this afternoon is not the time to develop that issue.

I confine my message simply to saying thank you for acting in this way, trusting that the future will therefore be one where the way forward is founded on the UK Government genuinely working together with the Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to deal with issues through consultation and consensual decision-making in a union that properly respects devolution but which also looks to agreed common solutions to UK-wide issues. I very much hope that I will have many more occasions to make a speech of this kind saying thank you rather than having to press for changes to be made to try to hold our union together.

17:10

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to the proposed amendments. I am also delighted to follow all noble Lords who have spoken.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, I was pleased to note that this statutory instrument is the result of officials from the Welsh Government and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales working in conjunction to develop and negotiate its contents. That the two Governments have worked so co-operatively and have come to an agreed conclusion should provide a blueprint for future negotiations and, as such, we have no objections to the order.

The first group of amendments, those to Schedule 7A to the Act, deal with deficiencies in the Act. The majority of these deficiencies give rise to amendments to remove our obligations under EU law, which even I, as someone who voted to remain in the EU, accept are now obsolete. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I regret their loss but reluctantly accept the inevitability of these changes.

On these Liberal Democrat Benches, we also regret further amendments to Schedule 7A which remove references to the European Parliament, remove the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 from the definition of “existing election Acts” and remove the reservation concerning the free movement of persons within the European Economic Area. The rights we enjoyed as European citizens in Wales under the Act will now be consigned to history and oblivion by the pressing of a delete button on a computer somewhere in Whitehall. For those of us who live in Wales, especially in west Wales and the valleys, there were far more advantages to our membership of the EU than merely citizenship of Europe, and it seems appropriate that I take this opportunity to put on public record my gratitude to the EU for the investment it made in our region.

Nearly 20 years on from the decision that west Wales and the valleys qualified for Objective 1 status, our road infrastructure is in a far more positive place, laying the groundwork for future economic development through improved connectivity. Our rural communities have had life breathed back into them as unused buildings have been repurposed for community use. Enterprise has been encouraged, new businesses have been created and our skills shortages were being tackled. But this was just the start; there is still far more to be done. Twenty years of funding was never going to make up for many years, even centuries, of neglect. That neglect is set to return.

A letter from Jeremy Miles, Wales’s Brexit Minister, published on Monday by the Welsh Affairs Committee in the other place, says:

“The programmes which are ending are worth £375 million annually to Wales. What is on offer from the UK Government is £220 million across the whole UK to run a pilot SPF scheme in 2021-22.”


That is a far cry from the UK Government’s claims that Wales would receive more money from the UK Government than it did from EU funding.

I am grateful that we in Wales benefited from a true levelling-up agenda. As one of the poorest areas in Europe, we benefited from investment that was awarded based on an ethos of co-operation, consultation and, above all, equality. We experienced working in a system that gave us the dignity of contributing to our own solutions in a partnership of equals—a stark contrast to the future ahead of us, as we face the prospect of schemes and projects being imposed on us. If the UK Government are to take one lesson from Wales’s experience of working with the EU, it is that far more can be achieved by co-operation, joint planning and partnership working than by imposition and diktat.

I turn very briefly to the other two groups of amendments. Those amendments which correct errors in drafting in Schedule 7B of course have our support. The third category removes some of the Minister of the Crown consent requirements and is important to protect the Senedd’s legislative competence. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford for his detailed and expert analysis of the amendments, and like him I look forward to the Minister’s response.

17:15

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

I also thank the Minister for introducing the draft Order in Council, which we welcome and are happy to support. It clearly had a long genesis, as evidenced by the reference along the bottom of the Explanatory Memorandum to DExEU, which clearly did the work at that point. I assume this is because the earlier draft was concerned only with some Brexit issues, and that now, as we just heard, the other carve-outs have been added.

Before I ask just a couple of questions, I echo my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, by thanking the Government for the order and the changes in it, which respond to a request from the Welsh Government. As they have said, it seems to reflect a much better dialogue than that witnessed over Brexit and the internal market Bill. I hope it signals a closer working relationship, with regular scheduled meetings at Prime Minister and First Minister level.

This is important, not just for the future of devolution as a living, working, evolving way of our democracy functioning. Especially in these challenging times, it evinces a better way of working together for the future health, welfare and economic recovery of the UK. As we have heard, such working has to be collaborative and reach beyond and above party lines. It means discussing problems facing the UK openly and developing policies together, not just consulting on ones that are already fully formed. If the order is anything to go by, the seeds of that approach appear to have been sown.

The carve-outs in the order for the removal of certain functions from requiring UK ministerial consent, as agreed by the Welsh Parliament, are sensible and welcome. I have therefore only a couple of questions. First, as there remain concerns about the Welsh Government’s reliance on the UK Government to legislate on their behalf, could the Minister confirm that if any further corrections are needed as a consequence of our exit, the Welsh Government will be able to legislate to make such corrections?

Secondly, as the order does not cover concurrent-plus powers over similar functions in the Environment Bill, despite a previous commitment to carve out such powers from Schedule 7B to the 2006 Act, could the Minister undertake that this will be dealt with in the Environment Bill itself, with it being amended along the lines of the order? Given that, as we learned last night, the Government have again delayed the Environment Bill—I think now for the third time—and as it will now not reach your Lordships’ House until just before the summer, there is plenty of time to get it right with regard to the parallel issues to those covered in the order.

Lastly, given that suggestions have been made to the Senedd’s legislation and justice committee that

“the transition period would generate the need for another Order in Council”,

as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned, could the Minister clarify whether a further order is indeed envisaged?

17:19

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate this afternoon, particularly for the gracious remarks many have made towards the statutory instrument and the close and collaborative work between the Welsh and UK Governments that has resulted in it. I take the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and yes, it is arcane, but it is also very complex and it has taken me many hours to master. I am hoping, like him, that future legislation reflecting the devolution settlement is a lot less complex.

The order makes a number of amendments to Schedules 7(a) and 7(b) of the Government of Wales Act 2006. It enables the Senedd to remove concurrent powers, established in specified enactments, without needing the agreement of the UK Government. This directly addresses the concerns raised by the Welsh Government. It also clarifies the schedules by removing references that are no longer relevant following the EU exit and provides for a number of corrections where they are necessary.

I will endeavour to answer a number of the questions asked by noble Lords. I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I am particularly grateful for his kind words because I am well aware of his seminal role in the Government of Wales Act 2006. I am also very pleased that we removed the toehold that he feared we might try and retain. I note his comments on future dealings with the Senedd and will continue to pass these up to my “olders and betters” as he termed them.

As to his point about UKIM, the provisions in the Act will help the UK internal market, which will be of benefit to Wales. It should not be views as a threat to devolution. The Act merely seeks to maintain open borders for trade within our United Kingdom and it has the broad support of Welsh business. The Minister’s powers to spend in relation to specific devolved areas enables the Government to spend in Wales on UK-wide priorities and does not impact on the powers of the Senedd or the Welsh Government. The Act confirms the renewed status of subsidy control. State aid was previously, of course, an EU-level competence.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked whether I could confirm the point about fisheries. The UK Government will not interfere with fisheries policies. The continued application of the consent requirements in relation to functions to regulate British fishing boats in the Welsh zone is consistent with the position under wider fisheries legislation, in which the Secretary of State retains concurrent powers in certain cases to regulate fishing boats of a devolved Administration fishing outside that Administration’s waters. Defra has committed to carrying out a review of concurrent fisheries functions to consider whether these are appropriate. The order will not affect the ability of Welsh Ministers to regulate Welsh fishing boats in Welsh waters. The noble Lord also asked whether Welsh Ministers and the Senedd can continue to exercise their functions unimpeded by the UK Government, and the answer is absolutely, yes, they can. This order facilitates that by enabling the Senedd to cease certain concurrent functions without requiring the UK Government’s consent.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, did not actually ask me any questions but gave a lot of interesting background. I share his hope that the four nations will now move forward together in a more collaborative way, as we have seen in this statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about the removal of obligations under EU law. I can confirm that it will be the Senedd Cymru that will deal with all such non-reserved matters. In the 66 areas now transferred from Brussels to Cardiff Bay, it will be up to the Senedd to choose how they exercise those powers. I also confirm that all such EU obligations have been reconstituted into UK law, unless specifically amended by Westminster or the Senedd.

I acknowledge the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and her regrets. I am therefore doubly grateful for the supportive comments on this instrument. I look forward to all the areas she mentioned seeing continuous support as we all work together to strengthen the union and continue to try and level up those areas that have been left behind. The power provided in the UKIM Act makes sure that the UK Government can invest UK taxpayers’ money in Wales. It will support Welsh people and businesses to recover and grow.

There will also be the new shared prosperity fund from 2022 and additional funding for 2021-22 which will total £220 million across the UK, enabling pilot projects to be launched. Wales will not be worse off; EU structural funds have a substantial tail of funding over the next three years. As that funding tails off, the shared prosperity fund will increase.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked whether further corrections are needed as a result of exit and whether the Welsh Government can make those corrections themselves. The answer is yes, if those corrections are in the devolved areas. The Environment Bill will include the equivalent provision to this order; it will be done by amendment. I share her frustration that it has been postponed but, to preserve the Bill, it was deemed appropriate that it be put off until early summer. The absolute goal is that it must obtain Royal Assent before COP 26 in the autumn.

I welcome the productive work that has taken place between the two Governments in the preparation of this order. I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 5.26 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 27 January 2021

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

12:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

12:07

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber while 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, 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.

House of Lords: Size

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:07

Asked by

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to limit the size of the House of Lords.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and the outlook of the Lords fresh. This will ensure that the Lords continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation while respecting the primacy of the Commons.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

Can the Minister confirm that in the past 12 months the Prime Minister has appointed 59 new Peers, bringing our total membership to 833, and that, if we continue at anything like this rate, by the end of a five-year Parliament there could be close to 1,000 Peers? Given that this House has suggested practical ways to reduce our numbers, will the Government work with us to achieve this or, if not, is it really government policy to increase our size with no upper limit whatever?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s concern is that the House of Lords operates effectively, as I believe it does. The noble Lord who asked the question was a private secretary to a previous Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, between 1997 and 2001, when more than 200 Peers were sent to your Lordships’ House. Perhaps it was that painful experience that makes him so militant on this subject.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]]

My Lords, following the constructive report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, can the Government consider the proposal that when the Prime Minister appoints new Peers, only a small amount of them are legislators, thus considerably limiting the House’s next intake of new Members?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises implicitly the question of whether some Peers who are not legislators might be appointed. This idea has been put forward at various times historically. Currently, the position is that they are.

[Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]]

My Lords, when we last debated this issue on 5 January, the Minister said that neither the present nor the previous Prime Minister had assented to any limit on numbers, but the previous Prime Minister did agree to exercise restraint in appointments to the House in response to the Lord Speaker’s letter following the Burns report as part of an overall acceptance of the need to reduce numbers. Is that no longer the Government’s policy?

[Lord True (Con)]

What I said, which I repeat, is that the previous Prime Minister did not accept the committee’s recommendation to commit to a specific cap on numbers, and that remains the position. My right honourable friend Mr Johnson has only recently become Prime Minister. I suggest that we judge him at the end of his term rather than at this time, when, frankly, the Conservative Party has been underrepresented in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, a recent Times editorial, entitled “House of Cronies”, referred to the high proportion of Brexiteers and Tory donors among the 59 new Peers already made by the Prime Minister, in particular the nomination of a Tory donor guilty of corruption and rejected by the Appointments Commission. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that he is tempting any future non-Conservative Government to appoint inflated numbers to balance the old number? Is the Prime Minister really trying to make the House look ridiculous?

[Lord True (Con)]

Absolutely not, my Lords. The perception of the House depends on the behaviour and conduct of the House. I am not going to follow, as I refused to before, any kind of ad hominem attack on any new Member—I welcome them all. As for the comment on Brexiteers, I did not notice a surfeit of those before the last election.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

The Prime Minister has clearly reneged on the agreement of his predecessor to help curb the size of the House of Lords. He recently overruled the Appointments Commission over a major donor to his party. What does the Minister estimate to be the effect on the House of Lords of the recently announced plans to increase the maximum permitted expenditure by political parties in general elections by a massive 69%?

[Lord True (Con)]

I may be a little obtuse but I do not see the direct connection between general election expenditure and the House of Lords. The House of Lords, for which I have great reverence, is, contrary to many of the things said publicly, extremely good value for the outstanding service that it gives to the country.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, while I certainly support a smaller second Chamber, does the Minister appreciate the frustrations of those of us in smaller parties at the way in which the present arrangement systematically prevents such parties having as numerically strong a voice as they could expect under direct election? To enhance the second Chamber and reduce its size in a fair manner, direct elections would be a credible way forward.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I salute the noble Lord for his service to his party and his nation in this House. One of the pleasures that I have had at the Dispatch Box—it has not always been easy—has been hearing the very strong voice for Wales in this House, not only from the noble Lord’s party but from the Benches opposite and other parts of the House. I understand his point. Obviously, one major party, the Scottish National Party, does not offer nominations.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, is it not time that we started again at the beginning and the Government decide what they want a second Chamber to do and how it should be constituted, and then decide on the numbers?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a strong point. The role and performance of the House are fundamental to the perception of the House, as I said earlier. That is much deeper than some of the froth on this Question and a matter to which not only the Government but all of us need to direct our attention. We are a revising Chamber, and it is as that that we merit our place and reputation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I find myself in unusual agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The fact is that form should follow the function of this House. It is about not some academic interest in the size of the House, but the optimum size and balance between the party groups that allows us to do our work most effectively. We can be effective as a House and helpful to the Government, as is evident in the number of amendments passed by your Lordships’ House that the Government agree to and put into legislation. I put it to the Minister that if the Prime Minister’s approach is to continue to prioritise the appointment of Government-supporting Peers, that balance fails and the value of the House falls. They cannot just ram through legislation with ever-increasing government numbers. Does the Prime Minister respect the role and value of your Lordships’ House?

[Lord True (Con)]

I am certain that my right honourable friend respects the role and place of your Lordships’ House, as, I believe, for all the difficulties that there have been at times, previous Prime Ministers of all parties have. It is reasonable that the House of Lords has been refreshed. As long as it is a nominated House, that should remain the case. On the question of 600 Members, which is often mentioned, I remind your Lordships that there have only been two Divisions in your Lordships’ House since 2015 in which more than 600 people voted.

[Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is long accepted that the House of Lords is a self-regulating Chamber. Does the Minister therefore agree that the House can itself implement its collective wish that the number of participating Peers be limited?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this was brought up in a previous exchange, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. The problem with the proposition posited by the noble Baroness is that an unelected House should determine who should become its Members and how many there should be. I am afraid that this is a House of Parliament, not a gentlemen’s club and the membership of the House must, at the end of the day, have political accountability. The line of political accountability goes to the Queen’s principal adviser, who is the incumbent Prime Minister.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the two noble Lords I was unable to call.

No-fault Evictions

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:18

Asked by

[Baroness Grender]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards preparing the legislation to end “no fault” evictions announced in the Queen’s Speech on 19 December 2019.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, we remain committed to abolishing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 to enhance renter security and improve protection for tenants. However, our collective efforts are currently focused on responding to the coronavirus outbreak. We will bring forward a renters’ reform Bill once the urgencies of responding to the pandemic have passed and when parliamentary time allows.

[Baroness Grender (LD) [V]]

My Lords, by all metrics, tenants started this pandemic with less savings and have lost more jobs and income than property owners, but the Government, in the name of balance, have made the callous move of including arrears accrued during the pandemic as grounds for eviction. They have therefore broken the promise that loss of income will not mean the loss of a home. Can the Minister share the data used to guide this decision? If it is not available, will he please write to me?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Given the significant level of financial support that has been available to renters throughout the pandemic, through furlough and welfare, it is unlikely that this expansion of rent arrears would have accumulated solely through Covid-related arrears. I point out the Citizens Advice data that 250,000 renters owe landlords some £360 million.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, Generation Rent analysis states that:

“Section 21 is the leading cause of statutory homelessness.”


The report continues, saying that

“92% of the rise in homelessness cases … in London can be explained by no-fault evictions”.

However, turning to the immediate, the Government’s ban on bailiff enforcement of eviction ends on 21 February and does not extend to renters in more than six months of arrears. What plans, if any, do Her Majesty’s Government have to revisit these two very important issues?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I point out that the new court rules will certainly prioritise cases such as anti-social behaviour, and that bailiffs do not currently enforce evictions. There have been plenty of protections for tenants throughout this pandemic, and those protections continue. It is important to get a balance between protecting tenants and providing the rights to landlords.

[Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I support the ending of no-fault evictions and believe that the tenant should receive extra support during the pandemic and the current lockdown. The Minister will know that very many private landlords own just one or two properties. Can he say what the grounds for repossession would be should the landlord need to reoccupy their home or sell for financial reasons?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I will have to write on that specific point. It is important that this is seen as a balance of strengthening the rights for eviction while removing the no-fault eviction.

[Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]]

I declare my interests as recorded in the register. As part of a renters’ reform Bill, the Government have committed to improving the court process for landlords to make it quicker and easier for them to get their property back where they have a legitimate reason for doing so. Given this, when will Ministers publish their response to the consultation, Considering the case for a Housing Court, which closed over two years ago?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I will have to respond to the noble Baroness in writing on the point about the housing board.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, campaigners have asked for a coronavirus home retention scheme of £750 million in support to be made available to help renters in arrears, recover loss of income and avoid rent debt. Have the Government conducted a cost-benefit analysis comparing such a fund with the potential cost of making many families homeless because of rent arrears?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am not specifically aware of such a cost-benefit analysis, but we will certainly look into that as we develop policy in this area.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Does my noble friend agree that tenants must have confidence that their landlords will treat them properly, but that the law should not penalise landlords unfairly—most of whom are responsible, have only one or two properties and may have lost significant amounts of rental income in the pandemic? I agree that we must be careful not to give unbalanced rights to tenants to occupy indefinitely—for example, if their landlord needs to sell or move in themselves.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is very important that, when we remove the ability to evict someone through no-fault evictions and Section 21, we also strengthen the rights where there are specific grounds for eviction. That is the nature of the tenancy reform and the Bill that we will bring before the House.

[Lord Best (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are definitely doing the right thing in giving renters greater security. But is there a problem that a rogue landlord could simply double the rent, thereby forcing the tenant to leave despite the extra security? Would the Minister agree that the forthcoming renters’ reform Bill will need to introduce not clumsy rent controls but a straightforward time period—perhaps four years—during which a tenant’s rent cannot be increased by more than inflation?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will look at what it will take to ensure that there are proper securities for renters, while recognising that we also need a healthy private rental sector and the role that good landlords play in that process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. In March 2020, the Government made a commitment that no renter would lose their home due to coronavirus. Can the Minister tell the House how ending the evictions ban aids that commitment?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I point out that billions have been provided in welfare support. In addition, raising the local housing allowance of the lowest 30th percentile is adding nearly another £1 billion of support—some £600 of support to people—in the private rental sector. There is a great deal of support in addition to the discretionary housing payments. All of this shows that we are committed to supporting renters at this time, but we need to get the balance, with support for landlords.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

I declare my interests as in the register. It seems that the eviction moratorium had benefits in Covid prevention interests as well as, or perhaps even more than, the interests of renters or landlords. Given that public interest aspect, is it not incumbent on the Government to try to provide a solution to the rent arrears, especially for those—of whom there are quite a few—who have been ineligible for the other types of support?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not really sure how the Government can solve the issue of rent arrears. We have just discovered the £360 million in rent arrears calculated by Citizens Advice. The most important thing is, where a landlord faces a tenant not paying their rent and where there is a level of egregious rent arrears caused not just by the pandemic, they are able to evict the tenant.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Is there not a very simple way of accepting the fact that, if we pay the rent of people in this period, we can look at the knock-on effect at a particular time? For anybody who slips into homelessness, the cost will double, and sometimes treble. We know the evil cost of homelessness, and it would be much more sensible if we said, “Okay, all we are going to do is pay your rent, pay your arrears and spend to save”.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I would argue that the furlough scheme and the support we have given in billions in welfare, in addition to the commitment towards homelessness, which is increasing from £700 million this year to £750 million, is precisely the sort of leadership the Government are providing to support people to remain settled in accommodation and take rough sleepers off our streets.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. The Citizens Advice survey found that 46% of tenants who make a complaint are then evicted by their landlord using Section 21—the no-fault eviction power. Can the Government find the time to deal with this very real problem through some form of legislation due before this House, whether in its own Bill or by piggybacking the relevant clauses into another Bill, as this is now even more pressing in this coronavirus and lockdown era? People, particularly families, have more than enough to cope with at the moment, and need to know that they have a safe and secure roof over their heads.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I point out that there is a firm commitment to the abolition of Section 21, while strengthening the powers to evict on other grounds. That reform will come forward when parliamentary time allows.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the third Oral Question.

Education: The Holocaust

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:30

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Holocaust Memorial Day, what steps they are taking to improve education in schools about the Holocaust in order (1) to promote tolerance, and (2) to combat racism.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, with respect and sombre reflection, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to Holocaust education and believe that every young person should learn the lessons it teaches us today. That is why it is the only compulsory topic in the history curriculum. It is important that pupils understand the appalling events of the Holocaust and the possible consequences of anti-Semitism and extremism in order to understand how society can prevent the repeat of such a catastrophe. I am grateful to my noble friend for laying this Question on Holocaust Memorial Day.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, survivors play such a profound role in our education programmes. As they become fewer in number, what steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that all their testimony is taken down and transformed through all modern means, not least AI, AR and VR, to ensure that all that testimony is available to future generations for ever? There are six million reasons.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have funded several initiatives of the nature my noble friend outlines. The new national memorial will ensure that the voices of survivors and witnesses are retained. We have included support for initiatives such as the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Newark, which uses AI to capture survivors’ testimony.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, how have the Government ensured that schoolchildren know also about the Roma element of the Holocaust, which is so little known but was responsible for the annihilation of such a large proportion of Europe’s Roma population? For instance, the Government could put Gypsy, Traveller and Roma history on the school curriculum, as requested by the Council of Europe, and as included in previous Holocaust Education Trust memorial day ceremonies. Would not this help to reduce the race hatred experienced by these communities?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her involvement in the stakeholder group for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people and for the group’s contribution to the national strategy that is being led by the Government for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in the UK. There are resources available. When the Holocaust is taught on the curriculum it is of course open to schools to include other genocides. It is good to note that the IHRA has produced a non-legally binding definition of the genocide and discrimination against the Roma people.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I was able to visit the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp during a visit arranged by the Holocaust Education Trust. There were more than 100 people in the party, mainly students, and it was an experience none of us is ever likely to forget. The Holocaust Education Trust is to be congratulated on the work it does in this respect. Has the Minister visited this camp? If not, a visit of this nature would be helpful in projecting the work of the trust. Perhaps I might add that I am trustee and patron of the Holocaust Education Trust and would be able to assist in this exercise.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is always good to hear of the valuable work that the HET is doing. That is why the Government give nearly £2.2 million a year to enable such visits by students. I am grateful for the invitation. I will take it up remotely because I believe that during the pandemic the HET has been very successful in moving trips online. I thank the noble Lord for his invitation, which I will duly consider.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for asking this Question on Holocaust Memorial Day. I praise Her Majesty’s Government and the department for their support for Holocaust education, but this Holocaust Memorial Day is different from any other Holocaust Memorial Day. The newly formed interfaith group Sharaka, or “partnership”, was set up last year in the wake of the historic Abraham Accords. Young leaders from Bahrain, the UAE and Israel have just committed themselves to a five-point action plan to include promoting Holocaust awareness, combating online anti-Semitism and countering anti-Semitic delegitimisation of Israel. Does the Minister agree that the promotion of Holocaust education in the Gulf region is a most welcome difference in this year’s observance of Holocaust Memorial Day? Would she be prepared to share good practice and education materials with Sharaka, a great organisation of forward-thinking young people?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the extension of that education to the countries that my noble friend outlined. I will write to the CPD element of the University College London project that we also fund to make sure it is aware of it so that teaching staff can also be made aware of these resources that will help them teach that curriculum well.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday President Biden abolished Trump’s 1776 Commission, which sought to deny the ugly truths about America’s slavery history and its treatment of indigenous Americans. We cannot eradicate intolerance and racism unless we face our own true full history, so is it not now time that Her Majesty’s Government boldly set up a history curriculum commission to incorporate the truths and the facts, ugly or not, about our own slavery history, to honour the six million killed in the Holocaust and the millions killed and affected by institutional racist abuse, and teach the full truth of European history?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, within the history, English and citizenship curriculums there is flexibility for schools to teach the matters outlined. They are inspected against producing a broad and balanced curriculum. As I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, characters such as Mary Seacole have had increasing prominence in the curriculum for key stages 1 and 2. The key stage 2 and 3 curriculums outline studying, for instance, a non-European society as a contrast, and it was encouraging to note that a Historical Association survey of teachers stated that there is increasing prominence of black British history.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “Be the light in the darkness”. It encourages everyone to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to, and also the ways individuals and communities resisted that darkness to be the light during and after genocide. Schools are key in ensuring that young people understand history and the need to be more tolerant and respectful of those who are different. Five years ago, a House of Commons Education Committee inquiry into the provision of Holocaust education in schools noted that in many academies the Holocaust was not required to be taught because they do not follow the national curriculum, and urged the Government to take action. Can the Minister say what proportion of all schools now teach the lessons of the Holocaust?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

As I have outlined, the Holocaust is the only compulsory element of the national curriculum for history. The department does not have a role in inspecting schools to see how many schools are teaching a particular subject. That is a matter for Ofsted, which has a new excellence framework in education. Schools are inspected against the fact that they are teaching a broad and balanced curriculum, and of course schools need to teach the content that is outlined by awarding organisations for GCSEs and A-levels.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am on a similar theme, and I want to press the Minister. In a Foreign Office commemoration yesterday, the Foreign Secretary quoted Holocaust survivor Gena Turgel about being “secure in the knowledge” that others would keep the candle alight, but in preparing the 2016 report on Holocaust education referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the Commons Education Committee heard shocking evidence from the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education that

“the expectation of universal Holocaust education is no longer matched by reality.”

Even in schools obliged to follow the national curriculum, Holocaust education can be cursory or patchy, and more than 50% of secondary schools in England, such as academies, are not even required to follow it. The Government’s response to that recommendation was vague. So I press the Minister now for a more forceful commitment to ensure that all schools teach about the Holocaust, preferably not only in history but in civic education.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is open to schools within various subjects such as citizenship, English and history to teach the Holocaust. The Government maintain that Ofsted inspects against a broad and balanced curriculum. Academies will retain the freedom that they have, but they are inspected, like maintained schools, by Ofsted. We have committed to not only a national Holocaust memorial but to a learning centre alongside it to ensure that children learn about these events.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]]

I pay tribute to the amazing survivors who use their experience of these terrible events to teach young people about where racism and prejudice can lead. However, there will be a time when they are no longer able to speak directly to students so I reiterate the importance of ensuring that their testimony will still be available for schools to use. I ask the Government to consider how they could work with training providers to expand programmes such as Lessons from Auschwitz so that apprentices can benefit from that brilliant work as well.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as I have outlined, the Government fund several initiatives to ensure that that testimony is available to future generations, and I will ensure that providers of apprenticeships and other courses are made aware of the work that we fund for the Holocaust Education Trust.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and I apologise to the three noble Lords who were unable to ask their questions.

Retail Sector: Unemployment

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:40

Asked by

[Lord Rose of Monewden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on unemployment of any decision by the administrators of (1) Debenhams, and (2) Arcadia, not to seek deals which (a) retain staff, and (b) keep stores open; and what steps they are taking to support jobs in the retail sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

The Government recognise the significant impact that redundancies will have on employees and their families. We have put together a far-reaching package of support for business and the economy, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has supported 81,900 businesses in the wholesale and retail sector, with claims worth over £7.96 billion.

[Lord Rose of Monewden (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Fashion Retail Academy works with employers to provide young people skills and practical experience to meet the evolving needs of the industry. In normal circumstances, 96% of its students—more than 1,000 a year—go into permanent jobs. Does the Minister agree that the FRA and other national academies play a vital role in supporting youth employment and that the Government should support their sustainability and expansion as part of a strategy to support young people in retail at this critical time?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I know that he has extensive experience in this sector. I am sure that we will want to do all we can to support the kinds of initiatives that he refers to.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]]

My Lords, is not the risk that the demise of vast outlets such as Debenhams will have a domino effect in reducing footfall for other shops? While it would be completely wrong for the Government to rescue retailers that have failed to adapt, there is no reason for all retail to disappear from the high street. Is it not the case that the Government’s own measures against Covid have increased the challenge for viable businesses? Will the Government please consider measures such as extending further the business rates holiday and will they also use their urban regeneration programme to facilitate the conversion of shops to other uses, thus avoiding great black holes in many town centres?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. It is very important that we try to do all that we can to retain town centres and high streets. They are a vital outlet for many businesses and are well loved by the public. We have the levelling-up fund and the towns fund so we are doing all we can to assist the sector in these very difficult times.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB) [V]]

At the Covid-19 Select Committee yesterday, both the Fabian Society and the British Independent Retailers Association gave startling evidence to our inquiry. Both said, quite rightly, that this would disproportionately affect women, who traditionally have held many more roles in the retail sector. Many of these roles are now going towards distribution centres, where, as we know, the gender balance is different. What are the Government measuring in relation to this question and what actions do they plan to take to mitigate the impact on women?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Baroness is correct, sadly. We recognise that many of those losing their jobs in this sector are likely to be younger, low-skilled female workers, hence the importance of higher universal credit payments, the Kickstart programme and JETS, and, from January 2021, the Job Finding Support service. We have temporarily increased universal credit by around £1,000 a year and are doubling the number of work coaches to 27,000 in 2021.

[Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]]

The loss of 200,000 retail jobs is terrible news for many, especially young people. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to take immediate, practical steps to help, such as reducing the rate of VAT on sales from bricks-and-mortar shops and lowering the state pension age to enable many to retire and vacate jobs for younger people?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord will understand that I cannot give commitments on VAT and tax changes. They are rightly a matter for the Chancellor. We need to do all we can to assist the sector in these difficult times. I have outlined some of the measures we are taking to support retail. We will continue to do that and will keep all future policies under review to see what we can do to help.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, if one of the alternative uses is housing, can we ensure that that housing is of the highest standard? Some existing conversions for that purpose have been very poor. Can we also ensure that there will be mixed tenure, with a proper segment for social housing, and that any buildings should fit the existing townscape and not be an excuse for multi-storey conversions?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord make some good points but he is tempting me to get into planning matters, which, of course, are not my responsibility. We need to make sure that housing, when it is built, is sustainable and of a proper and appropriate quality.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, our thoughts are with the staff and their families who are affected by the closures under this deal. Is there a plan, in scope or in contemplation, for our high streets? If so, will the Minister ensure that it includes consideration of business rate levels, planning issues, investment and transport links, training and retraining? He has mentioned some of those but they need to be bound together in a coherent way.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very point. In November, we announced the levelling-up fund, worth £4 billion, for England. This will invest in a broad range of high-value local projects, including upgrading town centres and community infrastructure.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that there are not any grounds for the insolvency practitioner to select a purchaser, as implied in the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Rose? The job is to maximise the return to the creditors. Does he also agree that now is the time to revisit the terms of the moratorium that he and I debated, so that time is given to companies such as these to find better solutions?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I enjoyed debating the moratorium with my noble friend—an area in which he has considerable expertise. The moratorium that was introduced is designed to help companies that are financially distressed, and I was very grateful for his recognition of and support for it during the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. I assure him that the rules for the monitor of the moratorium, who must of course be a licensed insolvency practitioner, will not in any way impede the monitor seeking advice from other restructuring professionals and finding an alternative source of rescue.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, is not available, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, high-street retailers, their customers and their staff should not be prejudiced by unfair online competition, which is contrary to the public interest. To an extent, the supply chains of online retailers rely on the victims of human trafficking, modern slavery, appalling working conditions and exploitation through low pay. These issues are notoriously prominent among a number of the bigger names in online shopping. This is a scandal that must be stopped.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Like the noble Baroness, I have seen the media reports. One hopes that they will have shamed many of those companies into action, doing what they can to make sure that their supply chains are robust and sustainable and that they do not indulge in the terrible practices that she has outlined.

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking from Colne, a smaller town in Lancashire, where most of the high street consists of small, independently owned shops, many of which are in a disastrous situation. We do not want to close down our high street; we want to keep it going and expand it. What are the Government doing to make sure that these small shops, independently owned, will be able to survive and thrive after Covid?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord is speaking up for Colne and for many other high streets, because they play a critical role in our smaller towns. We have brought forward £81.5 million from the £3.6 billion towns fund to kick-start local investment projects of the exact kind that he refers to. Of course, we have to accept that we cannot protect every job during this crisis, but we will help people to get through it and help them get back into work at the end of it.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the parliamentary pension fund. What action will Her Majesty’s Government take to ensure that the pensions of thousands of redundant employers, who mainly will be female and will have given years of service, will be protected and that these employees will be told exactly what is happening with regard to their pensions?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. I appreciate that these will be concerning times for members of these pension schemes, but there are measures in place for these situations. We will ensure that we do everything we can to provide support for those who potentially will be impacted. The Pensions Regulator is working closely with both the company and the scheme to ensure that all prior commitments entered into are fulfilled.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions from Members available to ask their questions have been asked.

12:51

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

13:03

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.

Educational Settings: Reopening

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 26 January.

“Throughout the pandemic, the Government have been clear that education is a national priority. We had worked hard to keep all schools, colleges and universities fully open, but the scientific advice we received in January meant that we had no choice but to close schools and colleges to all but vulnerable children and the children of critical workers, and to restrict in-person teaching in university to those studying to be future critical workers.

It is the Government’s strong desire to reopen all schools, colleges and universities as soon as possible. We will prioritise the reopening of schools as we begin the process of lifting lockdown restrictions. We are acutely aware of the damage done to children’s education and development, particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils, by being away from school, and of the increased burdens that are placed on parents. That is why we allowed early years providers to remain open throughout this lockdown.

The decision about when and how we can reopen has to be based on clear public health data and guided by scientific evidence and the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, Public Health England and the Chief Medical Officer, including on issues such as hospitalisation rates and mortality, the rate of vaccination, and the challenge of new variants. Ultimately, it was the pressure on the NHS that caused us to move into a national lockdown, and the Government are monitoring NHS capacity carefully as they review whether easing lockdown might be possible.

The Government recognise that head teachers, teachers, support staff, parents and carers need time to prepare for reopening. That is why the Secretary of State made it clear last week that we will give two weeks’ notice to schools, colleges and universities so that they can prepare for a return to face-to-face education. We want to give two weeks’ notice so that parents can make arrangements for the care of their children, and we will be making announcements in the next few days.

Until schools can reopen fully, it is crucial that they continue to provide high-quality remote education alongside the on-site provision for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank teachers and school leadership teams across the country for working around the clock to keep schools open for some while also rising to the challenge of providing remote education for the millions of children who are continuing their education from home.

However, remote education can never be a substitute for days spent in a classroom led by a brilliant teacher, or for children being with their friends. We want those days to return as quickly as possible, and with them this Government’s continuing determination, made still more urgent by the pandemic, to raise standards in all our schools to improve the life chances of every child and to transform the start in life for those children facing the toughest challenges.”

13:03

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we all want to see schools reopen as soon as possible but that must happen only when there is scientific evidence that it is safe to do so, and that evidence must be made public. Yesterday, in response to the Urgent Question in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, the Schools Minister stated that the Government intend to give two weeks’ notice of schools reopening so that parents can make arrangements for the care of their children, and that that announcement will be made in the next few days. That is welcome. We can only hope that the announcement will constitute the coherent plan that so far has been singularly lacking. So, although we understand that the Minister is unable to say today what the plan for reopening schools will be, can she confirm that the imminent announcement will actually contain a plan?

There has to be a route map to full reopening. It does not need to have dates at this stage, but the various steps need to be set out to give some hope to the teachers and school leadership teams across the country who are working under tremendous strain to provide education, both in school and remotely, to their pupils.

We know that many teachers have themselves succumbed to the virus, so will there be a credible testing plan in place when pupils return? Will the Government ask the JCVI to consider the prioritisation of teachers for vaccination?

Yesterday in another place, the Schools Minister confirmed that schools will be the first—

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is an Urgent Question and we only have 10 minutes for all participants.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

Thank you. Parents are already struggling to juggle jobs and home schooling their children. They need support and an indication of a pathway out of school closures, and they deserve clarity from the Government as a matter of urgency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of staff and parents who are home schooling, particularly those who still have to go to work but are not critical workers and therefore do not have a school place for their children. The JCVI is currently considering the vaccination of essential workers. This is unusual timing, in that the Prime Minister is due to make a Statement in about 15 minutes in the other place on Covid. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to that.

[Lord Storey (LD) [V]]

We all want to ensure that our Covid generation of school pupils returns to school permanently and safely. There are currently 945,805 teachers employed in English schools. Does the Minister agree that, perhaps during the February half term, we should prioritise the vaccination of all these teachers and other school staff, both to reduce the levels of Covid and, more importantly, to provide reassurance to parents?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as I have outlined, the JCVI is considering the case for essential workers to be within the next priority group. The Department for Education is taking part in the cross-government work on that. It will be a decision for Ministers, on the advice of the JCVI.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, more than half of teachers say their mental health has declined during the pandemic, and England’s mental health of children and young people survey found an increase of five percentage points since 2017 in mental ill health among five to 16 year-olds. Children with a parent in psychological distress are at even greater risk. What are the Government doing to improve mental health among children and staff and to support very stressed home-schooling parents?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Government introduced a well-being on return to education initiative, which provided expert support to schools through local authorities and others to help with return. One of the most important things that the Government are doing is that if teachers are concerned about the mental health of a child at home, they are able to classify them as a vulnerable child and bring them into school if that is what they believe is best for them.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister, in informing the Government about the reopening of schools, bear in mind the equalities considerations for women, who, along with the children who are disadvantaged, have been most significantly impacted by home-schooling requirements?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a tribute to schools and parents that during this third lockdown—the second lockdown where children have been educated at home—the remote provision of education has been of a greater standard. Yes, we pay tribute to all those parents who are delivering the curriculum at home, particularly, as I have outlined, those who still have to go to work and do not have access to a school place.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we all agree that these are difficult issues, but I am not sure that Ministers realise that the Government are a weak link in solving the problems and that many teachers now see them as an added problem, not a guiding light. I realise that it is difficult to set a date for when schools will reopen, but it is entirely possible to set out the conditions for assessment and the order in which pupil groups will return to school. Why can Ministers not show the same speed in decision-making that they demand of teachers and school leaders?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, living through a pandemic obviously means that road maps and timetables are very difficult and complex to draw up, but we have made it clear that schools and parents will have two weeks’ notice of when a return date is going to be given. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the Prime Minister’s Statement later today.

[Lord Flight (Con) [V]]

Will the Government consider permitting individual educational establishments to hold ballots on whether to reopen, subject to the use of appropriate equipment and clothing?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the reopening of schools—obviously, the Government want to see all children back as soon as possible—is a matter for government decision. It is a complex decision, bearing in mind the public health implications and the hospital admissions that, sadly, have led to having to take most children out of school for a second time. So, unfortunately, no, it is not possible to allow local democracy to decide these issues.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my information from an academy director in London is that they are prepared to open primary schools using lateral flow tests twice a week for all staff, with staggered starts and finishes for pupils. Does the Minister see that as a viable approach? Secondly, I should say that there is still a severe shortage of laptops in London, which is handicapping pupils who are dependent on online learning.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have now delivered 875,000 laptops of a £1.3 million order. We are one of the world’s largest purchasers of laptops, in a competitive market—obviously, many Governments are trying to purchase them. Secondary schools did a great job over the Christmas holidays of standing up mass testing, and we intend to extend that to primary schools and early years settings as and when we can.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Would it be unrealistic for schools to start planning for inspections before September?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, there are currently no grade inspections either by ISI, of the independent sector, or Ofsted. However, monitoring inspections are happening, particularly of our “requiring improvement” and “inadequate” state-funded schools. Both those inspectorates, particularly Ofsted, retain the power to go into a school if there are safeguarding concerns.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. Universities are places of education as well. What plans have been made to support universities and students in the event that universities need to extend their normal teaching year to ensure that their students can complete or progress on their course this year?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, obviously university students were at home at the time of the second national lockdown. Only those who are involved in critical worker courses have been permitted to go back. The continuation of courses is a matter for the universities but the Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, is regularly in touch with them, and with the professional bodies which rely on the completion of those courses so that people are competent to enter workplaces.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the huge pressure on families, particularly working mums, of prolonged home schooling, made worse by the uncertainty of when schools will reopen? There is a real danger to mental health and cohesion in families. The Minister has offered some hope on a plan for return, but can she tell us, more specifically than she has so far, of the help that the Government will provide for those families worst affected, particularly in relation to mental health?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, a catch-up figure of £650 million has been talked about in relation to school funding. Schools are obviously free to spend that on additional mental health support, and we have drawn attention to that in the guidance we have outlined. Unfortunately, I cannot give any further details, as to do so would be to steal the thunder of the Prime Minister in a few minutes’ time.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, all the speakers on this Question have spoken.

13:11

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

13:30

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. 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 alone. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

13:31

Relevant documents: 21st and 28th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 7: General functions of Commissioner

Debate on Amendment 21 resumed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, when she introduced Amendment 21, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, talked about alcohol abuse and gave several examples of the distress that it can cause not only to the people involved in the relationship but also to the children. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, also mentioned alcohol, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, talked about the symbiotic link

“between substance abuse, mental health issues and domestic abuse”.—[Official Report, 25/1/21; col. 1495.]

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, pointed the finger squarely at the Government, blaming them for many of the problems that crop up simply because of their cuts to the funding of addiction services.

I come at this from a slightly different perspective. The Green Party recognises that, in the majority of cases, the limited use of drugs for recreational purposes is not harmful; it actually has the potential to improve well-being and even enhance human relationships and creativity. However, most harmful drug use is underpinned by poverty, isolation, mental or physical illness and psychological trauma—in these cases, harmful drug use can cause a vicious circle. As such, the Green Party focuses on minimising not only drug abuse but the social ills that lead to it—so we take a health-focused approach to it.

This group of amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is an important step towards minimising harms caused by problem drug abuse. My reading of them is that they focus on both abusers and survivors so that we can address the issues in a much more holistic and comprehensive way. The Bill will have a gaping hole if it does not properly address the complex relationships between domestic abuse and harmful drug use. The Government have shown willingness to adopt positive amendments and improve the Bill, so I hope that Amendment 21 and the others in this group will find favour with them and that we will see something come back on Report.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has an interesting perspective. I will speak to the amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Hunt, have already spoken eloquently in their support.

We took evidence on this issue in the ad hoc committee on the Licensing Act 2003, which reported in 2017. Substance abuse in the form of alcohol was indirectly related to it—particularly when it was served to those who were already intoxicated.

I am sympathetic to these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, there can be—although not in every case—a relationship between the impact of substance abuse and addictions and the perpetration of domestic violence. This can lead to a severe deterioration in mental health, which may lead to the violent behaviour that, sadly, we often see.

I will focus my remarks on Amendment 94. This looks to local authorities to provide mental health support where necessary to the victims of domestic abuse where there is substance misuse. How might this work in practice? I am mindful of the helpful, comprehensive letter received from the office of the domestic abuse commissioner, which says, in relation to Part 4 of the Bill:

“The Commissioner has strongly welcomed the new statutory duty on local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children within refuges and other safe accommodation”.


Furthermore:

“The Commissioner has welcomed the funding secured by the MHCLG in the recent Spending Review of £125 million for councils to deliver this duty.”


If this group of amendments were to be carried, how they would work in practice? This is a question for the Minister and, indirectly, for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I do not want to infer something that the domestic abuse commissioner has not said, but, reading between the lines, it appears that the approach set out in these amendments would not be unwelcome. How can we give practical effect to this group of amendments, given the limited budget available to local authorities and charities?

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her leadership, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe for addressing the specific components of mental health, alcohol and harmful substance misuse associated with violence. I commend the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and support her call for the commissioner to have comprehensive resources and staff, as well as advisers to manage the many complexities and demands in this area.

The Bill offers a unique opportunity to coalesce resources and enhance a more radical and holistic approach and a shift in our national attitude to service provision. I generally support this group of amendments. I am a practitioner and leader of service delivery, having led the national four-year pilot project, Breaking the Cycle, which provided early and long-term family intervention and support. It is a timely reminder that we need to bring our responses to significant hidden harms and violence, long associated with addiction, into the fold of service development.

During the recent lockdown, the statistics have been laid bare, as our attention has fallen on preventing alcohol consumption in pubs and bars, without critical additional support being made available to victims of those who are addicted. Numbers have risen exponentially. Alcohol and substance addiction affects all communities, regardless of faith, race or cultural background, with a pernicious impact which often remains hidden. Many women are fearful of exploring and explaining the secrecy surrounding addiction and of mastering the necessary courage to seek help. Many may experience additional anxiety and fear of the toxicity of discrimination or of children being taken into care. These complexities can prevent many women seeking help and reporting their emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse and safeguarding concerns.

This is why I support these amendments and their fundamental, underlying principles, specifically Amendments 21 and 42, and Amendment 94 regarding the responsibility that a local authority must have to ensure that service provision is available to all. Since its inception, the “Breaking the Cycle” project has supported thousands of families with its expertise, with particular attention on addressing the impact on children, eloquently detailed by noble Lords. There are no easy, immediate solutions except to say that it is crucial to bring these responsibilities into the commissioner’s purview and remit, with specialist staff and advisers. This must, at its core, be a diverse team, given that the client base will reflect the diversity of our population. All services must take on board servicing all victims and survivors, as a matter of core principle. I am delighted to support these amendments.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay, particularly Amendments 94 and 21. These recognise the importance of substance abuse, addiction and mental health provision in the fight against domestic abuse. As the Committee has heard, these issues are a persistent factor for both perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse. People with mental health problems find themselves disproportionately victimised in domestic abuse settings and children can find themselves equally vulnerable. A Crying Shame, published by the Children’s Commissioner in 2018, highlighted 50,000 children aged nought to five, including 8,300 babies under one, living in households where the destructive impact of domestic abuse, alcohol or drug dependency and severe mental ill-health were all present. A further 160,000 children aged nought to five, including 25,000 babies under one, were living in a household where two of the three factors were present. The Bill represents a huge opportunity to deliver a step change in our response to domestic abuse and, therefore, can only benefit from the inclusion of the provision of mental health and substance abuse support.

I support Amendment 94 as a vital first step, as it requires local authorities to make an assessment of the need for, and publish a strategy on, the provision of substance use, addiction and mental health support for all victims and their children in relevant accommodation. Although the amendment specifically refers to support in “relevant accommodation”, the reality is that the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%—never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. Research by the UK women’s organisation Agenda shows that women who have experienced extensive physical and sexual violence are more likely to use alcohol or drugs problematically, compared to women who have not experienced it. While local authorities making these assessments and strategies in relevant accommodation is an important first step, we must consider opportunities for intervention and support for the majority who experience abuse but do not ever seek refuge.

Amendment 21 ensures that the provision of substance use, addiction and mental health support are identified in the Bill as areas for which the domestic abuse commissioner must encourage good practice. This support for those affected by domestic abuse should extend to perpetrators as well. As I argued in my speech on Amendment 172, specialist support for both victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse is a crucial component of ensuring that we actually break the cycle of abuse with this Bill. Fewer than 1% of perpetrators currently receive an intervention designed to change their behaviour. A lack of funding for perpetrator services was recently identified as the biggest issue by front-line practitioners across England and Wales. Based on evidence from SafeLives’ Every Story Matters platform, 74% of those surveyed wanted mental health support for perpetrators.

13:45

According to evidence from Substance Use and Domestic Abuse, by the British Association of Social Workers, there is a strong association between domestic abuse and substance abuse. Perpetrators may also use drug addiction to control their victims in ways such as limiting victims’ access to drugs, demanding sex for drugs or using drugs as an apology—or even a reward—after an abusive episode. It is important, therefore, that mental health and substance abuse support is recognised in the Bill as part of the breadth of good practice that the domestic abuse commissioner is to encourage.

These amendments are about changing the cultural and social landscape around domestic abuse. If we focus only on refuge, and not intervention and rehabilitation, especially in the context of mental health and substance abuse, we miss a crucial piece of the weaponry in breaking the cycle of domestic abuse.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, in this group the Committee has already heard a great deal about the role of substance abuse in domestic abuse. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her tremendous work in this respect. I will focus my brief remarks on the unholy triumvirate of substance abuse, domestic abuse and mental ill-health. There is a strong link between the three.

Some research findings have already been quoted. The most striking that I came across was on substance abuse: abused women are 15 times more likely to abuse alcohol and nine times more likely to abuse drugs. This is one way, but hardly a good one, to alleviate the stress and the pain. Research suggests that women experiencing domestic abuse are more likely to experience mental health problems; women with mental health problems are also more likely to experience domestic abuse. It makes total sense, when you think about it.

It is a vicious circle: domestic abuse leads to mental ill-health, which is often used to abuse the victim further. For example, it can be a tool of coercive control—threatening to “tell social services” and telling the children that “Mummy can’t look after you”. When a victim discloses to a public authority, the abuser may say, “You can’t believe her—she’s mad”. On mental health repercussions, domestic abuse is associated with depression, anxiety, PTSD and substance abuse in the general population. Of course, this all has a profound effect on the children.

The Children’s Commissioner estimates that over 500,000 children are living in households infected with substance abuse and domestic abuse. Children experiencing mental health issues as a result of domestic abuse have strong links with poorer educational outcomes and a high level of mental ill-health. Sadly, that is only to be expected. So the importance of, and interrelationships between, substance misuse, mental ill-health and domestic abuse can hardly be overestimated. That is why we support all the amendments in this group, and I have added my name to three.

Of those to which I have added my name, Amendment 21 specifically writes into the general function of the commissioner the need to include the provision of support for domestic abuse victims suffering from mental health issues and addictions. Amendment 42 sets out the requirement that the commissioner’s advisory board includes at least one person with experience in mental health and substance abuse. Amendment 94 obliges local authorities to provide mental health and substance misuse support to victims. Unless support of this nature is given, this strong interlink between the three will never be broken.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the important contributions made by noble Lords on this difficult subject. It is important to recognise that domestic abuse does not happen in a neat silo; as so many noble Lords have commented, it is inherently bound up with wider issues of mental health and substance abuse.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who so strongly highlighted the impact of devastating cuts to our public services through a decade of austerity. I restate his comments about the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ call for the Government to reverse the cuts and enable local authorities to invest £374 million into adult services to cope with the increased need. Report after report now highlights the poor preparedness of our public realm to cope with this dreadful pandemic, as a consequence of the austerity decade, when council funding was cut to the bone.

Mental health services have been particularly impacted by this austerity, leading to a lack of services and long waiting times. Victims and survivors with mental health problems also face barriers accessing many other vital services due to strict eligibility criteria or not being able to engage in the way that services require. Too often, such barriers are leading to people being bounced around different services, having to constantly re-tell their story.

There is, however, an awareness of the complex and interrelated needs of those with mental ill health, but many services are unequipped to support them, and few services exist that can care for people with both mental health and substance misuse issues. This is despite research showing that substances are often used as a form of self-medication for unmet mental health needs and as a way of coping with abuse.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, spoke so knowledgably about, there is a close link between domestic abuse and alcohol, with the perpetrator drinking heavily. There are also instances of the victim drinking, leading to uninhibited behaviours, and this can trigger the abuse. Similarly, the victim may use alcohol and drugs to self-medicate. During the pandemic, there has been an increased level of alcohol consumption, exacerbating a known problem.

There is, therefore, a great need to ensure that the commissioner’s remit includes alcohol and other substances. She needs to be able to receive evidence on alcohol abuse to inform where support services must be improved, and to contribute directly to the national alcohol strategy.

In conclusion, the importance of multiagency and holistic working in this area cannot be overemphasised. It is important to recognise that mental health and addiction problems can create additional vulnerabilities that people perpetrating abuse may seek to exploit.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on the complexities of alcohol and substance misuse and mental health and the correlation with domestic abuse, from the point of view of both the victim and—as my noble friend Lady Stroud said—the perpetrator. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling these amendments and her work in chairing the Commission on Alcohol Harm.

I will start with the final comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport. She and I are cut from the same cloth in knowing the effectiveness with which multiagency work can help in all sorts of ways. The way that agencies communicate with each other can get to the heart of some of the problems in society.

I also acknowledge the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Hayter, Lady Jenkin and Lady Jolly, and thank the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Ribeiro, for their expertise and their input into the Alcohol Health Alliance’s report for the Commission on Alcohol Harm, which was published last year. It highlights these complex relationships between alcohol, mental health and domestic abuse. I welcome the report; it makes for important reading.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has illustrated, there is a frequent coexistence of domestic abuse, mental health problems and the misuse of drugs and alcohol, with complex interrelationships between them. The relationships are nuanced, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right to identify this. It is also clear that there is no excuse for domestic abuse, and it is vital that people affected by domestic abuse get the healthcare they need.

I reassure noble Lords that we intend to reflect the importance of joining up domestic abuse, mental health and substance misuse services in the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 73. We have a number of other, parallel measures to ensure that the join-up should be reflected in local health commissioning and the support that people receive. Noble Lords will know that local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and other partners produce an assessment of the local population needs, called the joint strategic needs assessment. This should include consideration of the needs of victims and survivors. The assessment informs a local area’s health and well-being strategy and the commissioning of services, including mental health and substance misuse services.

I will say something about local authority spending because noble Lords have referred to it. Local authority spending through the public health grant will be maintained in the next financial year. Local authorities can continue to invest in prevention and essential front-line services. This includes drug and alcohol treatment and recovery services. We are working on increasing access to substance misuse services, and we have appointed Professor Dame Carol Black to undertake an independent review of drugs to inform the Government’s work on what more can be done to tackle the harms that drugs cause.

I also draw noble Lords’ attention to ongoing work in the health system to create new integrated care systems where NHS organisations, in partnership with local councils, voluntary service partners and others, take collective responsibility for managing resources, delivering NHS care and improving the health of the population they serve. The development of a new integrated care system is a real opportunity to improve the join-up between different services and provide truly integrated care.

I turn to the specifics of the amendments. On Amendments 21 and 29, which relate to the role of the domestic abuse commissioner, the Bill already confers on the commissioner a wide remit in tackling domestic abuse. She has already started to provide public leadership on domestic abuse issues by raising awareness of key matters and monitoring and overseeing the delivery of services to ensure that they are as effective, evidence-based and safe as they can be.

The description of the role states that the commissioner must adopt a specific focus on the needs of victims from groups with particular needs, which could include mental ill-health or substance misuse. However, as an independent office holder, it will be for the commissioner to determine her priorities, which will be set out in a strategic plan developed following consultation with her advisory board, the Home Secretary and others.

As for Amendment 42, which relates to the composition of the advisory board, Clause 12 already provides that at least one member of the board must be a representative of the health care sector, and there is sufficient latitude for the commissioner to appoint other specialists as she sees fit.

14:00

Amendments 94 and 104 relate to Part 4 and the new duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide support to domestic abuse victims and their children in safe accommodation. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that such support may include drug and alcohol advice and support. On the membership of domestic abuse local partnership boards, Clause 56 specifies the minimum membership; otherwise, the composition of the board is a matter for the relevant local authority and could well include a person with experience tackling substance misuse. However, we should leave that to the judgment of the relevant local authority. We are committed to taking wide-ranging action to improve understanding of domestic abuse across statutory agencies, through guidance, targeted resources and training for responding agencies.

In relation to Amendment 181, I can assure noble Lords that the statutory guidance that will be issued under Clause 73 will be an opportunity to focus on the complex relationship with substance misuse and mental ill-health as well.

A couple of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and my noble friend Lady Stroud, referred to perpetrators. It is fair to say that addressing a perpetrator’s drug or alcohol use is unlikely, in and of itself, to reduce or solve the problem of domestic abuse. It is equally important that any alcohol or drugs treatment programme for perpetrators, as well as addressing the cause of the substance abuse, also addresses the complex dynamics that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, outlined, and the power and control that underpin domestic abuse.

As we will come on to, Part 3 enables positive requirements, such as attendance at a drug or alcohol programme or a behavioural change programme, to be attached to a domestic abuse protection order. It will also be open to a court to require the subject of such an order to wear a sobriety tag. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, will be very pleased to hear that, as will my noble friend Lady Jenkin.

On funding, noble Lords will have seen the joint announcement last week from the Home Office and the Department of Health that we are investing an extra £80 million in drug treatment services, right across England, to give more support to offenders with drink and drug addictions, which can of course fuel crime.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords have, through these amendments, drawn attention to a very important issue in the arena of domestic abuse. I thank all noble Lords for raising it in this debate. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness of the existing provisions and ongoing work in healthcare, and that the Bill already provides the means for the domestic abuse commissioner and tier 1 local authorities, in the context of the new duty in Part 4, to address the links between substance misuse, mental health and domestic abuse. On that basis, I hope she will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, the Committee has every reason to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because these are all very important announcements; I thank everyone involved, and it is very good to be speaking to this group. This subject is not just close to my heart but has been part of my life. I was very pleased to hear in the Minister’s response how many things are going to be in place to deal with alcoholism, in particular. I very much look forward to Dame Carol Black’s review—I know how brilliant she is—and I also welcome the news about sobriety tags. I just want to make a few points, some of them personal.

The link between alcohol and domestic abuse is well known, and yet, strangely, it is often not at the forefront of the debate. Some 55% of domestic abuse cases involve alcohol or some kind of substance, and women who drink themselves are 15 times more likely to be abused than women who do not. I am not going to repeat the stats; one only has to read the excellent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on Monday night to get a good picture of how solid the evidence is. Drunk people, both men and women, are more likely to abuse or be abused than those who are not. Alcohol itself is not the culprit, and it should never be an excuse for behaviour. However, I believe that it is so tightly woven into the problem that it must be treated as part of the recovery process.

I am very glad that, as a result of the Bill, the crime of domestic abuse will be better dealt with and we will have more refuges. I also welcome the commissioner. But if we do not study, understand and treat alcoholism, then we are not doing our job.

Alcoholics, when they are drinking and when they are addicted to alcohol, are really difficult to deal with. Alcohol, as people say, is both cunning, baffling and powerful. I know that, in my life, I have drunk to excess. I do not drink now and I have not done for many years, but alcoholism will be with me for the rest of my life. It is very hard to break that cycle without help, and there are far too few treatment centres in this country. I know—again, from my own experience and that of people I know—that doctors and general hospitals do not like disruptive alcoholics, who are really hard to treat and who take up beds. They sober up and are then sent back into the world, where they start drinking again. People, especially women, keep alcoholism a secret. It is seen still as an issue of shame in this country, which is one reason I have always spoken publicly about it, throughout my life.

If we do not stop the cycle, the same thing happens again. Abuse is a spiral, in much the same way as addiction, and a drunk abuser will seek a victim. A woman who drinks herself and who has, probably as a consequence, the lower self-esteem that goes along with it, will almost inevitably partner up with the kind of bloke who will, ultimately, abuse her. That is what you do when you think you are not worth anything, because you are the person in our society who cannot handle alcohol like everybody else does.

Personally, I cannot think of a more difficult thing—it is almost impossible—than to be a woman with kids who is the victim of domestic abuse and a drinker herself. Yes, the council may find you a refuge, but, when that is over and you have to go back to the world, if you do not have some solid help to get through that addiction, you are going to end up back where you were, and the saga goes on and on.

The need to break this cycle must be a fundamental, core part of the commissioner’s remit. She needs all the expertise to support her and she needs money to enable her to make the right decisions. No one in their wildest miseries or nightmares would want to be addicted to any substance, from a bottle, a needle or a pill—it is a misery you would not wish on anyone. But once there, it takes some time and patience. I have been lucky; I have been able to afford the help I needed, but this should not be an issue of money.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said earlier in this debate, deep cuts have been made to addiction services in this country since 2013-14. It means that the 8.4 million potentially high-risk drinkers—that is an awful lot—and the hundreds with opiate addictions, are not getting the right help. It is an insane situation, because for every addict or alcoholic, it is reckoned that at least five people are swept into the madness and distress. It costs money: to the NHS, to the criminal justice system and to society.

WHO figures suggest that 50% of men who kill their wives are drunk or addicted. Helping people who drink or abuse substances through to the other side—through to a chance, literally, to rejoin the world as a useful member of society—would bring so many great benefits. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke so wonderfully about on Monday night, so many children would have their lives transformed. As she said, the Commission on Alcohol Harm heard from children who were terrified to go home for fear of what their parent or parents might do. The Children’s Commissioner estimates that there are more than half a million children living in households where domestic abuse, along with drink and substance abuse, is prevalent.

The alcohol lobby is big and powerful. It has successfully fought demands for minimum pricing in England—though it lost in Scotland—a measure that is known to reduce harmful consumption. This stuff is everywhere. Adverts are well targeted, promising thrills and excitement, and they all too often use sexualised images of women to encourage purchase. This ought to stop. I am the last person who wants to see alcohol sales restricted in any way, but I am convinced that we cannot keep shoving this big problem to one side. Domestic abuse and alcohol are linked, and unless we break the addiction cycle, we will not break the other. We can no longer condemn both the victims and the abusers—who are, in my mind, sometimes also victims—to the shadows.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

There is very little of what the noble Baroness said with which I would disagree. The cycle of abuse—whether that cycle is generational or whether it goes from spouse to partner and then reaches down to the children—is ever present and it needs to be broken. I agree that the links between alcohol abuse—not alcohol use but alcohol abuse—and domestic abuse are very well known. On people getting the help they need, it is absolutely clear that support for alcohol or substance misuse should mean that people can access the right services, which are commissioned by local authorities.

The noble Baroness made a point about the domestic abuse commissioner. It has been interesting in these debates that, on the one hand, the independence of the commissioner has been very much promoted, and I totally agree with that. On the other, we are by increment, through the debates in this House, trying to add additional remits and stymie her independence. She is an expert in her field. I know that she will make those links. I talk about troubled families quite a lot in the things that I say. That is because I have seen the way in which multi-agency interventions can be so effective at spotting things such as domestic abuse. The advent of that programme spotted an awful lot of domestic abuse previously unknown—and not only previously unknown but at the heart of the problems that these families were facing. We all know that when a big football match is on, women are quite often hyper-vigilant, knowing that, whatever way the game goes, they will bear the brunt of it—mainly as a result of the use of alcohol.

The noble Baroness also asked me about minimum pricing, which Scotland has introduced. We are keeping it under review as it is implemented in Scotland.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for what I consider to be a really quite overwhelming response to this set of amendments. We have had a very important debate. I would love to summarise what each person has said, but I am aware that the Committee has other amendments to get on to. I would like to highlight the fact that the toxic trio was launched into our debate on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley, and picked up again by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and it has been the focus around which many people have spoken. I am delighted to hear about the sobriety scheme and sobriety tags being brought in for alcohol-fuelled crime. I was part of that original amendment, some years ago, that allowed the pilot scheme to happen, and have seen the evidence from the US in particular of the efficacy in domestic situations as well. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for that, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for putting local authority services so strongly on the table, with the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Uddin and Lady Wilcox.

14:15

I will be withdrawing my amendment; let me leave no doubt about that. I have a slight concern, though. We really need to get something, somewhere on the face of the Bill, because I am aware of the adverse pressures that come from the commercial world, where the sale of alcohol brings in profits. Of course, the money coming into the Exchequer nowhere near matches the expenditure on the harmful effects of alcohol. I hope that the Minister will meet me between now and Report, for us to look at putting something in somewhere, rather than only in guidance. I accept that it will be statutory guidance, and I would like those reassurances again on Report to make sure that we do not lose sight of this. If we do, we will lose an incredibly important opportunity to make a difference to both victims’ and perpetrators’ lives. As has already been said, sometimes the victim, who is addicted to alcohol, has behaviours that are so goading that it is then almost unsurprising that this results in a downward spiral of abuse, and the one fuels the other. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 22

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

22: Clause 7, page 4, line 20, at end insert “which must include the identification of and response to any speech, language and communication needs that those people have.”

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 22 I will speak also to Amendments 92, 105, 110 and 187, which are in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, my noble friend Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. In doing so, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties. Unfortunately, I was unable to trail these amendments at Second Reading, for which I apologise to the Committee.

My co-chair, Geraint Davies MP, and I wrote to the Home Secretary in June, appealing to her to place a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner and local authorities to ensure that good practice should include the identification of, and appropriate support for, communication needs. We also appealed to her to allow victims of abuse, with communication disabilities and needs, to be allowed to give evidence in court in private. We also asked that speech and language therapists should serve on domestic abuse local partnership boards. We received a reply to this in September from Victoria Atkins MP, the Minister for Safeguarding, in which she said that the Government continued to prioritise improving speech and language outcomes, based on early identification and targeted support.

I well remember being introduced to the importance of having communication needs addressed by two cases when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons. The first was a woman who had been beaten into dumbness by her abusive partner. The creative writer at her prison encouraged her to express her feelings in poetry, which she then gave to other women to read out. One day the creative writer asked the woman herself to read her poem, and she found that she was able to. Her dumbness having been cured, the authorities could work with her. The same thing happened to a young offender who had been beaten into dumbness by his abusive father. Thanks to a speech and language therapist, the authorities were then able to plan a future that did not include return to his family.

I return to the amendments, which seek to flesh out the contents of our letter to the Home Secretary. Amendment 22 seeks to put the identification of and response to speech and communication needs into the Bill. Amendment 92 seeks to introduce local authority responsibility. Amendment 105 seeks to include speech and language therapists in domestic abuse local partnership boards, while Amendment 110 seeks to ensure that those with communication needs are provided with appropriate support in court. Amendment 187 adds the impact on children of witnessing domestic abuse to the importance of assessing the communication treatment that a victim may need. I beg to move.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have signed this group of amendments, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with such conviction, because this area of domestic abuse is even more hidden from outside view than is normally the case.

The ability to defend oneself depends so much on the ability to use language—to express grief and hurt and to offer explanation and defence. We know that, for young people and children in particular, communication difficulties—difficulties in being understood and in understanding—can lead to invisibility as well as inaudibility. At worst, they lead to bullying in school and throughout life. These young people live at the heart of a perfect storm. Disabled people, shamefully, as we have learned throughout this debate, experience disproportionately higher and more prolonged abuse. They cannot as easily protect themselves or find protection. Their children, even if not directly abused themselves, will observe all of this—and, equally shamefully, disproportionately. Witnessing a parent being abused is itself the most hideous form of abuse. The children live with this violence and misery as victims and observers, silently and alone.

We can all understand that, but research underpins it and shows categorically that abused children are likely to have poor language and social skills. As research by Refuge has also found, they become afraid of the very people they count on to love them. It is no wonder that pre-school children shrink away into silence. While their disabilities grow worse, other children exposed to domestic violence are likely to be at risk of developing significant speech and language problems. Again, research documents a significant difference in hearing and speech development.

If that is combined with learning difficulties, as is often the case, children neither know what is happening to them, nor can they explain to other people what it feels like, except that many must feel that it is all their fault. The impacts are deep and lifelong. It is hard to imagine the mental torture for a child seeing a parent being violently hurt, and having to stand by, imprisoned by fear and locked in silence. Lifelong impacts must be at least loss of confidence in all relationships, as well as on learning.

We want to take the opportunity in the Bill not just to recognise the particularly vulnerable and dangerous situation that those children and young people face but, through these amendments, to build in agency and capacity for change. The first step must be, as set out in the amendment, to recognise and articulate the issue. The amendment would place a legal duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that the good practice that the commissioner must encourage has to include the identification of and appropriate support for communication needs. Given that there is no reason on earth why the Government should not accept the amendment, in all humanity, we ask the Minister how she sees this operating in good practice.

Amendment 92 and subsequent amendments in the group would embed agency at the level of local authority and practice, so that the needs of those children are made explicit in the local strategy, ensuring that they have a champion and advocate, a speech and language specialist. Such services are reflected in later amendments dealing with the courts. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists put it powerfully, stating:

“It would help support not just those affected by domestic abuse, but also the other professionals working with them to understand the links between domestic abuse and communication needs, how the latter may present and their impact, and how to respond appropriately”.


As with so much in this Bill, every aspect of every abuse that we are seeking to correct has taken on more complexity and urgency. However, this group of amendments has a particular moral force. It is primarily about victims of domestic abuse and their children, who are already at a great disadvantage and not well served by present services. They need extra help in this Bill. Your Lordships can make sure that they get it.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I am delighted to be a co-signatory to these amendments as someone who has speech, language and communication needs, and as a proud vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.

I hope that noble Lords might indulge me if I share a detail of my life that has a considerable bearing on why I am supporting these amendments. Yesterday marked exactly 25 years since I should have died. It is slightly surreal to hear myself say that. Yet I will always remember the answer to my question, “What are the odds on my making a complete recovery from the operation?” The response was to the point: “I am afraid I cannot give you odds on survival”. My life was saved by the incredible skill of my neurosurgeon, Anne Moore, and maxillo-facial surgeon, Daniel Archer, who went through the back of my mouth to access my spine and brainstem. I lived to tell the tale, obviously, but the shock of losing the ability to speak and the immense sense of isolation and vulnerability that went with that will stay with me for ever, as will the trauma of three frustrating years before further surgery enabled me to speak intelligibly again.

To compound the anguish of that experience by adding domestic abuse to the situation hardly bears thinking about. So, while I cannot speak from the perspective of someone with communication needs who has suffered domestic abuse, my personal experience teaches me that the changes outlined so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, are needed.

A central lesson, for me, of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010 is that change does not happen by accident. It needs to be continuous and to be codified and embedded in practice. So, I support placing a legal duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that the good practice they are required to encourage includes the identification of and appropriate support for communication needs, in line with the amendment.

The measures provided for by these amendments are necessary. Local domestic abuse strategies need to detail how the local authority will identify and respond to communication needs. Domestic abuse local partnership boards need to include a speech and language therapist. Rules of court must include the provision of appropriate support for those with communication needs, and any guidance issued under the clause referred to in connection with Amendment 187 should include information on the links between domestic abuse and communication needs and, just as importantly, the impact that witnessing domestic abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, explained so clearly, can have on children’s communication needs.

14:30

There is one other personal point which has a bearing on why I regard these amendments as so necessary. Until I entered your Lordships’ House, I had hardly ever experienced disability discrimination. The organisations I worked for were sensitive to my communication needs and they honoured their legal duty to make reasonable adjustments to how they operated. They would never have signalled to me to speed up while I was speaking, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House did from the Front Bench only recently. Quite apart from the law, I wonder whether she has given the slightest thought to how much courage it takes to stand up in your Lordships’ House when you have communication needs that are not even acknowledged, let alone accommodated. In any professional, modern workplace, I would be asked whether I needed more time on account of my disability. It is to the detriment of your Lordships’ House that it should act as if it were above the laws on disability discrimination and equality which it helped to bring about. Indeed, we must be one of very few institutions that expects the law to accommodate our procedures rather than the other way around.

In conclusion, I do not want any other body to follow the poor example set by your Lordships’ House. These amendments would help to ensure that that does not happen. That is another reason they are so important to the victims of domestic abuse who have, like me, speech, language and communication needs, and why they deserve a substantive and considered response from the Government.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab) (V)]

My Lords, I speak in support of this whole group. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, a patron of the British Stammering Association and, indeed, as a stammerer myself. Stammering is often not recognised as a disability, but depending on its intensity, it has profound effects, particularly on children’s ability to cope with stress and to develop, and it is exacerbated by domestic violence. I am indebted to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for its research.

I will only add to the comprehensive and persuasive speeches by those noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments that in connection with support for communication needs generally in good practice, stammerers have difficulty in reporting traumatic events and in accessing services at the first contact when this is often by telephone. Inclusion of speech and language therapists on domestic abuse partnership boards and in local authority responses in their strategy is of particular benefit to victims who stammer, especially if the role of the therapist is to consider initial access to services.

In respect of guidance on the psychological impact of domestic abuse, in particular on children’s speech and communication, there is evidence that children who are exposed to domestic violence have a greater propensity to develop speech and language difficulties, thus harming their life chances thereafter. For instance, court proceedings can add intimidation and stress, which make these amendments of great importance in alleviating the damage caused by domestic abuse.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) (V)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in chairing the board of governors of Cardiff Metropolitan University, a major provider of speech and language therapy education with 130 students currently enrolled across the three-year course, 49 of whom started in 2020.

I support all the amendments because the links between domestic abuse and people with communication needs are clear but seriously underrecognised. In a cycle of abuse, communication needs in a child are ignored or overlooked as many do not realise how much can be done to improve a child’s life chances if they receive early—I stress early—supportive intervention. Public Health England’s Disability and Domestic Abuse: Risk, Impacts and Response paper reports:

“Disabled people experience disproportionately higher rates of domestic abuse. They also experience domestic abuse for longer periods of time, and more severe and frequent abuse.”


When those victims also have communication needs, they experience more barriers to accessing support such as health and social care services and domestic abuse services, and are at greater risk of ongoing gender-based sexual violence.

But the damage from abuse goes wider. The young child who experiences or witnesses abuse is more likely to have delayed speech and hearing development. This affects global cognitive development, especially in reading and writing, expressive language skills and social interaction skills. These children then fall further behind in many domains and may have flashbacks resulting in emotional shutdown and aberrant behaviours. Of course, they find it harder to express what has been happening, so these children often suddenly break down at school and the whole story unravels, but in a piecemeal and jerky fashion.

The cycle continues. Speech and language therapists working with children and young people in care or in custody report a very high incidence of these children having been abused or witnessed abuse. The key point is that recognition of abuse and subsequent remedial action must happen early, which is why speech and language therapists should be viewed as key members of statutory domestic abuse services.

[Lord Paddick (LD) (V)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have highlighted the link between domestic abuse and communication needs—both in how abuse can lead to communication difficulties and how important communication ability is, so that victims can express the impact that domestic abuse has had on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, brings her wealth of professional experience to reinforce these points.

Disability discrimination includes when you are treated less well or put at a disadvantage for a reason that relates to your disability in one of the situations covered by the Equality Act 2010, such as when you use public services or have contact with public bodies. Those with communication needs would be included in that. I understand the particular concerns of those noble Lords who are promoting these amendments, but I wonder whether the protections of the Equality Act are sufficient. However, I hear the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that these protections need to be embedded.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the Committee to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. These Benches welcome and support all the amendments in this group.

Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to put a clear statement in the Bill that, in encouraging good practice as required by Clause 7, the domestic abuse commissioner must include identification of and response to any speech and communication needs that people have. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, using his extensive experience of work in the criminal justice system, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, gave us a clear example of why this is so important. My noble friend Lady Andrews made a point about how important it is to be able to use language to express and defend yourself. My noble friend also made the point that children witnessing abuse of a parent by another parent or partner is a horrific form of abuse. We have heard from other noble Lords that lifelong damage can be caused to a child who witnesses that form of abuse.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in an important and thoughtful contribution, explained to us the difficulties that he suffered 25 years ago and the effect that they had on his speech at the time. His contributions are always valued and respected in the House, and I am very sorry to learn that he feels that that is not the case.

I cannot see who would not agree with any of the amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 22, seeks to ensure that support is available and generally accessible to every victim. We may be told in a moment by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this amendment or these amendments are not needed, and that support is implied anyway. That may be so, and I am sure the noble Lord will set out his case shortly, but I think he needs to go further and that the Government have to provide every reassurance necessary. It may be that the noble Lord thinks that the provisions are adequately covered under Clause 7(2)(a) and (b), along with the powers set out in Clause 9. If that is the case, can the noble Lord make that expressly clear in his reply to this debate?

Amendment 92 seeks again to put a commitment in the Bill that a local authority will identify and respond to speech, language and communication needs when preparing its strategy for the support of domestic abuse victims—something that I and many other noble Lords fully support. Again, when responding to the debate, if the noble Lord thinks that this amendment is unnecessary and is going to rely on the powers set out in Clause 55(8) and (9)(b), and/or the powers contained under guidance in Clause 58, can he confirm than the Secretary of State will address the issue specifically through one of these routes?

Amendment 110 seeks to address the same issue as the previous amendments, this time in respect of providing proper support for victims during court proceedings. Again, if we are to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this amendment is also not necessary, it would be helpful to have reassurances on the record that these important issues will be fully addressed by the rules of the court or other provisions.

Finally, Amendment 187 seeks to put points in the section related to guidance in the Bill that have been raised in previous amendments, along with the important issue of children witnessing domestic abuse and the effect that has on speech, language and communication needs, which many noble Lords raised in this short debate, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to this short debate.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his work as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, as he set out in opening this debate. The ability to communicate is a crucial life skill, so I welcome all the work that he and my noble friend Lord Shinkwin do in this area. He brought passion and personal insight to his contribution to the debate today. We are all extremely glad to have his voice, and the benefits of his experience and extensive work, in your Lordships’ House.

We all know that domestic abuse has a devastating impact on all its victims, and recognising the specific needs of individual victims is essential. Those facing communication barriers are, arguably, some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, given the added difficulties that they have when it comes to speaking out or asking for support. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, gave two powerful examples in his speech from his experience as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.

14:45

We also recognise the particular impact on children and young people. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews, Lady Whitaker and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, set out, early speech and language is an important protective factor for a child’s health and development. It affects the rest of their lives. Extensive work is already under way to strengthen the response from key agencies to speech and language difficulties, which we all welcome.

On Amendment 22 and the role of the domestic abuse commissioner, the Bill already confers a wide remit on the commissioner in tackling domestic abuse. The designate commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has already started to provide public leadership and is raising awareness of key issues, monitoring and overseeing delivery of services to ensure that they are as effective, evidence-based and safe as they can be. She will be responsible for assessing, monitoring and publishing information about the range of provisions that exist for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The commissioner’s role description states that he or she

“must adopt a specific focus on the needs of victims … from … groups with particular needs,”

which includes people with communication needs.

However, as I set out in response to earlier amendments and as my noble friend said in the debate on the last group, as an independent officeholder, it is for the commissioner to determine her priorities. They will be set out in the strategic plan that is developed following consultation with her advisory board, the Home Secretary and others. It is important that we maintain the independence of her role, so that she can go wherever she feels that she needs to.

Amendments 92 and 105 seek to ensure that local authorities give due regard and respond to speech, language and communication needs when discharging their functions under Part 4. I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but the Government feel that putting such detailed requirements in the Bill could reduce local authorities’ flexibility to meet particular local needs. It is by setting up local partnership boards, as referred to in the debate, in line with local needs and existing partnership arrangements, that we will see the strength of that flexible approach. To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, we do not therefore believe that these amendments are necessary, given the broad definition of domestic abuse support in Clause 55. Moreover, these matters can be further addressed in the statutory guidance, rather than in the Bill.

In addition, considerable work is already taking place across Government that seeks to improve the experience of victims, such as refreshing the national statement of expectations, which is due to be published later this year. That will set out best practice for services tackling violence against women and girls, and associated commissioning. We are completely dedicated to joined-up action to ensure not only that we prevent abuse, but that we provide the most appropriate support for victims and survivors. The victims’ strategy outlines this very commitment to improve the offer of support.

Furthermore, the Children and Social Work Act 2017 saw some of the most significant reforms in this area to date. It requires local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and the police to form appropriate multiagency safeguarding partnerships. Of course, local authorities should meet the needs of all victims of domestic abuse, based on a robust local needs assessment. That is why we intend to make clear that local authorities should consider additional barriers that might prevent victims with protective characteristics accessing support in refuges and other safe accommodation services. Local strategies will also need to set out clearly how local authorities, working with and through their local partnership board, will address the barriers that they have identified.

We can all appreciate the need for local strategies to be effective and inclusive. As well as the statutory guidance, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government may, by regulation, make provision regarding the preparation and publication of domestic abuse strategies. These regulations are intended to provide for a consistent approach to these strategies across the country.

I take this opportunity to reaffirm that there is an important balance to strike between providing local authorities with the flexibility to meet particular local needs and ensuring a consistent approach to the provision of support. The clauses as drafted, supported by the regulations and comprehensive statutory guidance for local authorities, will provide that very balance.

Amendment 110 focuses on the courts’ role in considering appropriate support for people with speech, language and communication needs. The Committee may be aware that in February last year the Government requested that the Civil Justice Council examined the vulnerabilities of witnesses and other parties. Its report emphasised that the vulnerability of people involved in civil proceedings should be considered and that court facilities should be equipped to accommodate the assistance and protections that vulnerable witnesses require. We agree, and continue to examine the council’s recommendations more generally.

Finally, on Amendment 187, I assure the noble Lord that we are committed to improving the understanding of domestic abuse across the statutory agencies, through guidance, targeted resources and training. The statutory guidance, which will be issued under Clause 73, will provide an opportunity to focus on the unique issues of particular minority groups, including those with complex needs—people with disabilities as well as those with communication and speech difficulties. The draft guidance was published with specific reference to special educational needs and disabilities.

Extensive engagement has been undertaken on the draft statutory guidance since it was published in July, with a specific working group focusing on disability, including learning disabilities. A range of services have provided their expertise. That engagement and consultation continue and we are grateful to all those who have contributed to improving the guidance so far.

All noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have drawn attention to an important issue. I hope I have been able to reassure them that the Bill already provides a framework to ensure that the speech, language and communication needs of victims are addressed. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all those who have spoken so movingly in support of the amendments. The importance of communication for victims of domestic abuse and their children cannot be overemphasised. The Minister for Safeguarding having emphasised the importance that the Government attach to improving speech and language outcomes, I had hoped that the Government would consider including some of the contents of these amendments in the Bill. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 23. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

23: Clause 7, page 4, line 20, at end insert—
“(e) the appropriate use of data and technology to aid in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the Commissioner should encourage best practice when using data and technology in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to move Amendment 23. I will speak also to Amendments 28 and 62, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I am glad to say that she will speak later in our debate.

The amendments are based on research by the LSE, which found that during lockdown, abuse by current partners, as well as by family members, increased on average by 8.1% and 17.1% respectively, whereas abuse by ex-partners declined by 11.4%. This increase in domestic abuse calls is driven by third-party reporting, which suggests that there is significant underreporting by actual victims, particularly in households where the abuse cannot be reported by an outsider.

An analysis of more than 16,000 cases of domestic violence enacted on one individual by another showed that the current predictive system failed to classify over 1,700 situations as high risk, which subsequently saw a repeat attack—a negative prediction rate of 11.5%.

The LSE research found that by utilising technology, through machine-learning methods, or AI, this negative prediction rate could be cut to between 7.3% and 8.7%. In England, domestic violence accounts for one-third of all assaults involving injury. A crucial part of tackling this abuse is risk assessment—determining what level of danger someone may be in so that they can receive help as quickly as possible. This means prioritising police resources in responding to domestic abuse calls accordingly.

This risk assessment is currently done through a standardised list of questions, administered to the victim by the responding officer, as well as the officer’s own professional risk assessment of the case. The DASH—domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour-based violence—form consists of around 28 questions used to categorise the case as standard, medium or high risk. If a case is assessed high risk, this suggests that an incident of serious harm could occur at any time, and this triggers resources aimed at keeping the victim safe. However, the DASH data is available only after an officer has appeared on the scene.

The research shows striking inconsistencies in DASH across the country. In 2014, HMIC found that 10 police forces classified fewer than 10% of domestic abuse cases as high risk, while three forces designated over 80% as high risk. This vast deviation casts serious doubt on the accuracy of current predictive methods.

A recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services reveals concern that the police are sometimes too slow in getting to domestic abuse incidents and that there were delays in responding to cases in over a quarter of forces. The inspectorate also found that, in a small number of cases, the delays are because the forces do not have enough officers available to attend.

LSE data analysis compared the predictive power of conventional DASH risk assessments with risk assessments using a machine-learning approach. It applied the different prediction models to calls to Greater Manchester Police between 2014 and 2018, and compared predictions made, case-by-case, to actual violent recidivism over a period of 12 months from the initial call. When tested against the sample data, the predictive power of risk assessments from the conventional DASH method are low; a machine-learning prediction based on the underlying data from the DASH questionnaire performs better; while a machine-learning prediction based on two-year criminal histories of victim and perpetrator performs much better still.

The researchers—Professor Tom Kirchmaier, Professor Jeffrey Grogger and Dr Ria Ivandic—therefore suggest that police forces should use machine-learning predictions based on two-year criminal histories, rather than DASH, to make risk assessments and prioritise responses to domestic violence calls.

Vitally, the research also found that by improving the data compiled during the investigation of domestic violence cases, to include details such as previous criminal convictions, incidents of violence, and the number of previous reports of domestic abuse, the negative prediction rate could be cut further to 6.1%. Up to 1,200 repeat attacks missed under the current system would have been identified.

We all know that there is a real problem with the use of data by the police. The Royal United Services Institute, in a report last year, identified some of the issues facing police forces in the use of data. It reported that in recent years, police use of algorithms has expanded significantly in scale and complexity. It argued that this was driven by three closely related factors. First, a significant increase in the volume and complexity of digital data has necessitated the use of more sophisticated analysis tools. Secondly, ongoing austerity measures have resulted in a perceived need to allocate limited resources more efficiently, based on a data-driven assessment of risk and demand. Thirdly, the police service is increasingly expected to adopt a preventive rather than reactive posture, with greater emphasis on anticipating potential harm before it occurs.

15:00

But—and here is the “but”—interviewees highlighted the lack of an evidence base, poor data quality and insufficient skills and expertise as the three major barriers to successful implementation. In particular, the development of policing algorithms is often not underpinned by a robust empirical evidence base regarding their claimed benefits, scientific validity or cost-effectiveness. In this case, we do have evidence. The Minister will obviously know the Greater Manchester police force well. I hope she might be able to look at this to see how far it could be extended to other forces and encourage best practice.

The failure to use data effectively is also at the heart of Amendment 62, to which I have also put my name. At a briefing last week for noble Lords, LSE researchers noted that domestic abuse prevention notices will be an important and much-appreciated new tool in the fight against domestic abuse. However, when an officer is considering handing one out, having access to the criminal history of the alleged perpetrator should be a crucial aspect of their decision-making. As mentioned, more than one in 10 people who report domestic abuse will call again within a year to report a repeat violent attack, and that is only one aspect of the kaleidoscope of past violence and abuse that may be known to the police but not necessarily utilised, or even known, by an officer attending a case of reported abuse.

One key challenge that we have to overcome is that police forces do not currently have systematic ways of recording the same person, victim or perpetrator. This means that, oftentimes, repeat victims or perpetrators are not spotted or no action is taken to protect from and prevent abuse. Forces rely on correct spelling of the full name and date of birth to access records, but data entry can be found to be incorrect or incomplete. Thames Valley Police has taken positive steps to address this issue and it could be used as a case study example that others could follow.

However, we know that police forces do not share data systematically, apart from via the national police computer, which records only charges. This calls into question the full effectiveness of Clare’s law and police forces’ ability to give full information to potential victims about known abusers and, in the process, to prevent future abuse. The system can clearly be improved. Enshrining in legislation the ability for the police to use previous criminal records to determine whether to hand out a notice could be an important prompt to improve data sharing and, in doing so, save lives.

I appreciate that this is rather technical but, given the current failures in the system, we need to use all the ammunition we can. I hope the Minister might be able to respond sympathetically to the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to contribute on my Amendment 50, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Paddick, who brings with him his vast experience in policing matters.

The amendment would ensure that a specified public authority complied so far as reasonably practical with a request made to it, including by the provision of information. The wording proposed is essential and further strengthens the power of the commissioner. “Specified public authority” is clearly defined in Clause 15(3).

I mentioned at Second Reading my serious concern about the way some agencies, including the police and local policing bodies, have dealt with serious crimes. The position is more acute now during the lockdown. A number of pieces of research point to increasing violence and online-facilitated child sexual abuse, which is an ugly feature of our society.

We are aware of how easy it is to ignore these problems through lack of action, as clearly demonstrated by the Manchester police force. In the 12-month period reviewed by inspectors, the Manchester force had recorded 77.7% of reported crimes, a drop of 11.3% from 2018. The report further stated that one in five of all crimes and one in four serious violent crimes are not recorded. The force is probably the second largest in the country and it failed to record 80,000 crimes in that year. This is shocking. We do not know the background to those serious crimes. How many involved rape and serious domestic assault? Of course, I do not refer to the CPS at this stage, because a review is ongoing.

Has the Home Office asked the remaining police forces to provide information on non-recording of crimes? We will never know. Our amendment would ensure that it would be for public bodies not only to comply with a request but to provide a breakdown of such information, which would help victims with counselling and other services provided in local areas.

I have never quite understood why we need to be so secretive. One should not have to rely on the Freedom of Information Act to obtain such information. It should be provided by all agencies listed in Clause 15(3). Our amendment would ensure that all agencies recorded complaints, with those of domestic abuse being a top priority for the commissioner.

We have heard repeated questions in your Lordships’ House about the serious crimes of rape and domestic violence. We are thankful to a large number of charities which provide shelters for victims and for the valuable work done by volunteers, but that is not enough. We need to do more. We want police and crime commissioners to set out objectives for their areas as identified by the domestic abuse commissioner.

Any administrative system which is not properly monitored is bound to fail. Monitoring is the outcome of any policy adopted. It is not good enough to say that we have legislation to tackle domestic abuse. We must ensure that we look systematically at outcomes and take measures to address any anomalies identified.

We have lots of past examples involving similar issues to reflect on: stop and search is one. The Scarman report following the Brixton disorders of the 1980s clearly identified excesses. We now ensure that all incidents are recorded and that measures taken are proportionate and intelligence-based. Let us hope that our amendment will go some way in building the confidence of the community in this legislation.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 23, 28 and 62 in this group, to which my name is attached. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for moving the first of these amendments and for comprehensively covering their purpose. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests in that I am a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.

Amendments 23 and 28, supported by London School of Economics research, make explicit the importance of utilising data and technology in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse and the commissioner’s important role in supporting this. Examples include encouraging the use of new “silent” methods of reporting abuse—especially important during lockdown—and using artificial intelligence methods, alongside better data usage, to determine the likelihood of repeated abuse.

Amendment 62, again based on LSE research, would ensure that, when the need for a handing out a domestic abuse protection notice was being considered, senior police officers could take into account any previous related criminality and convictions held by the alleged perpetrator. LSE research has shown that previous convictions can be a key indicator of the potential for future incidents of domestic abuse and yet are not currently taken into account when they should be regarded as a priority by any police officer considering handing out a DAPN.

Having access to the criminal history of the alleged perpetrator should be a crucial aspect of decision-making. The amendment would improve data sharing to strengthen the ability of the police to make informed, and potentially life-saving, decisions. It would enable immediate protection for survivors following a domestic abuse incident; for example, by requiring a perpetrator to leave the victim’s home for up to 48 hours.

Currently, there are many significant issues with data sharing that can have serious effects on police forces’ ability to identify, prevent and tackle domestic abuse. Not having a systematic way of recording the same person, victim or perpetrator often means that repeat victims or perpetrators are not spotted or that no action is taken to protect and prevent.

Moreover, police forces do not share data systematically, apart from the police national computer, and that only records charges. Even more concerning, there is no data or systematic information exchange between non-profit and police, so abusers are able to be invisible to the police. That is a particular worry right now, when many people are hidden from sight.

There are many examples of where better use of technology and data can help tackle abuse, including helping to determine what level of danger someone may be in so that they can receive help as quickly as possible, and prioritising police resources and responding to domestic abuse calls accordingly. Using machine-learning prediction will go a long way to supporting those who desperately need it.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I added my name to speak to this group, primarily in support of Amendment 23. I, too, declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. This matter has been magisterially covered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, so anything I say will be a mere shadow of what he and the other speakers have put down.

I, too, received the briefings, both before Second Reading and more recently, from the London School of Economics. I pay great tribute to it for having brought that matter to the attention of Members of this House. At Second Reading, I and other noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who has just spoken—commented on the failure of crime recording to pick up many cases, particularly cases of domestic abuse. In defence of those who are charged with the recording of suspected crimes, especially domestic abuse, they are often difficult to identify in the snowstorm of all the other issues that may be involved. Indeed, domestic abuse may not be the primary purpose of the initiating call to the police or some other agency.

Professor Gadd of the University of Manchester, to whom I had the privilege of speaking last week, suggested to me that we need to be much more curious in our responses to crime, and in particular possible abuse. Complex patterns of behaviour and the way in which they manifest themselves are meat and drink to data analysts. It seems to me that if big tech companies can build up accurate pictures of all our various spending preferences and other things, so too can algorithms help us spot and codify trends of abuse.

I do not claim expertise in artificial intelligence, but I know about the need for accurate input data and, of course, we have had problems with police recorded crime. This obviously has not been helped by failings to record offences in, I would say, several police forces over quite a number of years and, of course, the recent loss of data from the police national computer. Even so, the negative prediction rate of 11.5%, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to and which the LSE comments on, must be a matter for some significant concern, given the proportion that domestic violence, and repeat behaviour of that, represents as a component of all crime. Any machine-learned means of reducing this, and with it the tragic outcomes that cost this country so much in torment and treasure, must have a place. That is why I support this group of amendments, and Amendment 23 in particular.

However, collecting all the data in the world, as has been pointed out, is not going to be a great deal of use if it is not consistently collated, made available at the right time and shared with people who have a need to see it at the appropriate moment. The sort of checklists that have been referred to under the DASH system—a number of standard questions, consistently recorded, collated and available at the earliest possible stages of a proposed intervention—would, I am certain, be invaluable. There, I am satisfied that technology can help. I do not think that this requires reinvention but better management, oversight and adoption of appropriate IT systems. This would help reduce human errors and omissions. Above all, it is about avoiding unnecessary risk and optimising resources, as has been pointed out. This necessitates good training of call handlers and, as I say, being altogether more inquisitive and interrogative of data and callers to see what is actually lying behind the call. Otherwise, I do not think that we will make the best use of what IT offers. That apart, I believe that these amendments are extremely important in pointing a way forward.

15:15

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it might sound peculiar to say that I have great reservations about amendments that seem so sensible in putting forward a better use of technology, AI and data. What is there to argue with? However, I have some very big concerns about this set of amendments.

Using data as a predictive tool to improve preventive interactions sounds like common sense but could mean adopting a pre-crime approach that criminalises and demonises people when no crime has been committed. It can also be fatalistic and get things very wrong. One noble Lord made the point that algorithms can predict our likes and dislikes based on what we buy. Well, if you could see what Amazon predicts I will like, based on what I bought at Christmas, you would know that depending on algorithmic predictions in something as serious as criminal justice cases would be a mistake. We should be very wary of going down that road.

I think it is important to protect civil liberties, even in our eagerness to protect those at potential risk of being abused. When the likelihood of repeated abuse is based on data of previous convictions, I worry about branding someone as an abuser in perpetuity. We have to ensure that we do not forget redemption, second chances, the possibility of learning one’s lesson and rehabilitation. We have long since rejected the abhorrent practice of branding women with the letter A for adultery—a barbaric practice consigned to the past—and we must be wary of not metaphorically branding people as abusers through being cavalier about using data to predict future behaviour. We also have to consider the possibility of the police or the authorities undermining an individual’s life or job prospects on the grounds of an indelible label—branded an abuser forever. I worry about data being discussed in that way.

To take another issue, that of hate crime, we have seen problems with how data retention is being used. We already know that when no crime has been committed, non-crime hate incidents are stored and accessed by third parties and can be used as part of the DBS checks used by potential employers and other authorities. So I think we need to be very cautious here. In Amendment 62, the police can access previous related criminality and convictions when handing out a DAPN, which is after all a non-criminal sanction. We just need to be hesitant about saying that we can tell, fatalistically, what someone is going to do.

I am also concerned that data sharing is being talked about as though it is an obvious answer in preventive work. Data sharing is a contentious and important issue and we need to take it seriously in terms of this Bill. Sometimes under the guise of multi-agency work and precautionary inventions and policy, there may be a temptation to forget why we as a society understand that sharing data is something that should be done with great care for civil liberties and our commitment to the right to privacy. We even have special GDPR legislation—which in my view is overly bureaucratic and overzealous, but that is not the point. That makes a fuss if data sharing happens when, for example, theatre ticket data is shared with another arts organisation. That can be illegal. Therefore, just because we care so passionately about stopping domestic abuse, we should not be cavalier about data sharing. In intimate and family matters, data sharing needs to be handled sensitively.

Since the Covid emergency, we have become perhaps less vigilant about sharing our personal data, for example with track and trace. However, this is an emergency and not the new normal. Normal concerns about data sharing touch on important matters about who has access to data and our personal information. We rightly worry about the irresponsible sharing of intimate data concerning our medical histories or interpersonal relationships. I therefore either need reassurance to accept these amendments or will be objecting to them. I need reassurance that in our eagerness to protect victims of domestic abuse, we do not forget that data is not just a pragmatic, technocratic matter; its misuse can destroy lives. This is a political issue, and a matter of civil liberties that we take it seriously.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly in following the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Before I speak, I apologise to the Hansard writers; I was asked for my notes in advance and said “Well, here’s the notes, but there’s no guarantee that I will stick to them”. That is certainly the case, in the light of two developments.

First, there was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I agree with everything she said about the need for care and caution in dealing with data and algorithms, and the way things are going in the future. I have no problem whatever with that. However, I will speak positively in support of Amendments 23 and 28. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on his great opening speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who also spoke on those two amendments.

Secondly, I have had my feet and legs cut from under me, to a degree, by the great response that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, gave on the group starting with Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She referred to pressure from me, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for a review of how tagging might be employed. We had a meeting 10 days or so ago, at which I raised that issue. I said that I was not happy about the view expressed on alcohol by the Minister responsible for safeguarding, Victoria Atkins, at that meeting but, in fairness to her, she has responded very positively to the views we expressed about the potential need to use tagging in the area of domestic abuse. I hope that, in the context of our later debate on stalking, the Government will look at the use of tagging in a positive way—applying, of course, care and caution.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the work that she has done on tagging. She worked with the previous Mayor of London, whom I congratulate on a day when he is getting a kicking; the current Prime Minister was wise enough to see that there was a growth in abuse linked to alcohol, not a lessening, and that one way to slow it down might be to tag people who were drinking excessively. They were likely then to be sentenced and sent down; instead, they were tagged. I have met a lot of people in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings who have been tagged. They would rather have the tag than be sent to jail, given the stigma that goes with jail compared to being tagged, which is then forgotten about. I believe this can be applied equally in dealing with individual perpetrators. I have worked for perpetrators and tried to defend their interests as best I could, to get them on the right track. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has recognised, tagging can be done very usefully; in turn, I think it can be used for stalking.

I am grateful to the LSE and, in particular, Manchester University for the work that they are doing. I believe we are opening up an entirely new area in which we need to do ever more work, not less. We are short of resources. I am grateful to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the assistance that it gives me but we are extraordinarily short of psychiatrists. We need to spend time with individuals. We have to look for technology developments that enable us to gather the data which helps with identification, and to find positive ways in which algorithms can assist people. Why should algorithms be used solely for the benefit of profits for the gambling industry and so on? Why can they not be turned the other way, so that public services can use them beneficially to identify the facts about individuals and bring those facts to their attention, and then offer support and assistance to move in a different direction?

That is the message which I give to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We do not look back and worry all the time. Yes, we have cares and concerns, but we look to see what form of opportunities are opening up through AI and other technologies. Tagging is an old-fashioned technology; I was going to speak about that but I could spend some time on AI as well, which I will not. However, there is much opportunity here for us. In particular, we need to look at the segregated way in which our police forces operate. That approach has been worth while and beneficial, but it has had its day. Now, technology encompasses the whole world, not just Europe, and we need to see how we, in turn, can come together and work for positive outcomes.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has withdrawn so I now call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I do not intend to repeat any of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hunt in his very powerful and fascinating introduction. I hope that he has, at the very least, sparked off a debate that will continue. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. I do not think that it would be fair to describe either that introduction or the actual content of the amendments as cavalier, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, did. I absolutely sympathise with being cautious in the use of data and careful with civil liberties. But if we read the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and others, to describe them as cavalier is a bit of an exaggeration. I hope that the Minister will respond positively on the issue. We will see where the debate goes next.

I will speak to Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which is particularly important. In Clause 22, which it seeks to amend, there is a perfectly reasonable list of matters to be considered by a police officer when considering a domestic abuse protection notice. Adding

“the previous criminal history of P”,

who is the person under consideration, to that list would make an incredible amount of common sense, as well as having real, practical impact on the day-to-day work of police officers. It would also be particularly reassuring for victims, who obviously might have an opinion; Clause 22 outlines anyway that their opinion should be considered. Amendment 62, on previous criminal history, is important.

I add, partly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this amendment does not suggest that past accusations made against somebody would automatically override other considerations or be disclosed publicly. What it suggests is that their previous criminal history might well be relevant in the determination of such a notice. That is indisputable; we know all the background, history and data on how often people reoffend in this area. We know an awful lot about the psychology involved in domestic abuse. It would a barrier to good decision-making and active prevention if police officers were not able to take into account previous criminal history. I strongly support Amendment 62 and look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the earlier amendments.

15:30

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as a former police officer, I find being critical of the police difficult but sometimes necessary. Couple that with the fact that I am a survivor of domestic abuse and all I can say is: wish me luck with this one.

I will first speak to Amendment 62, which deals with a senior police officer having to take into account the previous criminal history of the person he is considering giving a domestic abuse prevention notice to. I find myself in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in that, regrettably, I was not provided with the briefings from the LSE. We need to be careful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has highlighted. Clearly, police officers attending an incident of domestic abuse should routinely check on the antecedents of the parties involved, but the issuing of a domestic abuse prevention notice should be based on whether the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to give the notice to protect the person from domestic abuse there and then.

The fact that someone has no criminal record does not mean that they do not present a danger to the complainant, and neither does someone having a criminal past mean that they present a danger to this particular victim. I draw a parallel with someone accused of a criminal offence, whose previous convictions are not normally revealed to a court until after their guilt has been established because the court must determine the facts of the case before it. Having said that, previous evidence of abuse of the current victim by the perpetrator in question is clearly an important factor.

Amendments 23 and 28 in this group require the domestic abuse commissioner to encourage good practice in the appropriate use of data and technology to aid in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse, including making recommendations to public authorities in these areas. The fact that we are debating these amendments has given a great opportunity for the LSE research to be brought to the attention of noble Lords.

As such, what the amendments are asking for is a subset of Clause 7(2)(b), on

“making recommendations to any public authority”.

While this is important, I am not sure it requires to be in the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, highlighted important research into how artificial intelligence—AI—and machine learning could be used to improve responses to domestic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, also highlighted the importance of silent reporting, especially during lockdown.

As my noble friend Lord Dholakia has said, Amendment 50, to which I have added my name, allows the commissioner to request information from public authorities. We have heard his concerns, reinforced by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, about the failure of the Greater Manchester Police to record crime that has been reported to it, particularly violent crime.

This has been a recurrent theme with the police service over the years, particularly with the police failing to take domestic violence seriously. From my own professional experience, I recall getting into trouble, many years ago, when I arrested a man who had broken a chair over his wife’s head—something that I should not have done, according to the prevailing culture at the time, because victims of domestic abuse often do not want action taken against the perpetrator. In this case, the victim had to be treated in hospital for her injuries, and, once treated, she did not want to take action against her husband, something I found difficult to understand until I became a victim of domestic violence myself.

From my own personal experience as a survivor, I know that perpetrators of domestic violence are very good at convincing you that there is no alternative to the abusive relationship you are in and that the pain they inflict is the price you have to pay for their affection. I must tell anyone in such an abusive relationship: you can, and you deserve to, have a loving relationship without the pain.

Although attitudes have changed in the police service, with prosecution of domestic abuse possible even without the consent of the victim—if there is physical evidence of assault, for example—we need to ensure that the police do not slip back into old practices, as Greater Manchester Police appears to have done in not recording crime, including violent crime and, no doubt, incidents of domestic abuse.

The Minister wrote to those who spoke at Second Reading and addressed this issue directly, including the issues in the Greater Manchester Police, following the publication on 10 December of the findings of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescues Services’ inspection of the service GMP provided to victims of crime. What the Minister says in that letter, for me, gives more cause for concern than reassurance. It says that the inspection is the first of HMICFRS’s new victim services assessment that assesses the end-to-end experience of victims, from the first report of a crime to its outcome. In this case, it included an inspection of the effectiveness of GMP’s crime recording processes. If this was the first inspection of this kind, what will future inspections of other forces unearth? GMP is unlikely to be alone.

If, as the letter says, since 2014, HMICFRS has carried out a discrete programme of police crime recording inspections, known as crime data integrity inspections, why have the problems at GMP only now been discovered? The Minister goes on to describe the process where HMICFRS makes recommendations to the chief officer of police for the force concerned, and says that “our expectation” is that the chief officer will take remedial action. Washing their hands of all responsibility, the Minister goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the local policing body, the mayor or police and crime commissioner to

“publish their comments and response to any recommendations for improvement made by HMICFRS.”

This is about the culture of the police service, which has in the past sought to reduce the pressure it is under by failing to record crime, including violent crime, and a culture that shies away from taking effective action against the perpetrators of domestic violence. This may be driven by the experience of reluctant victims, as I illustrated earlier, but perhaps it may also stem from a predominantly male police service that identifies with, or even empathises with, the perpetrator of domestic abuse. Yes, there have been improvements over the years, but what has been unearthed in Greater Manchester Police should set alarm bells ringing, not just at HMICFRS or among local policing bodies but at the Home Office and in the office of the Home Secretary.

In a private conversation with me, a former very senior police officer speculated that diversity goes out of the window when the police service comes under pressure, as it has done over the past decade, with the savage cuts to police budgets and corresponding reductions in police officers, police community support officers and support staff. The evidence from GMP is that victim care may also be a casualty. I also cite the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the police are not responding quickly enough because they are wrongly assessing the risk and have a lack of resources. Cuts to budgets, support staff and the money available for IT systems inhibit the kind of data analysis that the LSE is recommending.

The potential consequences for the victims of domestic abuse of soft-pedalling on issues surrounding diversity, and on the failure to record crime, are alarming, and the Home Secretary needs to take responsibility. This is central, as all the potential positive outcomes from the Bill will be impaired if we do not know the nature and extent of the problem. That, in turn, relies on victims of domestic abuse having confidence in the police service and knowing that, when they report domestic abuse to the police, they will be believed and it will be recorded and acted upon.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, how we protect, store and use data affects almost every aspect of our lives. The use of data to protect victims and catch the perpetrators of domestic violence, with encouragement of best practice by the domestic abuse commissioner, is something that every noble Lord should support. Data can tell us much about what has gone on before and that can inform our thinking going forward.

Amendment 23, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would, in proposed new paragraph (e), add to the list of things in which the domestic abuse commissioner must encourage good practice. My noble friend gave us examples based on the LSE research and said how important a proper risk assessment is in triggering the effective and proper use of resources to protect victims. I look forward to the response to this from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. As I said on a previous group, if we are told that the amendment is not necessary, it is incumbent on the Government to set out very clearly how they believe the powers in the Bill are sufficient to deal with the concerns raised in the amendments in respect of the general duty under Clause 7(1) and (2) and any other proposed legislation. We would like to have that clarity from the noble Baroness.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would add two things that the domestic abuse commissioner may do in pursuance of the general duty under Clause 7. Again, we need clarity from the Government on this. My fear is that the duty could be viewed as so wide and open that things could fall through the gaps. We need something to underpin that, with an indication from the Government of what this list of things should cover. I hope we all agree about the good intent behind the amendment. The risk is that we are being too vague to deliver what we all want to deliver.

Amendment 50, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, is very reasonable, but, again, if the Government view it as unnecessary, we need to hear very clearly whether they are relying on Clause 15(1) to ensure that the domestic abuse commissioner has the necessary power and that there is no doubt that co-operation includes the provision of data from the public authority in question. In the past, we have seen public authorities query the need to provide such data. I never want to hear them giving some spurious reason relating to GDPR or any other regulation, or saying that they cannot provide data due to custom and practice. We have all heard those infuriating and unacceptable reasons given in the past, so it is clear that we need to make sure that that cannot happen again.

Amendment 62, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seems to be a no-brainer. I have never been a police officer and am not a lawyer but, when I speak in this House, I try to apply plain common sense to things. That has served me reasonably well over the last few years. If a person who might be served a domestic abuse protection notice has a criminal record and the nature of the offences could be relevant, surely that is valid information for a police officer to have available when making a decision on whether to serve a notice. My noble friend highlighted past failures in the system, so that is a risk that we should avoid.

I listened very carefully to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I agree that of course we have to be very careful about how people’s data is used, but if somebody has convictions for violence, such as violence against women and other serious offences, it is not unreasonable that a police officer should be aware of that when considering whether to serve a notice. Clause 22 lists four matters that a police officer needs to look at when considering whether a person, referred to as “P”, could be subject to a notice. They are all very reasonable and a police officer considering a person’s previous criminal history might be the most important.

15:45

I am not suggesting that if someone is nicked for driving while disqualified that is not a stupid and irresponsible thing to do, but if someone is nicked for serious violent offences, maybe against women or previous partners, it is not unreasonable for the officer to be aware of that and take account of it, along with the other four points listed, when making a decision. My noble friend Lord McConnell made a similar point.

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that previous records do not necessarily inform future behaviour and that people can change and be rehabilitated, but I do not think it is unreasonable at least to be aware of them when it comes to certain offences. Having all the facts in front of you means that you can look at the situation in the round when making a judgment. I can also see a situation where, if someone had assaulted or hurt a previous partner and no one knew about it, and that person had not been given a notice and then someone got injured or killed, there would be uproar, with people saying, “What’s going on here? Why didn’t we know? Why didn’t the police officer know that this person had recently committed serious offences and they weren’t taken into account?” Therefore, this is about applying some common sense and acting reasonably, and in that way I think we can find a way forward. I am sure that the noble Baroness will do that, and I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his very comprehensive introduction, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for setting out the case for her amendments.

We can all agree with the premise behind Amendments 23 and 28—namely, that we should promote the use of data and technology, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, said, in a cautious rather than cavalier way, to aid in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who speaks on this Bill from a unique position, as both a former police officer and a survivor of domestic abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Bill introduces a range of new measures, including the use of data and technology to protect and support victims of domestic abuse and monitor perpetrators. For example, as we discussed earlier, the domestic abuse protection order can impose both prohibitions and positive requirements on perpetrators, including an electronic monitoring requirement, or tagging. I am happy that today I have made the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, so happy, because we have now come a long way since our disagreement on liqueur chocolates. That is an in-joke that only some noble Lords might get.

Victims of domestic abuse will be eligible for one or more special measures in the criminal, civil and family courts. Such special measures could include the use of a live televised link in a courtroom to enable a witness to give evidence during a trial or proceedings from outside the courtroom, and the use of pre-recorded video interviews before the trial or other proceedings.

The Bill provides for a pilot of mandatory polygraph examinations for domestic abuse offenders released on licence. I will not dwell on that now, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has indicated that he wants a debate on Clause 69 when we get there in a few days’ time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, outlined the real benefits of machine-learning predictions for police. Of course, technology is already a key component of the police response to domestic abuse.

At this juncture, I will refer to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, on the HMICFRS inspection of Greater Manchester Police and the victims of crime. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that what was unearthed should set alarm bells ringing, and I agree. He also said that if this is the first assessment, what will future assessments show to other police authorities? However, that is not a reason not to do it, and it will give cause for concern to other police authorities about how they might make improvements if necessary. We are not washing our hands of it. I brought the devolution Bill through your Lordships’ House some years ago. Devolution is an opportunity for local people to have a better determination of their own future through their elected representatives, in this case the mayor and the deputy mayor for policing.

We welcome HMICFRS’s decision to escalate the force to its police performance oversight group, which includes senior leaders from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the Home Office. It met on Monday 26 January to scrutinise GMP’s plans for improvement and to consider whether additional support from within the sector may be necessary to support the force in quickly delivering the necessary step change in performance. We welcome HMICFRS’s decision to reinspect the force in six months’ time to assess progress; that is likely to be in May. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined, we expect the mayoral response to the report to be published no later than 4 February.

Police forces use technological solutions to provide emergency protection to victims, such as TecSOS devices that provide victims with immediate connection to the police at the touch of a button, or the Hollie Guard app, which allows the victim to send an alert to chosen contacts if they are in danger, notifying them of the victim’s location and capturing audio and video evidence. There is also the Bright Sky app, which professionals and victims can use to access information and support on domestic abuse. It also enables the recording of evidence of abusive behaviour. Clare’s law also comes to mind, allowing data on partners’ previous abuse history, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also reminded me of the silent calling facility, which is such a benefit to people who cannot ask for help but who are in danger. As part of a police investigation of a domestic violence incident and any subsequent prosecution, the footage from body-worn video can also play a key part in building up an irrefutable case for the prosecution. As for the use of data, I agree that it is equally important to properly understand the needs of victims and to put in place the policies and services to meet those needs. That is why, for example, the first duty on tier 1 local authorities under Part 4 of the Bill is to assess the need for domestic abuse support in their areas. Robust and reliable data is the key to this in the context of Part 4 and elsewhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, outlined the benefits of machine learning in the assessment of risk. We have worked with the College of Policing to develop the domestic abuse risk assessment, which is an improvement on the established DASH risk assessment process. Evidence-based research helped us develop that, and with a number of charities, we have also developed the Domestic Abuse Matters training programme, which has been academically proven to increase officers’ empathy with victims, and their understanding of abuse. Things are improving. We have come a long way from the days when police officers saw domestic abuse as “just a domestic”.

While I support the underlying premise of Amendments 23 and 28, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree that the amendments themselves are not needed, since Clause 7 already sets out broad functions for the domestic abuse commissioner in encouraging good practice for the prevention and detection of domestic abuse. This will include good practice in relation to the use of data and technology.

On Amendment 50, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the duty to co-operate with the commissioner, as provided for in Clause 15, extends to the provision of information. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make this clear. This is one of those occasions when we believe it is preferable to keep the duty at a high level. There is always the risk, when a general proposition is followed by particular examples, of leaving the impression that the list of examples is exhaustive—or, indeed, that something is left out. We do not want inadvertently to leave the impression that the provision of information is the only form of co-operation.

Amendment 62 jumps ahead to Part 3 of the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that police take into account an individual’s previous criminality and convictions when considering issuing them with a domestic abuse protection notice. The matters to be considered listed in Clause 22 are designed to ensure that police take into account the impact of the notice on those directly or indirectly affected by it. The power to issue a notice enables the police to require an individual to leave their home for a period of up to 24 hours, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick said, when dealing with the immediate crisis. These provisions therefore provide an important safeguard by ensuring that the police give careful consideration to the impact of the notice on those affected when they are exercising this quite significant power. Again, the spirit of the amendment is certainly one that we can support.

When deciding whether a notice is necessary to protect a victim from domestic abuse, the police will consider a range of factors, including the history and the context of abuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, outlined. The College of Policing’s guidance on domestic abuse makes it clear that police should carry out comprehensive checks when responding to a domestic abuse incident, including: the alleged perpetrator’s history of abuse in relation to the victim, or previous victims; previous risk assessments; court orders or injunctions; convictions; and child protection information. Importantly, these checks ensure that intelligence on incidents and behaviours that have not resulted in a criminal conviction is considered. Furthermore, the draft statutory guidance for police on the domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which we published ahead of Committee, makes it clear that when deciding whether to issue a notice, the police should also consider other relevant information and evidence, such as incident reports from previous callouts, including those against other victims, and any intelligence from other agencies or organisations.

Having highlighted these important issues, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in fact the Minister answered my question in almost her final sentence. It was about the status of callouts when considering this data. Police callouts are available to family courts and to sentencing criminal courts in domestic abuse cases. My question was going to be about the availability of that information to DAPOs, but I think that the Minister answered it in the affirmative.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I did indeed.

16:00

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I think the Minister’s answer will again be yes, as she clarified this issue in her last remarks. Clause 22, on these other matters, says

“a senior police officer must, among other things, consider”,

and then lists four issues that they must consider. Among those “other things” is of course someone’s previous record. I ask her to clarify that further.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think it is yes to everything. The whole context has to be taken into account when issuing both a DAPN and a DAPO.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for her sympathetic response.

I think we are all seeking the same thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia said, one cannot underestimate the importance of data in measuring crime, monitoring police actions and focusing on outcomes. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom I am very grateful, emphasised the importance of the use of data and new methods of technology in helping to address what I think we all agree—this is part of the reason for the Bill today—has been the very patchy response to domestic abuse that we have seen in previous years. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke very wisely about the better management and oversight of IT solutions and the contribution that they can make.

I listened with great care to the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. As she said, what sometimes sounds like common sense could be fatalistic and could undermine liberties. One would be unwise to dismiss that out of hand. As with many things, there are balances here: a balance of risks and a balance of opportunities. The issue for me is that the current methods of prediction are falling short and, from the LSE research, it looks as though we could find a way to get the predictive rate up. In view of the failures in relation to domestic abuse, this is a very important consideration indeed.

I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Brooke talk about tagging. He is a real expert on the impact of alcohol on domestic abuse and more generally. I was grateful for his support, as I am to my noble friend Lord McConnell. He made some important remarks about being cautious over the use of data but acknowledged that my amendments themselves are not cavalier and, in a sense, are an encouragement to enable better practice in this area.

I was very touched by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who spoke very sensitively about his own experience and how we might learn from it. He was of course right to reflect on funding issues and the impact they have had on the police in using technology to support victims and tackle domestic abuse as a whole. My noble friend Lord Kennedy thought this was being proposed as a common-sense solution, and I very much agree with him.

The Minister was sympathetic, and I am grateful to her for that. She talked about the work that her department is doing with the College of Policing on risk assessment. It might be that she could encourage the college to talk to the LSE about its work to see whether that could inform further developments in future.

On Amendment 62, she has made it clear that the use of the phrase “other relevant information” essentially covers the point that I have raised, and interventions by my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Kennedy have confirmed that.

This has been a very good debate, and I hope it has been a constructive contribution to encouraging police forces to use data more effectively. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 24. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

24: Clause 7, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) assessing, monitoring, and publishing information about, the behaviours of people who carry out domestic abuse and matters which may contribute to such behaviours;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add provisions around the monitoring and assessing of perpetrator behaviours to the list of things the Commissioner may do in pursuance of the general duty.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Burt and I have Amendments 24, 25 and 26 in this group. Clause 7(2) sets out the powers that the domestic abuse commissioner can exercise in pursuit of her functions. I read that subsection as not being exhaustive, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that when responding to the debate. I ask because, as I say, subsection (2) is about powers, not functions, and Clause 10 gives the commissioner the usual facilitative—if that is the word—incidental and conducive powers.

In any event, Amendment 24 would include powers relating to perpetrators, including words similar to those in Clause 7(2)(a), which relates to services to people affected by domestic abuse. I appreciate that there are other paragraphs—(c) is one of them—that are not limited to victims, but a specific reference to why people abuse seems appropriate. I think we can agree, since this is a point that has been made by a number of speakers and we will come back to it, that many noble Lords regard this as a crucial issue. I certainly do.

Amendment 26 would extend the power in Clause 7(2)(g). That power as drafted provides for the commissioner being able to co-operate or work jointly with public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons. We would extend that to making recommendations to voluntary organisations and others. Under Clause 7(2)(b) the commissioner can make recommendations to a public authority. I think that all those to whom recommendations can be made should be included in the clause.

The Bill as drafted regards co-operation and joint working with public authorities as being likely to prompt recommendations—hence the Bill before us— but co-operation and joint working with voluntary organisations are not exactly the same. I would have said it was implicit that recommendations to them could follow, were it not for the distinction in the drafting of the Bill.

Amendment 25 is a consequential bit of drafting. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in the interests of making progress, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Baroness has just said.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot repeat my noble friend Lord Rooker’s admirable brevity, but I welcome this group of amendments. I particularly support Amendment 24, which seeks to add a list of things that the commissioner may do in pursuance of a general duty.

The noble Baroness is right that provisions around monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviour are very important. Clause 7(2) already sets out:

“The things that the Commissioner may do in pursuance of the general duty under subsection (1) include … assessing, monitoring, and publishing information about, the provision of services to people affected by domestic abuse … making recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its functions … undertaking or supporting … the carrying out of research … providing information, education or training … taking other steps to increase public awareness of domestic abuse … consulting public authorities”


and others; and co-operate, or work jointly with, public authorities. Reading the list, it does not seem to include monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviour. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt, have illustrated, this seems to be a gap, particularly as the Bill specifies in Clause 7(1):

“The Commissioner must encourage good practice in … the prevention, detection … and prosecution of offences involving domestic abuse.”


I would have thought that monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviours would be an important part of that responsibility.

This is an important but neglected issue. A piece for Community Care by Ruth Hardy in 2017 that analysed serious case reviews found that domestic abuse was a feature of more than half the reviews carried out between 2011 and 2014, but that while much practice and research is focused on working with victims and survivors of domestic abuse, the same cannot be said of perpetrators. A report some years ago by inspectorates, including Ofsted, found that social services and partner agencies are not focusing enough on perpetrators. Last April, an article by Amanda L Robinson and Anna Clancy for the British Society of Criminology identified that a focus on developing and implementing effective interventions for victims had dominated the policy and practice agenda for nearly two decades. They commented that, in contrast, there has been relatively less success in establishing effective interventions for perpetrators. A systematic review of European evidence concluded:

“We do not yet know what works best, for whom, and under what circumstances.”


I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to say that legislation covers this, but it is important that we make the point that it would have been helpful to have been more explicit that perpetrator behaviour is a relevant part of the responsibilities of the commissioner.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, this short group is another attempt by the Lib Dem team to ensure that the domestic abuse commissioner has all the powers that she needs. Amendment 24 addresses the need for the commissioner to be able to research and publish information about perpetrators. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his supportive comments on this. We believe that unless we understand perpetrator behaviour, we will never be able to tackle it effectively and make effective interventions. Amendment 26 would widen the recommendations the commissioner can make to voluntary organisations and others as well as to public authorities. Again, we are attempting to widen the remit and those powers. These are small amendments but we hope they are helpful in spelling out the extent of the remit the commissioner should have.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I support the three amendments in this group, which raise important issues. It is right that the domestic abuse commissioner should also assess, monitor and publish information about perpetrator behaviour, as getting more information about and understanding of perpetrator behaviour will be crucial for informing us about how it should be handled in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has tabled a more comprehensive amendment, Amendment 167, on a strategic plan. I was pleased to sign it, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. Rather than these amendments, Amendment 167 probably gives us the detail we need . However, in principle, I support the amendments before us today and will speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, when we get to it later in Committee.

Amendments 25 and 26 raise important issues and widen the scope of the domestic abuse commissioner’s remit to make recommendations to voluntary organisations. I fully support that. I am conscious that Amendment 26 would add the words about “making recommendations to” organisations outside the UK. I am very supportive of that, although some of our behaviour in recent years has not helped our standing outside the United Kingdom—but that is probably for another day. In principle, I am happy to support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:15

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their brevity on this short but important group, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his commendable example. All the amendments in this group are to Clause 7(2), which I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is a non-exhaustive list of the things that the commissioner may do in pursuance of her general duty under subsection (1). To be clear, subsection (1) sets out the parameters of the commissioner’s functions, not subsection (2).

Among the commissioner’s functions is encouraging good practice in relation to the prevention of domestic abuse and

“the identification of … people who carry out domestic abuse”.

That being the case, I have no doubt that monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviours falls within the sphere of the activities that the commissioner could undertake in her pursuance of a general duty. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, that is a relevant and important facet to consider.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, we will debate later an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin relating to the need for a perpetrator strategy, so I will not dwell on that issue now. The question is whether the indicative list of activities in subsection (2) is the right one. It is the nature of an indicative list that it is illustrative, as it is here, so I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there is sufficient latitude in the commissioner’s general duty to enable her to undertake work in relation to addressing the behaviour of perpetrators.

On Amendments 25 and 26, I again make the point that subsection (2) is an indicative list of activities. It does not preclude the commissioner making recommendations to voluntary bodies if she wishes to do so. However, Clause 7(2)(b) needs to be read alongside Clause 16, which requires Ministers and public bodies specified in Clause 15 to respond to the commissioner’s recommendation within 56 days. We believe it is appropriate to limit this duty to respond to certain public bodies, given that it clearly puts demands and expectations on them.

Clause 7 does not preclude the commissioner making recommendations to voluntary organisations and others, but as there is no corresponding duty on them to respond to such recommendations the focus of Clause 7(2)(b) is properly on public authorities alone. I hope that assures the noble Baroness that Clause 7 already allows for the matters she wanted to explore with her amendment, and that on that basis she will be willing to withdraw it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Burt called these small amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I do not think that more words necessarily add to one’s case; I understood him to be supporting the point. Amendment 167 is about another duty. As I hoped I had made clear, I understand that Clause 7(2) is about powers while Clause 7(1) is about duties and functions. Amendment 167 is important but has a discrete function about creating a strategy. This amendment makes the point that work regarding perpetrators is wider than a strategy. We will come to Clause 16 on responses, to which reference has just been made, at a later point.

I still think that this is a slightly odd omission. I am glad to have confirmation that the list is not exhaustive. I cannot emulate the very senior lawyers involved in many of our debates, but any lawyers who are involved in this debate will recognise the term “sui generis”. It means that anything added to an existing list must be of the same type.

So it would not do any harm to mention perpetrators here, and it would make the point. I do not believe in legislation being used for messages, but something can sometimes be read into an omission. Of course, I will not pursue the matter now and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 24.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division, must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

27: Clause 7, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
“(h) ensuring that nationwide psychological therapy services are available to couples experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that prevention of domestic abuse is a top priority for the Commissioner.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 41 and 103 in my name, all of which focus on early intervention and the prevention of domestic abuse. They seek to avoid the need for ultimate criminal justice interventions. I should like to put on record that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, has had to withdraw because she has to contribute in Grand Committee.

I fully support the Bill’s objectives as far as they go, but we must consider the consequences of domestic abuse for children and the need to intervene as soon as possible to prevent lifelong damage. As the Minister acknowledged in her summing up at Second Reading, we must prevent child victims of domestic abuse becoming the perpetrators of the next generation. One-third of them will become perpetrators unless we provide them with the help they need.

It is also important that the Bill promotes early intervention with couples who are experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse. As it stands, the Bill will not achieve these vital objectives, but it would not be difficult to include a framework for effective prevention so that the Bill can achieve its full potential—and it really has a lot of potential.

Amendment 27 seeks to ensure that the commissioner focuses on her responsibility to encourage good practice in the prevention of domestic abuse—which of course is her first function. The amendment includes explicit reference to the need to ensure that psychological therapy services are available nationwide to couples experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse.

Amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the commissioner’s advisory board includes at least one person who understands the importance of psychological therapy services to such high-risk couples and, most importantly, to their children. Amendment 103 seeks to ensure similar representation on local partnership boards.

The Law Society agrees with me that the Bill has

“excessive focus on criminal responses to domestic abuse.”

It goes on to say:

“It is crucial that victims of domestic abuse are able to access long-term support that aims to build resilience and confidence, rather than short-term protection by the courts and police.”


This is fundamentally important.

We know that large numbers of children across the UK are affected by domestic abuse. Estimates vary, but one suggests that the figure is just under one million. This is an awful lot of children. A group of children’s charities, including Hestia, has made the point that these children suffer severe mental health problems, often exhibited through aggressive and destructive behaviour. Pro Bono Economics estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of not providing this help is between £480 million and £1.4 billion.

I listened to the excellent debate on the parental alienation amendments. A number of noble Lords said that it is up to the courts to decide who is lying, and whether there is any foundation to an allegation of parental alienation. In my experience, by the time these cases reach the courts it can be almost impossible to determine where the lies began and where culpability lies—and by then the damage to the children will be extreme. Again, this is an argument in favour of early intervention with expert therapy—ideally family therapy. When the whole family sits together with a therapist, in a safe place, discussing things, the dynamics in a dysfunctional family become very clear and can be resolved. I was involved in this work many years ago. Family therapy can be extraordinarily powerful in resolving family problems.

I propose that therapy services for child victims of domestic abuse should continue to be provided by the NHS, rather than through local authorities. Following Jeremy Hunt’s excellent White Paper on child mental health, CCGs are currently funding mental health support teams in one-third of the country, providing NICE-recommended therapy to children and young people who need it, including victims of domestic abuse. These therapists work in schools, which is of course crucial. Children’s mental health problems are most likely to be identified in school. There should be a statutory obligation to provide these services across the country. I would be really interested to know whether the Minister agrees.

Section 55 places a duty on local authorities to provide support for victims of domestic abuse and their children who reside in “relevant accommodation”—which I take to mean a refuge. It is not clear that local authorities will have a statutory duty to ensure that psychological therapy is available, even to support adults or children in refuges. Of course, the situation is a good deal worse for the much greater number of domestic abuse victims, including children, who are not in refuges.

Amendment 176, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, shows a strong commitment to support services for the victims of domestic abuse, which I applaud. Again, however, it gives no assurance that victims, including children, will be guaranteed an offer of professional therapy help.

The aim of these amendments is to ensure that the domestic abuse system is set up to take care of the mental health needs of all victims. This is important not just for individuals but for society as a whole, both now and in the future. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for moving this amendment and pay tribute to her vast experience in this area and her constant fight to ensure that early intervention is part of our psychological landscape.

Psychological therapy is an essential cornerstone of our domestic abuse response and Amendment 27 is potentially one of the most important we shall have a chance to debate today. It places a requirement on the commissioner to ensure nationwide access to psychological therapy services for couples experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse. As we have already heard, the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%—never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. Many go beyond the care of psychological therapy. A SafeLives report highlights that 80% of survivors think that interventions for perpetrators are a good idea—and not just for those experiencing domestic abuse themselves.

16:30

A main conclusion of Breaking Down the Barriers: Findings of the National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage was the call from survivors for trauma-informed support to break traumatic cycles. Here we should be looking—[Inaudible]—parent and child victims to receive trauma-informed support while the perpetrators of domestic abuse access a programme which is designed to change behaviour, rebuild relationships and keep families safe. Perpetrators can take part in a 20-week programme focusing on behaviour change. Their adult victims benefit from a mix of one-to-one sessions and group work through the 10-week integrated women’s support programme, where they look at their past experiences and build resilience. Confidence-building and well-being groups are also held. Children and young people have their own 10-week programme, which looks at the trauma they may have suffered, self-esteem issues, coping strategies, safety planning and support networks. They receive help to talk about their feelings and have a chance to meet other children who have been through similar traumas.

Although the Barnardo’s programme is more involved than the couples therapy suggested in the amendment, and includes programmes for children as well, the Barnardo’s model illustrates how effective intervention and therapy focused on the turbulence in the relationship are in addressing the scourge of domestic abuse and in changing behaviours.

Another programme I would like to mention is For Baby’s Sake, which rightly highlights that early intervention is the most effective way to break the cycle of domestic abuse. As I argued in the debate on my own amendment, early childhood—conception to age two—is an optimum time to intervene. Intervention during the first 1,001 days is not just crucial for the baby but trauma-informed support for the parents can prevent further toxic deterioration of their relationship as well.

This is also an effective time for intervention—we want to be pragmatic with this Bill. An evaluation by King’s College London of the For Baby’s Sake programme identified that the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life are the optimal time for intervention in the cycle of domestic abuse. Pregnancy and childbirth are major milestones in the lives of many mothers and fathers and the time when there is motivation to change. The transition to parenthood brings rewards as well as challenges for both parents. Support at this time can harness parents’ motivation and empower them to make changes for their baby and themselves.

As For Baby’s Sake highlights, present interventions have focused generally on supporting the needs of victims and survivors alone, and few seek also to target the causes and environments of domestic abuse, and its associated consequences, in conjunction with perpetrators and children. Even fewer interventions adopt a whole-family approach that seeks to address the mental health problems experienced by parents and protects and supports the mental health of the baby and other children in the family.

This amendment is about changing the cultural and social landscape around domestic abuse for the next generation. If we focus only on refuge and not intervention and rehabilitation, especially in the form of psychological therapy for couples, we miss out on a crucial piece of the weaponry for breaking the cycle of domestic abuse.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses who have spoken to this group of amendments are hugely qualified to speak on the issues of psychotherapy, and none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I have no such credentials, beyond being an observer of the human condition coming from an entirely different field altogether.

My interest in supporting this group of amendments comes from a profound belief that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said—rather than picking up the pieces after the event, early intervention before the damage in abusive relationships has reached its most pernicious stages must be an object of policy. Before we get to the stage of cranking into place all legal, prosecutorial, judicial and costly protective paraphernalia, the need to pay attention to psychological problems at a much earlier stage, or indeed as a preliminary step in later stages, seems an unavoidable conclusion. In support of that assertion, I need not go further than the domestic homicide reviews, cataloguing as they do the tragic endpoint of failure to intervene in time, but which consistently refer to much earlier and identifiable opportunities in the downward slope, at which points the problems could and should have been consciously noted and acted upon. Even if they do not end in homicide, I believe that similar trajectories occur in domestic abuse generally from childhood onwards.

To tackle this, we need an understanding of the psychology of victims, perpetrators and children in what is a hugely complex area of motivations, drivers, preconceptions and circumstances, right across gender and age divides, social and economic environments, matters of nature and nurture, and much else. This suggests to me that the discipline of psychology is a golden thread in terms of identifying traits informing decisions, facilitating early-stage support and intervention, and, as the noble Baronesses have said, breaking this terrible cycle of behaviour that the Bill seeks to address.

I recognise that psychological skills are, in any event, far from plentiful, and involve not only time but expense. But I do not believe that it is an argument to discard the appropriate tool on grounds of timing, complexity or cost; nor should we be deflected because, as has been explained to me by others, dealing with substance abuse in parallel with psychological issues—as is so often a combination—requires considerable skills and powers of leadership.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned cost-benefit. It may sound like monetising private misery, but I am absolutely convinced that she is right about the social cost and why these amendments are necessary.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support these amendments, although, like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I lack the knowledge, skills and experience of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Stroud. I therefore add our support for this suite of amendments, focusing as they do on the prevention of domestic abuse by making it a top priority for the commissioner, the advisory board and the local partnership boards. I also strongly support the emphasis on children and the need for therapy services all over the country, as elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

As we know, abuse is a cycle. The abused child all too frequently turns into the abuser, and generation begets generation of misery and pain. Unless there is an intervention to break this cycle, we will still be wrestling with this subject for years and, indeed, generations to come. There are other excellent amendments to come tackling this issue, so I will leave my comments there for now.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I am happy to give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but, again, have no expertise in this area. Of course, prevention is absolutely the key, and the point the noble Baroness made about the importance of ensuring that we take effective action to prevent children becoming abusers in the future is very important. You have to break this cycle, and I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that point.

I also think we have to be careful here that we are offering the right interventions at the right time. Professionals who are going to engage with partners and couples also need to be able to spot whether something is an area of conflict, but is not domestic abuse, or, equally, whether a situation is domestic abuse and actually needs a different intervention—they need to have the skills to understand that, and understand the difference. We would never want a situation where somebody remains in a relationship because they have had the wrong intervention. This is a very complicated area. We need professionals to provide the proper advice at the right time to ensure that if you can work to do that, fine, but equally there are times when people need to get out of a dangerous relationship. We need to ensure that professionals are able to spot that, and that you are building that knowledge and expertise into all the interventions that people can engage with.

On that basis, I am happy to support the amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling these amendments. I am pleased to see her looking so very much better. I hope that she is indeed feeling better, although she still has a bit of a cough. Her experience has been praised across the House, and I know how much she contributes to the debates in which she takes part. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, she brought into focus the real danger of the cycle of abuse and the importance of breaking it. As the noble Lord said, what we need here is the right interventions at the right time. There is strong evidence that conflict between parents, whether together or separated, can have significant impacts on children’s mental health and on long-term life chances. We can all agree on that.

We also highly value marriage, but must acknowledge that, for many reasons, such an arrangement will not suit everyone. Marriages have their difficulties; some couples do experience conflict and may decide that it is best for those involved to end their marriage. I recognise too the particular impact that this has on children and young people. That is not, of course, to negate the importance of couples’ counselling and access to psychological therapy services. They should not be underestimated and, in many cases, they lead to reconciliation of relationships, with steps to rebuild and repair. As the noble Baroness outlined, their value is immeasurable whatever the outcome of the relationship.

On mental health services, we are absolutely committed to our ambitions in the NHS long-term plan to expand and transform mental health services in England and to invest an additional £2.3 billion a year in them by 2023-24. Under the NHS long-term plan there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, ensuring that an additional 380,000 adults can access psychological therapies by 2023-24. It also commits to providing access to such therapies for specific groups, including expanding access to evidence-based psychological therapies within special perinatal mental health services, and parent, infant, couple, co-parenting and family interventions.

I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendments 27 and 41 relate to the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. The noble Baroness will know that Nicole Jacobs has undertaken significant action already as designate commissioner, including raising awareness of domestic abuse. She will also be responsible for monitoring and overseeing delivery of services to ensure that they are as effective, evidence-based and safe as they can be, as well as publishing information about the range of provision that currently exists for victims and survivors.

The commissioner’s general functions include the provision of support for people affected by domestic abuse. Within that, Clause 7 already provides that the commissioner may assess, monitor and publish information about the provision of services to people affected by domestic abuse. That might include the provision of relationship counselling and psychological therapy. I assure the noble Baroness that the substance of Amendment 27 is already captured by the remit of the commission as set out in Clause 7.

The Committee has heard a combination of views about ensuring the commissioner’s independence and a number of views on what she should be tasked with. The commissioner has a challenging role and will undoubtedly face many demands on her—many of them from your Lordships’ House. Respecting the independence of her office, we should leave it her to determine her priorities, as set out in her strategic plan, informed by the views of her advisory board. If we start writing into the Bill particular issues that the commissioner should address, we risk creating an unhelpful hierarchy of priorities which will constrain her freedom of action. Specifying in the legislation what should and should not feature in her strategic plan would restrict and hinder the very independence that the role requires.

16:45

The commissioner’s strategic plan will be developed in tandem with her advisory board, as well as the Home Secretary and others. I assure the noble Baroness that the plan will be scrutinised and expertise sought on its development. I hope that reassures her that a range of areas will be considered.

In Amendment 41, the noble Baroness seeks to expand the list of specialists who must have a seat on the commissioner’s advisory board so that it includes a person with experience of the provision of psychological therapy services. There is a balance to be struck in Clause 12. We want an advisory board which includes members with a range of experiences, but we also need to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient flexibility to appoint a board which will best assist her in discharging her functions. This is not the only amendment which seeks to add this or that category to the list of advisory board members. I put it to noble Lords that, within the framework provided for in Clause 12, we should otherwise leave it to the commissioner to determine the membership of the board.

Similar considerations apply to Amendment 103 to Clause 56, which provides for the membership of the domestic abuse local partnership boards in Part 4 of the Bill. This amendment would add to the membership of those boards a person representing psychological therapy services for couples experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse. I do appreciate the intention behind this amendment and similar ones, but again, I have concerns that we risk building too much rigidity into the composition of these boards and unduly constraining the flexibility that local authorities have to appoint a board that meets particular local needs. Local partnership boards will be set up in line with local needs and existing partnership arrangements, where we will see their strength. We have provided for core representation on the boards in Clause 56(2), but beyond that we should leave it to the good judgment of the tier 1 local authorities.

Moving away from the specifics of the amendments, I assure the noble Baroness that work is already taking place across government on bettering relationships. The Reducing Parental Conflict programme is aimed at conflict below the threshold of domestic abuse. It aims to promote improved outcomes for children, with a focus on disadvantaged families. The programme has funded local authorities to undertake strategic leadership support activities and practitioner training, which resulted in the creation of resources. It has aimed to improve understanding that not all conflict is damaging but, where this is frequent, intense and poorly resolved, it can harm children’s outcomes and can be addressed as part of working with families. The next phase of the programme has funding of up to £11 million allocated to it and will run from April this year to March next year.

It is important to highlight the benefits of preserving fundamentally healthy relationships where we can, and the important role that counselling can play in securing this outcome. In the context of domestic abuse, we often talk about relationships breaking, but we also know how they can be repaired through counselling and conflict management. The noble Baroness is right to bring the Committee’s attention to this issue. I hope that, having highlighted it, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken so thoughtfully in this well-informed debate, although several of them denied any knowledge of this area.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her thoughtful response and general support in terms of the importance of prevention. I want to respond to one point she made: much of couples therapy is about enabling couples who need to part to do so; it is not all aimed at keeping people together, because that can be a thoroughly bad thing. I thank both Ministers for the huge amount of effort and time they are putting into this Bill—we all appreciate it greatly. I mention that because this is the first time I have been involved in Committee.

I am really determined to do something useful in promoting prevention on Report, but I take the points made by the Minister, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Amendments 28 and 29 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 8: Reports

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

30: Clause 8, page 5, line 16, after “to” insert “Parliament and to”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the Commissioner would report to both the Secretary of State and Parliament.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, this suite of amendments tackles the issue of who the commissioner should report to. The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I all agree that the commissioner should report directly to Parliament. Reports of this kind and their recommendations should be in the public domain and acted on. Reports do no good whatever in the Secretary of State’s in-tray or, sadly, like so many others, gathering dust on a shelf.

The only issue we slightly differ on is how the sensitivity of information published should be dealt with. Clause 8 requires the commissioner to send a draft of any report to the Secretary of State before it is published, and the Secretary of State can direct the commissioner to omit material from the report if he thinks it might jeopardise someone’s safety or the investigation or prosecution of an offence.

The solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is to make it the responsibility of the commissioner to ensure that there is nothing of this nature in the report. After all, given the weight of responsibility already invested in the role, it would surely be a rookie error to allow something of this nature to be published, unless there is another reason why the Secretary of State would need to see it first; perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. We have all been assured that this is the only reason and that the Secretary of State does not have the power to omit anything else. But might knowing the contents of the report before publication be helpful in a political sense?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I have chosen a different solution to ensure that no prejudicial material is inadvertently included in any report produced by the commissioner. We would still require the commissioner to send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State but would avoid delaying publication of recommendations by requiring a response relating to any proposed changes within 28 days. I am minded to trust the commissioner not to make a mistake of this nature in the first place, but if it gives the Government comfort, this is a compromise I hope they would be more willing to accept.

Finally, Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, requires the commissioner to make an annual report directly to Parliament—a requirement that we of course endorse. I look forward to hearing the thinking behind the amendments in his name.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

We have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said, four amendments in this group. Amendment 31 provides that the domestic abuse commissioner may report to Parliament on any matter relating to domestic abuse, rather than to the Secretary of State. Amendment 45 provides for the commissioner to make an annual report to Parliament, once again instead of the Secretary of State.

The Bill states that the Secretary of State may direct the commissioner to omit material from a report if they believe that it may jeopardise a person’s safety or prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings. Amendments 32 and 48 would remove that power and instead provide that the commissioner must ensure that a report does not include any details that would jeopardise a person’s safety or prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings—surely something the commissioner should be capable of doing.

These amendments relate to the degree of independence that will be given to the domestic abuse commissioner. The Bill requires reports published by the commissioner to be submitted to the Secretary of State rather than Parliament and, in the case of reports other than the annual report, a draft to be sent to the Secretary of State beforehand. Our amendments seek to change that situation and, in so doing, enhance the independence of the domestic abuse commissioner.

Our amendments would significantly reduce the ability of the Home Office to amend or delay not only the commissioner’s reports, which they will be seeing beforehand in draft, but the commissioner’s work and activities, or otherwise apply undue pressure. Meanwhile, they would ensure the accountability of the commissioner to Parliament.

That independence from the Home Office is needed, and should be seen to be the case. One of the roles of the domestic abuse commissioner—and it is only one—in standing up for victims and survivors and raising public awareness will include considering the Government’s role and effectiveness in tackling domestic abuse. The key department concerned—although not the only one—will be the Home Office, with the policies it pursues relating to domestic abuse issues and their impact in relation to, for example, migrant women. The domestic abuse commissioner will also formulate policies and strategies, and this aspect needs to be seen to be beyond undue influence by government and officials.

The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that the domestic abuse commissioner report directly to Parliament. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill did not think the commissioner should be responsible to the Home Office and recommended a clear, direct accountability to Parliament as an assurance of the commissioner’s independence from government. The Joint Committee also proposes that the commissioner should be given power to appoint staff independently, albeit on Civil Service terms and conditions.

Both the Children’s Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner have said that greater independence for the domestic abuse commissioner is desirable, based on their experience. Witnesses before the Joint Committee on the draft Bill were unanimous that the commissioner would need to be demonstrably independent of government.

17:00

There seems no reason why the specific issues on which the Secretary of State can direct the commissioner to omit material from a report should not be a responsibility that is given to the commissioner, as provided for in these amendments. As it is at the moment, if there is a difference of view between the Secretary of State and the commissioner over whether material in a report jeopardises a person’s safety or prejudices ongoing criminal proceedings, it would appear that the Secretary of State’s view prevails, rather than having any independent reviewer; that clearly could be a source of difficulty and friction.

Incidentally, the former anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Hyland, has said that where such reports required prior approval by the Secretary of State, they had to go through a lengthy process of negotiation with, and modification by, officials, with the final report not necessarily fully representing his views. That is quite a sobering thought.

The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to issue a framework document, which the Secretary of State can then revise. The framework document deals with matters relating to the commissioner, including matters relating to governance, funding and staffing, matters relating to the exercise of functions of the commissioner, and matters relating to scrutiny of the commissioner’s activities by Parliament. The commissioner is required to have regard to this document when exercising any of the commissioner’s functions.

I appreciate that the amendments to which I am speaking do not cover that particular aspect, but it is another issue concerning the independence of the commissioner. Those powers, in relation to the framework document, would seem to give the Secretary of State considerable influence over what the commissioner does and how it is done. While the Secretary of State cannot issue the framework document without the agreement of the commissioner, it is not clear what happens if there is a disagreement over its content—the commissioner and the Secretary of State are hardly equal parties if it does come to a disagreement.

In our view, all these considerations simply make the case for the objectives of the amendments to which I am speaking in relation to the independence of the domestic abuse commissioner. The domestic abuse commissioner not only needs to be independent of government but needs to be seen to be independent of government. That is not what is provided for in this Bill as it stands.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I agree very much with the line that he took. I anticipated that I would, and that is why I was glad to add my name to a couple of these amendments.

It is essential—and indeed it was really the underlying substance of my noble friend the Minister’s response to the last debate—that the commissioner is independent. To give the Home Secretary the power to censor a report is, certainly from my point of view, a step too far. Parliament should have a role here, and a central role.

Although there are slight divergences between the amendment to which I am giving my support and the amendment admirably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, they are very similar, and she indicated that. Effectively, they are probing amendments. I have always believed that, for the most part, it is best if we do not have Divisions in Committee, so that we can hear what noble Lords have to say, the Minister can hear the points that are made and we can achieve, I hope, a degree of consensus by the time we come to Report.

I certainly could not support the supremacy, in the way that it stands at the moment, of the Home Secretary, and the ability, effectively, to call in—and, as I said at the beginning, to censor—a report. The commissioner must be someone in whom we repose a very high degree of trust, and who can report without fear or favour. I believe that the commissioner should report to Parliament, where we can guarantee that there will be proper scrutiny. Although I accept the important role of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place—as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, that committee has itself recommended a report to Parliament—I have always been a great believer in Joint Committees of both Houses, especially when there is such a degree of expertise, to which I do not claim any, in your Lordships’ House. We have heard during the course of the debates today—I have listened to all of them—and the debates on Monday, that there really is a degree of expertise, and a depth of expertise, that the other Chamber can complement but not really surpass. So a Joint Committee might be a very good idea. Whatever final decision is made by your Lordships’ House and the other place on that, the centrality of Parliament’s role should be emphasised by underlining the autonomy and independence of the commissioner. She must not be seen to be a creature of government; her independence is vital.

I very much hope that, when my noble friend comes to reply to this debate, he will recognise the importance of Parliament’s role, and how crucial it is that the commissioner is someone in whom we can repose trust and someone who feels she can speak without fear or favour. I hope that, as a result of our discussions this afternoon, when we do come to Report, it will be possible for us to take a consensual and collective view that reinforces the importance, independence and integrity of the commissioner and, at the same time, the important role that Parliament should play.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I suspect that the Minister may tell us that Parliament will be quite adequately and properly involved, because the Secretary of State who sponsors—I think that is the term—the commissioner is accountable to Parliament.

Noble Lords who have spoken have all made the point about independence being absolutely crucial. We have already debated that in the context of the budget, particularly the other day, and the provision of staff, and of course it was central to the proposal that the commissioner’s title include the word “independent”. The Government have recognised that—not so far as to accept any amendments but they have recognised the point—and, I hope, the point about the commissioner being seen to be independent, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has made today and I think I made on Monday, as I certainly intended to.

Our amendments propose reports going to both the Secretary of State and Parliament because, by nature and inclination, my noble friend and I want to find a way through this that might satisfy everybody. As my noble friend said, it is not unknown for Ministers not to respond promptly to draft reports and other material. In fact, I had Kevin Hyland’s experience in mind when we prepared these amendments. I am personally not wedded to 28 days. What is important is that there is a fairly tight maximum time limit.

On Amendment 35, I have thought about the situation a little more since we tabled the amendments. The commissioner is not actually required to give advice or assistance: “may” is the term in both Clause 9(1) and Clause 9(2), although there is a “must” about publishing advice to any person other than the Secretary of State—that is in Clause 9(4). I am a little worried about whether the prospect of advice being required to be published might constrain people other than the Secretary of State from seeking advice. So, as well as wondering why non-Secretaries of State are not on the same footing as the Secretary of State for this purpose, I am actually a bit concerned about the provision.

Is Clause 9(2) itself actually necessary—that is, the subsection which says that the commissioner may advise or assist someone else—especially as we are told that the list of powers at Clause 7(2) is not an exhaustive list? Can someone seek advice or assistance without it being published? There must be many situations in which that would be appropriate. Also, can the commissioner omit matters listed in Clause 9(6) of his or her own volition? Surely, they can. We have all been talking on the basis that the commissioner can and would do so, but it is a matter of the Secretary of State’s direction, which I find a little curious, in addition to the points made by other noble Lords. I hope the Minister can answer these questions, which, perhaps, go behind some of the words in the Bill, as well as the overarching issues raised by these amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I support a number of the comments she made and I look forward to the answers. I particularly support the amendments in the group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, signed by my noble friend Lord Cormack and others. At another time and in another place, I chaired a Select Committee—on a completely different subject from that before us today—and the annual reports from organisations such as, in this case, the domestic abuse commissioner, are extremely important to Back-Bench Members of Parliament, giving them the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the work undertaken by these bodies.

I believe that these amendments are extremely important. To be honest, I do not know what the situation is if a report is simply made to the Secretary of State, rather than being made more freely available. If a report is made to Parliament, then Parliament and Select Committees have the right to debate it, either in Select Committee or on the Floor of the House, depending on the importance of the contents and of that particular body. I also underline that in other Bills that have come before the House in recent times—looking forward to Committee on the Environment Bill, I am sure this will be commented on again in respect of the Office for Environmental Protection—it is essential that a body such as the domestic abuse commissioner should operate independently of the Secretary of State and the department.

17:15

That became extremely clear in our discussions on the trade and agriculture commission, and I am delighted to say that the Government listened, and we now have a new trade and agriculture commission coming in that will be, in my view, more independent. I add that it is not just independence for the domestic abuse commissioner; she should also have proper resources and staff to ensure that she is able to fulfil her functions without having to go back regularly to request more authorisation from the Secretary of State.

I would be interested to know whether there is any reason why the Bill, as currently drafted, limits the submission of the report to the Secretary of State or whether there was a position of principle taken as to why it would not be made to Parliament alone. However, I am sure that if this debate were to be held, as it will be if an amendment is carried on Report, I am very confident that Back-Bench Members of the other place will be just as keen as we are in your Lordships’ House to ensure that the report is provided to Parliament as the basis for debate and to ensure the commissioner’s independence from the department and operational independence from the Secretary of State. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s summing up on this small group.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will not be as brief on this group as I was in the previous group. I very much support Amendments 31, 32 and 48 in the name of my noble friend and I simply do not see why the Secretary of State wants such a controlling role over the commissioner. The first commissioner is clearly a person of substance, and we would expect the successors to be persons of substance. I want to explore a bit of the detail. If we do not have openness and transparency, frankly, we will not engender confidence from the media, opinion formers, legislators or potential victims of domestic abuse. It is pretty crucial. Without openness and transparency, confidence is at risk. Let us think about this because, on Monday evening, the Minister admitted, after one of my questions, that the accounting officer function rests with the Home Secretary, not the commissioner.

In addition to my time at the Food Standards Agency, I worked in six government departments over 12 years, and I can assure noble Lords that, on more than one occasion sitting in on meetings, I heard the words uttered by a person in the room, where there was a dispute going on, “This is an accounting officer function, and this is what I have decided.” In the main, I tended to go along with that: obviously, it was usually the perm sec. It is a killer point to make in any dispute that a department might have with one of its other bodies, and it is not about money. The title is actually not quite right here, because it is the accounting officer who ends up before the Public Accounts Committee—again, accounts—but it looks at the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the function and the role; it does not look just at the pounds, shillings and pence, if I can put it that way.

Then you have to look at the staff. It was agreed by Ministers on Monday that the commissioner’s staff would be Home Office civil servants. It is clear that they will be civil servants, but I have not worked out why they have to be from the Home Office. It ought to be possible for civil servants from across Whitehall to apply to be on the staff of the domestic abuse commissioner. They will be a small group, so will one of them be the legal adviser to the domestic abuse commissioner? Will she have a legal team of her own, made up of Home Office civil servants giving her advice—from the lawyer to the client—about the functions set out in subsection (4)(a) and (b)? Of course, it might be that the budget put together by the Home Secretary does not allow for a legal team for the commissioner, who will then have to make use of the Home Office legal team, which I should imagine is pretty extensive. Where is the client-lawyer relationship when the commissioner might be in dispute with the Home Secretary about what is to be admitted, or not admitted as the case may be?

I freely admit that some of these questions go beyond the clause, but I want to be practical about the situation that will arise if there is a problem. I know nothing about the problems of other commissioners as regards legal disputes. I assume that in most cases the Permanent Secretary of the department will be the accounting officer, so they will have the final word. I can assure noble Lords that it is pretty powerful in Whitehall when other civil servants hear the accounting officer assert their role. I am therefore not sure, if the position is as I have painted it, whether one could use the word “independence” in terms of the domestic abuse commissioner in any way, shape or form, unless some of these amendments are carried forward into the Bill. I will leave it there.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) (V)]

My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Even when he speaks for a bit longer than previously, his words are full of expertise and to the point.

When I looked through these amendments, I was particularly attracted to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. I agree that Parliament should be much involved in these reports, so I looked a bit further and noted that Clause (8)(6) states

“The Commissioner must arrange for a copy of any report published under this section to be laid before Parliament.”


I have been listening intently to the debate and trying to find out why, if it is to go before Parliament in any case, according to the Bill, there is a need for the amendment.

I agree that it is down to Parliament to decide whether it is debated, perhaps in a Select Committee, and echo the points made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. On this issue and indeed on so much else, there is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House that it would be meritorious to do that—or indeed on the Floor of either or both Houses. Presumably in previous times it would have been very much for the Government and the business managers to arrange that, but these days in the other place there are various avenues for Select Committee and other reports to be debated. I am not entirely sure whether there is a need for these amendments as such. One thing that comes into all this, I suggest, is that there is always mistrust about why things are being put in. Perhaps subsection (6) could be looked at so that it says something like, “the commissioner must arrange for a copy of any report published under this section to be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is reported to the Secretary of State.” There would be no question of the report being held back from Parliament.

My other point relates to the phrase

“The Secretary of State may direct the Commissioner to omit material”.


My noble friend Lord Cormack was technically correct when he said “censor”, but we might call it redaction because in some cases it would be wise to do that. I cannot imagine that someone with the expertise of the commissioner would do that, but it is there. However, I also note that before the Secretary of State does so, the commissioner has to be consulted. The real point of what we are discussing is independence, as other speakers have said. I echo the concerns I had when we considered the Modern Slavery Act. If I remember correctly, we had to insert the term “independent anti-slavery commissioner” to try to convince people that it was in fact an independent position. However, as we know, the commission relies on the Home Office for its financing, staffing and so on. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, we will certainly have similar discussions when we come to consider the Environment Bill and the chair of the office for environmental protection.

The calibre of the candidates who will fulfil these roles should mean that they will feel independent. However, if I had a cynical streak—I am afraid to say that it does occur from time to time—I might say that it would probably be better if the commissioner served their term and was not up for reappointment. I cannot help feeling that if someone thinks, “Am I going to be reappointed or not?”, it might just curb some of their exuberance for making comments or giving directions that they feel the Home Office, in this case, would not like.

I remain slightly sceptical about whether these amendments are required and look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says. I have not yet made up my mind about whether, when the Bill comes to Report, I would support some of these amendments if no changes have been made. However, I feel that noble Lords are perhaps being a little too cynical about the intentions in these provisions.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) (V)]

My Lords, the contribution just made by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, was very interesting. He stressed the importance of independence but then implied, or said directly, that noble Lords may be being overly cynical about the Government’s intentions with regard to the independence of the commissioner. I say to him that there is good evidence for being cautious about any changes to what the Bill contains which might inhibit the commissioner’s independence.

My noble friend Lord Rooker spoke with great authority, both as a distinguished leader of the Food Standards Agency and, as he said, having served in six departments over 12 years. I too served in six departments, in a slightly shorter time. What I would echo is the important role of the accounting officer. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and to my noble friend makes me think that the whole structure of governance and arrangements for the commissioner perhaps need to be revisited on Report. At the moment, we are debating a series of amendments in different groups when I think we need a more concerted debate to look at the whole architecture of the commissioner, their independence, their relationship with the Home Office and issues to do with funding and staffing. At the moment, I feel that we do not quite have a grip on that.

17:30

On the specific amendments, I want to comment on the commissioner reporting to the Secretary of State and their relationship to Parliament. I have no doubt that the Minister will say—and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to this point in the Bill—that the commissioner, having reported to the Secretary of State, must arrange for a copy of any report published under the section we are debating to be laid before Parliament. That is well and good, but my concern is that many reports are laid before Parliament every day. The minutes of our proceedings often contain long lists of papers laid before the House that are not subject to parliamentary proceedings—which is how a report from the commissioner would be treated.

Look at the minutes of proceedings of the House last Thursday. Nine papers are listed nine papers: the accounts of the Great Britain National Insurance Fund; the accounts of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund; the accounts of the Dartford-Thurrock river crossing charging scheme; Dame Shirley Pearce’s Independent Review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework, volumes 1 and 2; the report and accounts of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority; the report and accounts of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; the report and accounts of the Money and Pensions Service; the report and accounts of the Valuation Tribunal Service; and the report and financial statements of the Money Advice Service.

Now, these are worthy reports that I am sure are of great interest to the organisations concerned. But how many of us ever get to see them and—to take up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—how many are debated? Very few indeed. If a report is laid before your Lordships’ House in this way by the commissioner, there is no guarantee—in fact it is very unlikely—that there will be any mechanism for debating it. It just does not happen that way. This is not just about what is in the Bill; there are some general principles here. Where people hold important posts, such as the domestic abuse commissioner, there needs to be a better way to engage them in Parliament alongside the Select Committees. This is partly to do with the Bill, but also the way that Parliament deals with this itself.

This has been a short but important debate about the architecture underpinning the domestic abuse commissioner. I think noble Lords need to come together to reflect on whether the Bill is right and whether, on Report, we need to look again at ensuring the robust independence of this postholder.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt of Solihull and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out these amendments so clearly.

Clauses 8 and 14 of the Bill provide for the domestic abuse commissioner to report to the Home Secretary on any matters relating to domestic abuse and for the preparation and publication of an annual report. These reports could cover a range of different issues about domestic abuse. While it will be for the commissioner to determine what aspects of domestic abuse to examine and report on, it is likely that reports published under Clauses 8 and 14 will emerge from the commissioner’s strategic plan, which we will be debating later in Committee.

We think it is entirely proper for the domestic abuse commissioner to report to the Home Secretary. That is the case with other public bodies and officeholders who report to Ministers rather than Parliament. The domestic abuse commissioner will have day-to-day operational independence from Ministers, with responsibility for setting her own work plans and reaching her own conclusions. A number of noble Lords, understandably, wanted to probe this point and talk about the role of Parliament.

Although the commissioner will not be directly accountable to Parliament under the Bill, she will need to develop an effective relationship with Members in another place and your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, she is therefore very likely to be asked to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place and to other committees of both Houses. To reinforce the commissioner’s direct link to Parliament, the commissioner must arrange to lay her reports and strategic plans before Parliament—as my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Randall of Uxbridge both noted—rather for this to be done via the Home Secretary. It is therefore open to Parliament to debate those reports, if it so wishes. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rather proved the point about the vigilance of your Lordships’ House by noting and listing the large number of reports which it is open to Parliament to examine and debate, if it so wishes.

The fact that the commissioner is accountable to the Home Secretary in no way compromises her independence. The independence of a statutory officeholder is assured by both the terms of the legislative framework under which they operate and the way that they conduct themselves in office. I am sure noble Lords would agree that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, was no less independent when he was the reviewer of terrorism legislation by virtue of his being accountable to the Home Office; nor was the independence of my noble friend Lady Newlove compromised by being accountable to the Secretary of State for Justice when she held the office of Victims’ Commissioner; and nor was that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he was chairman of the Youth Justice Board. Happily, there are many such examples in your Lordships’ House that one could cite.

More pertinently, I refer noble Lords to the comments made by Nicole Jacobs when she gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place. She was asked about this issue by the honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the Member for Kingston upon Hull North. Nicole Jacobs said:

“I feel confident about the hosting at the Home Office … I fully intend to be independent … I do not feel hindered in any way in the process to date, in terms of my independence.”––[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 29/10/19; col. 9.]


Given that commitment from the commissioner herself, we expect the thematic reports produced by her to provide robust, challenging advice and recommendations. These reports will form a fundamental part of her work and play a central role in discharging her functions under Clause 7. These include encouraging good practice in the prevention of domestic abuse, and protecting and supporting victims and their children. As well as identifying and publicising good practice, the reports will, importantly, be a means for her to highlight areas where improvement is needed.

Clause 8 requires that the commissioner’s reports made under this section must be published and that, before publication, the commissioner, under subsection (3), must send a draft to the Home Secretary. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, the reason for sending these drafts is so that the Home Secretary can consider whether she needs to exercise her very limited power to direct the removal of material that could risk someone’s safety or which might prejudice any investigation or prosecution of an offence.

Clauses 9 and 14 contain similar provisions about redacting sensitive material from any advice published under that clause. There are only very restricted circumstances under which the Home Secretary can direct that material be omitted from a report. The power is both limited and very narrowly focused. It is not right to say, as my noble friend Lord Cormack characterised it, that the Home Secretary would have the power to censor reports. The Home Secretary can require information to be omitted only where its publication could jeopardise the safety of any person or where the information might prejudice an ongoing criminal or civil investigation or prosecution.

We have also included further safeguards in the draft framework document, which we have agreed with the commissioner and published alongside the Bill. This sets out, at paragraphs 4.8 to 4.11, a clear process and timelines for resolving any disputes about the need to redact material from a report. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about legal advice, Home Office legal advisers could not provide advice to the commissioner, because that would be a conflict of interest as they also advise the Home Office. So, yes, it would be for the commissioner to use her budget to pay for her legal advice.

In addition, following recommendations by the Joint Committee to protect the commissioner’s independence —and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that that area has rightly been given a lot of attention in Committee so far—we have also placed a duty on the Home Secretary to consult the commissioner before directing her to remove any information from a report. I hope that answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about what would happen if there was a difference of views. Certainly in my experience as an adviser in Government, if independent commissioners disagree with the Government, they find a way to make sure that that is publicly known. As my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge says, the calibre of candidates whom we attract assures this. But we would be happy to take a fresh look at the relevant provisions of the framework document to see if they could be further tightened. I hope noble Lords will welcome that commitment.

I should stress that, apart from this narrow provision, the content of any report, including the judgments contained therein, is entirely a matter for the commissioner, however challenging her findings and recommendations may be for the Government. We want these reports to be hard-hitting where they need to be, as well as celebrating and sharing good practice wherever that is to be found. In short, these narrow provisions do not in any sense compromise the independence of the commissioner.

Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt of Solihull, would require that any advice given by the commissioner to the Secretary of State be published, in the same way that the commissioner is required to publish advice given to any other person following a request made under Clause 9(2).

To answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Clause 9(4) is drafted as it is for a reason. In the interests of transparency and spreading good practice, we think it is right that any advice from the commissioner to a person other than the Secretary of State should be published. The commissioner would, of course, have to frame that advice accordingly, knowing that it was to be published.

However, the relationship between the commissioner and the Secretary of State is of a different kind. The Home Office, as the sponsoring department, will be in regular contact with the commissioner and her office, and there is likely to be a steady and regular flow of what could be taken as requests for advice; for instance, in relation to things such as staffing and budgetary matters, as well as policy questions. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate for all the responses to requests such as those to be published.

For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has amendments on the Order Paper which relate to the duty to co-operate with the commissioner. I understand that those have been proposed by the commissioner. To help us understand the case for these amendments, officials have asked for further information about them. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that that is a sensible exchange for the Government to have, but regular exchanges of advice such as this, between the Home Office and the commissioner’s office, are of a different kind from the advice that might be requested by a third party under Clause 9(2).

There will, of course, be occasions where the commissioner is providing set-piece advice—if I might call it that—to the Secretary of State. In such cases, she can set that out in a Clause 8 report, which must be published, so that discretion lies with the commissioner if she judges it important.

We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between transparency and the efficient conduct of business between the commissioner’s office and the government departments that she needs to interact with. I hope that, in the light of that explanation and the commitment to look again at the terms of the framework document, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thought the noble Lord would not be able to respond to my question about whether advice to someone other than the Secretary of State has to be published. Just after I pressed send, he came to that point, but may I pursue it a little?

From what he said, I think that it would be open to the commissioner to redact part of the advice that is published—it certainly should be. However, there is a power of direction for the Secretary of State. As other noble Lords have alluded to, there are bits of the relationship which we are seeking to fill in, if you like, through these debates. Do the Government not take the point that there may be occasions when it would not be appropriate to publish advice at all—not just about an individual but perhaps a piece of work which it would not be appropriate to publish at that moment? We may need to look at what is meant by “advice” and “assistance”—I do not know where the demarcation line is between the two. I do not expect the Minister to get into the semantics now, but I may look at the semantics after today.

17:45

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am glad to have answered the initial question from the noble Baroness. On her second, I think the semantics are probably best considered between now and Report. It is a role of the commissioner to publicise and share best practice, which is why the advice that she gives under these clauses should rightly be made public, and why her criticisms should also be aired publicly. I am sure it will be at her discretion not to include any information which could be harmful, and not to publish a report if she thought that that was the case. As the noble Baroness said, the semantic difference between “advice” and “assistance” can be pondered between now and Report.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It never ceases to amaze me, when I read an amendment which sounds like a simple matter, that other noble Lords come at it from different angles, with different issues and perspectives. All of a sudden, we are in a whole different ball game, so I am grateful to everyone who has managed to confuse me this evening.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who emphasised the independence of the commissioner from the Home Office. On the whole issue of reports to the Secretary of State and reports and advice to other individuals, I agree with my noble friend Lady Hamwee that we should take that away and, in conjunction with the Minister, think about exactly how that should be written into the Bill to the best effect for everyone.

Other noble Lords have raised too many issues to go into this evening, so I will finish with the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: we should listen to what the Minister has said, digest it and take it away, because at Report, we will be in a better position and will have rehearsed and discussed the arguments. We may well reserve the right to come forward with an amendment at that stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendments 31 to 33 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 34. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

34: Clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Commissioner must publish a report under this section, which—(a) investigates the impact of Universal Credit single household payments on victims of domestic abuse; and (b) investigates and presents alternative options for the payment of Universal Credit (single household payments) that protect victims of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a legal duty on the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to investigate the payment of Universal Credit separately to members of a couple and to lay a report to Parliament.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 34 would require the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate the payment of universal credit separately for members of a couple and to lay a report before Parliament. I will first speak to Amendment 153, which would require an impact assessment of any future social security reforms on domestic abuse victims, because this frames the other amendments in the group.

I am grateful to Women’s Aid, Refuge and the Chartered Institute of Housing for their help with the various amendments, which address issues they see as crucial. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have put their name to them, as well as to DWP Ministers for a helpful meeting this week.

At Second Reading, the Minister explained that one of the Bill’s objectives is

“to improve performance across local and national agencies.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 21.]

This reflects the Istanbul convention’s stipulation that measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence against women and girls should involve

“all relevant actors, such as government agencies”.

Pursuing a similar theme, the Work and Pensions Committee argued:

“Getting the right support and systems in place for Universal Credit claimants … could play a small, vital role in minimising harm”,


and that the DWP

“has a moral duty to ensure the benefit system does not in any way facilitate abuse.”

Yet the Bill does not mention social security, even though the draft guidance notes:

“DWP employees are highly likely to come into contact with victims of domestic abuse”,


and the response to the Joint Committee report acknowledged that

“access to money is one of the main barriers to ending an abusive relationship”.

Indeed, over 50% of survivors surveyed by Women’s Aid and the TUC said that they could not afford to leave their abuser as they faced a stark choice between safety and poverty, heightened during the pandemic. Research by Women’s Aid and others shows how while the social security system, as a vital safety net, can “keep some survivors going”, it can also create barriers and an additional source of stress in the aftermath of abuse.

The DWP is to be commended for certain easements and exemptions for domestic abuse victims and survivors, and for domestic abuse training of one point of contact in each office. But I understand that there are difficulties in retaining this knowledge and expertise in jobcentres because of staff turnover. Can the Minister follow up in writing with information about how widespread a problem this is and what provision exists to refresh training, and respond to Women’s Aid’s request for the future full training of all work coaches.

More fundamentally, the very welcome inclusion of economic abuse in the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse will be undermined by the cumulative impact of some of the Government’s own social security reforms, including the two-child limit and bedroom tax, as well as those that are covered by other amendments in this group. It is worth noting here that the European Court on Human Rights ruled last year that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminates against victims of domestic abuse who have a panic room as part of a sanctuary scheme. Women’s Aid has discovered from FoI responses from 79 local authorities that almost one in 20 households using the sanctuary scheme has been affected by the bedroom tax. Yet nothing has been done to rectify this. Can the Minister explain why, if necessary in writing?

When a similar amendment was tabled in the Commons, the Minister responded that the Government were already obliged to consider the impacts of their policies through existing equality assessments, in line with the public sector equality duty. But as a Women’s Budget Group report noted, DWP equality impact assessments are very limited from a gender perspective and do nothing to assess, for instance, the impact on who in a couple controls resources, on the financial security and autonomy each enjoys, or on the ability to escape an abusive relationship. Surely it makes sense to consider such key implications for the Government’s domestic abuse strategy at the design stage of social security policy.

The case is exemplified in particular by the subject of the lead amendment. The payment of UC into a single account, even if a joint account, has been described by one commentator as “a weapon for abusers”. It can encourage and exacerbate economic abuse, potentially with long-term consequences. No one is arguing that separate payments are a solution to economic abuse, as Ministers often suggest we are, in response to criticism of this policy. But, as the Economic Affairs Committee pointed out in its recent report on UC,

“the design of the single household payment can, in certain circumstances, exacerbate the risk that financial coercion may take place and make it more difficult for people who have suffered from any form of abuse to escape.”

The committee also points out that payment into a single account

“does not reflect reality for many families today, who are used to both partners having their own income … This is important both for reducing the risks of financial coercion and domestic abuse more widely and for encouraging more balanced and equal relationships.”

This last point addresses the Government’s argument that separate payments would be out of line with how most couples manage their finances. I point out that according to a Refuge and Co-op survey, as many as 16% self-reported experiencing economic abuse; this is equivalent to 9 million people.

The chief executive of SafeLives told the Commons committee that

“split payments are something that everyone across the whole sector is crying out for.”

That organisation knows from experience that the current policy of allowing domestic abuse victims to request a split payment simply does not work, not least because it puts victims at risk, because the abusing partner would immediately guess why they are not getting the full payment for the family, or could easily discover the reason. Indeed, the operational guidance acknowledges the risk.

From the Minister’s responses in Committee in the Commons, she did not seem to understand this. When asked:

“Can the Minister not see the problem with a woman going in and asking for a split payment, and then returning home that evening?”,


she responded:

“That is why we do not have it as a default.”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 376.]


But if a separate payment were the default, the abuser could not blame the abused because the couple would be treated like everyone else. The Joint Committee recommended nearly two years ago that the DWP,

“should examine how different approaches to splitting the Universal Credit single household payment might mitigate against the effects of domestic abuse.”

The most recent of a series of such recommendations from parliamentary committees and others comes from the Economic Affairs Committee, which, like others, suggests that any review could draw on work being undertaken in Scotland.

Welcome as the decision to encourage joint payment into the bank account of the main carer is, it is not seen as the answer by those on the ground and does not help those without children. The consensus is that a review is still needed—hence, this amendment, which would allow for an independent, focused review that could take a detailed look at the evidence on how joint payments are working and consider the options for separate payments, which I know raise complex issues.

I turn to the other amendments, which are examples of how policies that have had a wider damaging impact could be mitigated for domestic abuse survivors. This is not the place to make the wider case against these policies, much as I should like to, but a precedent for exempting this group from them already exists in the job search easement. I trust that that will not be used as an argument against these amendments.

Amendment 150 would exempt domestic abuse survivors from having to repay any benefit advance made to protect them from the effects of having to wait at least five weeks for a first UC payment. The Economic Affairs Committee observed that this wait

“is the primary cause of insecurity in universal credit. It entrenches debt, increases poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately.”

While, as I said, the Bill cannot be a vehicle for introducing the general non-repayable grant recommended by the committee and others, including the Joint Committee, the particular vulnerability that domestic abuse survivors face at the point of claiming justifies their exemption from repaying the advance. Think about it. If I had just fled an abusive situation, I could well be traumatised and have minimal possessions with me, and may need to replace essential items. I could be one of the nearly three out of five survivors of economic abuse identified in Refuge research as already in debt because of the abuse—an average debt of over £3,000, and over a quarter with debts of over £5,000. I could be one of the three out of five survivors that Surviving Economic Abuse found had been subject to at least one coerced debt. The last thing I would want would be to add to that debt through a repayable grant, even though it is interest-free and despite the welcome improvements made to the repayment terms, which, I am afraid, do not solve the problem.

18:00

One counter argument put by the Government is that waiving repayment could lead to fraud. While there is no evidence that women would falsely claim to have been abused, Refuge suggests that legal aid evidence requirements could be applied. There are also the existing evidence requirements for the job-search easement. One survivor told Refuge:

“I don't know if they understand the impact that it has when you have to wait so long ... if they realised the additional pressure that it puts on women who are fleeing, I think maybe they would try and do something”.

This amendment is an attempt to do something.

Similarly, Amendment 152, combined with Amendment 190, is an attempt to mitigate the impact on abuse survivors of the benefit cap, which limits the amount of benefit payable by introducing a time-limited exemption of 12 months for this group. I know the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Best, will bring their considerable experience to bear on this, so I will be brief.

The cap erects yet another barrier to escaping an abusive relationship. Again, the Economic Affairs Committee cites evidence of its disproportionate impact on domestic abuse survivors and how it can create a situation in which they feel forced to return to the abuser in order to survive financially. CPAG reports how the cap has been hurting domestic abuse survivors during the pandemic, including one mother who is in severe financial distress because she has been subjected to the cap, having been furloughed.

The fact that the cap is not applied when a survivor is in temporary or supported accommodation such as a refuge shows that the principle of exempting domestic abuse survivors has been accepted. The problem is that application of the cap as soon as they try to enter the wider housing market, in urgent search of an affordable home, places survivors in an impossible situation and can trap them in a refuge or other such accommodation. Moreover, the Chartered Institute of Housing warns that landlords are often reluctant to rent to anyone who is capped.

Discretionary housing payments are not the answer, not least as they cannot be relied on, and, given that the Government do not monitor their use, they do not actually know whether they are an effective mechanism. In view of the trauma many survivors will still be experiencing, there is a strong argument for exempting them from the cap for a grace period, while they get settled in new accommodation.

In conclusion, I did not get a reply to my question at Second Reading about what discussions have taken place at DWP to ensure social security policy supports domestic abuse policy. I hope these amendments will convince the Minister of the need for such a discussion. As the Women’s Budget Group and domestic abuse organisations have documented, social security is letting down women living with an abusive partner when they try to leave and to build a new life. These amendments would go some way towards ensuring that the social security system supports the Government’s laudable aims on domestic abuse, particularly economic abuse, rather than undermining them, as it does now.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords I rise to support Amendments 34, 150 and 153, to which I have added my name, and the other amendments in this group—although, of course, they will ultimately have to be dealt with by the DWP. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling these important measures to raise the issues in question, and for her incredibly thorough presentation of the arguments, which enables me to be brief, people will be glad to know.

In particular, I hope the relevant Ministers will be sympathetic to Amendment 150, which would exempt domestic abuse survivors from having to repay benefit advances that had been made to mitigate the effects of waiting at least five weeks for the claimants’ first payments. We know that, for very many claimants, the repayment of advances through deductions from benefits renders them unable to cover their most basic costs, driving them into debt and dependency on food banks just to put some food on the table for their children.

It is appalling to imagine the implications of this extra financial squeeze for a parent with young children who is trying to create an independent life following domestic abuse. Of course, we can only focus on domestic abuse victims, but the profound problem for them arises because of a fundamental injustice in the universal credit system: the requirement for new claimants to wait for five weeks before they receive their first payment. We know that this period often extends to two months or even longer, for a variety of reasons; this is completely inhuman, in my view. This injustice leads to the essential advances, and to the need for this amendment—or, certainly, changes to the system and exemptions for people suffering domestic abuse.

I agree with Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I do not think the designers of universal credit thought of the victims of domestic abuse when they decided that benefits should be paid in a single household payment. What an opportunity for a controlling perpetrator to use their control over the household’s money to bully their partner to do just about anything they bid them to do. Surely it is right that the consequences of these payments for domestic abuse victims must be reviewed within one year of the passing of the Act. My only regret is that people are going to have to wait for a whole year before the Government even consider what, how and when they should do something about it.

Amendment 153 makes a lot of sense. The Department for Work and Pensions or its successor should, of course, consider the implications for domestic abuse victims of any social security reforms. Finally, Amendment 152 requires the benefit cap to be disapplied for 12 months for a person making a new universal credit claim in their own name when they have separated from a partner due to domestic abuse. Again, the main problem is the crudeness of the benefit cap. It takes no account of people’s circumstances. To top-slice a family’s benefits above an arbitrary level causes incredible hardship in all sorts of cases. However, when a parent with young children is trying to establish a new home, the one-off or short-term costs can be considerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made very clear. I hope the Secretary of State for the DWP and our own Minister will take these amendments and the issues behind them seriously.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for proposing Amendment 152, which it is my privilege to co-sponsor, and, indeed, for her excellent speech in opening the debate on this group of amendments. I also look forward to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Best, who knows more about housing matters than anyone it has ever been my pleasure to work with.

This amendment concerns the application of universal credit, so perhaps I need to say at the outset that the notion of a unified benefits system is one that I and, I suspect, my right reverend and most reverend friends on these Benches will heartily endorse. The mix and mess of the separate systems that it replaced was well overdue for retirement. There are, of course, proper questions about the level of such benefits and what caps, if any, should generally apply if we are to maintain a proper incentive to find work. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, indicated, those are for another day.

The amendment is simply about how far rules designed for the general context can safely be applied to the very specific circumstances of victims of domestic abuse and their dependants without those rules themselves becoming abusive. As a priest and, for two decades, a bishop in the established Church and as chair of numerous housing associations and housing charities over many years, I have seen all too often the enormous obstacles that lie ahead for anyone, especially a woman with children, fleeing domestic abuse. Too many too often give up and return to a place of damage and danger. Too many who escape face long periods in temporary and unsuitable accommodation, often beyond the point when they need the particular support services offered there. Sadly, too many die at the hands of their abuser.

The overriding purpose of the benefits system and of universal credit as its linchpin must be to help victims to make the transition for themselves and their children from the place of abuse via such short-term specialist accommodation as they require and into a settled home where they can begin to regain some normality in their lives. Only then can children be settled into schools with some hope of permanence, and a mother know what pattern of work will be practicable alongside her parenting responsibilities.

Capping as a feature of the benefits system was introduced primarily to encourage the take-up of employment. While some abuse victims have somehow managed to continue a successful work career—admirably so, even while being grossly mistreated at home—as we have heard in numerous speeches in this debate, it is all too common for a controlling partner to restrict or prevent their victim from accessing finance and the job market.

UK benefit rules already recognise that a woman fleeing abuse may not be in a position to seek work immediately. We cannot logically combine that proper yet modest degree of latitude with the blunt imposition of a benefit cap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the principle that different levels of benefit should apply is already accepted when it comes to specialist accommodation.

What this amendment seeks to do is extremely modest. It would allow a breathing period, while a new household was being formed, during which more lenient rules would be applied. I know that the plight of women fleeing abuse is dear to the heart of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I am grateful to her for steering this Bill through your Lordships’ House. I would be even more grateful were she able to offer some assurances that Her Majesty’s Government will look again at how the benefits system interfaces with our efforts to prevent domestic abuse and then propose specific amendments to that end.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I must begin, as others have, by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, both for tabling these amendments and for her excellent and comprehensive introduction to them. I shall speak to Amendment 34, in her name and signed also by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Sherlock. I also offer the Green Party’s strong support for Amendments 150, 152, 153 and 190. It is a pity that the systems of your Lordships’ House do not allow more than four signatures and so a chance to show the full breadth of political support for all amendments, particularly these very important ones.

I shall treat the amendments as a group because they very much fit together. I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her reference, in relation to Amendment 153, to the bedroom tax. It is worth highlighting again, in the age of Covid-19, the pernicious effects of forcing siblings into sharing rooms, with the impossibility of self-isolating should that be needed. Where households are fleeing domestic abuse, we should think about the impact that being forced to share rooms might have.

The noble Baroness said that the Government had a moral duty not to facilitate abuse, which she indicated was acknowledged. Even if we look at this issue simply on a financial scale, as some might want to do, we need to consider that the costs of keeping victims of domestic abuse and children in those families in situations of domestic abuse are enormous.

Amendments 150 and 152, which propose that the advance need not be repaid and that the benefit cap be not applied, relate to policies which are hugely damaging to everybody affected by them. Let us think about the domestic abuse situation. Others have focused on the negative impacts; I would invite the Committee to consider the positive impacts of the amendment. If the Government were to give way and this amendment were to be adopted, just think of the relief and the improvement in lives created for victims fleeing domestic abuse by being able to get that modest sum of money, not as an advance but as a payment that could meet essential needs in those five weeks before universal credit kicked in, with no debt burden applied afterwards as a result. If we were to think about simple measures that could be taken at very modest cost, that would be a great case study.

The benefit cap is a hideous, populist, nonsensical measure that plays to the worst of the tabloids. It is often suggested that people would not have children if the benefit cap were applied, but for those fleeing domestic abuse, in almost all cases, when they chose to bear those children, this would not have been at the forefront of their mind.

On Amendment 34, to which I have attached my name, there is a matter that I particularly want to address. In some ways, it could be argued that calling for a report on the impact of universal credit should be unnecessary, but it becomes obvious when thinking about the underlying assumption of universal credit being paid as a household payment. The assumption is that couples work in unison and unity, but that may well not be the case, and not only where domestic abuse happens. It is not reasonable to assume that all money that goes into a household is equally available, or available according to need, to all members of that household. Any kind of power imbalance—it does not need to go to the lengths of domestic abuse—means that there is unequal access to household resources. That is one reason why I very strongly believe in a universal basic income. It would give people agency and control over their lives.

18:15

It could be argued that such a report is not necessary, but I refer noble Lords to an excellent report from the Women’s Budget Group entitled Universal Credit and Financial Abuse: Exploring the Links. One element of it looks particularly at financial autonomy, which it defines as reflecting

“independence (having an independent income and a sense of ownership and not having to ask for money); privacy”,

being able to make your financial decisions without surveillance or oversight, and “agency”, which means simply having access to the money. If the Government were to announce that they plan to end the single payment immediately, we would not need this amendment at all. I can but live in hope.

I also want to raise an issue that has not been referred to by anyone else. It was raised by Women’s Aid in 2019 but I do not believe that it has been addressed, although I shall be delighted if the Minister can tell me that I am wrong. I refer to the need to have evidence of universal credit payments to access legal aid. At this point, I should perhaps declare my position on the APPG on Legal Aid. A blog on the Trussell Trust website in the middle of 2019 pointed out that, as it takes time—about five weeks—to get the evidence that universal credit is being received, people are not able to access legal aid, but in that time the victim of domestic abuse might well have to attend court, particularly if there are questions of child access and child residency. That is the nightmare situation for survivors: having escaped an abuser, they are then expected to represent themselves in the family courts and are not even able to have a representative who is not a lawyer to speak for them.

One more issue that I would like to raise is child benefit. It was a universal benefit won by pioneering women MPs in 1975 but, tragically, it was lost in 2013, when the universality was removed with, sadly, little attention or debate. This is applied by means of the high-income child benefit charge, and, from 1 April, it will hit some basic-rate taxpayers for the first time. Is the Minister able, either now or in writing, to address how the high-income child benefit charge interacts with victims of domestic abuse? Clearly, it is a very complex situation.

Again, we come back to the assumption that everyone in a household has access to the resources they need. Even if the household has adequate resources, that is not necessarily the case, and there does not have to be domestic abuse for that to be so. We need benefits for children and individuals—a universal basic income—but, in the meantime, the inclusion of all these amendments in the Bill would be a significant and important step, and I really hope that we will see movement from the Government on this issue.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, particularly Amendments 153, 150 and 34. As other noble Lords have, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett on her excellent introduction to this debate and her tireless campaigning on these issues. I will concentrate in my relatively brief contribution on how the social security system has changed over time to leave victims and survivors of domestic abuse in a worse situation.

At Second Reading, I spoke about a constituent who I had seen in the early 1990s, early in my parliamentary career. She was in her mid to late 60s and came to see me because she had suffered decades of physical and psychological abuse. She had no money and there was nobody with whom she could stay where she would be safe and where her husband would not find her. She had no access to money because her husband controlled all the finances. She had a small state pension, dependent on her husband’s national insurance contribution, but that was paid into the bank account that her husband was the sole controller of. At that point, we were able to assist her in applying for income support to provide money immediately for her to live on and pay for essentials. That claim was processed quickly. However, today she would have the challenge of making a new universal credit claim, facing a minimum five-week delay in payment. That delay means that many rely on food banks and other forms of charitable support. It is no wonder that survivors sometimes question their decision to leave the perpetrator. How can it possibly be right to say to a survivor who is fleeing domestic abuse that they must wait five weeks for a minimum income to be paid?

While survivors can request advances of universal credit to live on, as my noble friend pointed out, these are essentially loans, with repayments of up to 30% deducted from subsequent universal credit payments for up to a year. Research by Refuge found that the majority—57% of survivors of economic abuse—were in debt because of the abuse. This means that survivors fleeing to a new life are having to take on more debt if they apply for the advance. It is hardly surprising that some of them choose instead to live on nothing for at least five weeks for fear of getting into more debt. Refuge argues that survivors fleeing abuse should be exempt from paying back advances, in recognition of the impact of the economic abuse and the traumatic and expensive nature of fleeing an abuser. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill agreed that the five-week delay was damaging for survivors and recommended considering converting their advance payments into grants.

Refuge has been supporting women waiting for their first universal credit payment during the Covid-19 pandemic. A combination of food banks experiencing increased demand or scaling back operations and an inability of the survivor to shop around for low-cost food means that many women whom Refuge supports have struggled. Refuge itself has purchased food, using its already limited funds, to help these women. This is unsustainable and a stronger safety net for survivors of domestic abuse is required. Amendment 150 would exempt survivors of domestic abuse from repaying universal credit advances. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to how we might be able to take this forward.

To go back to my constituent, she did not face all those challenges, fortunately, although she faced many others. Because of the local authority, she was able to find somewhere to live in rented accommodation. She did not want to go into a refuge; she felt that it was not suitable for her. The accommodation was not brilliant and it needed repair, but she was safe. She was able to apply for the rent to be paid, which she received, and for emergency grants from social security to buy the basic essentials that she needed for the flat because, of course, she had absolutely nothing after fleeing the perpetrator.

My constituent had no dependent children. If she had dependent children, she would face the two-child limit and possibly the benefit cap. Survivors now face the invidious choice of cutting back on essential living expenses, such as food or heating, compromising their own and their children’s health, or falling into rent arrears and risking eviction because of the way in which the social security system works in relation to their experience.

The Chartered Institute of Housing has provided an excellent briefing—I am sure the Minister will have seen it—which clearly demonstrates that in some cases the abuser receives more money from the benefits system than the survivor when she flees that perpetrator. My constituent was above retirement age, but had she been of working age she would have had either to maintain her employment or to face questions around her availability for work, which is an impossible position. It is a very different world now, with untold challenges in the path of someone fleeing a perpetrator. Since 2010, some social security changes have tried to take account of the needs of survivors of domestic abuse, but unfortunately the limited exemptions and discretions and the interaction of the system simply put more hurdles in their way. Therefore, a fundamental review of the social security system and how it interacts with the reality and experience of those fleeing domestic abuse is crucial.

Finally, I briefly add my support for Amendment 34. Paying universal credit as a single payment into one bank account limits women’s financial independence and access to money. As others have said, it is used by perpetrators to gain immediate control of the entire household income. Survivors can request splits in payments between them and the perpetrator. However, this puts them at serious risk of further abuse, as the perpetrator inevitably finds out that the request has been made. Single payment as a default in universal credit desperately needs further investigation, particularly as it impacts on survivors of domestic abuse. It cannot be right that the social security system, perhaps unwittingly, traps women in abusive relationships or provides a financial advantage to their abuser when they try to flee that relationship. The Domestic Abuse Bill provides an opportunity to tackle this issue and allow victims of abuse to gain full access to the benefits system. My constituent got more help in 1990 than survivors of abuse do now. It is important that in supporting the objectives of the Bill the Government take forward a commitment fundamentally to reflect and investigate how the social security system works when survivors of domestic abuse seek its help and to ensure that those barriers are removed. I therefore support these amendments and sincerely hope that the Minister, who I know is utterly committed to the Bill, will find a way to bring this vital element to bear in achieving the objectives that she so clearly wants to achieve in the Bill.

18:30

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too wish to mention the brilliant introduction to this group of amendments by my noble friend Lady Lister. I was also completely moved by the speech of my noble friend Lady Primarolo, whose experience I shared in the other place.

Universal credit is complex. It came about after I left the House of Commons and I do not do constituency surgeries any more, but is it working well? I think it was in 2018, as what I might call a floating member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments at a time when extra members were needed, that I saw first-hand the inability of the DWP to take on board some of the issues.

I have a very brief cautionary tale about universal credit from first-hand experience. Late last year I received a note from the family of a former constituent. They are in Australia, and they were getting hassle from the DWP about debt relating to a Social Fund loan in 1994. The couple in Australia were informed that they were claiming universal credit and that the debt would be taken from their payments each month. It did not take me long to get that sorted—about a month—but when I thought it was all closed, they received more letters demanding repayments.

The alleged debt was from 1994; they have been in Australia since 2006 and the first contact from the DWP was in 2019. They have never had a loan or been on universal credit. In fact, as I informed the DWP, I suspected that there was an internal fraud going on. This got sorted completely just before Christmas when the DWP confirmed that no claim for universal credit had been made by them or anyone using their details. Interestingly, the DWP said in writing: “Regrettably, it appears to be a system error.” So I do not need any lectures from anyone—I know I am not going to get one from the Minister because I have great respect for her—telling me that all is well with universal credit; to judge by my brief experience of a particular case and my experience on the statutory instruments committee, it clearly is not.

On the points made about the split in the benefit and its construction, it was obviously done in such a way that it is completely out of bounds for anyone fleeing a home because of domestic abuse. I certainly hope these points are going to be taken on board.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have been sitting here working out what on earth I could say that would add meaningfully to this fantastic debate. I particularly commend my noble friend Lady Lister, who has always been a stalwart on these matters.

This has taken me back to the Welfare Reform Bill, as it then was, and the endless but pointed debates we had about the problems that were being stacked up by the system being introduced. I remember that at one stage, the Minister complained that food banks had built up because they were a “free good”—which perhaps reflects a bit on how the system was viewed.

It is time for a fundamental review of the system. We have enough expertise in your Lordships’ House, let alone in the other place. We have heard a good deal of that today and we need to build on that. I hope the Minister will support much of what she has heard from noble Lords today. From my point of view, as someone who is rather out of date on these matters, it has been a privilege to listen to such powerful presentations.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, first, I apologise for missing the Second Reading of such important and much awaited legislation. Secondly, I apologise for a further glaring error. Last week, at Third Reading of another Bill, I failed to thank the wonderful professionals in the Public Bill Office—Theodore Pembroke, Olivia Crabtree, Mary Harvey and their colleagues, and in the Government Whips’ Office—Victoria Warren, Anishaa Aubeeluck and their team—for their patient and expert support on the scrutiny of Bills to all Peers, without fear or favour. Where would we be also without the virtual proceedings and digital teams? Thirdly, I express my admiration for all noble Lords to whom I listened—on Monday and today—for their many hours of compassionate discourse, not least for those who spoke so bravely from personal experience.

I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister, in particular Amendments 152 and 190. There is much in this Bill that aims to provide legal and procedural protections for victims of domestic abuse, and which I commend. If this is not accompanied by an equivalent economic protection—in particular for those reliant on benefits—as a matter of pure, practical logic, these legal protections will prove inadequate.

There was a debate earlier about legal provisions and definitions. These are genuinely complex and difficult. The amendments designed to disapply the benefit cap for 12 months for a domestic abuse survivor making a new universal credit claim in their own name seem uncontroversial. As we have heard, domestic abuse is devastating for anyone, regardless of their sex—or that of their partner—and regardless of nation, region or community, or even of wealth. However, access to sufficient resources for shelter and refuge for oneself and any children are essential to escape, survival and recovery. This is one reason why private client lawyers and higher courts devote so much time and energy to issues of financial relief for wealthy people, often from all over the world.

Adequate resources for escape, survival and recovery are no less important for people without wealth, including the many reliant on benefits. There are now many more, because of the pandemic. They cannot look to lawyers and the courts for financial protection and support. Instead, they must look directly to the Government. This group of survivors is in even greater need of escape routes which are either practically cut off or made much more perilous as a result of the benefits cap, combined with the prohibitive levels of rent, especially in London and the south-east.

The hard evidence shows that, unless disapplied, the cap will overwhelmingly hurt women more than men, and black women in particular. It needs to be spelled out that this is because they are less likely to be in work or have earnings above the threshold. In many cases, responsibility for childcare—or the abuse itself—has prevented them working or being able to find work.

Escaping an abuser is hard enough without the disincentive of being unable to provide decent shelter, food, clothing and remote learning access for your children afterwards. I fear that it would look completely otherworldly if your Lordships’ House did not address the huge barrier to escape that not lifting the benefit cap for survivors presents.

Noble Lords will have been assisted by a host of Civil Society briefings in preparing for these deliberations. I am particularly grateful for the excellent work of the Chartered Institute of Housing and its advice on this issue: identifying gaps, sometimes of hundreds of pounds per month, between the benefits allocation for housing and what is realistic for the rental market in a relevant local authority. In some cases, that is over £400 a month; that is a small fortune for anyone on universal credit. They advised me to prepare for a counter-argument: that victims of domestic abuse should just move away from high-rent areas, perhaps hundreds of miles away, to a new and wholly strange place with, perhaps, more housing stock and lower rents; that they should take their children away from school at the same time as they are taken out of the family home; and that the survivor should give up any network of friends, family, social and emotional support in the hope of being able to just about make ends meet. I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships’ House would put such a cruel argument in the context of domestic abuse survivors, especially during the passage of legislation specifically designed for their relief.

At the risk of tempting fate, these amendments are the proverbial no-brainer. I look forward to the Minister and all Members of your Lordships’ House giving them an enthusiastic welcome.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. Like her, I wish to speak to Amendments 152 and 190. The justice of the case for these amendments has been set out in the passionate, eloquent and comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the equally powerful speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the other Lords who have spoken in this group. I cannot improve on what they said, but I simply wish to raise one matter of policy.

The cost of accommodation does not count towards the benefit cap if the survivor secures temporary accommodation provided by the local authority under its homelessness duty. Nor does it count if the survivor manages to find a place in a refuge or hostel owned by a social landlord. Currently, if the survivor moves into ordinary rented accommodation, the benefit cap will apply. That obviously means the amount on which the survivor and her children have to live on is diminished, often significantly. That is not good for the survivor and her children but it is also bad policy, which could be reversed by the adoption of these amendments. The amendments, if adopted, would free up refuges, hostels and local authority accommodation, all of which is currently in very short supply. It would also facilitate those who have secured such accommodation, moving out and into the private sector for rented accommodation, which is often cheaper overall. I hope those reasons, in addition to the reasons of justice advance by my noble friends, will persuade the Minister to adopt the amendments.

[Lord Best (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 152 and the related 190, which provide for a period of grace before those who have to leave an abusive relationship become subject to the cap on their benefits. I am honoured to be addressing this issue alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who is such a wonderful campaigner on social security issues, and also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to extend my own welcome to the right reverend Prelate, who is already proving such an asset to your Lordships’ House, not least with his extensive knowledge of the issues of housing and homelessness. The issue covered by Amendment 152 is, in large measure, about housing and housing costs. I declare my interest as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. I thank the Chartered Institute of Housing for its briefing on this amendment.

18:45

The issue here is that the benefits system, with its cap on the total amount of benefit which a household can receive—including the help for housing costs—was not designed to deal with the circumstances of domestic abuse. Without reform, the benefit cap will undermine other positive measures which this very important Bill is introducing. The benefit cap creates particularly severe financial penalties for those who have to end an abusive relationship. Indeed, the financial impact of the cap can mean that someone suffering abuse is simply unable to leave their current accommodation to escape their abuser because of the calamitous loss of income that can involve.

Amendment 152 allows a period of grace before the benefit cap kicks in, giving a bit of time for the household, as appropriate, to find work and avoid the cap or to find accommodation that is affordable within the cap. It does not remove the benefit cap, nor increase it, and the amendment covers only those whose claims arise specifically because of domestic abuse. It proposes a very limited measure, but one which provides an essential breathing space for those who have to end an abusive relationship.

The benefit cap problem is very often caused by the cost of accommodation that is so disproportionate in many areas. The Government did the right thing last year in raising the level of rent which qualifies for housing benefit by returning the local housing allowance—the limit on rental support—to cover the cheapest 30% of rented homes. Although support is not back to the level pertaining before the limits and freezes on housing help were introduced, this change is very helpful. However, it does not assist those affected by the benefit cap: since the cap remains unchanged, being allowed to spend more on the rent simply eats into the support intended for food, heating, clothes, et cetera. Getting help to pay for a higher rent is no help at all if the cap simply means the amount of benefit available for everything else is correspondingly reduced.

Those who must escape an abusive situation need to find somewhere available to live in a hurry, with no time to shop around. Because of the benefit cap, and despite the uplift in the local housing allowance rates, they must search for somewhere cheaper—and they must find that place very quickly.

Some of those forced out of their homes will be accommodated in a refuge or allocated temporary accommodation organised by their local authority. Fortunately, in these circumstances the benefit cap will not apply immediately. But the cap remains a serious problem for them: they will need to move on into a rented flat, and they then face the extreme difficulty of finding somewhere at a rent affordable within the benefit cap.

Issues of domestic abuse throw up special problems of sudden poverty, which the benefit cap currently can greatly exacerbate. The cap traps those affected either by making it impossible to get out of the place where they are subject to the abuse or to leave a temporary home to which they have moved as an interim measure. Given time, the household may find somewhere at a cost within their benefit cap and/or get themselves into paid employment, but they need a period of grace, which this amendment suggests should be 12 months.

The Department for Work and Pensions is already familiar with the need to treat the circumstances of domestic abuse differently—for example, in its requirement to begin seeking employment, which is not the same as for other jobseekers. So, a precedent and the administrative arrangements are already in place to distinguish these cases.

This is a modest but vital change and I hope that the Minister, and her support with us tonight, will be able to bring reassurance from her colleagues at DWP that such a change—at minimal cost to public funds—represents an acceptable improvement to the Bill.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 34. I start from the point of having huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Lister; her expertise on this subject far outweighs mine. But I have concerns about what she is trying to do. The amendment puts a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate and report on universal credit payments. I have concerns about this because surely it is vital that we protect the independence of the domestic abuse commissioner, as we have heard from many noble Lords in discussing earlier amendments. The commissioner must be free to set the priorities she chooses; it must be wrong for her to have to report on universal credit or on any other matter.

On the rest of the amendment, as we know, universal credit is a single-household payment. Where a claimant is part of a couple living in the same household, they need to make a joint claim for universal credit. For many legacy benefits, a payment is already made to one member of the household, so the way universal credit is paid is not a new concept, and evidence shows that the vast majority of couples keep and manage their finances together. So payments into a single bank account fit with how most couples organise their finances. Therefore, I am concerned that departing from that would fundamentally change the structure of universal credit, from a single-household payment made to one individual of the benefit unit to payments split between joint claimants by default.

As we all know, a more proportionate response was the creation of split payments to prevent hardship to the claimant and their family. Anyone in a joint claim, including individuals suffering from domestic abuse, can request a split payment arrangement, and it is my understanding the DWP will support them in putting this arrangement in place.

Surely it is important that we allow the individual experiencing domestic abuse to decide whether they think split payments will help their individual circumstances. No information on why a split payment has been requested or granted will be notified to the claimant’s partner. If someone is experiencing domestic abuse, they can tell their work coach in the way that is easiest for them; it is not a requirement for their partner to be involved. As soon as there is awareness of abuse, individuals are signposted to third-party organisations that can provide expert support and advice.

Of course, access to money for those suffering domestic abuse is vital, but the approach in place ensures victims are supported, while the simplicity of the overall system is maintained for others. Sometimes reinventing the wheel can have unintended consequences. I look forward to what the Minister is going to say on this point to reassure me that all those suffering domestic abuse can manage to get their universal credit when required.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, first, I would like to add my thanks to the chorus of praise that is being heaped on the tremendously clear and cogent introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

Many noble Lords and parties outside this place—charities, other groups, news media and so on—have expressed great concern that, at a time when victims are at their most vulnerable, they are being failed by our support systems, which were designed to come to their rescue. We need to know what effect government benefits and interventions are achieving.

I support all these amendments and would have added my name to all of them if there had been space. Amendment 34 calls for the commissioner to look at universal credit split payments. It is probably a deeper question than that, as some of the discussion we have had on this has already revealed. It is a knotty, complex problem, and it very much bears investigation by the domestic abuse commissioner to see what can be done to make the whole system fairer. I have been campaigning for split payments by default for some time. Perhaps we need more, but that would be a very good start.

Amendment 150 is a neat solution to a problem of the Government’s own making. Long delays in the payment of benefits when a victim could be destitute and in need of more financial support to replace belongings they have left behind, find somewhere to stay, et cetera, can lead to extra expense just to survive, so to claw back payments made in advance when they would not have been necessary in the first place if they had been paid promptly is surely adding insult to injury. In the grand scale of moneys paid out by the Government recently to help people disadvantaged by circumstances, it is a drop in the proverbial ocean.

Amendment 152, which would disapply the benefit cap for 12 months after a new claim following a new universal credit claim for a victim of domestic abuse makes a lot of sense. It would enable a victim, desperate for accommodation and some security, to not have to worry if there is one bedroom too many for 12 months while they find their feet. I was shocked to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that a panic room could constitute an additional bedroom, and I very much look forward to the Minster’s response on this because, if that is the case, it really needs sorting out. Is this too much to ask? Perhaps the Minister will tell us what she believes about this cap.

Finally, Amendment 153 would require the Government to assess the impact of any social security reforms on victims or potential victims of abuse. The Government need to know the effect of government policies. If we do not measure the effectiveness of what we are spending, how can we spend taxpayers’ money most effectively to help our offer to these people, the most vulnerable and in need of help in our society? They are not huge measures in terms of cost, but they will give big relief for those who are already suffering.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend Lady Lister for a superb introduction, and for all the great speeches. I am grateful too to those who supplied briefings and to DWP Ministers for meeting us.

The amendments in this group cover four distinct issues, and I shall touch on each. The first is universal credit payments. As we have heard, single household payments actually facilitate financial abuse, because they allow perpetrators to control the entire household income. Claimants can ask for payments to be split but, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, simply asking puts them at risk. Refuge front-line staff say, “It is rarely, if ever, safe for a survivor to request splitting UC payments”. That may explain why it is so rare.

As we have heard, there have been widespread demands from various organisations and committees for Ministers to find a way to separate payments by default. I know that Ministers do not like the idea, partly for operational reasons and partly for the reason mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, that the vast majority of couples keep and manage their finances together. But, as Refuge, points out, for those experiencing economic abuse, their finances are not managed jointly but controlled by their abuser. And this is not a tiny minority. We have heard today that research from Refuge and the Co-op Bank found that 16% of adults had experienced economic abuse from a partner. That research also found that 39% had experienced abusive behaviours, such as not being allowed access to a joint bank account, or being scared into allowing debt in their name. Given the high numbers flowing on to universal credit in the pandemic, this is urgent.

Amendment 34, to which I have added my name, would simply place a duty on the commissioner to investigate the payment of universal credit separately to members of a couple and lay a report before Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, expressed concern that that would be putting an imposition on the commissioner, but I am sure she has noticed that the briefing sent to noble Lords from the office of the commissioner designate actually indicated support for this proposal from my noble friend Lady Lister. So I hope that, on that basis, the Minister will be able to accept it.

Amendment 150 would exempt domestic abuse survivors from having to repay a benefit advance that is made to mitigate the five-week waiting period for universal credit. As we have heard from many noble Lords, those who flee often take little money and few possessions with them. They normally have to make a fresh claim for universal credit, triggering the five-week wait all over again. My noble friend Lady Primarolo explained compellingly why that is such a problem. We have heard evidence that, on average, the survivors of economic abuse are over £3,000 in debt. In addition, a quarter have had their credit rating suffer as a result. There must be a real risk that survivors who want to flee could be deterred because they know it will be five weeks until the first UC payment. They may already be in debt and worried about getting into any more, and if they take an advance, not only does their monthly income fall below the survival limit, they will have other debts to service out of that. If Ministers do not want to accept this amendment, what do they propose to do to support survivors and enable them to flee abuse with enough money to do so?

19:00

Then there is the benefit cap, the problem of which was set out irrefutably by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Ministers always argue that people can escape the benefit cap in two ways: by moving to cheaper housing or by getting a job. However, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others have said, cheaper housing in many areas is like hens’ teeth. Things are worse still for someone fleeing abuse because they might have to move house in a hurry. As my noble friend Lord Hendy pointed out, if someone flees to a refuge they can get an exemption, but it might not be the best place for them, and even if it is they can get stuck there because if they try to move on, they will be hit by the benefit cap. To avoid the cap by getting a job while fleeing abuse is hardly practical. The Government have already recognised this by granting an exemption from the work requirements in UC for someone who has fled abuse in the last six months, but can the Minister tell the Committee what use that exemption is if survivors cannot afford to take advantage of it? That is because they will still be hit by the benefit cap and cannot afford to pay their rent. Amendment 152 would disapply the benefit cap for 12 months for survivors who flee and claim benefits. If the Government will not do this, can the Minister explain why?

I mentioned at Second Reading that a friend contacted me when he claimed universal credit and found that he could see all the messages that his partner had exchanged with his work coach on the UC journal and vice versa. He was concerned about the implications of this practice for those in abusive relationships. I tabled a Written Question. The Minister’s Answer said that claimants should not share sensitive information on the journal. All kinds of information can be sensitive in the context of domestic abuse, such as asking about a job in another sector or a different part of the country, or for certain kinds of support. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, said that claimants can contact their coach or the department in whatever way they want. Indeed, I was told again in the Answer that claimants can always phone their case manager. That betrays a lack of understanding of what it must be like to be trapped in a flat with an abusive partner who watches over every phone call they make—especially in a pandemic. Can the Minister please tell us that this will be looked at again?

If the provisions of Amendment 153 were in place there would be a duty on the Government to assess the impact of any social security reforms on the victims or potential victims of domestic abuse. Had that been done before creating universal credit, or before imposing the benefit cap or the bedroom tax, it might have shown up these problems at an earlier stage and solutions could have been designed. Many of us raised these issues in the early stages of the Welfare Reform Bill, but a formal impact assessment would have forced the Government to recognise that there were issues.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, our social security system should make it possible for survivors to flee abuse and rebuild their lives. However, I am afraid that, as my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord McKenzie, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett, and others have said, the system currently fails in that task and it urgently needs reform. I hope that the Minister agrees and I look forward to her reply.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for explaining her amendments, which relate to the operation of the welfare system, including universal credit, and its impact on victims of domestic abuse. The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to providing a compassionate welfare system which provides the best possible support for all customers, including the most vulnerable in society, such as victims of domestic abuse. In answer to her question, we have regular discussions with the DWP and other government departments on domestic abuse because we see it as a whole-of-government issue and response.

Amendment 34 would place a legal duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate one particular issue—the payment of universal credit separately to members of a couple—and lay a report to Parliament. I will come on to the substance of the concern about universal credit, but it is worth first making an observation about the approach taken in the amendment. My noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen said that, as an independent office holder, it should be for the domestic abuse commissioner to set her own priorities as set out in her strategy plan, as provided for in Clause 13. I submit that we should not be mandating her to produce a report on universal credit or on any other matter, as is consistent with her title of being independent.

Aside from this question of the commissioner’s independence, I share absolutely the noble Baroness’s determination to support and protect victims of domestic abuse through the welfare system. However, on the underlying substance of the amendment, the Government do not believe that introducing split payments of universal credit between couples by default is appropriate. For many legacy benefits, a payment is already made to one member of the household, so the way that universal credit is paid is not a new concept. Additionally, evidence shows that the great majority of couples keep and manage their finances together. Consequently, most couples can and want to manage their finances jointly without state intervention.

We recognise that there are circumstances in which split payments are appropriate. Where a customer discloses that they are a victim of domestic abuse in an ongoing relationship, then, where suitable, the Department for Work and Pensions can make split payments available to provide them with access to independent funds. It is important that we allow the individual experiencing domestic abuse to decide whether split payments will help their individual circumstances. The department will also signpost individuals affected by abuse to specialist support, and work with them to ensure that they are aware of the other support and easements available under universal credit. These include special provisions for temporary accommodation, easements to work conditionality, same day advances and additional support for children conceived during an abusive relationship.

In July 2019, messaging was introduced to the universal credit digital claim system to encourage claimants in joint claims to nominate the bank account of the main carer for payment. We continue our support of payment of universal credit to the main carer through this messaging. This strikes the right balance between encouraging positive behaviour and allowing claimants to choose how to best manage their finances. A move to split payments with all couples would represent a fundamental change to the principles of universal credit. Operational challenges aside, the proposed change in policy would be inappropriate for some vulnerable people, for example where one partner is a carer for the other, or one partner has addiction issues.

There would also be practical challenges. For example, there are 1.3 million unbanked adults in the UK, and most are on a low income or are unemployed. The Government are working to improve financial inclusion, but it remains that a move to split payments by default could result in unnecessary payment delays for unbanked claimants. A split payment by default model might also reduce financial independence for women in some cases. Analysis suggests that about 60% of joint universal credit payments are made to women.

As I said, the Department for Work and Pensions is committed to providing a safety net welfare system that provides the best possible support for all customers, including the most vulnerable. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that is why the department has completed a significant training programme and implemented domestic abuse single points of contact for every jobcentre. These actions will help ensure that jobcentre customer services managers and work coaches have the right capabilities, tools and local relationships to support customers who are experiencing or fleeing domestic abuse. We are proud of the positive cultural change we have been able to achieve in jobcentre sites; and that departmental awareness of, and support for, those who have suffered or are suffering domestic abuse is better than ever.

I understand the intention of Amendment 150 is to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can receive universal credit advances in the form of grants. I note that the amendment affects the conditions only for the payment of budgeting advances. Budgeting advances provide one-off emergency payments for claimants or are related to obtaining or retaining employment, whereas new claim and change of circumstances advances provide claimants with an advance of their UC award. As currently drafted, the amendment will waive only the recoverability and eligibility criteria of budgeting advances for domestic abuse victims.

The Department for Work and Pensions offers new claim advances that allow claimants to access 100% of their estimated universal credit payment up front. We can help claimants, including victims of domestic abuse, to apply for an advance with payment being made within 72 hours or even on the same day, in some circumstances. With a universal credit advance, a claimant’s universal credit award will be phased across 13 payments in a year, rather than 12, and the maximum level of monthly deduction they will face is 30% of their standard allowance. Deferrals are also available for the phasing of new claim advances, meaning that claimants can extend the phasing of their 13 UC payments for up to an additional three months, in exceptional circumstances.

In addition, change of circumstances advances are available to claimants where a change of circumstances, such as the birth of a child, means that their universal credit award will significantly increase in the next payment. The additional payment of a change of circumstances advance would be used to cover the additional costs incurred by claimants until they receive their increased UC award at the end of their assessment period. These advances are phased across six months.

This amendment also seeks to make budgeting advances non-recoverable for victims of domestic abuse, alongside removing eligibility criteria. Budgeting advances are available to purchase one-off emergency items or for obtaining or retaining employment. To be eligible, claimants must have been in receipt of benefits for six months, have repaid any existing budgeting advance amount and earned less than £2,600 in the previous six months, if a single claimant. For claimants who receive a budgeting advance to obtain or retain employment, the six-month benefit criteria are waived and the required earnings threshold recalculated. This one-off payment of a budgeting advance is recovered over 12 months, although this can be extended to 18 months in exceptional circumstances.

If the Government were to issue universal credit advances as grant payments for victims of domestic abuse, as suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment, this would raise equality concerns and inevitably lead to calls for the measure’s extension to other groups. Moreover, to mitigate the potential of increased fraud that universal credit grants could cause, we would have to introduce an additional manual assessment to verify the claimant’s circumstances ahead of payment. This could delay payment to claimants, when our first priority should be to urgently give individuals support.

Moving on to the other feature of the amendment, the Government do not feel that we should waive the eligibility criteria for budgeting advances. These eligibility criteria include a low-income threshold because we believe that, in the majority of situations, a claimant’s universal credit award will be able to cover the costs of emergency items. However, to support those in particular hardship, budgeting advances provide one-off payments for claimants who may not be able to afford these emergency items without additional support.

19:15

The condition of being able to claim only one budgeting advance at a time is to protect our claimants and prevent additional fraud in universal credit. If claimants were to take out multiple budgeting advances, they would face recovery payments taken from their universal credit awards for a potentially longer period. We would also see increased efforts to obtain budgeting advances fraudulently if individuals could claim several at a time.

It is important to note the changes that the Government will make to the advances policy to smooth the universal credit journey for all claimants. From October this year, we will give claimants the option to phase their universal credit payments across a longer time. Claimants will be able to phase their universal credit payments over 24 months rather than 12, giving them more flexibility over the allocation of their UC award. Moreover, to support those on universal credit to repay debts in a more sustainable way, the normal maximum level of deductions that can be taken from a household’s universal credit award will be further reduced to 25% of a claimant’s standard allowance from October.

Amendment 152 seeks to provide for survivors of domestic abuse to be exempt from the application of the benefit cap for 12 months when a universal credit claim is being considered. The benefit cap seeks to restore fairness between those receiving benefits and taxpayers. It provides an incentive to move into work where possible. There is clear evidence that work, particularly full-time work, substantially reduces the likelihood of being in poverty; children in workless families are around three times more likely to be in poverty, compared to families where at least one adult works. As the noble Baroness is aware, the likelihood of a survivor having the benefit cap applied is already reduced, because of the exemptions in place to provide breathing space while people stabilise their situation. For example, where housing benefit is paid in respect of a person in a refuge, it is excluded from the calculation of the benefit cap.

Claimants who need additional support to meet rental costs can approach their local authority for a discretionary housing payment, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo. Over £1 billion in discretionary housing payments has been provided to local authorities since 2011; £180 million in discretionary housing payments is available for local authorities to distribute in 2020-21; and £140 million will be made available through discretionary housing payments for the next financial year, 2021-22, the same as in 2019-20. The Department for Work and Pensions produces guidance to help local authorities administer the discretionary housing payment scheme. This guidance suggests that DHP support should be prioritised for the most vulnerable; it specifically cites households with young children and those fleeing domestic abuse.

Finally, Amendment 153 would require the Department for Work and Pensions to assess the impact of welfare reforms on victims of domestic abuse. This amendment is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The DWP is already obliged to consider the impacts of its policies through equality assessments, in accordance with the public sector equality duty. Changes to welfare regulations will involve consideration of the likely impact of those changes. Furthermore, the department consistently reviews and is striving to improve services.

If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her point about child benefit. On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the sanctuary scheme as related to the spare-room subsidy, the Government recognise the important role that this scheme can play in a victim’s long-term safety and well-being. Work is under way to establish what steps are necessary to support claimants who live in a sanctuary scheme property and are affected by the removal of the spare-room subsidy. Discretionary housing payments continue to be available, at the discretion of local authorities, for claimants who need additional financial support towards housing costs. We have provided guidance for local authorities to recommend that, where a claimant lives in a sanctuary scheme, that is considered when deciding whether to award a DHP.

In conclusion, the Department for Work and Pensions is committed to providing a welfare system that provides the best possible support for all customers. That includes universal credit claimants and the most vulnerable in society.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will not go through all those who supported the amendments individually, but their contributions deepened the case that I made and brought a number of different, very helpful perspectives to it. I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate and look forward to his future contributions to our debates on these and related issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, did not support the amendments. I hope that she will not mind if I address what she said along with what the Minister said, because she made some of the same points. I am grateful to the Minister for her full and detailed response. I am not going to try and answer it all now: I need to read what she said in Hansard. Some of her points were ones that I and other noble Lords had already countered in our contributions, so I do not want to go over all of that.

I take the point about the domestic abuse commissioner, but my understanding is that she is sympathetic. I know that she is certainly very concerned about economic abuse and I understand that she is, in a sense, already undertaking an investigation on community-based services which will be relevant to a later amendment for the Government.

Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, made a point about legacy benefits. The whole point of universal credit is that it puts all your eggs in one basket. With legacy benefits, one benefit might be going to the man in the household; another, probably the one for children, to the woman—child benefit still does usually. This is why this has become an issue now. It was not the same under legacy benefits, yet Ministers continue to trot this argument out as if legacy benefits were somehow the same: they were not. Putting everything into one basket in that way is one of the problems with universal credit.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock, other noble Lords and I made the point that it is simply too risky to ask for a split payment. It may be done in privacy but men—it usually is men—are not so stupid that they do not realise that if the benefit they are getting is suddenly halved, that may be the reason for it. Women are, of course, frightened to go back and face the consequences. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, refuge workers on the ground say that women are just too scared to ask for split payments: they are not an answer. I know that the best way of doing this is complex and that is why a review, which has to be independent, is the best way to deal with it.

I am glad that the Minister referred to training, but she did not actually answer my questions on it. I would be grateful if, when she writes following this debate, she answers my specific questions on that.

I will not try to go through everything else that has been said; as I say, I need to read the details. I am glad that the Home Office is having regular discussions with the DWP on these issues, but, while it may not be able to say this to us, the evidence must worry it that what is happening in the social security system is undermining its objectives for dealing with domestic abuse, particularly economic abuse. I hope that it will relay to the DWP the messages that came across from virtually everyone who spoke in today’s very good debate —because we owe it to women who are suffering, or survivors of, domestic abuse to provide a social security system that gives them genuine security. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed.

Clause 9: Advice and assistance

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Clause 9 agreed.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 37. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 12: Advisory Board

Amendment 37

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

37: Clause 12, page 7, line 13, leave out “and not more than ten”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the upper limit for members of the Commissioner’s advisory board.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this group of Amendments 37, 38, 39, 40 and 43 relates to Clause 12 on the advisory board. I will not introduce Amendment 39, to which my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Featherstone will speak, but I agree with what I expect them to say.

At Second Reading, we heard various bids for inclusion in the advisory board, and we heard one, or possibly more, in previous groups in Committee. This prompted me to think about the functions of the advisory board and how it might operate, hence our Amendment 38. Should the members act as representatives of different sectors? Is the term “represent” quite appropriately descriptive of what they will do? Why will they be appointed? This will probably be to give advice across the issues, through the particular lens of their own experience, so that the commissioner has three-dimensional views, if you like.

Of course, they will put forward points of view from within their own sectors, but they will not only make the case for them; I am sure advocacy for resources for sectors will be very likely. As such, I thought I would try the phrase “expertise and experience”—I subsequently found that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, had also picked the term “expertise”. I have applied this to the first of the categories in Clause 12(4), on “victims of domestic abuse”. I would not preclude advocacy, but, rather than special pleading, the commissioner will want advice across the board, built on all of the advisers’ various expertise.

We also have an amendment relating to Clause 12(4)(e), which requires there to be a person

“with functions relating to policing or criminal justice”.

I do not know whether I should read into this that the police are not part of the criminal justice system but, to me, the point is that, if they are regarded as separate, then having experience and expertise in both is necessary.

19:30

I have included an addition to the list—children. That is expressed as

“expertise and experience in children’s health and wellbeing.”

There has, quite rightly, been a focus on children, although for the purposes of the Bill they are victims and Clause 12(4)(a) will apply, but their needs are not the same as those of adults. Perhaps I should say that they are very particular needs.

Of course, I am aware that each item in the list is prefaced by the words “at least one”, so there can be more than one representative for each of the categories. I also note that Clause 12(2) stipulates a minimum of six—that is, the list in subsection (4)—with a possible additional four members. Why is there a maximum of 10? We wondered whether to propose 12, but in fact decided that this should be a matter for the commissioner. Indeed, why put an upper limit in legislation?

This afternoon and on Monday, we talked quite a bit about the independence of the commissioner, but the fact is that her—or his, in due course—resources are inevitably limited by the Secretary of State. Is this a necessary control? Can she not be trusted to do the sensible thing in designing the advisory group and appointing members to it? I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who is next on the list of speakers, has withdrawn her name, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on Amendment 39, which is grouped with Amendments 37, 38, 40 and 43. Before I start, I just say how good it was to listen to the contribution that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has just made.

I intend, in effect, to identify some of the issues that have been taken up previously. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lord Paddick spoke about this matter at Second Reading, and he is backed up by my noble friend Lady Featherstone. At Second Reading, he was able to identify why such a provision in the Bill is necessary. The amendment seeks to ensure that at least one person on the advisory board has experience with regard to the interest of male victims and those in same-sex relationships. My noble friend Lady Featherstone was responsible for equality issues during her time at the Home Office, and her ministerial experience is very useful in contributing on this matter. Of course, I always bow to the knowledge of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt.

This legislation makes considerable improvements to the way in which we deal with female victims. That must never be underestimated, and rightly so, but we have the opportunity to ensure that male victims of domestic abuse, who, according to ONS statistics, make up 35% of victims, have the same opportunity to pursue their grievances. In any gender-neutral legislation, a programme of public education on this point is vital.

I am surprised that only 1% of funding is allocated to male victims, according to the briefing I have received. I am told that male victims are three times less likely to report their abuse to police. I was engaged in the work of the former Commission for Racial Equality and firmly believe that support should be granted to all victims regardless of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age and ability. Perhaps the Minister could look at this issue. We should not give an impression that the Bill has less focus on male victims. Some of the suggestions I have made clearly point towards this interpretation which should be avoided. I urge the Minister to support a gender-neutral approach in the guidance on the Domestic Abuse Bill, which so far seems to lack such an explanation. I will go further. We need to build the confidence of people who may want to use this legislation to advance their cause by giving them confidence to do so by making sure that gender includes men, so I make that suggestion to the Minister.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 37 and 38. I like the idea of the commissioner establishing an advisory board. I am sure it will be helpful, although it is puzzling why the membership has been restricted to not fewer than six and not more than 10. It is interesting that the membership has to comprise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, representatives of victims of domestic abuse, charities and other organisations, healthcare services, social care services, police and criminal justice and academic expertise. I have no problem with that range of expertise, but the membership surely needs to be wider. We have already had, or will have, amendments suggesting that we should have experts in children and young people, substance abuse, psychological therapy and speech therapy. I would welcome giving the commissioner a little more discretion and allowing her to appoint more than 10 people if she wishes to do so. As it is entirely in her own hands, she clearly will not want a huge number of people, but having a little more flexibility would be helpful.

I support Amendment 38 very strongly. It is surprising and highly unusual that members of an advisory board should be described in legislation as representatives of the interest described in the clause. Surely we have moved on from representative bodies such as that. In my experience—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—committees that are made up of representatives of certain interests find it very difficult to act corporately because they feel the need to fight the corner of their own interest. That goes against all good governance. I know this is an advisory committee, rather than a corporate governance body per se, but the principles of good governance surely ought to remain none the less, so the last thing the commissioner needs is a body where people are too busy protecting their own perceived interest and are not thinking about the integrated approach that is necessary. I strongly urge the Government to revisit this. They will find that in public organisations—and I am sure it is the same in other sectors—the idea that today we appoint people to be representative rather than to bring a breadth of experience and work together is not right, and I hope the Government will agree to reverse this.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 39, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on the composition of the advisory board. This amendment is straightforward and brief, and is simply to ensure that men who are abused and those in same-sex relationships have a knowledgeable and expert advocate on that board.

As a Home Office Minister and Equalities Minister during the coalition, with responsibility for domestic violence in my portfolio, I met victims of all types and visited refuges of all types. The different issues that arise for men who are abused can be profound. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, they are less likely to report abuse and often feel ashamed if they are abused. They can feel that they are not proper men and more, so there is a need for specialist response and services. The same is true with the issues in same-sex relationships.

Of course, the majority of domestic abuse is against women by men and I know that among the many fantastic groups, charities and provision for women there is a wealth of experience. However, a substantial minority of men are victims too and their experience can often be less well understood. I noted the Minister’s earlier remarks about ensuring that the commissioner has freedom to appoint to her own requirements, and I know that it is the intention of this Bill that all people who suffer domestic abuse are covered by the legislation. However, I believe that it is important to ensure that this expertise is mandated in the board’s structure to enable it to succeed fully in its function, as the advisory board will be such an important underpinning for the commissioner. I am sure that there will still be, and should be, as other noble Lords have said, latitude for the commissioner to appoint above and beyond any statutory places.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there appears to be no reasonable argument for limiting the number of members of the advisory board. Surely there should be as many as the commissioner believes to be reasonably necessary, as suggested by our Amendment 37. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, it should not be that at least one member of the board must represent the interests of victims of domestic abuse, but that they should have expertise and experience with regard to the victims of domestic abuse. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his support on this point.

It is quite clear that different victims will have different needs, in particular, those from minority groups, including black, Asian and other ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, male victims and those from sexually and gender-diverse groups. Were there to be a representative from each of these groups, it would be a very large advisory board indeed. Someone could have expertise in and experience of dealing with more than one minority group, hence Amendment 38.

Amendment 40 suggests that at least one member of the advisory board should have

“experience of or expertise in both”

policing and criminal justice, and not, as Clause 12(4)(e) suggests, that they

“represent the interests of … policing or criminal justice.”

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, it is essential that the police, the CPS, the courts and the prison and probation services all work together to tackle domestic abuse. Therefore, it should not be, as the Bill currently suggests, someone representing either the police or other parts of the criminal justice system.

Again, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, having included children as victims in Clause 3, it seems necessary to have someone with expertise and experience in children’s health and well-being on the advisory board. The lifelong impact of adverse childhood experiences on the health, well-being and propensity of young people to engage in criminality is well documented. Witnessing domestic abuse is but one of these ACEs.

19:45

I thank my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lady Featherstone for their support for my Amendment 39, which, as my noble friend Lady Featherstone said, is small, important, but not uncontroversial. We will come on to a fuller discussion of whether domestic abuse is a gendered issue in subsequent groups but, according to the Office for National Statistics, one-third of victims of domestic abuse are male, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia said. Of the two-thirds of victims who are female, some of that abuse will have occurred in same-sex relationships. It is therefore important that the advisory board includes at least one person who appears to the commissioner to have expertise and experience with regard to all victims of domestic abuse—not only women victims of male domestic abuse but male victims and those from sexually and gender-diverse groups.

In her letter dated yesterday, the Minister offers some reassurance in respect of male victims but the issue is wider than that. I am reassured by what she says, in that the statutory guidance provided for in Clause 73, the draft of which I have yet to fully consider, will, among other things, include types of abuse that are experienced by specific communities or groups such as male victims. The Minister goes on to say that the Government are determined to support victims and survivors, regardless of gender, but the Government must specifically ensure that support is available for female victims and survivors in same-sex relationships, and gender non-conforming victims and survivors, as well as male victims. Having someone with experience and expertise in dealing with all these issues on the advisory board will go some way towards ensuring that that is the case.

I completely accept that the majority of domestic abuse is the result of male violence against women but that is not exclusively, or even overwhelmingly, the case, and every victim, every survivor of domestic abuse, deserves to have a voice on the advisory board.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, revolving around the role of the advisory board and whether we are looking for people with experience and expertise, or those who represent specific interests.

Clause 12(4) indicates that of the six specific types of people who must be on the board, five are described as representing specific interests and only one is not. It would be helpful if the Government could explain the basis for determining which persons as representatives, with one exception, the advisory board must include. If the Government can answer why they have listed the types of people who have to be on the board, it might help us to form a better view of exactly what the Government see as the role of the advisory board. I appreciate that Clause 12(1) states that the advisory board is

“for the purposes of providing advice to the Commissioner about the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”

However, that is pretty vague, and it would help if the Government said what kind of advice they are expecting this advisory board to provide about the exercise of the commissioner’s functions.

I would rather take the view that there must be a case for leaving the commissioner with greater scope than he or she will have for deciding who they want on the advisory board. It can currently have a maximum of 10 members, as laid down in the Bill, but the Government have already determined who six of those members will be. One finds this a bit of a contrast to the discussion on the previous group of amendments on a totally different issue. When it came to an investigation into universal credit and domestic abuse, it was suggested that we should not be tying the commissioner’s hands or telling them what to do. Yet when it comes to the advisory board, which can only have a maximum of 10, the commissioner is told in very specific terms who 60% of the membership of that board have got to be and who they are to represent—with one exception being a person with academic expertise.

Can the Government explain why they have come to the conclusion they have about the six people who must be on the board and who they should represent? Can they give some examples of the kinds of advice they think the advisory board might be able to give? Can they clarify the point that has been raised about whether they see people on the board as being representatives of particular groups, or whether they are looking for people whose primary assets are experience and expertise in this field? If we can get some answers to those questions, as well as the other questions asked in this debate, we might be able to better understand the Government’s thinking behind Clause 12.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As noble Lords have outlined, these amendments all relate to the composition of the advisory board that will provide the commissioner with advice on the exercise of her functions. The advice could span a range of issues but is expected to contribute towards the development of the commissioner’s strategic plans, at the very least.

It is important that the advisory board contains a broad range of interests and represents a number of key statutory agencies and domestic abuse experts. I could start listing them, but then noble Lords might hold me to my words. But I can give examples. For example, they might have experience in housing or refuges or have medical experience, and so on and so forth. To maximise the effectiveness of the board, it is required to have no fewer than six members and no more than 10. That is to ensure that the board remains focused and provides clear advice to the commissioner.

Amendment 37 seeks to lift the upper limit on the membership of the board. We think that a maximum membership of 10 is appropriate to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently. It does not preclude the commissioner from also seeking advice from other sources, but we need to avoid creating an unwieldy board which cannot then provide effective support to the commissioner.

In relation to Amendment 38, I do not believe there is any real practical difference here. To be able to represent, for example, the providers of health care services, I would expect the relevant member to have experience and expertise in this field. I suggest that we can leave it to the good judgement of the commissioner to appoint suitably qualified individuals.

Amendments 39, 40 and 43 all seek to add to the categories of persons who must be presented on the board. As I have indicated, we risk creating a board that is too unwieldy and therefore cannot effectively discharge its functions and support the commissioner in her role. An advisory board member could represent the interests of more than one group. For example, they could represent the interests of victims of domestic abuse, while also representing the interests of specialist charities. The structure provided for in Clause 12 confers sufficient latitude on the commissioner to include other key areas of expertise, such as in relation to children.

In addition to this board, through her terms and conditions of employment the commissioner will be required to establish a victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that it engages directly with victims and survivors in its work. The commissioner may also establish any other groups as she sees fit. While the appointments are a matter for the commissioner, I expect the membership of the victims and survivors advisory group to be representative of all victims of domestic abuse—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

The advisory board must be able to operate efficiently and effectively. It is important that it has a balanced membership, with expertise in critical areas relating to supporting and protecting all victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. Clause 12 strikes the right balance, setting out minimum and maximum representation but otherwise giving the commissioner the space to appoint the right individuals to the board. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness is content to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to conclude the debate on her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad that three of my noble friends spoke about male victims. I do not think we can remind ourselves too often that, whatever the language in the Bill—I am well aware of the lengths to which the Government have gone to express the Bill and supporting documents in gender-neutral language—the Bill is also about awareness. We have a task to make ourselves and others aware that it is not a gendered issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the point about governance far more clearly than I did. I was indeed thinking about an integrated approach.

The Minister started on a list of those who might be members of the advisory board. I do not know whether she stopped herself because she realised she was making my point for me—that was certainly how I heard it—but she also said we should leave it to the commissioner to find the right individuals to represent these various categories. We should leave it to the commissioner and trust the commissioner to create an effective, efficient advisory board and to achieve the balance to which the Minister referred. I had thought there might be something more about this in the draft framework document, but essentially it repeats what is in the Bill.

I do not think the Minister replied to the point about the term “represent”. Indeed, she used that term herself. I remain really concerned about that, because I do not think that properly describes what the advisory board—as a body made up of a group of individuals, but we should look at it as a body—is really there to achieve.

I rather feel that the Government’s answer to all the amendments in the group is “not invented here, so sorry”. It sounded more like “not invented here” than “not necessary”. However, we will consider whether we pursue some of these points at the next stage, and I hope we do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Amendments 38 to 43 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

20:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 44. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make this clear in debate.

Clause 13: Strategic plans

Amendment 44

Moved by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

44: Clause 13, page 8, line 25, at end insert “who must respond to the consultation within 28 days”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respond to consultation under Clause 13 within 28 days.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, this is a simple, straightforward amendment which prevents the Secretary of State sitting on the strategic plan consultation. It has been known for a busy Secretary of State to treat a consultation as less urgent than many other items in her in tray. I am sure it would never be the case with this Secretary of State, but the provision in the amendment serves to focus the mind of the officeholder—whoever they are—and ensure that this hugely important plan is given the priority it deserves and is not unduly delayed.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in the debate on the last group of amendments, I referred to the draft framework document, which, with regard to the advisory board, says more or less what is in the Bill. The draft document does not in fact cover a great deal beyond what is in the Bill, although it uses more informal language. But one thing it does say is this. At paragraph 5.19, it refers to the strategic plan and the commissioner’s duty to consult the Home Secretary, among others, stating that:

“Although not prescribed by the Act, the Home Office will provide a response to the Commissioner’s consultation on the strategic plan within 28 calendar days of receipt.”


It is not prescribed by the Act, but we think that it could be. I wonder why this is one of the very few items in the draft framework document that is not in the Bill. Are the Government concerned that, over time, this might slip? I hope not.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we agree in principle with the spirit of this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has indicated, the draft framework document already requires the Home Secretary to respond within 28 days. We agree that such a response needs to be provided promptly, so that the commissioner can finalise and publish her strategic plan. Where we disagree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt of Solihull, is on whether this level of detail is appropriate to put on the face of the Bill.

We submit that it is more properly a matter for the framework document, which must be agreed with the commissioner. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted from paragraph 5.19 of that document, which says that the Home Office will provide a response within 28 calendar days of receipt.

I do not intend to be flippant, but sometimes things take longer than expected. In debating this amendment, we have only now reached the target that we set for the first day of Committee. If things are to be done thoroughly, as they always and rightly are in your Lordships’ House, they sometimes take longer than anticipated. I am happy to give an assurance from the Dispatch Box to the same effect as that set out in paragraph 5.19 of the framework document: the Home Office will provide a response within 28 calendar days of receipt. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I and, I am sure, my noble friend Lady Hamwee are very grateful for the Minister’s response and assurances. Obviously we will take that back, and I assume there is nothing to come back on. Certainly, for the time being, we are very happy with that, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Annual reports

Amendments 45 to 49 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.

Clause 15: Duty to co-operate with Commissioner

Amendment 50 not moved.

[The Deputy Chair of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 51. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

51: Clause 15, page 9, line 42, at end insert—
“(r) the Independent Office for Police Conduct;(s) HM Prison Service;(t) the National Probation Service;(u) the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman;(v) the Chief Coroner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the list of public authorities which have a duty to co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to include the Independent Office for Police Conduct, HM Prison Service, the National Probation Service, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and the Chief Coroner.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

This suite of amendments is designed to extend the list of public authorities that have a duty to co-operate with the commissioner to bodies that may well be able to give additional and, arguably, deeper insight into the victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse: the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the Prison Service and National Probation Service and their ombudsman, and the Chief Coroner. These bodies all throw a light on how and why things go wrong.

Amendment 54 would enable the commissioner to get information on any reviews and investigations regarding deaths where domestic abuse had been a factor. Those public authorities must notify the commissioner and the Home Office within 28 days of the outcome of the investigations. The commissioner can advise on good policy and practice only when she has all the information —all the reports, reviews, findings and investigations at her disposal—to be able to piece together what has gone wrong, why it went wrong and how it can be put right.

Proposed new subsection (5) would give additional powers to the Secretary of State. The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power to add or remove additional public authorities as he or she sees fit, but only authorities added under this clause, not under Clause 15(3), which we discussed under Amendment 51. Furthermore, in Amendment 189, all amendments subsequently covered by the amended Clause 15 could not be removed without the affirmative procedure. In summary, the Secretary of State could add and take away public bodies that they themselves had added but not the ones prescribed in the Bill. They could also issue guidance for circumstances where domestic abuse had been shown to be a contributing factor, which of course that public authority would have to have regard to.

We could have a productive working relationship here, where the commissioner makes recommendations and the Secretary of State, if they chose, makes the guidance. This guidance could be changed by the Secretary of State from time to time, but not without consulting the commissioner.

Lastly, Amendment 189 would ensure that any public authority included in the amended—I hope—Clause 15 could not be removed without an affirmative resolution, at the behest not of the Secretary of State but of Parliament. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on her speech. She set out the case for the amendments very eloquently. I will speak to Amendments 51 and 54 to which my name is attached. If the horror of losing someone you love is not bad enough, many families, in particular in cases of domestic abuse homicide and suicide, have to put up with the reality that their loved ones may have been saved had earlier interventions been made. This is why I am supporting the amendments put forward by the designate domestic abuse commissioner to establish an oversight mechanism on investigations into domestic abuse related homicides and suicides. She is someone who knows what needs to be done and we should support her with what seem like reasonable and sensible asks.

The number of women being killed by men has not budged at all over the past decade. Clearly, much more work has to be done to identify the changes needed to prevent future deaths. I believe that Amendments 51 and 54 in particular would be an important step on that journey. An oversight mechanism is absolutely critical. There is a great deal of learning coming from domestic homicide reviews, which were introduced in 2011, and from bereaved families’ selfless contributions, but the lack of oversight and of publication of findings at a national level means that this learning is often being lost or limited to local areas. DHRs, for instance, can be desperately hard to find, buried on community safety partnership websites, which means that wider learning can become next to impossible.

It is also too often the case that recommendations are not implemented effectively or are implemented in the short term, but actions drift over time. A clear oversight and accountability mechanism, led by the commissioner working with the Home Office, would help to drive effective implementation and share lessons nationally in the long term as well as the short term. As a police officer put it to me this week, one recommendation that is good for one force will probably be good for forces all over the country. The same mistakes will be happening again and again, and that simply cannot carry on when we have a death toll as high as we do.

Beyond domestic homicide reviews, there is a range of other investigations into the circumstances surrounding an individual’s death which contain recommendations relating to the response of public authorities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, set out. There is currently, however, no systematic way of identifying these investigations for the purpose of ensuring that recommendations are followed up and that key themes across investigations are examined and acted on in order to prevent future deaths. I believe that Amendments 51 and 54 would help address this.

I will finish by talking briefly about suicide. Mental health has been talked about in previous groupings, and I thought my noble friend the Minister gave some very thorough and thoughtful answers. Sadly, not enough data and shared learning are being collected on suicides as a result of domestic abuse. The correlation is undoubtedly high, but we really do not have a clear picture of the true scale of the problem. One report published by the University of Bristol suggested that nearly 200 victims a year went on to kill themselves on the same day they visited A&E with a domestic abuse related injury. If these figures are accurate, the scale of missed interventions is simply unacceptable. Amendments 51 and 54 would surely complement the endeavour to join up multi-agency thinking and accountability, especially regarding health care providers who we know have such a big role to play. I therefore urge noble Lords to back these amendments.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 51, which would extend the list of public authorities that have a duty to co-operate with the domestic abuse commissioner, to include the Independent Office for Police Conduct, Her Majesty’s Prison Service, the National Probation Service, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, and the Chief Coroner. I am speaking also in support of Amendment 54, which would place a new duty on public authorities to carry out reviews and investigations into deaths where domestic abuse has been identified as a contributory factor, to notify the Secretary of State for the Home Office and the office of the domestic abuse commissioner on completion, and to provide them with a copy of their findings.

Thus, the domestic abuse commissioner is proposing to establish an oversight mechanism on investigations into domestic abuse related homicides and suicides. They are intended to ensure that a more systematic collection of investigations into suicides and homicides, in which domestic abuse is identified as a contributory factor, is made together with a robust accountability framework. This is to ensure that individual recommendations are acted upon, and that key themes across investigations are identified, to help target key policy changes needed to prevent future deaths.

The pandemic has created so many problems for our society, notwithstanding the area of domestic abuse. A number of domestic abuse charities and campaigners have reported a surge in calls to helplines and online services since the lockdown conditions were imposed. It is a sobering insight into the levels of abuse that people live with all the time. Coronavirus may exacerbate triggers, and lockdown may restrict access to support or escape. It may even curtail the measures some people take to keep their own violence under control.

20:15

Dame Vera Baird QC, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, told MPs at an evidence session last year that Counting Dead Women, a pioneering project that records the killing of women by men in the UK, had got to a total of 16 domestic abuse killings in three weeks between March and April of 2020. The usual record of 2 a week had increased to 5 a week, and she noted that that was the size of the crisis—a crisis that needs our fullest attention and our resolve to address.

In 2011, domestic homicide reviews were established on a statutory basis under Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. These DHRs are carried out by community safety partnerships to ensure that lessons are learned when a person has been killed as a result of domestic abuse. They can bring a huge amount of value to local leadership, and the process brings together disparate parts of the statutory and non-statutory systems to consider how to prevent future deaths.

It was one of the most difficult and disturbing aspects of my role as a councillor when I had to take part in such a review following the death of one of my constituents. It was a devastating time for the community, and it left long-running consequences as we searched ourselves to see what more anyone could have done to prevent such a tragedy. In hard terms, what could be done now by agreeing these amendments is to establish a clear oversight and accountability mechanism led by the independent domestic abuse commissioner, which would help to drive effective implementation and share lessons nationally in the long as well as the short term.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am hugely encouraged by listening to all these debates around this Bill, because I know that every single one of us wants this Bill to be as good as it possibly can be. I will keep my comments brief.

In relation to Amendment 54, the issue of data is critical. We have to take time to remember that behind statistics are precious individuals—women and men. I support a duty on public authorities to notify the Home Office and the domestic abuse commissioner in cases of death where domestic abuse has been identified as a contributory factor.

In order to make good policy, we need good data. It is not enough that data are trustworthy; they must also be trusted, otherwise they will not be used. A key objective of the Bill is to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims. That task can be effective only if the Home Office and commissioner are fully apprised of all reviews and investigations into deaths where domestic abuse is identified as a factor.

On Amendment 51, I wish to make a brief comment on communication between various bodies and the domestic abuse commissioner. We have already seen the fruits of the designate commissioner’s hard work. If this role is to be a success, it is essential to have join-up. Nicole Jacobs has been exemplary in her role already, and I am grateful for the many connections she has made and the strong relationships she has built, not least in the preparation of this Bill. But it is important to ensure that the list of public authorities that have a duty to co-operate with the commissioner is as extensive as possible on the face of legislation, so that we do not rely on relationship alone as we go forward.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 51 and 54, to which I was happy to add my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Bertin, for introducing the amendment so well.

We heard in the group starting with Amendment 23 about the critical role of better information. I know it is a theme the Minister is acutely aware of, not least because she has departmental responsibility for it in the Home Office. To restate the obvious, and it really cannot be restated often enough, more joined-up, accurate, timely and informative data would enable Nicole Jacobs, on our behalf, to understand the past and the present better, a point made very well just now by the right reverend Prelate.

This point was also made very forcefully earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on Amendment 23: the need not only to recognise but to try to predict future violent and abusive behaviour better, in order to prevent or mitigate injuries to abused partners and their children. What is the point of having a domestic abuse commissioner if we do not equip her with the right powers and authority, moral and statutory, to do her job as well as possible? As others have mentioned, these amendments have the active support of Nicole Jacobs and, if accepted, they will enable her, again on behalf of all of us, to understand the full gravity and texture of domestic abuse more clearly than we do today. We have to be more proactive and joined up. As was mentioned earlier, domestic homicide reviews are an improvement, but they are still not working as they should.

Amendment 54 will provide the commissioner and the Home Office with ready and immediate access to this vital data. Amendment 51 adds to the collation of vital data by drawing into the commissioner’s information hub all the investigations into domestic homicides by the five bodies named.

In summary, the commissioner has asked us not just on her behalf but on behalf of victims and their families to articulate what is behind her request to be given the additional access to key information that she judges she needs. This will enable her to do her job even more effectively and to do so right from the start. I hope I am right in anticipating a positive and supportive response to the commissioner and the Committee from the Minister.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 189 is of a rather different type. We are proposing that to remove an authority added by regulations to the list through Clause 15(4)(a), the regulations achieving that removal should be the subject of an affirmative resolution. The Minister may say that as the Secretary of State has imposed—I am not sure whether that is the best term—an added authority under Clause 15(4)(a), it is hers to dispose of, but unless there has been an aberration, the public authority so added will be of significance. The Minister will of course know that it is not unusual for my noble friend Lord Paddick and me to take a look at every regulation-making power we find in legislation.

With regard to the other two amendments in this group, listening to and reading the names of the victims of domestic homicide is very moving. They are individuals who together make up significant data. We are particularly aware of this in the context of those who have died during the pandemic. My noble friend Lady Burt has already given the support of these Benches to Amendments 51 and 54. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has just mentioned, these are matters that the domestic abuse commissioner designate is calling for. Her shadow period in post has led her to call for a limited number of significant amendments to the Bill. It is not an impossibly large number, and it is not an impossible ask, so I think we should have a very good reason to reject what she has identified as necessary.

In a Bill which is going through your Lordships’ House concurrently, and on many previous occasions, the Minister, and other Ministers, have argued for public servants to have all the necessary tools in the toolkit. We have not always agreed on what those necessary tools are but, on this occasion, we certainly support these amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 51 and 54 and even the little tweak of Amendment 189, because these powers will clearly enhance the office of the domestic abuse commissioner, making sure that relevant public bodies actually co-operate and support the work. This reflects the sort of broad approach that should be taken by the whole public sector in trying to stamp out domestic abuse. The Independent Office for Police Conduct will be very important in identifying and dealing with police officers who are domestic abusers themselves. Those people have absolutely no place in policing, and I will revisit this with Amendment 53.

Amendment 54 ensures that the domestic abuse commissioner is informed of deaths where domestic abuse is a factor. This is vital information for the commissioner, and it is hard to see how she will be able to function if she does not have it. These amendments are crucial.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall keep my comments brief as to why I think Amendment 51 and, in particular, Amendment 54 could be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, in this instance, I talk just about women, because those are the statistics we have.

We know from the ONS that, on average, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales. We know from the UK’s femicide census that the number of women killed each year has gone largely unchanged in a decade. While the femicide census covers all women killed by men, its analysis of the data from 2009 to 2018 reveals disturbing trends relevant to this debate. In 62% of cases, the woman was killed at the hands of a current or ex-partner. In 43% of those cases, the victim had separated or taken steps to separate from the perpetrator. In 89% of those cases, the woman was killed within one year of that separation or attempted separation.

We also know that, for all those women who died over those 10 years, the most common method of killing —47%—was a sharp instrument; followed by strangulation, 27%; then by a blunt instrument, 16%; and then by the use of hitting, kicking or stamping, 15%. I say this, not to be gratuitous, but to show that there are patterns we could learn from. Given that the numbers have not changed in a decade, this suggests that the system is not working. An oversight mechanism that could give the commissioner access to all the data and the reports from the different bodies that already provide them would make it possible to look across the whole piece to identify and examine key themes and help drive implementation nationally and in the long term. The current commissioner designate wants to do the work, but she can only do it if she has the information. Surely, we do not want to find that, in another 10 years, there are still two women being killed every week in these supposedly “isolated” incidents.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to welcome Amendments 189 and 54. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, there are parallels with my earlier Amendment 23 about the effective use of data. I think he and the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt, Lady Bertin and Lady Wilcox, eloquently described the way in which information needs to be used by the commissioner. I was particularly taken with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, about taking the lessons from domestic homicide reviews, and in relation to people with mental illness and the importance of the NHS linking to it.

20:30

On Amendment 51, it is clearly right that specified public bodies must have a duty to co-operate with the commissioner, and the organisations listed are all to be welcomed. It is very puzzling why the Independent Office for Police Conduct, HM Prison Service, the National Probation Service, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and the Chief Coroner are missing from the list in Clause 15. I hope we will get an explanation from Ministers as to why that is so. After all, as I said earlier, the Bill specifies in Clause 7(1)(b) that:

“The Commissioner must encourage good practice”

in the prevention, detection and prosecution of offences including domestic abuse. All the officeholders and organisations that have been excluded and which are part of this amendment have a contribution to make to that. I would have thought one would want them to have a duty to co-operate.

The same arguments apply to the Chief Coroner. The Chief Coroner has several important roles including providing support, leadership and guidance for coroners and the setting of national standards. They also have to monitor the system where recommendations from inquests are reported to the appropriate authorities to prevent further deaths. Surely this is applicable and relevant to domestic abuse fatalities, and I think it will be important for the commissioner to co-operate with the domestic abuse commissioner.

If there is a sensitivity about the Chief Coroner being covered by this clause because of his judicial role, at the very least I would have thought an amendment could be made to Section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Currently, this specifies that:

“The Chief Coroner must give the Lord Chancellor a report for each calendar year”

on

“matters that the Chief Coroner wishes to bring to the attention of the Lord Chancellor”.

I would have thought it could be specified, at the least, that the Chief Coroner could report to the Secretary of State and the commissioner on matters the Chief Coroner wishes to bring to their attention.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate with such constructive comments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has explained, Amendments 51 and 54 seek to address what may be a gap in the domestic abuse commissioner’s powers in relation to ensuring that lessons are learned from domestic homicide reviews. These are abhorrent crimes; of course, every death is a tragedy, as is the suicide of a domestic abuse victim. Domestic homicide reviews are a valuable mechanism to understand what lessons can be learned from these deaths to prevent further tragedies. We recognise that there is room for improvement in the way these reviews are conducted and the lessons applied.

Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 provides for domestic homicide reviews to be undertaken by police forces in England and Wales, local authorities, providers of probation services and relevant NHS bodies. The accompanying guidance states that reviews must be published on community safety partnership websites following approval from the Home Office, unless there are exceptional circumstances not to do so. To that extent, the review findings will be available to the commissioner, but I recognise that there is a case for going further.

In relation to England, most of the bodies I have listed—probation service providers being the exception—are already subject to the duty to co-operate with the commissioner under Clause 15. It would thus be open to the commissioner to use her powers under that clause to achieve the outcome sought by Amendment 54. In addition, we are ready to review the current guidance, in consultation with those who undertake domestic homicide reviews, with a view to including a standing expectation that the findings of these reviews are shared with the commissioner.

With regard to the other reviews referred to in Amendment 54, the guidance on domestic homicide reviews is clear that such reviews must be considered when the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from domestic abuse. As a result, it is possible that homicide may be subject to more than one review, albeit each with a different focus and purpose. As a consequence, without further consideration of the interplay between the various reviews referred to in Amendment 54, we are not yet persuaded that it is necessary to place a requirement on the relevant public authorities to copy the findings of the reviews listed in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause where the review relates to a domestic homicide. However, as I have indicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made his point about data being the key, if on further analysis there is a good case for such a requirement, the commissioner can use her Clause 15 powers to this end.

As to whether the list of specified public authorities in Clause 15 should be extended in the manner proposed in Amendment 51, this is again something we can consider further. Noble Lords will understand that we should fully consult the bodies in question before reaching a conclusion on this. We may not have sufficient time to complete such consultations ahead of Report but, in any event, Clause 15 contains a power to amend the list of specified public authorities by regulations.

On the broader point, I accept the concerns related to the collection of data on domestic homicides. That is why the Home Office has undertaken to create a central repository to hold all domestic homicide reviews. Once introduced, all historical reports will be collected to ensure that there is a central database on domestic homicides. It is also clear that the domestic homicides review process would benefit from the closer involvement of the domestic abuse commissioner. We intend to work with her to consider which parts of the review process would benefit from her involvement.

Finally, Amendment 189 would require regulations to remove a specified authority under Clause 15 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In our delegated powers memorandum we argued that the negative procedure affords an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, given the constraints on the regulation-making power, notably the fact that it cannot be used to remove a body that is listed in the clause on enactment. Regulations can remove a body from the list of specified public authorities only if that body had previously been added to the list by regulations. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised no objection to the negative power.

In conclusion, I am sympathetic to Amendments 51 and 54, but they require more analysis and consultation before we reach a firm conclusion. Moreover, the powers of the commissioner in Clause 15(1), the duty for a specified public authority to co-operate in subsection (2) and the regulation-making power in subsection (4) offer a way forward without the need to amend the Bill. That said, I would be happy to update noble Lords ahead of Report on progress regarding our consideration of these issues. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this short debate. Some of the statistics cited are absolutely fascinating, as are the insights that noble Lords are able to bring to a subject like this. I was interested to note that the Minister said that the commissioner already has the powers to require co-operation from all but one of the groups we are seeking to add, and yet the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee both alluded to the fact that the commissioner has requested these particular powers to be added. We will see whether we can get to the bottom of this.

I am heartened by the words of the Minister. She has said that she will update the House again before Report. That will be extremely helpful to the whole House and it will determine how we need to take things forward. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 52. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 52

Moved by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

52: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to co-operate: children awaiting NHS treatment
(1) The Commissioner must within 6 months after section 15 comes into force issue a request under that section to the NHS bodies in England mentioned in subsection (2) to co-operate with the Commissioner to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met within 12 months after section 15 comes into force and continues to be met.(2) The bodies are—(a) every clinical commissioning group established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006, and(b) every other NHS body in England (as defined in section 15(7)) whose co-operation the Commissioner thinks is necessary to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met.(3) The objective is that where a child affected by domestic abuse has been referred for NHS care or treatment in the area (“Area A”) of a clinical commissioning group, and as a result of being so affected moves to the area (“Area B”) of another clinical commissioning group, the child receives that care or treatment no later than it would have been received in Area A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow children who have had to move due to domestic abuse to receive any NHS treatment they had been referred for no later than if they had not moved.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It requires the commissioner to use the power under Section 15 of the Bill to help ensure that the children of victims are not further disadvantaged by losing their places on NHS waiting lists by virtue of having to move to escape the abuser. The commissioner must issue the request to every clinical commissioning group and every NHS body she deems necessary, within six months of the Bill coming into law, to co-operate to this effect, and to ensure that it is done within 12 months.

We know that waiting lists can vary from area to area, but the overall effect should be that no child waits longer than they would have in the original area to whose waiting list they were originally referred. On the pre-legislation consultation committee, we heard of children who never get the treatment that they need through having to move areas and losing their place for treatment on NHS waiting lists. This must no longer be allowed to happen. Why should these young victims be made to suffer this?

I hope that on this very simple amendment, the Minister will be able respond in a positive manner. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, but it is not simple. I live in Ludlow, 10 miles from the Welsh border. As far as I can see, this amendment applies only to England. There will be people who live in the north of England, close to the Scottish border. There will be people who seek sanctuary in different places. It is not always something you can control if you are on the move and fleeing. What happens to children who are moved from England to Wales or Scotland, or, in rare but not impossible cases, as I recall from the experiences of my constituents, people who flee back to Northern Ireland?

This looks simple and the aim is absolutely bang on. It must be the case that children do not suffer, but we do not have a national health service, do we? We call it the National Health Service, but it is not national; it is devolved. How do we get around the problem of children who have crossed to one of the devolved Administrations? That is the only point I wish to make on this amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for moving this amendment, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I bring to this amendment my experience as a clinician some time ago in paediatrics—where, sadly, I admitted several abused children who had been caught in a complex cycle of domestic abuse—as well as my later clinical experience.

When children have experienced or witnessed abuse, some of them then move to live with kinship carers, or they move with the escaping parent, often to a different health provider area. They have to start all over again with schooling and health support. They may change GPs or move from one hospital referral list to another. There are waiting lists across the majority of specialty services required for many different types of support and intervention these children may need and for which they have been referred.

20:45

At first sight, some symptoms may not appear to be directly linked to the abuse, such as a heart murmur or other congenital problems. For others, the treatment they require may be directly linked to domestic abuse, perhaps as a result of neglect, harm or an illness that has worsened due to stress and fear. There is a wealth of evidence that people with a long-term illness or a disability are more likely to experience domestic abuse, and it seems no less likely that the same applies to children, given the high rate of family breakdown when the child has particular health and social care needs.

However, if this child goes to the back of the waiting list in the new area to which they move, they are being punished for having had to move. It is hard enough for the child to establish new relationships without also feeling that investigations or interventions that had been started at referral will all have to start over again. Many children in an abusive situation may struggle to express themselves or understand the options available to them. We must ensure that no child feels as though a choice is being made between their treatment and escaping abuse.

However, let us also consider the parent who is being abused: waiting for NHS treatment should never be a barrier to children or parents who desperately need to remove themselves from an abusive situation. This practical solution would make it easier for a victim of domestic abuse to leave their abuser and would ensure that no child needs to suffer any more than they have already as a consequence of the abuse.

However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I want this principle to stretch across the whole of the UK and to be taken from one hospital waiting list to another, irrespective of where it is in the UK. This is a small practicality, and I am sure we could get the wording right by looking at it before Report. It will be beneficial for children who have experienced domestic abuse, will not increase NHS costs and will ensure that there are proper handovers from one clinical service to another.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, about four years ago, I was among a group of parliamentarians taking evidence from a number of survivors of domestic abuse and coercive control. One particularly haunting case has stayed with me: we heard from a woman who had to flee repeatedly, with her primary-aged young son, from repeated physical and mental abuse by her former partner. They were living in a small flat when her ex-partner broke down the door. He attacked and then raped her in front of her young son, who, when he tried to stop the attack, was thrown across the room and badly concussed.

The mother and son had to flee again to yet another local authority area to avoid being followed. I remember this extraordinary woman describing how, each time they moved, they had to find yet another GP and get fresh referrals to new and safe hospitals for treatment for them both. Each time, they had to explain the horrors they had faced and often went to the bottom of lists for new referrals to specialists, even though they had been receiving urgent services elsewhere. This young boy needed consistent long-term physical and mental health services as a matter of real urgency—not to have to relive the horror in each new town.

This is why I support my noble friend Lady Burt on Amendment 52, which seeks to protect waiting-list positions for children who are victims of domestic abuse. It is to the credit of this Government that the Bill recognises these children as victims in their own right. One in seven children and young people under 18 will have lived with domestic violence at some point in their childhood. The mental damage inflicted on them can be as serious as physical abuse and often much longer lasting.

We know that many survivors of domestic abuse and their children need to leave their local authority in order to be safe, and government guidance is clear that local connection rules should not apply when allocating housing in these cases. However, in health, children who move to a new area and are awaiting healthcare treatment can be required to rejoin waiting lists with a new CCG. This means that vulnerable children with complex physical and mental health needs can wait longer as a result of fleeing an abusive home. Parent victims of domestic abuse may also find themselves torn between staying in an area to ensure that their children can access treatment and fleeing violence, a choice which no parent should ever have to make.

There is a number of academic articles on the long-term consequences for children growing up in homes where there is domestic abuse, and these make chilling reading. In addition to the perhaps more obvious physical and mental health issues, many also develop long-term conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome. In 2006, UNICEF published its report, Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Domestic Abuse on Children. It says:

“The particular impact of domestic violence on children must be taken into account by all government agencies responding to violence in the home … Governments must specifically allocate resources to support children who are exposed to violence in the home”.


The excellent briefing from Hestia talks about the inconsistent, even haphazard, way clinical commissioning groups deal with their waiting lists. There is no guidance for them on how to handle those fleeing domestic abuse, stalking and coercive control, but there is NHS guidance for CCGs on how to help members of the Armed Forces and their families. The Armed Forces covenant ensures “fair access to treatment” and protects servicepeople’s waiting list position if they are redeployed and the family moves home to a new area. There is also guidance for schools in picking up any special educational needs of forces children, without the need to reassess them from the start. To the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I say that this does not just work elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it works when families are moved abroad as well.

A similar principle could be applied to these children, recognising that domestic violence is not the same as simply moving home. The Bill recognises that these children are themselves victims of domestic abuse, and I ask the Minister to consider what action, such as the current NHS guidance used under the Armed Forces covenant, can be taken to ensure that change happens swiftly and that these children get the help they need wherever and whenever they are forced to move home.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 52, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would provide that NHS trusts must co-operate and work with the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that when a child has to relocate due to being affected by domestic abuse, they can still

“receive any NHS treatment they had been referred for no later than if they had not moved.”

This issue was raised in an amendment by the shadow Minister in the Commons debates on the Bill, and we agree with its objectives. Children who are forced to relocate because of domestic abuse ought to be prioritised to the extent set out in this amendment because, as the evidence shows, they are vulnerable victims in need of urgent support.

However, in order to receive support from health professionals, children need a diagnosis, and the reality is that, at the moment, people can wait for considerable periods of time—up to 18 months or more—between referral and the start of an assessment. If a child is forced to move to a different NHS trust or clinical commissioning group, they may have to repeat that wait all over again. The cost of the long-term effects of exposure to severe domestic abuse is estimated at between £500 million and £1.4 billion per year, including on education and health services. Providing resources to children in the way and in the circumstances proposed in this amendment could help to reduce that figure.

The Government’s response in the Commons was that access to the NHS is based on clinical priority and that a child’s need to access and receive health services will be assessed and services provided according to clinical need. However, the difficulty is that, in the case of children forced to relocate because of domestic abuse, if the forced move is from one area where the wait following referral can be 18 months to two years to another area where the wait following referral is for a similar period, a clinician might not see that child for a lengthy period of time, literally years, and any decisions made are not being made by clinicians. There should be a way to prioritise the needs of a child who has been relocated because of domestic abuse and has already been on a waiting list somewhere, and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has set out, the amendment would ensure that when a victim of domestic abuse was compelled to move to a different area with their children, the children would receive NHS care or treatment no later than they would have done if they had not moved. I certainly agree that it is important to recognise the impact of domestic abuse, and the trauma it can cause, on the health and well-being of children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out with some powerful examples, the impact can be both physical and mental. I appreciate her recognition of the approach that we are taking in the Bill to children as victims of domestic abuse.

It is a key principle that access to NHS care is in on the basis of clinical need. When patients move home and change hospitals, the NHS should take previous waiting time into account and ensure, wherever possible, that these patients are not put at a disadvantage as a result. As noble Lords will be aware, waiting times may vary across the country and between services. Different services experience different challenges in terms of local demand, which can affect waiting times in those areas, and it is important that there is local flexibility to manage this.

Decisions about clinical prioritisation must consider a patient’s needs in the context of all the other patients who are in need of the same service. Patients with urgent conditions should of course be seen and receive treatment more quickly. Regardless of circumstance, clinical commissioning groups and providers have a duty to provide services within the maximum waiting times set out in the NHS constitution.

To summarise, all patients should receive high-quality care without any unnecessary delay. Patients can expect to be treated at the right time and according to their clinical priority.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was right to point out the challenges posed by devolution and the fact that we have a number of national health services. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was also right that people fleeing domestic abuse might be doing so internationally, both to and from the United Kingdom. In England, under the NHS constitution, patients

“have the right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer … a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible.”

All bodies commissioning healthcare services must assess the health requirements of the populations they serve, take account of inequalities in access to and outcomes from healthcare services, and commission the services they consider necessary to meet the population’s need. Where the systems or processes of the NHS are an impediment to equitable treatment for this group, it will be important for the NHS to work to ensure that such impediments are removed, and we will support and encourage that.

As noble Lords may know, the NHS Long Term Plan sets out a number of measures to improve access to services—for example, creating an extra 50 million general practice appointments a year within the next five years as part of the 2020-21 GP contract. In children and young people’s mental health services, we have committed, through the long-term plan, that by 2023-24 at least an additional 345,000 children and young people aged from birth to 25 will be able to access support via NHS-funded mental health services and school or college-based mental health support teams.

We have introduced two waiting time standards for children and young people: one regarding treatment for eating disorders and one for those experiencing a first episode of psychosis. We were on track to meet both those standards before the Covid-19 pandemic hit. The recent spending review included £1 billion to address backlogs and tackle long waiting lists by facilitating up to 1 million extra checks, scans and additional operations. Those are just some of the actions that the Government are already taking in this area.

To conclude, I reassure the noble Baroness that a child’s need to access and receive health services will be assessed and services provided according to clinical need, which will consider the individual needs of the child. It is right that we trust clinicians to take decisions about a patient’s treatment, and the NHS long-term plan, as I have set out, includes a number of measures to improve access to services. I hope, in light of all that, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.

21:00

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, again, the contributions to this very short debate have been extremely powerful and interesting. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made me wonder whether I had gone far enough in this amendment and whether we should be allocating a greater deal of priority. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a really important point about national boundaries and different health services. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, described a very powerful case study in her contribution, and I hope that she will have the answer. If we can do it through the Armed Forces covenant, I do not understand why we cannot do it here.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, particularly since he says that the NHS should be taking previous waiting times into account. However, the stories that we have heard this evening show that this is not happening. So I hope that he will be receptive to further discussions on what is going wrong. It does not need necessarily to be in this Bill, but it does need to be sorted out. I am very grateful for his positive response to the comments and remarks of all noble Lords. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 53. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate. After Clause 16, Amendment 53; I call the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top.

Amendment 53

Moved by

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

53: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Duties of public authorities in relation to training
(1) Subject to subsection (3), all public authorities specified in section 15(3) must, in consultation with the Commissioner—(a) train those staff who provide a service to people who suffer or may suffer domestic abuse to make enquiries about domestic abuse,(b) ensure that such enquiries are made, and(c) report to the Commissioner such statistics on enquiries or training as the Commissioner deems necessary.(2) If the Commissioner has published guidance on training or reporting under section 7(2)(d), the training or reporting provided by public authorities to their staff must meet standards specified in such guidance, so far as such standards apply to the public authority.(3) The Commissioner must produce an annual report, in accordance with section 14(2)(b).(4) Nothing in this section prevents the Commissioner from specifying that the staff of any public authority should receive additional training or make enhanced or targeted enquiries.”

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 53 seeks to amend the Bill to put a statutory duty on public services to ensure front-line staff in those services are making inquiries about domestic abuse. It looks to further support this duty with appropriate training and funding so that staff are equipped to ask the question, and to ensure services are available and ready to support survivors when they do disclose. The amendment also seeks to accompany the duty with robust data collection and good training standards. The campaign to include this in the Bill has been led by Agenda and supported by over 20 other charities, trade unions, practitioners and leading experts. I thank them for their work and their commitment.

The impact of abuse on survivors means that they are likely to come into contact with a whole range of public services. While four out of five victims never call the police, many visit their GP because of the abuse they are suffering. Some turn up at the housing department, some at DWP. For some it is the police; for others it will be the health service. Wherever it is, it is important that the abuse and its consequences are recognised and that appropriate support is offered.

Unfortunately, research by Agenda and the National Commission on Domestic Abuse and Multiple Disadvantage in the report Breaking Down the Barriers found that too often public services fail to pick up domestic abuse and therefore fail to respond appropriately. Routine inquiry, whereby practitioners routinely ask patients about experiences of abuse, is already recommended by NICE guidelines in services including mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, and maternity services—but it often does not happen.

I say to your Lordships, ask friends who are pregnant about their experience. I did, and got a variety of answers. Some had not been asked at all; one was asked in front of her partner; and others were asked in what they described as a tick-box exercise, where it was clear that the person asking was embarrassed and did not want a difficult answer. A third of mental health trusts that responded to a freedom of information request from Agenda did not even have a policy on routine inquiry, despite the NICE guidelines. When they had a policy, it was often applied inconsistently, with one trust saying that it asked only 3% of patients about experience of domestic abuse.

The Joint Committee on the Bill urged the Government to consider how to ensure greater consistency of approach and training for front-line staff. The Government’s response was that routine inquiry was already taking place in maternity and mental health services. However, as we now know, tragically, it is not. Some 38% of women with mental health problems have experienced domestic abuse. Many of them have not had that taken into account in the response that they get in treatment. We need to go further than health services. All our public services, from jobcentres to GPs, should be asking about abuse, so that they can then offer appropriate support.

There are examples of good practice, which show that the approach suggested in the amendment would work. The IRIS programme in primary care, a training and support programme to improve service-level response to disclosure of abuse, found in its research that the number of referrals to domestic violence agencies made by clinicians in practices where IRIS was in place was six times higher than in those not involved in the programme. It has also been evaluated that there are social costings of £37 per woman registered in a GP practice. So we know that there is training that works and makes a real difference. We know that too from the SafeLives training programme that is delivered to police forces, because it produces much better practice and outcomes in those forces that take up the training.

I have not put in the amendment the precise nature of the training, which is probably a matter for guidance. However, most people agree that it should be some form of trauma-informed practice. I have talked to organisations such as Changing Lives and Fulfilling Lives, which ensure that all their staff have trauma-informed training. There are two main consequences of this. They know how to deal with people who come before them, mainly women, who have experienced the trauma of domestic abuse. They know how to give them the feeling of a safe space, how to help them disclose, and so on.

They also deliver training to other organisations, so Fulfilling Lives, with some of their experts by experience who have been through the training, then offer it to the DWP in Newcastle. DWP managers have told me just how valuable this is. We know that this sort of training works, and the Government have recognised it in making sure that it is offered to veterans who suffer from PTSD. It needs to be recognised in those who have experienced domestic abuse. Appropriate training also helps front-line workers deal with the trauma of colleagues who have their own experience of domestic abuse or deal with those experiencing trauma. We have learned a lot about that during the pandemic.

This amendment would give public services a real opportunity to rethink training and development for their workforce, and offer meaningful support to the victims of domestic abuse. I think it is really necessary, and I sure that the Government know this, but are worried about it being overburdensome. I do not believe it would be. It would be enormously helpful to public services and front-line workers, because they would be much more confident about how they are dealing with people. I hope that the Government see how to adopt this, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the wisdom and experience of my noble friend Lady Armstrong and to be in the company of my noble friend Lord Hunt in adding my name and support to this amendment. What brings us together is the need for this most welcome Domestic Abuse Bill to place a statutory duty on public authorities to ensure that front-line staff make trained inquiries into domestic abuse, backed, as my noble friend said, by sufficient funding to make it a reality.

The Government said that routine inquiry is already in place in maternity and mental health services, and that all staff working in the NHS must undertake at least level 1 safeguarding training, which includes domestic abuse. While I acknowledge that much guidance is out there and that many levels of training and training commissioning exist, the problem is that there is no trained, routine and consistent inquiry into domestic abuse for front-line workers across public authorities.

Since best-value performance indicators were dropped several years ago, local authorities—often the local trainers and commissioners—have no way of measuring their performance in training and commissioning compared with other local authorities. Often, the first contact in a trauma is the most important. Their interaction with an abused person decides the trust and confidence that that person has in that service, be it the police, housing, mental health, the NHS or social care. I know that local authority trainers, in particular, would welcome greater consistency, accountability and scrutiny.

The alliance organisation Agenda has worked tirelessly on this aspect of help for victims of abuse. It has found that, despite NICE guidance, trained practitioners are not routinely asking patients about domestic abuse. One mental health trust asked only 3% of patients, when it was meant to be asking everyone. The Government are aware of these continuing inconsistencies, as is seen in the shift in their wording in the draft statutory guidance published in July 2020—from routine inquiry on domestic abuse “already takes place” to “should be taking place”.

21:15

Level 1 safeguarding training, as quoted by the Government, can often mean domestic abuse training being subsumed into wider safeguarding issues. The training is therefore not specialist enough to enable the referral of domestic abuse victims appropriately. Some staff will simply need core competences. Others may need training to a higher standard to support victims of coercive control or economic abuse. Box-ticking has never been more inappropriate.

For those who may question the need for the statutory duty in this arena set out in the amendment, it is important to remember the sheer scale of domestic abuse in this country. The ONS estimates that 1.6 million women aged between 16 and 74 experienced domestic abuse in 2019—that was before Covid and before lockdowns. Our argument is that only a statutory duty to make trained inquiries a standard practice will create the sufficiently large, systemwide change needed to assist so many victims of abuse. Without that statutory duty, the designate commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, will not have the powers or resources to ensure that consistent training is taking place across public authorities. I ask the Minister, who I know is committed to this portfolio, to look positively on our argument that public authorities should routinely ask and take action.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment strongly: because this is done in such a patchy way, it needs a complete rethink.

I want to focus my comments on the training of police in domestic abuse. I have mentioned before in your Lordships’ House the organisation SafeLives, which has trained various police forces and found it incredibly effective in making them aware and more empathetic. Arrests and prosecutions rocket because, all of a sudden, police officers understand what is involved.

This week, at the APPG on Policing and Security, I asked Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe, who is the NPCC lead for domestic abuse, about the number of police forces that had done this sort of domestic abuse training. The latest figures she had showed that 23 out of 43 forces had done the training, which I think noble Lords will agree is not enough. She made the valid point that it was not just about paying for it—which does hamper some police forces, because they have to pay for it themselves—but about the logistics of taking officers away from their day-to-day duties.

So, it is a postcode lottery. You might live in an area where training has been delivered, or you might not. There has to be blanket provision: this sort of training must be delivered as part of basic training to all police forces and any other public servants who may encounter survivors of domestic abuse. However, it is police officers who are in drastic need of this training. I ask that the Minister take this issue back to the Home Office and make it clear that the police should have this training as a matter of course. It represents the deep, far-reaching approach that all public organisations should be taking against domestic abuse. This is how we win against abusers.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment, to add my support to that of my noble friend Lady Crawley.

When my noble friend Lady Armstrong spoke at Second Reading, she described the challenge of supporting women at risk of losing custody of their children when the main need was identified as domestic abuse. We know that victims face many challenges, and that more than half of women victims have a common mental health problem. One in five has been homeless, and one in three has an alcohol problem. All too many are in poverty, and most women in contact with the criminal justice system have faced domestic or sexual violence. Supporting those victims who face multiple disadvantages requires a workforce with the skill, knowledge and awareness to understand the range of experience that victims have faced, so that they can effectively engage and support them.

But that is not always forthcoming. Many practitioners report that the ongoing training and awareness-raising needed to support that type of practice is often the first thing to be cut to save money. Women affected by domestic violence often highly value support when the person working with them knows what it is like to be in their shoes, and they value hearing from other women who have been through similar experiences. But effective involvement in the workforce of those with lived experience requires real support mechanisms, proper training and development, and for the organisations to use reflective practice to ensure that any challenges that may arise can be addressed effectively and in a supportive environment. We have heard in tonight’s debate that there are other challenges. There is a lot of evidence showing that public services are failing to pick up and respond to domestic abuse, so many survivors are passed from service to service before finally getting what they need, causing years of preventable hurt and even putting lives at risk.

It is clear that public services need to transform their approach to domestic abuse. Asking victims and survivors about their experience in a trained and compassionate way is crucial to ensuring that they get the support they need at the earliest possible opportunity. Both my noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lady Crawley referred to NICE guidelines that all mental health services should make trained inquiries into experience of domestic abuse among all those accessing their services. Yet the evidence is that many mental health service patients are still not asked about abuse. I take that as pretty hard evidence that guidelines are simply not sufficient. The case for a statutory duty on public authorities is therefore persuasive. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong: I see that not as a massively onerous task but as one that is essential if we are ever to ensure that public services respond to victims in a co-ordinated way.

Like other noble Lords, I hope that the Minister might take this back and consider it before Report. Of all the amendments that we have debated today, I cannot think of a more important one.

[Baroness Verma (Con) [V]]

My Lords, first, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of UN Women UK. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for introducing this amendment.

For me, it is really about making sure that public services also incorporate those from the BAME community, many of whom have cultural issues that need to be addressed. As I was listening to noble Lords, I was trying to work out how best to illustrate the difficulties that I have known, and seen from the workshops I have done with organisations such as H.O.P.E Training throughout all of last year, during the Covid crisis of 2020, and into this year. We looked at women and girls in communities where there is multi-generational living, and where language is such an issue that, even if they were able to speak about their circumstances, they would have to do it through a family member or somebody acting on their behalf.

I know that my noble friend cares very much, like me, that we do not leave anyone out when it comes to accessing services. I ask that, when considering this amendment, she makes sure that the guidance that is put in place and given out to the public sector ensures that we meet the needs of women and girls—and it is predominantly women and girls, although of course there are circumstances where there are abuses against boys and men.

I have spent many years looking at these issues. The worry for me remains: we tend to reach out to people in these communities through organisations that are supposed to be helpful, but they become an obstacle. I recall a recent case, where a woman was going into hospital to have a scan. She was accompanied by family members and was unable to say what her circumstances at home were, simply because the family were there around her. It was not picked up at the hospital. The only reason it came across my table was because this young lady spoke to a friend who brought the issue to me. This is really important. It is not just about GPs, because, yet again, often BAME individuals live within and stay within their own communities. I hope that, when my noble friend looks at this amendment and at the training, she looks at it in the round and ensures that it incorporates appropriate training for public bodies.

Because of my position as chair of UN Women UK, I have spoken about safe spaces. This is also a really important area of training for the private sector. While this is not in the amendment, we would make great headway getting the private sector to come on board, recognising that, when women are in distress and have concerns, being able to identify that and play a much more supportive role can be helpful for people who are suffering violent abuse at home.

As I have seen in recent days, it is about the threat of having their children taken away, their money stopped, or relatives in the country they originally come from being threatened. There are a number of issues that need to be taken into account. However, I am very supportive of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and I hope we will be able to work together to ensure that training is appropriate to the BAME community.

21:30

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lady Armstrong introduced the amendment. I am going to raise only two issues, both of which have already been touched on, so I am not going to go into detail.

I want to raise the issue of who pays, for this simple reason. The amendment puts a duty on the specified authorities and uses the word “must”. The first thing those authorities are going to say to the domestic abuse commissioner is, “You’re ordering me to do this, so you’ve got to pay for it”, in which case it goes back to the Home Office, because it is still the Home Secretary who controls the budget.

A very fair point that has been raised already is that such training ought to be part and parcel of the duties of the authorities concerned anyway, even without this. However, the fact is that imposing a new duty—and, by the way, I agree with the new clause—means that there is still the nitty-gritty about the transfer of funds. Maybe that could be put in the amendment on Report.

The other issue, which has also been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is the police. Say it is 2 am and they are called to a squabble—there is banging, shouting and clattering, and the police turn up. They need to be trained to spot the issues. It can be confusing in the dead of night, maybe with upset children around, to find out what the cause is. They also need to have excellent contacts with trained social workers so that they do not fob them off. So there are some issues here.

I am not certain whether there would be an issue around whether the police force concerned is in a rural or urban area; it is true that the issues vary. But the fact is that, many times, although not the majority, the police will be the first port of call—the first on the case, as it were—and it could be in the middle of the night. They need that vital training, and so do the people they are going to communicate with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, went into that in greater detail, so I am not going to go further into it. But the finance issue has to be addressed.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, like several others, I wanted to sign this important amendment, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, which I strongly support.

I alluded in the last grouping to my past clinical experience of decades of listening to people—patients of all ages, relatives, staff and others—in the detective work that is part of diagnostic medicine, where you listen not only with your ears but also with your eyes and all other senses, with undivided attention and from the heart. When I reflect on my early career, I am painfully aware how often signals of abuse were missed or picked up all too slowly, or, very occasionally, wrongly inferred from a clinical sign.

That is why awareness is so important. Listening skills can be used to trigger sensitive open questions that allow those abused to get help. GPs know only too well the importance of an aside uttered by the victim who is about to leave the room, with their hand on the door, or when bringing their child in. When reopening a consultation, gently exploring and reflecting back on what is being said results in the stark reality of someone’s life being revealed.

There is a commendable scheme by the Government on the GOV.UK website, Domestic Abuse: Get Help During the Coronavirus (Covid-19) Outbreak. It relies on someone having summoned up enough courage to step forward for help, but many are too scared, ashamed or damaged to do so. That is why awareness-raising is essential. In the area of dementia, a dementia-aware campaign across society has been important. We need to do similar, but even more widely, on domestic abuse. Across health and social care, schools and the police, so many need to have the skills to ask the right questions, to give permission to people to speak up.

There is a list in the Bill. I wonder if the Minister can confirm that the authorities in that list in Clause 15(3)—

“(j) an English local authority … (n) Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills … (o) a body approved as an independent inspectorate under section 106 of the Education and Skills Act 2008”—

will cover schools of all types, and explain how colleges of further education and universities will be included in this obligation to co-operate with the commissioner. Will this ensure that the people who are the shop window of all health and social care services—the receptionists, telephonists, domestic staff, porters and so on—are also trained to pick up on all the important cues? Will this be monitored to reveal whether those cues are appropriately acted on?

This is an important amendment and I am sure we will return to it on Report.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support this hugely important amendment. Public authorities of all kinds should be involved in identifying, signposting and providing services for victims. But unless they are properly trained in all these areas and work together, victims will continue to fall through the net and fail to be offered the services they need, or receive them to a good enough standard.

The amendment ensures that workers on the front line such as teachers, police, health workers and housing officers—“from job centres to GPs”, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong—know the signs of abuse when they see them, inquire sensitively and ensure that victims are put in touch with all the services that can help them. This is a huge operation, which is why the commissioner needs to play that pivotal role in ensuring that these bodies are up to the job and on the job. She can require reports on what has been done, how many have been trained and to what standards. She can ask how many potential victims have been approached and what outcomes have been achieved. The amendment specifies that there is nothing to stop authorities conducting their own training, but this should be as well as, not instead of, what the commissioner specifies. We want her to report on her work, findings and recommendations, every year.

We could go further. We should place a duty on these authorities to work together and the commissioner should oversee this co-ordinated effort, as well as the work of the separate authorities. The Minister may be tempted to say that this happens already. I am sure it does—to a degree. But unless the Minister can disabuse me, I do not think that any one person has responsibility for overseeing this co-operation and for requiring reports on work done, results and progress. I would be grateful if the Minister shared her thoughts with the House. I am hopeful, as she spoke from the heart in an earlier group about the effectiveness of multiagency interventions. This is urgent. We know that the pandemic has made the plight of victims even worse. It has shone a bright light on a dark place. Shame on us if we do not do our best to help as effectively and speedily as we humanly can.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 53, proposed by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill. Every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has fully supported my noble friend’s amendment. The new clause would place a duty on all public authorities to provide training for their staff so that, when they engage with members of the public, they can spot the signs of abuse and can then ask the proper questions and offer appropriate help. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said, this is probably the most important amendment we have discussed today and one of the most important we have debated during consideration on this important and very good Bill.

People engage with public authorities through a range of services, such as local councils, the DWP and GPs. In some parts of the public sector, particularly the health service, people do ask such questions when they have somebody in front of them. As some noble Lords have said, although there may be training, it is very patchy and inconsistent. We are failing many victims. We want to be sure that we will have dealt with this problem by the time the Bill becomes law. When someone engages with the state, there must be people who can see the signs, understand the signals, ask the right questions and take appropriate action. Everyone must play their part in protecting the victims.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made reference to the police. There are some very good examples of excellent work that the police have done. I remember my visit to the domestic abuse unit at Greenwich, where really good work was taking place, in collaboration with the local authority, Greenwich Council. There was one case where officers had attended an incident and were suspicious about what was going on. They kept going back because they knew. Finally, they engaged with the person, got what they needed, got the person out and protected her. That understanding of the problem and engagement does not happen everywhere. We want every police force, across the whole of the United Kingdom, to follow that good example. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the officers who get called to a disturbance in the early hours of the morning are often the first people knocking on the door, so it is important that the police service in particular can deal with this.

My noble friend Lady Crawley made the point that having trained inquirers who know what to ask and what to do is so important in making sure that we make the difference. I also took on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the importance of training to recognise the special needs of the BAME community when dealing with issues of domestic abuse.

So I fully support the amendment and am hopeful of a positive response from the noble Baroness. I look forward to getting a resolution of this issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for tabling this amendment. The Government are in full agreement with its aims; we too want professionals to have the skills and confidence to ask the right questions about domestic abuse and take the appropriate action. I will not be making arguments about overburdening them, but rather suggesting how we think it might be achieved.

We absolutely want to embed understanding of domestic abuse in all agencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, what is the point if agencies do not know how to respond and cannot spot the signs? We want to ensure that there is strong recognition, from senior leadership through to front-line staff, of the importance of tackling domestic abuse. We want staff to ask about domestic abuse, because it is integral to their role and driven by professional curiosity. One of our concerns about introducing a statutory duty, to which noble Lords have alluded, is that it risks undermining professional judgment, and we do not want these sensitive and complex conversations to turn into some sort of tick-box exercise.

The Government are committed to taking wide-ranging action to improve understanding of domestic abuse across statutory agencies through guidance, targeted resources and training for responding agencies such as the police, social workers, healthcare professionals and universal credit work coaches. Work is already under way to strengthen the response from key agencies. In the health sector, front-line staff must undertake mandatory safeguarding training, which includes a focus on domestic abuse. The intercollegiate documents for child and adult safeguarding set out the core skills, competencies and knowledge expected for healthcare staff to be covered in the safeguarding training, and the level of training expected depending on their roles.

NHS England and NHS Improvement are strengthening safeguarding practice in local health systems through the updated NHS safeguarding accountability and assurance framework, and a new safeguarding commissioning assurance toolkit. Schedule 32 to the NHS standard contract sets out the service conditions for safeguarding, which include that the provider must implement comprehensive programmes of safeguarding training for all relevant staff and must have regard to the intercollegiate guidance on safeguarding training.

21:45

The Department for Work and Pensions is introducing a domestic abuse specialist in every jobcentre. These specialists will also be able to upskill their colleagues and promote awareness of domestic abuse across the workforce. To strengthen the response from social workers, we have funded the development of a training programme for professionals working in children’s services. In the housing sector we have supported the work of the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance to establish a set of standards and an accreditation process for how housing providers should respond to domestic abuse.

On the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, investment in training over recent years is already driving a culture change and clear improvements in the police response to, and understanding of, domestic abuse. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has reported a significant improvement in recent years, with officers now far better equipped to ensure that victims are listened to, understood and taken seriously. In terms of resource, the recruitment of the 20,000 police officers is under way, but that is not to take away from the point that those officers also need to be trained.

Of course, there is room to do more and police forces and local policing bodies recognise it. Just last week, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, when launching his consultation on the police precept for 2021-22, said:

“There over 40,000 reports of domestic abuse to GMP every year. We need to ensure they all get a service to a consistently high standard. Transforming the response to and support for victims of domestic violence will require new training and supervision for officers, also ensuring officers are fully trained on the powers provided by the new Domestic Abuse Bill and training officers to deal with children who may have witnessed.”

Finally, the domestic abuse commissioner will play a key role in promoting greater consistency in the response of statutory and voluntary sector services across all areas of the country. My noble friend Lady Verma made a very good point about language barriers and family pressures, both of which can prevent and obstruct open communication between victim and healthcare professional. We are, however, very keen to keep this issue under review. We welcome the work that is being done in Wales to embed targeted inquiries into domestic abuse across public services through the “Ask and Act” duty, and we will carefully consider evidence of the impact and effectiveness of this measure.

While our view is that placing a new statutory duty on public authorities in relation to training and inquiries is not the best way to improve the response to domestic abuse, it is important to note that the Bill already provides for the issuing of guidance under Clause 73. Such guidance can address training needs among other things, although in many cases such guidance is best coming from the appropriate responsible agency in each sector, such as the College of Policing. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about the list and whether it included all schools and universities. It is not intended to—it covers providers, such as the NHS, local authorities and Ofsted.

In conclusion, I share the noble Baroness’s objective in ensuring that all relevant front-line practitioners receive appropriate training so that they can effectively respond to domestic abuse and support victims. We remain to be persuaded that legislation is necessary, but we will continue to keep this under review, including in light of the still relatively limited experience of the “Ask and Act” scheme in Wales. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to conclude the debate on her amendment.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed and been so positive about the importance of really good trained inquiry from whichever front-line worker a woman or victim is likely to turn up in front of. I will not mention everyone individually, but I need to answer a couple of things.

My noble friend Lord Hunt spoke very eloquently about the importance of employing people with lived experience in many of the services that work directly with those who have been abused—this is very important. I work with organisations that do this. However, he is also right that, if you are going to do it, you have an additional responsibility to make sure that they are well trained and supported. This amendment would help to make sure that that happened.

I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, contributed to the debate. When I was doing the commission, I met a number of women from the black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities and, of course, women with disabilities as well as some of the organisations that worked with them specifically. Too often, they met people who simply did not have the specialism or capacity to support them.

It is really important to understand the distinct and often disproportionate ways in which some minoritised women experience abuse, as well as knowing the right referral pathways. Training must involve the expertise of service providers, run by and for minoritised communities. These are really important things that I encourage the Government to think and talk to a wide group about. I certainly look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, on this agenda.

My noble friend Lord Rooker raised the issue of costs. Agenda has estimated that this would cost about £3.6 million. The Minister also mentioned the duty being a burden, and, as a previous Local Government Minister, I know all about that and want to address it. I would like to work with her officials to go through what some organisations have been doing to deliver this training in a way that enhances their organisation as well as ensuring really good support for the women and other victims who come in front of their front-line workers. I believe that there is merit for the public service rather than it being a burden in relation to doing things in the way that we have talked about this evening.

I hear what the Minister says, and I would love to work with her and her officials to find a way forward because I am afraid that, at the moment, there is plenty of guidance but no means of making sure that it is always translated into action. This is where we need to understand how we make sure that this happens for every victim of abuse who presents to a public authority. As such, there is work to be done, and, in the light of that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment today, with the idea that we will do some more work and perhaps come back later with another amendment on Report.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

Amendment 54 not moved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the deliberations today.

House resumed.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons and amendments. The Commons reasons and amendments were ordered to be printed.

House adjourned at 9.55 pm.