House of Commons
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Government have provided Welsh businesses with wide-ranging support, including more than £1.5 billion in bounce back loans, £503 million in coronavirus business interruption loans, £726 million for the self-employed income support scheme, in addition to the £5.2 billion funding guarantee given to the Welsh Government.
Paul Howell [V]
It is important that, as we build back better and progress the levelling up agenda, businesses in all parts of our United Kingdom are encouraged to maximise the benefits of Brexit and the multitude of trade agreements secured by the Department for International Trade. Can my right hon. Friend give me reassurances that he is working with the DIT to ensure that businesses get the best out of Brexit? Whether those businesses are in Wrexham, Clwyd South, or Sedgefield, we should work as one United Kingdom.
Simon Hart
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He makes a crucial Union point in his question. We have secured trade deals with more than 60 countries, which is good for Wales, good for Welsh business and good for the UK. I should also tell him that we are working with the Secretary of State for International Trade on putting a proper dedicated team into Wales to deal with these matters in that capital city.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
It costs British Wool 50p a kilo to bring Welsh mountain sheep’s wool to market where it sells for only 30p a kilo. I wrote to the Prime Minister six months ago to ask what he was doing to boost this fantastic Welsh product now that his Government are responsible for procurement. Welsh wool as a raw material for carpets and upholstery should be woven into every relevant UK Government-funded public project contract by now. Why is it not?
Simon Hart
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that question. Indeed, she has raised it with me before, as have a number of others. I have strong sheep-farming interests in my own constituency and I know the problem to which she refers. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and indeed with the Welsh Government on this and a range of other issues. Since the end of the transition period, we do have more flexibility in our markets for wool and in other matters, but home procurement is very much top of the Government’s agenda.
Liz Saville Roberts
Timing does seem to be a bit of an issue with the Government. Almost a month has gone by, and it seems that Wales is still waiting for a reply from the UK Government about our final financial settlement. This, of course, has created unnecessary doubt over the date of the Welsh Budget. Welsh businesses and public services are enduring ongoing uncertainty over funding, and this will handicap our response to the pandemic. Will the Secretary of State please explain what is the point of his office if he cannot even persuade his colleagues in the Treasury to speak to the Welsh Government?
Simon Hart
That is a slightly strange question, given that the relationship between the Treasury and the Welsh Government, particularly around covid recovery, has been conducted on a daily, if not hourly, basis, with vast sums of money being made available to businesses and individuals of Wales, very much in the spirit of collaboration and co-operation. Rather than trying to make cheap political points, the right hon. Lady should acknowledge the fact that, in these very difficult times, two Governments have worked quite well together and the Union, which is perhaps the point that she does not like me to make, has been particularly crucial in that process.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) [V]
Before I start, on behalf of the Labour party, I would like to pay tribute to Captain Tom Moore and send our deepest condolences to his family.
Cockle-gathering in both north and south Wales is not just a job, but a way of life, dating back generations. Gatherers, who are already alarmed at DEFRA advice that they could not resume the export of shellfish until April, now feel not just forgotten, but utterly betrayed to discover that UK Ministers knew all along that the EU ban on importing non-decorated UK shellfish would be indefinite. What urgent action will the Secretary of State and his Government take to facilitate the resumption of shellfish exports and save this traditional industry from disappearing forever?
Simon Hart
I join the hon. Lady in her tribute. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a more formal statement in a few minutes’ time, but I do recognise—as does the whole House—the comments she makes.
On the industry and sector to which the hon. Lady refers, I am in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office and, indeed—through the Government—the EU, to make the distinction between teething issues that might be arising out of the particular subject to which she refers, and perhaps more permanent structural matters that may need a longer-term solution. I assure her and the industry that we are very seized of the challenges that the industry currently faces.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]
Small businesses in Cardiff North and across the country are struggling to cope with impossible red tape, with no time to prepare due to this Government’s eleventh-hour Brexit deal. Despite more than 10 days preparing the correct documents for full compliance, a local family export meat business has had its produce turned away in Italy, leading to thousands of pounds of stock being destroyed. The owners have subsequently been up all night every night trying to salvage and recoup. They do not want to hear excuses such as “teething problems” when it is their and their employees’ livelihoods on the line, so can the Secretary of State clarify what urgent actions he and his colleagues are taking to resolve these issues, and will he meet me along with this business to see how he can help?
Simon Hart
I received the hon. Lady’s letter about this particular constituent only last night. I am very happy to meet her and to see if we can resolve her constituent’s particular problems; that letter is already receiving the urgent attention that it deserves. I would challenge her on the readiness point that she makes more generally, given the numerous levels of engagement that I and other Government colleagues conducted in the run-up to the end of the transition period; and given the reaction since then from businesses and stakeholders across Wales. They are generally supportive of the fact that a deal has been reached and of the opportunities that it presents, and now actually want to get on with a positive relationship with the EU and the other countries with which we deal.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have regular discussions with the Minister for Vaccine Deployment, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), as well as Defence Ministers and the First Minister of Wales, on the delivery of covid-19 vaccines. Rapid vaccine roll-out is key to us getting back to normality.
Claire Coutinho
The work being done in Wrexham to manufacture the vaccine is quite literally saving lives in my constituency of East Surrey. Will the Secretary of State join me in extending our thanks to all those workers and the supply chain for the vital work that they are doing to protect the nation?
Simon Hart
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in that tribute. The Prime Minister and I visited Wockhardt in Wrexham a few weeks ago to see the fantastic work that it is doing. Hers, like so many stories, is a story of a successful Union. As we all know, the vaccine roll-out is not a competition between Governments; it is a competition between Government and covid, and the Union is central to that.
Mr Hollobone
The logistical expertise of Her Majesty’s armed forces is second to none. What role are defence personnel playing in the vaccine roll-out in Wales?
Simon Hart
The short answer is: a pivotal role. It has been a joy to behold the unbelievable enthusiasm, dedication and professionalism in Wales and across the rest of the UK from servicemen and women. We are regularly receiving requests from the Welsh Government for additional support, and we turn that support around in Cardiff just as soon as we can.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
The mid-February target to vaccinate Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation priority groups 1 to 4 involves offering a dose to all those who are considered clinically extremely vulnerable. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with the Welsh Government regarding the accuracy of data being used in relation to this group?
Simon Hart
As my hon. Friend might imagine, there are regular discussions across all levels of government around data accuracy and the progress that we can make with this particular challenge. He is right to point out that it is, of course, a devolved issue. We are trying to ensure that we can find solutions to issues of a more permanent nature—perhaps persistent data problems, for example—but the ambition remains to get absolutely everybody in those cohorts done within the timescale, and we are currently on target to achieve that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister and Welsh Ministers on a range of issues, including the UK shared prosperity fund. The Government will continue to engage with the Welsh Government as we develop the fund’s investment framework for publication.
Jonathan Edwards [V]
From the figures that I have seen, the British Government may have conflated overrun spend from the previous convergence period for this financial year with the actual allocation of new money. Under the previous scheme, Wales would receive nearly £400 million per annum. Is not the reality that the Minister is unable to guarantee that the shared prosperity fund, when fully operational, will match that level of investment? Why will he not just admit that the communities that both the Secretary of State and I represent in Carmarthenshire are about to get fleeced?
David T. C. Davies
The figures will show that on average Wales is receiving £375 million a year. What the hon. Gentleman may be referring to is the fact that over a number of years to follow there will still be some money coming to Wales from the European Union. Of course, it is absolutely right that that money should be counted towards the £375 million total, and the Government will guarantee to ensure that the amount of money to be spent in Wales in future will be exactly the same, or higher, than the amount that was spent previously.
Wayne David [V]
Britain has left the European Union. The transition period has come to an end. There is no new money coming from the structural funds. Given that the Government announced the shared prosperity fund back in 2017, can the Minister at least tell us the timetable for the introduction of the new fund?
David T. C. Davies
We have already made it very clear and demonstrated that the amount of money that is going to be spent in Wales when the SPF comes in will be identical to or higher than the amount of money that was spent in Wales that came from the European Union. There has been absolutely no secrecy about that. The way in which the fund will be managed is subject to discussions at this very moment, and I would expect full details to be publicised over the next few months.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
Many of my constituents are very sorry to see the hundreds of millions of pounds of EU funding that Wales received in recent years come to an end. Our departure from the EU made this inevitable, and of course I accept this, but they also believe that the Welsh Government should have full autonomy over their part of the shared prosperity fund, and I agree, so can the Minister provide some evidence that this working together is taking place?
David T. C. Davies
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituents will be delighted to know that hundreds of millions of pounds will continue to be spent in Wales, and continue to be spent where it is most needed. I am sure that her constituents would be rather disappointed that we already know from the Audit Wales report that some of the money that has gone into, for example, pillar 2 agricultural funding has not been well spent. I urge her to recommend to her constituents that they look at the dossier presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), which demonstrates that millions of pounds of European Union money that was handled by the Welsh Government was misspent. When that money becomes British taxpayers’ money, all partners in British Government, including the Welsh Government and local authorities with growth deals, will want to make sure that it is properly spent, and I am sure that her constituents will agree.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on our support for people affected by covid-19. The UK Government have funded the furlough of 8,900 employees and provided over £17 million to the self-employed in the hon. Lady’s own constituency.
Beth Winter [V]
The pandemic has exposed inadequacies in our welfare system to act as a safety net, from the insufficient level of statutory sick pay to the damaging impact of the two-child benefit limit on families. The idea of a universal basic income is gaining increasing traction as a solution to many of these issues, and there is increasing support in Wales and elsewhere for a UBI pilot funded by the UK Government. Will the Minister express his support for such a pilot and call on the UK Government to fund it?
David T. C. Davies
The UK Government have already provided £5 million of extra funding to the Welsh Government to ensure that they have adequate funds to support businesses and individuals who have been affected by the covid pandemic, and of course the Welsh Government also have tax-raising powers. The reality is that this Government have spent hundreds of billions of pounds supporting businesses and individuals throughout this country, such is our commitment to ensuring that no one is left out as a result of the impact of this terrible pandemic.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) [V]
The last year has been immensely challenging for many Welsh families, who have seen their lives completely upended by the virus. Despite welcome progress on vaccinations, the pandemic is not going away overnight, and many still feel grave uncertainty about the future of their jobs and their family finances, so why do the Government think that now is the time to cut universal credit by £1,000 a year, hitting more than 200,000 Welsh families who are doing their best to get by?
David T. C. Davies
I have not yet been promoted to the Treasury, and I cannot possibly predict what might happen in the Budget that may or may not come in a few months’ time. Perhaps the hon. Lady knows something that the rest of us do not, but I can tell her that the Government have been steadfast in their commitment to supporting all those who have been left out. May I just point out that we will come through this crisis quickly as a result of the Government’s wise decision not to take part in the European Union vaccination scheme, which is why we have now vaccinated 14% of the population of the United Kingdom?
Nia Griffith [V]
Anyone who took the initiative and started their own business within a year of the pandemic hitting was completely shut out of the self-employment income support scheme when it was announced last March. Many turned to universal credit as their only option. Now, nearly a year on, and with last year’s tax returns submitted to HMRC, will the Government think again, close the gaps in support and give the newly self-employed the help that they deserve?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady knows very well that I am not responsible for the policies of the Treasury, but I simply point to the fact that we have provided more than £9.3 billion of additional support through the welfare system for people affected by covid, including the £20 a week increase in the universal credit standard allowance. The Government’s commitment to supporting all those who have been affected by this pandemic is very clear to all.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
We have provided £16.8 billion to the devolved Administrations to fight coronavirus, including £5.2 billion to the Welsh Government and £8.6 billion to the Scottish Government. We have also secured vaccines for all four nations, demonstrating the importance of the Union and how we are stronger together.
Owen Thompson
The fiscal settlement of this disunited kingdom means that the Treasury continues to impose unfair, unreasonable and inexplicable limits on the devolved nations’ borrowing powers. That has meant that at every step throughout the covid crisis, the devolved nations have had to wait for the Treasury to announce financial support before they could do the same. The next challenge is climate action, and with evidence from the Dasgupta review and the Committee on Climate Change showing how far we still have to go, will the Government now ensure that the devolved nations are fully equipped to meet this challenge by devolving borrowing powers?
David T. C. Davies
I would have thought that the Scottish people, with their reputation for understanding the importance of money, would be quite pleased that the UK Government have provided £8.2 billion of extra funding for the Scottish Parliament, rather than expecting it to borrow money and pay it back at some point. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to familiarise himself with the report from the London School of Economics this morning, which suggested that independence for Scotland would end up costing every Scottish taxpayer thousands of pounds a year, in addition to the £8 billion that they would have lost as a result, as the UK Government would not have provided that extra money to the Scottish Parliament.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The UK Government have taken significant steps to support and promote Welsh lamb exports around the world. That includes securing a tariff-free, quota-free deal with the EU and securing the protection of the Welsh lamb geographical indicator as part of the Japan deal.
Theresa Villiers
Rules on international trade require sanitary and phytosanitary rules to be based on risk and science, so will the Government put immediate pressure on the European Union to lift the unreasonable compliance requirements it is imposing on British food exports? They are disproportionate, given that our food standards and rules are among the very toughest in the whole world.
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in her last point, and I can offer that guarantee. We are in regular contact with our colleagues in the EU about this specific point, and there are meetings later this week involving the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on this and related issues.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Lamb exporters in west Wales have raised concerns about the delays they are facing at EU ports, reporting that some shipments have been held by customs officials for two to three days because of to the supposed issues with animal export health certificates. Can the Secretary of State enlighten us as to whether he expects an urgent resolution to this problem?
Simon Hart
I do not know how “urgent” would be defined in the EU at the moment, but certainly there is an urgency to resolve some of these problems. As I have mentioned, there are some teething issues that can be resolved quite quickly. If there are longer-term structural issues, they need to be looked at in more detail. I have sheep farming interests in my constituency, as does the hon. Member, and it is worth pointing out that there are some big opportunities across the rest of the world that we should be exploring, rather than necessarily just concentrating on some of the difficulties with the EU.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Welsh lamb is a premium product that is wanted across the world. Welshpool livestock market, which is usually the heart of my farming community, is quieter because of covid, but the sheep meat prices are still robust. Will the Secretary of State meet me, farmers and slaughterhouses in Montgomeryshire to discuss the health certificates and the wider SPS issues on the EU border, which are clearly out of order?
Simon Hart
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents; I used to live in his constituency, so I know some of them quite well. He is right to raise this issue. One of the companies in question is meeting the Cabinet Office later this week; that is progress. I am delighted that Welshpool mart has done some good business. I see that lamb prices have increased by around 17% in 2021, and consumer spending was £652 million, but the rest-of-the-world opportunities that I mentioned—particularly the Gulf, the middle east and the US, once we get the small ruminant rule resolved—will help the lamb industry across Wales and the UK.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Wales Office recognises the importance of apprenticeships and the opportunity they provide. We have funded dedicated apprenticeship roles since 2011 and continue to be fully committed to the apprenticeship scheme.
Robert Halfon [V]
Will my right hon. Friend outline what progress the Welsh Government have made towards meeting the public sector apprenticeship target of 2.3%, and what progress frontline services in Wales such as the police have made on offering apprenticeships to their employees?
Simon Hart
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has raised this point. The public sector apprenticeship target is applicable only to bodies in England, but he raises a critical point about devolution. We are concerned that, for example, Welsh police forces are paying into the apprenticeship levy scheme but not getting anything out of it because the Welsh Government do not support police apprenticeships. I suggest that it would be very interesting for his Committee to look at why Welsh forces are paying in but getting nothing out the other end by way of apprenticeships.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
We have agreed a deal that provides Welsh business with exceptional access to the EU market. It is the first time ever that the EU has agreed a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal.
Stephen Crabb [V]
Getting the Brexit deal across the line before the end of the year was important, and huge credit is due to the Government for securing it, but we have a serious situation emerging at Welsh ports, with freight levels way down on where they should be. Will my right hon. Friend work urgently with ministerial colleagues, HMRC and trade bodies to find simpler solutions to the problem of checks and paperwork, which risks making the UK land bridge more costly and less attractive for trade between Ireland and the continent?
Simon Hart
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am in touch with Pembroke, Fishguard and Holyhead about this issue, and we are trying to make a distinction between what we can assign to covid changes in business and the other, more permanent factors that he refers to. There are some complications to do with port infrastructure, which is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. We have meetings tomorrow to try to push the Welsh Government to get that process under way more quickly. We have discussions with road hauliers about the land bridge. I assure him that we want this business to return to as near as possible as soon as possible, and I am happy to work with him and others to achieve that goal.
SPEAKER'S STATEMENT
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I want to express, on behalf of the whole House, our deep sadness at the death of Captain Sir Tom Moore. His dignity and determination in raising money to support NHS charities caught the nation’s mood at the most difficult time. He exemplified the best of our values. I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our condolences to his family and his many friends. I invite Members to join me for a minute’s silence to commemorate Sir Tom’s life, and to pay our respects to those who have lost their lives as a result of covid and their families and friends.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Captain Sir Tom Moore—or Captain Tom, as we all came to know him—dedicated his life to serving his country and others. His was a long life lived well, whether during his time defending our nation as an Army officer or, last year, bringing the country together through his incredible fundraising drive for the NHS that gave millions a chance to thank the extraordinary men and women of our NHS who have protected us in this pandemic. As Captain Tom repeatedly reminded us, “Please remember, tomorrow will be a good day”. He inspired the very best in us all, and his legacy will continue to do so for generations to come. We now all have the opportunity to show our appreciation for him and all that he stood for and believed in, and that is why I encourage everyone to join in a national clap for Captain Tom and all those health workers for whom he raised money at 6 pm this evening.
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.
Claire Hanna [V]
I certainly echo those words about Captain Tom, a decent and inspiring man.
The Social Democratic and Labour party has warned for the last five years about the destabilising impact Brexit would have on Northern Ireland, though we take no pleasure in the disruption or in the injury some feel to their British identity. The last few days have seen a rash decision—thankfully withdrawn—by the European Commission, which was condemned by all parties here and both Governments and which, unfortunately, was followed by sporadic criminal behaviour and threats. Will the Prime Minister, in affirming the rule of law in Northern Ireland, consider seriously the impact of their words, and work together through the available structures to ensure that the new arrangements work for everybody in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that it was most regrettable that the EU should seem to cast doubt on the Good Friday agreement and the principles of the peace process by seeming to call for a border across the island of Ireland. I can tell her that we will work to ensure that there are no such borders—we will respect the peace process—and, indeed, no barriers down the Irish sea, and that the principle of unfettered access across all parts of our United Kingdom is upheld.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I join the whole House in paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, who was indeed an inspiration to all of us, a beacon of light at a time of darkness and a true gentleman.
I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that my ten-minute rule Bill would increase the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. The policy and the Bill have cross-party support. The policy has Government support; the Bill does not. The Government say they will introduce the policy in their sentencing Bill, of which we have as yet seen no sign. So, will the Government now give Government time to my Bill to ensure that this necessary change is put on the statute book as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right to campaign for punishments that fit the crime; we are therefore bringing forward exactly those changes in our forthcoming sentencing Bill. Our proposals will, I believe, go as far as, if not even further than, those that she wants by raising the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and they will tighten the law for those who cause serious injury by careless driving.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the family of Captain Sir Tom Moore? He perhaps more than anyone embodied the spirit of Britain; he will be sadly missed, and I welcome the initiative that the Prime Minister spoke of for a clap this evening. Our thoughts are also with the family of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian MP and a great champion of women’s rights.
Let me pay tribute to our NHS and all those on the frontline who are delivering the vaccine. Today we are likely to hit 10 million vaccinations, which is remarkable. The biggest risk to the vaccine programme at the moment is the arrival of new variants, such as the South African variant. On that issue, the Government’s own scientists in the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies said two weeks ago that
“only a complete pre-emptive closure of borders or the mandatory quarantine of all visitors upon arrival can get close to fully preventing new cases or new variants.”
That is pretty clear, so why did the Prime Minister choose not to do the one thing that SAGE said could prevent new variants coming to the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
Actually, SAGE did not recommend a complete ban and says that a travel ban should not be relied upon to stop the importation of new variants, but we do have one of the toughest regimes in the world. Anybody coming from South Africa not only has to do a test before they come here, but anybody now coming from South Africa—a British citizen coming from South Africa now—will find themselves obliged to go into quarantine for 10 days, and will have an isolation assurance agency checking up on them. It is illegal now to go on holiday in this country; it is illegal to travel from South Africa or all the countries on the current red list, and we will be going forward with a plan to ensure that people coming into this country from those red list countries immediately have to go into Government-mandated quarantine hospitality.
Keir Starmer
I am intrigued by the Prime Minister’s answer. I do not think he disputes what SAGE’s view was—that only a complete closure or comprehensive quarantine of all arrivals will work. He does not seem to dispute that; he says it simply was not a recommendation. I ask the Prime Minister to publish the full SAGE minutes so we can see what was said in full; or, if there is some other advice, perhaps he can publish that.
The situation is this: we know that the South African variant is spreading across England, and measures are in place to try to deal with that. We also know that other variants are out there in other parts of the world. Just as a matter of common sense, is the Prime Minister really saying that quarantining all arrivals would make no difference to fighting new variants of the virus, or is he saying that quarantining all arrivals at the border would make a difference but it is too difficult?
The Prime Minister
This is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who only recently said that quarantine measures are “a blunt instrument” and whose shadow Transport Secretary said that quarantine should be “lessened”. We have one of the toughest regimes in the world. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls for a complete closure of borders, or suggests that that might be an option, he should be aware that 75% of our medicines come into this country from the European continent, as does 45% of our food, and 250,000 businesses in this country rely on imports. It is not practical completely to close off this country as he seems to be suggesting. What is practical is to have one of the toughest regimes in the world and to get on with vaccinating the people of this country, which is what we are doing.
Keir Starmer
What the Prime Minister says about the Labour position is complete nonsense; he knows it. It is 3 February 2021; with new variants in the country, our schools are shut and our borders are open. Everybody knows there are exceptions whatever the quarantine regime. Everybody knows that. That is not what this question is about.
The position is this: 21,000 people are coming into this country every day. The Prime Minister’s new border arrangements are still weeks away from being implemented and will only affect direct flights from some countries. We know from the first wave of the pandemic that only 0.1% of virus cases came from China, where we had restrictions, whereas 62% came indirectly from France and Spain, where there were no restrictions. Why does the Prime Minister think that the variants of the virus will behave differently and arrive in the UK only by direct flights?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He simultaneously says that he wants the borders to be kept open for freight reasons or to allow businesses to carry on as now—I think that was what he was saying—while calling for tougher quarantine measures, which is exactly what this Government imposed as soon as we became aware of the new variant.
I repeat what someone has to do if they want to come into this country from abroad. Seventy-two hours before they fly, they have to get a test. They have to have a passenger locator form; they are kicked off the plane if they do not have it. They then have to spend 10 days in quarantine. If they come from one of the red list countries, they have to go straight into quarantine. All that, of course, is to allow us to get on with the vaccination programme. If we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we would still be at the starting blocks, because he wanted to stay in the European Medicines Agency and said so four times from that Dispatch Box.
Keir Starmer
Complete nonsense. Don’t let the truth get in the way of a pre-prepared gag: the Prime Minister knows that I have never said that, from this Dispatch Box or anywhere else, but the truth escapes him. He describes the current arrangements. If they were working, the variant—the single biggest threat to the vaccine system—would not be in the country.
Let me turn to another area where the Government have been slow to act: the cladding crisis. This is affecting millions of people, and I cannot tell the Prime Minister how anxious and angry people feel about it. It is now three and a half years since the Grenfell tragedy, which took 72 lives. Can the Prime Minister tell the House and the country why, three and a half years on, there are still hundreds of thousands of people living in homes with unsafe cladding, and why millions of leaseholders are in homes that they cannot sell and are facing extortionate costs?
The Prime Minister
In respect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s last answer, may I advise him to consult YouTube, where he will find an answer?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a very important point about cladding and the predicament of some leaseholders—many leaseholders—and he is absolutely right that this is a problem that needs to be fixed. This Government are getting on with it. On 95% of the high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding, work is either complete or under way to remove that cladding. I very much appreciate and sympathise with the predicament of leaseholders who are in that situation, but we are working to clear the backlog, and I can tell him that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Communities Secretary will be coming forward with a full package to address the issue.
Keir Starmer
Whatever the Prime Minister claims is being done is not working, because this is the situation. Through no fault of their own, huge numbers of people, especially leaseholders, are stuck in the middle. They are living in unsafe homes. They cannot sell and they are being asked to foot the bill. That is the situation they are in. Take, for example, Will Martin. He is a doctor who has a flat in Sheffield. He has been spending his days on the frontline fighting covid in the NHS. He spends his nights worrying about the £52,000 bill that he now has to pay for fire safety repairs. He does not want future promises, Prime Minister. He does not want to hear that it has all been sorted when he knows that it has not. He wants to know, here and now: will he or will he not have to pay that £52,000 bill?
The Prime Minister
We are determined that no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own. That is why, in addition to the £1.6 billion we are putting in to remove the HPL—high-pressure laminate—cladding, we have also set up a £1 billion building safety fund that has already processed over almost 3,000 claims. I sympathise very much with Dr Martin, the gentleman the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions, and I hope very much that his particular case can be addressed in the course of the forthcoming package that will be produced by my right hon. Friends.
Keir Starmer
There are thousands and thousands of people in exactly the same position. I spoke to leaseholders caught in the middle of this on Monday. One of them was Hayley. She has already gone bankrupt, Prime Minister. She is 27. She bought a flat, she has lost it and she is now bankrupt. It is too late for her. Those leaseholders I spoke to had three very simple asks. This is what they want: immediate up-front funding for unsafe blocks; a deadline of next year to make buildings safe; and protection for leaseholders. We put those forward for a vote on Monday. The Prime Minister says he is determined to do something about it. What did he do? He ordered his MPs to abstain. If the Prime Minister is serious about moving this forward and ending this injustice, will he commit today to those simple asks from leaseholders?
The Prime Minister
We are getting on with the job of helping leaseholders across the country by remediating their buildings. In addition to the funds I have already mentioned, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are also introducing a £30 million fund to install alarms and other interim measures. We are making it very clear to the mortgage industry that they should support people living in such accommodation, and making it clear to all sectors in the industry that people living in such homes should not be tied up in the whole EWS1 process. That will benefit about 450,000 homeowners. I think he is right to raise the problem, but we are getting on with addressing it.
We are getting on with addressing the fundamental problem that afflicts this country and that is the covid pandemic. That is why I am pleased we have now done 10 million first vaccinations across the country. I repeat, Mr Speaker, that had we listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman we would be stuck at go. He is shaking his head, but he can check the record. Several times he said that this country should remain in the European Medicines Agency. If he wishes he can, on a point of order, correct me. He said it was wrong just now. I think he should study the record and he will find that that is exactly what he did.
We want to get this country safe again. We want schools to come back. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to refuse to say that schools are not safe. On the contrary, he spends his time looking at Labour focus groups, who tell him that he should stop sitting on the fence—
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, Prime Minister, we have to be somewhere near the question that was asked. I do not want you to go around answering every problem and issue. There are a lot more questions that will allow you to do that and the first one is from Marco Longhi.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this excellent club. I am happy to join him in paying tribute to the work of Paul Gough and Patrick Harley, and everybody at Priory Park boxing club. I know from personal experience what a huge difference it can make, not just to young people’s fitness, but to their educational success, to attend boxing clubs.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, about the remarkable gentleman Captain Sir Tom Moore and everything that he has done? He has been an inspiration to each and every one of us and I send my condolences to his family and friends.
Last week, we told the Prime Minister that it was wrong for him to visit Scotland in the middle of a pandemic. We told him that it was a non-essential visit. This morning, the Daily Record newspaper revealed that the Prime Minister knew that the Livingston plant that he was visiting had an outbreak of 14 covid cases just 24 hours earlier. There are serious questions to answer. Did the Prime Minister and his advisers know about the covid outbreak? When did they know, and when did the Prime Minister make the irresponsible decision to go ahead with what was a PR stunt?
The Prime Minister
I can think of few things more important than to see the roll-out of the vaccination programme across this country, to encourage the wonderful companies who are doing great work across the whole of Scotland and to see the commitment of those Scottish scientists to helping us all to defeat the pandemic. It was fantastic to talk to them. I would just repeat that the Government remain, as I said yesterday, very willing to help Scotland with the roll-out of vaccines across the whole of the UK.
Ian Blackford
There is the wow factor once again with the Prime Minister. What an absolute shambles that he has gone to a plant where there was a covid outbreak. The Prime Minister cannot just explain away this absolutely shocking error of judgment. Anyone can see that his campaign trip to Scotland was utterly reckless. The Daily Record story is very clear. The Prime Minister and his advisers knew there was a serious covid outbreak at this plant. They knew the visit posed a risk, but they made a deliberate choice. They made the irresponsible choice. The Prime Minister put politics before public health. Prime Minister, why be so reckless? Is it any wonder that people in Scotland have no faith in this Prime Minister? Is not he the worst possible leader at the worst possible time?
The Prime Minister
I think what the people of Scotland want to see is the whole country pulling together and working to develop the vaccine, as that fantastic plant in Scotland is doing. One of the advantages of the Valneva vaccine is that it may be able to combat all sorts of variants in a very comprehensive way. It is amazing and wonderful to see Scottish scientists working to do that. I had a fantastic time. Nobody, by the way, raised that issue with me before or since, and it is my job to visit every part of this country. Nothing and no one is going to stop me, and I am very, very proud of the Government’s record in rolling out the vaccine. As I say, the offer remains open to the Scottish nationalist party. We are there—[Interruption.] Scottish National party—if they insist, though they are also nationalists, Mr Speaker. We are there to help the roll-out of the vaccine and do more, were they to decide that is necessary.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. Of all the challenges now facing the country, the single most important is remedying the damage to children’s education. Yes, of course, we have to clear up the backlog in the NHS and we have problems in the courts, but it is education that is going to be the focus of this Government, and repairing the differential learning that has taken place during the crisis.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
We need to be open and honest on the reasons why the Northern Ireland protocol exists, but also do all we can to make its implementation as easy as possible. So in that spirit, in the talks with the EU that will take place over the coming days, will the Prime Minister make it a priority to seek a UK-EU veterinary agreement? That would help in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol and also help all UK food exporters.
The Prime Minister
We think it is very important that the protocol should not place unnecessary barriers—or barriers of any kind—down the Irish sea. As I said to a colleague earlier, I think it was most unfortunate that the EU seemed to want to impose a barrier across the island of Ireland. We seek to make sure there are no such barriers down the Irish sea.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I will study the very interesting proposals that my hon. Friend makes, but in the meantime I will raise them particularly with the Environment Agency, which does a fantastic job in managing local areas that are prone to flooding and putting in the necessary defences. I know that colleagues across the House will have seen the work of the Environment Agency across the country, and we are making another £5.2 billion investment in traditional flood defences, which I know will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Gloucestershire and across the country.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
British citizenship is a wonderful thing, and it is fantastic that so many EU nationals have taken up the opportunity to become British in the course of the last few years. I am interested in the point that the hon. Lady makes and I will study it, but clearly there are costs that must be borne by the taxpayer. I think she will appreciate that citizenship at any time of life is a very considerable prize and worth investing in.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is a long-standing and redoubtable campaigner for law and order and for the police. I also congratulate the PCC, Matthew Scott, on what he is doing to back the police and to recruit more police in Kent. That is why we are putting another 20,000 more officers on the streets of this country, and I think we have already recruited about 6,000.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
This Government are proud of not only setting up the national living wage, but making sure we had record-breaking increases both last year and this year. That is the most important thing we can do for care workers and workers across the country.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she does to champion this very, very important cause. It is Children’s Mental Health Week this week, and partly in recognition of the extent of the problem and the issue across the whole of the country, we have announced a new youth mental health ambassador, Dr Alex George, who will be working with the Government to underline the importance of mental health resilience and making everybody in our country better able to deal with some of the problems that life throws in our way.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I utterly share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the way in which the EU, particularly the EU Commission, temporarily seemed to use the protocol in such a way as to impose a border, contrary to the spirit of the Good Friday agreement—contrary to the letter of the Good Friday agreement. We will do everything we need to do, whether legislatively or indeed by invoking article 16 of the protocol, to ensure that there is no barrier down the Irish sea and that the hon. Gentleman’s business constituents, some of whom I know very well and admire very much, can continue to do business, unfettered, between Northern Ireland and the rest of this country.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We will continue to monitor all the evidence about the efficacy of vitamin D and the treatment that he mentions. I am well aware of it; indeed, we have discussed it before personally. I will keep him updated on the review that is taking place.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I appreciate the desire of the hon. Lady to find a solution. I am aware of the problem she refers to and the flooding in the tunnels. We will certainly work with Lancashire County Council to mitigate the problem—to sort it out. To repeat: we have the funds available and will make sure that it is done.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for the people of Workington and never fails to put their interests before me. I will do everything I can to help him and will check my diary commitments to see when I can get there. I hope it will be as soon as possible.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The Prime Minister
I pass on my sympathies to all those affected by the outbreak of covid that the hon. Gentleman describes. The most important thing we can do is continue to roll out the vaccination programme. We want to get to key workers, such as postal workers, as fast as we possibly can. We are already at 10 million across the whole country. We have got to get through JCVI groups 1 to 9, the most vulnerable groups. Postal workers over 50 will certainly be included in those. After that, we want to get down to all key workers who come into regular contact with others who may be exposed to the virus.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister will be aware that the second wave of coronavirus has had a significant impact on the mental wellbeing of frontline nurses and doctors, with many in critical care units facing continuous shifts with dismal survival rates, causing a level of psychological harm that may result in post-traumatic stress disorder. With that in mind, will he look at utilising the military understanding of that condition, and urgently invest in training sufficient numbers of psychology professionals to support our heroic nurses and doctors fighting on the frontline of this battle against covid-19?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point about PTSD in the NHS, and NHS staff, who do an amazing job treating us all. I will certainly look at the particular recommendation that she now makes; but clearly, as part of the £52 billion package of investment in the NHS that we have been making in the last year, we will be ensuring that we support the mental health of staff working on the frontline, and making sure that they have all the health and wellbeing helplines, all the advice and counselling, that they need to get through what has been, for all of them, a really difficult time.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I do not think anybody wants to take any lectures on speed of roll-out or delivery of programmes from the Scottish nationalist party, but I want the hon. Lady to know that the Government will be very happy to help with accelerating the roll-out of the vaccine programme, as we said yesterday. The offer is there. The vaccination of the people of this country is the single most important thing that we need to do now, together, to beat this pandemic.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
Millions of leaseholders are living in fear because they have no idea how safe their buildings are, and they are also facing staggering bills that they cannot afford. Can the Prime Minister assure me that leaseholders will not have to pay to fix these historic fire safety defects, and rule out loans to leaseholders, which are not a solution?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier on, we are absolutely clear that leaseholders should not have to worry about the costs of fixing historic safety defects that they did not cause. But I appreciate the sympathy and care with which my hon. Friend represents their interests.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about online fraud, which is becoming an increasing concern of the Government. People across the country must be vigilant. As he suggests, we will look at what we can do with the online harms Bill or any other measures to protect people, particularly pensioners, against fraudsters online.
Mr Speaker
Don’t forget that the Prime Minister is asking the country to get together and clap at six o’clock.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Francois
Yes, Mr Speaker. If it assists the House, perhaps I could help to correct the record. On 31 January 2017, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said to the House, as recorded in Hansard:
“Why would we want to be outside the European Medicines Agency, which ensures that all medicines in the EU market are safe and effective?”—[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 827.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not continuing the debate. That correction will be on the record, but I am not reopening the debate.
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Support for University Students: Covid-19
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
(Urgent Question) To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on support for university students as a result of the pandemic.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is an assiduous campaigner for students and has spoken to me many times on the topic. I agree with him on how incredibly difficult this time has been for students, given the unprecedented disruption caused by the global pandemic.
Throughout the pandemic, I have been working with the universities to prevent students from getting into hardship. We have worked with the Office for Students to allow flexibility in the spending of £256 million of student premium money, enabling it to be spent in relation to hardship, mental health and digital poverty. In December we announced an initial £20 million of additional student hardship funding, and yesterday I announced £50 million, taking the total funding available to £70 million for the remainder of this financial year. My focus as Universities Minister has always been to work with the sector to make sure that the right support gets to the students who need it the most, and the new student hardship funding will really benefit those students by putting money into their pockets.
Providers will have flexibility in how they distribute the funding to their students in a way that is best prioritised to meet the greatest needs. Given that we have asked the majority of students not to return to their university term-time accommodation in this lockdown, support might include help for students facing additional costs arising from having to maintain accommodation in more than one location, or assistance for students to access teaching remotely. The funding can be distributed to a wide population of students, including postgraduates and international students. The House can be assured that we will continue to monitor the impact this funding is having on students.
Also, because of the changing position on face-to-face teaching and the occupation of accommodation, student maintenance loan entitlement for the current term will not be reassessed if students are still incurring accommodation costs away from home. This means that students in receipt of the away-from-home loan rate will retain the maintenance loan paid at the start of the spring term.
The Government recognise that many students are facing additional mental health challenges due to the pandemic, and at every stage I have reinforced to providers the importance of prioritising mental health. I have established the higher education mental health and wellbeing working group, and I have worked with the Office for Students to provide Student Space, which has funding of up to £3 million.
I agree that the pandemic has been tough on young people, particularly students. The £70 million that we have allocated to student hardship for the remainder of this financial year will help those students who are most in need because of the pandemic.
Paul Blomfield
We agree that students are being hit by the pandemic. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, I spent January with Members from both sides of the House, including two of the Minister’s Conservative predecessors, taking evidence from students, universities and landlords. We reported to Government saying that they should substantially increase hardship support; at least double the student premium funding of £256 million, which was intended for other purposes; enable full rent refunds for unused accommodation; and address lost education. The Government have recognised the problems, but they have failed on the solutions.
The Minister will know that, for many students, the maintenance loan does not even cover rent. They fund their studies from part-time work in hospitality and retail jobs, which have disappeared through the pandemic. The new hardship fund equates to around £26 per student in England, or the wages for half a shift in a bar job, but Wales and Scotland have provided hardship funding of around £300 and £80 per student. Does the Minister not accept that students across the country deserve the same level of support?
Many students have contracted for accommodation that they have been told not to use. The Minister has congratulated universities and providers that have offered rent rebates, but the amounts vary, and many students have received nothing. Does she accept the inequity, particularly between students in university accommodation and students in the private rented sector? What will she do beyond simply encouraging providers to do better?
The Minister’s statement is silent on learning loss. Universities and their staff have worked hard to offer the very best education, but it cannot match normal learning. For some students, progression or professional qualification will be damaged. We were told of lost teaching, lost access to labs and specialist facilities, lost field trips and more, so will she commit to discussing a learning remediation fund with the Chancellor? If not, what steps will she take to ensure that today’s students are not held back? Finally, will she join us in asking UK Research and Innovation to extend research studentships where needed? Will she also provide support for postgraduate research students, who are funded differently?
Students have had their education disrupted, they will enter a challenging jobs market, and they will be paying the cost of the pandemic for longer than the rest of us. They deserve better.
Michelle Donelan
As I said in my statement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this has been a really difficult and challenging time for students. I commend them for the resilience they have shown, and I welcome the APPG’s report.
The package we announced yesterday will help thousands of students, with money going directly into the pockets of those who most need it because of the impact of the pandemic. This is £70 million for three months alone, on top of the £256 million and the additional support that universities have been giving. Yes, we do continue to urge all accommodation providers to give refunds to students, and more are doing so every day.
On catching up, my main priority is to ensure that all graduates can graduate on time with a world-class degree that can unlock their future. Of course, we will continue to monitor the situation and ensure that students are not left in hardship as a result of the pandemic. This Government’s priority remains education, and we made it so that higher education students do not have to put their academic journey or their life on hold.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for his urgent question, and I look forward to meeting him. I welcome what the Minister has said and her action to protect students. Will she wipe away bureaucracy so that students who are not getting proper quality blended learning can make representations to their university and to the Office for Students, and can be compensated if it is found that their £9,000-plus loan is not providing value for money? Will she ensure that she supports part-time distance learners with maintenance support? Will she also take the opportunity to rocket-boost degree apprenticeships to provide a ladder of opportunity for the disadvantaged, meet our skills needs and help employability at this tough time in the jobs market?
Michelle Donelan
As always, my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee remains committed to social mobility and to ensuring that no student slips down the ladder of opportunity—a passion that I share with him. I can reassure him that the Government are committed to reducing bureaucracy in our higher education sector, as well as to making our further and higher education systems much more flexible and boosting the number of degree apprenticeships.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for raising this important issue. The Minister mentioned the £50 million that she announced yesterday but can she guarantee that it is entirely new money and not recycled from a previous cut to student support? Will she confirm that it amounts to around £26 for each student studying in England, and that in Wales the Labour Government have provided an additional £300 per student? Why does she think that students in England need less support than those elsewhere in the UK?
Students face challenges that the Government’s response has simply not begun to address. Many universities have done the right thing to support students with their accommodation costs, but can the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with private landlords about providing more support for students? Will she also give details of the support in place for postgraduate students?
With the majority of students learning remotely, digital access is more important than ever, but we know that many students lack such access. Can the Minister tell us how many students cannot access remote learning and what her Department is doing about that? What is she doing to make sure that all universities are making reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled students can continue their studies?
Finally, is the Minister confident that students who are struggling with their mental health can fully access all the support and services that they need? Yesterday, I met students who feel simply forgotten by the Government. Ministers’ incompetent response to the pandemic has robbed them of their university experience. They are isolated at home without support, while paying for accommodation that they are forbidden to use, and seeing their future placements, jobs and opportunities disappear. It is utterly devastating and utterly unjust, and the Minister must make it her priority to put that right.
Michelle Donelan
I can indeed confirm that this is new money. It is not right to break it down per student, because it is dedicated to those students who are most in need. The difference from the funding in Wales and Scotland is that this funding is for until the end of the financial year—in effect, just for the next three months.
This Government are concerned about digital poverty, and the Secretary of State for Education commissioned a review by the Office for Students, which is shortly to report—this month, I believe. Mental health is a priority of mine, and it is why we worked with the OfS to set up Student Space. It is why at every single stage I have reiterated the importance of mental health and wellbeing provision, and communication with university students, because this is a difficult and challenging time. Unlike the hon. Lady, who told her party activists to use the crisis a political opportunity, our priority is to ensure that the opportunities of our young people are safeguarded and that students are not left in hardship because of the pandemic.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the urgent question. Many of my constituents went off to university last year eager and in anticipation of being able to learn at world-class universities. It is welcome to hear that they have been awarded rent rebates where possible, but many of them now feel short-changed. Does the Minister agree that more pressure must be put on those universities that are failing to meet the standards of educational requirement for those students, so that value for money for all students can be delivered?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it very clear to universities that the quality, quantity and accessibility of tuition need to be maintained. I commend the work that has been done by lecturers and university support staff to achieve that goal. The Office for Students is monitoring this and I recently wrote to it to make sure that it continues to do so.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
An NUS survey has found that two thirds of students are worried about rent payments. To be clear, the £50 million that the Government have announced will not even cover a month of rent for those currently in arrears. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government have set aside six times more per student, a far more substantial £30 million for rent and hardship support. Despite that, Tories at Holyrood have continued to demand rent rebates for students. Does the Minister agree with her colleagues at Holyrood and, if so, what additional funding will she make available for those rent rebates? Students in Scotland can also give early notice on fixed-term tenancies. Will the Government introduce similar measures for students in England?
Scottish Tories have now adopted a policy of free tuition. Having seen the financial stress suffered by students throughout this pandemic, does the Minister agree that it is time for this Tory Government to adopt the policy of their Scotland branch and scrap fees for university tuition?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member’s suggestion of scrapping fees would not put money into the pockets of students today. It would not help them with the hardship that they are facing as a result of the pandemic. Instead, that is exactly what we have done, with £70 million spread over just three months. We are also urging all accommodation providers to refund students for this period of time, so, no, we will not be adhering to her request.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in these difficult times it is the responsibility of every university to do its best for its students? Does she also agree that, by providing campus access where appropriate, 500 new laptops, hot food deliveries to many residential students, 1,000 free bicycles for students so that they can avoid public transport and keep fit, and by operating a no-academic detriment policy and free post-graduation practicals for missed classes, the University of Bolton is setting the standard?
Michelle Donelan
I thank my hon. Friend for again highlighting to me the fantastic work that the University of Bolton is doing. Like many of our world-class universities, it has a reputation for supporting students not just with their education, but with their wellbeing. I thank all the staff at the University of Bolton for the work that they continue to do.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
The Minister announced support of £50 million, but the National Union of Students estimates that a month of rent arrears alone could account for £60 million. That does not allow for loss of employment, the cost of accessing remote education, or even just buying food. So what consultation did the Government carry out with students and representative bodies to ensure that the size and scope of this support will actually meet their needs?
Michelle Donelan
This hardship fund is on top of the £256 million that we unlocked for universities and higher education providers to utilise for this academic year, and it will help those most in need. It does not provide a blanket rent rebate. But I regularly meet students across England and from different bodies to ensure that we are giving them the support that they need.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Many of the halls of residence of Southampton University fall within my constituency. The students there deserve and expect a quantity and quality of education that is commensurate with what they would be receiving if they had online classes. Can my hon. Friend confirm what pressure she is bringing to bear on all universities to make sure that our students are receiving the education for which they are paying?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my right hon. Friend because online does not have to mean inferior, which is exactly why universities have invested a great deal of time and money to produce innovative and dynamic tuition. We are clear that every student deserves to receive quality, quantity and accessibility in terms of their tuition and this is being actively monitored by the Office for Students.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
What is the Minister doing to support the many thousands of students who rely on part-time work to help them through their university life, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds? According to the NUS survey, 9% of young people are relying on foodbanks. Although the £50 million is welcome, it is not enough. Will the Minister today commit to substantially increasing that amount so that our students can survive and thrive during this pandemic?
Michelle Donelan
I agree that we want every student to thrive throughout this pandemic, and past it. As I have said, this amount is on top of the £256 million for this academic year. We are actively monitoring the impact of this money, which only goes up to April, so that we can ensure that the best support is there for all students.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I welcome the funding package that the Minister unveiled yesterday. Will she confirm that she remains confident that teaching and learning environments are covid-secure for those students who do return to university? Also, in this time of heightened risk of transmission, surely it is right to reduce the numbers of people who travel to and from campus.
Michelle Donelan
My right hon. Friend touches on a really important point. We have only asked a small cohort of students to go back to university, not because face-to-face teaching is unsafe—in fact, public health information tells us that that is not the case at all—but because we are concerned about mass movement and community transmission in general. In addition, we are testing students and staff on a weekly basis, and in most universities twice a week.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
I declare for the record that there are three people living in my house at the moment who should be away at university right now; one of them is in private accommodation, paying £150 a week for a property that they have not lived in for two months, and they have no idea when they may be able to return to it. What would the Minister tell them about why they should continue to pay rent for a property that they have no opportunity to use at the moment?
Michelle Donelan
Obviously it is a really difficult time for the hon. Member’s child; I feel exceptionally sorry for them. It is one of the awful ramifications of the pandemic that they are not able to access face-to-face teaching. This Government are committed to prioritising education and getting them back as quickly as possible, in line with the road map that the Prime Minister announced last week. We have this hardship funding available for those who are most in need and those who need help. I also urge the hon. Member’s loved one to contact their accommodation provider to see what flexibility it could provide.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Many students in my North Devon constituency are facing additional costs for alternative accommodation, loss of employment or to access their university teaching online. Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra £70 million of funding that has been made available will deliver real, tangible help for students who are struggling financially as a result of the pandemic?
Michelle Donelan
Absolutely; I completely agree. That is exactly why we unlocked £256 million for this academic year, why we gave £20 million in December and why we have announced £50 million now. This will put money into the pockets of the students who are most in need as a result of the pandemic.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
My constituents who are students have faced significant challenges with private landlords, digital access and learning generally. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is absolutely right to ask this urgent question—thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it—and why my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is right to say that students feel utterly forgotten. Will the Minister tell us what steps she is taking to actually listen to the experiences of students through this pandemic?
Michelle Donelan
It is vital that we listen to the experiences of students. That is why I regularly meet the NUS, and student unions in universities up and down the country. I also regularly meet the Office for Students student panel, and engage with students on a range of student media and chat forums. I will continue to do so because students need to be at the heart of our policy making and decision making, and it is their futures that we need to safeguard.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and I welcome the £70 million to alleviate student hardship. I have been contacted by several students in Hertford and Stortford about the financial struggles they face. Can my hon. Friend reaffirm what she has previously said—that universities should treat students with the care and consideration they deserve during this difficult time? What does she advise students to do if that should not seem to be the case?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is spot on: universities do have a duty of care, and it is important that they are communicating with and looking after the wellbeing of students during this challenging time. Useful information and best practice have been circulated by Universities UK and the Office for Students. If a student really does have a concern, they should raise it directly with their university, go through the complaints process and then potentially escalate it to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Here in South Yorkshire, our two world-leading universities are doing everything they can to support students through the crisis. But writing in The Yorkshire Post today, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University rightly calls for a “massive increase” in the hardship payment to up to £200 million to help those students who are struggling. What guarantees can the Minister give that further help for these disadvantaged students is on the way?
Michelle Donelan
As I have said many times today, this support is available until April. We are actively monitoring the impact on students, to ensure that every student who needs the help can get it and that they have that money in their pockets, so that they do not face challenges as the pandemic progresses.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) [V]
The Government set the maximum amount that universities can charge for tuition fees during normal times. Is it not therefore the responsibility of Government to set the maximum amount that universities can charge during this covid-19 period, when students are not getting the education or the experience they have paid for because of Government restrictions?
Michelle Donelan
We will continue to monitor the situation. However, it is important to note that reducing tuition fees would not put money into students’ pockets here and now, and 50% of students do not pay back their loaned amount. What is important is ensuring that students get the quantity, the quality and the accessibility of tuition in these really difficult and challenging times.[Official Report, 2 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 2MC.]
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
A lot of students in Selly Oak live in private houses in multiple occupation, as well as purpose-built accommodation. The Guild of Students is calling for full rent rebates until the Government deem it safe to return to university and a no-penalty release from existing tenancy contracts. Does the Minister agree?
Michelle Donelan
The Prime Minister announced a road map for unlocking society and our education the other week, including getting students back from 8 March if the health information allows it; that is our priority. We urge those students who are suffering financially because they are in private accommodation and unable to access refunds to contact their university, so that they can apply for the hardship funding that we have given.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Government’s commitment of £70 million to support students impacted by this lockdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the vaccine is rolled out and we are able to ease restrictions, nothing is more important than getting our undergraduates back to their universities?
Michelle Donelan
We made education a priority, which includes higher education, so that students do not have to put their academic journeys or their lives on hold, and we kept a proportion of face-to-face learning going for as long as we could. I agree with my hon. Friend: I want university students back as soon as it is safe to do so, and we have a road map laid out by the Prime Minister last week to enable us to do that.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I declare an interest, as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary university group. Students have had a dreadful time throughout this pandemic, and they have had it from all sides. On accommodation in particular, I commend the work of the Stirling students’ union and Stirling University. Stirling University has taken the financial hit from students for empty university accommodation. What discussions has the Minister had with universities and the devolved Administrations to provide additional funding to universities to recognise the financial hit that they have taken so that students do not need to?
Michelle Donelan
Education is of course devolved, but I meet on a weekly basis with my counterpart in Scotland, Minister Lochhead. We discuss the issue of accommodation almost every week, and the other pressures that students are facing, in order to have a joined-up and co-ordinated approach that is really getting to the heart of the problems that universities and students are facing.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) [V]
The £70 million support fund for students facing financial difficulties is very welcome, and I congratulate Ministers on once again stepping in to protect those most in need. However, a number of my Orpington constituents have told me how their studies have been drastically impacted by the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what discussions have been held with universities about full or partial refunds for tuition and accommodation fees in this academic year?
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my hon. Friend: this is a really difficult and challenging time for students, and my heart goes out to all of them. We as a Government set the maximum tuition fee level, not the minimum, and it is up to universities to decide what to charge. Every single one of them has continued to charge the maximum during this pandemic, and in return we have said that we expect the quantity, quality and accessibility of provision to be there. If a student feels that it is not, there is a process whereby they can make a formal complaint to their university, and if the issue is still not resolved, they can take it to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which can potentially lead to a full or partial refund.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I echo the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green): it is absolutely vital that no student is disadvantaged if they choose to study outside of their home country. Yet the UK Government’s recent £50 million extension designed to support students will actually leave Welsh students studying in England significantly worse off than English students studying in Wales. As a Member representing an area in Wales, I have concerns both for students at the local University of South Wales campus here in Pontypridd and constituents who are now studying across the UK. Will the Minister confirm exactly what discussions she has had with the Welsh Government about supporting Welsh students who are studying in England?
Michelle Donelan
Just to clarify, the hardship funding, at every stage, is applicable to international students, students from Wales who study here in England, and indeed Scottish students studying in England. I am happy to clarify that for all the hon. Lady’s constituents who may be studying at an English university.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
I have been seeking to support a number of students in my constituency who are doing as they have been asked and staying at home but find themselves locked into tenancy agreements and paying rent on accommodation they cannot use. While it is welcome that some universities and accommodation providers are providing partial rebates to students, too many still are not. Will the Minister join me in urging all those accommodation providers to show some flexibility and provide a partial rent rebate wherever possible?
Michelle Donelan
Absolutely; I totally agree with my hon. Friend. This is a difficult time for students, and we do urge all providers of university accommodation to give a partial refund for this period in which students cannot all access their accommodation. A few that have done this so far include Warwick, Nottingham, Sheffield, LSE and Exeter—the list goes on—but we want others to contribute too.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
I was delighted to hear that the Minister has regular discussions with the devolved Education Ministers, because although it is devolved, higher education is an area where there is an interchange of students from different parts of the UK. Can she assure me that in these discussions they will look at every aspect of student life that has been detrimentally impacted by the pandemic, including mental health, finances, and the disruption to their academic results?
Michelle Donelan
In every conversation that I have with my counterparts in the DAs, we certainly do look at all the issues affecting students, and also universities, at this difficult time.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
I welcome the extra £50 million of funding announced yesterday for universities, which will help thousands of students facing financial difficulties because of coronavirus. Can the Minister confirm that this funding will be focused on support for the most disadvantaged students, including many from High Peak, who have been badly hit by the pandemic?
Michelle Donelan
I can, indeed. I urge all students, including those who originate from High Peak, who have been disadvantaged by the pandemic and find themselves in hardship, to approach their university and apply for this fund, which is exactly designed to target those who have found themselves in hardship and to put money in their pockets and assist them at this difficult time.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will know of the magnificent efforts of student doctors, nurses and many other healthcare students who are working in NHS covid wards as part of their studies. I am incredibly proud of the students from the University of Hull who have stepped up in this pandemic, often moving to the frontline early and putting themselves at risk. Along with the president of Hull University Students’ Union, Phoebe Bastiani, I have written to the Government asking for a reduction in healthcare students’ debt to recognise their contribution to the national effort against covid-19. Will the Minister look again at this proposal?
Michelle Donelan
I could not agree more regarding the fantastic contribution that our nursing and medical students have made throughout this pandemic. We owe them so much. I work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on this very topic. These students are eligible for payment during their placement and access to the NHS pension, and the placement also contributes towards their degree. There are no current plans by the Government to reimburse the fees for these students.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Can I ask the Minister to say a few more words about the quality of teaching that is being provided? She said in her earlier answers that the Office for Students was monitoring the quality of that education carefully. I have looked at its website, but what it does not seem to do is publish any information on what it is finding about the quality of that education. Can she update the House, based on her conversations with the Office for Students, about her assessment of the extent to which universities are maintaining the quality of the education they are delivering?
Michelle Donelan
University lecturers and university support staff have worked really hard to maintain the quality of provision, but I am under no illusions about the fact that some students feel they are not getting that quality or that quantity, and that is exactly why we have a process in place. That includes monitoring by the Office for Students, and the fact that students or parents—or teachers, in fact—can report concerns that they have to the Office for Students to review them. I will speak to the Office for Students about the transparency and approach of its findings.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Students feel abandoned by this Government. They have had a terrible experience during the pandemic not only with disrupted studies, but with many facing serious hardship. The new hardship funds are welcome, but they are nowhere near enough, particularly if the Minister expects them to be used if students have trouble paying rents in the private sector too. I hope she is hearing that loudly and clearly from all parts of this House. The hardship funds need to be increased by far more. Applying the Welsh model would suggest a figure of about £700 million for England. Can she explain why students in England are getting a deal that is so much worse than that of their colleagues in Wales?
Michelle Donelan
The funding we have announced is for three months only—that is, £70 million spread over three months. It is my understanding that it is not the same case in Wales. That is in addition to the £256 million that we unlocked, and also on top of that is the money that universities themselves have allocated.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I also welcome the additional funds that were announced yesterday, which will undoubtedly go a long way to helping those in the greatest financial need. But I have heard from many of my constituents who are students at institutions across the country about their continuing to be burdened with the high cost of accommodation, while it is the state that demands they stay at their parental home. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this is fundamentally a question of fairness? What more can she do to fix that imbalance both for students and for institutions and landlords, as this is not their fault either?
Michelle Donelan
We continue to monitor the situation to see how long this will last and the impact the money we have allocated is having on students. Our priority was to put money into the pockets of those most in need and those who have been impacted the most by this pandemic, but I am more than happy to continue talking to my hon. Friend and any other colleague on this very subject.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
I think we should start with a word of congratulations to all the students for putting up with what has been a very challenging situation and encourage them by reminding them that they will get through this, and that they will be tomorrow’s generation of leaders in our nation. With students paying rent and rates for digs not being used, being charged full fees for courses that are taught online, and having unpaid loans, mounting debt, and fear for their futures, does the Minister agree that they must not be economically punished as a result of this awful pandemic? We must give them hope, give them help and make sure that this debt is cancelled.
Michelle Donelan
We continue to monitor the situation, but removing the debt would not help students here and now, who we know are facing challenges as a result of this pandemic. That needs to be our priority, so that they can continue to study. They can then qualify in those subjects and go on to the rest of their lives. As I have said to other colleagues, I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Member about this subject.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome this important support package to help our students in these difficult times. As someone who has worked in higher education for many years, both teaching and supporting students, I know first-hand the stresses and strains our students face, and not least the mental health issues many experience. That has been brought into sharp relief in the pandemic. Can my hon. Friend reassure students and their families that institutions are providing suitable mental health and pastoral support to students both onsite and remotely, and that the Government are working to help institutions to do that?
Michelle Donelan
This is something I am particularly passionate about. At every stage, I have reiterated to institutions the importance of mental health and wellbeing provision, and moving that online. Equally, I know that higher education institutions are passionate about providing that level of support. We have worked with the Office for Students to launch Student Space, which is a £3 million project designed specifically to fill in some of the gaps that may have been exposed during the pandemic. I have established a higher education working group to ensure that students are aware of the support available and to boost it.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s support package is welcome, but the Minister will be aware that many stakeholders do not think it goes far enough. There is a particular issue about students being required to pay full fees for courses that are nowhere near the quality and content of the course experience they would get if they were actually attending university. The Minister has said that individual students can take their concerns to the Office for Students, but this is a systemic problem. Rather than relying on individual students taking up their concerns, why do the Government not take responsibility themselves for ascertaining whether students are being offered full value in particular courses and universities, and take steps to make sure that students get a rebate?
Michelle Donelan
I have seen many examples of innovative and dynamic tuition throughout this period, but we have been clear that we expect quality, quantity and accessibility. I know that some will feel they have not got that, and that is why the process is designed to look at individual student cases on a case-by-case basis.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I welcome the additional money that the Government are providing today, but given that nearly all our universities charge the maximum fee every year, they all should be able to provide at least some support to ease the burden on students at this time. Part of the reason that they are not all doing so is that some of them went into the pandemic with finances that were not quite working, whether because their administration costs were too high or they were overly reliant on international student fees. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we get to the other side of the pandemic, some universities need to look at how they can be more financially resilient, so that they can all provide the support that students deserve?
Michelle Donelan
Our information shows that the sector has been working hard and taking strong action to control costs, protect its cashflow and put in place contingency loan facilities to deal with the pandemic. A recent report in December by the Office for Students showed that the sector in aggregate was in fact healthy.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
Newham Community Project in my constituency is supporting 1,700 destitute overseas students with weekly food parcels. Those students have paid us a great compliment by choosing Britain to provide them with education and many of them have paid £12,000 a year or more in fees; they should not now be left now without food. Who has the duty of care for those overseas students?
Michelle Donelan
We know that the pandemic has had an impact on student finances, including those of international students. Let me be clear: no students, no matter their origin, should be left in hardship. That is why the £256 million, the £20 million in December and the £50 million that we announced yesterday can be used for international students. I urge any students who find themselves in hardship to go to their university and seek help.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I welcome the extra £50 million to help those most in need and the Minister’s call for accommodation providers to give rent rebates. However, when a service is not delivered as expected, the customer is entitled to a refund or credit, so is it not time that universities did the right thing and gave students a fair deal, with rebates on fees where students are not getting the quality of teaching they are paying for, and did so without students having to navigate an appeals process that was not designed for this situation?
Michelle Donelan
I have been clear throughout the pandemic that consumer law has not changed, and Competition and Markets Authority statements confirm that fact and the law’s applicability to students. I have been clear that providers should review whether students have received the teaching and assessment they were promised and have regard to the guidance on their consumer protection obligations. The guidance from the CMA for students is available.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
It is completely unfair that teenagers just starting out in adult life are being expected to cover the cost of rental accommodation that they cannot even use in this pandemic. Will the Minister come up with an arrangement with landlords to allow students to leave or renegotiate contracts, and introduce means-tested maintenance grants to give the covid cohort some relief from the hardships they are bearing?
Michelle Donelan
We urge all accommodation providers, especially the large providers, to be as flexible as they possibly can and to have students’ best interests at heart, and we have seen the likes of Unite come forward and do that. The hardship funding we have allocated will help those who find themselves in hardship and not able to access any flexibility from their accommodation provider.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Many of the students from Blackpool who are attending university will come from some of the poorest households in the entire country and will now face various additional costs relating to accommodation, access to learning materials and the loss of earnings. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the additional support, which is to be welcomed, is focused on those who really need it?
Michelle Donelan
The money that we have allocated will go to the Office for Students and then be allocated to universities, which we believe are best placed to make those decisions. Students should go to their university to raise concerns regarding hardship. The money provided is designed to put funds into the pockets of those who most need it now, as a direct result of the pandemic.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Students are understandably incredibly anxious about how the courses they are taking will be taught and assessed and how the pandemic will have a detrimental impact not just on their academic results but, if —[Inaudible.]— have taught us anything, potentially for decades to come. Will the Government establish a covid student learning remediation fund to allow lost learning to be addressed through the provision of educational opportunities not currently available during the pandemic?
Michelle Donelan
I am actively working with the higher education sector, and at a weekly taskforce meeting we discuss these very topics—how we can catch up and ensure that all students are able to graduate on time, at a world-class level, and go on to the next stage in their lives.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that Milton Keynes is home to the trailblazing Open University, which has helped over 2.2 million learners achieve their learning goals through remote and virtual education since it was set up in 1969. Now that the rest of the sector is catching up with Milton Keynes, perhaps she might give me some assurances that the expectation is the same as with the Open University—that the number of teaching hours, the quality of the courses and the learning outcomes must be the same for virtual provision.
Michelle Donelan
I, too, am a massive fan of the Open University and the way that it has allowed higher education in this country to be much more flexible and accessible for all. I completely agree with my hon. Friend that all universities need to adhere to our expectation of quality, quantity and accessibility, but it is important to state that university staff have been working tirelessly to deliver that through very challenging times.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Around 78% of students from Wales are worried about the financial impact of covid-19, which is sadly unsurprising given that so many have lost work, are unable to return to universities because of Government restrictions, and yet are still required to pay for private accommodation. Does the Minister anticipate that further support will be forthcoming in the Budget, and will she work closely with the Welsh Government in any discussions with the Treasury to ensure that any additional funding also benefits students in Wales?
Michelle Donelan
I certainly am not responsible for the Budget, so I could not comment on that, but I do work very closely with my Welsh counterpart on issues pertaining not only to students but to the sector at large, in ensuring that we are co-ordinated on our approach.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and answering 39 questions.
Point of Order
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last month, the House approved the amended High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill, which includes Labour’s clause requiring the Government to launch a consultation with the residents of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire, and to take steps to implement its findings. I welcome the fact that the Government have now begun the consultation, but in a letter sent to residents they warned that at the outset they do not
“intend to make changes to the Phase 2a scheme or to its planned construction programme in light of this consultation.”
That suggests that the Government will not listen to what the residents of the three counties tell them or take steps to implement the findings, as instructed by Parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker, could you please advise me what opportunities exist to ensure that the Government deliver a proper consultation with the residents of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire, as they are obliged to do under the Bill and in accordance with the will of Parliament?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. It is not for the Chair to determine whether the Government’s consultation is adequate, as he has illustrated, although I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard exactly what he had to say and will pass that on to Ministers, and that there will be other opportunities for him to raise this issue in the House.
Bill Presented
Gaming Hardware (Automated Purchase and Resale) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Douglas Chapman, supported by Martyn Day, Ronnie Cowan and Margaret Ferrier, presented a Bill to prohibit the automated purchase and resale of games consoles and computer components; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 253).
Air Quality
Wednesday 3rd February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Air Quality Bill 2019-21 View all Air Quality Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for improving air quality.
A key part of my plan to improve life for my constituents in Chipping Barnet is cleaning up the air we breathe. Poor air quality is the greatest environmental threat to public health. Every year, thousands of people have their health damaged or their lives shortened by air pollution. This problem is especially serious in London, with many of the country’s worst pollution hotspots here in our capital city.
Our air is now cleaner than at any point since the industrial revolution, and the Government are meeting all but one of their current air quality targets, but there is so much more work to be done. Progress has slowed in recent years and we need a concerted national effort to tackle this problem from Government, from councils, from mayors, from business, from individuals.
The Government’s 2017 clean air strategy was praised by the World Health Organisation as
“an example for the rest of the world to follow”,
but we need to go further and faster. Ella Kissi-Debrah’s case should be a wake-up call for all of us. Ella was just nine years old when she suffered a fatal asthma attack in 2013. She lived just yards from the busy and congested South Circular Road, and the coroner in her case concluded that air pollution made a material contribution to her tragic death. Ella is the very first person in the United Kingdom for whom air pollution has been officially recognised as a cause of death.
In my former role as Environment Secretary I introduced the Environment Bill to this House. This landmark new law will set a framework for a rigorous system of target-setting, monitoring and accountability, and one of the most important and ambitious elements of the Bill is the requirement to set a legally binding target to reduce PM2.5 fine particulate matter. This type of pollution does the greatest damage to human health, and I hope and expect the new target to be among the most demanding in the world. There is clear support across this House for us to be the first major developed economy to commit to getting PM2.5 particulate limits down to the 10 micrograms per cubic metre maximum recommended by the World Health Organisation. The only question is what date we set, and I appeal today to Ministers to accelerate the vital detailed research and consultation needed to make that decision and set that date as soon as possible.
A crucial part of the action to deliver on the target when it is set is protection and enhancement of nature, and I applaud my local council, Barnet, for planting around 3,000 trees in the last two years, including 700 targeted at air quality and urban heat island purposes.
I appeal to the Government to ensure that the planning Bill expected in the autumn maintains and strengthens protection for trees and open spaces, which provide crucial green lungs for our towns and cities. The environmental land management schemes, which will replace the EU’s common agricultural policy, can also play an important role in safeguarding nature and thus addressing pollution, and I urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that these environmental schemes are used to support farming practices that emit less ammonia pollution.
Domestic burning also makes a significant contribution to particulate pollution, and more people need to be aware of the impact of their choices in how they heat their homes. The most polluting fuels used in domestic burning are due to be banned by early 2023, and the Environment Bill will make it easier for councils to introduce smoke control zones and provide more powers to enforce them. They need to use these powers.
Our efforts to combat climate change can also be harnessed to drive quality improvements. One of the reasons for recent progress on air quality is the UK’s success in shifting away from coal to cleaner ways to generate electricity, and of course the transition to ultra low emission driving is crucial both for our climate and our air quality goals. Encouraging cycling, walking and active travel of course has real benefits in terms of health, air quality and congestion, and I applaud projects that, for example, encourage parents and children to walk to school, but care does have to be taken with these schemes, such as cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhoods, because if they are introduced in a hurry in the wrong place without appropriate consultation, they can inadvertently worsen air quality because of the consequent congestion they cause.
But the really big change we need in our transport system is to ensure that we switch to cleaner cars, vans, lorries, taxis, buses and motorbikes. Nothing else is going to deliver the air quality improvements we urgently need.
First, the Volkswagen scandal and then the collapse of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency prosecution of the company Klarius demonstrated that we need better enforcement of standards on tailpipe emissions and tougher sanctions when rules are broken. The Environment Bill will help, because it will mean that Ministers can require manufacturers to recall vehicles if they do not comply with environmental standards and, thus, illegally polluting vehicles will be taken off the road more quickly.
The Government are taking forward a £3.8 billion plan to reduce harmful emissions from transport, including £1.5 billion to support the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and nearly half a billion to help local authorities implement air quality improvement measures.
Last year, the Prime Minister announced £5 billion for bus services in England, including 4,000 new ultra-low emission buses. His 10-point climate plan commits to ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. That is one of the most aggressive targets set by any country, anywhere in the world. It will require further massive investment in research and development, to make electric cars and vans a more practical, affordable option, as well as in charging infrastructure.
I welcome all the substantial funding currently going into climate and air quality-related technology projects, which are essential, including the £250 million Faraday challenge on batteries. In this country, we already manufacture a considerable proportion of the plug-in electric cars sold around Europe. We should use the 2030 target as an opportunity to create new green jobs. Nissan’s announcement on moving battery production to the UK is really encouraging news.
Lastly, I ask Ministers to give priority to tackling air quality in London, because this is where the problem is most serious. London received funding for air quality as part of the £5.7 billion Transport for London funding settlement in 2015, and has received further support for individual projects of about £150 million. That includes money to retrofit buses to reduce emissions, and all London buses were due to be Euro 6 compliant by the end of last year. However, I am concerned that the Mayor of London has not made more progress on air quality or on delivering zero-emission buses, despite the significant resources he has been given by the Government to do that. His plan for a zero-emission bus fleet will take another 17 years to complete. Shaun Bailey believes progress needs to be much faster and has set out how he would do that as a Conservative Mayor for London. I am also worried that the Mayor’s mismanagement of TfL’s budget, including through the lengthy delays to Crossrail, will make it harder to deliver the investment we need to buy cleaner, greener buses.
I have one last ask of the Government. If they are serious about air quality, they should cancel plans to build a third runway at Heathrow. Nitrogen oxides problems around the airport are already very serious, and I cannot see any way in which the promoters of the scheme can possibly find a means to comply with those limits, never mind new ones adopted under the Environment Bill, while still accommodating the huge increase in surface transport that would be generated by thousands more flights. The viability case has been severely damaged by the collapse in passenger numbers. It is time to put this misguided runway project out of its misery. It is time to clean up the air we breathe, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Theresa Villiers, Bob Blackman, Andrew Rosindell, Bob Seely, Felicity Buchan, Chris Loder, Steve Brine, Neil Parish, George Freeman, Dr Rupa Huq, Geraint Davies and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Theresa Villiers accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 254).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting—
(1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and Standing Order No. 17 (Delegated Legislation (negative procedure)), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on—
(a) the Motions in the name of Nigel Adams relating to Exiting the European Union (Sanctions) (SI, 2019, Nos. 1142 and 1145, and SI, 2020, Nos. 590, 597, 608, 610, 951, 1468 and 1474) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion,
(b) the Motions in the name of Jesse Norman relating to Exiting the European Union (Value Added Tax) (SI, 2020, Nos. 1312 and 1544) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion,
(c) the Motion in the name of Ian Blackford relating to the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI, 2020, No. 1412) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion;
(d) those Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and
(2) the Motion in the name of Tom Hunt relating to grooming gangs may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption, and may continue for one hour after its commencement or until 7.00 pm, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously concluded.—(David Rutley.)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I suspend the sitting for three minutes.
Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I beg to move,
That the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 608), dated 18 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we will take the following motions:
That the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1142), dated 18 July 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 July 2019, in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 597), dated 15 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
That the Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1145), dated 18 July 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 July 2019, in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1468), dated 7 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
That the Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 610), dated 18 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
That the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 590), dated 11 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
That the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 951), dated 3 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 September, be approved.
That the Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1474), dated 7 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.
James Cleverly
The nine instruments before us were laid between July 2019 and December 2020 under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. As the House will be aware, on 31 December 2020, the UK took control of its sanctions policy and we now have a full suite of sanctions regimes at our disposal under the sanctions Act. This provides the legal framework within which the UK may impose, update and lift sanctions, whether autonomously or in line with our UN obligations now that we have left the European Union.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very serious campaign to take action against China because of the treatment of the Uyghurs, and we are asked to produce motions on genocide, but it seems to me that now we have left the European Union, that action is now in our hands, so will he confirm that we can now take robust action against the Chinese Government in the form of sanctions, perhaps against the fashion industry or on importing cotton from that part of China? We now have the freedom to act if we want to, and I hope that the Government will.
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for the point that he has made, and I will go into a bit more detail about the framework within which we can operate. He will understand that the Government choose not to discuss any future sanctions we may impose, to prevent either the movement of moneys or other things that we might approach, but my colleagues in Government and I absolutely hear the point that he has made.
Our sanctions regime is the foundation for an independent sanctions policy in support of our foreign policy and national security interests. With this framework in place, the UK can use sanctions to act as a force for good in the world. Working with partners both old and new, we can collaborate to project our values and tackle unacceptable behaviour wherever we find it. Our global human rights regime is just one example of this. Of course, where collaboration is not possible or where swift leadership is required, we now have the freedom to act, as we did with Belarus and, most recently, in relation to Zimbabwe. On Monday, we designated four security sector chiefs who were responsible for the worst humanitarian rights violations committed against the people of Zimbabwe since President Mnangagwa took power, including the deaths of 23 protesters. Our sanctions send a clear message that those responsible for such acts will be held to account.
In order to establish individual sanctions regimes within the framework of the sanctions Act, we are required to lay statutory instruments. Among other things, these instruments set out the purpose of the regime, the criteria for designation, the measures imposed, exceptions and licensing arrangements, and the offences and penalties for contravention of these measures.
Of the nine instruments we are considering today, seven transition existing EU regimes into UK law. The UK is at the forefront of developing multilateral contributions on sanctions and has played a large part in shaping the EU’s approach. As a result, the measures contained in the UK sanctions, such as asset freezes and travel bans, are intended to have substantially the same policy effect as those in the regimes that they replace.
Certain types of sanctions measures, such as asset freezes and travel bans, apply to those who we designate. The instruments themselves do not specify which individuals or entities will be designated. Designations are instead made through an administrative process and published on the UK’s sanction list. Officials assessed all those designated under the EU regimes against the test established in the sanctions Act and UK policy objectives before the end of the transition period. The vast majority of EU designations met those criteria.
The two remaining instruments amend other statutory instruments that established sanctions regimes. These amendments are designed to ensure that our entire suite of sanctions legislation is as consistent and clear in its provisions as possible. Many regimes contain the same sanctions measures, and consistency in language promotes consistency in interpretation, application and enforcement. British businesses often export goods or provide services to more than one country that is subject to sanctions, and any inconsistency in the wording of legislation can cause confusion and increase their compliance costs. The amendments also ensure that UK persons in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not unduly impacted by extraterritorial application of UK law. They create an exemption for the extraterritorial prohibitions so that a licence from the authorities in that jurisdiction is sufficient to authorise a UK person’s conduct there. Those persons do not need also to obtain a licence from the UK authorities in order to avoid committing an offence under UK law.
I will elaborate a little further on the purposes of the seven regimes that these instruments establish. The Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 are aimed at promoting peace, security and stability in Bosnia and respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. They are also intended to encourage compliance with, and the implementation of, the general framework agreement for peace, which established Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single sovereign state. The regulations permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the countries in the western Balkans most at risk of instability. Its domestic political situation is affected by institutional dysfunctionality, diverse ethno-nationalistic rhetoric, attempts to undermine the functions of the state and its institutions and challenges to the general framework agreement for peace. These sanctions are a public demonstration of our enduring commitment to promoting stability and security in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 aim to encourage the Government of Burundi to respect democratic principles and institutions, the rule of law and good governance in Burundi, to participate in negotiations with political opponents in good faith to bring about peaceful solutions to the political situation in Burundi, to refrain from policies and activities that repress civil society in Burundi, to comply with international humanitarian rights and to respect human rights. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. Following elections in May 2020, there was a peaceful transfer of power to a new President in June 2020. Nevertheless, we continue to have concerns about the human rights situation, and we believe that these sanctions continue to have a role in promoting respect for human rights in Burundi.
The Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 are aimed at preventing certain types of cyber-activity that undermine the integrity, prosperity or security of the UK or any other country. They are also intended to prevent certain types of cyber-activity that cause economic loss or prejudice commercial interests, undermine the independence or effective functioning of an international organisation or otherwise affect a significant number of people in an indiscriminate manner. The regulations permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. The cyber threat is growing, with attacks increasing in their intensity, complexity and severity. Malign actors in cyber-space are able to carry out attacks on other countries’ critical national infrastructure, democratic institutions, businesses and media. These sanctions demonstrate that there are consequences for such attacks and restrict access to the resources for those who would seek to carry them out.
The Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 aim to encourage the Government of Guinea to properly investigate the violent repression that took place on 28 September 2009 and its aftermath and to hold those responsible to account. These sanctions make clear that these events, in which more than 150 people were killed, have not been forgotten, and that their perpetrators should face justice, as well as providing a deterrent for the future. The regulations permit the imposition of targeted financial and immigration sanctions.
The Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 are aimed at deterring and providing accountability for the misappropriation of state funds from a country outside the UK. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. Rather than establish geographic regimes, as existed under the EU legislation, this statutory instrument creates a single thematic regime under which designations can be made in respect of misappropriation of state funds taking place anywhere outside the UK, allowing for greater agility and flexibility. Corruption, and in particular misappropriation of state funds, has a significant negative effect on national and international prosperity, security and governance. The cost of corruption worldwide is estimated to be more than 2% of global GDP. These sanctions are part of our wider strategy to combat this issue.
The Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 are aimed at encouraging the Government in Nicaragua to respect democratic principles and institutions, the separation of powers and the rule of law; to refrain from the repression of civil society, and to respect human rights. The regulations permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. These sanctions function as a clear signal of our intention to maintain the pressure on the repressive Ortega regime and as a tool through which we can exert this pressure.
The Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 aim to discourage any unauthorised hydrocarbon exploration or production activities in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus or on its continental shelf. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. We recognise, and have consistently stated our support for, the sovereign right of the Republic of Cyprus to exploit the oil and gas in its internationally agreed exclusive economic zone. Cyprus’s oil and gas should be used for the benefit of Cypriots. These sanctions demonstrate our opposition to unauthorised drilling and the violation of other states’ sovereignty.
Sanctions are a key part of the UK’s foreign policy toolbox, and feature in many of our political and diplomatic strategies. We use them to change unacceptable behaviour by coercing or constraining those involved, or by sending a political signal that their actions will not be tolerated. They also contribute to our efforts to uphold and defend the rules-based international order. The UK has long been a global leader on sanctions, and that will not change now that we have left the European Union. Our independent sanctions policy allows us to use sanctions to achieve maximum impact, working in a way that is agile, expertise-driven and in support of our values, and which enables collaboration with both new and established partners.
International co-operation is at the heart of our polity. Sanctions are most effective when implemented and enforced collectively, and we will continue to co-ordinate closely with our European and other international partners on sanctions. These regulations are a crucial part of the legal edifice that underpins our sanctions policy, of which the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is a keystone. With them in place, we can promote and protect security, stability and prosperity at home and overseas, call for accountability and justice, and deter human rights violations and abuses. In short, we can project the UK as a force for good in the world. I welcome the opportunity to hear the views of Members about the regulations and to answer their questions. I commend these regulations to the House.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to these sets of regulations. Let me be clear that the Opposition welcome these instruments to roll over the European Union sanctions regimes into UK legislation, and to clarify and ensure the applicability of a series of other measures. As the Minister has explained, these regulations apply to a wide range of country contexts, but are largely focused on targeted measures and on some specific themes, such as the misappropriation of state funds and the use of cyber-attacks.
The Labour Opposition want to see a global Britain as—as the Minister has described—a force for good in the world, with human rights, the rule of law and democracy at the heart of all our foreign policies. We have unique responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council, the Human Rights Council and the Commonwealth, as well as in the international legal architecture. However, it is disappointing, as I have noted previously, to have seen the diminishing of the UK role in both human rights bodies and the loss of our seat, for example, on the International Court of Justice in recent years.
That said, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), has made clear, we have supported and continue to support a strengthening of the UK sanctions regime to ensure that those who abuse human rights, attack civilians, threaten democracy, the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of civil society, or use corruption, torture and murder to further their own ends have no safe haven for themselves or their dirty money in the UK or our overseas territories.
Stephen Doughty
I will come to that point in due course. The right hon. Gentleman has made some important points, and he knows that those concerns are shared across the House, particularly with regard to the Uyghur minority and the shocking revelations that are coming out.
As a member of the European Union, the UK played a leading role in designating individuals and entities for targeted sanctions. We hope that, in seeking to maintain a close friendship with the European Union and our partners now that we have left, the Government will work closely with them as well as other like-minded countries and global institutions. We also hope that the Government will do more with the powers that we now have at our disposal through the Magnitsky sanctions regime, expanding their scope and usage, as well as increasing the transparency to the House, including about the processes by which decisions are made on designations for sanctions. I hope that the rolling over of these sanctions is a sign of the Government’s intention to maintain a collaborative and friendly approach with our friends in the EU.
Before turning to the individual countries and thematic sanctions that the Minister has outlined, I want to ask him a question. The transition period ended on 31 December last year. What has been in place in the interim weeks? Have these sanctions continued to apply? It is obviously very important that there have not been loopholes in the last few weeks, before these measures were brought before us.
First, on Burundi, we are fully supportive of rolling over the sanctions. The EU extended the sanction regime last year to last until 31 December this year. The last five years have unfortunately seen significant problems in respect of democracy and human rights. We hope that the new Government will seek to reverse many of the dangerous steps that the previous President and Government took. We saw the police, the National Intelligence Service and the ruling party’s youth wing carrying out extensive human rights violations, with allegations of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and torture. In October 2019, four members of the Imbonerakure were convicted for killing a member of the opposition party, the National Congress for Freedom.
We believe that the Burundi Government must seek to release human rights defenders and journalists arrested under a crackdown on opposition. That includes Germain Rukuki, a former employee of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, human rights defender Nestor Nibitanga and four journalists from the Iwacu press group who were arrested in October 2019, whose names I can provide to the Minister. We very much hope that Burundi will follow a process of re-engagement with international bodies on human rights, including allowing the UN human rights office to be reopened in the country and engaging with commissions from the UN Human Rights Council, which the UK has a key sea-t on.
On Guinea, we agree with the Government on rolling over these sanctions, which relate back to the significant violence we saw in 2009, in which 150 people were brutally killed in a stadium in the capital, Conakry, and hundreds more were wounded, with women being victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence. It was a deeply distressing time for the people of Guinea, and there was widespread condemnation from the international community. There was some progress in 2014, and some sanctions were released. Could the Minister say a little bit about what progress there has been since then and whether these sanctions have had the impact that we want to see?
On Bosnia, I visited Srebrenica with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—I believe you were on that trip, Mr Deputy Speaker—and we saw for ourselves the legacy of that terrible conflict in our own continent. I agree with the Government: it is vital that we continue to make clear our intent to stand against any of those who would undermine the security and peace that was so hard won by the general framework agreement for peace—the Dayton agreement—in 1995. That allowed for much progress, but significant tensions and concerns remain. Could the Minister clarify whether individuals have been or would be designated under this framework, or are we saying that the framework is in place to underpin the Dayton agreement and that we would not hesitate to use it with others to ensure peace and stability in that country, which is crucial for not only the people of Bosnia but the wider Balkan region?
On Nicaragua, the explanatory notes set out clearly some of the very serious allegations that have been made about the descent into repression and violence there, so it is right that we roll over these sanctions. The social security reforms announced in April 2018 triggered ongoing protests that have continued for nearly three years. The allegations are that by the end of 2019, at least 328 people had been killed, primarily by state security forces and pro-Government armed groups, and more than 2,000 others injured. There have been truly shocking allegations regarding mass graves, clandestine facilities, detention of political prisoners and attacks on members of the Catholic Church. The Government have also apparently banned the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights from the country and rejected the report of Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. That is deeply concerning, and we welcome these measures.
On cyber sanctions, clearly there is an increasing factor of threats to global security, our own national security, and our commercial security. Threats and attacks on our financial institutions, democracy and security have become very clear in recent years, and they will likely only increase. The EU’s first ever sanctions last year made this a vital defensive tool in our arsenal against cyber-attacks.
I understand that the targeted individuals include those from China working on Operation Cloud Hopper. They are alleged to have stolen intellectual property and sensitive commercial data over many years, targeting companies across six continents and sectors including banking, finance, government, aviation, space, satellite technology, manufacturing, medical, oil and gas, mining, communications, computer processing and defence. This is a huge range of measures that these hostile individuals are attempting to attack. I also understand that they target intelligence officers from the Russian general main intelligence directorate and, in April 2018, attempted to gain access to information systems of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is absolutely crucial that we work with our EU allies, the United States, our NATO allies and, of course, the Five Eyes community to take the most robust actions against those individuals involved with the Chinese and Russian regimes to ensure that they do not threaten our security or that of the globe.
In the miscellaneous amendments regulations, a whole series of measures are set out to clarify sanctions relating to Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Syria, Russia, Guinea-Bissau, the chemical weapons convention and many other aspects. Will the Minister be clear about whether they simply ensure the applicability and effectiveness of these measures, or expand or alter them in any way? One challenge in scrutinising these measures—I hope the Minister refers to this matter—is that sanctions are often complex, and rightly so, and we need to ensure that we understand the full intent of what the Government are trying to achieve with them.
The second set of miscellaneous regulations deal with the issues relating to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I understand the Minister’s point that we do not want to see double prohibition and therefore a double licensing burden on individuals through those regulations. However, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure that there are no loopholes and no lack of oversight, so that individuals do not seek to exploit any gaps or administrative gaps. Will the Minister say a little bit more about what support is being provided to the overseas territories to ensure that they can apply the sanctions regimes, and that there is a commonality across the whole British family of the overseas territories to ensure that we have one approach? Unfortunately, we know that in the past regimes have been used, whether financially or otherwise, to escape scrutiny and transparency, not least in the light of the current investigations into governance in the British Virgin Islands. Indeed, I have supported the Government on their commission of inquiry there. It is absolutely crucial that we have assurances on that front.
On misappropriation, this applies mainly to individuals and entities related to Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 and Ukraine in 2014. Can the Minister further comment on how effective those have been? Will he confirm that the two persons and four entities added to the EU sanctions list in October 2020, related to the construction of bridge and railway tracks linking Russia to the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula via the Kerch Strait, will be included? Will the Government seek to work with our allies to target individuals who further seek to isolate Crimea from Ukraine? That is obviously critical.
On the unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean, again, we wholeheartedly support the rolling over of sanctions and welcome its extension by both the European Union and the UK Government. Unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean are in direct contravention of the sovereign rights of Cyprus, within its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and they threaten the process of reaching a delimitation agreement and a bizonal, bicommunal political settlement for the whole of Cyprus. We hope that the UK Government will continue to work with the EU to maintain our full solidarity with the Government of Cyprus and work on restrictive measures to prevent further violations of the rules-based order that governs our seas and oceans. That is an absolutely crucial set of rules and guidance to which we are one of the key parties, and it is crucial that we ensure that they are applied in relation to Cyprus.
Finally, let me make some broader points in relation to these measures today. The sanctions before us show the benefit of a collaborative international approach to sanctions, and one that has support from all parts of this House. The question remains why, with such long-standing and overwhelming evidence growing of systemic human rights abuses on an industrial scale against the Muslim Uyghur people and other minorities in China, with the attacks on the democracy and freedom of the people of Hong Kong and with the United States Government having already barred members of the Communist party of China from the US, we have not seen further designations of Magnitsky-style sanctions against officials of the Communist party of China.
We have repeatedly called on the Government to impose sanctions against senior officials and entities directly responsible for appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang. We have pressed for that for months but no action has been taken, so I hope the Minister can assure us that such sanctions are under consideration and explain what discussions we have had about them with our allies.
Similarly, the Labour Opposition have consistently urged the Government to go further in their sanctions on the Myanmar military, including by targeting its business interests. I know that some of these regulations relate to previous sanctions on Myanmar. The Government failed to follow the recommendation made last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the shadow Minister for Asia and the Pacific, on the basis that such sanctions could have a negative impact on foreign investment in the Myanmar economy. Not least given the events of the last few days, we believe that the Minister should move immediately to target military officials who are responsible for a brazen attack on the democratic rights of the Myanmar people, and support Magnitsky sanctions on individuals involved.
As shadow Minister for Africa, I welcome the targeted designations against senior individuals in the Zimbabwe Government who were involved in state-backed attacks on protesters in 2019 and violence in 2018. Will the Minister confirm that those sanctions are effective immediately? We are seeing significant violence and political repercussions elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, as I said in a Westminster Hall debate about the shocking events surrounding the #EndSARS movement and the massacres at the Lekki tollgate plaza and elsewhere. I hope that Ministers are giving serious consideration to the recommendation made in that debate of targeted measures against any individuals who were involved in such shocking attacks or repression of the Nigerian people, and I hope that Ministers are listening to the wealth of evidence out there from independent human rights organisations.
In Uganda in recent days, the presidential election has been marred by the continual arrests of Opposition Members and journalists, as well as by violence and human rights abuses. I have had some quite shocking evidence put to me. The Opposition leader was arrested multiple times and put under house arrest, with the military invading his home after the election, and there has been intimidation and attacks on journalists. It is alleged that the Uganda chief of police, Martin Okoth Ochola, stated:
“Yes, we shall beat you for your own sake to help you understand that you do not go there…I have no apology”.
What are the Government going to do to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Uganda? What consideration has been given to targeted sanctions against any individual involved in the violations and repressions in Guinea and elsewhere, which are rightly being targeted? It is important that we have consistency.
We continue to see the horrific consequences of conflict in the Tigray region in Ethiopia. Hundreds have been killed, and thousands have fled to neighbouring Sudan. There is regional instability involving Eritrea and others, and a range of very serious allegations are being made about atrocities that have been committed. What assessment have the Government made of those atrocities and whether there are grounds for individual sanctions against any individual involved—from whatever side or whatever background in that conflict—who is responsible for violations of human rights or humanitarian law?
Finally, I hope that we will have an honest conversation about how a UK sanctions regime will work. The EU and the US work together co-operatively to secure strong applicability of measures, and the UK must be part of that process. Ultimately, as the Minister indicated, the strength of sanctions is dependent on a unified, agreed and consistently applied framework across multiple jurisdictions. If we veer from common positions—whether in Europe, across NATO or with our Atlantic allies—that will be of huge detriment. I hope the Government will give a firm commitment to acting in all these areas, and to ensuring consistency in the measures that the United Kingdom applies in our overseas territories and in working with our allies.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Alyn Smith. I understand that there may be some communication gremlins at work, Alyn, but if the link goes down we will go to audio.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I hope that the technology is working for us today.
If brevity is the soul of wit, I can be positively hilarious this afternoon. The SNP has no objection to these measures being rolled over. We welcome the fact that they are being incorporated and carried on, for the reasons so ably outlined by the Labour spokesperson, but also because of the more general principle that we believe in multilateral action on this sort of stuff, and we think that we will be far stronger working with our European allies. We regret leaving the European Union altogether, and we would like to see continued dynamic alignment with the EU on this sort of stuff. I think the scope for lateral manoeuvre that the UK has gained from Brexit is somewhat overstated, and we are far stronger working with our European allies—and, indeed, the US under the new Administration—on these sorts of topics. We have no objection to these measures and we are pleased to support them this afternoon.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I start by welcoming the sanctions. I restate the deeply held position of the Lib Dems, which is, of course, that we should always aim to work in concert with the European Union on all these matters. I am always heartened to see the broad consensus in the House on this issue. It prompts the question why, on important matters, we do not sometimes move faster—because we can.
On Burundi, we know from UN reports that the Burundian army launched attacks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 2019 and 2020, in violation of the sanctions regime. It is a terrible situation, especially with regard to the media there, including the BBC. Although recent moves by the new President to reopen the media show that sanctions are working, we have to take a precautionary approach and must not let up too soon.
In Guinea, the Government of Guinea have yet to properly investigate the violent repression of 2008-09 and the aftermath of that violence against their own people. So while I welcome the sanctions in their aim of holding those responsible to account, my question to the Government is, are they measuring the impact of the sanctions over time, and are we any closer now to achieving our objectives than when those sanctions were originally introduced under EU legislation?
The conflict following the break-up of Yugoslavia was something on which the late, great Lord Ashdown showed much leadership. The UK must absolutely promote the sovereignty of, and peace and stability in, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I am sure that the House is unanimous in its agreement that more must be done in Nicaragua to respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
While I of course welcome the roll-over of all these sanctions, I would echo the calls across the House for us to do more, particularly on Russia, where we must have a more robust response to the imprisonment of Navalny; and on the Uyghurs in China, where there is huge support for such a response in the House, as has been well rehearsed in the past few weeks. I hope the Minister can see that no party in the House will let up. We do want more done, particularly with regard to Magnitsky sanctions, on these matters.
James Cleverly
I am genuinely grateful for the contributions that have been made from a number of corners of the House. I think it sends a very important international signal that although there are many subjects on which we have deeply felt and legitimate disagreements, right across the political spectrum here in the United Kingdom there is a real unanimity of voice when it comes to the importance of sanctions and the UK’s place in the world.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his thoughtful contributions and questions, which I will attempt to cover in this closing address. I also thank the hon. Members for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and, although he is no longer in his place, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for their contributions.
As I said at the start of the debate, this year represents a crucial moment for the UK’s foreign policy. We now have in place a framework that can be used to act as a force for good in the world. The UK supported these sanctions when we were a member of the EU and we hope that, by carrying them over into UK domestic law, we have made a clear statement—which I believe has been reflected in the contributions of others in the House—that we choose to adopt them, not because we were coerced into them by our membership of the European Union, but because we absolutely believe that they are the right things to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will permit Mr Shannon to join in, because I know he has been following the debate from outside the Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister; I have been watching the debate on TV.
My question is specifically about Northern Ireland. Does the Minister believe that the sanctions proposed in the statutory instruments will address Gaddafi and Libyan-sponsored terrorism? American victims of events on British soil are entitled to reparations, while our citizens languish for years without it. That is a very important issue for us in Northern Ireland, and the rest of the United Kingdom as well. How will the provisions address the extradition of terrorists such as al-Senussi, Gaddafi’s general, who has still not been made to face justice in Britain after supplying the IRA with Semtex that was used in 250 bombings? Will the Minister confirm that these regulations will prevent that failure from being repeated?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He pays assiduous attention to the debates in which he contributes, and I am glad that he has been able to take part despite the gremlins in the technology.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the fact that the imposition of sanctions does not prevent the UK Government from being a force for good domestically as well as internationally. I am not able to go into detail on the specific matter that he has raised, although it is important. We always ensure through our sanctions regime that we are able to stand on the international stage feeling proud of the work we have done, which is driven by a moral point. I will correspond with the hon. Gentleman to provide more details about his specific question.
A number of hon. Members rightly raised current and future co-ordination with the European Union. As I stated initially, it is important that we understand that the United Kingdom has a discrete and autonomous sanctions regime; the EU may choose to pursue sanctions different from ours. Nevertheless, we know that sanctions are more effective when they are delivered in co-ordination, and we will continue to co-operate closely with our allies, partners and near neighbours in the European Union, in co-ordination, where possible, with other countries around the world, so that we can be more effective in the work we do through our sanctions regimes.
Jim Shannon
As the human rights spokesperson for my party, I also wish to ask a question about regulation 8 of the SI on Bosnia. Is the provision that the Secretary of State
“must take steps to publicise the designation, variation or revocation”
compatible with our duty to respect the human rights of individuals and family members of said alleged offenders? How does the Minister believe the balance between sanction and interference is achieved?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important but technical point. I do not want to go into too much detail at the Dispatch Box; again, if he will forgive me, I will make sure that my officials take note of his point and that we write to him about it.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked whether there was a pause between the end of the transition period and now. I assure him that the regulations were laid in the course of 2019 and 2020, and came into force on 31 December, so there was no interruption in the sanctions regime.
Colleagues around the House have suggested examples of where our sanctions regime could be applied in the future. Rather than address each individually, I make the point that we have taken notice of those examples, in many of which very important, severe and concerning issues are at stake. It is the long-standing policy of the UK Government not to discuss future sanctions and future designations to prevent, for example, the flight of individuals or the hiding of funds that may be the target of our sanction regimes, but I can assure all Members that the examples they have raised will be taken into consideration.
Stephen Doughty
I understand what the Minister is saying. On a practical point, Members are regularly approached with very serious evidence, sometimes involving individuals who may have been committing atrocities. How can independent human rights organisations and others best input into the decision-making process, even if he does not want to pre-announce those designations?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I would not wish to imply that any method is precluded. The most traditional method is that individuals and NGOs contact the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I often read correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members across the House bringing their concerns to my attention. That is, of course, a well-established way of doing it. Once we are once again able to come together physically in this place, the tap on the shoulder in the Division Lobby, the Tea Room and the corridors is also a traditional way for right hon. and hon. Members to bring matters to our attention in a discreet way. I completely recognise that there are times when raising an issue on the Floor of the House can put individuals in greater danger. We are passionate about making the sanctions regime a success and a meaningful tool as a force in the world, and we are more than happy for Members across the House to bring their concerns to our attention.
Cyber-sanctions will be one of our key tools as an autonomous regime. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth highlighted that it will be an increasingly important part of the work we do. He also asked about the designations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We have mirrored the EU structure and we have a framework in place. Although there are no designations in place at the moment, it is there as a very visible method to reinforce the importance we attach to peace, stability and prosperity, to be used at some point in the future if needs be.
I think almost every Member who spoke today raised the situation of the Uyghur Muslims and China. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in political re-education camps, the systematic restrictions on Uyghur culture and the practice of Islam, and the extensive invasive surveillance targeting minorities. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of robust measures to help ensure that no British organisations—Government or private sector—deliberately or inadvertently profit from or contribute to human rights violations against the Uyghurs and other Muslims.
We have taken a leading international role in holding China to account for its human rights violations in Xinjiang. We led the first international joint statements on this issue at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in October 2019 and in June 2020 at the UN Human Rights Council. On 6 October 2020, alongside Germany, we brought together a total of 39 countries to express our grave concerns about the situation in Xinjiang in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee. In addition, the Foreign Secretary raised Xinjiang directly with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi, on a number of occasions.
The situation in Myanmar has also been raised. We consider the recent election to be broadly representative, as do international observers, and we consider the National League for Democracy Government led by Aung Sang Suu Kyi to be the legitimate Government in Myanmar. We wholeheartedly condemn the coup d’état, the military seizure of power and the detention of the State Counsellor and other political and civil society leaders. The attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the recent elections are completely unacceptable.
Jim Shannon
Indications in the press yesterday and in the media today suggest that China may have played a bigger role in the coup. Has the Minister had any opportunity to speak to the representatives of China to express deep concern about any involvement in the coup, taking away the democratic process and imposing an autocratic process?
James Cleverly
It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on involvement in what has happened in Myanmar, but the hon. Member will have seen that the Foreign Secretary has made a statement on this, in conjunction with others in the international community.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. A moment ago, in relation to China, he mentioned the importance of UK-based companies and their role, and he is now speaking about Myanmar. Will the Government look again at the situation where the UK’s Commonwealth Development Corporation has been investing in telecommunications companies in Myanmar that have been complying with Government-ordered repression and blockages of internet sites and others, which not only have potentially covered up atrocities against the Rohingya people, but could be being used now? Will he look again at that investment and whether it is appropriate in the current circumstances?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I will ensure that I speak to my ministerial colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, about that matter.
The instruments we have been considering today demonstrate the range and scope of the situations in which we use sanctions. I am grateful to hon. Members across the House who have raised other circumstances where we might choose to do so. The instruments also demonstrate the outcomes that they are intended to achieve. From promoting respect for human rights to protecting our national security, sanctions are a vital part of a great many of our international strategies.
As I set out in the opening speech, the regulations provide the legal basis that enables us to carry out our independent sanctions policy within the framework of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. Approval of these regulations will help to preserve our status as a global leader in this field. More than that, it will mean that we can stand with the EU and other international partners and act together to ensure that unacceptable behaviour—violation of human rights, violation of the rule of law, and threats to prosperity and security—do not go unchecked or unchallenged. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 608), dated 18 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on the remaining eight motions together.
Resolved,
That the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1142), dated 18 July 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 July 2019, in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 597), dated 15 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
That the Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 1145), dated 18 July 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 July 2019, in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1468), dated 7 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
That the Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 610), dated 18 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
That the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 590), dated 11 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
That the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 951), dated 3 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 September, be approved.
That the Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1474), dated 7 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.—(James Cleverly.)
Exiting the European Union (Value Added Tax)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1312), dated 18 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.
Mr Speaker
With this we will take the following motion:
That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1544), dated 18 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 December, be approved.
Jesse Norman
These two statutory instruments are part of a package of measures connected to the UK’s exit from the EU. They make a number of consequential and necessary changes in order to ensure that the VAT system continued and continues to operate, as required, following the end of the transition period. They have been designed to ensure fairness, to protect against double taxation and avoidance, and to make certain that existing reliefs continue to apply following the UK’s departure from the EU. Both instruments took effect at the end of the transition period.
The Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make three changes to the VAT Act 1994 and one change to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The first change applies to the VAT treatment of aircraft handling services. Until the end of the transition period, the VAT Act included a VAT zero rate for handling services supplied to aircraft operating on international routes. These included landing and housing fees, security and fire services. This zero-rate band also applied to the handling and storage of goods carried in those aircraft, but only at a customs and excise airport. However, suppliers could previously rely on EU legislation to zero-rate their services at non-customs and excise airports. This instrument therefore provides for the continued application of the relief in UK legislation following the end of the transition period.
Secondly, this instrument includes a new VAT zero rate for the handling services supplied to international trains. These include network track access, shunting and storage, station and guard services, light maintenance services and the handling and storage of goods carried on the trains. The measure aligns the VAT treatment of international trains with that of qualifying ships and aircraft. For ships and aircraft, services for which the zero rate applies can be carried out only at a port or airport, but for international trains these services could be supplied at various other sites along a rail route. The instrument therefore provides a power for the Revenue and Customs commissioners to specify those sites in a notice. That will ensure that the relief applies appropriately to trains.
Thirdly, the instrument makes a change that allows those supplying pension fund management services to funds established in the EU to recover the VAT that they incur.
Finally, the instrument removes a change made in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to the VAT treatment of certain travel services. The change is no longer necessary because the subsequent Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 included a revision of the VAT treatment of such services.
Let me turn to the second instrument to be debated: the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This legislation includes four changes to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the revocation of an instrument laid in 2019 in connection with EU exit.
First, the legislation makes changes to the DIY house builders’ scheme to place self-builders in Northern Ireland in the same position as those in Great Britain. The DIY house builders’ scheme allows people who construct their own dwellings—a relevant residential or charitable building—or make a residential conversion to claim back the VAT on certain building materials, including VAT incurred on imports. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, materials bought by self-builders in Northern Ireland from suppliers in an EU member state may be subject to VAT in Northern Ireland. The instrument ensures that a DIY house builder in Northern Ireland can recover VAT charged on materials bought from a supplier in an EU member state.
Secondly, the instrument allows HMRC to obtain information in relation to VAT owed by businesses and individuals in member states. Similar legislation applied to the whole of the UK until the end of the transition period, reflecting the requirement for mutual co-operation between member states in connection with VAT. The retention of the legislation, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, is a requirement of the withdrawal agreement.
Thirdly, the instrument contains measures to prevent unscrupulous businesses from avoiding import VAT. Under the Government’s commitment to unfettered access, goods in free circulation in Northern Ireland that are moved to Great Britain are relieved from duty and VAT on entry. However, UK customs legislation contains a provision to remove the duty relief if it is found that goods have been routed from an EU member state via Northern Ireland to Great Britain in order to avoid import duty. The instrument ensures that, if the customs provision is triggered, the VAT relief will no longer apply as well. It also prevents double taxation for businesses that make exempt supplies and move goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Finally, the instrument revokes the Finance Act 2011, Schedule 23 (Data-gathering Powers) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid in the event of a no-deal scenario and are therefore no longer required.
The instruments provide a number of significant and necessary changes to ensure that the VAT system continues to operate as required following the end of the transition period. They will ensure fairness, protect against double taxation and avoidance, and make certain that existing reliefs continue to apply. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which I commend to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition to these two statutory instruments. Our priority, as the Opposition, is to ensure that the UK economy functions as smoothly as possible and that the Northern Ireland protocol operates effectively following the end EU exit transition period. We will therefore not oppose the Government on these two statutory instruments.
As we have heard, the first of these sets of regulations includes changes to replicate in domestic law the measures that currently exist in EU law. They make provision in UK law for a VAT zero rate for the handling of qualifying aircraft at non-customs and excise airports, as businesses can no longer rely on EU law to provide that measure. Other measures in this set of regulations make more substantive changes. The introduction of a VAT zero rate for the handling of international trains is new, although in practice it is similar to the relief for aircraft. The removal of a VAT exemption for suppliers of pension fund management services for funds established in the EU is also substantive, although it was predicted when the VAT exemption for pension fund management services was introduced in UK law last year.
As those two points represent substantial changes, will the Minister say what assessment the Treasury has made of the impact on the tax base of these regulations? On the one hand, there will presumably be a loss of revenue as a result of the zero rating for handling of international trains, while on the other, the removal of the exemption for EU-established pension fund management services will presumably generate income for the Exchequer. Will he therefore set out what impact, separately and net, these changes are expected to have on the tax base?
The second set of regulations makes changes to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 needed following the end of the EU exit transition period in the context of the Northern Ireland protocol. As we have heard, the measures in this instrument will ensure that VAT can be recovered by DIY house builders in Northern Ireland on goods used in construction purchased in the EU. It will also remove VAT relief for goods moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain for avoidance purposes and ensure that recovery is possible if VAT is incurred when a business moves its own goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As I made clear, the Opposition want to see the Northern Ireland protocol operating effectively and we want people in Northern Ireland to be protected from disruption to their lives and their businesses. While these changes are therefore welcome, it is vital that businesses are supported in understanding and being able to follow the new arrangements they face. The Minister will know that my Opposition colleagues have been calling on the Government to support a major and effective information campaign for British businesses about the new rules on trade with Northern Ireland and to increase capacity at the Trader Support Service to help businesses to complete new customs declarations. In the light of the disruption we have seen since the end of the transition period, will the Minister set out what extra support the Government have decided to put in place since the beginning of this year? Can he confirm specifically whether, since 1 January, there have been any substantive changes to the Government’s communication strategy for British businesses about the new rules on trade with Northern Ireland or increases in capacity at the Trader Support Service? These are important questions to ensure that the protocol operates effectively, and I would welcome the Minister’s addressing them directly.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
The SNP will not oppose these motions either, because, as with most statutory instruments, the choice is to approve or reject them in their entirety, and rejecting them in their entirety would mean failing to address some serious gaps in legislation left by the Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit.
Most of the first set of regulations, SI No. 1312, is non-contentious. In fact, if we are honest, most of it is necessary to put right yet another great British Brexit blunder. The now Foreign Secretary and former Brexit Secretary did not realise that we needed lots of boats at Dover to do cross-channel trade. Now we find that Treasury Ministers knew they had to legislate for goods crossing the channel on planes and boats but forgot that goods could also get across the channel in the channel tunnel on a train. Regulations 2 to 8—most of this SI —are almost entirely about correcting that blunder.
Regulation 10, which the Opposition spokesperson mentioned, concerns me. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurances about who it will affect and how much it will affect them. The regulation removes the VAT exemption on fees charged for the management of qualifying pension funds established in an EU member state. The explanatory notes say that the change is necessary as a consequence of withdrawal from the European Union. Will the Minister expand on exactly why it is a necessary consequence? Surely the exemption could have been retained as part of the trade deal the Government are so proud of. Did the Government actively seek to end the exemption, did they try to retain it but have to negotiate it away during the negotiations, or did they just completely forget about it, as they seem to have completely forgotten about so much else? Is it necessary because the Government want to do it or because they have sleepwalked into a situation where they are, in effect, forced to do it? What assessment have they made of the impact of the removal of this exemption? Do they know how many people in the UK have their pensions managed by EU-based funds, possibly without the pension holder even realising it? What is the total value of such funds? How much additional tax does the Treasury expect will become due as a result of this proposal?
Pension holders affected by this change went into a long-term relationship with their pension fund based on the VAT rules that applied at the time. They had a reasonable expectation that the rules would not be significantly changed during the term of their pension, but they are now being told that the rules have been changed and it is up to their pension fund to cough up the tax that becomes due. It may not technically fit the definition of “retrospective legislation”, but that is what it will feel like to those people.
As well as the impact on UK residents whose pensions are managed by EU-based funds, what happens in the converse situation? Presumably, it will also be necessary for every EU member state to now start charging VAT on the management fees for every pension fund that an EU resident holds with a UK pension manager. I imagine that this will be a bigger issue. So what assessment have the Government made of the value to the UK economy of the big financial centres, such as Edinburgh and London, selling their pension management expertise to the European Union? What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the competitiveness of that part of our financial services industry if its customers are to start paying VAT and its competitors do not?
I turn to the second of the statutory instruments, the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. All the amendments to legislation proposed here appear reasonable and necessary for the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. In that regard, may I urge those calling for the protocol to be completely scrapped to ask themselves: whose interests would be served by the British Government welching on such an important international agreement almost before the ink has even dried on it? The protocol is flawed, for two reasons: it attempts to resolve an almost insoluble contradiction, which the Government have continuously refused to acknowledge; and, like almost everything else of critical importance to Northern Ireland during the Brexit process, it was thrown together at the last minute.
This statutory instrument is needed because we saw exactly the same kind of last-minute rush job just before Christmas with the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020. That Act passed its entire proceedings in this House in about four and a half hours. Under the rules of the House at that time, virtual participation in debate was not allowed, so inevitably the number of Members who could take part was reduced and the degree of scrutiny afforded to the Bill was affected. The scrutiny was so affected that the day after that Act had received Royal Assent the Government had already had to table this statutory instrument to correct mistakes in their own legislation. Provisions that were essential to allow the economy in Northern Ireland to continue to operate were thrown together at the last minute. We should never forget that the unique concessions the Government have made to Northern Ireland in the Brexit process were not made out of any respect for the will of the people there; they were made because the Government’s original intended solution of acting unlawfully and tearing up international treaties eventually became a step too far even for some of their own most loyal supporters. Although we welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to give some recognition to the will of the people of Northern Ireland, who never voted for this Brexit chaos, surely they deserve better than to be continually treated as an afterthought.
These two sets of regulations are necessary to make up for the incompetence of the Government of a wannabe global power, who did not realise that boats were a useful way for people on an island to trade across its sea borders. This Government also then forgot there was a tunnel so that people could also cross a sea border on a train, and they still continually forget that 1.8 million of their own citizens do not need to cross the sea to get to the EU; they have only to cross the road. My final question to the Minister is: how many more pieces of additional legislation are we going to have to approve in order to clear up after this Government’s incompetence?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As the Minister has told us, these are two important statutory instruments for the facilitation of trade generally and for the facilitation of trade within Northern Ireland and between GB and Northern Ireland, and to the extent that they make things easier and allow zero rating of important services and goods, I welcome them wholeheartedly. But, of course, as others have said in this debate, we meet today against the background of clear difficulties and problems in the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, where it appears that a number of important impediments to GB-Northern Ireland trade have been inserted, and it is crucial that the talks go well and we get rid of them as quickly as possible.
So when we look at the administration of VAT, which is an important part of the trade process, I would like an assurance from the Minister that these regulations, and all the other VAT and excise rules applying in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, will be solely administered and enforced by United Kingdom authorities, because I have much more confidence in them. Will he also assure me that the aim of these statutory instruments, and the wider VAT legislation that they add to and amend, is to ensure that the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, or the other way, will be as smooth and easy as the movement from London to Surrey or from Manchester to north Wales, because that is what I thought we had agreed and signed up to—that Northern Ireland was a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom single market, under our single market and taxation rules? I would like the reassurance through these statutory instruments that we are intending for that to be true.
Will the Minister also confirm that there has for many years during our period in the European Union been an important VAT border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, but that it has always worked very smoothly and was not enforced at the physical border, in accordance with the spirit of agreements and not wanting barriers at the land border? It was an electronic border and adjustments were made by computer or by correspondence so that these things could be sorted out in a sensible and decent manner without having to have people queuing at borders to make complex calculations and submissions. If that is the case, does the Minister agree that it is in that spirit that we need to find the answer to the current impositions and difficulties affecting our trade across those borders? It seems very odd that we cannot replicate that success of our past trading, where electronic manifests, trusted trader schemes and so forth, and proper electronic VAT registration worked very well. Surely the UK authorities, if we are the proper and sole enforcement authority in Northern Ireland, can work with trusted traders, VAT-registered hauliers and ferry companies and so forth, and we can accept their certification or word that the goods on their load are entirely GB-Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland-GB. We can then accept, therefore, that there are no other considerations and the loads can then move as smoothly as from London to Guildford or Manchester to north Wales. It would be very helpful to hear the Minister’s views on how that can be achieved and how quickly we can get to that point.
It is absolutely crucial to the people of Northern Ireland, as we have heard from their representatives, that they can trade smoothly with the rest of the United Kingdom. That was fundamental to the spirit of the agreements that the United Kingdom entered into with the European Union over the issue of trade with and between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I hope the Minister will have good news for us and that these things can be sorted out quickly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
May I first echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that, as the implications of the protocol become ever more apparent, it becomes ever clearer that the promises made to the people in Northern Ireland that they can trade as freely with GB as they did before 1 January and that they will be regarded as fully part of the UK internal market, are not true? There is a border on the Irish sea. There is disruption of trade between Northern Ireland and GB, and vice versa. While the Prime Minister and the Government will maintain that the Union between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom has not been affected, the truth of the matter is that the people of Northern Ireland are not experiencing the full benefits of being United Kingdom citizens that they had before 31 January.
Indeed, the regulations illustrate some of the issues that are still going to be faced by people and businesses in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Government have tried, at least, to overcome some of the implications of the protocol, but I say to the Minister that this kind of tinkering through VAT regulations will not answer the issues that people in Northern Ireland face.
Let me go through some of the issues that the regulations deal with. First, if DIY builders bring in materials—probably most commonly, in Northern Ireland, from the Irish Republic—that are subject to VAT, they will be able to claim back that VAT. What assessment has been made of the additional work that anyone will have to undertake in order to show the VAT that was payable in the Irish Republic or, indeed, in some other EU member state so that it can be claimed back under these regulations?
Do not forget that we are talking about DIY builders. I think of a constituent who came to me just this week because of a delay in the payment of the VAT refund that he was owed on a house that he had built over a period of years. As money became available to him, he built more and more of the house, and the VAT was outstanding. Even with the current regime, the paperwork involved was quite substantial, but he was doing it by himself; he was not a professional. Now we have this added complication. Other Members have talked about the need for clarification. What clarification will there be for people in such situations about what information they need to gather and the way in which it should be gathered?
The second issue is the supply of goods into Northern Ireland—the VAT that is required to be paid on them if they are moving on into the EU, and the fact that VAT can be refunded where the goods are staying in Northern Ireland although they might have been VAT-able.
I think of another example that was brought to me this week, by people involved in the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland. When they bring in aluminium from GB, they have to pay the VAT on it because, under the protocol, it is now coming into a part of the United Kingdom that is deemed to be subject to the EU VAT regime. When that aluminium goes into aircraft parts, the parts do not have any VAT on them, but until it goes into the parts and the parts are sold, those people are obliged to pay out the VAT on it.
That, of course, can be quite a substantial amount of money. It causes cash flow problems and leads to additional administration. I am not so sure that what is provided for in this legislation deals with that problem, because until those people can show either that the aluminium has been incorporated into the parts or that those parts are not going somewhere where they are eligible for European taxes, they have to make the payments.
The Minister is right that we have to close the loophole between Northern Ireland and GB for those who would seek to use Northern Ireland as a back door to escape paying VAT on goods that may be zero-rated in the United Kingdom. Again, what will that mean in terms of checks on goods coming through Northern Ireland ports to GB? How will it be determined that those goods have not originated in the Republic, as opposed to Northern Ireland? Will all Northern Ireland suppliers of goods into GB have to go through a process to show that the goods were made in Northern Ireland and are therefore exempt from VAT, or had had UK VAT rates applied to them? What additional checks and administrative burdens will that cause for businesses?
In relation to how HMRC has handled this issue, all the information I have from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland is that businesses are still confused. They do not know what is required of them. They do not know what paperwork will be required, how they claim exemptions and so on. There is a huge piece of work to be done. I come to the point that, despite what the Scottish National party spokesperson has said, we cannot hang on to this protocol. It is damaging relations within Northern Ireland, damaging the Northern Ireland economy and adding substantially to the requirements for businesses. This legislation shows that there will be additional requirements on businesses in Northern Ireland, which make trading more expensive.
The protocol is not some advantage or gift, as the Scottish National party would seek to try to present it to the people of Northern Ireland; it is poison to the people of Northern Ireland. It has poisoned relationships. In my constituency, we are finding that workers are under threat at the ports, such is the frustration and anger. That was never taken into consideration when the Unionist population of Northern Ireland was cynically set aside to get a quick deal with the EU on the basis that the important border was the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, rather than the relationship that Northern Ireland has with its own country.
What are the implications for people who build their own houses in claiming VAT? They are bringing supplies in from, presumably, mostly the Irish Republic. What are the administrative implications for them? What are the implications for those businesses bringing in supplies from GB, for which VAT will have to be paid and then reclaimed at some later date? What exemptions can be made where it is quite clear that the goods are not going into the EU or that the materials are going into something that will never be VAT-able anyhow? How can we overcome that issue?
If the Government are going to close Northern Ireland as a back door into GB for those products from the European Union that are being routed through Northern Ireland to avoid UK taxes, what implications, if any, does that have for suppliers in Northern Ireland? If it has no implications, how do the Government intend to differentiate goods that are coming through the Republic into Northern Ireland from goods that are going purely from Northern Ireland to GB?
I implore the Minister to take this message back: as far as the protocol is concerned, we can have this continual tinkering, but it will not deal with its underlying, systemic and fundamental problems—that Northern Ireland is still subject to a large amount of law that originates outside its own country, which eats into the very heart of economic activity and undermines its constitutional position within the United Kingdom.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I confess that it was a surprise to hear the right hon. Member for Wokingham say that this was not something that he thought he had voted for. That contrasts somewhat sharply with the clarity of his position in recent years, but he can explain that for himself.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim is right that the arrangements bring an extraordinary level of complexity, and they do create that border down the Irish sea, which just months ago we were assured would never be the case. Of course, any objective observer could see that there was always going to have to be a border somewhere. That is what happens when unions start to be broken up—borders are put in. The border either had to be between the north and the south in Ireland or down the Irish sea, or else we could have chosen to remain part of the customs union. That was a political choice that the Government resolutely refused to make and, as a consequence of that political choice, businesses and private individuals now have to face the sheer range of complexities with which we are having to deal today, some of them even retrospectively. I hope that those who find themselves in that position—I will touch on a couple of constituency examples in a second—will bear in mind that this is not just a matter of administrative arrangements; we are dealing here with political choices.
I want to touch first on the VAT retail export scheme, which ended on 1 January. Under previous arrangements, overseas visitors were able to obtain a VAT refund on items that they had bought in Britain to take home with them in their luggage. The loss of that scheme risks seeing the loss of a significant amount of consumer spending in our economy. The scheme contributed literally billions of pounds to the British economy, helped to create thousands of jobs and ensured that the UK was one of the most attractive international shopping destinations globally. Scrapping it, especially in today’s economic climate, is in our view a huge error.
In the past, we have been able to attract high-spending overseas tourists. It has been a highly successful economic strategy, used by every other European country. International shoppers spend upwards of £6 billion annually in the UK. This has kept our cities on an equal footing with international competitors such as Paris, Milan and Madrid. However, by removing this incentive, we will boost our competitors and detract from the UK’s international appeal.
This is not just about London and Heathrow; the impact will be felt across the United Kingdom. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, Edinburgh will face an annual loss of £92 million; Manchester an annual loss of £60 million; Liverpool an annual loss of £32 million; and Leeds an annual loss of £18 million. The effect on jobs will be significant. The initial hit will be on retail and tourism, but that will eventually spill over into related sectors such as hospitality and manufacturing.
Tourism industry bodies warn that 70,000 jobs are in immediate jeopardy throughout the UK, while the CEBR estimate was almost double that. This is a huge and unnecessary risk for British workers and businesses. I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who, as the MP for Edinburgh airport, has been leading the charge on this issue. It is important that we hear from the Government how they intend to address the consequences of the political decisions that they have taken.
Another point I want to bring to the House’s attention comes from constituents who are, by and large, small single-person or very-few-person businesses seeking to export online. I was approached recently by a knitwear exporter. Knitwear, of course, is culturally and economically very important to Shetland for trade. She tells me that the advice that has been given by HMRC is that a one-stop shop will eventually be available, possibly from 1 July, to deal with the issues around the collection of VAT on online sales to the European Union. She has been told that, in the meantime, she has three options. A UK retailer can open an office or agency in one of the EU countries and collect VAT through it. Alternatively, they can choose not to levy the VAT on EU customers. In that case, the customer is levied the VAT by their domestic officials as an import tax before taking delivery of their purchases. That again illustrates the administrative burden that falls on small businesses such as the one run by my constituent. She tells me in an email:
“I predict that this will kill most small businesses trying to export to the EU. The end customer has to cope with a lot of paperwork and stress and most of the time doesn’t understand what’s going on. I’ve already had some irate emails and I suspect I have lost those customers (although they have bought from me 3 or 4 times in the past). Customs officials aren’t up to date on the arrangements. A German customer found out for me yesterday that even if I put shipping cost into the purchase price of the goods and declare ‘free shipping’ on the invoice, the customs officials will estimate the shipping cost and add that to the total on which VAT has to be paid. ‘Free Shipping’ helps sales. The potential customer knows what the final price will be when looking at product page. Customers who don’t complete their purchase at the checkout are most often deterred by the shipping cost that suddenly appears...This is fact,well known, well documented. We need to be able to continue operating with ‘free shipping’ without customs officials in other countries estimating shipping costs and adding that to the total taxable amount.”
That is just one small illustration of the challenges that are now being faced by small businesses the length and breadth of the country that are already struggling to make ends meet as a consequence of the economic challenges thrown up by the pandemic. These problems are only going to get worse. These businesses are fighting hard to compete with other businesses across the European Union that have none of those challenges. When the Minister comes to reply to the debate, what news can he give us about the one-stop shop that HMRC is offering to businesses such as the one run by my constituent? Can he guarantee that it will in fact be set up by 1 July? What else is he going to do to ensure that the administrative consequences of his political decisions and those of the rest of his Government are not left as a tab to be picked up by small businesses across the UK?
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
These measures are clearly part of a proper package that is being presented by the Government today. I particularly welcome the first instrument, which extends the zero rating on aircraft, because that is particularly important for Teesside airport and for Newcastle airport, both of which have employees in my constituency. As a former special adviser to the Department for Transport, I also welcome the new zero rating for international rail, and I would like to hear from the Minister what impact he expects that to have on jobs in the UK. Will he also tell us what impact he expects the changes to the pension fund services to have on good jobs and revenue for the Exchequer? On the second instrument, it is pretty clear that Members across the House support the essential measures to stop tax avoidance, although there have been questions from the Opposition.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might just stray slightly, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) did, into the wider debate on VAT-free sales to non-EU visitors and the extra cash that is being raised from the VAT charged in the UK. I can quite understand why the Government are taking the decisions that they are, but with £1.4 billion at stake it seems pretty clear to me why we would not reverse that decision.
I would like to mention a couple of points regarding small businesses in my constituency. GetDressedForBattle is a small family business based in Consett, and Lanchester Wines is one the largest businesses and employers in my constituency, although it sits just outside my area. Both companies have faced issues with customs and excise over recent months. I ask the Minister to ensure that customs and excise staff are not being over-zealous since our departure from the EU, and to ensure simplification and speed in our customs and excise arrangements wherever possible so that small businesses can continue to export and create jobs in the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; that was a quick swap-over.
I want to express concern about something that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to: the confusion that clearly reigns in Northern Ireland in relation to VAT. I hold constituency surgeries every Saturday when I am back home. The one that I hold in Portavogie involves fishermen, and a fisherman recently came to me saying, “I can’t understand, Jim, what this VAT registration is to do with. I am already registered for VAT.” I said, “Well, I think this is probably to do with the EU, Brexit and where we stand.” He then phoned HMRC, but had real bother trying to get any clarification whatsoever; first he was waiting and then the line went dead. I have some concerns for the people—fishermen, but others as well—who really do not understand the EU VAT regime, the UK VAT regime or the implications for their businesses.
The Minister is always generous in responding to our questions, so perhaps he could clarify this matter for me and my constituents. Will he outline the position of Northern Ireland in relation to regulations 3 to 9 under “Amendment of Group 8 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994”, which make
“provision in connection with the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU”,
and mean that we find ourselves being taxed through VAT for goods, yet paying customs on parcels from the mainland? Let me give some quick examples; there are plenty, but I will just give two.
I have a constituent who gets leather from a company in Newcastle upon Tyne in the north of England. Indeed, I suspect that that might not be too far away from the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden). Orders usually come in about three parcels, each weighing about 20 kg to 30 kg. The courier price has gone up from precisely £13.50 to £16.50 plus VAT. But the new price for the product—the best the leather supplier can give—is an estimated minimum of £75 plus VAT, and other taxes that may be imposed by HMRC mean a cost of at least £90 inclusive per parcel. That is a real deviation and a problem for our constituents—an almost sixfold increase. The courier company says that most of the price increase is due to all the customs paperwork it now has to complete. Can we have some clarification from the Minister on the confusion that seems to reign?
I was speaking to another constituent yesterday, who every year orders items from a horse goods supplier across the water. She usually orders from one person, but this time she applied to four people. Two could not do it, one did not answer and the one who did answer said, “The product is £30, but we are going to have to add £42 for the VAT and service charges, so the cost will now be £72.” My constituent was able to go online and order the product from the United States of America at a comparable price to the original—around the £30 mark.
A further example—I think I said two, but there are actually three—is of a constituent who wanted to send a car part across from England. It needs to come on a pallet, weighing 50 kg. He was advised by the shipping agent that he would have to pay £45 plus VAT for customs clearance. The charge is more than the part is worth. This again highlights something that we need clarification on. He is absolutely astonished that this is the case within the United Kingdom, and so am I.
I hope I have caught this right in relation to the issue about VAT and suppliers—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim referred to it as well—and that those who buy cement, wood, concrete, building blocks and so on from the Republic of Ireland can reclaim their VAT. If that is the case, that answers one of my queries in an earlier exchange on this matter, just before Christmas, I think it was. If that is sorted and the VAT repayment that my right hon. Friend referred to can be done quickly, urgently and on the timescale that it should be, that would be good news.
The statutory instrument extends zero VAT to certain sectors. I highlight the inadequacy of this SI, and through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, query whether the Minister agrees that this measure should be extended to all products coming into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK in any form of haulage or transportation, in the light of the customs expectation, which sees products costing six times the price, post the Irish sea border. These are real issues that affect the pockets of my constituents, those of my right hon. Friend and indeed people across the whole of Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to go back to the Cabinet and raise the fact that these SIs do not provide parity for Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, yet we pay tax and customs. Other steps must be urgently taken.
I have to express these concerns on behalf of my constituents. I am sorry to do so. I hope the Minister will give us the clarification we need. We are 34 days into the Northern Ireland protocol, and boy, is it hard to understand.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate, which has been constructive and useful. I am also grateful to the Opposition for their support for this measure, and to the Scottish National party.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) asked about the assessment of the impact of these measures on the income tax—I think he means VAT—base. Of course, being a diligent soul, he will undoubtedly have carefully cosseted the tax impact and information note and seen that no significant impact is expected from this, because the VAT will have been recovered in any case by a VAT-registered business, or would have been recovered otherwise. This set of measures in many ways merely restores the status quo. He asked a question that was indirectly raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), about, as it were, potential confusion in Northern Ireland. The trader support service is functioning, in relation to advising on imports, extremely well overall. It has been heavily supported by the UK Government, as the hon. Member for Ealing North will know, and offers what is in effect a globally unique facilitation and intervention.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was very free in accusing the Government of incompetence, as is the way with his party. Knowing that he would wish to be competent himself, I encourage him to read the tax impact and information note. He will know that these measures are already in the protocol and are therefore already, as it were, incorporated via the protocol in UK law. No new impacts are expected from the legislation, as those tax impact and information notes set out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked whether VAT rules will be administered and enforced by the UK Government. They will, through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He rightly raised wider concerns about Northern Ireland and some of the events we have seen in the last few days. I would refer him and all Members to the comprehensive remarks made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday in response to the urgent question on the topic. He also asked whether there would be easy movement. He will know that we have put in place unfettered access for Northern Irish exports into Great Britain and a very comprehensive set of measures to support and facilitate imports into Northern Ireland and to reduce any possible administrative burden.
Jesse Norman
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) wishes to intervene, so I invite him to do so before I come to his remarks.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I hope he will address some of the points I raised. It is right that HMRC will be in charge of the collection of VAT, but one of the problems appears to be that, while we have the trader support service in Northern Ireland—which in most cases, but not always, has been helpful in giving advice to businesses there—many businesses in GB have not had the same level of information. One of the reasons why some of those businesses are saying that they are not going to sell to Northern Ireland is simply that they believe that the processes are so complicated, and they have no support by either having that clarified or being assured that the customs declarations and all the other paperwork will not be as complicated as they think it will be.
Jesse Norman
It is very easy to overstate the complexity of the issues involved. In the cases that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, the Northern Irish partner has full access to the trader support service, and the Great British partner has a comprehensive amount of guidance online, so the two come together. Inevitably, people will take some time to get used to what is, after all, a change in the arrangements. He is right to pick up the point about the effectiveness of the TSS. I do not think there is a suggestion that the support that businesses have been given in terms of information is anything less than comprehensive.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim asked about do-it-yourself builders. I can confirm that no further information will be required from do-it-yourself house builders, who will file a single VAT return. Obviously, they will be subject to the same proof of payment as they would have been before. In general, the point of this scheme is that without it, they would not be able to deduct acquisition VAT as they could prior to the end of transition period. Through this scheme, they can continue to recover the same VAT as they could before, therefore it is thoroughly to be welcomed.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked about VAT RES. I am very sorry, but that was in the wrong debate. If he had held his horses, he could have raised that in the next debate, or he could have raised it—equally inappropriately—in the previous debate, which I see he was down to speak in. The good news is that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will address these issues comprehensively in the debate to follow.
On the issue of small exporters, exports are zero-rated in relation to the UK, and they are not the principal topic of the legislation that we are discussing. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be aware that there are measures coming from the EU in July, as I understand it, in relation to these matters that will to some extent—we wait to see the detail—mirror the facilitations that have been put in place, and they will hopefully support exporters from his constituency into the EU.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) again raised the question about jobs and revenue. He will see that the tax information impact note does not expect there to be a significant material difference with regard to these issues, but there might, of course, have been some impact had we not put the facilitations in place and therefore these preserve the status quo, and rightly so.
I have already touched on some of the issues relating to the confusion over VAT that was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford). As he knows, in relation to imports, we have the Trader Support Service and, in relation to exports, there is comprehensive guidance available for anyone seeking to export.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1312), dated 18 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1544), dated 18 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 December, be approved.—(Jesse Norman.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Exiting the European Union (Excise)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 353 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will be calling Gavin Newlands shortly, but I warn Back-Bench Members that I will be imposing a five-minute time limit straight away—this is a short, 90-minute debate —to allow time for the Front-Bench spokespeople. When the time limit is in effect, there will be a countdown clock visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and, of course, on the screens in the Chamber.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI, 2020, No. 1412), dated 3 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December 2020, be revoked.
We fully support the extension of duty-free shopping for people travelling to the EU, which is surely the thinnest of silver linings on the huge, grey thundercloud that is Brexit. However, the withdrawal of the VAT retail export scheme and the airside extra-statutory concession represents a real threat to thousands of jobs across Scotland and the UK.
The Treasury’s own consultation showed that an overwhelming majority of respondents were against the abolition of RES. It is trying to grab us with the HMRC guidance on the measures stating that the withdrawal
“may have a marginal impact on retailers in Great Britain.”
But even the Office for Budget Responsibility found that the Treasury has not taken into account the indirect impact on businesses outside the retail sector, showing the modelling undertaken by the Treasury to be fundamentally flawed and based on entirely incorrect assumptions and figures. The supply chain considerations are completely missing from the HMRC statement, with not a word about the manufacturers and suppliers outside of direct retail that will find their bottom line impacted by the disappearance of RES as we know it.
Nor has HMRC shown itself to be entirely accurate in its understanding of the fiscal impact of abolition. Its technical note conflates the number of sales with the number of passengers, underestimating the use of RES by up to 75%. It focuses on the direct benefits to London and Bicester Village, ignoring the indirect impact on travellers from regional airports transiting to their final destination outside the EU, thus underestimating the demand for the extra-statutory concession at these airports.
In short, the attempts of HMRC and the Treasury to justify their decision smack of a post facto race to find facts that fit their narrative, rather than a proper analysis of the pros and cons of both the retail export scheme and the extra-statutory concession. Anybody who thinks this is purely about high-end retailers and retail rent income at airports is ignoring the implications for businesses up and down the land, which are robbed of outlets and goods and seeing demand from overseas visitors shrivel when it should be increasing as we move out of the pandemic.
That is not a good starting point for the Treasury’s actions, and it does not take a world-leading economist to see that two of the industries hardest hit by the pandemic are retail and aviation. The abolition of RES is another blow to each of them. It is perhaps not game-changing in isolation, but it is yet more chipping away at the foundations of employment in my constituency and right across the country.
Edinburgh’s Princes Street, to take one example, has in the past few weeks seen Debenhams and the city institution Jenners fall victim to the pressure on retail, not just from the pandemic but from the wider trends across the sector. Removing RES will hit shopping in the city even harder and will cause even more jobs to be lost at a time when hundreds are already going.
Let me address the way in which the decision was taken. There was no engagement whatsoever with the Scottish Government or, presumably, with any other devolved Government, despite the obvious implications for our retail and tourism sectors. That is utterly disrespectful and counterproductive. I want to see all these decisions taken for Scotland, by Scotland, and while we are part of this Union, it should be incumbent on the Treasury and every UK Government Department at least to speak to their counterparts in the devolved Governments about proposals that will have a serious and detrimental impact on their citizens. If they had engaged, they would have heard the Scottish Government’s real concerns. Scottish Finance Secretary Kate Forbes was clear as soon as she heard of the changes that she did not and does not
“believe that this is an appropriate juncture at which to make such an abrupt and significant change.”
The director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, David Lonsdale, raised the impact that the policy could have on tax-free shopping in Scotland’s cities. He said:
“The Finance Secretary’s comments are a timely and welcome intervention in support of city centres…The decision could cost Edinburgh city centre, for example, many millions in lost retail sales, let alone the knock-on impact on tourism…This decision would leave the UK as the only European country not to provide a tax-free shopping scheme to encourage tourism. There is a good reason no other European nation has taken this step, and we urge swift reconsideration.”
He is right. Other European countries will take advantage of this short-sighted decision.
Warnings are coming from right across the UK. The president of the UK Travel Retail Forum, Francois Bourienne, said the decision would put
“the UK out of step with travel retail systems around the world”
and
“completely disincentivises tourists to visit the UK and British passengers making purchases as they go on vacation abroad. It puts UK airports and travel retail at a substantial disadvantage against their European counterparts after Brexit. This will lead to significant additional job losses in the travel industry.”
Hand in hand with the abolition of the retail export scheme is the scrapping of the extra-statutory concession. Again, the consultation found overwhelming—in fact, near-unanimous—support for the continuation of some form of the concession after Brexit, and again the Treasury ignored those responses. Again, we are seeing the chipping away of revenue streams that employ thousands of people throughout the country and are vital for many airports.
Regional airports depend on the revenue from airside shopping to a far greater degree than the Heathrows of this world—in fact, up to 40% of a smaller airport’s revenue is generated through retail, as a higher proportion of its passengers fly point to point rather than domestically through a hub such as Heathrow. The kicking away of this financial crutch at a time of huge pressure on the finances of airports is another blow to an industry that is reeling from the pandemic and, in the case of many regional airports in England, still dealing with the after-effects of the collapse of Flybe.
In Scotland, it is estimated that the abolition of the ESC will potentially result in the closure of most retail outlets at airports, and will result in lost revenue of around £20 million and the loss of hundreds more jobs that neither retail nor airports can afford. To quote the UK Travel Retail Forum again, it said:
“This could be the final nail in the coffin of several UK regional airports.”
At a time when the industry is on its knees, I am concerned that the UKTRF is right.
I want to see a sustainable future for our airports and aviation, but the more the Government unleash havoc for airport operators’ balance sheets, the more I am concerned for their future. It is also difficult to reconcile the Government’s position that continuing with the extra-statutory concession would be against World Trade Organisation rules with the fact that the Government’s own consultation document states that they were
“minded to extend airside tax-free sales”
at the beginning of the consultation process.
There is one way to mitigate some of the damage: the introduction of arrivals duty-free, as we see in operation around the world, including in all European economic area nations—Norway, Iceland and Switzerland—and as we know the European Union is actively considering. It is vital that we do the same. There are many reasons why this is a good idea, not least because it would support a beleaguered sector and help to safeguard jobs.
As I said, retail revenue cross-subsidises other operations and would help to fund new route development, which is critical to the future recovery of not just Glasgow but all our airports. It plays an absolutely pivotal role in supporting regional connectivity, the air travel side of which is worth £4 billion to the Scottish economy—the same as its value to London and the south-east. A report by Airlines UK found that in one year’s time, around 80% of the hundreds of routes lost to the UK aviation sector will be in the UK regional airports outside of London and the south-east. If the Government truly have a levelling-up agenda, they must do something to address that.
It is important to note that arrivals duty-free would have no impact on domestic sales of products; instead, such sales would represent the repatriation of duty-free sales that would otherwise happen outside the UK, where the passenger starts their journey. There would be no impact on tax revenue and no increase in the number of products entering the market, as travellers’ duty-free allowances would remain the same. Additionally, the introduction of arrivals duty-free stores would generate new jobs around the United Kingdom, providing further benefits to the economy through personal income and business taxation. It is not too late for the Treasury to see sense and reverse the decision, if the will is there among those on the Government Benches. The airports and retailers affected by these changes will also be willing to work together to modernise rather than ditch the retail export scheme and the extra-statutory concession.
I know that the Government would not want to be seen as the people behind the collapse of regional airports. Hitting the pause button on the plans would help to secure thousands of jobs that rely directly on these sales and thousands more at the airports across the UK that are at risk if those revenue streams are destroyed. I hope that the Minister will be able to share a positive response to the calls from me and from across the industry for a new approach to benefit the sector and the wider economy, not least because of the millions of pounds in revenue and the hundreds of jobs that the Department’s decision puts at risk at Stansted airport in her own constituency.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who speaks with such passion about regional airports and their importance. As Members can hear, I, too, am a user of regional airports, not least the fantastic Manchester airport, Liverpool John Lennon airport, and, I confess, Glasgow and Edinburgh airports as well. When a flight is offered with the options of those airports or Heathrow, the choice is clear for someone who is based in the north-west: off you pop to wonderful Scotland and say hi to our friends there.
I will speak to two dry-sounding but important measures in this statutory instrument. The first is extending duty-free sales to UK residents who visit the EU. For the first time in 20 years, we can have EU duty-free on our holidays. I will touch directly on the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made about supporting regional airports. In the last 20 years, who has not wandered through an airport at 3 o’clock in the morning ready to go on holiday and sighed at the duty-free, thinking that it would be a wonderful thing to clink on to the plane with, so that we were all prepared at the other end when we got to the apartment in Greece, Spain or any of the other wonderful holiday destinations that we share and visit with our friends in Europe? Great news: this is now possible. The opportunity to do a little bit of duty-free shopping will not only make a long wait for a flight at 3, 4, 5 or 6 in the morning more interesting, but it will also mean that we can directly support our local airports, which employ people and provide jobs, careers, lifestyles and communities for so many around Manchester, Liverpool and beyond. What else can I say?
What does this measure really mean? It means the return of personal allowances, which will be roughly quadrupled. In short, it means the return of the booze cruise, a long-lost institution that our proud nation has not been able to engage in. It may astonish Members to realise that when I was a child, there was much planning in our family for the biannual trip to France to get some wonderful wine, sparkling wine and beer. It was a military logistical operation, with months of planning, including considerations as deep as how many adults we could fit in the car, which of the smaller adults to fit the acquired goods around, and whether a Ford Sierra or a Ford Orion should be used to maintain the optimal packing-to-adult ratio.
It is a bit of fun, and everybody must drink responsibly, but I massively welcome this. It will give those of us in the north the opportunity to make that six-hour journey down to Dover, go over on the ferry and see some of France, and use our personal allowances to sample something that is not available in the UK and bring it back, while having a bit of fun on a trip for the family. That is all encapsulated in quite a dry SI. I will not trouble the House longer, but the return of the booze cruise is here, and I say “Cheers!” to that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Right. I call the shadow Minister, James Murray.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
There are countless examples of this Government leaving it until the last minute to make decisions about what arrangements would be in place following the end of the EU exit transition period. The trade deal with the EU was published only on Christmas eve and considered by Parliament on 30 December, leaving businesses frustrated and unable to prepare fully until the very last minute.
It seems even more frustrating and inexcusable for the Government to have left it so late to make arrangements for the post-transition period when the issues have been known about for years and were not the subject of any ongoing negotiations. Today’s regulations include a prime example The Government have had more than four years since the referendum to get this right, yet they announced their decision to end VAT-free retail both at airports and within Great Britain for all international travellers less than four months before it took effect, in the middle of a pandemic and with no plans to mitigate the economic damage. That is sadly typical of the panicked, last-minute approach that this Government, and in particular this Chancellor, have taken at every turn in recent months. People working in shops, airports, manufacturing and hospitality are going to be carrying the can for the Chancellor’s irresponsible choices.
We accept that, to comply with World Trade Organisation rules, the Government needed to make changes to the regime covering VAT-free shopping; they had to amend the approach to VAT-free and duty-free shopping so that the same rules would apply to both EU and non-EU visitors. As the UK can no longer distinguish between EU and non-EU visitors to Great Britain, the Government had a choice of two options for VAT-free shopping: Ministers could amend the VAT and retail export scheme and VAT-free retail at airports by either extending them or abolishing them for all travellers—and they chose the latter.
The decision has come as a body blow to jobs across the country in sectors desperately hoping that they might be able to start recovering from the impact of covid later this year. Clearly, the frontline jobs immediately affected are those in city centre or shopping village high-value retail, where international visitors make use of the retail export scheme, and in international airports around the country, including Heathrow, where many of my constituents are employed and where travellers make use of the relief on VAT on goods purchased airside. But it is not just those jobs that are set to be hit. Knock-on effects of the changes will threaten jobs in the factories and manufacturers of the goods that tourists come to buy, and in the hospitality sector, as the UK might expect fewer tourists as a result of the withdrawal of the concession. That impact on jobs, of course, comes amid the impact of covid-19, and many are in sectors with a disproportionately high proportion of young and BAME people relative to the wider population.
Given the wide-ranging impact on jobs, it is shocking that the Government did not fully consider the jobs impact of the change before taking their decision. If they were serious about protecting jobs, they would have looked closely at the wider impact of those changes across all sectors affected and throughout every part of our country, yet there is no evidence that they did so, and many of the assumptions in the calculations that they did carry out have been questioned by people respected in the industry. In its reasoning for taking the decision, the Treasury relied on a number of calculations and assumptions about the impact of the change, more detail about which they included in a technical note issued to stakeholders. There is deep concern among stakeholders that many of the crucial figures were flawed, as the Government overestimated the cost of the option of extending the retail export scheme to EU visitors and underestimated the negative impact of ending the scheme for others.
Those affected and their representative organisations, such as Value Retail, have questioned the Treasury’s assumption that non-EU visitors spend the same amount of money as EU visitors, thereby producing flawed calculations of the cost of the alternative course of action, which was extending the retail export scheme to all. They also question the assumption that the low value of many discounts means that they are insufficient to change visitor behaviour, so removing the retail export scheme will not affect how much people spend or their decisions about spending time in the UK.
Given our concern about the impact on jobs, I wrote to the Office for Budget Responsibility ahead of the Chancellor’s spending review in November 2020, asking it to scrutinise the figures and assumptions that the Treasury was using to justify its decision to end the VAT retail export scheme and to consider its wider impact on jobs. The OBR’s reply appeared to undermine what Ministers have been saying. For example, in reply to one of my written parliamentary questions, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who will be responding in this debate, said that
“the OBR also looked at this package in the round when assessing the indirect impact on the economy”.
However, in its reply to me the OBR seemed to play down the extent of its analysis, confirming that it had not considered the indirect effects of ending the VAT retail export scheme on jobs. Furthermore, it said:
“our remit prevents us from considering impacts on disadvantaged groups or particular geographical areas”.
It seems clear that, despite his or his Ministers’ protestations, the Chancellor went into this decision with his eyes closed: yet again, he failed to consider the impact of his irresponsible decisions on people’s jobs.
My question to the Minister today is direct and I would welcome a direct answer. We know that the Government’s decision to end VAT-free shopping will have a significant impact on jobs. It is also clear that the Government took the decision without fully knowing what the impact on jobs would be after the new arrangements were put in place. As the measure has now come into force and analysis of it no longer has to be based on assumptions alone, I would like to ask the Minister to commit the Treasury to reviewing the impact of the changes to VAT-free shopping on jobs across different sectors and across different parts of the country, and to report back to Parliament ahead of the March Budget. If the Minister will not commit to doing so today, I would be grateful if he committed to raise it with the Chancellor and to ask him to update the House.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
I make no apology for being delighted about the return of duty-free and the opportunities it brings to channel crossings. I welcome the jobs and investment that are maintained and boosted by the regulations. As a newly elected MP, I wrote to the Chancellor to ask for the return of duty-free and the Brexit boost it could bring to ports, ferry companies and cruise ships in areas like mine in Dover.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), as a young woman there was perhaps nothing more exciting than putting on my dotted, spotted ra-ra dress and dancing across the sea on the ferry disco. As an introduction to exotic foreign climes, nothing could quite beat sashaying up and ordering one’s frites et mayonnaise at the chip van in France and Belgium. Shopping at Costco is but nothing compared to the delights of a Calais supermarché. From fancy liqueurs to the rather disgusting but vibrantly coloured sweets, it was a proper day out. It was, I am sorry to say, very many years before I realised that the more common word for the delightfully named “smorgasbord” on the now-defunct Sally Line was nothing more and nothing less than an all-you-can-eat buffet. Never have there been such delights as those rolled herrings! And forget Leonardo DiCaprio: so many friendships and relationships were rekindled and revitalised on the famous evening “Dance to France” between Dover and Calais and back again.
Like so much of the travelling years, while we have gained we have also lost; so focused on our destination, we have lost the pleasure of the journey, for a ferry trip is nothing less than a mini cruise. From ball pits and play areas for the little ones to video games, one-armed bandits and bars for the grown-ups, there is something for everyone to enjoy. And enjoyment is what it is all about—it is fun on the ferries. The regulations we are debating today will do so much to restore those simple and accessible pleasures. They will help to reboot our beleaguered hospitality and travel industries.
Since the virus hit, all of us have learned again the closeness of our family members and the nearness of that neighbourhood walk. When the borders open and the pandemic retreats, let us not forget the wonder and beauty of all that is around us and with us. At that time, I hope that my hon. Friend will join me to see one of the true wonders and beauties of our land: the white cliffs hoving into view from the duty-free ferry.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Before I begin to speak today, it is appropriate that I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for textiles and fashion, and that I express my thanks to Heather Lafferty and Tamara Cincik of Fashion Roundtable, and Chantelle De Villiers from the British Retail Consortium, for their important work campaigning right across the United Kingdom on these matters.
One of the positives to come out of the pandemic has surely been the celebration of heroes in our local communities, care homes, schools and NHS. We do not often think of retailers, shop owners or small businesses across the UK as some of the heroes of the pandemic, but in reality we should. When we boil down the pandemic to its simplest principles, we see shops and local businesses doing everything they can, even to the point of closure, so that we can keep the most vulnerable in our communities safe. Many of these same businesses will be the first to face the economic and employment consequences of a 7.3% decrease in non-EU visitors to the UK, which is what is predicted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research as a result of the Government scrapping the VAT retail export scheme. So it would be remiss of me, as chair of the all-party group on textiles and fashion, not to focus my remarks today on the impact of this decision on the textile and fashion industry across Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
The Government have gone to great lengths to stress their commitment to levelling up the economy out of the pandemic and to boosting the economic performance of the cities and regions of the United Kingdom way beyond London. In their exit from the VAT retail export scheme, however, it would appear that the Government have fallen at the first hurdle. The Evening Standard reported before Christmas that £500 million of tax-free shopping takes place in over 12,000 stores outside London each year. Fashion Roundtable estimates that the fashion industry in Scotland is made up of nearly 2,000 businesses and employs 30,000 people. In 2019, £92 million in VAT-free fashion purchases were made in Edinburgh and a further £23 million in VAT-free fashion purchases were made in Glasgow and surrounding areas. Each of these purchases supports our high streets, businesses and jobs—high streets that need every purchase to survive at this time, businesses that are at the heart of local communities and jobs that help to provide for families and loved ones.
Hundreds of employees in my constituency are reeling already from the announcement of Boohoo’s takeover of Debenhams and the lack of investment in bricks-and-mortar stores in our town centres. Every single one of them is facing untold uncertainty as to what the future holds, so Government must support the recovery of retail. It is my very present fear that thousands more will be affected across Scotland if we fail to do everything in our power to support our high streets and those who work in them.
Tourism is indeed the beating heart of our high streets and of the fashion industry as a whole. However, tourists in search of high-end purchases from UK stores will show retailers and those employed by them very little loyalty if there is ample incentive to shop elsewhere. Scottish Enterprise estimates that the tourist industry in Scotland is made up of 15,000 companies employing 218,000 people. That is 15,000 companies and 218,000 people whose businesses and jobs could be affected as a consequence of tourists choosing to shop and visit elsewhere. For my local area and region surrounding the constituency, that is close to 30,000 people. The ripple effect of this decision to leave the VAT retail export scheme should not be understated. Tourists have come to the UK in search of retail purchases and, for the duration of their stay, let us not forget, they experience, visit and, most importantly for our debate today, buy so much more. We will lose their business to other destinations that continue to offer VAT-free shopping.
There are so many whose livelihoods depend on the distinctiveness and renown that come from being branded with the label “Made in Scotland”, the inspiration, flavour, taste or beauty of which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. These are businesses and jobs that depend heavily on the tourist trade. They have had their businesses decimated by covid-19, and they are relying on a strong rebound in tourist travel out of this pandemic for their very survival. So we should and must do everything we can to encourage tourism. Too many businesses and too many jobs in fashion, retail and further afield are at risk if we fail to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am very sorry, but we do have to move on.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I am sure that every Member of the House would want the UK to have a fair and dynamic tax system that responds to the needs of UK citizens and reflects the economic circumstances of the time. In order to achieve that, our tax regulations must evolve and adapt, supporting society’s wider objectives and strengthening our local and national finances.
It is impossible not to recognise the enormous changes that have taken place in UK society over the past year. Even if we were to set aside the impact of the pandemic, in the hope that we will soon be able to return to what used to be normal life, the nature of the UK’s place in the world has changed—as has the way we interact with our global friends and partners. The removal of the VAT retail export scheme is a recognition of that change. We have left the EU and its customs union, and now find ourselves in a position to re-evaluate how we choose to apply taxes and duties to consumers engaging in international travel. We have the chance to treat people from different countries in the world equally, with no inherent tax status attached to being an EU visitor to the UK, compared with being a visitor from anywhere else.
A fair tax system should not allow wealthy international travellers relief from local taxes, as if they simply arrive, make purchases and leave the UK again without any other interaction with our economy. Those visitors benefit from a vibrant and thriving UK economy, our infrastructure and our connectivity, and our economy relies on everyone paying their share of tax. We do not give VAT refunds for hotel rooms, meals or theatre tickets, so why should a handbag or new coat be treated any differently? Consumer goods that are purchased in the UK should be subject to normal UK tax rules, and that should apply regardless of the country in which the purchaser happens to pay their income tax.
That is not to say that people are not welcome to come and spend their money here in the UK. We have some outstanding retail opportunities, and I hope that many people from around the world will visit this country again, once it is safe to do so. But it is not unreasonable to expect those visitors to pay a small amount in the process. It is also the case that, even for those who did use VAT RES, once the administration costs had been included, the savings accounted for less than 6% of the total trip costs on average. Given the wealth of those using the scheme, it is highly unlikely that the existing scheme affected their decision to travel to or shop in the UK. In fact, the USA, which has no countrywide VAT RES scheme, is the top country outside Asia on China’s most-visited list, ahead of any European countries that do have tax-free shopping.
International travel and high-end retail are luxuries, and it is wrong to deprive UK taxpayers in places such as Penistone and Stocksbridge to benefit international travellers. Preventing a loss to our tax base to the tune of £1.4 billion will help us to spread the benefits of international travel across the whole UK, instead of, as at present, concentrating it in London and the south-east.
On a final note, I am pleased that this statutory instrument provides duty-free sales for UK residents visiting the EU, for the first time in 20 years. The UK travel industry has suffered enormously over the past year, and this measure will support regional airports and ports across the country. Many more UK residents travel to EU than non-EU destinations in normal times, so the changes to duty free should significantly benefit local economies as well as, of course, consumers.
The regulations implemented by this statutory instrument are fair to the UK taxpayer, fair to travellers and fair to consumers, and as fairness should be at the heart of our tax system, I am pleased to support it.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The first casualty of covid was aviation. That saw the collapse of Flybe, the UK Government’s supine response to fire and re-hire practices, and other significant job losses. Whilst Edinburgh airport sits in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I have been supporting a number of my constituents in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath who work at our national airport just across the Forth. They are airline pilots, cabin crew, ground staff, hospitality staff and facility staff. I have also been supporting Edinburgh airport’s chief executive, Gordon Dewar, and his team through letter writing, parliamentary questions, speaking in debates and joining the all-party parliamentary group. I have met twice with the aviation Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts): in October and again in January this year. We have spoken about the need for a comprehensive aviation recovery strategy and why that is absolutely vital to the sector and to my constituents. Those discussions included, but were not limited to, the changes being made to airside sales. In all this time, I have not had a meaningful answer to any of my questions and concerns, or indeed those of the Edinburgh airport leadership team.
Given this sorry tale, and the absence of any strategy coming forward from the UK Government, it is hard to express the alarm, dismay, disbelief and anger when it emerged during the pandemic and just before the Brexit chaos that the UK Government planned to entirely remove VAT exemption on all airside sales, save for alcohol and tobacco. In tandem with that, the decision to abolish VAT RES for high-street sales was another significant blow.
This is at a time when we should be looking to strengthen and rebuild our economy, and plan for a recovery of tourism and related sectors. This decision will have an obvious and substantial negative impact on all the above. For example, at Edinburgh airport, the loss of VAT exemption for airside sales will result in over £7.6 million in lost revenue and place hundreds of further jobs in peril. It will place at risk a further £3 million of revenue from retail, fashion and other specialist shops. This is job-sustaining revenue and it cannot and will not be compensated by any stretch through duty-free liquor and tobacco.
This would have a considerable financial and economic impact at the best of times, but at the time of covid it threatens the very survival of the aviation industry and will cause untold damage in the wider economy, including job losses and slower economic recovery. That will be across these islands, not just in Scotland, but aviation enables much of Scotland’s economy, from tourism, business and education to culture and research. As Gordon Dewar of Edinburgh airport commented, aviation makes that possible, but we are
“not too big to fail.”
Brexit was an ill thought-out and massively damaging policy, seeing legislation such as this being implemented at the worst possible time for affected sectors. These intertwined sectors are already in survival mode. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) may make light of the return of the booze cruise, but it is nothing to be celebrated when it is being paid for on the back of Scottish jobs and jobs across these islands, and the rather parochial view of the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on this change and her appeal to such a narrow audience completely ignores that pernicious human impact beyond her back garden.
The creativity of contributions from the Government’s virtual Benches cannot camouflage the damage this will inflict. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and the UK Government clearly care not a jot for Scotland’s wishes or our economic potential. This is but one of the compelling reasons why Scotland will very soon vote for independence and join the world.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), and I share the northern sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher).
It is a bit cruel debate to be talking about holidays and airports and duty free while we are still unable to enjoy all those things, but as we begin to look beyond the pandemic and progressively reopen our borders to travellers, these measures will ensure fairness between travellers to EU and non-EU countries. Since 1 January, for the first time in over 20 years, duty-free goods are available to be purchased by all passengers at ports, airports and international rail stations, as well as on board ships, aircraft and trains on any international route.
It goes without saying that these changes will hugely benefit regional airports such as Leeds and Newcastle as they serve mostly EU destinations, but, unfortunately, Teesside airport will not be benefiting just yet. After years of under-investment and neglect by our local Labour councils in the Tees valley, five years ago Teesside airport was earmarked for closure; in fact, it was due to close this year. Most of our flights had stopped, leaving only a business connection to Amsterdam, and our airport became easyJet’s training ground, rather than a runway for holidaymakers.
Because of Labour’s complete lack of interest in this regional asset, there is not duty-free shopping at Teesside airport any more. However, we do have plans for change. The Tees Mayor, Ben Houchen, honoured his pledge to the people of Teesside and saved Teesside airport. He has since invested in turning it around—so much so that he was criticised recently by Labour’s candidate for Mayor, who said that
“the Mayor spends far too much time at the airport spending huge amounts of investment there, trying to bring jobs there”,
which is quite an odd line of attack.
From just one flight to Amsterdam, we are now flying back to holiday destinations such as Alicante, Bulgaria and Majorca. Soon, following the investment and improvement that Ben is putting into the airport facilities, we will see the return of duty free at Teesside airport too, so that holidaymakers in the UK can gain from this travel must. Thanks to this Government, they will see the real benefits of duty free. It is great to see that the changes that are an essential part of the post-Brexit VAT framework were put in place with minimal infrastructure changes and at minimal cost. I am also pleased to see that the UK has adopted one of the most generous alcohol allowances in the world for residents returning home. The booze allowance that Teessiders can now bring home has been quadrupled, allowing UK residents to save up to £120 of UK duty. Of course, this also applies to anyone travelling back to the UK, not just those outside the EU. That is something I will definitely enjoy, once we are able to travel again.
I understand the concerns that Members have about VAT RES, but I disagree with them. It was a hugely expensive scheme that really only benefited wealthy areas of the UK. No one shopping on the high streets in Redcar or Marske would benefit from it. Extending it to the EU instead of removing it completely would have cost us £1.4 billion every year, and that is why most visitors did not even use it. I am sure that my constituents and the constituents of many across the House would rather see that £1.4 billion spent on business rate reductions for coastal towns; on more investment in communities such as Eston, South Bank and Grangetown; and on further targeted measures to support our high streets.
Thanks to the measures we are debating today, we can make duty free great again, we can get boozing done and we can target measures on our high streets to make them more strong and stable. I fully support these measures and look forward to my constituents in Redcar and Cleveland benefiting from them at Teesside airport soon.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
The decision to scrap tax-free shopping for overseas visitors to the UK is wrongheaded. It will cause significant damage, is completely unnecessary and should be reversed. The abolition of VAT RES has caused the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Retail Consortium and others to express alarm and concern. At a time when businesses are struggling to stay afloat and save jobs, and when airports face unprecedented challenges, to hit duty-free shopping is inexplicable. Duty-free shopping for visitors to the UK pays for wider operations in airports and helps sustain our city centre high streets, which are already under great pressure.
This move contradicts the findings of the Government’s own consultation and is truly bewildering. As the covid pandemic leaves our airports beleaguered, tax-free sales for overseas visitors gives them millions of pounds every year in revenue, allowing re-investment in their businesses, which supports the wider economy. Tax-free retail sales can account for as much as 40% of the revenue in some regional airports, and for Glasgow airport the risk here is a loss of revenue of £8.6 million and an estimated 170 retail jobs. How will that help our airports recover from the damage inflicted on them by covid-19? We already know that due to covid-19 we are expected to lose about 600 routes from airports across the UK, but the biggest impact will be felt by regional airports.
So this move is short-sighted and bewildering, but its consequences will be far reaching. The Scottish Government were not even consulted on this decision, despite the impact it will have on the wider Scottish economy. As we have heard, this change leaves the UK as the only European country not to provide tax-free shopping schemes to encourage tourism, putting Scotland and the rest of the UK at a distinct disadvantage, as we see the EU exploring even now how duty-free shopping can be developed to aid recovery. The Association of International Retail has described this measure as “devastating”, saying that it would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of tourism and retail jobs right across the UK, while the other EU capital cities would be
“rubbing their hands with glee at this self-inflicted wound”.
The chief executive of Mulberry has also warned that this move will have
“a material impact on jobs and manufacturing”.
Despite what we have heard today, the UK Government have already admitted that this move will lead to fewer tourists visiting the UK from overseas. These visitors do not just shop: they eat out; go to museums and the theatre; stay in hotels; and travel across Scotland and the rest of the UK. The risk is not just to retail businesses, although that is significant—the risk is also to major tourist destinations through the knock-on effects on the hospitality industry, suppliers and manufacturers of goods throughout the UK. Have these businesses not suffered enough during these times without the UK Government piling on greater pressure? This measure is economically illiterate at this time, and I urge the Minister to reverse it for the sake of our jobs and the wider economy.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome these three measures on duty-free changes and travellers’ allowances.
First, on the return of duty-free, when, a few years ago, I was asked by The Sun newspaper to come up with some ideas for any possible benefits of Brexit, the return of duty-free was one of them, and it got widespread acclaim at the time. I mentioned the huge national groan 20 years ago when it was abolished. Tony Blair tried to stop it being scrapped but failed because of single market rules. I declare an interest as someone who has used it when I visited friends and family around the EU and would buy a bottle of duty-free whisky on the way out. It is a tax break that may not be that economically efficient on traditional measures, but is really popular and great fun. It is a tax break for the many, not the few. The Treasury should use not a benefit-cost ratio, as it normally does, but a fun-cost ratio. It is very popular with the public. As we have heard, booze cruises will be returning when we are allowed to have them. I think that will be welcomed up and down the nation, as well as in regional airports, which will benefit massively.
Secondly, on the quadrupling of the alcohol allowance, I, for one, thought the old allowances were quite mean with just one case of wine, so I certainly welcome having two cases. I think most of the British public would also welcome that. As somebody who is favour of free trade, low tariffs and low allowances, I absolutely support a move in that direction.
Thirdly, on the retail export scheme, which is the most controversial issue and the reason the SNP is opposing these measures, I support abolishing for two reasons: first, it is not good value; and secondly, it is not fair. Basically, it is a tax break for wealthy foreigners coming to do shopping for high-value goods in the UK, but it is not good value because it is actually not that widely used. Fewer than 10% of non-EU visitors currently use it. There is a good reason for that: the fees for using it charged by the shops’ administrators are so high that often 70% of the refund ends up going to them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the shops’ administrators have launched a rearguard action to try to stop its abolition. Because it is used so limitedly, it reduces travel costs by only about 6%, and that is not enough to make the difference for most people as to whether they will travel or not travel to buy something. Indeed, research by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has shown that two thirds of visitors would have bought the goods anyway.
There is also—this has not been mentioned by SNP and Labour Members—the opportunity cost. The Government have to either extend the scheme to the whole EU or abolish it outright. Keeping it would cost the Government £1.4 billion. That is £1.4 billion the Government could do other things with. There are far better ways to save jobs, create jobs, help the high street and help retail than to give a tax break to wealthy tourists buying high-value goods. For example, the Government are currently looking at the reform of business rates—a key issue for high streets up and down the country—and £1.4 billion could go a very long way towards helping all shops, not just a few that specialise in this one area. Lots of different things could be done with £1.4 billion. It really is a huge sum of money, and giving tax breaks like this is not an efficient way of using it; we can do far more good with it in other ways.
Secondly, as I said, I do not support the scheme because it is not fair. It has always struck me as quite bizarre that wealthy visitors coming to Scotland to buy jewellery or coats, or coming to central London to buy computers, do not have to pay tax while British people buying the same goods do have to pay it. Why should wealthy travellers get a 20% tax break? They are using the resources and infrastructure in the UK just as much as anyone else. If I go to some other country, I certainly do not expect tax breaks on buying expensive goods there. I think it is inexplicable to most British people that the taxes they have to pay are used to subsidise such tax breaks. It is particularly ironic that the Scottish National party and Labour are opposed to this. They are meant to be the parties of tax breaks for the many, not the few; here, they have become the parties of tax breaks for the few wealthy people. For all those reasons, I totally support the scrapping of the retail export scheme.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Allow me to begin by saying how utterly bizarre I found some of the earlier contributions to the debate. It was as if the impact of these changes was all a bit of a jolly lark, extending no further than the ability to stagger off the return leg of a cross-channel booze cruise armed with nothing more than a blue Brexit passport and a clinking tote bag of bottles to take home. The businesses that understand the issues at stake, and those who work in them whose jobs are at risk due to this change, will, I am certain, be looking on aghast.
Tax-free shopping has played a major role in attracting visitors to our shores ahead of other potential tourist destinations. It supports a very large number of jobs in retail and in the manufacture and production of high-quality and luxury products and produce. Its removal will cost jobs and harm direct and indirect tax revenues—all benefits that will simply be exported offshore.
That affects our airports, which, despite the economic support currently on offer, remain under the cosh as a result of the pandemic. Airlines UK estimates that, without Government support, UK airports are set to lose around 600 routes as a result of the pandemic, a situation that will only be compounded by the effect of these changes on their revenues. Amid that, terminal sales and tax-free shopping, already a key component of the economic health of our airports, will take on heightened significance.
My constituency includes Aberdeen airport, which is of massive strategic importance, supporting the activities of the oil and gas sector. The airport’s operators estimate that these changes will risk a loss in revenue for the airport of £1.6 million annually and put at risk some 45 retail jobs. Retail sales account for up to 40% of revenues in some regional airports—revenues that obviously support jobs but are also there to support investment in facilities and in incentivising airlines to open up connections to new destinations. Without the ability to earn those revenues, there will be fewer passengers, fewer routes, fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for wider economic development outside the perimeter fences of our airports, with growth hindered in the regions they serve and, in consequence, lower tax revenues overall for the Government.
As has been said, tax-free shopping is also hugely important as a driver for tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) set out succinctly the benefits to all parts of the economy from tourism activity and the way that the spend is spread around when tourists are here. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that of the 1.2 million visitors who benefited from tax-free shopping in 2019, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 fewer will visit Great Britain every year because of this change in policy, and it is an absolute given that those who do will spend less. All told, the outcome of these changes puts at risk an estimated 40,000 jobs and over £1 billion-worth of investment.
David Lonsdale, the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, who was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), has been clear on this. He said:
“This decision would leave the UK as the only European country not to provide a tax-free shopping scheme to encourage tourism. There is a good reason no other European nation has taken this step, and we urge swift reconsideration.”
While some of us cannot believe the UK Government’s stupidity here, others cannot believe their luck, and it is little wonder that the French financial newspaper Les Echos has argued that the UK is in danger of shooting itself in the foot.
The UK Government need to reverse the abolition of the airside VAT exemption and allow the introduction of arrivals duty-free. That would allow the industry to restore some profitability more quickly and avoid the competitive loss to foreign airports. Most airports in other parts of the world have been doing arrivals duty-free for up to two decades. Crucially, we must retain the VAT retail export scheme.
There have been precious few Brexit benefits to date, and of those that were promised, very few have been delivered. It seems ridiculous that instead of banking some of the very few potential benefits, including duty-free, the UK Government seem hellbent on exporting them instead. It is clear that the very real concerns raised by business across a range of sectors have not been adequately addressed or heard. The Treasury must reconsider.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to speak in this debate. Although I agree that the statutory instrument does not have the snappiest title—Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—we should not let that hide the importance of this useful piece of legislation. As a former finance director with the unenviable joy of filling out VAT retail export scheme paperwork, I can say that, had I still been sitting in my office, I would be rejoicing at this statutory instrument as it scraps the necessity, once and for all, to fill in such declaration forms.
Why is the SI of such benefit? Well, it is another benefit of leaving the European Union. Now that we have control of our laws and our regulations, we can set out our own policy and regulation around VAT and how we administer it. In my view, it is another piece of red tape and bureaucracy that we can cope without. Those red and cream VAT retail export papers—the 407 form—either have to be extended to all countries in the EU, as we fall onto World Trade Organisation rules, or we can choose to remove the scheme altogether.
Extending the scheme would cost us £1.4 billion a year and for what benefit? None, really. We can quite rightly remove the scheme altogether. There is no real advantage to subsidising customers shopping in the UK from outside the EU and reimbursing them from the VAT on the goods that they purchase. The scheme disproportionately affects central London and places such as Bicester Village, with their high concentration of non-EU customers participating in retail shopping. Let us be honest, many customers do not even use the scheme, let alone know about it, and they certainly do not visit the UK to take advantage of reclaiming VAT. As such, I entirely welcome the move and say let it be a useful boost to the Treasury.
Furthermore, for the estimated 67 million people travelling to the EU, there is the benefit that, for the first time in 20 years, we are providing duty-free sales to UK residents. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) has said, it is another benefit of Brexit. I agree with his assessment that bringing back duty free has something of the fun factor about it, and it will be enthusiastically met by the public.
Not only is this a welcome move for people travelling to the EU, but it is a huge boost for regional airports, which will now be able to offer duty free to their passengers. Like so many airports, Norwich International —it is not in my constituency, but, at a distance of 35 miles away, it is my nearest airport—has suffered so much, and I can see it welcoming this initiative entirely. This scheme is also extended to ports and international train stations.
Finally, our inbound alcohol allowances are now one of the most generous in the world, with a quadrupling of the entitlement that passengers returning from anywhere in the world can bring into the UK.
As we leave the EU, the newspapers may like to tell us of the bumps in the road that need straightening out. Well, here is a statutory instrument that adds benefit, simplification and removes bureaucracy, and I, for one, will not miss the pink and cream forms. It is a welcome move indeed.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). My desire to speak in this debate was driven not only by my serious concerns about the immediate impact of the measures on our airports, our retail sector and our tourist industry, but by my concern about the potential for manipulation into yet another grievance strategy by the Scottish National party and all separatists, as part of their continual campaign to undermine the United Kingdom—something that we have, sadly, seen amply demonstrated in the debate.
I ask the Government to think again, revisit this decision and re-examine the detrimental impact that it could have on our economy. Tourism and the individuals it brings here are a major contributor to the economy of the UK and each of its constituent parts, collectively and individually. Visitors who take advantage contribute around £6 billion a year to our national coffers, which are being dipped into heavily at the moment. More than that, it protects thousands of jobs in our tourist centres and elsewhere.
Attracting high-spending overseas tourists is an economic strategy that is internationally recognised and has worked for us. It has kept our cities on an equal footing with international competitors such as Paris, Milan and Madrid. By removing this incentive, we would be boosting them, to the detriment of our own cities, and detracting from the UK’s international appeal. We would also be adding yet another blow to our hard-hit retail sector at a time when it is already reeling. Experts have warned that this measure would cost my city of Edinburgh an annual loss of £92 million. Those are the figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which also estimates that it would cost Manchester £60 million, Liverpool £32 million and Leeds £18 million, at a time when all our cities can least afford it.
The impact will be felt initially by tourism, retail and airports, but experts have warned that it will gradually spill out and affect other sectors. Hospitality, which is already hard hit, will suffer as tourists choose other countries and other cities in which to spend their money in restaurants, cafés and bars. Manufacturing, too, will feel the pinch. Tourism industry bodies have warned that as many as 70,000 jobs are in immediate jeopardy throughout the United Kingdom, while it has been estimated that the broader damage could affect as many as 138,000 jobs, at a time when unemployment in this country is already rising at an unexpectedly rapid rate.
Our country’s retail, hospitality, events and entertainment sectors, and just about every sector imaginable, are struggling to cope with the impact of a crisis that was beyond our control. The pandemic was visited on us; it was not due to any choice we made. This change would be self-inflicted damage. It would undermine vital industries and cost jobs. I appeal to the Government to think again about the danger inherent in this statutory instrument, the benefits to the country that would be lost and the damage it could do to our future.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) gave a rather remarkable speech, first suggesting that the SNP was grievance-mongering, only then to agree with the annulment motion we have tabled. While some of us on the SNP Benches have become used to these dreary tirades against the cause of independence and that of the SNP, what we are doing today is trying to protect jobs in constituencies like hers. I also want to correct the record: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that Edinburgh airport was the national airport—he might be unaware of Glasgow airport being the best, but that is perhaps a childish point.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for bringing this annulment motion to the House. The covid-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on all industries and sectors across the UK. However, the tourism and travel industry has been particularly badly hit. The albeit necessary travel restrictions have affected those working for airlines and in airports. Last week I spoke to one of my Baillieston constituents, Sharon Erentz, who works at Glasgow airport. We spoke about how the pandemic will affect air travel for many months—indeed, years—to come, with estimates that holiday makers will be cautious about booking their next holiday abroad for some time.
For many travellers, VAT-free shopping is part of the travel and airport experience. Many people who are travelling arrive at the airport early to buy holiday gifts—perfumes, alcohol and clothes—and it was clear from speaking to Sharon that many customers wait all year round to shop in the airport and take advantage of the tax relief on aspects of the retail.
Additionally, many people travelling for business regularly buy products exclusively in the airport, choosing the VAT prices over many other shops. These are often high-value customers, sometimes spending several thousand pounds at once. One of the things the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said that struck me was that somehow this is about tax breaks. For a Government who like to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, it rather seems that the Minister will overlook the jobs of many constituents such as Sharon, who I represent.
The proposals mean that the products sold in the airport would be the same price as on the high street. Many people have expressed worry over the fact that if there were no VAT-free shopping, many of their usual customers would not buy from the airport shops and stalls anymore. If the airport does not have competitive prices, there is indeed no incentive for holidaymakers to save up to spend that money at the airport. Airline passenger revenue is estimated to plunge by about $314 billion in total—or 55%—from 2019 levels according to the International Air Transport Association. Job losses in the travel industry could reach more than 100 million this year according to analysis by the World Travel and Tourism Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has repeatedly questioned the UK Government over the decision to scrap the VAT retail export scheme and the airside extra-statutory concession scheme. He has highlighted that, for Glasgow, the airside concession, which is now to be scrapped, is worth £8.6 million in revenue. It also means that 170 retail jobs will be put at risk at a time when between 1,500 and 2,000 of the 5,000 jobs based at Glasgow airport have either gone or are under threat. Across the UK, it is estimated that the scrapping of both schemes will cause £1.5 billion-worth of losses. When the travel and tourism industry is on its knees, it is completely irresponsible to cut one of the few remaining income streams that offers hope to so many airports.
It is vital that the UK Government are doing all they can to support the sectors most affected by the covid-19 pandemic. With the necessary restrictions, the travel and tourism industry has suffered, and with many people now facing an uncertain future and financial security, the UK Government must act. Ending VAT-free shopping adds further concern for many people, such as my constituent Sharon, who are working at airports and already facing an uncertain future ahead. I very much hope that the annulment motion is successful this evening. I will be voting for it to save those jobs that I am proud to support. Most importantly, I hope that all other Members vote to save those jobs as well.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) [V]
I will focus my remarks on the abolition of VAT RES—the VAT retail export scheme. It has potential implications for my constituency, which is a major international hub of shopping and tourism, and also for rest of the country, since so many manufacturing jobs in luxury goods are scattered throughout the country, including in the north-east, the south-west and Scotland.
Let me just give a few numbers. Some 16 million non-EU international visitors come to the UK in normal times, although clearly not this year. They spend more than £17 billion, of which only £2.5 billion approximately is in tax-free shopping. I am concerned that if we disincentivise these visitors from coming to the UK, we materially affect other areas of our economy, and potentially also the Treasury’s tax take. For instance, these visitors stay in hotels and use restaurants, and the Treasury could lose the VAT on that expenditure. My concern is that these shoppers, who are a very distinct group of people, are highly mobile. The risk is that if we are no longer competitive, and we are the only European country not offering tax-free shopping, they will simply go to Paris or Milan. I am also concerned about the effect that it will have on my high streets, which are clearly already suffering from coronavirus and online shopping.
This measure has already taken effect as of 1 January. I ask the Minister that we continue to review the effect of this measure and that we do a full impact assessment that not only includes the top line, but looks at all the effects on the economy—the loss of VAT, the potential loss of business rates, and the potential effect if retail or manufacturing jobs go. I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that these things do not happen, but I ask the Minister to monitor the situation, and if the data and evidence do not look good, we should be prepared to revisit the decision.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who has been a great champion on this issue for her local constituency for some time, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on this. I also agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). Sadly, this is another situation where the separatists in Parliament make a point that is very important to their local area and local jobs—I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) about that—but every single SNP speech also had to include reference to separation. This is far more important than that. It is important to jobs here in Moray, as it is in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom, and I think it demeans the argument being put forward by SNP Members that they had to stoop to yet more divisive topics, such as independence, in this important debate.
I come at this issue slightly differently from other hon. Members who have contributed today. I do not have an airport in my constituency. I do not have a port where ferries are coming in, but I have more Scotch whisky distilleries and visitor centres than any other constituency in Scotland. It is also home to producers such as Johnstons woollen mill, which makes outstanding, high-quality produce that is very much sought after by people affected by this statutory instrument. I met Stephen Rankin from Gordon & MacPhail and Simon Cotton from Johnstons woollen mill to hear directly what it would mean for these local businesses.
Just as an example, Gordon & MacPhail is part of the Walpole Group, and earlier today, I got some statistics from Walpole about what this would mean. It estimates that 40,000 jobs across retail, hospitality and manufacturing could be lost as a direct result of this decision. It says that the impact will not just be lost revenue and jobs, but, critically, lost investment. It goes on to say that from 15 brands that it is aware of, over £1 billion will not now be invested in the United Kingdom. That is new stores, expanding factories and distribution centres that will now be developed outside the UK because of this instrument.
Crucially, I want to look at the impact that this has here in Moray on local employers and crucial jobs. Simon Cotton made the point on behalf of Johnstons woollen mill that VAT-free shopping is responsible for over 50% of the company’s revenue in its London and Edinburgh stores. It believes that at least two thirds of that will be lost, which would make those stores no longer viable. He went on to say that, overall, VAT-free shopping accounts for over a third of its retail as well as being critical to the customers that it sells to at a wholesale level. He said—and this point really hits home to me—that, generally speaking, every job lost in retail is matched by two to three jobs lost in manufacturing. That is two to three jobs lost in the local Elgin mill here in Moray for every job lost in the company’s Edinburgh or London stores. That is why I felt I had to speak up for those jobs in this debate.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington: we have to look at the impact of this decision, which took effect from 1 January. The new measures are already in place, so I hope the Treasury will take cognisance of their impact on companies such as Gordon & MacPhail, Johnstons, a number of distilleries and visitor centres here in Moray, and other high-end producers throughout the country, and of the effect on those individual companies and, therefore, on the jobs that they supply.
I represent Moray, and for me this is not a party issue; it is a local issue and I am a local representative. For the jobs at risk as a result of this SI, I shall vote to annul it because that is the right thing to do to represent my constituents and stand up for their concerns and those of employers in my area. If the vote is not successful, I hope the Government will at least look again at the impact of the decision.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
Britain’s departure from the European Union brings with it the freedom to reintroduce duty-free sales and make other tax changes that will deliver Brexit benefits to British tourists. Such gains have been enacted by the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which also introduced crucial changes to the VAT and excise rules for passengers following the transition period.
The new rules form a carefully considered package of measures that was introduced following a wide-ranging consultation. The changes take into consideration the Government’s aim of minimising disruption at the border, along with World Trade Organisation commitments that require the Government to align the treatment of passengers travelling to and from the EU and non-EU countries.
The provisions in the SI ensure the smooth flow of passengers entering Great Britain by reducing the need for them to stop at the border to declare goods that they have purchased. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) elaborated on how, from his personal experience, the measure removes bureaucracy. Without the instrument, EU and non-EU passengers would be treated differently, traveller flow at the border would be disrupted and the UK would breach its international obligations under World Trade Organisation law.
The measures I shall outline will have a hugely positive impact on UK travellers for a number of reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said, for the first time in more than two decades, the tens of millions of UK passengers who visit the EU every year—in non-pandemic times—will be able to enjoy duty-free sales. For example, with UK excise duty no longer due, a 1 litre bottle of Scotch could be around £11.50 cheaper.
In addition, we have quadrupled the alcohol allowance for passengers arriving in Great Britain, making it one of the most generous in the world. Under the new rules, passengers will be allowed to bring into Great Britain three crates of beer, two cases of wine and one case of champagne for personal use without having to pay the relevant taxes. This represents an excise duty saving of up to £120. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) praised of the significance of such measures to her constituency, which has a port for travel straight to the EU.
I recognise the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson), along with others, about the ending of the VAT retail export scheme and the removal of tax-free airside sales. Although the latter policy change on tax-free airside sales is not actually part of this instrument, let me explain our thinking behind the decisions.
In simple terms, the maintenance of the VAT RES and tax-free airside sales after the end of the transition period was never an option for the Government. In reality, the choice we faced was between extending the schemes to all EU travellers or removing them both completely, because the World Trade Organisation rules specify that goods bound for different destinations must be treated the same. However, because EU visitors have never benefited from the VAT RES and still spend in UK shops without it, to extend it now would present a large dead-weight loss, and in effect the Government would be subsidising the shopping of EU visitors. I am sure hon. Members would agree that this would be an unwise use of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) set out clearly and concisely why this was not a fair and efficient use of taxpayers’ money, and I thank him for making such a well-argued case. In addition, data and evidence submitted as part of the Government’s consultation demonstrated that the VAT RES disproportionately benefited London and the south-east of England. In fact, around 90% of sales were made in London and Bicester Village in Oxfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) made the excellent point that other regions and, in particular, smaller high streets did not appear to gain as much, if at all.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). She and I have had several discussions on this issue and I have also had extensive representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). However, they will both know that the Treasury disagrees with their assessments. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the withdrawal of the VAT RES will result in a significant direct Exchequer saving of £1.84 billion in just over five years. In addition, the OBR estimates that the withdrawal of tax-free airside sales will result in a saving of £780 million over the same period.
David Linden
With all those forecasts in place, can the Minister tell the House how many jobs—such as that of my constituent, Sharon, whom I represent—will be lost when the Government proceed with this?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Member for his representation. That information can be found in the tax impact information note.
I assure hon. Members that the Treasury will continue to keep these measures and their impacts under review. Let me turn more specifically to the prayer motion tabled against this instrument. I fully recognise the desire of hon. Members to champion Britain’s retail and tourism sectors. I share the same desire to see those important industries prosper. This package of measures will boost all airports, including those such as Edinburgh, Cardiff and Newcastle. These hubs primarily deal in travel to the EU, and so could make only limited use of airside tax-free sales anyway. They will now stand to gain significantly from duty-free sales.
As I have demonstrated, the measures contained in this legislation constitute a more equitable distribution of benefits to both consumers and airports across Great Britain. To remove this legislation would spell an end to these significant gains. Such a move could also cause disruption at the UK border by preventing the smooth flow of passengers, as those coming in from the EU and non-EU countries would be treated differently. Let me also remind hon. Members that the introduction of duty-free and the extension of personal allowances are estimated to cost the Exchequer £890 million over five years. That money needs to be found from somewhere. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is only correct that the savings generated from the withdrawal of both the VAT RES and airside tax-free shopping should be used to support a greater number of consumers and airports across Great Britain.
The hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) and for Ealing North (James Murray) raised the impact of these schemes on airport jobs specifically. The hon. Member for Ealing North also raised the late enactment of the legislation. I would say to him that he was not in this House when Labour Members wasted precious time during the transition period trying to frustrate and stop Brexit. Had they not done that, perhaps we would have been able to enact this sooner. I emphasise that the main impact on these businesses is the large drop in passenger numbers due to the pandemic—not to these schemes—which is why we have supported the aviation industry in the following ways. The airport and ground operation support scheme, announced on 24 November, will provide support for eligible businesses up to the equivalent of their business rate liabilities in the 2021 financial year. This is subject to certain conditions and a cap for claimants of £8 million. This is intended to help to reduce cash burn and put on lock shareholder and lender support. While this applies only to airports in England, it constitutes new spend for the Department for Transport, so Barnett consequentials will apply as standard. The Government also recognise the challenges the aviation sector is facing as it recovers from the impacts of covid-19. We have supported the sector throughout the pandemic and continue to do so.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) was right to ask about the potential impacts of this measure. HMRC research shows that in 2019, fewer than one in 10 non-EU visitors to the UK used the VAT RES. That is 1.2 million out of 60 million visitors. However, the claims in the Centre for Economics and Business Research report, where her figure of 138,000 jobs comes from, are based on the implausible assumption that the end of the scheme will cut non-EU visitor numbers by 4.96 million. That is simply not credible; it is four times as many people as currently use the scheme. Even the report’s more conservative analysis is underpinned by an assumption that non-EU visitors will reduce by 7.3% or 1.17 million, which is almost the total number of current users of the VAT RES scheme. It is unrealistic to assume that all current VAT RES users will cease to visit the UK.
I hope that I have been able to answer hon. Members’ many questions. I am delighted that we can use our new freedoms outside the EU as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) comprehensively set out—that is, to achieve gains for local economies and passengers. As I mentioned, there is a significant cost to the Exchequer. However, this has been weighed against the revenue from the other changes that we are making. Together, these measures support our airports, benefit consumers and protect the taxpayer. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the motion and support the Government’s approach.
Gavin Newlands [V]
I thank all Members for contributing to this afternoon’s debate, but I am afraid that the Minister’s response does not really cut it. The fact is that she has ignored both the airport and retail sectors. She has seemingly also ignored the lobbying of her own colleagues on the Conservative Benches. In fact, she has forced the Scottish Conservative leader to back an SNP motion in the House of Commons this evening. I hope that she and her colleagues in the Treasury will reflect on this short-sighted decision.
I listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who made several good points, but I am really none the wiser as to whether the Opposition support the Government on this matter or whether they are going to vote to revoke the regulations. Perhaps we shall see in the next couple of minutes.
In conclusion, not many Members on the Tory Benches—other than the last two speakers—seem to get it. Some of the other contributions were incredibly whimsical in nature, talking about booze cruises, ferry discos and whatever. We are talking about people’s jobs. I am not talking about rich foreigners coming over here and getting money off. I am talking about the jobs that these schemes support, right here in our constituencies in the UK. To be honest, the less said about the incredibly unnecessary snide snipe from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), the better. That was followed by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), although he then went to largely agree with our proposal.
It has not been enough; the Minister has not been clear that any review into this situation will come quickly enough for the sector, and it is for that reason that we will have to push this to a vote.
Grooming Gangs
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 300239 and 327566 relating to grooming gangs.
I would like to thank the 131,625 people who signed the first of the e-petitions that we will be debating today, calling for the release of the Home Office review into this issue, which of course has now happened. The second, smaller petition, signed by over 30,000 people, is calling for a public inquiry into the issue of grooming gangs. Clearly, this issue is of huge importance, and it has caused immense distress to a huge number of people across the country—the victims themselves who have been victims of this appalling crime, but also their friends and family, and I would add to that the whole communities that I think have been shocked and appalled by what has happened.
I think there is a sense, though, from this Home Office report that it is not quite what many people were intending. When I talk about “many people”, ahead of this debate, being a member of the Petitions Committee, although I do not represent a constituency where this has been a big issue, I found it incumbent upon myself to speak to other hon. and right hon. Members who have knowledge in this area, but also to some of the victims of this appalling crime, to gain a greater understanding of what their views are and also their views on the report. Many of them do feel that the report does not go far enough; they believe it only touches upon the issues. If it is the start of something far more significant, then okay, but if it is the end of it, they will feel very unsatisfied. I would support them in saying that I do believe further action should be taken.
One of the key problems has been the lack of data, which has made it difficult to go into detail regarding the characteristics of the grooming gangs and those involved. That has been problematic. Some hon. Members have raised the point that if the data is just not available, then surely we can just look at those who have been convicted and gain a pretty accurate picture of the kinds of individuals who have been engaged in the matter. That has been raised before.
Of course, those who are most responsible for this appalling crime are those who have been found guilty—those who have carried out the evil act. They are the principal individuals, but there is also a great sense in many of the communities and in towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale—although the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has done brilliant work on this issue, showing great courage in standing up for and battling for her constituents—that they have been failed over a long period of time by the state, at both local level and national level. They feel like this issue was swept under the carpet because it was seen as being inconvenient and not politically correct to talk about it. That is how they feel; that is the hurt that they feel, and it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to address those concerns and give them a sense that justice has been done, and also that the lessons have been learned, so that we can try to ensure that we do not continue to have these appalling crimes happening within our society.
There is a wider point here, though, about this issue and about whether it was political correctness, for want of a better word, or something else—concern about cultural sensitivities—but does seem in many cases that the majority of those who have engaged in this evil act came from one particular community. Many feel—and I agree with them—that if it is the case that certain crimes are disproportionately committed by members of certain communities, we should be open and honest about that and address it, because actually, by sweeping it under the carpet and not addressing it , it makes tensions and divisions worse down the line.
I would say that, as a society, we have a long way to go when it comes to tackling racism. I do not think we have completed that journey yet, but would it not be great if, as a society, we were mature enough to have these difficult discussions, while never losing sight of the fact that the vast majority in our society stand against racism, and against stigmatising particular communities? This issue does need to be addressed.
We look at the role of racism and how many of the victims of this appalling crime feel as though there is concern from certain individuals that they would be branded a racist or called out for being a racist if they spoke the truths as they know them to be on some of these matters. Actually, the view of a lot of these victims, who more often than not are white working-class girls—our girls—is that they were on occasion specifically targeted because of the fact that they were white, because of their western-ness, and because of the fact that they were not Asian. That is how they feel. I would encourage those who disagree with how they feel to have a discussion with them, because that is how they feel. Therefore, the information and data about the ethnic background of those who have been found guilty of these crimes is necessary if we are to gain a profound understanding of this appalling crime, learn the lessons, and ensure that it never happens again. If we do believe that this kind of racism towards white girls is a driver here—if we do believe that it is the case—and that it is an aggravating factor, then we need to address it, and we need a report that addresses it and gets under the skin of the issue in a way that it has not so far.
I planned not to talk at great length here today. Although I do, as a Member of this place, feel passionately about this issue, as it happens my constituency has not been impacted by it as much as many hon. Members’ constituencies have, so I want to make sure that they have as much time as possible today to talk about some of the stories within their own constituencies, because I think that is very important. I would like to thank the founder of the petition, George MacDonald, and the victims I spoke to as well. I think it is right to say that the abuse of young girls conducted by grooming gangs has shaken society and we should do everything in our power to eradicate it.
I would also like to thank, on behalf of the petitioners, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the actions she has taken. Like her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), she has been very robust on this issue. I feel that if it had not been for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, there probably would not have been any report all. At the end of day, any report is better than no report, in particular any report that at least promises that in future we will get the right data to be able to look at this issue and come up with solutions. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I support the petitioners in their desire for further action to be taken, so this can be looked at more thoroughly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I hope that everyone who indicated they wish to speak this afternoon will have the opportunity to do so. I am therefore introducing an immediate time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Tackling violence and sexual exploitation has been one of my priorities since I was first elected in 2011, when during my roundtables with constituents I was made aware of child sexual exploitation concerns following the Rochdale grooming gangs scandal. It is not an easy subject to discuss—I find it incredibly difficult to even think about someone who is knowingly abusing a child for their own pleasure—but we know it happens in every community and in every part of the country. We all have an obligation to do what we can to prevent it and root it out wherever we find it.
I have a clear protocol to immediately escalate any child sexual exploitation case that is brought to me to the appropriate authorities. Unfortunately, my team and I have dealt with a number of cases. Greater Manchester police provide me with regular briefings on activities undertaken by Operation Messenger and now Project Phoenix, which specifically deal with CSE across Greater Manchester. I meet regularly with local groups such as Keep Our Girls Safe and the Women’s CHAI project, which stands for Care Help And Inspire but has a wider remit than supporting girls and women experiencing abuse, as does Inspire Women. Pre-pandemic, when I was visiting at least one school a week, I used this as a platform to promote equality, self-awareness and resilience of all children, whatever their background, sex, ethnicity or religion. I also meet regularly with Oldham’s Interfaith Forum. Together, we have worked to promote human rights for all, including the rights of our children.
In Parliament, I am a member of the CSE cross-party group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), whom I congratulate on all she has done to expose CSE. We have heard evidence from those who have been abused, and reviewed evidence of good practice among other things. However, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) has just mentioned, I am keenly aware that our understanding of the scale and extent of CSE, and in particular CSE associated with grooming gangs, is lacking. As the House of Commons Library report identified, it only becomes known once cases are identified and victims and offenders are reported.
It is estimated that three out of every four victims of a rape or assault of a person under 16 do not come forward and report it to the police. In a recent Home Office report, about 10,500 cases were flagged by the police as potentially CSE-related. The victims of CSE were said to be mainly young women, predominantly 14 to 15 years old, who had a number of risk factors that made them vulnerable to exploitation. Group-based CSE offenders were said to tend to be male and under 30, younger than those offenders acting alone who were said to be more prolific.
Clearly the data is inadequate and the focus of the Home Office on this important issue needs to sharpen up. Every child matters and their rights, as enshrined in the UN convention to which the UK became a signatory in 1990, need to be actively embodied. I will not let those far-right groups, wherever they may skulk, get away with lying and trying to sow hate, division and blame on this issue. I repeat that child abuse occurs in every community, in every part of the country and in every part of the world, and I am committed to rooting it out, wherever it may be.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), with whom I serve as co-chair of the all-party group on women in the penal system. It is striking that we are in this debate, because so many women who end up in the criminal justice system are themselves victims of abuse. It is a reminder of how often the state fails these women.
We are talking about victims of serious crime. It disappoints me that although we have been aware of this issue for some time—we have had some high-profile cases that have taken years to bring to justice—we are forced to have this debate by the Petitions Committee, and it is at the fag end of a parliamentary day. Again, girls are at the back of the queue, and victims of sexual crimes are not getting the attention they deserve. We really need to turbo-charge everything that we are doing in this space, so that women and girls will recognise that the state takes sexual abuse seriously. That will make them more prepared to come forward. We know that some of the perpetrators have been getting away with this for years and are still at large, because—we have seen it too often—when people bring it to the attention of the authorities, they look the other way because it is all too difficult.
If we in this place are not seen to be taking these crimes seriously, we cannot expect the rest of society to do so. I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate the subject, but I am very sorry that it has come to this and that we are doing it in these circumstances. I hope that when we can get this place back to normal and we have more parliamentary time, we can give such issues the attention that they deserve.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been champion by name and nature in the way she has taken on this subject. I commend her determination. There are men in every community who view women and girls as objects of sexual gratification. That is something that we should always root out, but we especially need not to let cultural sensitivities get in the way. We have talked about white working-class girls today, but just imagine what happens to girls in communities where we do not tackle it. Take things like forced marriage: we know that children are brought over from other countries to marry their relatives, with horrendous consequences, not just because they are forced into relationships without their consent, but because the children who are the output of such marriages often have huge problems.
For the welfare of everybody involved, we really must be honest about tackling these issues. If we do not, other people will, with a much more sinister motive. We need to be working with these communities, changing attitudes and tackling patriarchal influences that make our women and girls victims of organised criminal activity. We will do that only by engaging with communities, and we certainly will not do it by pretending that such things do not happen.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister takes the matter very seriously, and I am sure she would prefer the debate to be longer. I say to her sincerely that I look forward very much to working with her to give the subject the attention it deserves. I end with a plea: now that we finally have relationships and sex education as part of the curriculum, can we look properly at the tools for educating girls that consent is theirs to give, and it is not to be expected?
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I really appreciate the fact that we are having this debate, because I have spent eight years trying to get justice for survivors of child sexual exploitation and to prevent grooming gangs. I have been vilified, smeared and threatened, by the far right and the far left, who use this crime for their own political agenda. The only impact it has had on me is that I get a taste of the intimidation that survivors have to endure. So their threats just make me more determined to make sure we permanently get rid of any form of child sexual exploitation. But their actions embolden the abusers. They make it more difficult for those in child protection to do their jobs, and they deter victims from coming forward.
I fail to understand why this topic is so emotive, when there is a clear picture of gangs with a similar profile being involved in sexual abuse and exploitation. This should be investigated without fear or favour, as any other gang-related crime would be. We live in a democracy, and the law should be able to be applied in an even-handed way.
We are very fortunate in Rotherham, because the National Crime Agency’s Operation Stovewood is looking at cases of CSE by grooming gangs between 1997 and 2013, a 16-year period. It has already identified 1,569 survivors and 261 designated suspects. To date we have had 20 convictions in court, and four awaiting trial. That is in 16 years. I know survivors who are 70 years old. Think about the scale and length of time of this abuse.
Now some specific suggestions to prevent CSE by grooming gangs and to secure convictions. Each potential victim should have a named person they are comfortable with, and that person should be shared across all stakeholders. The treatment of witnesses and survivors must be constantly reviewed to make sure they are able to give evidence in a safe format and receive the support they deserve.
Mandatory relationship education for all primary schoolchildren should have been in place in September 2020, but we have still not been given an implementation date. The law desperately needs updating on positions of trust and online harms. There should be stricter sentencing. The use of pre-charge bail, particularly where there is a flight risk, must be swiftly cut back.
Serious consideration needs to be given to offender release. Sexual predators do not change their patterns of behaviour, and they return to the same communities where they carried out the abuse. Prevention must be our focus, which means health professionals should be trained to spot and support potential perpetrators.
Trading standards officers should be able to investigate premises where they believe grooming gangs operate. A multi-agency approach is key, but it has to be full and equal across all partners and that should include Government Departments. I am glad the Government are looking to make funding for support services more stable. To succeed, it has to be long-term funding.
Unregulated care homes must be banned for all children under the age of 18. We need to promote closer interaction between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. We need to use disruption tactics as much as possible which avoid victims having to give evidence. Our adversarial court proceedings further brutalise victims and survivors, and this is unacceptable. We have to change it.
We need to establish a national set of triggers that allow local authorities to provide support for children showing signs of harm, rather than the current postcode lottery. We need to make sure that every toolkit dealing with CSE understands that children have a range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, as currently there is an assumption that victims of CSE are non-disabled white girls, and that is not true. We need to require every local authority to take urgent steps to improve the accessibility of CSE services.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is well past her four-minute time limit, I am afraid. I will give her a final sentence.
Sarah Champion
Fundamentally, the Government need to work in a cross-departmental way to end this crime once and for all.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She has given so much by giving a voice to the voiceless in this Chamber. I pay tribute to her work over eight years. I also pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) for the work they have done to help form the Government’s strategy on CSE through the external reference group. I would like to sound a note of caution. This is an excellent first step in getting some measure of justice for the survivors of CSE, but it is not an endpoint in and of itself. We have a lot more work to do.
The other day I had the opportunity to speak to Maggie Oliver and other Greater Manchester police officers as part of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). Maggie Oliver rightly pointed out, when I talked about historical child abuse, that these crimes are actually still ongoing and are very often unseen, and that is why this new strategy is so important.
Rightly, the first objective of the strategy is to tackle the abuse and bring offenders to justice. I cannot stress enough how important that is. Justice has to be seen to be done. The people who commit these wicked acts and rob young people of their childhoods should be removed from decent society—including those who would seek to abuse the courts and try to frustrate deportation orders and other sanctions used to protect the victims.
As well as robust intelligence sharing and wider improvements to the criminal justice system such as an additional 20,000 police officers, 10,000 prison places and an extra £85 million for the Crown Prosecution Service, we need to send a clear signal that the law is there to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. I welcome the national vulnerability action plan and place-based strategies that respond to threats within communities, such as child sexual exploitation, by making use of a range of data and local stakeholders. Powerlessness has been the sad thread running through all our work on this. Any measure that gives a voice to those communities and individuals dealing with this on a day-to-day basis has to be welcome.
I also put on the record my support for the Home Office’s commitment to educate children and young people about healthy relationships in the digital world, through the roll-out of the relationship, sex and health education and media literacy strategy, along with targeted support that protects children and young people from offenders seeking to exploit their vulnerabilities.
When I think of the victims in my own constituency whose story was so powerfully portrayed in the drama “Three Girls” and the documentary “The Betrayed Girls”, it is not hard to see how the system that should have shielded them from harm let them down so very badly. It took the courage of a few individuals to stand up for those whose voices the system chose not to hear. But not every victim has a Sara Rowbotham or a Maggie Oliver willing to put their own livelihood and reputation on the line just to see justice done. We must make sure that the system itself is reformed.
In the Westminster Hall debate on Operation Augusta part 1, we heard the ways in which power was shirked and responsibility ignored while those in power worked to protect themselves in the face of unspeakable abuse. Although part 2 of Operation Augusta, focusing on Rochdale, has not yet been released, I fear that we already have a strong sense of what it will tell us.
That one child has been abused physically, emotionally or sexually should be a cause for sorrow and anger in equal measure; that these awful crimes should have been permitted on a near-industrial scale, aided and abetted by the practised disinterest of the authorities, should cause horror and serious reflection. I thank those who have dedicated so much of themselves and their time to tackling this hateful behaviour and I stand with them, fully committed to doing whatever it takes to give justice to those so very badly let down.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who gave an incredibly thoughtful speech.
Last year, local authorities recorded nearly 19,000 victims of child exploitation; if we consider the number over the last few decades, the total number of survivors will be staggering. One of the petitions that we are discussing today specifically calls for an inquiry into child sexual exploitation. It is clear that a cross-Government approach is needed to deal with this issue, deliver justice and support survivors. I would like to focus my remarks today on survivors.
Sammy Woodhouse is a survivor of child sexual exploitation. She has bravely spoken publicly about her experiences, and I met her yesterday to discuss Sammy’s law. Sammy’s law is a simple ask of the Government not to criminalise child victims of exploitation. When Sammy was 15, the police raided the property of her abuser, who is now a convicted serial rapist. Sammy was half-naked and hiding under his bed. He was not detained, but Sammy was arrested and charged. She is a survivor of exploitation, but is now forced to disclose her criminal convictions.
Survivors such as Sammy are forced to commit crimes by their adult abusers and are often convicted of their crimes. Those criminal convictions stay with them for life. They are forced to disclose them to their employers and on insurance applications, and they are even prevented from attending their parent-teacher associations. That cannot be right and it must be stopped. Child exploitation is an abuse of power used to coerce and deceive. Survivors should not be punished for crimes they committed because of their exploitation.
I am today asking the Government to introduce Sammy’s law, so that victims of child sexual exploitation can have their criminal records automatically reviewed and the crimes associated with their grooming removed. The High Court has already ruled that it is unfair to force survivors to disclose criminal records linked to their grooming, arguing that the link between past offence and present risk is non-existent or extremely tenuous.
This change in the law should be basic common sense. It would end the unfair victim blaming and re-traumatisation of victims and survivors. I urge the Government to act today.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this important debate. In my constituency, this is very much a live issue, and it is causing considerable concern. There are ongoing investigations in my constituency on these issues and a pending trial. I will be very careful with my remarks, so as to protect that crucial work. If we ever hope to see justice, and for communities such as ours to be able to heal, that process must be able to play out in full.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the question of how widespread grooming activity is and how and where it links to child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse cases. I also do not think it is unreasonable when people express a lack of faith in the system, as they have to me in conversations and surgery appointments. There are clear examples of where the system has not worked and victims have been let down time and again. There is a clear appetite for more information and for faith to be restored in the process. I firmly believe that the only way we will get there is through transparency—through making the failings of the past visible and demonstrably learning our lessons from them.
I want to concentrate the remainder of my remarks on a different aspect of this debate: those with vested interests stirring up tensions to suit their own ends. This is not to deny in any way the powerful and awful cases of CSE and CSA that exist and that must be stamped out whenever they occur. In Barrow, we have seen the sharp end of these vested interests. They take the vacuum of information that forms when investigations start or court processes begin, and they exploit people’s fears. They exploit their worst natures, and they fill the void with misinformation and conjecture that serves no one but themselves.
At the height of the first lockdown, in the middle of the pandemic in Barrow, we had the indignity of the far right turning up, stoking up tensions in our town and leading physical protests and convoys of vehicles down the A590, all the while proclaiming that they were doing it in the pursuit of justice. But of course, they were not. Instead of shining a light on injustice, they shone a light very brightly on themselves. They talked up the causes and the division that they promoted, and then they left, leaving people who are sat at home by necessity, spending too much time on Facebook, with questions. Those with books to sell and media reputations to burnish should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the fears of communities such as mine, who have legitimate worries and concerns.
I hate to say it, but I have no doubt that there is sexual exploitation going on in some of the towns and communities that make up constituencies such as mine. It is a sad fact of modern life. While every single case is reprehensible and requires a proportionate response from the justice system, individual cases do not mean an epidemic or a cover-up, no matter what some of those I mentioned suggest. We have a burning need to restore faith in the processes that surround these investigations and to shine a light on them. The more transparent we can be, the easier that job will be, even if the conversation we must have to get there will be very difficult indeed.
I would like to end by thanking a few of my constituents. During a pandemic, in a lockdown, faced with some shocking headlines that are amplified by social media, the community has pulled together and looked after those most in need. I would especially like to thank Women’s Community Matters in Barrow for all it has done for those who need help most in our community—victims and survivors alike. We have a long way to go to win the public’s trust, and I very much hope that the new tackling child sexual abuse strategy gives us demonstrable results soon, so that that journey can begin.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to those in the Chamber that it is nearly 6 o’clock, and clapping will be taking place throughout the country and in other parts of this building. Obviously, we will not have any clapping in the Chamber. Indeed, we have already paid tribute at noon today with our one minute’s silence to Captain Sir Tom Moore, who has been such a great inspiration to the country over the last year, and in memory of the many thousands of people who have died. As it reaches 6 o’clock, we will just pause for a moment. We do not need to clap, but we do show our appreciation.
Thank you. I call Tracy Brabin.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was a very warm and sensitive pause. Thank you for your wisdom. Obviously, this is a sombre debate. I thank all Members who have spoken so well. I look forward to hearing further contributions. I associate myself with Sammy’s Law, which is a brilliant step forward and has support across the House.
The fact that we all want to debate this topic—it is particularly poignant that the debate falls within Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week—hopefully means that the petitions that brought it to the Chamber are not necessary. The campaign’s hashtag, #ItsNotOk, feels like something of an understatement, as the crimes that we are discussing are among the most heinous imaginable, with so many communities blighted by grooming gangs. The exposing of historical cases will continue to rise as victims find the incredible courage necessary to come forward.
The communities I represent in Batley and Spen have been rocked by announcements and police investigations into grooming gangs far too often. In January 2019, 55 men from the Kirklees local authority area and adjoining areas in West Yorkshire were arrested. A few months later, in June, a further 44 men were arrested. In December last year, 32 men were charged, and they will be in court in October 2022. There are those who believe that court cases should come sooner than 22 months after the arrests were made. I have sympathy with that point of view. However, when it comes, it is important that justice is served, in recognition of the unquantifiable bravery of the victims who have come forward. Kirklees Council has already apologised to victims for its failings in relation to the Huddersfield grooming gang—a case that has been through the courts, with long sentences now being served. That court case and subsequent reports will have been sobering reading for many authorities. It is important that we learn lessons.
We have heard of other cases in other areas from MPs today. I hope that survivors of those crimes, who may not yet have come forward, will hear the message from this Parliament: “We do believe you. You will be listened to, and everything will be done to bring your attackers to justice.” The unavoidable truth is that these long and complex investigations place a significant financial burden on police forces, which are struggling financially. I worked with West Yorkshire police force in making a successful appeal for £1.4 million from the Home Office to investigate historical CSE. I am really glad that that bid was successful, but I was concerned then, and I remain concerned, about what would have happened to that case, and cases like it, if funding had not arrived. Surely the Home Office should put in place a system that does not involve forces going to Ministers, cap in hand.
What brought us to the Chamber today are two public petitions, one requesting a full public inquiry, the other requesting the research for the public inquiry promised by the Home Secretary’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). In place of that inquiry came a review in the name of the Home Secretary, which I doubt will placate those calling for an inquiry. On the release of that report, the headlines yet again focused on the ethnicity of the abusers, stating that the majority of abusers are white men rather than the promoted myth that this is only British Asian men. Of course demographics and ethnicity are important, but not to the children who find themselves locked into a life of cruel abuse. Children are vulnerable because they are children, and predators will exploit that. We need a system that raises alerts when children are vulnerable, before they fall into crime.
Today’s debate is humbling, and our thoughts are with the young girls, predominantly from troubled or unstable backgrounds, who are failed. However, we will listen to you, and we believe you.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Any debate on grooming gangs must start and end with those who have survived them. They, and their bravery in coming forward, are the reason we even know about this systematic abuse. They are the reason we have secured convictions. They have survived horrors beyond imagination—a drawn-out routine of vicious, violent abuse, sometimes lasting years.
We know from the Home Office report that survivors are most commonly females aged 14 to 17. The main risk factors are being in care, experiencing episodes of going missing, and having a learning disability; others include drug or alcohol dependency, mental health issues, and experience of previous abuse. In other words, the very people that our society should most protect are the ones who are being most let down. To say that we have let them down is an understatement. Like many of us here, I am a parent; I have two young children and lovely nieces and nephews. I could not bear it if one day they too were to become victims. We must prevent these horrors from occurring to any more children.
I welcome the report, albeit dragged out of a hesitant Government, but following its publication the Home Secretary said in a written statement that
“motivations differ between offenders, but…a sexual interest in children is not always the predominant motive. Financial gain and a desire for sexual gratification are common motives, and misogyny and disregard for women and girls may further enable the abuse.
Offenders can come from a range of social backgrounds—some have been stable middle-class professionals, some of whom were married, whilst others have had more chaotic lifestyles.”
The one thing that would hamper efforts to tackle group-based child sexual exploitation is to falsely claim that the criminals belong to only one religion, one ethnicity or one race. We know that is fake news, and official, independent statistics attest to that fact. Those falsehoods are exploited by the far right to create racist divisions in our society, perpetuating myths and stereotypes. People such as the English Defence League and Britain First use the images of survivors against their wishes, organising marches and stirring up hate online.
This is not about conforming to political correctness. If we adopt the language or assumptions of hate groups, we fall into a dangerous trap. The devastating reality is that sexual abuse can happen in any community, be it white British, Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or of any other background. Our priority should be ensuring that victim support and services are accessible and available, not spreading misinformed and prejudiced beliefs.
I know from local communities in Slough that child sexual exploitation, in addition to racist scapegoating, is a real concern, which is why I have raised it with our Slough police commander and the council leader and chief executive to ensure that we are working collaboratively and minimising the risk of this abhorrent crime affecting our community. If we are misdirected and end up looking in the wrong places, we fail to tackle this head-on. The current level of prosecutions is just not good enough, and funding for support organisations is nowhere near enough.
Let us be clear: this is about patriarchy and power. It is about people discounted, dismissed and dehumanised not only by those who rape them but by the authorities they turn to for help. We all have a moral duty to end this abuse and make sure that the evil perpetrators feel the full force of the law.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]
It is difficult to encapsulate in four minutes something that I have spent many years, as a former children’s Minister, campaigning against. Back in November 2011, we launched the Government’s child sexual exploitation action plan in collaboration with The Times, which had long campaigned on this subject, Barnardo’s and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which published its report, “Out of Mind, Out of Sight”.
We worked with police, children’s social care, children’s charities and, importantly, with children and young people—the victims—and parents themselves. That followed the high-profile series of prosecutions and convictions after Derbyshire police’s Operation Retriever, which brought this subject to the newspaper headlines for the first time. It was almost a year before the dramatic Savile revelations, which opened the floodgates for people to be aware of the presence, extent and historical reach of CSE.
The action plan highlighted the fact that CSE can happen anywhere to anyone. It is not exclusive to northern metropolitan boroughs, or to people from estates on the other side of town, or to troubled girls, as some hon. Members have mentioned. I met survivors of CSE from the families of doctors and lawyers and from middle-class backgrounds and heard their deeply harrowing accounts. I mentioned the CEOP’s report “Out of Mind, Out of Sight”, because this and all these reports had uncovered a systemic and systematic culture of neglect, secrecy and, in too many cases, wilful complacency to call out the issue of teenage white girls, in some cases boys, being sexually abused by British Pakistani grooming gangs. It was a taboo subject. It was swept under the carpet. Disgracefully, the victims were often regarded as having asked for it. The insidious tentacles of political correctness often suffocated action, so we set out an action plan. Above all, we called for urgent action based on complete transparency, encouraging survivors to come forward and speak out and to put the whole shameful problem firmly on the nation’s radar.
The following September, the Savile revelations broke. Every day, the media was full of accounts of CSE across celebrities, religious institutions, schools and so on. Virtually nowhere was immune. There was a fear that the original phenomenon of organised CSE of primarily teenage white girls at the hands of these predominantly British Pakistani grooming gangs would be sidelined by the prominence being given to others, despite a catalogue of such cases from Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford and well beyond.
It is a real disappointment that, today, we are having to debate an issue based on the lack of transparency about the extent of the systemic activities of these grooming gangs, which are still going on. I appreciate that most of those convicted for CSE are middle-aged white men, many acting alone, but the phenomenon of organised British Pakistani grooming gangs is a specific and dangerous criminal activity, and it needs to be called out for what it is and tackled in a very specific way. So why on earth are we having to debate now why maximum transparency has not been applied to research into how these gangs operate and how they are still getting away with it, because this is not an historic matter but still a contemporary problem?
The problem of secrecy and the culture of denial within certain police forces was again brought to the fore last year, with the new inquiry announced by the Mayor of Greater Manchester into the abandonment of Operation Augusta. If we are really to get to grips with the issue of grooming gangs, surely we need to delineate it as a specific sexual offence distinct from other forms of sexual offence. For that, we need to be open and transparent with all the research already undertaken and to undertake more if it is needed. We have had the Jay report, the Louise Casey report, and the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), commissioned his own report, which seems to have been downgraded and has now morphed into an external reference group consisting of several hon. Members. When the former Home Secretary launched the original inquiry, he intended it as a comprehensive and definitive report on child grooming, published in full, so why has this research and report become a no-go area? We owe it to the victims and the survivors to publish in full.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
In beginning my remarks, I pay tribute to the bravery of those survivors who have come forward in their pursuit of justice. Although sexual assault convictions are alarmingly low across the piece, there is a specifically insidious aspect to the group-based child sexual exploitation phenomenon, both in terms of the institutional failings of survivors and in societal prejudices about what a perfect victim looks like. This can mean that survivors are treated as perpetrators of crime, rather than victims of it when they come forward, particularly where their grooming has involved being sexually abused for money or where they may have been involved in the recruitment of other survivors as part of their abuse.
Research shows that perpetrators often gravitate towards children who are perceived to be vulnerable in situations where safeguards around them may be lower. To that end, the tackling child sexual abuse strategy highlights the importance of giving children the best start in life—early-years wellbeing and mental-health provision. It is disappointing that 10 years of Tory austerity has meant cutbacks in all these areas. We need strong leadership and accountability, and a cross-department and multi-agency approach. All Government Departments—the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—have opportunities and responsibilities to stop these appalling crimes, and all Departments must work collectively to that end.
I am particularly concerned about the increased risk of online harms related to child sexual exploitation during lockdowns, with children spending more time online, away from school, and with far-right myths about the ethnicities of offenders in group-based child sexual exploitation being exploited online to fuel divisions between different communities. These are some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and we should do all we can to ensure not only that the recommendations of the “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation Characteristics of Offending” report and associated work are implemented, but that we tackle the stigma that stops survivors from coming forward.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
This is not by any means a subject that I, or I suspect any of us, find easy to discuss, but the difficult conversations are always the most important to have, and it is our duty, for our constituents, to have them.
It is now more than 20 years since one of my predecessors as MP for Keighley, Ann Cryer, first raised her concerns about grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation within the Pakistani community in West Yorkshire. Ann did a good job; she brought the issue to the forefront of the conversation and did the right thing in raising it. I have been a Member of this House for only just over a year, and I have been taken aback by the amount of correspondence that I have received on this issue. I am afraid to say that more than 20 years have gone by and nothing has really changed. Luckily, I am able to represent one of the best communities we have in this country.
I am incredibly conscious of just how delicate this subject is, but it should not be. My view is that unless we talk about it openly we are failing, so let us call this problem out for what it is: predominantly a small minority of largely Muslim men in West Yorkshire—including, I am sad to say, in Keighley—have been sexually exploiting young children for far too long. The Muslim community are quite rightly outraged at the entire community being branded with the same accusation. It is not fair and it is deeply offensive.
The consequences of not taking action are extremely serious. If we tiptoe around the edges or fail to talk openly about these challenges, we are failing both the victims and the Pakistani community. These victims, mainly young girls, are having their lives ruined at a young age by this vile and disgusting sexual abuse. In 2016, a group of 12 men who committed serious sexual offences against two girls in Keighley and Bradford were jailed for a collective 130 years. One of those girls was raped by five men in succession. Live cases involving grooming gangs are still working their way through the courts. Only last October, 21 men from Keighley and Bradford were arrested for being linked to offences that allegedly occurred against a young female between 2001 and 2009. I know the police are working on many other cases.
If we fail to address all these interlinked social and societal issues, we run the real risk of failing our communities and making them suffer even more, and unfortunately the worst of humanity will exploit it for their own game. This has already happened. In the 2005 general election, on the back of these very issues, the British National party made my constituency of Keighley their No. 1 target seat. It was a campaign that damaged race relations and caused huge upset and hurt. The people of Keighley, quite rightly, rejected the BNP’s nonsense, but if we do not tackle this issue with urgency, we run the risk that others will try to take advantage of it.
These are difficult issues to tackle, but all of us in this House have a responsibility to take action, because if we do not, we will have failed, and the consequences for our communities will be far too great. I say to everyone across Keighley that I will represent them as best I can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke on this topic in the House in October 2019, when I highlighted the report by Barnardo’s, which I want to speak about again. Its survey showed that one third of children who are sexually exploited are looked after. The 498 children helped in one day by the charity’s specialist sexual exploitation service also revealed marked geographical variations, while 29% of them were looked after, 16% had a disability, and 5% had a statement of special educational needs.
The report is shocking and hard to read and follow. It referred to some 10,500 crimes that were flagged by police as child sexual exploitation-related, with victims mostly commonly being female and aged 14 to 17. The main risk factors were being in care, going missing, having a learning disability, drug and alcohol dependency, mental health issues and experience of previous abuse. The report also suggested that group-based CSE offenders appeared to be predominantly but not exclusively male and generally older than those operating in gangs.
My desire is to work with the Government on this issue and to support them in what they bring forward—it is important that I put that on record—as we see how we can ensure that the statistics are not repeated two years down the line. The stats are very worrying and quite distressing. That work starts not just with the funding designated for non-governmental organisations such as Barnardo’s, which do tremendous work in this realm, but adequate funding for police forces. That will enable police forces to work hand in hand with schools, building up relationships and becoming familiar faces. It will mean not having one social worker with upwards of 50 families to deal with. Social workers are under pressure —indeed, the system is under pressure. The difference is that we are talking about little lives and their futures.
The stats for 2001-02 on the mental health of looked-after young people in Great Britain aged five to 17 were really worrying. Some 45% of looked-after children aged five to 17 had a mental health disorder, as defined by the statistical classification of diseases, compared with 10% of the general population. I want to support the Government as they seek to do better. I just need to know what the plan is, how it is to be funded and when the change will begin—for every child in care, it cannot be soon enough.
I put on record my thanks to every foster parent and every adoptive parent who seeks to sow love in the lives of looked-after children. I also thank every church volunteer, youth-club worker, teacher and classroom assistant—every person who works with young people to instil in them the fact that they are loved, important and of value. We need to do better with our children, to protect them, to protect their self-worth and to ensure that every child knows they have someone to go to for help if they have concerns. A key issue is where they can go to, who looks out for them and who ensures that they are protected. I want to encourage us all—let us do more and sow more into children’s lives. That truly will be the measure of the success of our nation and the way we take things forward.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing time in the Chamber to discuss the distressing but sadly prevalent issue of child sexual exploitation. I am grateful for the work that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, along with her ministerial team, has been doing in this policy area. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) for her outstanding and unwavering work to secure justice for all victims of abuse.
I understand that law enforcement capacity and capability is being strengthened and investment made to increase our ability to stop child sexual abuse. I am grateful that the Government have published a national strategy to protect children from all forms of child sexual abuse and published a paper on the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation.
Child exploitation is complex and convoluted. I am concerned that there is currently no provision in legislation to recognise the power imbalance between a child and an adult who targets a child for abuse and exploitation, up until the point that a child is either a victim of sexual abuse or involved in a crime. The lack of recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a child prevents successful prosecutions for sexual offences, as well as for modern slavery offences. Although the abuse happens on a persistent and continual basis, prosecutions often focus on separate counts of offences, requiring a child to remember the details of them all rather than the abuse as a whole. In sexual abuse cases, teenagers aged 16 and 17 need to prove that sexual activity was not consensual.
The definition of child sexual exploitation is aligned with the earlier definition of child prostitution in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and does not reflect the fact that children may be exploited due to the imbalance of power between a child and an adult. Available tools such as sexual risk orders, and modern slavery and trafficking risk orders require criminal-level evidence of proof. They also involve lengthy processes before they are even put in place, which can result in a child remaining in an exploitative situation or the situation escalating to abuse before action can even be taken. Children aged 16 and 17 are not being covered by the provisions of child abduction warning notices or for the purposes of online grooming offences. In the light of these concerns, The Children’s Society is proposing the introduction of a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviours in relation to a child for exploitation purposes. I hope Ministers will consider The Children’s Society’s recommendations.
The sexual exploitation of a child is abhorrent and a serious crime. Working together, we can strengthen the law to hold perpetrators to account and provide their victims with the justice they deserve.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is impossible to discuss these so-called “grooming gangs” without talking about the most infamous epicentre of abuse; we all recall the widespread atrocities that occurred in the Rotherham region, of which my Rother Valley constituency is a part. What happened there is a mark of shame that we as a nation shall all bear until every perpetrator and enabler faces justice. But let us not just call them grooming gangs; let us call them out for what they are. They are paedophiles, rapists, abusers, deviants, perverts and, above all, monsters. Over two decades, in Rotherham alone, 1,500 children, some as young as 11, were raped. Let that sink in: 1,500 children in one town were raped.
However, it did not have to be that way. What makes this pattern of abuse all the more outrageous is the silent complicity of the local authorities who are supposed to protect us and our children. Time and again, the issue was raised, at all levels. Victims and concerned parties reached out to the council, the police and all relevant bodies. Repeatedly, these victims were not only ignored, but vilified. Unbelievably, in some cases they were even given over to their attackers, and they were arrested for actions they had not freely committed. The signs were there for all to see, yet they were ignored for decades.
So why was there a cover-up—for it was a cover-up? The Jay report stated that the agencies turned a blind eye to the localised grooming of young white girls by hundreds and hundreds of men of Pakistani heritage. A five-year investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that the Rotherham police ignored the sexual abuse of children for decades for fear of increasing “racial tensions”. Whistleblowers were given the cold shoulder and council employees lived in fear of being called racist for intervening. That raises the question: if the police and local authorities will not stand up for right and wrong, what chance does anyone have—what chance do our children have? Ethnicity concerns should not have made a jot of difference; a monster is a monster, regardless of their background or ethnicity. However, it was that excuse that allowed so many to get away with so much for so long. The authorities’ aversion to offending sensitivities enabled so much suffering. Let me repeat: the aversion to offending sensitivities allowed thousands of girls to be raped.
Nevertheless, we must try to move forward, for the sake of the victims, their families and the people of Rotherham at large. We all need justice and accountability. Operation Stovewood is making great strides and is currently looking at 1,200 recorded crimes, with 261 designated suspects.
We must ensure that we look after the victims. For instance, Sammy Woodhouse, a brave survivor and one of my constituents, has proposed Sammy’s law, which would pardon child sexual abuse victims for crimes they were coerced into committing and would remove the crimes committed by the children from their criminal record. We must support that; this Government must put that proposed law into action. That is just one way in which we must try to right the wrongs of the past, but we must leave no stone unturned when it comes to the victims. We must also look at those who enabled these things and allowed the perpetrators to get away with it—those who covered it up and ignored it for so long. There is no individual crime more horrific than paedophilia and there is no punishment too severe for the perpetrators of these heinous acts. We must never again allow such things to happen to our children, and we must never again allow those who committed and enabled such monstrous acts to hold any authority in our society.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Facts are often inconvenient. They are sometimes disturbing and occasionally alarming. The facts are that in Oxford, 373 children, including 50 boys, may have been targeted over a 16-year period, according to a serious case review. In Rotherham, as we have heard, 1,500 children—most of them white girls between the age of 11 and 15—were sexually abused, predominantly by British Pakistani men. In Rochdale, nine men who abused girls as young as 13 were convicted over a child sex grooming ring, and we know again that the Pakistani community was disproportionately represented among those convicted.
Those are the facts, but the fiction—well illustrated by the Home Office report published last December, which is a study in obfuscation, by the way—is that we cannot draw conclusions about whether certain ethnicities are over-represented in this type of offending. We must not allow concerns about causing offence to leave children vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Of course it is true that all kinds of people do all kinds of wicked things—people from all parts of this country and of all ethnicities—but there is a proven relationship with certain subcultures and a subset of a particular community being engaged in this activity. The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) recognised that, as does the current Home Secretary. The reports and studies into these events recognise all that, so let us deal with facts rather than fiction.
Mindful of that, I must also note that the Jay report and other inquiries show a proven link to taxis. Taxis were used to cruise and pick up young girls from care homes and even schools. As the Minister of State for Transport, I commissioned a report into taxi licensing with a view to putting safety at the top of the agenda. That report, which was conducted by Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq on my behalf, looked at how taxis could be made safer, partly on the back of the events in Rochdale and Rotherham and elsewhere. It is imperative that the Government now look again at that report and put into law those recommendations, which will guarantee that these things do not happen again. My dear friend—though he is not an hon. Friend in the technical sense—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) brought forward a private Member’s Bill which would have gone some way to putting those recommendations in place, and I ask the Government to please look at that Bill again.
The Home Office needs to rethink this matter, and I think the Home Secretary knows it. We owe it not only as a matter of respect to previous victims, but as a matter of care to those who might be victims in the future. We owe it to the vast majority of our British Asian community who share our horror at what has occurred. Most of all, we owe it to ourselves as legislators, for if we care enough, and I believe that Ministers and Members of this House do, we must do enough to protect the vulnerable.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
I thank the petitioners, and I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to the Chamber, as well as Members for making some very thoughtful and powerful contributions, many of which are based on years of experience in championing the rights of victims.
As the Home Office research we are debating states:
“Group-based CSE has been the subject of major investigations, attracting significant public concern and highlighting shocking state failures that have caused untold hurt to victims, their families and communities.”
That horrendous untold harm caused by these hideous crimes has been spread right across the towns and cities of the United Kingdom.
In relation to the specific petitions before us today, I will make three short points. First, research designed to provide a greater understanding of different types of offending behaviour is far from unusual. It can help inform policing and the wider Government response. The better we understand crime and criminals, the better, it is hoped, we can prevent these shocking crimes from happening in the first place, and that includes looking at what backgrounds offenders come from. All sorts of lessons can be learned not just for policing and criminal justice policy, but for wider social policy. However, as colleagues have rightly warned, great care must be taken in interpreting results and to prevent their being used by people who are determined to sow division, rather than to help victims.
We must also be careful that such research does not lead to counterproductive stereotypes. As the paper points out in relation to victims:
“Although awareness of vulnerability can be helpful, it can also contribute to stereotypes about what a victim of child sexual exploitation looks like, with the consequence that victims who differ from that picture are overlooked or unwilling to come forward in the belief that they will not be believed.”
In the same way, we should not fall into the trap of creating stereotypes of grooming gangs in case we fail to apprehend the ones that do not conform to it, or make it more difficult for their victims to feel confident about coming forward.
Secondly, on what the publication actually tells us, the review concludes that offenders are overwhelmingly male. There are some patterns for age and some limited patterns for social background. However, despite high-profile cases involving British Pakistani gangs, the fact is that there is no robust evidence on ethnicity:
“Based on the existing evidence…it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White.”
That is an important point, but as the report goes on to say
“this does not mean that cultural characteristics of offender groups are irrelevant or should be ignored by local agencies.”
Far from it: an approach to deterring, disrupting and preventing offending that recognises, acknowledges and takes account of the communities in which offending occurs is absolutely essential. We need such an approach, for example, to ensure all victims feel able to come forward and speak about what is happening to them, to identify suspicious patterns of behaviour or follow lines of inquiry, and to ask the questions that have to be asked and ask them of the right people. Too often in the past that just has not happened.
Thirdly, I hope the published report has been useful and has informed the new strategy. I do gently query with the Minister what exactly the Home Secretary seeks to achieve by apparently seeking yet more research on whether any particular group is over or under-represented among offenders, and how a more accurate picture can really be expected to emerge given the huge problems about reporting and classification. How will that change anything in Government strategy? Surely the most important point is that we have enough information to take action already, and the focus now must be on scrutiny of the new strategy—a welcome strategy—and of the co-ordinated and properly funded action that must follow in order to deliver justice.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing us here today. I, like others, think that this should have more prominence than waiting for the public to raise it; it should be front and centre in our thinking.
I remember the words of the girl who sat in front of me 10 years ago as she described, as if it were completely normal, a line-up of men at a party waiting for her to perform oral sex on them. She said it to me as if it was an everyday thing—no biggie. A year later, I was called to a school where a group of boys had sexually abused, assaulted and exploited over 50 girls at their school. I spent hours and hours interviewing young people and children about their experiences of sexual exploitation and abuse, and I realised how normalised, even in my own childhood, had become the idea that men can pass around girls and women among friends and associates in order to broker power, money and status.
In the last 15 years, thanks to the bravery of victims of sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, and also to the bravery of whistleblowers from police forces, sexual health services, youth workers and brilliant campaigners such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), we better understand this heinous crime. Less than a decade ago, terms such as child prostitute were bandied around and children were still considered troublemakers rather than victims. The last decade has taught us many things. This crime should never have been ignored, and these children were failed by pretty much everyone. Anyone who seeks to use this horror as a political tool, rather than having a laser-like focus on saving the victims and bringing to justice the perpetrators, should be ashamed. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) said really eloquently, this issue is not a tool to be further exploited.
The Government have now published the long-awaited review that the petition called for. I am only sorry that the delay meant that further distrust and misdirection on this issue was allowed to gain traction. Transparency, openness and robust external and internal critique of state agencies is the only way that we are going to combat this crime and win back trust.
Let me turn to the Government’s newly released strategy on combating child sexual abuse. The strategy is good in the most part. As other Members have said today, it is a first step in the right direction. I am sure that the Minister will expect nothing less from me than a promise that at every single stage that this strategy is rolled out, I will be there asking exactly how the Government are going to do all the things they say they are going to do. I will keep on at her Department every week and check on progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham is usually right about these things and she was right today that unregulated care homes have to be sorted, and that pre-charge bail should be—without question in this area, and in many others when it comes to vulnerable people—sorted immediately. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) also made very good recommendations, and I could not agree more with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) with regard to taxi licensing and the effort that needs to be put in there. The Government should do all these things; not one of them is in the strategy currently.
The strategy talks about working together, and we have heard a lot about cross-Government Departments needing to work together. I have spent the last decade, at least, sitting through review after review on this topic, meeting after meeting, homicide review and serious case review after another. In every meeting, I heard the language of “agencies do not work together well enough” and “information sharing is a problem”. In 10 years’ time, I will hear the exact same thing. Saying this and writing it into a strategy will change nothing. We have to make sure now—today—that this is not about what review we want to do; it is about what we want to change and how it can be different this time.
I turn to the proposals for schools in the strategy. There are very few people in this House who would not support the sentiment of a strategy that says, “We will educate children and young people about healthy relationships in a digital world”—noble indeed.
Yet only this week we have seen the publication of school materials being used in some schools in the UK that are teaching, and I quote:
“within a romantic relationship between male and female, masculinity is more about initiating”,
whereas,
“femininity is more about receiving and responding”.
The Government continually shrug their shoulders about these incidents, but they need to understand that without proper funding, robust safeguards and proper scrutiny, there is a potential that the roll-out of healthy relationships education could be anything but. Telling girls to expect men to initiate sex, and for them to receive it and respond to it, is dangerous. What will the Government do to monitor what is being taught? Saying that prevention will happen in our schools will take much more work than just words written on paper.
If I were to reflect on the whistleblowers in famous cases, including Sara Rowbotham and others from Rochdale mentioned by Members today, I would find that it was youth workers and sexual health workers who tried to speak up for the hundreds of girls that they were seeing being abused and exploited, yet over the past 10 years we have seen huge reductions in the numbers of youth workers and detached sexual health practitioners. Years of cutting back these services as if they were a luxury means that in any strategy the Government write now, they have to build from no base. A decade after these scandals, we should not still be in pilot phase after pilot phase.
The Government’s own strategy outlines that in the year ending March 2020, there were 58,000 police-recorded incidents of contact child sexual abuse—abuse where contact was made, not on the internet. In the year ending December 2019, only around 3,700 defendants were charged and 2,700 were convicted. That suggests that there are tens of thousands of incidents of contact child abuse reported with no further action. The number of convictions has been reducing since 2016. This situation is getting worse; we are convicting fewer people. The Government have been in power for a decade and they have been talking tough on this issue for pretty much all that time, yet numbers show appalling charges and conviction rates, which are getting worse.
I want to close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims of this crime and saying some of the things that they have asked me to say today. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), I spoke to Sammy Woodhouse just earlier this morning; I speak to her regularly. Sammy, as many have mentioned, was horrendously abused from the age of 14 and had a son born of repeated rape by Arshid Hussain. Sammy wanted me to specifically raise the issue that it is still very much the law in this land that her rapist should be allowed, and in fact in her case was encouraged, to seek access to her son through the family courts—a man who abused her as a child given credence as a father.
Sammy’s case, as the Minister knows, is by no means an exception. We can all stand here and be fire and brimstone about the rapists and child abusers—monsters, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said—who perpetrate these crimes; however, here in this building we have repeatedly failed to legislate to prevent these rapists and other perpetrators of child abuse and domestic and sexual violence from continuing the abuse of their victims into adulthood through the family courts. This is on us; it is our failings—it is the law that has been too meek to change and to stop rapists like Sammy’s rapist being able to access her child.
Sammy and other victims have also asked me to raise specifically in this place the fact that we must have better service provision and protection for children born of rape. Currently, the system sees them merely as silent bystanders. Victims have asked that I bring to the Minister’s attention Sammy’s law, which has been mentioned many times, and I fully back the many calls today to implement that immediately.
The crime of child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse happens across every part of the country; sadly, it happens in every community. The modus operandi of the perpetrators is the same; it is as if there were a manual online about how to target vulnerable people, exploit their weaknesses and then groom them to think it is their fault.
The nation has been shocked and appalled by these crimes for a decade. The victims of high-profile cases have been used as political footballs for the same length of time, when all they ever wanted was for this to never happen again, for victims like them to be heard, and for the crime to be understood. The time for action has long passed; let us do everything we can together, with every lever we can pull, to change this story once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins) [V]
I would like to start by thanking the members of the public who signed these petitions raising this very important issue and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and other hon. Members across the House for being their voices in this debate and representing them powerfully and thoughtfully.
This Government have made it our mission to protect the most vulnerable in our society, including by tackling child sexual abuse. In our work we have listened to victims and survivors about their horrifying experiences—how they were let down by the state and betrayed by those whose job it was to protect them. These injustices were set out eloquently by hon. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore), the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) and others. This should never have happened and must not happen again.
Political or cultural sensitivities must not deter national and local agencies from investigating and preventing these devastating crimes. Victims of sexual violence deserve justice regardless of the background, the status, the race or any other characteristic of the perpetrator. Abuse is abuse, and everyone is equal under the law.
That is why in May last year the Home Secretary committed to publishing a paper looking at the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation, which was published in December. I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, however, that this paper is by no means the end of our work on this issue; more must be done by Government, law enforcement and partners to better safeguard children and tackle perpetrators of this form of abuse and the many other forms of child sexual abuse that exist both offline and online. That is why we published the tackling child sexual abuse strategy last month to work on all forms of CSA. The strategy sets out how we will work across Government—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Rotherham—as well as with law enforcement, safeguarding partners and industry to root out offending, to protect victims and to help them rebuild their lives. It builds on the action plan described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The paper on group-based sexual exploitation plays an important role in the strategy and its implementation now and in the future.
I will go into a little detail about how the paper was developed, its findings and how we plan to build on this work in the future. The paper was informed by an analysis of published academic research, official statistics and work published by organisations that work with child sexual exploitation victims and survivors. In addition, police officers and safeguarding officers across the country with experience in investigating this type of offending were interviewed. The paper reflects the insights drawn from across all this work.
This is a complex and deeply sensitive issue. To ensure that the paper was robust and scrutinised, we convened an external reference group consisting of independent experts on child sexual exploitation, who reviewed and informed this work throughout. The group included survivors, leading academics and highly experienced professionals from the criminal justice system and the children’s sector, as well as the hon. Member for Rotherham, who has done so much in this area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), who is similarly determined to shine a light on this offending. The insight and expertise that the group provided was invaluable, and I thank them all for their diligence and contributions.
Taking all this work together, we saw, for example, that offender networks are often loosely interconnected and based around existing social connections. This means that they are often broadly homogeneous in ethnic background, socioeconomic status and age. Contact with potential victims may take place in locations often visited by offenders and where safeguards around victims are lower. Hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), have raised the frequency with which taxis and takeaway restaurants have featured in the highest-profile cases. Studies indicate that motivations differ between offenders, but that a sexual interest is children is not always the predominant motive. Financial gain and a desire for sexual gratification are common motives, and offenders commonly demonstrate attitudes of misogyny and disdain for women and girls, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and the shadow Minister.
Ethnicity has been raised by several Members. The paper refers to a number of studies that have indicated an over-representation of Asian and black offenders in committing this type of offending. It is difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders as existing research is limited and data collection is poor. This is disappointing, and it is something that we are determined to address through the national strategy, because accurate data is clearly vital in developing the right response in local areas.
We have therefore made a number of commitments in the tackling child sexual abuse strategy. The Home Office will work with criminal justice partners, charities, frontline professionals and others on improving the range and quality of data collected, including on the ethnicity of offenders. We will then use this data to help protect children by preventing and detecting offending. Hon. Members have asked whether we can count the defendants who have already been convicted. Officials have looked at this, but because there is no specific category of group-based sexual abuse, such offences cannot be isolated. But, as I say, we want to correct that in the future.
We are investing in the police-led tackling organised exploitation project, which is piloting new ways of investigating organised forms of exploitation through the innovative use of data. We will publish a new and enhanced child exploitation disruption toolkit that promotes the use of the full range of powers available to agencies, such as civil orders, licensing powers and safeguarding interventions, so that they can stop offending with every tool at their disposal.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who supports the work of the Children’s Society. Although I cannot answer all her requests tonight, we will continue to invest in the Children’s Society’s prevention programme, which works with local agencies to prevent exploitation and abuse. Recent examples of the programme’s work include working with the police in Yorkshire to deliver training to taxi drivers, and working with delivery drivers and couriers to support them in identifying CSA in the context of the pandemic. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) knows, the Ministry of Justice is looking into the issues in the family courts that have arisen out of the expert panel on harm’s review—in particular, contact with parents.
The second petition calls for an independent inquiry. I will touch on that briefly, because I want to give time for my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to respond to the debate. The Government share the public’s concerns about failures and the need to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. In 2015, the Government established the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The inquiry concluded its public hearings in December, after taking evidence from more than 600 witnesses over four years. It held 323 days of public hearings across 15 investigations and has published 14 reports so far, with more than 50 recommendations to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. We expect to receive the final report of the inquiry in 2022.
The inquiry is independent of Government and decides for itself what to investigate and how. It has investigated the nature and extent of, and institutional responses to, the sexual exploitation of children by organised networks, and the public hearing into that strand concluded in October last year. Evidence was heard from a range of witnesses, including victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation, as well as representatives of police forces, local authorities, Government Departments and charities. The inquiry will publish a report of the investigation in autumn this year, setting out its conclusions, and we welcome this scrutiny.
Finally, I would like to thank again the signatories of both petitions, as well as the victims and survivors around the country who find somehow the wherewithal to work with us and the police to help prevent these terrible crimes and support other victims. As has been so well articulated in the debate, these crimes affect not only the immediate victims of the abuse but entire communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Keighley set out some of the impacts in their constituencies and the damage that can be done to trust in the processes, systems and authorities that are there to protect people.
We are determined to ensure that Government, law enforcement and other partners better understand that any community and cultural factors relevant to tackling offending must not and cannot get in the way. As the Home Secretary said:
“What happened to these children remains one of the biggest stains on our country’s conscience.”
That is why we must do everything in our power to safeguard children from abuse, deliver justice for victims and survivors and restore the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to confront these devastating crimes.
Tom Hunt
I would like to thank all the contributors to this very powerful debate. I think there was quite a lot of cross-party agreement on many of the core issues. I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment that this is not the end of the process and that these difficult questions will continue to be asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) was on the review group, and I know that he had significant concerns that, even now, there is significant pushback from certain elements of the establishment to the steps that the Government need to take to get to the root of this, to understand it properly and to make sure that we nip this in the bud and do not continue to have a situation where primarily our girls of this country are suffering this appalling abuse.
As I said at the start, my heart goes out to the victims of this abuse, all their friends and family and the communities. We must not allow political correctness and a concern about sensitivities to get in the way of addressing these issues, because it does not solve the problem. It can often make it worse, and this is much too important an issue to get wrong. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 300239 and 327566 relating to grooming gangs.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bereavement
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I would like to point out that a number of hon. and right hon. Members wished to speak or intervene in this debate, but due to the constraints of virtual participation that has not been possible. However, I did say I would mention my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who sadly lost his grown-up daughter last year when she passed away. I offer my condolences and respects to him, and indeed to everyone who is suffering such grievous loss and seeking to cope with it.
I thank the charities Settld, Cruse Bereavement Care and Sue Ryder, which helped me to prepare for this debate. They are leaders in their field, supporting people to cope with bereavement and the loss of a family member or friend. As you reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, at 6 o’clock the whole nation mourned the passing of Captain Sir Tom Moore, but more than 100,000 deaths have occurred because of the pandemic, leaving thousands to cope with the challenges of bereavement. These issues have never been more pressing.
I want the Minister to respond to three specific points. The first relates to the bereavement standard, the second to digital death certificates, and the third to statutory bereavement leave. These are the three issues that the charities supporting grieving families have identified as the most important, but currently we lack cross-governmental co-ordination and focus on them. Issues to do with bereavement run across several Government Departments, including the Departments of Health and Social Care, for Work and Pensions and for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way; I spoke to him beforehand about making an intervention. This is an issue that grieves us greatly. Does he not agree that in these dreadful days, when people cannot attend wakes or go through the normal stages of grief, there is more need than ever for support and care for those who grieve in these awful dark days, for those who are losing their loved ones from covid, from cancer and through accidents, and for those who cannot bear it any more? There really is a need to do better.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. There are some specific things that we in this House can do and that the Government can do in relation to the bereavement standard.
Grahame Morris
I will give way to the hon. Lady, who also indicated earlier that she would like to intervene.
Wendy Chamberlain
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that although work is being done in the private sector around the bereavement standard and we have the Government’s Tell Us Once service, we are still getting too many clumsy mistakes when we are dealing with grief? I had a constituent who received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions addressed to his wife to tell her that she was no longer eligible for employment and support allowance because she had died. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do more?
Grahame Morris
I completely agree with that, and I want to develop those arguments.
Grahame Morris
I am willing to take one more intervention, but I want the Minister to have time to respond. I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir John Hayes
I wanted the hon. Gentleman to get all his interventions in at once, so his flow can continue. He will know that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement. I wonder if he could add to his list of demands for the Minister the provision of vaccinations and personal protective equipment for frontline funeral staff, and a clearer line about the policing of funerals. There are some suggestions that funeral directors are being held liable for enforcing sensible rules on funerals. We need greater clarity on that, too, and I am very grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make those points.
Grahame Morris
As always, the right hon. Gentleman makes eminently sensible points born out of his experience with the all-party group. The three suggestions or demands that I have put forward are those that are identified by the three charities I mentioned earlier, but certainly personally I do agree with him on vaccination, funeral arrangements and so on.
I would like to ask the Minister to look at the issue of cross-governmental co-ordination and improved focus on these issues. I understand that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) is often identified as the Minister for bereavement. I am delighted that we have the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) as the Minister today, but we certainly need a clear ministerial lead on bereavement to ensure there is proper co-ordination on the issues raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others. Otherwise, bereaved families will continue to slip through the net and be passed from pillar to post, which is distressing and frustrating.
A bereavement standard would benefit business and the bereaved by providing a clear, concise and consistent process to close accounts when a loved one dies. A bereavement standard would establish, first, an agreed timeframe for companies to respond to bereavement enquiries and settle outstanding customer balances. Members will be aware that the existing arrangements, the Tell Us Once service to which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) referred, applies only to the public sector, and not to private companies, utilities and banks. Secondly, a bereavement standard would establish a dedicated bereavement customer care direct email channel for each company to handle such cases and avoid customers waiting on calls. Thirdly, it would establish the standardisation of paperwork needed to close an account, with a view to accepting—this is a really important point in the age we live in—digital documents wherever possible.
I anticipate that the Minister will, in his reply, refer to the excellent bereavement standard that already exists in the public sector. The Tell Us Once service is working well, ensuring that bereaved people do not have to go through the trauma of telling every single Government Department that they have lost a loved one, but we need exactly the same in the private sector to cover banks, utilities, insurance companies and more: a standard process across all organisations and companies, with specifically trained staff dealing with bereavement and an agreed timescale to close accounts and resolve issues. There is nothing more distressing than when such inquiries drag on for months and months.
At one of the most challenging times in life, I hope we all agree—this is a cross-party issue; I am not seeking to make a party political point here—that families should not have to spend hours going back and forth with companies, waiting months to close an account. Research from Settld and Cruse Bereavement Care shows that the vast majority of bereaved people described the administration processes as time-consuming and stressful. A quarter found it traumatic, especially having to phone so many individual companies and repeat time and again, “My husband/wife/father/mother has died.”
The single most important action the Government can take to support families would be to introduce a digital death certificate. This would enable families to close accounts quickly, initiate probate and engage specialist services such as Settld to deal with the administration following a death. When asked to introduce digital death certificates, in a written response, a Home Office Minister responded:
“There is currently no provision in law to issue a death certificate other than in a paper format.”
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on his powerful speech. Will he join me in calling on the Government to issue clear guidance for families who have lost a loved one who suffered from industrial diseases, such as the many miners that he and I represent, to ensure that those families receive the compensation that they are entitled to?
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am tempted to go off at a tangent, because it is an issue that I feel terribly passionate about, particularly given the age of many miners and their widows, who have to deal with the complications with utility companies and so on, which will not accept digital death certificates. There are complexities when the cause of death is an industrial disease such as pneumoconiosis and the complications of it. It is a very important point, and the Government could do something about it by issuing guidance to assist those families.
There is currently no provision to issue a digital death certificate. As I said, when asked, the Minister said it was not possible to issue a certificate except in a paper format. However, time and again, when concerns have been voiced about digital exclusion, we have been told that there is a policy of “digital by default”—indeed, the Government have estimated that by moving services to digital channels, they could achieve savings of up to £1.8 billion a year. Digital by default should not only deliver savings to the Government, but should help better serve the people we represent.
The Minister is, I hope, aware of the widespread support for the bereavement standard. A YouGov poll showed that 80% of the British public agree with all three of the proposed bereavement standard elements. Indeed, an early-day motion tabled by yours truly, No. 818, “Supporting grieving families through a bereavement standard”, has been signed by 53 Members of Parliament from eight political parties, including, I think, the hon. Members present today, and almost 92,000 have signed the petition by Settld, Cruse Bereavement Care and Sue Ryder. So, potentially, through the Petitions Committee we might have an opportunity for a longer debate if the Minister cannot be persuaded of the arguments tonight.
Fundamentally, this is a debate about care and compassion. Bereavement is a life experience that, sadly, will affect each and every one of us at some time. Coping with the loss of a loved one requires time and space to grieve. Some companies, to be fair, show immense care and compassion to employees at such times, but not all companies do.
Bereavement and death are the ultimate equalisers; both will come to us all. The pandemic, the scale of the loss, a nation in mourning should focus all of our minds and give us the strength to act. We have an opportunity to create a caring and compassionate system—one that can assist bereaved families at the most difficult time that they will experience in life. So, Minister, I ask for a positive response and a promise of progress on the three issues raised today—the bereavement standard, digital death certificates and statutory bereavement leave.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing tonight’s debate and on the interesting way in which he framed the three asks. I echo his condolences to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) following the loss of his daughter. That must be so painful.
The debate is on a pertinent issue, so I was so grateful to the hon. Member for Easington for bringing it to Parliament and continuing his work in this area. We have heard of the painful impact of bereavement on individuals and families, and we have seen it over the past year in particular. I sympathise with anyone who has lost a loved one. It is deeply painful to lose a person who has played a special role in our lives. It is a sad truth that we will all experience loss or bereavement in our lives, so the hon. Gentleman speaks of many of our personal experiences. That inevitability does not make those feelings easier to manage, and many of us will feel overwhelmed with the sense of loss, but it highlights the importance of ensuring that consumers dealing with bereavement face the minimal amount of difficulty as they carry out their necessary business. It is intuitive that we want to improve the bereavement process, to make dealing with the accounts of the deceased more efficient and streamlined. After all, that time can be better spent on handling our emotions and continuing with our day-to-day lives. I am grateful for the many companies that already excel in supporting consumers in vulnerable positions, particularly those experienced with bereavement. But the hon. Gentleman spoke from the heart, and I am grateful to him for continuing to raise awareness of the issues facing consumers.
We are all aware of the far-reaching impact that covid-19 has had on our lives and the suffering that it can bring—whether the personal loss of loved ones or simply hearing about the virus’s mortality rates in the media. The Chamber may recall that, like many in the House, I am all too familiar, unfortunately, with the heavy toll that coronavirus has taken: sadly, my mother died just before the first lockdown and two uncles have died. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talking about industrial diseases; my father died of mesothelioma after having inhaled asbestos when he was doing his apprenticeship on the docks. That was in Yangon and Glasgow, so it was even more complicated and difficult to work through that process. It is important that in such complicated situations, we see what more we can do to help.
People around the country are supporting one another during this trying period—friends, families, charities and businesses. We must reach out and take the opportunity to thank them. It is also a trying time for many in business, yet many continue to excel in meeting the complex needs of consumers. Many firms across the sectors offer emotional training to staff, dedicated channels for the bereaved and clear access to information. I am grateful to those businesses for supporting their consumers during an already stressful time.
But bereavement is not one moment in our lives; it is a deeply personal experience. We can live with bereavement all our lives and feel various degrees of emotion at any given moment. It is important that we acknowledge that when we respond to the issues facing those who experience bereavement. Closing accounts and settling estates is a small snapshot of that experience. The Government continue to support those dealing with loss across the piece.
Due to the excess numbers of deaths, especially now that we have reached the tragic point of 100,000 covid-19 deaths, and the increasingly complex grief for many people due to the disruptions to normal grieving processes, we expect a significant increase in demand for bereavement support during the medium to long term. We are taking a cross-Government approach to supporting bereavement services as the pandemic highlights the essential work that these organisations provide and the significant strain that they are under.
When a bereavement is particularly debilitating or likely to have a longer-term impact on an individual’s mental or physical health, they have access to our excellent national health service. In May 2020, the Government announced £4.2 million of additional funding to mental health charities and charities providing bereavement support. That was part of a £750 million package of support for the voluntary sector, announced by the Chancellor in April 2020. As part of our support for those experiencing bereavement, the Government continue their commitment to improve outcomes for consumers in vulnerable positions.
Bereavement is the prime example of how we can all be vulnerable at some point in our lives. The Government frequently work with regulators to ensure co-ordinating support for those in vulnerable positions—whether the consumer is struggling to pay their bills, suffering from a medical condition or struggling to engage with the market in some way. Those regulated sectors rightly recognise bereavement as a vulnerability and regulated firms are expected to treat consumers fairly, with dignity and respect. Many of them do meet very high standards in this regard. Research shows that consumers often receive excellent, compassionate service from their providers when dealing with end-of-life administration. Numerous provisions are made by the regulators to embed that good practice across the essential service sectors.
In energy, Ofgem is committed to protecting consumers in vulnerable circumstances and has a comprehensive consumer protection framework in place. It works with a flexible definition of vulnerability, enabling a spectrum of consumers to seek the necessary support from their provider. Ofgem has explicitly mentioned bereavement as a personal circumstance that can make someone vulnerable. Firms are therefore expected to treat consumers experiencing bereavement fairly and compassionately, as many do. That is a trend across the sectors. Water companies are expected to better identify and support customers in circumstances that make those customers vulnerable, including bereavement. Telecoms companies are expected to be dynamic in their approach to vulnerability and to treat consumers fairly and appropriately, responding sensitively to changes in circumstances such as bereavement.
Grahame Morris
The standard is enormously variable. I am losing what little hair I have left in a row with a telecoms company. It is so difficult even to speak to a human being, at times. Would it not be advantageous for the companies concerned to have a simpler system that works for consumers? Some 80% have indicated in a survey that they do not think the current arrangements are satisfactory. Will the Minister consider giving free passage to a private Member’s Bill—not necessarily from me, but perhaps from a Government Member—for this proposal?
Paul Scully
There will always be stories, and it is important that we work through those stories and the evidence with regulators. I will come back to that in a second. I appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman cites, but we must welcome the good pieces of work from the independent regulators. The Government also welcome industry innovation, particularly when it addresses such pertinent issues.
It is important that we recognise the work of regulators and businesses to improve outcomes for the bereaved, but there is still more work to be done, as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out. I am grateful to him for seizing the initiative. It is essential that we give these issues the time and attention they deserve. The deeper our insight, the better equipped we are to explore the most valuable options for the consumer. A hastily developed approach may mean a worse outcome for consumers. For example, pursuing standardisation whereby all sectors must meet the most stringent security requirements for account closures may be unnecessary and add hassle for consumers at an enormously difficult time. It is costly to business and harmful to consumers who are in a vulnerable position.
In November last year, I convened the regulators and sponsor Departments to discuss what work can be done around the important issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We are working with regulators, industry and charity experts—
Sir John Hayes
Part of the issue is that too many services have gone online, which is to some degree a consequence of the current crisis. We need to encourage such businesses and agencies, particularly when they are dealing with older people, to have face-to-face or phone-to-phone contact. As far as e-government is concerned, we want more p-government, where p stands for people.
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend talks about people, and people are at the heart of any business, service or organisation. Whether it is e or p, we cannot lose the personal.
This is exactly the kind of work that I want to continue with our regulators and sponsor Departments, to make sure that we can raise these issues, develop our understanding and put in any necessary action to support businesses in delivering the caring, simple processes that bereaved people need. I assure the hon. Member for Easington that improving outcomes for bereaved consumers remains a priority for Government.
As well as talking about the standard, the hon. Gentleman spoke about digital copies of death certification, and clarity for business and consumers to allow the markets to function more effectively. The Government are working with regulators to understand what we can do to provide more clarity and confidence for firms on the use of digital copies of death certificates. For the record, and to avoid conflating concepts, it should be noted that digital death certificates do not exist; digital copies of death certification refer to the scanned copies of documents.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about bereavement leave. I hope that with me, he will welcome Jack’s law, which came into force last year, on parental bereavement leave and pay. It is a good start. I know that he wants to go further, but we should bear in mind that this is a statutory minimum. When we look at workers’ protections and workers’ rights, which have been the subject of debate over the last few weeks, we see that all these things are statutory minimums. As a former employer who has run businesses, I know that doing the bare minimum is not good business practice; we invest in our people. We will always ask employers to go further.
The Government are working to better understand what issues and problems bereaved consumers persistently face in the essential service sectors. We support and value the good work that the regulators in those sectors have done and are doing on these issues, and we know that many businesses already offer bereaved customers both compassion and efficient service.
We remain committed to improving outcomes for all consumers experiencing vulnerability, including those facing bereavement, and we will continue to work through the issues that the hon. Member has raised and carefully consider his suggestions. We encourage all businesses to treat all consumers with compassion and understanding, particularly when those consumers are faced with emotional hardship, and we thank those that are already doing exactly that.
I thank the hon. Member once again for his contribution to the debate. I also thank the other hon. and right hon. Members who intervened and contributed, and everyone who continues to work hard to raise awareness of issues facing consumers dealing with bereavement and loss.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Alan Campbell (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con) | Sammy Wilson |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Chris Loder |
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 |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
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 |
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) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 3rd February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 View all Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2021 - (3 Feb 2021)
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing, which thankfully you all are doing, and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee whenever you are not speaking. If necessary, I will intervene to remind you. Note passing should be electronic only. The Hansard reporters will be most grateful if Members email any electronic copies of speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. In this case, there will be three debates: the first on the amendment, the second on the existing content of the Bill, and the third on the new clause.
Clause 1
Mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain animal welfare offences
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) After subsection (1) insert—
(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8, and the person guilty of the offence—
(a) filmed themselves committing the offence, or
(b) posted online a video of themselves committing the offence.
(1B) The court—
(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.”
This amendment would make an offence covered by this Bill more serious for the purpose of sentencing if the guilty person filmed themselves, or posted a video online of themselves, committing it.
The amendment stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are all here because we want to give a voice to the voiceless and to speak up for the animals that cannot speak for themselves. That is, for me, something very personal, and I know that for many other members of the Bill Committee, protecting animals and giving them a voice is something that they have made a key part of their parliamentary career and time—whether longer or shorter—in this place.
Those who are familiar with me speaking about animal cruelty will know that I normally cite the gorgeous Bumblesnarf, which was one of my early cats and whose name was obviously taken from Bumblebee from “Transformers” and Snarf from “ThunderCats”. Animals have an integrity all by themselves. Whether we are talking about my animals or the ones that the Minister talks about in her speeches, there is something profoundly special about those little bundles of fluff, something very important, something that we should give due respect to in the way we treat them and the way they are treated by the law.
We know that there has been a huge increase in animal cruelty, especially during lockdown. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has dealt with 106,676 incidents—an average of 790 a day. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for introducing the Bill, which has taken many different forms and iterations over the past few years. It has been a baton passed from the Labour party to the Conservatives, and vice versa.
It is important to say early on that the Bill enjoys cross-party support. We want to see it progress and will be supporting it today. We will not push any of our amendments to a vote, because that ensures that fewer Members are required today, at a time of national lockdown, but we will seek to divide the House on Report. I hope, looking at the Minister, that she can give a nod that says the Bill will be considered on Report, will be adopted by the Government and will be pushed through the House, particularly because we know that the end of the Session is coming up and, if there is no carry-over motion, this Bill will fall, as all the others have done. It sometimes seems that the Bill enjoys so much support that it does not get enough attention to actually be placed on the Government agenda for parliamentary business. I hope that that will be different this time round.
Raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty is common sense and has support across the House. That would also bring England and Wales in line with Canada, Australia, Latvia, New Zealand and, closer to home, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The truth is that the Bill has been in the long grass for far too long and has not had the attention it deserves. That means that its component parts and proposed amendments have not been given due attention. My amendment was first proposed to the Bill introduced in July 2016 by the then Labour MP for Redcar, Anna Turley, who deserves many thanks for all the work that she did in drafting the Bill and introducing it in such a clear, professional and non-partisan way.
The Government at the time said that they would support the Bill and even published a further Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. We had that Bill in Committee last year, but it fell because of the general election. We now have this private Member’s Bill and I have written to the Secretary of State twice to ask him to find time to pass it before the end of the Session. As I mentioned, there is no time to waste.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela, particularly given your long record of fighting for animal welfare.
I want briefly to echo many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Labour entirely supports the Bill and would like it to have reached the statute book years ago, when the previous Member for Redcar introduced its first iteration to the House in 2016. It is disappointing and frustrating that it has taken so long to get to this stage, and that the Bill is the second of its nature to be considered in Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset on his perseverance and wish him luck in getting the Bill on the statute book. We are concerned about time running out and, as my hon. Friend has said, we are looking for guidance from the Minister and want to hear that the Government will get behind the measure. We urge her to be clear about the timetable.
We fully back the Bill. It is imperative that those who perpetrate cruelty against animals should be subject to a penalty that matches the seriousness of their crime. It is clear that the maximum penalty in England and Wales of six months in prison, an unlimited fine and being banned from keeping animals is inadequate. Many of us were present on Second Reading and heard numerous examples of sentences whose severity simply did not match awfulness of the crimes.
There is already a five-year maximum sentence in Northern Ireland, and Scotland matched that in July. It seems to us that we need parity of sentencing across the UK and an end to the bewildering state of affairs whereby England and Wales are left with some of the lowest maximum sentences in the world.
As my hon. Friend has said, there are concerns that we want briefly to explore through our amendments. We very much agree with the previous MP for Redcar, who introduced the first Bill, that the filming of cruelty against animals should be considered an aggravating factor by courts in considering the offence. It is already listed as one in the sentencing guidelines to the 2006 Act, but we think it is important that that should be in the Bill.
We have heard that one of the overwhelming issues in the deeply distressing case of Baby the bulldog was the fact that those involved filmed themselves. People not only abusing animals, but recording it and, nowadays, sharing it on social media, with the intention of glorifying and amplifying the abuse, should be taken into account.
We are in a changing world. The Internet Watch Foundation is close to the Cambridge and frequently tells me about its work, which is an ongoing struggle in the online world. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, I hope the Minister will have a word with her colleagues in DCMS about making sure that that aspect of the matter is taken into account in any future legislation.
As the available technology changes, the law must keep up. To abuse innocent animals and, not only that, to record the abuse for entertainment shows, I am afraid, a malicious intent that should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.
The very unfortunate delay in the passage of the Bill was caused, as hon. Members across the House will understand, by the need to find an appropriate parliamentary slot in what has been a stretched timetable in the past few years. We have had to deal with Brexit and then, of course, we were hit, just as every workplace has been, by the covid pandemic. That naturally reduced the number of hours we could sit, and severely curtailed what we could do, but I reassure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to increasing custodial penalties in sentencing for animal cruelty. We will do all we can to support the Bill’s swift passage through both the Commons and the other place.
Perhaps I may have a useful conversation with Opposition Members about how we all work together to manage that. This morning, I had a very useful conversation with Mr Speaker about the Bill, and he is a big supporter of animal welfare. We all wish the Bill—and its champion, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset—well during the next stages of consideration. The more we can do to work together, the better.
Both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken mentioned the great deal of consensus across the House on the passage of the Bill. Sadly, we have also heard once again about Baby the bulldog. That tale gets no easier in the retelling. I thank both hon. Gentlemen, who set the scene well. I am, I am afraid, going to resist the amendment, not because I do not agree with their sentiments, but because I am not sure that it is the best way in which to deal with the issue.
Aggravating factors are most often dealt with in the sentencing guidelines for an offence, not within the statute. A select number of offences relating to terrorism and domestic violence are exempt from that general rule. For most offences, normal practice is for other aggravating factors to be included in the sentencing guidelines. Those are not unimportant documents. From my experience as a lawyer, I know that the courts are required to follow those guidelines when determining the appropriate sentence in any particular case.
The sentencing guidelines on animal cruelty were drawn up by the Sentencing Council and were last reviewed in April 2017, following public consultation. Those include guidelines on
“the use of technology to publicise or promote cruelty”,
which is already considered an aggravating factor. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been in contact with the Sentencing Council about the Bill and, if we park the Bill, the council will need to reassess its guidelines. It will conduct another review. It will also consult publicly on the new guidelines.
I have been looking at other examples of guidelines relating to filming. Perhaps the best, and the one that I suspect I would suggest to the Sentencing Council, is found in the sentencing guidelines for robbery when sentencing children and young people, which includes the aggravating factor of
“the filming of the offence… or circulating details/photos/videos etc of the offence on social media or within peer groups”.
That is to be considered specifically by the court when sentencing the offender.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I realise the importance of the Sentencing Council, but there have been examples of it being resistant to moves in the right direction. For example, on pet theft recently, it has not listened to the sentiments of many Members and the public. What is the Minister’s view of those occasions when the Sentencing Council is resistant to moving in the right direction?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend has campaigned hard on pet theft, and he and I have enjoyed debating it on many occasions. He knows that we feel as one on the issue. I should emphasise that the Sentencing Council is of course independent of the Government, but it is only right for the Government to make suggestions. I am outlining the suggestion that I feel would be the best-practice sentencing guideline, which I hope the council will make if we pass the Bill—I very much hope we will. I suggest a guideline similar to the one for the robbery offence that I outlined.
In addition to the sentencing guidelines, legislation —one piece specifically—provides an offence that could cover filming animal cruelty. Section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 creates a specific offence of sending grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages over a public electronic communications network. It is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide which charge to bring, but it is possible that someone filming an act of animal cruelty or sharing it could be charged with an offence under that section. That would result in a maximum sentence of six months for the offence of posting the offensive message. I am happy to speak to DCMS colleagues further about this, and I will do so as the Bill progresses.
In brief, there are existing options to ensure that the offenders who film and upload or distribute footage of their animal cruelty are met with an appropriate response. This is an horrific crime, and filming it to share with others is beyond comprehension. We will discuss this matter further with the Sentencing Council, and when it reviews the guidelines we will ensure that this point is raised during the public consultation. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
Luke Pollard
On the basis that we will be seeking to press this amendment and explore it further on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am grateful to you and to fellow members of the Committee for joining me here today.
I first address the matter of the timeliness of the Bill. I want to give all members of the Committee confidence that my colleagues who feel passionate about the Bill and I are doing all that we can to ensure that the Bill progresses in this parliamentary Session. We continue to actively lobby the Leader of the House and others to ensure that we can do that. I would warmly welcome any further support on that matter.
The Bill, which received its Second Reading in the House on 23 October 2020, will increase the maximum sentence for those convicted of the worst animal cruelty offences in England and Wales tenfold, from six months to five years. This country has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but in terms of maximum penalties, we are currently among the lowest.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, I was inspired to bring forward this Bill by my own dog, Poppy, a springer spaniel I rescued after she had been abandoned on the roadside on a stormy night several years ago in my home constituency of West Dorset. It was clear that she had been very much mistreated. We have heard many cases of animal cruelty outlined over the course of this Bill, both in this Session and in previous Sessions, whether in Finn’s law, Poppy’s law or others; there are many that I know people feel strongly about. None the less, this Bill is short and non-controversial, in my view, but could have a profound effect on animal welfare.
Clause 1 is the Bill’s main clause. It outlines the mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain animal welfare offences. As the current maximum custodial sentence is proposed to be extended to five years, these offences will become triable either way and may be heard in either the magistrate’s court or the Crown court, depending on the severity of the offence.
Specifically, clause 1(2) changes the maximum custodial sentence for the most serious offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These are: causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal; carrying out a non-exempted mutilation; docking the tail of a dog, except where permitted; administering a poison to an animal; and involvement in an animal fight.
Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the Bill amends, all protected animals are covered. In its legal definition, a protected animal is a vertebrate animal
“of a kind…commonly domesticated in the British Islands”.
Animals not commonly domesticated, such as wildlife, are protected animals to the extent that they are under the control of man or are not living in their wild state.
Subsection (3) relates to the mode of sentencing. Under section 78 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, magistrates courts do not have the power to impose penalties greater than six months. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum custodial sentence imposable by a magistrates court to 12 months, but to date that section has not been commenced. The clause reflects that position. In practice, this means that the existing maximum penalty of six months and/or unlimited fine is retained if the offender is summarily convicted. However, with the passing of the Bill, offenders may receive a higher penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine if they are convicted on trial by indictment.
The current maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences of six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine have been in place for more than 20 years. I recall that on Second Reading we debated the fact that the previous restrictions were brought in by a private Member’s Bill some time ago. However, since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force, volumes of prosecutions have been a little over 1,000 a year, with a conviction rate of around 80%. Those found guilty of general animal cruelty have a 10% chance of receiving a custodial sentence. The average custodial sentence is around 3.5 months and, as we debated on Second Reading, if there is a guilty plea, it is often much less. However, each year we hear more terrible stories about how animals have suffered at the hands of people who are—unbelievably—sometimes their owners.
The Bill will mean that perpetrators who harm an animal by causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation or poisoning will finally be subject to the full force of the law. That includes cases of systematic cruelty, like the deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour of the ruthless gangs who use dog fighting to fuel organised crime. This Bill will mean that the courts will have sentences at their disposal commensurate to the most serious cases, so that the punishment fits the crime. Offences such as fly-tipping can carry penalties of up to five years in prison. It is not right, therefore, that torturing a sentient being—an animal—to death leads today to a maximum penalty of just six months’ imprisonment. The clause will ensure that, in those rare but shocking cases, offenders are properly punished. The new maximum sentence will also send a clear signal to any future offenders that animal cruelty will not be tolerated.
Clause 2 provides the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to England and Wales only. Animal welfare is a fully devolved matter, but the Welsh Government have confirmed that the maximum penalty should also apply in Wales, so the Bill is drafted on that basis. The Welsh Government are preparing a legislative consent motion so that the Bill can be extended and applied in Wales. Subsection (2) provides the date of commencement: the Act will come into force two months after Royal Assent is received. Clause 2 also ensures that the application of revised maximum penalties is not retrospective and does not apply to offences committed before the Bill comes into force. It also specifies the short title as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2020.
For the reasons that I have set out, I hope the Committee will agree that clauses 1 and 2 should stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I support the comments from the hon. Gentleman, who has done a good job in building cross-party support in his usual way. Clauses 1 and 2 are good and we will not oppose them.
I want to pose a question to the Minister about clause 1 and disqualification. The proposal to increase maximum sentences from six months to five years is welcome. It will of course be up to the court to decide the point on that scale for any offence. The Dogs Trust has raised the point about issuing disqualification orders where the court has imposed the maximum penalty, to ensure that those convicted of the most extreme animal cruelty and receiving the maximum penalty face mandatory disqualification.
The courts are able to issue disqualifications. It is important to note that at the moment disqualifications are regarded not as part of the punishment but as part of measures to prevent future abuse of animals. However, the Dogs Trust makes a strong case for mandatory disqualification in the event of maximum penalties being imposed, as provided for by the Bill.
There certainly have been recent examples, such as that reported yesterday in Plymouth’s local paper, The Herald, of poor Riot, an American pocket bully-type dog in Plymouth, who had her ears cropped. She was seized by the RSPCA and, thankfully, rehomed. The courts chose not to issue a disqualification order on the owner. That would be one of those points that the public does not understand: how someone can be convicted of severe animal cruelty but not be automatically disqualified. I appreciate that that point sits complementary to clause 1, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed it in her response.
Victoria Prentis
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, whose family has farmed in west Dorset for four generations. I know that they have all been committed to the care of their animals and that he feels very strongly about the subject matter of the Bill.
As we have heard, the Bill would make a significant change to the way in which people who commit serious offences against animals will be dealt with by the courts. By increasing the maximum custodial penalty from six months to five years, it enables cases to be heard when necessary in the Crown court. That will largely depend on the seriousness of the case, but the defendants will also have a say in that matter, on whether they would like their case to heard in a higher court and in front of a jury. The legal system is well placed to make those decisions.
I am glad that the Welsh Government have confirmed that the proposed new maximum penalty should also apply in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have already set the maximum penalty for such offences at five years. We do not take increasing maximum penalties for offences lightly. There must be a proven need to do so. As my hon. Friend said earlier, in some cases magistrates have commented in open court that they would have passed longer sentences had that been available to them.
The increase in maximum penalties follows from an amendment made in 2019, known as Finn’s law, which provided better protection for service animals. I am sure that hon. Members will remember that Finn is a police dog who was stabbed by an assailant he had restrained. Despite incurring serious wounds, Finn ensured that the attacker was caught. He recovered from his injuries and returned to duty before eventually retiring from the service. I was pleased to meet him on one of his trips to Parliament. When this Bill is enacted, it will ensure not only that offenders who have caused harm to service animals are brought to justice, but that they will face stiffer penalties.
Chris Loder
I thank everyone who has contributed to this short but constructive debate and all members of the Committee who are not here today. They have been great supporters of this small but important change in the law, and I ask every Member, and indeed every supporter, to continue until we get this Bill over the line. I also thank all those who have campaigned for it, including the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, the Blue Cross and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which have all provided support and momentum, not just in this place, but across the nation to get this over the line.
I also thank the Minister, Lord Goldsmith in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who has been such a champion of animal rights. Rather than making the usual point of order, may I also thank you, Dame Angela, the officials from the Department, the Hansard writers, the attendants and the Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, who has been incredibly supportive throughout this entire process to those of us who are new—or not so new—Members of Parliament, elected in 2019. I propose that we continue and crack on with this Bill.
The Chair
As a not-so-new Member of Parliament, let us get on with the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Report on effects
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The report must include assessments of—
(a) trends in sentencing practice;
(b) the effects of this Act on animal welfare;
(c) the extent to which this Act has had a deterrent effect on animal welfare offences;
(d) the coherence and adequacy of animal welfare legislation in aggregate in the light of the operation of this Act.
(3) The assessment under subsection (2)(d) must include consideration of—
(a) the welfare of animals that are not “protected animals” under section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;
(b) sentencing for offences under—
(i) all sections of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;
(ii) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
(iii) the Deer Act 1991;
(iv) the Protection of Badgers Act 1992;
(v) the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996; and
(vi) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I.2017/1012).
(4) The report must be laid before Parliament within two years of this Act coming into force.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within two years of the Bill coming into force, a report on its effectiveness, including specific assessments of its effect on animal welfare, the overall coherence of animal welfare legislation, and other matters.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause relates to a discussion that we had on Second Reading about the relationship between this Bill and protections for wild animals. Although we will not be pressing it to a Division, we think this is an important issue.
Our new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on the Bill’s effectiveness within two years of it coming into force. That would include providing specific assessments of its effects on animal welfare and the overall coherence of UK animal welfare legislation in its entirety, including sentencing under specified Acts relating to wildlife, which are listed in the new clause.
The new clause is important, because as it stands the proposals in the Bill apply only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore not to wild animals, in the way that they apply to domestic animals. The Bill of course improves the deterrence impact of penalties for cruelties that come under the Animal Welfare Act, but maximum penalties for cruelty offences under the legislation listed in new clause 1 remain at six months. Our concern is that that creates a two-tier system for penalties for cruelly against domestic and wild animals, even if by oversight as opposed to intention. That seems to lead to the possible situation in which torturing a pet cat and torturing a feral cat, or kicking to death a wild rabbit and a domesticated rabbit, could lead to different penalties. It is clear that offenders do not discriminate between wild and domestic animals in inflicting cruelty. We sadly heard in previous debates on various iterations of this legislation about a wild rabbit hit with a log and stabbed with a pen, a squirrel set on fire, and a driver putting down chips in a road to attract wild birds so that he could run them over.
The RSPCA’s most recent annual prosecution report from 2019 specifically lists notable cases it has seen against wildlife, including two men captured on a fly-tipping surveillance camera taking a live pheasant out of their boot and violently attacking it for several minutes, while a third man filmed the abuse on his phone. That reflects our earlier discussions. In November 2020, the RSPCA saw the horrific case of a man who tortured a hedgehog by cutting off its limbs and burning its head and eyes with candle wax. These things are so horrible that they are barely repeatable.
Our view is that those animals have the same welfare needs. Any attack on them has the same impact on their welfare, regardless of whether they are an animal in human care or in the wild. They all feel pain and suffer, and the people who harm them should feel the full force of the law.
When the Government’s 2019 version of this Bill was in Committee, Members heard evidence from solicitor Mike Schwarz, who expressed his concerns that a two-tier approach to domestic and wild animals could end in confusion for the judiciary and prosecutors. He warned:
“the danger of disparities and distortions, and even confusion, caused by the ramping up—that is not a critical comment—of maximum sentencing in one area, which is the domesticated and under-control-of-man area, while leaving well behind the maximum sentence in other areas. As you know, the disparity is between six months in most other areas—in the Hunting Act 2004, it is even less—and five years under the Bill. That may cause problems when it comes to sentencing.”
He also noted the very pertinent point that, when it comes to animal cruelty in this country,
“different sectors of the same activity—animal welfare, animal care, animal husbandry—are treated differently. I cannot think of an area, although I am happy to be corrected and I might be wrong, where there is that difference in sentencing when it comes to the same offence.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Public Bill Committee, 23 July 2019; c. 12-13, Q18.]
We believe that after the passing of this Bill, a review is necessary to examine the level of penalties available to courts for cruelty offences across animal welfare legislation as a whole. As I say, we do not want to delay the Bill. We want it on the statute book quickly, which is why we are asking for a review afterwards. The Opposition are quite clear that all animals are equal and deserve to be treated with respect and kindness, and we believe that that should be reflected properly in the law.
I also note that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), pointed out in Committee in 2019 that a review of wildlife legislation had recently been undertaken, with the Law Commission publishing proposals for a simpler and more flexible framework in 2015. I understand that the Government’s response to that report made it clear that they had no intention of implementing those recommendations in the immediate future, yet the Minister seemed to stress at the previous Committee that, with the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government may re-examine those proposals. I encourage this Minister to outline any intentions that the Government have so to do.
To conclude, I want to make a few comments about hare coursing. Although serious and organised cases of animal cruelty in the form of dog fighting will, we think, be prosecuted under this Bill, the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing will likely not. Such instances currently fall under the Hunting Act 2004, and Crown Prosecution Service guidance suggests that the police in fact prosecute hare coursing offenders under the Game Act 1831.
It is a widely held view in the countryside, from farmers to rural police officers, that penalties for that crime are woefully inadequate as form of deterrent. Ministry of Justice data shows that from 2014 to 2018, average fines under the Game Act were just £227, yet this is a hugely disruptive crime, focused on animal cruelty, that is continuing to blight the lives of many farmers. In December only last year, a hare courser put a gun to a farmer’s head and threatened to shoot him at point-blank range during a confrontation in Wiltshire. It is a cause of persistent problems in Cambridgeshire, and regular representations to Government are made by Cambridgeshire MPs on a cross-party basis.
Frankly, the legislation is almost 200 years out of date. It was designed in a very different time, for a very different problem—certainly not for the brutal, international gambling-driven thugs that our long-suffering police officers have to deal with. Any indication from the Minister on what steps the Government intend to take to strengthen penalties for hare coursing would be very much welcomed—but, to put it simply, can we just get on with it?
Luke Pollard
I rise in support of my hon. Friend’s remarks on extending the provisions to include wild animals. I take this from a simple perspective: how would we explain to a member of the public, or to a child, that one rabbit will be treated differently from another rabbit, depending on whether it is in a cage or in a field? How do we instil the same sense of value for both those animals if one is treated differently by the law from the other? There is a case here for including wild animals; I appreciate that the opportunity to include them in this Bill may not be immediately forthcoming, but I believe that is a clear and important part of ensuring that wild animals do matter—that all animals matter.
The second part of the new clause, which is worthy of being adopted by the Minister, is the two-year review of this legislation to see how it is working. One area in particular that needs to be looked at is the effects of the restrictions around coronavirus and covid-19 on animal cruelty. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that we have seen an increase in the number of cases of animal cruelty during these restrictions. It would be useful to policy makers and to those seeking to enforce this legislation if there was an assessment about its impacts on animal cruelty, at a time when we know animal cruelty is increasing, to see whether the deterrent effect is working.
In particular, it would be useful to assess how the provisions of the Bill can be better communicated to people, to ensure that they make better decisions before committing cruelty to an animal, recognising that there are now stronger and tougher penalties that equally are being used by the courts as a form of deterrence as well as a form of punishment. That is an element that could also be looked at.
Victoria Prentis
I note that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was subject to review through the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee some time ago in 2010 and again, informally, through the EFRA inquiry “Animal welfare in England: domestic pets” in 2016. A broad consensus arose from that inquiry that the Animal Welfare Act had had a genuinely positive effect on animal welfare. The 2006 Act, of course, relates to animals within the control of humans, and indeed the 2016 inquiry encouraged the bringing forward of this Bill, which is partly why we are all here today.
Subsection (3)(a) of new clause 1 would commit the Government to including an assessment of wildlife. As we have heard, wildlife legislation is not within the scope of the Animal Welfare Act; only animals within the control of man are within scope. There are some exceptions, which I gently point out to the hon. Member for Cambridge: animals that are normally domesticated, such as cats and dogs, are within the scope of that Act, so even a feral cat would be covered. If a wild animal is trapped, it too would be considered to be within the control of man and would be covered by the Act.
There are, of course, separate pieces of legislation that deal with wild animals. We have already had a review of wildlife legislation at DEFRA’s request by the Law Commission, which undertook the wildlife law project. It published its recommendations in November 2015, and recommended that the existing pieces of wildlife legislation be replaced by a single statute. It did not recommend that we bring in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is, by broad consensus, operating quite efficiently. For those who are interested, the Ministry of Justice regularly publishes data on prosecutions, some of which we heard earlier, and on convictions and sentencing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister for her helpful comments. I suspect this matter will go on to be debated in future, but on the basis that we do not want to delay the Bill’s progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Written Statements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Census 2021: England and Wales
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
The census for England and Wales is scheduled to take place on 21 March 2021. The census is delivered for the UK Government and the Welsh Government by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), based on its recommendations published in the December 2018 White Paper “Help Shape Our Future”[CM 9745].
The information the census provides on the population and their characteristics, education, religion, ethnicity, working life and health ensures that decisions made by national and local government, community groups, charities and business are based on the best information possible. This enables a wide range of services and future planning to better serve communities and individuals across England and Wales.
This will be a digital-first census answered primarily online. The ONS has a target for online completion of 75%. People will be encouraged to respond online if they can on their mobile phones, laptops, PCs or tablets. Help will be available for those who need assistance, and members of the public who prefer to complete a paper form will be able to do so.
In the context of the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic, the safety of the public and the census field force is of the utmost importance to the Government and the ONS. The ONS has designed Census 2021 to be simple, straightforward and safe to complete, to ensure that everyone can be safely counted. Its assessment is that Census 2021 can be carried out safely and securely with the flexibility built into its operation to respond to any changes in risk levels or guidance. The main census field operation will begin only after census day. Field staff will never enter people’s houses; they will be supplied with PPE, will always be socially distanced and will work in line with all Government guidance.
The ONS has already launched its schools campaign; its national media campaign will be launched in the coming weeks telling people that Census 2021 is coming and the benefits of the census. On 22 January, the ONS published a statement on the importance of going ahead with the census in March 2021 and how they plan to do this safely for the public and census staff.
This statement is available on the ONS website: https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/census2021andcoronavirus
Census plans have often had to anticipate and respond to events; for example, 20 years ago the census was delivered effectively during the foot and mouth crisis.
Other countries have been able to carry out their census activities during the pandemic—for example, the USA. The ONS has learnt valuable lessons from these experiences.
Following the ONS’s advice, the Government are confident that Census 2021 will be successful and provide a wealth of data reflecting the society we live in today, enabling national and local government, community groups, charities and businesses to better serve communities and individuals across England and Wales.
The census in Northern Ireland will take place at the same time as England and Wales; the census in Scotland will take place in March 2022 following the decision taken by the Scottish Government last year.
[HCWS755]
Subsidy Control: Designing a New Approach for the UK
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Government are today publishing a consultation on “Subsidy control—Designing a new approach for the UK”. The consultation period will last for eight weeks.
Now that we have left the EU, the UK has the freedom to design our own subsidy control regime that is tailored to the UK’s national interests. The new system, which will be the long-term replacement for the EU’s prescriptive state aid regime, will be designed to be more flexible, agile and tailored to support business growth and innovation as well as maintain a competitive market economy and protect the UK internal market. It will better enable the Government to deliver on key priorities such as levelling up economic growth in the regions, tackling climate change, as well as supporting our economic recovery as we build back better from the covid-19 pandemic.
Unlike the EU’s state aid rules, which were designed for the particular circumstances of the EU, our own bespoke regime should work for the specific needs of the UK economy whilst also meeting our international commitments. Under the proposed UK system, local authorities, public bodies and the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast will be empowered to design taxpayer subsidies by following a set of UK-wide principles. These principles will ensure subsidies are designed to deliver strong benefits and good value for money for the UK taxpayer, while being awarded in a timely and effective way.
This consultation invites views from businesses, civil society, think tanks, academics, public authorities, and the devolved Administrations to ensure our new approach works for the UK economy and supports businesses and jobs in every part of the country. The Government are seeking views on any additions to the subsidy control principles that will underpin the regime, the appropriate role for an independent body within the new system and how best to ensure that subsidies deliver strong benefits, while minimising the risk from potentially harmful and distortive subsidies.
Subject to the outcomes of this consultation, the Government will bring forward primary legislation to establish in domestic law a system of subsidy control that works throughout the UK.
I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses, and it can also be found on gov.uk.
[HCWS754]
Non-domestic Rates: Billing Authorities
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Local Government is responsible for the administration of non-domestic rates in England. As part of this function, billing authorities will shortly begin preparing to issue annual rates bills to businesses. Nevertheless, as authorities will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make the Budget statement on 3 March 2021. The Budget will set out the next phase of the Government’s plans to tackle the virus, protect jobs and support business. Billing authorities in England should therefore consider issuing business rates bills after the Chancellor has set out his plan at the Budget.
The Government recognise the crucial work local authorities continue to do to support the pandemic response; by their taking this action, they believe it is in the public interest to avoid any potential confusion for businesses and to avoid the cost of having to re-bill businesses in light of any measures that may be included in the Budget.
[HCWS756]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
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 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 touchpoints 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 debate is three hours.
Bribery Act 2010: Post-legislative Scrutiny (Select Committee Report)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Saville of Newdigate
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on the Bribery Act 2010 The Bribery Act 2010: post-legislative scrutiny (HL Paper 303, Session 2017–19).
Lord Saville of Newdigate (CB) [V]
My Lords, the report of the committee charged with post-legislative scrutiny of the Bribery Act 2010 was published almost two years ago. The delay in the report coming before this House was caused by general elections, Brexit and, to some extent at least, the Covid epidemic.
I start with the good news. In the view of the committee, a view shared among all our witnesses, the Act is an excellent piece of legislation, sweeping away many unsatisfactory features of the previous law and instead creating offences that are clear and all-embracing. In particular, the new offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery puts the onus on companies to conduct themselves in an ethical way and, where necessary, to take adequate steps to prevent persons associated with them from indulging in bribery. In light of this provision, the committee was not persuaded by the suggestion that companies should be made criminally vicariously responsible for bribery. The report is therefore mainly devoted to considering how the Act has operated in practice and whether improvements can be made to the way it is being implemented.
Time does not permit me to address all of the matters that we considered, but there are some that I would like to raise today. The first relates to deferred prosecution agreements, a novelty in English law. These are bargains between prosecutors and a company under which the prosecutor agrees not to proceed with a prosecution against the company for a fixed time in return for the company mending its ways and paying a financial penalty. DPAs were a creation not of the Bribery Act but of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. However, the Liaison Committee, when recommending the setting up of the bribery committee, specifically invited us to consider DPAs as they have affected the conduct of companies, both to prevent corrupt conduct and in the investigation of such conduct when it is suspected of having occurred.
DPAs apply to many economic crimes other than bribery, but it appears that their principal use to date has been in relation to corporate bribery. As your Lordships will see from the report, the committee considered that DPAs can perform, and have to date performed, a very useful function in combating corporate bribery. We were not persuaded, as some have suggested, that they provide an easy way out for rich companies, but not poor ones, to avoid prosecution. There are, however, three aspects that I want to stress.
The first is that we consider it vital that, unlike in other countries, DPAs continue to be subject to judicial control—in other words, only initiated after judicial scrutiny if the judge is satisfied that an agreement is likely to be in the interests of justice and that the proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate, and sanctioned publicly by the court only if the judge is satisfied that the final terms do in fact satisfy these requirements. The second point is that DPAs must not be used as a means of avoiding the prosecution of the individuals actually responsible for the bribery in question. The third point relates to the financial penalty. Under the present law, the amount of the penalty should be broadly comparable to the fine that a court would have imposed on conviction following a guilty plea. In general terms, this results in a discount of one-third of the maximum that could be ordered. However, the discounts given in some DPAs in recent years have been as high as 50%.
I stress that the committee in no way considered that the judgments in these cases were wrong, as there was clearly ample justification for the greater discount. However, they were cases where the company had not self-reported the bribery. We took the view that self-reporting by companies should be encouraged and that, accordingly, a company that has not self-reported should normally receive a lesser discount than a company that has done so, whatever co-operation the company later provided. In their response to the report, the Government noted this recommendation but made no commitment towards encouraging self-reporting by companies. I, for one, hope that they will at least keep this matter under review as, at present, we see a risk that companies will consider that there will be little or no benefit to be gained from self-reporting.
On another topic, we were firmly of the view that there should be no exceptions to the offence of bribery in cases of so-called facilitation payments. These are, in general, small payments in cash or kind to bribe officials into properly performing their public duties rather than failing to do so or taking undue time. There is no doubt that there are some countries where officials are low paid in the expectation that they will add to their wages by this means. This state of affairs often puts the person asked for a bribe in a very difficult position. For example, a ship’s captain with a valuable perishable cargo on board risks losing it through delay if he does not sweeten the harbour-master to let him berth in due time, by giving him a bribe of cigarettes or whisky of miniscule value compared with that of the cargo. The committee is heartened by the fact that the Government have stated unequivocally that no exceptions should be made for facilitation or similar small bribes. It is noteworthy that some countries that did enact exceptions have now abolished them.
A good deal of the report is taken up with the question of educating people on the Bribery Act. We had quite a considerable body of evidence to the effect that people were either ignorant of its provisions or misunderstanding them. There is not sufficient time today to go into this question in detail, but for example, many seem to have had difficulty in distinguishing between unobjectionable corporate hospitality and attempts to gain an improper advantage. This is said, among other things, to have had an adverse effect on financial support through corporate hospitality for sporting activities.
On the general matter of guidance on the Bribery Act, we made a number of specific recommendations for improvement. As will be seen from the Government’s response to the report, we failed to persuade them to adopt or carry forward many of the suggestions that we made. However, we do urge the Government to ensure that these matters are best kept under constant review, especially in the case of SMEs seeking to open or enlarge their trade with other countries, a vital part of our economy. Greater knowledge and understanding of the Bribery Act can, in our view, only assist in combating corruption. Corruption is an evil that, if allowed to flourish, is extremely damaging to our society.
At the time of our report, we did not know what the Brexit outcome would be. Concerns were expressed about the possible effects on European co-operation, since there were many EU measures in force to support and enhance security and law enforcement, some of which were of particular importance in the investigation and prosecution of bribery offences, which often cross national borders. I have asked the Minister present today to give us an update on the position.
On a final note, I pay tribute to those who fashioned the Bribery Act. Faced with an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs and a long history of less-than-successful attempts to remedy matters, they produced what I would describe as a model piece of legislation, bringing simplicity, clarity and certainty to an important part of our criminal law. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for his instructive introduction and welcome the report of the committee.
The international scope of both the UK Bribery Act —introduced by Labour when I was a Cabinet Minister —and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is important, with anti-corruption campaigners reporting a continuing rise in global bribery and corruption. For instance, Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $2.9 billion, or £2.2 billion, to settle a US-led investigation and its Malaysia division also agreed to plead guilty to violating foreign bribery laws linked to the alleged looting of the country’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB. Airbus had to set aside $3.6 billion last year to cover settlements with authorities in the US, France and Britain after admitting it had paid huge bribes on an endemic basis to secure contracts in 20 countries. Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has opened up opportunities for bribery and contracts for cronies worldwide, including in Britain where an uncommon number of ministerial mates seem to have benefited.
Nevertheless, as the committee reported, the Bribery Act does not seem to have prejudiced UK business. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Gold, suggested in a recent article, the Act has resulted in companies improving their governance and compliance by not using third-party agents and therefore, as he wrote, has,
“frightened many companies into honesty”.
However, perhaps the strikingly low rate of prosecutions under the Bribery Act, as the committee pointed out, is because of the slow pace of bribery investigations, with a number of witnesses criticising the time it had taken for bribery charges to be brought and cases to reach trial. The committee rightly recommended that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions publish plans outlining how they will speed up investigations into bribery and improve communication with those placed under investigation for bribery offences.
However, is not the real problem that there are simply not enough resources being invested by the Government into enforcing the Bribery Act and money laundering legislation? Enforcement and investigative agencies, such as the Serious Fraud Office, the National Crime Agency and the Financial Conduct Authority, require proper resourcing to utilise the legislation to conduct investigations—some very complex—and bring prosecutions. Yet across the world that has not been the case. In the UK, these agencies have not had anything resembling the resources required to combat financial crime in recent years, leading to a request in 2019 from the head of the National Crime Agency for an additional £2.7 billion in funding for that agency alone. That is just one of the agencies involved in combating bribery requesting an additional £2.7 billion to enable it to do its job properly. No wonder London is regarded by many as the money laundering centre of the world, where the legislation is stringent but the enforcement and policing is certainly not.
As I demonstrated in debates in 2017-18 in your Lordships’ House on the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act, London-based global corporates such as HSBC, Standard Chartered and Baroda Bank facilitated massive looting and money laundering from South African taxpayers under former President Zuma and his cronies the Gupta brothers. London-based corporates McKinsey, KPMG, and Bain & Co admitted to raking off multi-million fees from President Zuma’s regime, its state agencies and state-owned enterprises. So guilty of complicity in corruption were these corporates that, when it was exposed, they sacked their top South African-based executives and made promises to pay back millions of fees they had received.
Why, however, were they not prosecuted in London under the Bribery Act? Is it because, like another London-based corporate guilty of whitewashing corruption and securing a lucrative fee, Hogan Lovells, the international law firm, told the Solicitors Regulation Authority that their South African arm enjoyed the same name only for “branding purposes”, and that London bosses were therefore not culpable in any way? You could have fooled me looking at their website and their activities internationally: they are a global corporate like the others that I have named. Surely corporates operating from London should be bound by the Bribery Act. Otherwise, people will ask: is it worthless? I hope the Minister will reassure me on these questions and I will be interested in any observations by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this report and commend the work and conclusions of the committee and the opening speeches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
I will speak about “failure to prevent” offences generally, but before that will speak briefly on the lack of clarity about what is meant by procedures being “adequate” for preventing bribery. This was brought about by the subsequently enacted tax facilitation offences using the alternative phrase “reasonable in all circumstances”. This is despite that having been dismissed in the Bribery Act debate as too high a standard by referring to “all circumstances”. In that context “adequate” was thought to be a lower bar. Certainly, if I congratulated a fictitious noble Lord on their “adequate speech”, it may not be taken as altogether complimentary.
Others switched the emphasis around so that, looking after the event, the bar is suddenly higher because procedures had failed and must therefore be inadequate. I am comforted that a senior judge said that he would have accepted them as both meaning the same had it been presented to him, but clarification on what is intended is desirable for both purposes.
I have mentioned the two “failure to prevent” offences and the reason for their existence is to strengthen the prospect of finding responsible parties guilty—which is very difficult because of the need to find a directing mind, and is tantamount to impossible with the board structures of large firms. Therefore, I welcome the point made in paragraph 109 that there are arguments to make corporations vicariously liable more generally, even though there is not a recommendation due to the inquiry’s scope.
It is some time since the Ministry of Justice made a call for evidence on corporate liability—to which I made a submission—and, after a long delay, the response is that there was not a sufficient evidence base on which to base reform. It has been sent off for lengthy procedures in the Law Commission, which already said in its 2010 paper on Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts that
“the identification doctrine can make it impossibly difficult for prosecutors to find companies guilty of some … crimes, especially large companies”,
and in its 2019 paper on suspicious activity reports that
“The identification doctrine can provide an incentive for companies to operate with devolved structures in order to protect directors and senior management from liability.”
Regrettably, I do not believe that the department has any heart to follow through on the Prime Minister’s call for action in 2016 and the good start shown by the Bribery Act. The only reason I can imagine for that squeamishness is that somehow it thinks it is a competitive advantage to shield directors in a way that they are not shielded elsewhere, such as in the United States.
A read of the call for evidence background document gives a good exposition of how bad matters are and many of the reasons why evidence of failures in prosecutions is relatively scant—because prosecutors know they cannot succeed against large companies and give up, unless sector-specific legislation has been introduced such as the “failure to prevent” regimes or the now systematically compromised financial services senior managers’ regime.
The current common law “directing mind” principle, first expounded in 1915, is unfairly discriminating to small businesses. The Crown Prosecution Service’s legal guidance, under “Further Evidential Considerations”, states:
“The smaller the corporation, the more likely it will be that guilty knowledge can be attributed to the controlling officer and therefore to the company itself.”
Given the general guidance for prosecution that there must be a “realistic prospect of conviction”, no wonder evidence is scant and statistics show a preponderance of prosecutions against small companies.
How can that unfairness be left to stand? What does it say about the culture of our country and why people feel left out? While acknowledging the fact of wrongdoing, people nevertheless rightly resent there being one law for the big and another for the small. Dancing-on-pins excuses do not cut that.
Civil law developed to take account of the complexity of modern companies, but not criminal law. Civil law is not enough: the ultimate deterrent of deprivation of liberty cannot apply to corporations, and in the end it does not apply to directors in large corporations. Culture will not change until it does, and the UK being “a good place to do business” is a tainted phrase—maybe even a loaded phrase. Surely directors should be required to ensure systems to prevent all bad corporate behaviour. Only then will action make its way to the boardroom, rather than be kept away in the safety of the executive committee or below.
But if the ministry is reluctant—whatever the cause—will it at least not stand in the way of further sectoral facilitation of crime measures?
Lord Gold (Con) [V]
First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, for securing this debate and for ably chairing the Select Committee, and also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for plugging my recent article.
The Select Committee report we are considering today stated that the Bribery Act
“is an excellent piece of legislation which creates offences which are clear and all-embracing.”
I agree and, in doing so, declare my position as a member of the committee. The new Section 7 offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery was innovative and has been most successful, not because there has been a plethora of prosecutions but rather because it has made CEOs and boards undertake their own review of their businesses to satisfy themselves that they comply with the new legislation.
The immediate reaction from businessmen when the Bribery Bill was enacted was that British companies would find it harder to compete internationally. There was a particular concern that facilitation payments were being outlawed and there was a fear—clearly unfounded—that the new Section 7 offence would be onerous. It was particularly interesting to the Select Committee that no witness giving evidence suggested that there should be any relaxation of the prohibition on facilitation payments.
Recognising the success of the Section 7 “failure to prevent” model, the Select Committee recommended that the Government should consider whether this should be adopted in other areas, notably to prevent economic crime. This issue is now being considered by the Law Commission. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will keep under review the possibility of extending the Section 7-style offence to this and, possibly, other areas.
In practice, as the Select Committee found, there is little sign that the Bribery Act has prejudiced UK business. If anything, it has resulted in companies improving their governance and compliance. Indeed, by not using third-party agents, which has been a cause of problems for many international businesses, companies have been better able to compete internationally, as they have developed closer direct relationships with their customers, instead of relying on middlemen to be the link.
Another area where the Bribery Act has been successful is in cutting corporate hospitality. The committee wondered whether the pendulum had swung too far and many companies were shying away from giving any hospitality to their customers, even though, properly administered, corporate hospitality can be a necessary and legitimate part of doing business.
The Ministry of Justice guidelines on what is permissible are clear and, although the committee suggested that the Government should consider adding further examples of what might constitute acceptable corporate hospitality, the Government declined to do so. They explained that the guidelines were drafted
“in a deliberately high-level, non-prescriptive way to encourage organisations to examine their own internal systems and procedures”,
and identified other sources for guidance—notably, Transparency International. I rather agree with this. Frankly, common sense should largely dictate what is permissible. A modestly priced working lunch or dinner is clearly on the right side of the line; an airplane being delivered to a customer, carrying a Rolls-Royce car as a sweetener gift, is not. Over time I am sure that companies will find the right balance.
The Select Committee reviewed deferred prosecution agreements which, as the report states,
“have had a major influence on some of the largest recent cases of corporate corruption, allowing them to be settled without the companies involved being convicted of the offences.”
This is terribly important, because the existence of a conviction may well mean that companies are debarred from undertaking certain business, notably government contracts, in all parts of the world. This would put companies at risk of close-down, with ensuing unemployment of their staff.
The committee recognised the need for careful judicial oversight of DPAs and identified two key conditions for one: first, whether the company self-reported; and, secondly, whether it then co-operated with the criminal prosecution. A further essential requirement is that the company embraces compliance and governance and demonstrates that it is committed to clean business in future and, as required by Section 7, will put in place processes and rules which will reduce the risk of this recurring. This commitment has to come from the very top of the company, fully supported by the board, demonstrating by their actions, not just words, that non-compliant business is unacceptable.
Over the past 10 years, I have worked closely with a number of major international businesses that have agreed a DPA and, in the run-up to securing that, have completely overhauled their compliance regime. I have been heartened by the approach adopted by each of those companies, and in every case I believe that the business has been strengthened by the measures adopted.
Finally, it is of concern that, where DPAs have been agreed, there have been so few successful prosecutions against individuals responsible for the criminal act. While strongly supporting DPAs, the committee reiterated the importance of prosecuting the “culpable individuals”. I ask the Minister to let us know whether the Government have any plans to address this issue and, if so, what they are.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gold, one of the many distinguished and high-powered members of the committee, on which I too served, under the very effective chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. It was as well-informed and expert committee as your Lordships would expect.
However, I was not one of those experts. I came on to it straight off the Clapham omnibus, via the Committee on Standards in Public Life. For me, the test was: how can we get to the gold standard of effectiveness in the fight against corruption, in the punishment of bribery, and in the deterrence of anyone from using bribery or corruption in other forms as a route to business success?
The UK has one of the better legal frameworks for tackling bribery—certainly up to silver standard but definitely not gold standard. We are high in the international corruption perceptions index, which is good, but we are not top of that list. Our score has fallen from 82 points out of 100 in 2017 to 77 points last year. A five-point decline in four years is not a world-beating performance, and we have now dropped out of the top 10 on that index. Surely we should be moving towards the gold standard, and not dropping down to bronze, in the years ahead. I will pick out two of our recommendations that show where we could reverse that decline and comment on another where I fear that the UK is now anyway committed to going further downhill.
First, regarding our skilfully drafted recommendation 9 on vicarious liability, on which others have already spoken, the issue for me is whether, when the ship sinks, the captain should go down with the ship or whether, so long as he did not realise that someone was steering on to the rocks, he should get away in the lifeboat with no court of inquiry to follow. To the lawyers, it is “mens rea”—not much spoken of on the Clapham omnibus. What normal people expect the law to do is to hand out just deserts to those in authority who show reckless ignorance of wrongdoing on their watch.
Instead, protected by the current law, it is absolutely in the best interests of those who run large businesses and multinational companies to keep themselves carefully ignorant of any evidence of bribery by underlings when they bring home big contracts and boost company profits. When knowledge means taking legal responsibility and ignorance means acquittal, the incentives are perverse. The committee noted evidence that, as a result of that, it is much easier to convict the boss of an SME than the boss of a multinational company. That, too, is a wholly perverse outcome of the current framework of legislation.
The committee’s recommendation does not endorse this perversity, but nor does it recommend any change. But if we ever want to get to gold standard, we will have to find a way to reconcile our legal principles with common sense, as has already been achieved in the United States and other jurisdictions to good effect. My question to the Minister is: does he actually want to be world-beating? Does he aspire to reach gold standard on corruption? If it is not via vicarious liability provisions, what does he propose as the alternative?
That brings me to the committee’s recommendation 20, where we pressed the Government to introduce a “failure to prevent” offence to a wider range of economic crimes and corrupt practices. There is clear evidence that a “failure to prevent” offence is an effective inducement to companies to put in place a culture of compliance and systems and processes to support that culture. Among other important benefits—like actually stopping bribery happening—it means that bosses cannot so easily shelter behind ignorance if a case does come to light. It is, therefore, very disappointing that the Government have given a very tepid response to our recommendation. I could quote the Government’s response at length, but I will summarise it by saying it was pretty much a lemon. It is a clear opportunity to raise our score on that index, so I hope to hear the Minister say that he will now quickly revisit this key issue and get things moving in the right direction.
Lastly, recommendation 14 focused on the European arrest warrant, where we said:
“The fight against international bribery will be significantly impeded if there are not in force … measures with equivalent effect to the European Arrest Warrant.”
In his evidence to us, the Minister, Ben Wallace MP, said that the loss of the EU arrest warrant
“would have a degrading effect on our ability”.
In the event, as your Lordships will know, the UK has ditched the European arrest warrant—a clear step backwards in the fight against corruption. So my final question to the Minister is: what concrete plans do the Government have to reverse this slide down the league and to rebuild our record of ethical business practices, both at home and abroad?
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House is to be congratulated on an impressive and comprehensive report, which is a good example of post-legislative scrutiny. I well remember that, when I was a member of a similar scrutiny committee on the Defamation Act, there was a steep learning curve.
In the short time available, I can touch on only some of the report’s subjects. The first is the role of the CPS and the SFO. In my time as a law officer, I had to initiate reform of the CPS by setting up the Glidewell inquiry. In my supervisory role, I had regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecution and less frequent meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office. My first point is that, as a criminal law practitioner, I was very conscious of the immense burden that prosecutors carried in investigating and prosecuting fraud cases, which were becoming more complex than they had been in the past. It is essential that investigators and prosecutors have sufficient resources to tackle the problems. May I ask the Minister to place on record the financial resources that the CPS and SFO have been getting annually since the beginning of the period when austerity cuts began? I believe that the Ministry of Justice accepted far too readily reductions in finance and, hence, manpower. Specifically, can we have the figures for both?
I regard it as important that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the SFO should publish plans outlining how they will speed up bribery investigations and improve levels of communications with those placed under arrest under the Bribery Act. That is not to denigrate the Government’s response, which I welcome; my query is whether it goes far enough. The committee received evidence of relatively low salaries for lawyers and investigators at the SFO and the CPS in comparison with their private sector counterparts. That is only partially taken on board in the Government’s endorsement of the SFO’s increased budget. I make the same point as regards the rank of police investigators and the resources that the police are able to devote. I regard the Government’s response to paragraph 85 of the report, where the committee makes a valuable recommendation, as inadequate. I submit that the Government should look again at this now and repeatedly in future years.
I welcome the scrutiny that the committee has given to deferred prosecutions and pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his advocacy. The emphasis is clear in the report that the judgment of the court should be public, and the public should be aware of what has happened and the conclusion.
On post-Brexit issues, the lower figures for applications for European arrest warrants at Westminster magistrates’ court in recent weeks are alarming. I am concerned by the Government’s claim that they have the available tools to ensure the safety of our realm and that we can get hold of people whom we require to face justice. I suspect that the tools are inadequate and we are less protected than we were. Perhaps we could have the observations of the Minister specifically on the issue of why there has been such a reduction in applications for extradition in recent weeks at Westminster magistrates’ court.
I welcome the committee’s scrutiny. I turn to that part of the report that deals with corporate hospitality, although it has been dealt with so adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Gold. The bottom line is that it is a matter of common sense, as he said—and I repeat that. Many years ago, my friend the late Sir Melvyn Rosser, one of the senior partners at Deloitte and a member of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, said that a possible yardstick of the measure of hospitality was that a bottle of whisky at Christmas might be permissible but certainly not a case of whisky at any time. The Bribery Act was never intended to prohibit reasonable and proportionate hospitality or other similar business expenditure. I do not go along with the committee’s attempt to get the Government to give clearer examples in the Ministry of Justice guidance. It is common sense at the beginning and the end, and no more advice is really needed.
With those brief words, I am conscious that I do not do justice to the committee’s hard work, which I commend, and I appreciate the forbearance of the House.
Lord German (LD) [V]
This is a very welcome report, and it is pleasing to note that the Act in itself is robust, and that most of the concerns expressed are related to the operation of the Act. Of course, this debate has been a long time coming, as noble Lords have said. Between its publication in March 2019 and the Government’s response in May 2019 and now, nearly two years later, a great deal of time has elapsed, and progress in our courts has been held up significantly by the pandemic. Looking at this in a positive way, this delayed debate provides an opportunity to review the report and the response by looking at what has changed over the intervening period since their publication.
I have the impression that at, about, or close to the period of publication, a major change of internal emphasis took place in the Serious Fraud Office. I got a sense of a clearing out, a refreshment, and a new approach to its work. This was very encouraging. However, I would be grateful if the Minister in reply could indicate whether my impression is born out of reality.
I note the report’s comments on how the SFO handled large amounts of documentation, which was a contributory factor to the long delays in producing outcomes to its investigations. For example, it talks of millions of documents being scrutinised in the course of the Rolls-Royce investigation. The reality is that data, by which I mean documents and digital information, will increase, not decrease. The report mentions the introduction of artificial intelligence as a means of aiding this scrutiny. That approach is essential, because the demand for better correlation of information and timeline creation, sometimes spanning multiple sources of information, will increase as the number of data sources increase. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on how this challenge is being met. Does the Minister agree that this approach will be an important tool in the armoury of the SFO in dealing with the complexity of modern business activity? Much evidence will be in electronic form on a multitude of different platforms. Identifying and comparing strands of an investigation will be much enhanced by the use of AI.
The SFO evidence provided to the inquiry and the report itself raise the question of vicarious liability. That case has just been outlined by my noble friend Lord Stunell; the report does not rule it out but says that it is beyond its scope. The SFO, in supporting the case for this approach in its evidence, states:
“From a prosecutor’s point of view this lack of clarity”—
—that is, the identification principle approach—
“is a significant disadvantage in attributing corporate liability”,
and says that
“the clear principle of vicarious liability for criminal acts by employees acting for a company creates a much stronger enforcement regime.”
In response, the committee’s report states that this issue goes beyond offences under the Bribery Act. In view of that response, can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, the chair of the committee, say whether he considers that a further investigation into that measure alone by the House of Lords would be appropriate, and whether he might consider recommending it to the House? It would also be important to understand the view of the Government in their response to this debate.
I turn to another matter that has arisen in the period between the publication and response to this report, which is the OECD Working Group on Bribery conclusions on the UK Government’s report on the follow-up to the phase 4 evaluation. The Government’s follow-up report was presented in March 2019, and the OECD gave its evaluation later that year. Many of the OECD recommendations have been fully or partially implemented, but there are several where no progress has been made, and where there is a read-across to the committee’s report.
There are two issues in the OECD report which are of particular concern. The working group welcomed the committee report’s recommendation that the Government should review the guidance to commercial organisations, but noted that
“no steps have yet been taken to address the Working Group’s Phase 4 recommendations in this respect”.
Those OECD recommendations in 2017 preceded the committee report that we are now considering. I would be grateful for the Government’s response to this matter, given the time that has elapsed.
The second issue relates to the independence of investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery and in particular the implementation and use of Shawcross exercises in foreign bribery cases. Taken alongside what noble Lords have previously talked about in terms of the European arrest warrant, could the Government say whether this matter has now been corrected or needs to be put right, and what deficiencies there are now in the system?
Finally, I turn to SMEs. The report outlines a number of recommendations on the approach to gifts and hospitality and on better guidance. The Government’s response to better guidance is that SMEs could find information on bribery on the Government’s web pages or by phoning a helpline. So they say that the information is there, if you want to look for it. But above all SMEs need to be aware of the issue, because you cannot look for things that you do not know exist. There is certainly room for a more systematic approach to awareness raising, and the Government as yet seem to have not taken the opportunity to take this forward. This is crucial if we are to encourage more and more companies to look for export opportunities across the globe.
Awareness-raising can follow a wide range of routes, but the Government need to address this matter urgently. The committee witness who said that you cannot take someone out to dinner without committing a crime exemplifies the need for a balanced and understood approach to these matters. As the report states, corporate hospitality is a necessary and legitimate part of doing business. The Government must do more to raise awareness of that balance—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, I reinforce the point that the time limit for speeches is six minutes.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for his chairmanship, which it was a pleasure to serve under throughout this report. I also extend my thanks to the clerk and the staff of the committee, who served us extremely well, dealing with voluminous amounts of evidence that came in throughout the inquiry.
If I had one impression from the committee, it was that perhaps we were looking at the issue a little earlier than might have been appropriate given that it takes a long time for a piece of legislation like this to drill down to the actual business on the ground. However, I would have to say that we are not unique in having a report debated here 18 months to two years after we published it. Earlier this week I attended Grand Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was making a report on the Pacific Alliance, and that was 18 months old as well, so we are not in any way unique.
It was encouraging to hear that by and large the legislation was working, and it was also good to hear that the United Kingdom has a relatively good reputation internationally on its approach to bribery. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, pointed out, that was the position nearly two years ago, and obviously it has changed. I hope that that is not permanent. I also note that I watched an interview last night with Senator Menendez of the US Senate, during which Russia and what was happening in the Navalny case came up. A throwaway remark was made that London was awash with Russian money, we were very soft on dealing with money laundering, and so on. One has to be aware that our reputation is under scrutiny by the world, and questions need to be answered about how we approach large sums of money which seem to come without any clear evidence of how they were earned.
The other issue that has perplexed me somewhat has been the balance between small and medium-sized enterprises and the large corporates. While our recommendations are as they are, one still has a feeling, as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out a few moments ago, that the person running a small business, up a lane in a garage somewhere, would not necessarily have the grasp of the issues that a large corporate has, which can afford to employ expert legal advice and have people to deputise. That needs to be watched very carefully. We need to push the SME sector to export, and the biggest fear it has is not so much getting sucked into bribery but not getting paid for its products in a foreign market. That needs to be taken into account.
The other issue that we touched on was how this matter will be continuously kept under the eyes of government and Parliament. There is, or was at the time, a parliamentary advocate, who I think was John Penrose MP, and we were a bit concerned that a Back-Bencher might not necessarily be the right person to promote the whole concept of keeping bribery under control.
I would also like to raise one another matter, which perhaps the Minister could address in summing up—no one would be better qualified. We took evidence from Scotland; of course we know that Scotland has a different law and has had for centuries. One issue that came up was whether there was a risk that the law in Scotland could become sufficiently different from the law in the rest of the United Kingdom that we could allow a loophole to develop whereby location of a business in one part of the United Kingdom would leave it less vulnerable to charges under the Bribery Act than if it was located in another. I would appreciate it if the Minister could address that in his summing up. While we were satisfied that it was adequate and equivalent in current circumstances, that may not necessarily be the case in future. Could that particular matter be kept under review?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too was a member of this committee and I enjoyed serving under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate. Like my noble friend Lord Empey, I also pay tribute to our excellent staff, marshalled expertly by Michael Collon. I chaired a different committee which Michael was clerk to, and so I spoke to him just before Christmas and found that he was retiring from the House on 31 December last. I am sure that I speak for the committee and indeed the whole House when I wish him on behalf of all of us a very happy retirement. I expect that he may well have tuned in to watch this debate this afternoon.
In my remarks I will focus on just three points: the position of SMEs in relation to the Bribery Act; the role of the Government’s anti-corruption champion; and finally, like several other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Gold, I shall urge the Government to reach a decision on the widening of the “failure to prevent” offence. These three points need to be considered in the context of the overall conclusion of our report, which is, as our chairman said in his opening remarks, that the Act is an excellent piece of legislation.
First, on the SMEs, it is important that the Government always remember how narrow the management bandwidth inevitably is. Unlike big companies, they cannot double-bank roles. Management time is a precious and scarce commodity. It is therefore critical that decisions on whether to prosecute are taken promptly. To have a sword of Damocles hanging over an SME will, if not paralyse it, certainly render it much less effective. Therefore we were not impressed by the slow pace of progress by investigations of these cases. Most disturbing was the stop-start nature of many of them. Interviews would take place followed by long periods of silence: 12, 15 or 18 months, we were told in the evidence we received.
The Government’s reply to this at paragraph 17 in their response document was that progress was being made, and they prayed in aid that now all preceding cases over two years old will be given special treatment to speed the decision. Two years of uncertainty is a quite unacceptable burden on any company, but particularly on a smaller one, where ownership and management may well be combined. SMEs whose business is focused particularly on exports have, of course, to face the grey area of corporate hospitality, and it would be good to know what progress has been made in fulfilling the pledges made in paragraphs 73 to 75 of that document. Overall, one was left, as other noble Lords have said remarked, with an underlying suspicion that SMEs could be seen as a happier hunting ground for prosecutors. The directing mind principle, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, the inevitably less well-resourced defence and the pressure on small management claims to clear up and move on will all be factors that may lead prosecutors to see an opportunity to make an example. In the Skansen Interiors case, which we examined in some detail, it was interesting that it was not even offered the opportunity of a deferred prosecution agreement.
The next point I want to make concerns an update from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench on the role of the Government’s anti-corruption champion. I make it clear at the outset that I am not in any way attacking John Penrose MP, who currently holds that position. He is in an unenviable and probably impossible position. In that old country phrase, he is set to get most of the kicks and none of the ha’p’orth. His role seems to be a token nod towards the importance that the Government place on anti-corruption activities, and he appears to have neither the clout nor the resources to be able to carry out the detailed investigations or effect real change. Indeed, until July last year, Mr Penrose was combining the role with that of a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland office.
When my noble and learned friend comes to wind up, can he lift the curtain on the Government’s policy objectives for this post? What is its budget, what staff does it have and to whom does the anti-corruption champion report? What practical results can the Government point to? It is interesting that, if you do a Google search, one of the only entries on the website is Mr Penrose’s appearance before our committee on 10 July 2018.
I return to the issue of Section 7 on failure to prevent, which is seen, as many noble Lords have said, as one of the key parts that drives against corruption and which has proved pretty successful. The Government have taken an inordinately long time to reach a decision as to whether the scope of this offence should be widened to cover economic crime generally. The original consultation paper was issued by the MoJ in January 2017 and the consultation closed at the end of March that year. Now, four years later, we are still awaiting a decision. Can my noble and learned friend please give us a heads-up on the latest position on this when he replies?
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this matter. I do so from a different perspective to the earlier speakers from whom we have heard so far. I say first that, in my view, the Act was undoubtedly the most constructive and sorely needed legislation of which I am aware. It has played an important role in promoting higher standards of ethical conduct in global companies internationally and has helped to make the concept of the “responsible capitalist” a reality.
Having said that, I should disclose that I make those remarks as a result of experience I had before the Act that we are considering came into force. In 2008, I became the chairman of a committee that delivered a report on business ethics in global companies and, in particular, the defence industry, based on the conduct of one company, BAE Systems, one of the world’s largest global defence contractors. In addition, I was for 10 years chairman of the judges of FIRST magazine’s competition to identify the responsible capitalist of the year—a task now performed by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.
I mention my impressions on the basis of ancient experience because it is important that we should realise that great progress has been made. In our comments today, we must recognise that the criminal justice system in this country is facing probably the biggest challenge that it has faced since the last war. The number of cases outstanding is horrific. Any changes that we would like to promote before the Minister must take place against the reality of that background. A terrible danger exists now of injustice being caused by delay. The remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about SMEs having a sword of Damocles hanging over them should certainly be taken into account.
The reality is that the capacity of the system to expedite more cases that could take a long time to investigate is limited at the present time. Certainly, what has been suggested about further reports in the future should be paid attention. With great diffidence, I suggest that the help that has been given now could be of double value if it were to be given once the present situation of arrears in dealing with criminal cases is not as pressing as I have suggested it is.
In 2008, it was thought that legislation of the sort that was concluded in the 2010 Act would tie the hands of British companies internationally. I am very pleased to know that, in fact, that has not been the consequence. We thought that being a responsible company was becoming more and more important and, therefore, it was vital to make clear that there was some sanction.
I note that there has been no comment so far this afternoon about consent being required. I thought that that might be a matter that would cause concern—though I was not sure why it would cause concern, because the consent that is required now is from the very people who would be responsible for prosecutions if they take place. They presumably will be the best watchdogs over this situation. Of course, they must have—as had been pointed out already—the resources to go into matters of this sort in so far as can be practical, which is very limited at present.
There has been talk also of deferred prosecutions. DPAs are making very slow entry into our criminal justice system. Our Act overtook the law in the United States, but, in the United States, much greater use is made of facilities of that nature. It is obviously the sensible way to deal with acts of corruption. Nothing will influence the directors of companies—no matter what their size—more than if the punishment is on the company’s finances. For that reason, it is important that it takes place.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always an honour and pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with all his wisdom and experience.
On 13 May 2010, I became Minster of State for Justice in the coalition Government, as deputy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who was then Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. In my in-tray when I arrived at the department was a gift from the departing Labour Government in the shape of the Bribery Act. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, had done much of the heavy lifting in this House in delivering the Bill to the statute book and had been supported from these Benches by the late and sadly missed Lord Goodhart and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford who, happily, is with us today and from whom we will hear later.
It is perhaps not surprising that those who opposed the Act saw the change of Government as an opportunity to push back on bringing the Act into force. This meant a delay in implementation, for which we were criticised at the time. The Secretary of State and I carried out a consultation with a variety of interested parties. We heard all the familiar objections: how burdensome it would be on business, particularly SMEs; how it would inhibit the use of legitimate corporate hospitality; how many grey areas there were between a tip and a bribe; and, of course, the plea that we would lose out to the dastardly French, who would steal all our business by ignoring such Anglo-Saxon sensitivities to the greasing of palms.
That second round of consultation by the incoming Government emphasised the cross-party support for the legislation and its greater acceptance. We took the flak about the delay, and the Act reached commencement on 1 July 2011. I took some satisfaction from reading in the Select Committee’s report that it had received no “major” criticisms of the legislation and that, overall,
“the structure of the Act, the offences it created, its deterrent effect, and its interaction with deferred prosecution agreements, are only some of the aspects which have been almost universally praised”.
We are entitled to ask whether the Conservative Government elected in 2019 would have been as willing as the coalition to pick up the Bribery Act and guide it to commencement. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked some pertinent questions about the role of the anti-corruption champion and rightly questioned whether the Government have the stomach for the fight against bribery. This is, after all, the Government who champion the global buccaneers who will swashbuckle their way around the world with scant regard for the niceties and who are only too willing to act as money launderers to the world, as the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Empey, pointed out.
So we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. The Committee has rightly pointed to the slow progress of bribery investigations and prosecutions and rightly asks how the Government intend to bring a sense of urgency to implementation and enforcement. It is encouraging that in Transparency International’s 2020 report, Exporting Corruption, the UK is one of only four countries, along with the USA, Switzerland and Israel, cited as active enforcers of anti-bribery measures, but the report also finds that active enforcement has fallen off since 2018 and there is real danger of us falling out of the top group—as my noble friend Lord Stunell indicated. Key to avoiding that slide will be ensuring the availability of funding for the Serious Fraud Office to pursue serious cases and ending the delay in bringing forward prosecutions.
There is also the general responsibility to prevent economic crime. The review that we are considering today states that
“the new offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery is regarded as particularly effective”,
and Transparency International UK has called for the Government to extend the “failure to prevent” approach used in Section 7 of the Bribery Act to corporate criminal offending in economic crimes such as fraud and money laundering—I was pleased to see the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Gold, lend their weight to that, as well as my noble friend Lord Stunell.
Bribery is often seen as a victimless crime where one man’s bribe is simply another’s facilitation of the wheels of commerce. It is not. It is corrupting to both ends of the transaction. It distorts the benefits of the free market by preventing the best product or service being provided for the best price. It diverts resources from the needy to the criminal and inflates the cost of development. The Select Committee is in our debt for pointing the Government in the right direction in updating the Bribery Act for the new circumstances we face in the decades ahead. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and his colleagues for their work.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Select Committee’s report and commend its members for their sterling work in producing it, especially and including my noble friend Lord Empey.
One of the great privileges of serving in your Lordships’ House is the sheer volume of knowledge and expertise that we possess as a collective body. We are also not known for giving compliments lightly, particularly when it comes to our primary role of scrutinising legislation from the Government of the day. It is therefore noteworthy that the Select Committee report describes the Bribery Act 2010 as
“an excellent piece of legislation which creates offences which are clear and all-embracing”.
To be fair, Ministers did have quite a bit of time to give proper consideration to its provisions, since the Bribery Act received Royal Assent 121 years after the first attempt to put the common law offence of bribery on to a statutory footing. However, coming eight years after the Act became law, the Select Committee report makes it clear that the wait was worth it and that the legislation can now rightly claim to stand as an example to the rest of the world on how to combat bribery.
Of course, there is always room for improvement in an ever-changing world. The report offers some helpful suggestions on how the Act’s measures might be made even more effective. I echo the comments and suggestions made by the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Empey, regarding SMEs.
Over some 40 years as an owner and director of several Ulster SMEs, I have been fortunate to experience many different countries and diverse cultures in my commercial working life. I welcome in particular the Select Committee’s recommendation that Her Majesty’s Government provide UK companies with support on corruption issues in countries to which they either currently or expect to export, and on the business norms and culture in countries where they currently operate. The report adds that such support should be provided by properly trained officials and that smaller embassies should have at least one official who is an expert in local customs or cultures who can contact officials of foreign government departments on behalf of companies facing problems in this field. In its formal response to the Select Committee’s report in May 2019, the Ministry of Justice, to its credit, endorsed these helpful suggestions.
The ministry’s response also stated:
“The DFID-funded Business Integrity Initiative … is currently undertaking pilot work in Kenya, Mexico and Pakistan”—
countries in which I have done business—
“… to identify appropriate ways to support UK companies operating in these markets and … provide new guidance and tools for staff in post.”
It further stated that
“as evidence from the … pilot emerges, DIT will consider how to include business integrity work in its future activity”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on the progress of this pilot. What lessons have been learned and what measures have since been introduced as a result of the knowledge gained?
Those of us who supported Brexit were promised that it would allow the UK business community to access new markets in all parts of the world that were previously either fully out of reach or difficult to get into. I hope that those commitments still ring true. If Brexit is to be the success that we all hope it will be, no matter which stance noble Lords took in relation to the referendum, it is critical that UK businesses are given proper, professional advice and guidance about those markets with which they may not be sufficiently familiar. The Select Committee in its excellent report has clearly identified this need. Once again, I commend it for its work.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, when I joined the committee, I had had no previous experience of post-legislative scrutiny. I came away from it greatly impressed by the value of this form of consideration. As we have had ample evidence of this afternoon, the House of Lords seems brilliantly equipped to undertake such inquiries. Having listened to many other speakers, it seems to me that there would be definite value in resurrecting this process in another five years or so to see how matters have developed. It is clear that the Act itself is remarkably good legislation, but how it is implemented and develops seems worthy of consideration further down the line.
One point that concerned me during our taking of evidence was the reluctance of small and medium-sized companies to give evidence in public. I can understand that, but it left a slight gap in the knowledge that we wanted to obtain, but I suppose that is water under bridge.
I turn now to the question of facilitation payments, referred to earlier in the debate. This does not have the spurious glamour, of course, of enormous companies doing bribery and corruption on a grand scale; nevertheless, they can have a very damaging effect on small companies seeking to open enterprises abroad. I had direct experience of this some years ago, when two friends of mine wanted to set up a very small enterprise in an Asian country. They kept meeting enormous obstacles, from their point of view. They never knew whether the rules they thought had obeyed would suddenly be changed and a little payment would be required. In the end, because they were so keen, they won through, but I am certain that many small enterprises would not continue to the end, and that is a great pity.
I had experience of this myself. To my astonishment, they needed the signature of a local official on some final piece of paper before they could set up in business. I was taken up six flights in great heat, where we were received by the said official, and when a large bottle of whiskey was handed over, the document was signed. Slightly later in the afternoon, when he said that he was going to take us out for lunch, we found that my friends were actually paying for lunch for this chap and his cronies. He actually had the gall to say, very proudly, that there was no corruption in his neck of the woods, so I suspect that this kind of thing is pretty pervasive and very difficult to deal with.
That is why I so applaud the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I think—or one of our number—who spoke about the role of embassies in helping small and medium-sized companies with this kind of problem. It is not simply that the staff should have expertise, it is also important that they actually go out and talk to local officialdom to try to get them onside. It is clearly very difficult for one small company to get anything done, but if it can rely upon embassy staff to have much greater clout, this would be considerably helpful. I commend this and I want to know from the Minister how many people have this expertise in the various embassies, and how much work they are doing. That is extremely important.
Turning closer to home, I am also concerned that there are not sufficient people with real expertise and understanding of the very complicated nature of crime and corruption, which is so widespread even now. So, I was very disappointed when one of our recommendations, that the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Academy should be given additional resources, was rejected. We also recommended that every police force should have at least one senior officer with specialist training in dealing with bribery and corruption. I should be very interested to know whether this has come about and, if not, why not. It has unfortunately been, as has been said, some time since the report was published. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what other actions the Government have taken since to deal with the particular problems that we raised, so that we can be assured that the Bribery Act, so excellent in itself, is fully implemented.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who, after more than 50 years of continuous service in Parliament, is deserving of everyone’s attention when she speaks. I also thank the committee for its work in producing this report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for his introduction to this afternoon’s proceedings. Given the believed scale of bribery on the international stage, either the Act is proving incredibly successful and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gold, said, frightening many companies into honesty, or bribery is going undetected.
As the report points out, bribery is a crime that is generally detected only when it goes wrong. I was therefore concerned by the comment in the report that suspicious activity reports have very little follow-up. Companies know when competitors seem to be enjoying disproportionate success: if they report suspicious activity, that report should be followed up. Will the Minister comment on how the follow-up of suspicious activity reports could be improved? If that were done, perhaps we would see more cases of bribery come to court.
The committee’s report was largely positive about the way the Bribery Act is working. It welcomed the refusal to allow facilitation payments, and I concede that while this can disadvantage British business in many markets, it is impossible to be, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, once said, “a little bit pregnant”. Facilitation payments are bribery, however common they may be in some countries, so this country is right to rule out bribery of any kind—unlike the United States, for instance. I also agree with the committee’s endorsement of deferred prosecution agreements. It seems that these are proving effective in persuading companies to own up to partial failings and improve standards for the future, while not preventing prosecution of individuals.
The aspect of this report on which I shall concentrate my remaining remarks is that of vicarious liability for companies. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, was eloquent in her criticism of the way prosecutions for bribery have hit the small business sector rather than the large. The issue is that of the identification principle: that the controlling minds of the company do not have mens rea. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, as he drew his analogy with a captain escaping all liability as his ship went down. I share his discomfort with this situation.
The committee made no recommendation on the issue of vicarious liability, but neither did it rule it out. It was looking towards the report of the committee the Government had already established to examine corporate liability for economic crime. Indeed, when the Government published their response to this Select Committee report, in May 2019, they said that the issue of vicarious responsibility was under review, and their response would be issued “shortly”. That was in May 2019. “Shortly”, turned out to be 18 months later and, after such lengthy deliberation, the Government concluded that the call for evidence on corporate criminal liability was inconclusive. They therefore proposed to ask the Law Commission to examine the issue and report on the options by late 2021. By any standards, this looks like kicking a difficult issue into the long grass.
However, the evidence was not in everyone’s view inconclusive. Three-quarters of respondents to the call for evidence agreed that the identification doctrine inhibited holding companies to account for all economic crimes. The noble Lord, Lord German, called, earlier this afternoon, for a new Select Committee report into vicarious liability—I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. I would also like to hear his view on why there has been such reluctance to address the issue of vicarious liability, when it is quite clear that larger companies are not being held to account in the way that smaller companies are, because the people at the top are able to dodge the issue.
Finally, I raise again, as have others, the issue of the Government’s anti-corruption champion. This is not, by any standards, a high-profile position. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the current incumbent, John Penrose MP, needs greater powers if he is to be an effective champion of anti-corruption, both in government and in business, as his job description says?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in November 2009, the then Bribery Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. Its purpose was to reform and update bribery and corruption legislation. This included creating offences for offering, promising or giving an advantage—bribing another person—and requesting, accepting or agreeing to receive an advantage: being bribed. Both offences carry the same maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a limited fine for individuals, with offences relating to commercial organisations carrying a maximum penalty of a limited fine. In addition to the UK, the jurisdiction scope of these offences covers those which took place either partly or entirely outside the UK, providing that the alleged perpetrator of the offence is a British citizen or is considered to have close connections to the UK.
On 17 May 2018, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Bribery Act 2010 was established to conduct a post-legislative review of the legislation. The House of Lords recommended that the committee focus on several areas around bribery, including whether the Act has led to stricter prosecution of corruption conduct or a higher conviction rate in the reduction of such conduct. Can the Minister state whether the directors of commercial organisations can be imprisoned instead of the company paying the higher fine?
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was not a member of the committee, so I have had to rely on reading the documentation provided. On reflection, the revision down the line that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for is probably necessary, because a lot of issues have been placed before the Grand Committee today. The reputation of the country for honesty and straight dealing is not improving; anybody who thinks so is probably deluding themselves. It is important, however, that our reputation is restored; we should not be complacent when we are told in debate that we are slipping down the world’s league tables.
The issue of what is to succeed the European arrest warrant is very important. There are criminals waiting to come here in the knowledge that they will probably be beyond the reach of the law. The problems in the court system to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred are a scourge on the country. The fact that a criminal trial cannot now be arranged in less than about two years is a real indictment, because justice delayed is justice denied.
However, I want to speak particularly about the police service, of which I have experience. To train police officers to deal with issues such as fraud—you can choose anything you like; child abuse is another one—is a long-term commitment. Such officers are very attractive to other people who would seek to employ them. It is important that we take seriously the recommendation that the police service—particularly the City of London Police service but all other police services as well—have people trained to look out for all sorts of corruption.
There are large problems about money laundering, and the issue of vicarious liability needs attention. I understand the mens rea issues, and I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Stunell that if the ship goes down, it is really quite regrettable if nobody above the rank of, as it were, able seaman gets prosecuted. People look to people being prosecuted where they have done wrong.
I would also like to encourage the use of DPAs to encourage people to own up if they find that wrong has been done, not necessarily by the directors of a company but by somebody within it. Finally, when the Minister sums up, will he tell us how much time John Penrose is devoting to his role as anti-corruption champion? It seems to be an almost invisible role.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Lord is very quiet; could he lean closer to the microphone?
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
Is that better? It will have to be.
I looked at this report, not because I was on the committee—I was not—but from the aspect of exporting. I have been involved in exporting all my life since leaving Cambridge with a decent degree in economics and having had the privilege to listen to the lectures of Professor Walt Rostow on his stages of growth. I lived in India and Sri Lanka in the mid-1960s, working for the Reckitt and Colman group as a marketing manager. In the 1960s, I wrote a pamphlet called Helping the Exporter with one of our colleagues, my noble friend Lord Vinson. On entering Parliament, I joined the All-Party India Group and the All-Party Pakistan Group, and started the All-Party Sri Lanka Group. Later on, I started the All-Party Maldives Group. In the following years, I travelled and had negotiations and discussions with the rest of south-east Asia, particularly Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, which I continue to do.
I congratulate the committee on the depth of its analysis. The Government’s responses are clear in what the response is but lacking, as I will indicate in a few seconds. It is a great pity that a work of this nature gets so little reporting in the major national press, particularly the Financial Times and other business publications. I urge the House authorities to get a grip on this issue; it is not a new issue but it needs to be attended to.
I will focus my comments on small and medium-sized companies. They are vital to our future as a country and are experienced in the sense that many of them take part in trade visits, usually underwritten or promoted or organised by the relevant chambers of commerce. The ones that I think about are, obviously—I was an MP for the East Midlands—the Leicester and Northampton chambers, which are very active, and many others.
For those chambers of commerce—and I have discussed this with the current people—as small and medium companies, the comment that they make is on focus. First, they do not think that our embassies or high commissions, when they go out and visit whatever company they choose to go to, are well enough briefed. I concur with that, as I travel to that part of the world and, in my judgment, Her Majesty’s Government now need to get a grip on it. Every embassy and high commission should have somebody very senior who is totally responsible for trade and development—and, within that, for how people should operate in the context of the country where they serve. Our people representing us on the ground need to be fully briefed on the Bribery Act and the implications for companies that come to seek their advice. Frankly, that is not happening, and it is time that we got a grip on it.
Secondly, the UK has good trade associations, which brief us politicians well when we talk about particular subject matters, and Her Majesty’s Government should provide specialist courses for them, covering all aspects of exporting—like the ECGD, which I have worked with—particularly, in the context of this debate, on the implications of the Bribery Act. It would be no bad thing if the chief executives of trade associations were brought into the government departments and given proper briefs and some structure to it all. Ideally, they could use a business school to help in this project.
Thirdly, small and medium companies are very important, but their management structures for exporting are likely largely to consist of an export team with an export director or manager with the involvement of the chief executive. These are busy people and, again, the department needs to make simple, short and efficient courses for export directors and managers—not just online and not just saying that something has been posted in some note somewhere, which they have to find. They need something good and easy and a helpline managed by an experienced official, not somebody who just reroutes them somewhere else. I realise that, with Covid and so many staff working from home, it is not easy, but it has to be addressed—and, in my judgment, all those involved in exporting need to come into the office at least once a week.
The department has been seeking collaborative approval on export advice since May 2019. What came out of the pilot scheme? That is so important.
I conclude with two comments. First, the City of London Police get 2% of the police budget but at least 25% of fraud crimes, so they need a bit more money to see that through. Finally, I wholeheartedly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord German.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome this report, and congratulate warmly all those who have contributed to it. As it happens, I was a member of the Liaison Committee when it considered on two occasions whether to recommend this Act for post-legislative scrutiny. On each occasion there were a number of other statutes on our list, and we could recommend only one of them. I was glad that on the second occasion my suggestion that this Act should be put forward for scrutiny was agreed to, and I am very pleased with the result.
One concern that we had on the Liaison Committee was whether UK businesses were being put at a competitive disadvantage by the standards set by this legislation in obtaining foreign contracts, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gold. I recall similar concerns being expressed at a conference that I attended in Hong Kong shortly after the Act was brought into force. Corporate hospitality and facilitation payments were mentioned as areas of particular difficulty. I was particularly pleased to read that, of the 100 witnesses from whom the committee received evidence, not one had any major criticisms of the Act, and its structure and the offences that it created were almost universally praised. Comments that were quoted were remarkably positive in their support. I take from all of this that, by and large, the warnings given at the outset—I suspect to try to undermine what this Act stands for—have not been borne out by experience. That is very good news.
I shall comment briefly on what the report has to say about Scotland. Questions of policy are, of course, for the Scottish Ministers. Nevertheless, I welcome that fact that the committee took the trouble to examine the position in Scotland as part of its scrutiny review. I am glad that the committee saw no reason for any change in the law and practice regulating the commencement of proceedings in Scotland. With the exception of private prosecutions, which are very rare, the golden rule in Scotland is that no prosecutions whatever can take place unless in the name or under the authority of the Lord Advocate. I recall having to point this out on several occasions during my time in the Crown Office as an advocate depute, to the great irritation of bodies such as the then Customs and Excise, which were used to handling these matters themselves in England. That is how the law works in Scotland, and it has long been recognised that there is no need to say anything about it in a UK statute.
I see great merit in the recommendation that the Secretary of State for Justice should amend the guidance published under Section 9 of the Act so that it deals adequately with the law and practice in Scotland, and that the websites in use on both sides of the border should be updated so that they each refer to both sets of guidance. As the guidance is for use in all parts of the United Kingdom, it is important that it should take account of the differences in law and practice there. I note, however, that no mention is made of Northern Ireland in this paragraph, nor indeed is Northern Ireland mentioned at all in the Ministry of Justice’s quick start guide. I hope that the Minister will feel able to suggest to the Secretary of State for Justice that he should look at the position in Northern Ireland too when he considers that recommendation.
As for what the committee says about civil settlements in Scotland—the alternative to the deferred prosecution system in England and Wales—I do not wish to take anything away at all from what my noble and learned friend Lord Saville said about this matter in his introduction. However, the differences between those two systems are perhaps less troublesome than the committee seems to have thought in commenting on the Scottish position. Take, for example, the suggestion that judicial supervision should be regarded as a vital element for the conduct of civil settlements in Scotland, which does not happen just now. This takes me back to the golden rule that I mentioned earlier. Another way of putting it is that the Lord Advocate is the “master of the instance” in Scotland; he is not subject to the direction of the courts as to whether a prosecution should be brought, and it is entirely up to him to decide whether or not to settle a case without resorting to prosecution and, if so, on what terms. Scotland does not have sentence bargaining, but agreements about pleas and settlements are within the discretion of the prosecutor. I doubt whether anyone in Scotland would want that system to brought under the supervision of the judges.
As to consistency, the lack of a statutory basis for the scheme does not trouble me, given the way in which these matters are handled by the Crown Office in Scotland, although a statutory basis would be needed for a financial penalty if this was thought appropriate. However, I see merit in the points made by the committee about the ways in which the scheme lacks transparency and the need to improve the quality of the information on the Crown Office website. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will pay close attention to what is said about this in the report.
Finally, I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and his concern about the differences that might emerge between the law and practice in Scotland and that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in how the Act is administered. I doubt very much that that is a matter for real concern. The terms of the statute are perfectly clear and the prosecutors themselves are well aware of the need to maintain consistency throughout the United Kingdom in dealing with these important matters.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I congratulate the chair of the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, on securing this debate, and congratulate him and his committee on a comprehensive report on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Bribery Act, for which the committee has had to wait nearly two years for the Government’s response. It is important that the Government use the powers within the Bribery Act effectively to tackle economic crime and the corrosive effect that corruption has on companies, individuals and society in general. This Act encourages companies to adopt honesty in all their dealings.
The committee wisely focused on several areas around bribery, including whether the Act had led to
“a stricter prosecution of corrupt conduct, a higher conviction rate and a reduction in such offending.”
It is remarkable and excellent that not one witness had major criticisms of the legislation. However, the report expressed concern at the slow pace of bribery investigations, with a number of witnesses criticising the time it had taken for bribery charges to be brought and for cases to reach trial.
What is also interesting is that companies were concerned about the potential for the legislation to be prejudicial to businesses in the operation of their work, but the committee found that this was not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Gold, referred to that today and in the article he published on his blog some time ago.
Recommendations dealt mainly with the implementation and enforcement of the Act, urging the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the DPP to speed up investigations into bribery and improve communications with those placed under investigation for bribery offences. The Government response centred on the committee’s concern surrounding the “slow pace” of bribery investigations, and they noted that several measures had been introduced within the specialist fraud division of the Crown Prosecution Service to
“ensure that cases progress effectively”.
That included bribery cases now having two allocated prosecutors, and legal managers being provided with weekly data on pre-charge cases, such as bribery, to ensure cases are regularly reviewed and progressed. How many cases have progressed to prosecution and conviction or release since these appointments, and how many are still awaiting trial and conviction? Has all this led to zero tolerance within companies and within the judicial system of bribery offences and economic crime? I also ask the Minister where the new Financial Services Act and the National Security and Investment Bill fit into the existing Bribery Act.
In response to the recommendation from the Committee regarding training and awareness of the act, the Government said there was not enough evidence to commit to providing additional resources to the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Academy to expand its training programme. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, asked about resources. What has happened since the publication of the Government’s response? Has there been a change of heart, and do they now intend to give resources to the Economic Crime Academy for training purposes?
On supporting companies on corruption issues in the countries to which they export, the Government said that DfID’s business integrative initiative was undertaking pilot work in Kenya, Mexico and Pakistan. According to the Government, the Bill aims to
“identify appropriate ways to support UK companies operating in these markets”
and will provide new guidance and tools to staff in these companies. Has this role been taken on by the FCDO with the dissolution of DfID? Has that new guidance been provided?
Many questions have been posed to the Minister, but we are undoubtedly better served by the operation of the Bribery Act and by the committee’s report and the Government’s response to it, all of which have enormous potential. The bottom line is that companies have no real choice but to enforce a stringent anti-corruption regime to minimise their risk of conviction and uphold proper standards of integrity and ethics in their business operations.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I, too, pay tribute to the careful chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and I thank Michael Collon and his staff and the expert advisers for all the hard work they put in.
Bribery is an offence which occurs in the shadows. It is a transaction which brings advantages to both parties, neither of whom can complain, whether satisfied or dissatisfied with the corrupt bargain. Its detection may well depend on a chance: an auditor stumbling on it in the course of an audit, a report from a whistleblower, or a complaint from a competitor. Nevertheless, like all corruption, it can be highly corrosive and potentially damaging. Even when the active agents are identified, the individual in the higher echelons of a corporate body who authorised or turned a blind eye to what was going on may still be too hard to pursue. Hence, it is justifiable to introduce the concept of corporate criminal responsibility, although the company itself is a legal person which can neither speak nor hear, much less form an intention.
I was involved in the pre-legislative committee prior to the passing of the Bribery Act in 2010. The policy which emerged was to create a climate in corporate business which would lead to the elimination of bribery altogether. One way of doing that would be, as my noble friend Lord Stunell argued, to make a corporate body vicariously liable for crimes committed by its employees or agents. But it could not be right to criminalise a company with absolute liability, and therefore there would have to be a right to a statutory defence—for example, that the company had taken all reasonable steps to prevent bribery and, once its existence were known, had not covered it up.
Of course, if there is sufficient evidence that the director or manager of a company—the captain on the bridge of the sinking ship—was complicit in bribery, “wilfully blind”, as my noble friend Lord Stunell said, or if he covered it up, he will be charged accordingly under Sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Act or with conspiracy.
For corporate criminal responsibility, however, it was thought preferable not to introduce vicarious criminal responsibility but to encourage a company to put in place systems of training and supervision and to frame the criminal offence as “failure to prevent bribery”. Thus, the company is not prosecuted and convicted vicariously for the bribery which its agent has committed. As an inanimate legal person, the company can have no knowledge of the offence, nor can the company be convicted positively of failing to have adequate procedures in place, whether or not bribery has been proved. An offence delineated in those terms would put the onus on the prosecution to prove that the company did not have adequate procedures.
Under Section 7 of the Act, the burden of proof is where it ought to be. If bribery has taken place on behalf of a company, the onus under Section 7 is on the company to show, as a defence to the charge that it failed to prevent it, that it had adequate procedures to prevent bribery in place. My noble friend Lady Bowles was concerned that the phrase “adequate procedures” is too low a bar for a defendant company to surmount. However, I am happy that the decision as to what is adequate is one for the jury, which imports the standards of the ordinary citizen, not the standards of the City.
The investigation carried out by the committee demonstrated that the architecture of the Bribery Act has been well conceived—a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in fathering it, and to my noble friend Lord McNally in acting as its midwife. Its definition of what constitutes bribery and its use of the defence of adequate procedures are well received and applauded internationally. It is regarded as the gold standard. No significant legislative changes have been recommended.
Where concerns are expressed in the report, they refer to advice, delay in investigation, and resources. Guidance could be improved in important areas, such as facilitation payments. But the idea that the Government should set up an advice bureau to authorise the conduct of an individual or a company before a transaction takes place was rightly rejected by the committee. Nevertheless, consular services to advise on overseas trade customs and norms should be strengthened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, emphasised.
An unintended consequence of the Act was that corporate sponsoring of events took a hit: sporting and musical events in particular. It is a matter of balance and common sense, as both the noble Lord, Lord Gold, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, noted, which defies statutory definition. However, the committee concluded that guidance could be improved by the inclusion of examples to illustrate what is or is not acceptable. I am sure that that would be helpful.
On investigations, the report points to the fact that only 12 out of 45 police forces had taken advantage of specialist training in the Bribery Act, and it recommended that a senior specialist investigator trained in the provisions of the Act should be employed in each of the 45 forces. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, training is a long-term commitment. Can the Minister tell us whether this recommendation has as yet been taken up?
When guilt in a case against a corporate body depends on whether it has employed adequate procedures, the field to be covered will be much larger than establishing the mere fact of an incident of bribery. The report calls for investment in artificial intelligence, document sifting and similar modern technologies which can handle what have been in some of the cases millions of documents. Like my noble friend Lord German, I would welcome the Minister’s report on the Government’s up-to-date position on greater investment in these areas.
DPAs have been a success under strict judicial control. However, I underline the one concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. In all criminal proceedings, lesser sentences encourage pleas of guilty; defence counsel always brings this to the attention of a defendant at the earliest moment. Self-reporting should similarly lead to similar discounts otherwise there is no benefit in self-reporting. I do not propose to debate whether the concerns expressed about co-operation in criminal investigations with the EU after Brexit have been met by the trade and security agreement, save to say that they manifestly have not. But that is surely for another day.
I hope that the work of the committee and the report it has produced has given direction to the investigators and prosecutors of bribery. I hope it also gives confidence to the business community that there is in place an effective weapon against bribery, and that it has encouraged the climate of honest and successful business that was intended without being too onerous a burden of time and cost, despite the many naysayers, to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lord McNally referred. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred to the UK slipping down the league table, and money laundering is a real issue. However, in the field of bribery, this Act has served to uphold our reputation for fair dealing across the world and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, without commercial disadvantage.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Queen’s Counsel in practice in Scotland, whose work from time to time involves cases where the Bribery Act is required to be considered, and as a former Advocate-General in post at the time of the Act’s introduction. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Advocate-General, to which he brings not only his considerable professional ability but a calm and measured approach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, and the committee, are to be complimented on this excellent review of the Bribery Act, as other noble Lords have observed. It is gratifying that the Act, introduced by the then Labour Government, is now so well regarded by so many. It is fair to say that it received a considerable amount of criticism as being a shackle on British international business at its introduction—a point that was observed by the noble Lords, Lord Gold and Lord McNally, and which was picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
The committee notes that there have been a number of positive assessments of the Act which chime with the general view of the it as broadly perceived. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, added his weighty and positive commendation, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, with her eloquent commendation.
The range of topics covered by the committee’s report is extensive, so I will confine myself to only a few matters. The first of these arises not from the Act but is scrutinised by the committee: the success of deferred prosecution agreements. I share the commendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for having pushed this innovation forward. Similarly, Sir David Green, as former director of the Serious Fraud Office, can be congratulated on putting the DPA into practice very effectively. While it is not unknown for the SFO to be criticised, it should be given considerable credit, as the noble Lord, Lord German, observed, for its innovatory use of artificial intelligence in the Rolls-Royce case, identified by the committee at paragraph 72. What might have taken many months if not years of document analysis was reduced to weeks and greatly accelerated the resolution of a highly complex case. It is encouraging to see that the SFO is now deploying AI-powered analysis across its new casework and embracing new technology ahead of many in the private sector.
One specialist in bribery law, Eoin O’Shea, now at CMS, who gave evidence to the committee and who is a supporter of the Act, has commented that DPAs may reduce the opportunity for senior courts to grapple with the key concepts from the legislation: for example, the defence of adequate procedures. Is the Minister able to say whether the statutory guidance will be amended to equiparate “adequate” to the familiar “reasonable in the circumstances” approach, as the committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, emphasised?
What may be less encouraging are the observations made by the committee on the corresponding Scottish regime to DPAs. Most Scots lawyers would be opposed to a proposition that Scots law should always copy the laws and procedures of the southern jurisdiction. However, the committee raises some clear and forceful criticisms of the civil settlement regime in Scotland.
I note that the government response identifies that some but not all of these criticisms have been addressed. Having been a Scottish Solicitor-General some two decades ago, I was conscious of a then somewhat overdeveloped resistance to transparency in the Crown Office. I had assumed that that resistance might have reduced substantially by now.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, sees little problem in the absence of judicial oversight of civil settlement, but is the Minister aware what reasoning lay behind the unwillingness of the Scottish Government to adopt judicial oversight of civil settlement? One might expect, given the international dimension of most bribery offences, that jurisdictional differences might be thought somewhat undesirable in this area, given that it applies a UK statute. I echo the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
One further criticism that is levelled regarding the Act in practice is the paucity of prosecutions. One immediately understands the difficulty in gathering reliable evidence and carrying forward the question of resources, a matter that my noble friend Lord Hain stressed as an important requirement. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris also identified this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Bribery is, by its very nature, covert—in the shadows, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, put it, with perpetrators often taking steps to disguise the crime as innocent activity. What can be less easy to understand is the absence of prosecution when, in civil proceedings, bribery has been uncovered and held by the court to have occurred to the civil standard with a high level of confidence. It is unclear how often this situation arises, but anecdotes suggest it has arisen from time to time. Perhaps the Minister may even have encountered this problem in his own practice. This is a variation on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gold, about DPAs and the lack of individual prosecution. Is the Minister aware whether any research has been carried out to identify such occurrences? If so, is there any explanation for this apparent dissonance?
The area of corporate hospitality, which perhaps received the most criticism at the time of the introduction of the Act, remains, as the report indicated, an area where greater clarity is desired, where context is critical to assessing the appropriateness of a level of hospitality. The committee correctly recommends clearer guidance by way of examples being given. Is the Minister committed to leaving the guidance as it is, or is he really content, as the Government’s report suggests, that clarity may be outsourced, in a way, to Transparency International? If outsourcing to Transparency International is favoured, there are certainly a number of areas where TI offers guidance to the Government.
Hospitality, in its various forms, is of course one area that comes close to the conduct of government. The very first words of the report state:
“Societies are built upon trust.”
Nowhere is trust more important but less prevalent today than in government. Transparency International UK, in its recent report, Corruption and the UK, opined:
“The corrosive influence of big money continues to undermine the integrity of the UK’s political system.”
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to TI’s perception of a sliding of UK enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, gave a caution to the position of London’s reputation in the world and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, added his concerns.
There is an insidious form of bribery that provides hospitality and financial support in many forms, but which never expresses a direct quid pro quo; rather access, favours and influence are the implicit anticipated reward, which may come all too easily. Does the Minister agree that such conduct should be criminalised to restore integrity to the political system? Should not the definition of bribery be extended to cover such activity wherever it may arise? Does he agree with the chief executive of Transparency International UK, who in a press release of 21 September 2020 said:
“To win back public trust, Parliament should legislate to remove the corrupting influence of big money from our democracy.”?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for calling the debate today in his capacity as former chairman of the committee for post-legislative scrutiny of the Bribery Act 2010. I also wish to thank him and all other former members of the Bribery Act Committee for the important and comprehensive post-legislative review process, which they carried out between May 2018 and March 2019, before the publication of the official report. The breadth of issues covered in the committee’s report has led to the very interesting and lively debate we have heard today. Finally, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this discussion.
We will all agree that bribery is a very serious crime, and the importance of having a law for bribery which is clear, effective and robustly enforced is not in doubt either. This Government remain committed to tackling economic crime and see the Bribery Act as an important and effective tool in that endeavour. As the committee makes clear in the report, however, the task of the legislature is not just to make the law but to see whether major legislation enacted is having the effect it was designed to achieve; that is why scrutiny is so important.
As we have discussed this afternoon, the main focus of the committee’s scrutiny centred on three areas. The first is whether the Act has indeed led to stricter prosecution of corrupt conduct, a higher conviction rate and a reduction in that behaviour. The second is whether UK businesses have been put at a competitive disadvantage in obtaining foreign contracts under the stricter provisions of the Bribery Act and whether small and medium enterprises were sufficiently aware of the provisions of the Act. A further area is how far deferred prosecution agreements have affected the conduct of companies, both in preventing corrupt conduct and investigating it once it has been discovered.
It is worth reminding ourselves why we needed the Bribery Act in the first place—a number of speakers today touched on this. Bribery was not reported as a high-volume crime in the days before the Bribery Act came into being, so it could be said that it was not born of a need to address an urgent domestic problem of the day. However, in the face of growing criticism by both domestic and international stakeholders, it was apparent that reform of the previous law on bribery was increasingly necessary to deal effectively with ever more sophisticated, cross-border use of bribery in the modern world. The main objective in the development of the Act was therefore to provide modern legislation which reformed the existing common law and statutory offences of bribery by introducing a new consolidated scheme of bribery offences designed to give the police, prosecutors and the courts an effective way of tackling bribery, whether committed at home or abroad. I will return to the extraterritorial aspect of the 2010 Act in due course.
At the same time, the Government also sought to provide the private sector and affected companies with greater certainty and consistency around bribery and the obligations on companies and businesses. It was hoped that this would ensure justice for those involved in or affected by bribery, and a reinforcing of proper ethical conduct in commercial business and society in general—a matter of culture to which many speakers today adverted.
A further main policy objective of the Act was to address issues raised in relation to our international anti-corruption obligations by putting in place an effective mechanism for prosecuting bribery involving foreign public officials, and to establish effective corporate liability for bribery where it takes place. Perhaps most importantly of all, however, it was envisaged that the Act would support the Government’s wider strategy for tackling international corruption by not only deterring and penalising bribery offences but encouraging and supporting business to apply appropriate standards of ethical business conduct.
In this regard, the Government had a specific objective of combating the use of bribery in high-value transactions in international markets and, in particular, in large-scale public procurement or tendering exercises where the largest businesses operate and predominate. Although the legislation would ultimately apply to all companies falling within scope of the definition of the offence, it was recognised that small and medium enterprises would not usually engage in the business environment described above, so it was never envisaged that they would be the main focus of any enforcement activity.
As the committee itself observed, however eagerly anticipated or well received a Bill may be, it is by no means guaranteed that the resulting Act will live up to those expectations. Fortunately—again, I endorse noble Lords’ observations on the topic—the Bribery Act is now recognised internationally as being the leading model, alongside the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, for effective criminal anti-bribery legislation. Moreover, the United Kingdom is recognised as one of the top four enforcers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s convention against bribery. Following the OECD’s review in 2017, the UK received a very positive assessment of its legislative framework. I hope that I will not be thought complacent in that I cite these figures without specific reference, at this stage, to the observations about dropping down the international league table, moving from the gold standard to the bronze.
Alongside the praise received for being a successful anti-corruption tool internationally, the Government’s own initial assessment was that the Act was performing as Parliament had intended. Much of the evidence submitted to the committee supported this, and the Government are very grateful that no major criticisms were made, reflecting the quality of the Act in its drafting. While there is always a case for listening to suggestions about where there might be further improvement, the Government were again grateful for the committee’s positive assessment that the overall structure of the Act, the offences it created, its deterrent effect, and interaction with deferred prosecution agreements are some of the main aspects which have received almost universal praise.
The committee’s final report—which we have covered in detail this afternoon—made 35 conclusions and recommendations around the implementation and enforcement of the Act. Although the Government’s position on each recommendation was made clear in the response document, we will continue to consider and, where possible, explore opportunities for increasing awareness of the associated guidance. However, I think it is clear that the Act is indeed working well and doing what it was intended to do. To illustrate this, I highlight a few of the successes of the Act as an effective enforcement tool since its coming into force in 2011.
Since that time, the Serious Fraud Office has secured its first conviction after trial for corporate offences involving bribery of foreign officials and its first guilty plea by a corporate body for an offence under Section 7—the provision that we have discussed. Nine deferred prosecution agreements have been put in place with United Kingdom companies since their introduction in 2014, six of which are for overseas corruption offences. This is in addition to the imponderable, impossible to quantify, deterrent effect that the Act continues to have on those who would seek to commit bribery offences. The Act has had a positive impact in helping businesses and corporations to reshape their culture.
The Government are not complacent over issues relating to economic crime, which remains a key priority for the Government. We are committed to exploring ways to continue to improve our response to this type of offending. We should not forget that we have achieved some other important milestones following the introduction of the Bribery Act itself. The Government’s anti-corruption strategy, launched in 2017, provides the framework for their domestic and international priorities on corruption and details each of the policies and actions being taken forward to combat that evil up to 2022. Despite the challenges that last year brought to every aspect of life, the year 2 update on that strategy was published, as expected, in July.
Speakers this afternoon have made reference to the provisions for training. The multi-agency National Economic Crime Centre, based in the National Crime Agency, has been established to co-ordinate and task the United Kingdom’s response to economic crime, including high-level fraud and money laundering. For the first time, the centre encourages and facilitates closer ties between its partner organisations in law enforcement and the regulated sector, including the Financial Conduct Authority, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the City of London Police, the Home Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, all of which played an important part in the committee’s review. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland also contributed.
Another issue that was highlighted by the committee was the lack of progress on next steps following the corporate criminal liability call for evidence in 2017. I am conscious of the criticism made by a number of noble Lords about the delay that has occurred since that date. This is an extremely complex area of law, and the Government received a number of diverse and often conflicting views to the call for evidence. This resulted in a considerable delay to an announcement on the way ahead. Although the results of the original process proved inconclusive, it is extremely positive that we have had progress on the issue since the committee’s report—and indeed the Government’s response—was published. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, the Law Commission has agreed to carry out an in-depth review of the current law on economic crime. Work has already started on this, and I know that there is a good deal of support for the work of the commission in this House. The delay arises not out of any attempt to kick the matter into the long grass, as one speaker said earlier—or at least referred to the possibility of it being interpreted as such. It is a reflection rather of the polarisation of views with which we were presented.
The terms of reference for the project have been published on the Law Commission’s website but, in summary, it is envisaged that the first part of the process will be to draft an options paper, in which the commission will analyse how effective the law is and where it could be improved. The commission will then present various options for reform of the law, so that we can continue to ensure that corporate entities can be held appropriately to account. Initial findings are expected later this year, and it is hoped that this will lead eventually to the end of the long-running and often contentious debate on whether further changes to economic crime law are necessary. This will include consideration of a potential extension of the “failure to prevent” offence set out in the Bribery Act, so I am sure that it will be of great interest to all former committee members and to those who have contributed to our debate today.
The chairman of the committee sought specifically to learn about developments since the conclusion of our departure from the European Union. The safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority. We have reached an agreement with the European Union, which delivers a comprehensive package of capabilities that will ensure that we can work with counterparts across Europe to tackle serious crime, terrorism and other offences, protecting the public and bringing criminals to justice. This includes fast-track extradition arrangements similar to those in place between the EU and Norway and Iceland. These arrangements are intended to be as fast and effective as those under the European arrest warrant, while providing greater safeguards for those who are arrested.
The agreement also puts in place arrangements that will simplify and speed up co-operation with EU member states on mutual legal assistance and asset freezing and confiscation, building and improving on the relevant Council of Europe conventions. This is the first time that the EU has agreed such a comprehensive agreement with a third country in this area. I recognise that, in the case of economic crimes, effective extradition arrangements will be important to ensure that we prosecute individuals effectively. We have these streamlined arrangements based on the EU’s surrender agreement with Norway and Iceland.
We are no longer part of the EAW. These new arrangements provide stronger protections for individuals, including provisions that make it clear that a person cannot be surrendered if their fundamental rights are at risk, or extradition would be disproportionate, or they are likely to face long periods of pre-trial detention— all evils identified under the EAW scheme. They also allow the UK courts to refuse a warrant if they believe that it has been issued to prosecute someone because of their political views, and to guarantee rights of access to translation, legal advice and consular assistance for British citizens arrested abroad.
The deal that the Government have reached in relation to our departure from the European Union enables arrangements with Europol and Eurojust that reflect the scale of our contribution to these agencies and facilitate effective operational co-operation. It enables the fast and effective exchange of national DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data via the Prüm system to aid law enforcement agencies in investigating crime and terrorism. We have agreed fast and effective arrangements for exchanging criminal records data through shared infrastructure and have ensured that information can be exchanged for crime prevention and safeguarding purposes. We have secured the continued transfer of passenger name records from the EU to protect the public from terrorists and criminals. As I said, we have also put in place arrangements that will simplify and speed up co-operation with EU member states on mutual legal assistance and asset freezing and confiscation, building and improving on the relevant Council of Europe conventions.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the thoughtful submissions made by speakers in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to specific examples and endorsed the essay of the noble Lord, Lord Gold, on corporate culture. The noble Lord spoke about the importance of adequate resourcing and questioned the Government’s commitment to the operation of the Act abroad and the enforcement of anti-bribery measures abroad. I draw to his attention Section 12 and emphasise that the Bribery Act is an extraterritorial matter. Persons can be prosecuted where they have a close connection with the United Kingdom, and it does not matter if acts are committed abroad.
The noble Lord’s observations about London as a centre for money laundering are matters of urgent concern, but I sense that they also reflect something of London’s particular pre-eminence and status as a financial centre.
I agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, as to the importance of deferred prosecution agreements. I advise her that guidance and indeed practice emphasise that the existence of a deferred prosecution agreement does not bar prosecution of individual persons who were themselves responsible for acts of bribery. We encourage the prosecution of individuals. That has taken place already and is taking place in the context of DPAs.
As well as contributing an article which attracted positive views from members of the committee, my noble friend Lord Gold also spoke. I am happy to endorse his question and say that we will keep under review the possibility of extension of Section 7 of the 2010 Act into other areas.
I hope that I have already reassured noble Lords who mentioned the risk of complacency. It was the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who spoke of our decline from the gold medal position to the bronze medal position on the podium. I suspect that this will be a matter which is somewhat fluid and dynamic in terms of measures coming into force. As we will discuss later, the types of offence with which the Act is concerned and the investigations put forth under it have a very long lead time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, called for figures on the operation of the bodies charged with investigation of crimes of this sort. I can advise him and others that the gross budget for the Serious Fraud Office went up from £44.6 million in the financial year 2009-10 to £60.6 million in 2018-19, that being the last year for which figures are available. I regret that I do not have figures for the Crown Prosecution Service or other agencies. I shall endeavour to discover those and to write to the noble and learned Lord. I can tell him that the Government are committed both to the Serious Fraud Office and to the maintenance of the Crown Prosecution Service. We will always ensure that those bodies are fully supported to deliver their objectives, and they make their financial details available year on year.
My attention is drawn to the clock. I agree with the submission by the noble Lord, Lord German, that artificial intelligence will be an important and developing tool.
On advice given to small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have sought to group matters together on a specific landing-site website. That means that inquiries on this matter will come to a central site and there will be easy links to places where information and advice can be discovered.
The role of the anti-corruption champion was raised by a number of noble Lords. Mr Penrose MP holds that office; he is a prime ministerial appointment and reports to the Prime Minister. The anti-corruption champion is committed to his role, which can be seen by the fact that he has weekly meetings with the joint anti-corruption unit and regular meetings with Ministers and businesses. That matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as well as by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson also made reference to the committee’s scrutiny of the Skansen case. I share his concern about aspects of the prosecution in that matter, and I am sure that the practice will have developed and will continue to develop so that what might be seen as errors in the prosecution’s approach will not be made in future.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to his gift from the outgoing Labour Government of the 2010 Act. I am happy to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, my predecessor in this role, was responsible for that, and I thank him for his kind words. I am happy that the gift to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on coming into post was merely the 2010 Act and not a case of whisky—a reference to the sensible observations from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, about the nature of facilitation payments and the obviousness of bribery.
I have made reference to funding concerns and cited figures for the Serious Fraud Office and its increase in budget.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Empey, and my noble friend Lord Naseby, who spoke from experience of business abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the existence of a pilot project operating in Kenya, Mexico and Pakistan. It is important that consular, high commission and other embassy advice is available to businesses practising in foreign countries. The Government are aware of that. Time may not permit me to refer noble Lords to the range of training in place but, again, I can write to noble Lords who raised the question. I can say in relation to the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that we will respond in writing to the question of how many people are involved in training in the embassies—and that also goes to consular and high commission facilities.
In answer to questions raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, my predecessor in office, the self-report system that operates in Scotland is, as he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, observed, distinct from the system of deferred prosecution agreements that operates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The initiative must be reviewed and approved each year by the Lord Advocate, and was most recently extended until June 2021. The fact that business is required to put in place measures to prevent unlawful conduct is viewed as an effective means of preventing corruption in future.
In 2018, the committee asked the Lord Advocate about a perceived lack of transparency with the self-report scheme, because the matter does not go before a judge in open court. The Lord Advocate does not accept that there is a lack of transparency in the Scottish system. Following the conclusion of any settlement under the self-reporting scheme, as part of a proactive strategy, the Crown Office invites publicity and provides information for media releases which are published on a dedicated bribery page on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service website.
In response to a further point raised by the noble and learned Lord, there are no current plans to amend the Act, but we will await with interest the findings of the Law Commission review of corporate criminal liability. In relation to the concern raised by a number of noble Lords about the guidance on offer in relation to corporate hospitality, we believe strongly that professional organisations and trade associations are better placed to provide both sector-specific and bespoke guidance on corporate hospitality. In relation to the broader point raised by the noble and learned Lord, we can readily see that there may be a difficulty if, further down the line to the provision of specific tailored advice in specific circumstances, one side might plead that it was being prosecuted having followed advice, and the other might declare that material facts that would have influenced any advice given had not been disclosed. It is that sort of matter that the Government’s approach seeks to avoid.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his characteristically thoughtful analysis of the matter and his endorsement of the operation of Section 7. My observations in relation to the last point follow his remarks that the Government are not a trade body in relation to the provision of advice to members.
I suspect that I have gone over time and I apologise for trespassing on your Lordships’ patience and that of the clerk and others here. I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and am particularly grateful to the committee for its work in scrutinising this piece of legislation. I am happy that the legislation and its operation, broadly speaking, enjoy such support across the Benches in your Lordships’ House. I apologise to noble Lords if I have not responded, owing to the times constraints, to specific points that they have raised, but I will go over my notes and those taken for me in relation to points raised by noble Lords, and will correspond in due course.
Lord Saville of Newdigate (CB) [V]
My Lords, during the course of the debate, a number of speakers raised the question of applying vicarious criminal liability to companies in cases of bribery. There are very strong views held on both sides of this question, but I simply draw attention, once again, to Section 7 of the Act, on the failure to prevent bribery. This avoids all questions of mens rea and other difficulties and provides, in my view, a ready means of catching out the company if it has failed properly to take adequate measures. If we apply that section to the ship captain who has lost his ship, then he would not get away with it if he had failed to take adequate measures to keep his ship seaworthy.
I take this opportunity to publicly thank the staff who worked for this committee. The advice and guidance of our clerk, Michael Collon, proved quite invaluable. We could not have been better served. I wish him a long and happy retirement. The same could be said—except that he is not retired—of Ben Taylor, our policy analyst. His historical and other research was of the highest quality. Alasdair Love and Rebecca Pickavance also formed part of the team, and we were all very impressed by the hard and good work that they did for us. I also thank Anne-Marie Ottaway, a solicitor with extensive knowledge of the working of the Bribery Act, whose assistance as our specialist adviser made an important contribution to our work. Finally, I thank the other members of the committee, all of whom played a vital part in our deliberations. It was a very great pleasure to work with such people.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind all Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Captain Sir Tom Moore
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, before we begin Oral Questions, I would like to lead the House in a moment of silence in memory of Captain Sir Tom Moore, who died yesterday. His quiet resolve and selfless spirit of public service will never be forgotten. As we pause to remember him and his enduring legacy, we also remember all those who have died since the start of the pandemic. I ask Members to rise for a minute’s silence.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ replies and answers are also brief.
Music Sector: Working in Europe
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to support the music sector with (1) touring, and (2) other work, in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of international touring for the whole range of UK cultural and creative practitioners. The Secretary of State has committed to creating a DCMS-led working group to work closely with the sector’s representative organisations and other key government departments to assist businesses and individuals as far as possible to work confidently in the EU. That group met for the first time on 20 January.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister find it acceptable that artists from countries across the globe, such as Colombia and the United Arab Emirates, have through the standard visa waiver agreement potentially better access to the EU than ourselves, the EU’s next-door neighbour? What steps are the Government taking to proactively engage with the EU to find a solution to touring arrangements in Europe? Having to deal individually with 27 EU countries and even, as in Belgium and Germany, regions within countries does not cut it. It is the last thing that the music sector wants.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Earl is right to highlight some of the challenges that now face our brilliant musicians and creative artists. As he knows, in the UK-EU trade negotiations the EU tabled a proposal for a permanent waiver for short stays covering UK and EU citizens that drew on agreements such as those with Colombia and the UAE. However, this offer would not have met the needs of touring musicians in the round, nor was it compatible with our manifesto commitment to take back control of our borders. Therefore, our starting point is to listen to and work with those in the sector to make sure that they have the information that they need, in a clear and accessible way, so that they can continue their valuable work once Covid restrictions are lifted.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the countries cited by my friend the noble Earl have unilateral agreements with the EU, which makes these relationships possible. Will the Government now seek their own new bilateral agreements with the EU and EU member states, separate from the trade agreement, so that they can exempt touring performers and creative people from the visa and work permit regulations?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness has heard me say at the Dispatch Box on several occasions, we are exploring individual options to try to ease the process for our musicians and creative artists, but there are no current plans such as the one that she suggests.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the dialogue between the Minister’s department and the industry. Not just musicians but professionals from other creative industries rely on touring and now face this extra bureaucracy when moving between the EU and the UK. Can the Minister say whether moving equipment—whether musical instruments, scenery, merchandise or artefacts—by truck or cargo will require carnets between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The Northern Ireland protocol makes no mention of temporary import/export.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Given the sensitivities around arrangements with Northern Ireland at the moment, if I may, I will double-check and confirm to the noble Baroness. My understanding is that artists and organisations based in Northern Ireland will not be required to obtain ATA carnets or musical instrument certificates when touring in the EU, because the protocol means that Northern Ireland is part of that regulatory environment.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, half our musicians earn half their income in the European Union. Echoing the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I add that Tonga and St Lucia also have visa waiver agreements with the European Union. Is the Government’s position that Tonga and St Lucia do not have control over their borders and therefore should now turn their backs on their visa waiver schemes, or will the Government see sense and pursue a bilateral agreement for a visa waiver scheme for our musicians?
Baroness Barran (Con)
This Government are not responsible for any of the visa arrangements for the countries to which my noble friend referred. We recognise that additional requirements will need to be met for our cultural professionals to tour and work in the EU. Some member states allow touring without a permit and others require a pre-approved visa and/or work permit. We are undertaking an extensive programme of engagement with our sectors to find the best way through.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the deal presents challenges across all art forms. The 10-person dance-circus company Motionhouse exemplifies this. It is currently negotiating a 56-show tour at 20 venues in 11 EU countries. The additional costs of carnets, permits and visas rise to £37,000, on top of new administrative costs and in-country taxes. Is the Minister aware that the company will also need to monitor any holidays that its dancers take in the Schengen area? If it pushes any one of them over the 90 days allowed, it could be forced to cancel or refuse bookings. What advice can she offer this company and many like it, so that it can continue to promote UK creativity to the world, as it has done for 33 years?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I congratulate the company on what it has achieved over the last 33 years. We in this House are all proud of the work of our creative colleagues. I advise them to work through their industry bodies to make sure that the department hears of the issues that they face and can feed them into the solutions that we are trying to find.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness’s answers today, I have the uncomfortable feeling that we have gone backwards from where we were a couple of weeks ago, when she last answered a Question on this subject in the House. Is she saying that the Government now have no intention of further engagement with the EU or EU member states to try to get a better outcome for the many performers and performing arts organisations that are faced with these new restrictions? If so, is that not a counsel of despair?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope that it is not a counsel of despair. As I have said before in the House, there is scope to return to this issue in the future, should the EU change its mind. We were clear on what we tried to achieve. That ambitious request was based on advice that we received from musicians and the creative industries more broadly. We cannot go back from what they have told us that they need. The Government are looking at whether we can work with our partners in EU member states to find ways to make life easier for them in the meantime.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
A year ago, the Creative Industries Minister told the Commons that music tours are
“the lifeblood of the industry”.
He said:
“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/20; cols. 56-57WH.]
Those are fine words, but what is the reality? The creative arts were completely ignored in the EU trade deal. One of our stellar export industries has been butchered by this botched negotiation. Why have the Government not gone back to Brussels to fix this mess?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot accept the noble Lord’s assertion that these industries were ignored. Our negotiators worked extremely hard to try to put forward a proposal that would have benefited both the EU and the UK creative sectors and we are disappointed that it was not accepted.
Lord Bowness (Non-Afl) [V]
This issue is much wider than just musicians, although that is clearly extraordinarily important. I am amazed we were only having discussions with the industry on 20 January, because this issue has been around for a long time. On 20 December, the noble Lord, Lord True, told me that the more ambitious agreement on movement was rejected by the EU. However, in March last year the Home Office told me:
“These arrangements are not dependent on whether or not the Government concludes a Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU.”
On 5 May, I was told that it depended on both. My question, which I raised in the debate on 8 January was: does this have to be negotiated with the EU or the individual states? If it is the latter, how many of the 27 have we approached and how many are we engaged with in negotiations?
Baroness Barran (Con)
To clarify for my noble friend, our work with the industry did not start on 20 January, and I am sorry if I was not clear on that point. The Secretary of State established a new round-table group which has met for the first time, but all our work in this area has been informed by feedback from the sector. In relation to my noble friend’s wider points, I will respond in writing if I may.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I am sorry, but the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Hospitality Sector Minister
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to appoint a dedicated minister for the hospitality sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con) [V]
Responsibility for hospitality is currently split between BEIS and DCMS. Both departments are working closely together to ensure that the sector’s interests are strongly represented in government. The power to create a new ministerial post rests with the Prime Minister; however, whatever is decided, we will work to ensure that the sector is in the best possible place to bounce back from Covid-19 so that it plays a leading role in the UK’s economic and social recovery.
Lord Caine (Con)
My noble friend is well aware of the crucial importance of the hospitality sector to our economy, to employment and to our general quality of life. While I completely acknowledge the unprecedented levels of support provided by this Government, the sector still faces massive uncertainty and challenges when we finally emerge from this terrible pandemic. Rather than responsibility being split between different departments, is there not now an overwhelming case for it to be brought under one dedicated senior Minister whose sole focus is to work with the entire sector on recovery? The sector is asking for this through its online petition, which has now attracted 209,000 signatures.
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
I well understand the point my noble friend is making but, as I have said, BEIS and DCMS work closely together. The split in responsibilities reflects the fact that most hospitality businesses are SMEs, and BEIS is very experienced in supporting them. However, hospitality accommodation is more closely aligned with the responsibility DCMS has for tourism. We are co-ordinating our activities closely.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, throughout the pandemic the Government have recognised the importance of the hospitality sector and provided funding accordingly. I would be interested to know why they have so far resisted the idea of a dedicated Minister, as we have for sports and the arts. Will the Government at least consider an interim position, as suggested in the other place, of an industry recovery Minister, which could then be made permanent if it were found to be working well?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
As I said in my previous Answer, the responsibility for creating new ministerial positions rests with the Prime Minister. I think he has responded in writing to some of these questions from the Liaison Committee on that matter.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the hospitality industry has suffered more than just about any other sector over the last ten and a half months, being closed for more than half that period. Does the Minister agree that the Government should provide a road map, as the CBI—of which I am president—has recommended? This would guide businesses on the opening up of the economy, including whether a tier system is going to return and the use of rapid mass tests. Does he also agree that business support needs to be extended for the hospitality industry in particular, including extending the furlough scheme until the end of June and the business rates holiday, so that there is no March cliff edge?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
An unprecedented package of support has been given to the industry; unfortunately it is impossible for us to say at this stage when hospitality and entertainment businesses will be able to open safely and therefore it is impossible to have a road map. We are hoping to set out more details as we go through this month and the data becomes clearer.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as I am sure most noble Lords know, the hospitality industry is worth £150 billion a year to the UK economy. This is not counting the wider supply chain. It provides entry-level jobs as well as livelihoods for older workers. With the prospect of foreign holidays receding, this sector could play a major role in the start of a recovery. Therefore, will the Government consider establishing a forum with employers and unions to help secure the future of the sector and a bargaining council composed of Unite the Union and industry representatives to find sector-wide solutions?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.]—in new solutions, but I very much suspect that only a small minority of workers in the industry is actually represented by Unite in particular. We have regular meetings with the sector, many of which are small businesses, and I totally agree with the noble Baroness’s point that they will have an important role to play in the recovery.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
VAT and business rates have already been mentioned, which are two important issues to be clarified as soon as possible. There have also been several extensions to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. Is it not time to state clearly that it will be extended until the end of the year, particularly for businesses that continue to be restricted by either social distancing rules or travel restrictions? Given the advice of the WHO, that a 1 metre distance is as effective as 2 metres, are there any plans to consider that as part of the opening-up strategy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are keeping matters closely under review and if there are any extensions, the Government will want to announce them as quickly as possible. We are dealing with a fast-moving situation, but we recognise that the past few months have been very challenging for businesses in a wide variety of sectors and hospitality businesses in particular. We have provided an unprecedented package of support for businesses during this time of crisis.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think the Minister might acknowledge it has been rather more than challenging, because UKHospitality found that sales in the sector fell by 54% in 2020 and now 650,000 businesses fear collapse over the next three months. Will the Government bring forward a comprehensive national plan for the hospitality sector as a matter of urgency, so that the recovery is not choked off? Are the Government actively considering an extension of the VAT cut to 5% for a further month? If a recovery plan is generated by the Government, can they please consult extensively across all sectors and ensure that nations and regions are considered?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
We keep all of these recovery measures under constant review and if we need to extend them further, we will of course do so. With regard to the recovery plan, it is impossible to say at the moment when we will be able to reopen the sector, but we should be able to be clearer on this towards the middle of this month.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, hospitality matters for so many reasons. It provides jobs and opportunities for business and it offers social interaction, enjoyment and stimulation for our well-being. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me and other noble Lords that we need a clear road map for the hospitality industry—a route showing how we can ensure that hundreds and thousands of businesses can survive through these challenging times and emerge through to the other side?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
My noble friend is totally correct in terms of the importance of the hospitality sector. I can assure her that we will not keep restrictions for a day longer than is absolutely necessary, but we cannot have a road map at this stage because we do not have enough data as yet to know exactly how soon it would be safe to reopen. The picture should, I hope, be clearer by mid-February.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I heartily endorse the call of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for a hospitality Minister, who could co-ordinate the national response right across the United Kingdom. In the meantime, can I urge the Minister with responsibility to take on board the need to extend the VAT cut, which has applied from July through to 31 March? Most hospitality businesses have been closed for a large proportion of that time, and it would not make any sense that, as they reopen, that cut would not be available to help them through the very grave difficulties that they will face.
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
The noble Lord made his point very powerfully, and I will ensure that his comments are passed on to the Chancellor.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I have had a look at the websites of the two departments that are supposedly responsible for the hospitality industry—BEIS and DCMS—and there is a total of 13 Ministers, including three in the House of Lords. Whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has responsibility for ceremonials and the noble Lord replying has responsibility for the Ordnance Survey, not one of the 13 is listed as having responsibility for hospitality. Is this not embarrassing for the Minister and his department, and what will he do about it?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
There are two Ministers—Minister Huddleston in DCMS and Minister Scully in my department—who look after the interests of businesses and others in the sector, so the noble Lord need have no fears: the concerns of the hospitality sector are well heard in two government departments.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the additional support made available by the Government for the hospitality sector in the form of the closed business lockdown payment and the additional restrictions grant, but both of these do not appear to support many of those working in the wedding hospitality sector. While I hear what my noble friend has said about planning, could he tell the House what engagement the Government have had with the wedding sector in particular? What plans, if any, do they have for allowing weddings beyond the current arrangements, which allow them only in the most exceptional circumstances?
Lord Callanan (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes a very powerful point. My ministerial colleague, Minister Scully, is closely working with the sector to hear its concerns. He has had a number of meetings with the sector—if that is not right I will correct that for my noble friend—to listen to concerns, hear about plans for reopening and do whatever we can to work with it in this extremely difficult and challenging time.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now come to the third Oral Question.
National Risk Register
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce annual reporting to Parliament on the state of national preparedness for top-tier risks in the National Risk Register.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, a range of documents has been published that provide an overview of preparedness for major risks, including the national risk register, which provides information on those that have the potential to cause significant disruption. The Government do not currently have plans to publicly share further reports on this matter due to the confidential nature of the information.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, of course there are some preparations that it would not be right to reveal publicly, but that is what the Intelligence and Security Committee is for. Covid has already cost us more than half a trillion pounds, but at the start of the pandemic, of the emergency stockpile of 26 million NHS respirators, 21 million were past their use-by dates. Neither the lessons from Exercise Cygnus, nor the recommendations from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, have been acted on. To govern is to choose, and the choice was to leave us underprepared. Is it not in the public interest for Parliament to know how ready we are for the other serious risks on the national risk register?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box that lessons from Covid planning, and other planning, will be learned and are being learned, and will be communicated. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. He will know that the Government regularly respond to requests from that committee on risk assessment to inform its work, and they are currently responding to the recommendations in its report Biosecurity and National Security.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Government on their approach to maintaining the national risk register, but, following the recent severe flooding in Yorkshire and elsewhere, is my noble friend satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the national risk register and community risk registers in identifying and meeting such risks?
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend touches on a very important point. In all candour, I think that one is never satisfied with anything; one always wishes to learn from what happens to do things better the next time. However, I assure him that, to support their planning for emergencies, local resilience forums are provided with full support to develop local resilience plans. They have direct contact with the Cabinet Office, should specific questions on risk assessment be raised—I assure the noble Lord that this ongoing dialogue is strong and will be strengthened.
Lord Bird (CB)
Should the national risk register be about risks that are longer than two years and those over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? Also, the committee that was supposed to look into pandemics was closed down six months before the pandemic started: is that not a sign that perhaps we are a bit closed and not looking out in a real way to the great risks that face us now? Of course, the greatest risk is that of poverty.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a strong point with which I agree, having chaired one of your Lordships’ Select Committees that looked into longer-term planning. His point is important. The NSRA certainly takes into account the impact of risks on the most vulnerable in society in its methodology.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, emergency planners readily accept that the wider the input there is to a national risk register, the better it is, by its very definition. What plans have HMG to extend that input?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I say, the Government are in contact with a range of people. We have just discussed the issues of flooding and vulnerable groups, and, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, the Government are obviously in contact with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. We cast our interests and our ears—if you can cast your ears—widely.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, Professor Dame Sally Davies, the UK envoy on anti-microbial resistance, is calling on academics, Governments and not-for-profit organisations to work together to tackle this global health risk, which is a threat to both lives and economies. What action have the Government taken and what are their plans, following the recent update of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, on his 2016 review on this issue?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not have a detailed response to the O’Neill report, but I can make sure that the noble Baroness gets one. However, I assure her and the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has personally made clear his commitment to this Government being in the lead internationally in the fight against all manner of disease threats.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, the national risk register tries to identify both malicious and non-malicious threats, including misinformation. No one would ever suggest that President Macron’s recent rubbishing of the vaccination science was malicious, but it most certainly counts as misinformation that, unfortunately, plays into the hands and maliciousness of the anti-vaxxers. As such, might my noble friend, as an ardent European himself, be tempted later today to send Monsieur Macron this country’s very best wishes, gently remind him that the glorious state of France has nothing to fear from British success and suggest to him that the greatest danger facing all of us in this chaotic world is ignorance, to which the President has, sadly, unwittingly contributed?
Lord True (Con)
With his normal ingenuity, my noble friend encourages me to make about five diplomatic gaffes in five seconds. I am certainly not going to fall into that trap. Those who advise best on disease and on the safety of vaccines are the professionals. The British Government have total confidence in the advice that they have received on vaccines.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, how do we know whether the £5 billion programme for flood relief is sufficient and proportionate to the flood risk? Should not Parliament be able to debate this and have input into it? The more minds involved, the better our preparedness will be.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the lead government department concerned with flooding is the major one that should respond on that. Any debate on flood risk in your Lordships’ House would benefit not only the Government but the nation.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, the 2020 national risk register refers to planning to tackle Covid-19. It says that
“the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy covers strategic planning, response and scientific evidence for many emerging infectious diseases.”
Is not one of the lessons of the pandemic that the level of planning—for flu only—was totally inadequate? Is it not the case that there was simply no government planning for a coronavirus pandemic?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord may understand that Covid was a novel virus that emerged. He under- estimates the importance of the pandemic planning work. The NSRA was a vital starting point for the Covid-19 response. We have discussed that in a number of ways, but there is no doubt that the fast preparation of the Coronavirus Act was the result of effective planning for a pandemic.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, one of the great successes of the vaccine programme has been bringing our level of manufacturing capability back onshore. Do the Government have similar plans for generic medicines, microelectronics and power generation equipment? All these sectors are vulnerable should, say, China choose to go to war with Taiwan.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. Again, I am not going to write an industrial strategy from this Dispatch Box any more than I am a diplomatic policy. We have seen the value of the co-ordinated response to Covid. The creation of a national capacity has been greatly to our benefit. I am sure that his comments will be widely noted.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
Having a good risk register is not the same as having a good system of risk management. Despite pandemic being mentioned as a significant risk in the national risk register, why did the Government’s response to Covid not follow the department of health’s approved contingency plans for dealing with a SARS-type outbreak?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I said before, in my judgment—and in that of the Government—it is too early to draw all the lessons from the Covid emergency. Some tend to underestimate its novelty and gravity. This Government and all Governments in the world have sought to respond in the best interests of their peoples. We have drawn on the lessons from the pandemic review, as will be seen when any examination or inquiry takes place.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Electricity Supply
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement by EDF of a delay in electricity generation from Unit 1 at Hinkley Point C, what assessment they have made of the impact of any such delay on energy supply in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the capacity market is the market mechanism we use to ensure that the volume of power generation we have available is always sufficient to meet national demand. If Hinkley Point C looks likely to be delayed, we will procure more alternative capacity in the meantime. Taxpayers and consumers will not be affected by the changes that EDF recently announced. The investors are entirely responsible for the project cost and schedule.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Considering the pressures of Covid, EDF is to be congratulated on what has been achieved on site. If you go to see what has been done, you will know that it is quite amazing.
Nuclear will have to provide about 30 gigawatts of electrical power by 2050 if we are to meet net zero. Large reactors are required for electrical generation but, of course, AMRs must be developed for co-generating heat and hydrogen production. Building Sizewell C is now a matter of urgency. The Government’s energy White Paper and national infrastructure strategy rightly put nuclear at the heart of our net-zero future.
The National Security and Investment Bill which is going through the House is likely to scupper Bradwell B. There is grave concern about the withdrawal of Horizon Nuclear Power’s development consent order application for the construction of Wylfa Newydd. Are the Government concerned? This new nuclear reactor is needed now more than ever. There are less than two months in which to find a solution.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, in a nutshell, Wylfa Newydd is probably the best nuclear site currently available globally. The Government are very keen to find a developer for it. While we are naturally disappointed that Horizon is not going ahead, any other developer will need to make a fresh development consent order relevant to its own technology. We are keen to discuss new-build projects with the investors of any other companies willing to develop these sites.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
EDF blames the massive cost increases and delays on ground conditions. It has owned the site for more than 10 years and, if it has not been able to work out what is under the ground, heaven help us. More seriously, these cost increases follow similar stories to EDF’s two other projects in Cap de la Hague and Finland. I question whether they will ever open. Who will fund the cost escalations resulting from these delays and changes—the taxpayer, EDF or the consumer? Somebody will have to.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The cost escalation will be entirely borne by the developer. It is one of the reasons why we will pay £92.5 per megawatt hour for the electricity produced from this site. Delays have increased costs, but it had already been announced in 2019 that there was likely to be a delay and that the increased cost would be £500 million. Covid has had a significant effect. In trying to have workers on a socially distanced site, numbers have dropped from 3,800 to 2,000. Post-Covid, the figure is expected to get up to 7,000 employees.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury [V]
My Lords, the price of electricity from Hinkley is remaining unchanged at £92.50 per megawatt hour, and EDF is expecting the same profit of more than 7.1% on its investment. Given that, can the Minister explain the points that she has just made about how the additional 30% of construction costs on the initial £18 billion budget is being absorbed at no cost to consumers? As the price of electricity from renewables has dropped—with wind now at £40 per megawatt hour—might not research and development into renewals have been a better investment? Hinkley already looks like transitional technology.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The truth is that we need a blend of all these technologies to produce the low-carbon power we will need by 2050. We negotiated the contract with EDF and CGN so that they would bear the full costs of any escalation in construction. The £92.5 price cannot directly be compared with the price for more intermittent forms of generation. I hope that satisfies the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we need a blend of energy. I welcome the progress on renewable energy since 2010. I hope that perhaps there will be further progress on nuclear fusion and hydrogen technologies. Can she confirm that the power station at Hinkley Point is part of our critical national infrastructure? Are we entirely confident that there are no companies involved that might owe allegiance elsewhere, should there be a crisis? She will of course know that I am talking about Chinese companies.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend will be reassured to know that the fusion projects are proceeding at a fast pace, and a competition has just been launched to host the first STEP project in the UK. As he will know, the White Paper promised £385 million to invest in new nuclear technologies. On his last point, all investment involving critical infrastructure is subject to thorough scrutiny and needs to satisfy robust legal, regulatory and national security requirements. These will only be enhanced by the National Security and Investment Bill, which arrives in this House tomorrow.
Lord Oates (LD)
What justification can the Minister provide for licensing new nuclear plants when, 60 years after the UK’s civil nuclear programme began, the Government still have no solution for the safe, permanent storage of existing high-level nuclear waste, which remains deadly for longer than any civilisation has ever survived?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is a priority of the Government to look after the waste securely. We have been looking for a permanent solution for the geological disposal facility. All developers are responsible for the cost of storage and transportation of nuclear waste, which has been safely disposed of since we pioneered nuclear power stations in the 1960s.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my Suffolk interests, as in the register. We will have to leave Hinkley to sort itself out from the muddle that EDF is now making, but Sizewell C is expected to cost £21 billion. Will my noble friend consider that the British Rolls-Royce consortium, which is making small modular reactors, could offer to produce eight SMRs at a cost of only £16 billion, on the same timescale as EDF was scheduled to produce Sizewell but which it will no longer be able to?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that EDF is estimating a 20% reduction in cost for using the same technology that it has been using at Hinkley Point C, which is why we are proceeding with Sizewell C. We need a mix of all these technologies. He is right to point out the potential of advanced nuclear technologies: that is why we are investing in them. The Rolls-Royce SMR is likely to be operational by 2032. Investment in AMR technology, which has the potential to help us in our hydrogen ambitions, will follow shortly thereafter.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, as shown in the register. We are losing a large amount of low-carbon firm power capacity by the end of this decade. Much of the debate on future generation has been based on comparison of levelised costs of electricity metrics between technologies. Does the Minister agree that this does not recognise the system costs of intermittent generators, and that an alternative model should be developed which accounts for this and positively incentivises renewable generators, such as equivalent firm power auctions?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. He is right that we should take all costs of the energy system into account when making choices about our generation mix. The latest departmental modelling does this. It is not as simple as calculating firm power equivalence. A system’s cost depends on what is available across the sector, rather than focusing on each type of generation separately.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The energy White Paper stated that, at Hinkley Point C, EDF
“expects that 64% of the construction contracts, by value, will go to UK-based companies.”
Can the Minister confirm that this will continue to be the case, despite the delay and increased costs of that project? Can she translate this into the number of jobs? How widespread or, alternatively, how concentrated, are their location? What is the multiplier effect on local jobs? Will this be reflected in a similar fashion at Sizewell C, at the reduced cost now agreed?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Our aim is certainly to replicate the mix of local construction costs into the UK economy. Hinkley Point has indeed invested £12 billion into the UK economy, which represents 64% by value. I cannot comment on the multiplier effect, but Hinkley Point C has generated 10,300 jobs to date and has had knock-on effects, such as the co-operative group of farmers who now produce food for the entire Hinkley Point estate. I understand that a couple have gone on to supply other local businesses too.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Hotel Quarantine for Travellers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement a mandatory hotel quarantine for all travellers arriving in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, these new measures at the border are a necessary step to protect the public and our world-class vaccination programme. Every layer of protection we have put in place will help reduce the risk of transmission of the virus and prevent any potential new strain entering the UK. All measures will be kept under review and, if required, further action will be taken to add another layer of protection against transmission.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the good news on vaccines, should we not be ever more vigilant on our borders? The 22 December meeting of SAGE identified the rapid spread of a variant in South Africa, and the NERVTAG meeting of 13 January warned of the rapid growth of variant B1351 in South Africa and called for enhanced border measures. Since then, how many people have entered the UK from South Africa? Why, as Yvette Cooper said yesterday, is it still possible for people to return home to the UK from South Africa and go straight into the community with no tests on arrival, no quarantine hotels and no quarantine taxis? Scotland has announced extensive new quarantine rules today. When will the Government get a grip and bring in the much tougher quarantine measures they should have introduced weeks ago?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. He is right that additional vigilance is required. The advent of new variants that could have higher transmissibility or escape the vaccine is a complete game-changer, and that is why we have changed our approach to border management. We have upgraded our border control measures, and there will be further government announcements on that. We have introduced red lists of countries where there are variants of concern, and we have implemented Project Eagle, the tracing project to track down those who have tested positive in genomic sequencing for variants of concern.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Australia is imposing a two-week quarantine for all travellers flying in from abroad, with no exceptions. My son, who has dual nationality, is flying out in March to take up a job. He must have a negative Covid test result before flying and stay in a hotel for two weeks at his own expense. Australia has shown the way; when does the Minister expect the UK to follow?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is completely right to cite Australia, and we take our hat off to its remarkable achievement in using its island status to protect itself against the virus. We are responding to the challenge of new variants by upgrading our measures, and announcements on this will be made shortly. The CMO’s view on the variants of concern so far is that we should have a proportionate system, which means an upgrading and not necessarily an Australia-style system. But we are putting in place the kinds of measures that could be upgraded to an Australia-style system were there to be a threat of significant magnitude.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, the UK recorded 16,840 new Covid cases. Australia and New Zealand recorded six and one respectively. Of course, we should not be encouraging people to travel to the UK, but some people have no choice—for family reasons, for example. I encourage my noble friend, before we adopt a blanket approach to hotel quarantine, which may be appropriate for high-risk countries, to think about the cost. Can he reassure me that the Government are more than capable of adopting a dynamic, risk-based approach to hotel quarantine?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right that we have to be proportionate and balance risk. I flag that we are aware of the extreme measures some passengers go to in order to avoid boundary controls. Some people go to extraordinary lengths to undertake journeys that, frankly, are dangerous and irresponsible. I would normally consider travel a right of enormous value which I would fight for individuals to have. But in a pandemic, it is different. In a pandemic, travelling is dangerous. You may be taking a variant of significant danger to the country of your destination, and it cannot be regarded as something done easily and lightly, as in normal times.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The next speaker is the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. Is the noble Baroness with us? We will come back to the noble Baroness. Let us go to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said that he believed there was a basic right to travel. I put it to him that there is an even greater right to live, yet we have the highest death rate per head of the population of any country in the world. Should we not put the right to live at the top of our agenda?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I could not agree with the noble Lord more: the right to live trumps all other rights. It is a sad fact that, while we would normally do everything we could in a liberal democracy to protect rights such as the freedom to travel, under current circumstances these are trumped by the right to live, and that is why I call on all people to limit their travel wherever they humanly can. There is simply no excuse for going to Dubai, taking Instagram photographs of yourself and claiming that that is business travel. You are putting your friends and loved ones at risk, and this Government will not tolerate it.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, given the significant community transmission of the South African variant, how confident is the Minister that we have in place today sufficient measures to stop the equivalent happening again? It does appear the Government are again running behind events.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, matters are evenly balanced. There are 143 confirmed and probable cases of the variant first identified in South Africa. Most of those have been connected with travel to South Africa, and those involved have been isolated. There are around a dozen in respect of which the chain of transmission is not fully understood. We have put in place a substantial team of dedicated tracing professionals to track down those variants of concern, along with teams in the relevant postcodes, so we are doing both a fire blanket of testing within the community and forensic detective analysis to track down the chain of transmission. It is my belief that that will be enough to keep the spread of the virus under control in this country, but we are watchful and concerned.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We will return to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, after the next speaker, who is the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
My Lords, it may seem paradoxical to impose tough restrictions just when a version of the winning post is in sight, thanks to the Minister and his colleagues’ excellent vaccine rollout. It may give us some comfort if he could update us on how effective his experts think the vaccines will be against the new variants.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the good news to date has been that the vaccines have proved extremely robust. Certainly, the readout on the Kent domestic variant and its mutations are extremely positive. A huge amount of work is going on to understand the Brazil and South Africa variants; it seems that the latter does something to escape the vaccine, but not enough for the vaccine not to be extremely useful. The news to date is encouraging but we are extremely watchful. If a variant or mutation emerges that can escape the vaccine, we will do everything we can to protect that essential national project.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I hope you can hear me—I was frozen. After quarantining in a hotel for five days or more and having had a test which proved negative, would a person be released? If a person had to return to the UK because they needed urgent medical treatment, would they be admitted directly to a safe hospital?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the details of the isolation protocols have not been announced yet. However, I suggest that the amount of time needed to flush out those who have got an infection from travel may need to be longer than the five days the noble Baroness indicated. For those who have urgent need of hospitalisation, of course the NHS is there for them; we have the PHE and infection control protocols in place to protect them.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that any system introduced will be resilient enough to cope with a significant inflow from Hong Kong, if that were to occur? As he will know, the Government have just granted the right of entry—and, later, settlement—to up to 5.4 million from Hong Kong, roughly the entire population of Scotland.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s pride in that measure and concern that we extend a warm hand of friendship to those from Hong Kong. He raises the point extremely well. I would like to think that any system we put in place would be resilient to surge demand of the kind he indicates, but I will take his point back to the department and check that everything is being done accordingly.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab) [V]
My Lords, UK borders have knowingly been left open and potentially exposed people to new strains of the virus, rather than the implementation of the prompt, concerted action advised by SAGE and a comprehensive hotel quarantine system brought in for all UK arrivals. Does the Minister accept that the current 10-day self-isolation system has failed? If so, why is the policy still being pursued for the majority of travellers? We have been promised that hotel quarantine will be implemented for some countries as soon as possible, with some reports suggesting that this will not be enforced until the week of 15 February. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the target date? Will additional measures be in place for travellers from the red list of countries in the interim? Finally, does he accept that a partial quarantine is doomed to fail, given that global travellers may move across many countries during their journey, passing through multiple travel hubs and departure lounges while encountering and spending time close to many other travellers along the way?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the detailed and perfectly reasonable questions raised by the noble Baroness, but I am unable to answer them all in detail. A Statement will be forthcoming from the Government on exactly those questions. I remind her that travel has come down by 90% in a comparative period. She is entirely right that travel patterns are complex; any measures we put in place will recognise that many travellers leapfrog from one country to another, brushing against others, and that the spread of the virus cannot be narrowly contained to travel corridors in the way one would sometimes like to hope.
Lord Sarfraz (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether we will try to monitor the physical and mental health and well-being of those in hotel quarantine, including vulnerable travellers, travellers with disabilities and those with small children?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right to be concerned about those who travel for essential reasons but who may face some hardship through their journey. We are putting in place special arrangements to ensure they are looked after in the best way possible. However, I remind him and the House that the purpose of these measures is to reduce dramatically the amount of travel. Travel is no longer a right; it is a danger, and as a result everyone needs to think very seriously before they commit to a journey.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, we need to control the new variant strains entering the UK by controlling the travel corridors at airports and seaports if we want to avoid a third wave of Covid-19. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government deem the mandatory hotel quarantine an important step to ensure the safety of the nation from further devastating deaths from Covid-19 and overwhelming pressure on our NHS, considering the huge impact this would have on immigration, police, medical staff and the parties waiting in hotels at airports and seaports around the country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The thrust of the noble Lord’s question is entirely right. We are now living in different circumstances; the variants of concern could emerge as a real threat to the vaccine. This Government will do whatever we can to protect the vaccine deployment and the reassurance it has given to millions of people, and to protect our hospitals, our NHS and life. We will therefore do whatever it takes. He is right that travel arrangements for people must be subject to mandatory control; it is not possible to hope that people will go home and isolate in cases such as this. Hotels may play an important part in ensuring that that mandate is truly effective. Our plans are being processed at the moment; our monitoring of the variants of concern has been upgraded massively, with huge investment in international surveillance. We will update the House accordingly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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.
This is day four of Committee on the Domestic Abuse Bill. 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. I 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 the group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Wednesday 3rd February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Feb 2021)
(1A) A person referred to in this subsection is—(a) a party to the proceedings;(b) a relative of a party to the proceedings (other than P); or(c) a witness in the proceedings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendments to Clause 62 in the name of Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames would apply the same special measures to parties or witnesses who are victims or at risk of being victims of domestic abuse in civil proceedings as apply in family proceedings.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, my four amendments in this group—Amendments 109, 111, 112 and 113—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has kindly added her name, are intended simply to apply the Bill’s provisions relating to special measures in family proceedings to civil proceedings as well.
Under the Bill as it stands, special measures are to be available to parties or witnesses in family proceedings who are victims of domestic abuse or at risk of being such victims. Although the provision of special measures in courts is relatively recent, the courts recognise how important it is to help vulnerable parties and witnesses reduce the trauma— the ordeal, even—of involvement in court proceedings. Special measures are arrangements to help a vulnerable party or witness give evidence or participate in court proceedings in a way that mitigates that trauma. Even in the driest and least emotional of cases, the experience of being involved in litigation, especially of giving oral evidence, is often extremely stressful. For vulnerable parties and witnesses, most with a history of deep and often emotionally searing personal involvement in the events that led to the proceedings, the experience of reliving them is fraught with anxiety, fear and even terror. Therefore, the need for special measures arises.
Such special measures enable witnesses or parties to give evidence from behind a screen, usually in abuse cases, to protect them from having to face their abuser or abuser’s family across a courtroom. Alternatively, provision can be made for witnesses to give evidence via a live link or with the assistance of an intermediary. Special measures cannot remove the fear but can help to reduce it. We take them as a matter of compassion for those involved, but also out of concern that victims and vulnerable parties should not be too frightened of bringing proceedings to come forward and therefore continue to suffer abuse in silence, sometimes with horrifying consequences. We also take special measures to help ensure that proceedings are fair, that the quality of the evidence before the court is as good as it can be in difficult circumstances, and that the courts can, therefore, make fair decisions.
For family proceedings, Clause 61 would require that where a party or witness is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse carried out by another party or relative of another party, or by a witness in the proceedings, it is to be assumed that there is a risk of the quality of the victim’s evidence, or of her participation in the proceedings generally, being diminished.
That has the effect of bringing into play the provisions of Part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, which are supported by a detailed practice direction. They provide that victims of domestic abuse and other parties or witnesses are eligible for special measures if the quality of their evidence or their ability to participate in the proceedings is likely to be diminished by their vulnerability. The rules and the practice direction set out a full code for the court to identify vulnerability and consider ways to help vulnerable witnesses and parties. They do not just cover giving evidence. Directions may include
“matters such as the structure and the timing of the hearing, the formality of language to be used in the court and whether (if facilities allow for it) the parties should be enabled to enter the court building through different routes and use different waiting areas.”
The existing provisions also go wider than domestic abuse and cover:
“sexual abuse … physical and emotional abuse; racial and/or cultural abuse or discrimination … forced marriage or … “honour based violence” … female genital or other physical mutilation … abuse or discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation … and … human trafficking.”
Clause 61 requires the court to assume that, if the threshold I mentioned is met, special measures will automatically be available in domestic abuse cases for victims and those at risk of being victims. The court will then consider what, if any, special measures should be taken. There is scope for an opt-out under Clause 61(4), whereby a party or witness in family proceedings can signify that they do
“not wish to be deemed to be eligible”
for special measures.
The reason that I have spent some time setting out the background and the arrangements proposed for family proceedings is that they are thoroughly sensible and helpful and likely to be effective without unforeseen and unjust gaps. My amendments are directed at ensuring that the same arrangements apply in civil proceedings by bringing Clause 62 into line with Clause 61. They would implement the recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council and supported by Refuge, Women’s Aid and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, among others.
Clause 62, as drafted, does not do the same for civil proceedings as Clause 61 does for family proceedings. For a reason I do not understand, the clause sets a higher bar for civil proceedings. There is an additional threshold test, which a party or witness would have to surmount to secure eligibility for such measures. The clause requires that to qualify as a victim or alleged victim, the person must be the victim of “a specified offence”, that is one specified in regulations by the Lord Chancellor. That condition is defined in Clause 62(3). For it to be met, there must have been a conviction or a caution for the offence, or someone must have been charged with the offence against the victim. Therefore, it would not be enough for the vulnerable witness or party to establish that they are frightened of being a victim or at risk of being a victim, nor even that they have, in fact, been a victim. They have to establish that the criminal law has been invoked so that the offender must have been cautioned or charged by the police for the specified offence or convicted of it by a criminal court. I suggest that there is no basis for this distinction between family and civil proceedings.
We know how often victims do not report abuse to the police, whether out of fear of their abusers or the relatives, fear of the trauma of criminal proceedings, concern for their private lives being exposed, or other reasons. The Office for National Statistics estimates that around four in five—79%—of survivors do not report partner abuse to the police. Requiring that victims go through the criminal process before being treated as vulnerable, and excluding those at risk of being victims from being treated as vulnerable altogether, represents a failure to understand vulnerability. Invoking criminal proceedings requires robustness. Experience and common sense tell us that vulnerable witnesses and parties are those least likely to involve the police and the criminal courts.
I have discussed this issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and I am grateful to him for talking to me about these amendments and engaging with them. The noble Lord explained the Government’s position by saying that there is an intimacy to family proceedings not present in ordinary civil proceedings. In many cases that will be right, but I invite the noble Lord to concede, from his own experience, that there are literally thousands of cases involving partners, former partners and others who are personally connected—as defined in the Bill—which involve disputes that have a domestic or quasi-domestic context.
I give a few examples only: disputes about ownership and occupation of property; ownership, loss or damage to goods; landlord and tenant disputes, including disputes about who holds tenancies; employment disputes; and inheritance disputes. There are also disputes arising out of families running businesses together, which has become increasingly common in recent decades. These sometimes involve partnership disputes, sometimes it is disputes over the ownership of shares or misuse of company funds. In these cases, the parties might be companies, but the witnesses might have been involved in an acrimonious and abusive personal relationship.
The list goes on and lawyers well know that cases with personal connections give rise to the greatest animosity and the greatest tension. I can see no reason to apply a different test for vulnerability in civil proceedings from that applicable to family proceedings. If the conditions for family proceedings are met and the party or a witness is a victim or at risk of being a victim of domestic abuse, carried out by another party or a relative of such a party, or another witness in the proceedings, special measures should generally follow. It will always be for the court to determine whether those conditions are met, as it is in family proceedings. It would also be for the court to determine whether special measures are appropriate and what they should be. If the threshold is met, however, it is unjustified, illogical and unfair to insist that an offence must already have been committed and that the criminal law must have been invoked before eligibility for special measures is established. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the clear, comprehensive and powerful outline of these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, in whose name they are tabled. It was a pleasure to attach my name to Amendments 109 and 111.
The case has been set out very clearly so I do not need to detain the Committee for long. I will just say why I attached my name to these amendments when I saw that no other noble Lords had done so. It was because of my experiences as a young journalist many years ago in Australia, when I covered mostly criminal courts. This was in the days long before there was thought of protecting witnesses who were the victims of what we now call domestic abuse.
I saw the sometimes harrowing ordeals that people had to go through. I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks used the word “ordeal”. Members of your Lordships’ House are used to testifying, speaking and being in these spaces, but we are talking about people who are victims of domestic abuse and have suffered all the personal damage that entails. They are also not used to being in these environments very often. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, this is an issue of compassion—of protecting people and ensuring that we are not making victims of domestic abuse suffer again. It is also an issue of justice because if they are to be able to clearly set out the case—to explain the circumstances and to bear witness—they need to be in conditions that reasonably allow them to do that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, to set a higher bar for civil proceedings than for family proceedings simply does not make sense. As he said, there are many cases in which civil proceedings will be intimately entangled with family issues and issues of domestic circumstances. I think particularly of farms and some cases I have seen where the acrimonious break-up of family farm businesses will often be tangled in civil proceedings but have an intensely personal side as well.
These are important, sensible and helpful amendments. I very much hope that the Government will take them on board in the interests of compassion and justice.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can be very brief in the light of what the two previous speakers have said on this amendment.
The purpose of this group of amendments, and a later group, is simply to provide consistency of protection for victims and survivors of abuse, across both the family and civil courts. These amendments would replicate in the civil courts protections that the Government already agree are needed in the family court. This seems an exceptionally reasonable ask. We support the aim of and reason for the amendments, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I will be interested to hear from the Government why they have chosen to draft the Bill with this distinction between the courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, explained, these amendments seek to bring the procedure relating to special measures in civil courts in line with the provisions in family courts. We agree with the fundamental aim set out by the noble Lord: to ensure fair proceedings, meaning proceedings that are fair not only to the parties but to witnesses.
In that context, the Government’s starting point when considering the experience of vulnerable witnesses in the civil courts stems from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which published its interim report and recommendations in April 2018. The inquiry recommended
“that the Ministry of Justice provides in primary legislation that victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in civil court cases, where they are claiming compensation in relation to the abuse they suffered, are afforded the same protections as vulnerable witnesses in criminal court cases.”
As the inquiry put it, this was to ensure that victims and survivors of child sex abuse can provide the best evidence in civil court cases.
While the Government had some sympathy with the recommendation, we also agreed that the issues raised by this recommendation needed further consideration, including whether it was right in principle to extend the protections to other vulnerable witnesses. The Government therefore sought expert help from the Civil Justice Council, which was asked to consider the vulnerability of parties and witnesses in civil actions, not just in relation to claims arising from sexual assault or abuse but more widely. The Committee will be aware that, after extensive consultation and expert input, the Civil Justice Council published its report in February last year. It conceded that there was no single or coherent set of rules in the Civil Procedure Rules dealing with vulnerability in the same way as there was in the Family Procedure Rules.
In this context, we must remember an important point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, alluded. Civil cases, by their nature, have the potential to cover a much broader range of circumstances where there is no prior close connection between the parties; for example, where a victim is suing an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse or in an action against the police or an employer where abuse is alleged. Of course, I take on board the noble Lord’s examples of cases where the parties may be corporate but, none the less, there are individual witnesses who are victims.
Having considered the matter, and in relation to special measures, the Civil Justice Council report did not go as far as recommending that it should be enshrined in primary legislation. Rather, it was felt that it was best left to the flexibility of court rules since—this is an important point—judges in civil proceedings already have inherent powers to order the provision of special measures under the Civil Procedure Rules when it is considered necessary. However, the Government took a slightly different view, taking the recommendations that came from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which I have already mentioned.
As the Civil Justice Council report highlighted, vulnerability in the civil courts is not limited only to victims of domestic abuse. Some people may have mental or physical conditions that render them vulnerable and hamper their access to justice. Others, as with victims or survivors of abuse, may be vulnerable solely by reason of the subject matter of the proceedings before the court. This, as the report suggested, may affect their ability to participate in proceedings or give their best evidence.
We want to avoid—this is a risk—unnecessarily prolonging cases because of satellite litigation which revolves around the granting of special measures where the case is not contingent on vulnerability. At the same time, as I said, we need to ensure that the justice system is fair—that is, fair for all. Therefore, we must be careful to focus this provision on only the circumstances in which it is needed.
Even though the approach is different in civil courts, judges in civil proceedings already have inherent powers to order the provision of some special measures under the Civil Procedure Rules when it is considered necessary. I hope that this goes some way towards addressing the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which was shared by the other two speakers in this short debate; I acknowledge their contributions, of course, but I think it is fair to say that they largely agreed with the approach taken by the noble Lord. In that context, the Civil Procedures Rule Committee continues to examine the issues faced by vulnerable witnesses in civil courts.
While we want to ensure parity between each jurisdiction, we also need to build in allowances for the differences—and there are differences—between them. This is why the provisions in respect of cross-examination and special measures in civil cases differ from those in family proceedings.
In the light of my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others, and in the light of all the contributions in this short debate, let me say—in clear terms, I hope—that we very much appreciate the arguments raised in relation to fairness and the concerns around availability of special measures for those who will need them in the civil courts. We will consider this issue carefully ahead of Report and continue to listen to arguments. Of course, I remain open to discussion with both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others.
In the light of that confirmation and undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, let me say how grateful I am to the noble Lords who spoke.
It was interesting to hear my rather dry opening supplemented by the personal experience of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in courts in Australia. She made the valuable point that, generally speaking, litigants and witnesses are not used to being in court—it is a new experience for them and this adds to their concern, which is of course amplified in the case of vulnerable witnesses and parties. She also gave the interesting and important example of family farms giving rise to very personal disputes, where there is often a background of abuse. I am bound to say that, in my years of practice on the Western Circuit before doing more of what I do now, disputes about family farms were endless. They are to be taken into account. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support as well.
The Minister has given a considered response and ultimately made an undertaking to me and others. I am grateful for the way he has dealt with the amendments. However, I am bound to say that nothing I heard from him justifies the distinction to be drawn between the protection afforded in family proceedings and the protection available in civil proceedings. I got the impression that he understands the reasons why we have disputed that distinction.
I do not accept that a system based on the Civil Procedure Rules for protection in civil proceedings is anything like as good as a system based on statute, as the arrangements in family proceedings will be following this Bill. If a statutory arrangement is good enough for family proceedings and is applicable as appropriate for those, I would suggest that it is appropriate for civil proceedings as well. Nor do I accept that there is a realistic prospect of satellite litigation arising regarding the availability or withholding of special measures. That seems most unrealistic and, in any event, even if it were realistic, it would be no more realistic in a set of measures based on legislation than it would be presently in a set of measures based on the uncertain application of the rules of court. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to further engagement. I regard this as a very important issue, and I will of course speak to him, as no doubt will others, between now and Report in the hope of achieving agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 114. 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.
Clause 63: Prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings
Amendment 114
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe that in the family court, where a perpetrator’s conviction is spent, other protections will be in place to protect a victim of abuse from being cross-examined by the perpetrator.
Lord Rosser (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede on this and a small number of groups to follow. My noble friend sends his apologies to the Committee; he is unable to be here because he is sitting in court today as a magistrate.
Amendment 114 is probing in nature. Proposed new Section 31R in Clause 63 provides for protections against cross-examination in person where one of the parties has a caution or conviction for a specified domestic abuse-related offence against the other. Subsection (3) provides that the protection does not apply where the conviction or caution has been spent. This amendment would remove subsection (3). It is intended to clarify that where a domestic abuse conviction or caution has been spent, other protections against cross- examination in person will apply to prevent a victim suddenly being open to cross-examination in person by a perpetrator with a history of abuse. We are all aware of the traumatic and long-lasting impacts that domestic abuse can have and the continuing risk of abuse that victims can face from a perpetrator. Where a conviction becomes spent and the protections under this new section lapse, there should surely be a risk assessment before cross-examination in person can be permitted. I hope that we are going to find out that the Bill will provide these extra protections where there is evidence of abuse or a risk of distress to the victim. It would helpful if the Government could give clarity and assurances on this point in their response.
The Victims’ Commissioner for London has also raised with us the issue of restraining orders, which are often given for a fairly short period. It would be helpful if the Minister could give assurances that the expiration of a restraining order would not impact on the ability of a victim to access necessary protections from that perpetrator in a family proceeding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to his explanation of the various government amendments in the group. I beg to move.
Baroness Newlove (Con) (V)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 114. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, it is purely a probing amendment concerning the need for additional safeguards in cases where a conviction or caution has been spent. It seeks to build on the excellent proposals championed by the Government to protect the survivors of domestic abuse from being cross-examined by their perpetrators in the family court. As the former Victims’ Commissioner, I sadly heard directly from abuse survivors who had endured the pain, humiliation and re-traumatisation of being questioned on the stand by their abuser, and I am glad that we are putting an end to this blatantly abusive practice.
None the less, I am concerned that the current provisions overlook a scenario that we are likely to see in the family courts. Clause 63 does not currently apply to a conviction or caution that is spent. This is for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I understand the motivations behind not further punishing an offender past the time when they are considered rehabilitated, yet we know that domestic abuse involves patterns of behaviour that will not necessarily be interrupted or indeed stopped by a conviction. Thanks to data from SafeLives, we know that a quarter of high-harm perpetrators are repeat offenders, with some having at least six different victims. In other parts of the Bill, we will debate the need for an effective perpetrator strategy that will undoubtedly seek to improve our interventions post conviction.
Proceedings in the family courts can go on for years and may well continue past the time when a conviction or caution has been spent, especially if other convictions or cautions occurred. However, unless some sort of intervention has been made with the perpetrator, the risk could well remain. I raise this scenario to suggest not that we should further punish, but that such risks have not been fully considered. If there was one key takeaway from the Ministry of Justice Expert Panel on Harm report, it was that there are systemic issues with how risk is identified and managed in the family courts in relation to domestic abuse.
I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister whether he considers that the proposals in the Bill as drafted will ensure that such risk is properly managed in cases where convictions or cautions have been spent. I suggest that this provision needs to be reviewed and that extra safeguards such as risk assessments should perhaps be introduced in such cases.
Baroness Redfern (Con) (V)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Newlove and I warmly congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. In doing so, I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice my support for its aims, in particular the proposals to reform the family court and provide protection measures for victims suffering domestic abuse. Even going to court is a harrowing and daunting process which can cause significant distress when a victim comes face to face with their perpetrator, even when the engagement is indirect. Measures must be in place to ensure the provision of separate entrances to the court building, as we heard earlier, and separate waiting rooms.
We know that domestic abuse comes in many traits. It is based not only on physical violence but on emotional, coercive, controlling or even economic abuse. Perpetrators of abuse should be inhibited from cross-examining their victims in person. Perpetrators should be prevented from directly or indirectly engaging with a victim during family court proceedings, particularly as many victims fear false accusations of parental alienation, which clearly has prevented many telling their personal stories. Protective screens in a court setting help to shield victims from their alleged abuser and prevent intimidation, as do live links, evidence-giving in private and greater emphasis on reassuring abuse victims, particularly children, who are always victims. These new measures will help to achieve the best result for those children.
Having received many briefings and personal testimonies, victims eagerly await new protective measures, so that the reporting of victims being re-victimised and retraumatised within the family court setting is stopped. The Bill must deliver a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform our national response for domestic abuse victims and, in achieving the right support for those victims, will go a long way to helping them rebuild their lives. Importantly, they will be listened to.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, in a broader context. On the particular issue in this group, I have listened very carefully to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. The noble Lord talked about a risk assessment before cross-examination if someone has a history of abuse. Presumably he is referring to somebody with a history of abuse but whose convictions are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about repeat offenders. Repeat offending is very common when it comes to domestic abuse, but I wonder whether a perpetrator with a history of abuse, a repeat offender, is less likely to have spent convictions or cautions.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is an important piece of legislation that allows offenders to move on from their previous offending, but my understanding is that if a court decides that justice cannot be done without the conviction or caution being taken into account, the court can take account of a spent conviction. This potentially means that a court could prevent cross- examination of a victim of domestic abuse if it decided that a spent conviction or caution was relevant.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s understanding of the legislation as it is. We have no objection to the Government’s amendments in this group.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will begin with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, so ably spoke, and will then turn to the government amendments, which deal with various technical and drafting changes to the same clause.
As has been explained to the Committee, Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would remove a qualification of the automatic prohibition on cross-examination in family proceedings by those convicted of, cautioned for or charged with specified offences, and their cross-examination by the victim or alleged victim. The removal of this qualification would mean that spent convictions and cautions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 would continue automatically to trigger the prohibition, irrespective of how old they may be or how circumstances might have changed. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is a very important provision. It enables a line to be drawn and people to move on.
It is in that context that, at the moment, the form of the Bill is that spent convictions and cautions should automatically trigger the prohibition only where evidence in relation to the conviction or caution is admissible in relation to the current family proceedings. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reminded us, and as the Government fully acknowledge, the damage caused by domestic abuse may often last for decades, sometimes a lifetime, and well beyond the point at which a conviction or caution is spent. One must also consider the point made by my noble friend Lady Redfern, that the court process is daunting, especially for victims of abuse. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right to test the adequacy of Clause 63 in guarding against cross-examination which remains inappropriate despite convictions or cautions being spent. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will have been moved by the personal testimony of my noble friend Lady Newlove, when she explained the effect that such cross-examination can have.
However, the Government believe that Clause 63 provides adequate protection in such circumstances. We must bear in mind that the automatic prohibition on cross-examination is also triggered where a protective injunction is in place—that is the force of the new Section 31S—or where prescribed evidence of domestic abuse is provided to the court; that is the force of the new Section 31T. Moreover, and of greater importance here, given the sometimes more historical nature of abuse, is what we intend should become Section 31U of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This is an important provision, which provides context against which the noble Lord’s amendment should be considered.
New Section 31U is in deliberately broad terms and provides for a wide discretion to meet the particular facts and circumstances of the case before the court. It enables the court, either in response to an application or of its own motion, to prohibit cross-examination where it would diminish the quality of evidence or cause significant distress, so long as to do so is not contrary to the interests of justice. Any such direction will remain in place until the witness is discharged, unless it is revoked by the court in specified circumstances; for example, if circumstances have materially altered. Therefore, to answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Newlove, we consider the Bill sufficient in cases of spent convictions, because that provision enables the court to impose the ban if it appears to the court that the two conditions in new subsection 1(b) are met. That provision would therefore also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, concerning cases of past injunctions or restraining orders. New Section 31U is a very broad provision that enables the court to respond to the facts of a case and ensure that a suitable order is made. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is important that the court has this ability, for the reasons that I have set out, under new Section 31U. I hope that this gives the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, what they sought, which, according to my note, was clarity and assurance. I hope that I have provided both.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his considered response, which I appreciate. I also thank other noble Lords who spoke in this debate for their contributions, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for adding her name to Amendment 114.
I said at the beginning that this is a probing amendment intended to gain clarity and assurances that where a domestic abuse conviction or caution has been spent, other protections against cross-examination in person would apply to prevent a victim suddenly being open to cross-examination in person by a perpetrator with a history of abuse. In his considered response, the Minister sought to give that clarity and those assurances. I shall reflect further on what he said in response to this probing amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
(i) in the case of proceedings in respect of a service offence, anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (which relates to summary hearings and the Summary Appeal Court) is to be treated as a conviction for the purposes of that Act, and(ii) in the case of any other service disciplinary proceedings, a finding of guilt in those proceedings;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that “conviction”, in relation to service disciplinary proceedings, includes a finding of guilt and a finding in summary proceedings before an officer that a charge has been proved.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s amendment at page 41, line 41 expand the definition of “service disciplinary proceedings” to include proceedings in respect of offences under previous armed forces legislation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 41, line 32.
““service offence” means—(a) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or(b) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1059);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 41, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 121. 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.
Amendment 121
Lord Rosser
“31VA Direction to prohibit direct or indirect engagement: evidence of domestic abuse(1) In family proceedings, where specified evidence is adduced that a person who is a party to the proceedings has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by another party, the court may give a direction prohibiting the latter party from directly or indirectly engaging with the victim during proceedings, if the court deems any such engagement is causing significant distress to the victim.(2) In this section—“domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified evidence” means evidence specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may provide that any evidence which satisfies the court that domestic abuse, or domestic abuse of a specified description, has occurred is specified evidence for the purposes of this section.(4) A direction under this section may be made by the court— (a) on an application made by a party to the proceedings, or(b) of its own motion.(5) In determining whether the significant distress condition is met in the case of a party, the court must have regard to, among other things—(a) any views expressed by the victim;(b) any views expressed by the other party;(c) any behaviour by the party in relation to the victim in respect of which the court is aware that a finding of fact has been made in the proceedings or in any other proceedings;(d) any behaviour by the party at any stage of the proceedings, both generally and in relation to the victim;(e) any behaviour by the victim at any stage of the proceedings, both generally and in relation to the party;(f) any relationship (of whatever nature) between the victim and the party.(6) If the court decides that there are no alternative measures to prevent engagement which causes distress, the court must—(a) invite the party to the proceedings to arrange for a qualified legal representative to act for the party during the court proceedings, and(b) require the party to the proceedings to notify the court, by the end of a period specified by the court, of whether a qualified legal representative is to act for the party for that purpose.(7) Subsection (8) applies if, by the end of the period specified under subsection (6)(b), either—(a) the party has notified the court that no qualified legal representative is to act for the party during the court proceedings, or(b) no notification has been received by the court and it appears to the court that no qualified legal representative is to act for the party during the court proceedings.(8) The court must consider whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the party to be represented by a qualified legal representative appointed by the court to represent the interests of the party.(9) If the court decides that it is, the court must appoint a qualified legal representative (chosen by the court) to represent the party.(10) If the court appoints a qualified legal representative to represent one party, and the other party to proceedings is not represented, the court must consider whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the other party also to be represented by a qualified legal representative to ensure a fair process.(11) If the court decides that it is necessary to appoint representation under subsection (10), the court must choose and appoint a qualified legal representative to represent the other party.”Member’s explanatory statement
These changes would give courts the discretion to prevent a perpetrator directly or indirectly engaging with a victim during family court proceedings, where such engagement is causing distress, and to appoint a legal representative to represent the perpetrator in court, if that is necessary to prevent distress to the victim.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment would build on the provisions on cross-examination that the Government have introduced into the Bill. In particular, it seeks to extend the support available to reflect the structure of the family court. Clause 63 provides the court with the power to appoint a publicly funded qualified legal representative to act for a party who is prohibited from cross-examining a witness in person. The court has the power to prohibit cross-examination where there has been a conviction or charge for a domestic abuse-related offence as well as in cases where it would diminish the quality of the evidence or cause significant distress to the person being cross-examined, an issue to which I think the Minister referred in the discussion on the previous amendment.
These changes are, of course, very welcome. However, the structure of family proceedings differs significantly from that of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings the parties will normally come together only once at trial. During the course of family proceedings, both parties are more likely to be in attendance at court for a number of hearings before the cross-examination process. The Bill as drafted would appear to leave parties without support for potentially a number of hearings and would only provide a legal representative for a relatively small proportion of the proceedings. The Magistrates’ Association supports this amendment, and we thank it for its work on these issues.
As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede indicated at Second Reading, these factors raise two principal issues: first, whether the advocate is able to their job effectively if they are involved in only a small part of the proceedings, and secondly—crucially—whether a litigant in person can navigate the rest of the court process and what impact that has on cases involving domestic abuse and outcomes for children.
Amendment 121 would provide that in family proceedings where there is evidence of domestic abuse, the court may prevent a party directly or indirectly engaging with the victim during proceedings, not only at cross-examination, if the court deems that any such engagement is causing significant distress to the victim. In those cases, the court must invite the party to arrange for a qualified legal representative or appoint a qualified legal representative to represent them. It also provides that if representation is appointed for one party, which would usually be the perpetrator in this case, the court must consider the need to appoint representation for the other party to ensure fair process. This speaks to the wider issue of the lack of legal support in private law proceedings.
In cases which are by their nature incredibly sensitive and can cause significant distress where there is a history of abuse, the court process is complex and difficult to understand for many. Litigants in person can find it difficult to follow the instructions of the court or to comply with all the elements of a court order. I know that it is the experience of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede that without the right support in place, people will often be driven simply to give up, lose heart and drop out of the legal process. We believe that appropriate legal assistance should be provided throughout this process. Cross-examination is not, as my noble friend put it, the only “flashpoint” in proceedings.
The amendment speaks to a problem that the Government have already recognised and decided to act upon: the need to prevent inappropriate engagement between parties in court and to provide suitable legal representation where there is evidence of abuse. Amendment 121 would simply structure those provisions which the Government already support to reflect accurately the structure of the family proceedings to which they apply, to which I have already referred.
Finally, I shall not detain the Committee by repeating some of the arguments I have just made on the next group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but I welcome the aims of his amendments and look forward to that debate. On this amendment, I look forward, I hope, to a positive reply from the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the excellent way in which he has presented the amendment in place of his noble friend Lord Ponsonby. He has been able to use the great experience of his noble friend in family proceedings in illustration of the amendment.
I strongly support the amendment because I feel certain that, while cross-examination is important, contact between the parties in a family proceedings, although much more spread out, is of critical importance. Things such as the arrangements for children to be with one parent or the other are often extremely difficult to work out. It requires personal and direct contact between the parties, because it is next to impossible to accommodate the needs of the parties without it. It is therefore extremely important that this is done with a fair amount of detail to allow representation to be made.
That is, in principle, already part of the government Bill, but the Magistrates’ Association—of which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is a good example—has great experience of how it should work, and the amendment seeks to work that out in some detail. I warmly support it because it is very well done. As I said on a previous occasion, the fact that the Magistrates’ Association supports it is a powerful reason for us to support it too.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks will speak to most of the amendments regarding court proceedings, but I am glad to be able to say a word on this one. I acknowledge that the Government recognise the need for measures to support victims of domestic abuse in various proceedings. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, I think the very fact that Amendment 121 was tabled by a practitioner who has already shared with the Committee a lot of extremely useful experience, as he does on all occasions, and from the Magistrates’ Association, whose briefings I have always found very useful, pretty much makes the point. It is certainly very persuasive.
As I read it, the amendment would address what is meant by “engagement” in a particular context. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained—his explanation was clear—in family cases the proceedings are generally not a single event but comprise a series of hearings. They are quite unlike proceedings in the criminal court or the civil court, where a discrete claim is dealt with. To use a bit of current jargon, I read this as enabling the court to be agile in applying, as it goes along, appropriate measures and making directions as it becomes clear that they are needed.
In an attempt not to oppose the amendment but to develop it, I have been wondering how it would—or maybe will—operate in practice. One assumes that there will be a need to find a lawyer for whatever reason, probably financial, and that the parties will have already considered that. Who will pay the lawyer, and pay enough for them to do a complete job, not just coming in at the last minute but understanding the whole background to the proceedings and taking full instructions? If the lawyer is appointed by the court, to whom is he responsible? Is the person he represents a client for all purposes? I absolutely take the point about the difficulty that litigants in person have, so finding ways to assist can only be to the good. I hope that these proposals can be taken forward.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser for so comprehensively outlining the purpose behind Amendment 121 and the very strong case for it. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his clear explanation.
It is of course important from the legal perspective to look at the different situations in the family courts and the way in which different stages in the proceedings need to be accommodated. I also feel that the amendment is important because of the potential human impact of the absence of such a provision. Legal representation is important, as is the ability of the court to make determinations where distress has been, or could be, caused to the victim. It is also important to anticipate the impact on victims who might choose to go down this route if such a provision is not in place.
The fear and intimidation involved in advance of a decision to begin proceedings in family courts, or to continue with them after they have started, can be very daunting for any victim but perhaps in particular for a victim of domestic abuse. Therefore, putting these provisions in place would help encourage those who need to take a stand and make the move, trying to get out of their current circumstances and into a better place for them and the children. It could encourage them rather than put them off continuing proceedings or beginning them in the first place.
I want to ask a specific question about the impact on children. Over the years, I have seen many cases where intimidation at this stage has not necessarily been directed at the former partner or wife of the abuser, but at the children in order to indirectly intimidate the former partner or wife. Although we have clearly indicated in Clause 3 that children should be properly recognised as victims of domestic abuse, I would like the mover and supporters of the amendment to clarify that, either directly or indirectly, children affected by such distress would be covered by the provisions at the start of the proposed new clause.
For example, would the definition of children as victims mean that any distress caused to children fell under this provision? If not, would intimidation of children be deemed an indirect cause of distress? If the Government are not content to include the amendment or similar provisions in the final Bill, I would be particularly interested to hear from the Minister, on their behalf, how children who might be affected in this way around the family courts, whether outside or even within the court setting if they have been asked to play some kind of role by either their parent or the court, will be protected if this provision is not in place. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, we support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as amplified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.
This amendment recognises that in cases involving domestic abuse, just as in any litigation, engagement between the parties is not limited to conducting the case, giving evidence, cross-examining witnesses and making submissions to the judge. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out that the inadequacy of arrangements that govern cross-examination alone make such arrangements difficult to justify.
There is often a need for the parties to consider and discuss the conduct and progress of the case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out. That is usually done through their advocates. Yet when the parties are perpetrator and victim of domestic abuse, and are unrepresented, the need for engagement can become an occasion for intimidating behaviour or bullying of the victim by the perpetrator. That need not even be deliberate, though it often is. Even if intimidation is not explicit in court, it may be effected by implied threats of what might happen later, or even by fear on the victim’s part—even if without justification —of what might happen later.
As discussed in earlier groups, the mere presence of the parties together in court can cause distress, intimidation, or trauma to victims. The outcome can be that victims are deterred from bringing proceedings at all. The experience of the proceedings can be grossly traumatic, to the extent of causing lasting harm, and just outcomes can be made that much more difficult to achieve. So, it is completely right that the court should be able to prohibit engagement by a party that unduly distresses the victim in the way set out in this amendment, whether that engagement be direct by the perpetrator or indirect through others. Yet, if the parties have no means to engage at all, there may be opportunities missed for resolving conflict or, at least, for making the issues clearer and enabling the court to achieve safer outcomes.
In cases where the parties are not represented, it is obviously sensible for there to be provision for representation to be arranged. As the amendment proposes, that should involve, in appropriate cases, the instruction of a court-appointed lawyer—not just for the perpetrator but for the victim as well. That is what the amendment proposes and I firmly believe it is right to do so. For my part, I believe that justice would be best done by ensuring that full legal aid is available for both parties to domestic abuse proceedings throughout those proceedings, which often last through several hearings, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have said. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, also highlighted the real risk of deterring litigants from bringing or pursuing proceedings once they are under way, by the absence of arrangements for representation.
This amendment does not go as far as we would like, but I know many noble Lords believe that full legal aid for both parties should be the outcome. Meanwhile, it would fill an important gap by preventing intimidation of victims by perpetrators during the course of proceedings, while keeping the door open to engagement between lawyers, which may smooth a path to resolution.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, this amendment —to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has added his, if I may respectfully say, very weighty name—seeks to expand the scope of the prohibition of cross-examination provided for in Clause 63 by prohibiting the perpetrator from engaging directly or indirectly with the victim during proceedings where that engagement would cause them significant distress. It goes on ultimately to provide for the potential appointment of a legal representative, chosen by the court, to represent both parties to ensure a fair process in the interests of justice in such cases. I can assure the Committee, in particular in response to the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and others, that because this amendment has been supported by the Magistrates’ Association, we have given it very careful consideration.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, I am as every bit as concerned as her, and indeed the noble Lord who is proposing the amendment, to ensure that domestic abuse victims are adequately protected in the family courts. It is for that reason that the Government are already taking decisive steps to act on the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, in response to which we published our implementation plan in June 2020.
The Bill contains various measures designed to protect domestic abuse victims in family proceedings and across the other jurisdictions. In that context, I bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: the human impact that domestic abuse has, and that it can require some bravery to go to and appear in court in those circumstances, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Therefore, within the court environment, our provisions on special measures made it clear that the victims of domestic abuse and other parties or witnesses are eligible for special measures such as a screen during proceedings, where the court is satisfied that the quality of their evidence is likely to be diminished due to their vulnerability. In that context, on the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, regarding the position of children, Clause 3(2) provides that any reference in the Bill to a victim of domestic abuse
“includes a reference to a child who … sees or hears, or experiences the effects of, the abuse, and … is related to A or B.”
Therefore, the Bill is structured very much with victims of domestic abuse, who may include children, firmly in mind.
It is not entirely clear from the noble Lord’s amendment whether the intention is that “direct or indirect engagement” during proceedings be confined to the court setting, by which I mean what goes on in the courtroom itself, or extend more widely for their duration, as set out in debate by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. There is often a need for what my noble and learned friend called personal and direct contact between parties in such proceedings. In that regard, one must bear in mind that under Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the court can make a participation direction. That can include the use of special measures, which are a series of provisions to help a party or witness to participate or give evidence in court proceedings. That is a range of measures available both to parties and witnesses to enable them to participate in an appropriate manner.
Beyond that, the courts have a range of protective orders, such as non-molestation orders and restraining orders, that can be made to protect victims when they are not within the confines of the court building. In addition, when introduced by the Bill, domestic abuse protection orders can be used to protect victims of domestic abuse outside the courtroom during proceedings. That is because the DAPO brings together the strongest elements of the existing protective orders into a single comprehensive and very flexible order that we believe will provide more effective and longer-term protection than the existing protective orders for victims of domestic abuse and their children. I underline the point that there may be circumstances in which children are also victims. So, for example, if children are giving evidence inside court, special measures may well be applicable and the prohibition on cross-examination may also apply.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I again thank the Minister for his considered response, particularly his comments at the end, which clarified in my mind the basis of the Government’s lack of enthusiasm for the amendment. As the Minister has clarified, the Government do not believe that the terms of the amendment are needed because the issues raised are covered by other measures in the Bill or existing provisions. It is not a case of certain parts of the amendment not being particularly well worded or the wording leaving certain issues unresolved.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for adding his name to the amendment. Clearly, we will want to reflect further on what the Minister has said, particularly the reasons for not accepting the amendment—namely, that the issues raised are covered by other measures in the Bill and by existing provisions. We will want to reflect on that and then determine whether to bring this matter back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 122. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 122
“(7) A qualified legal representative appointed by the court under subsection (6) is responsible to the party, but must cross-examine the witness having regard to such directions as the Court may give to protect the witness from significant distress or to prevent the quality of the witness’s evidence from being diminished.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to maintain the responsibility of the legally qualified representative to the party in whose interests the cross-examination is conducted while ensuring it is conducted with proper regard for risk of distress to the witness and risk that the quality of the witness’s evidence might be diminished.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the role of a legally qualified representative appointed by the court to conduct cross-examination under Clause 63 in family proceedings or Clause 64 in civil proceedings. The amendments also address the need for the availability of legal aid for both parties in domestic abuse proceedings.
Dealing first with those amendments relating to the role of court-appointed legal representatives, in each such case a party, who typically, but not always, will be the perpetrator, is prohibited under the Bill from cross-examining a witness directly. In any such case, the court will have considered whether there is a satisfactory alternative means of enabling the witness to be cross-examined or of obtaining the evidence that the witness would have given without cross-examination. For the moment, I find difficulty in seeing exactly how that would work unless there were other witnesses who could give evidence to the same effect as the evidence that the witness might have given.
If the court cannot find alternative ways of getting the witness to give evidence before the court, it will have invited the party who, but for the prohibition, would have conducted the cross-examination to instruct a lawyer within a specified time to conduct the cross-examination instead. If the party does not instruct such a lawyer—usually, one supposes, because of financial constraints—the court will consider appointing a qualified legal representative
“to represent the interests of the party”
to conduct the cross-examination
“in the interests of the party”.
The proposed provisions are complicated but unobjectionable so far. However, I am concerned by the proposals, in both family and civil proceedings, that such an advocate
“is not responsible to the party”,
a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the last group but which he politely deferred for consideration to this one. I regard this as a dangerous precedent that is inimical to a fundamental principle of our court process, which is that the advocate owes a duty to his client, although that duty is at all times subject to the duty that the advocate owes to the court.
The analogy that applies to what is proposed here is with special advocates, who are appointed for cases before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission or various other cases where issues of national security are involved. In such cases, the reason why those appointed as special advocates do not carry a responsibility to the persons whose interests they represent is that they are specifically prohibited from disclosing to those persons the security-sensitive material that is being disclosed to them—in other words, the special advocates are effectively sworn to secrecy. In those national security cases the special advocates cannot take instructions upon the secret material disclosed to them, nor can they consider with those whom they represent how to deal with or respond to such material. In those circumstances they have an independence that is treated as precluding a responsibility to the persons whose interests they represent.
The position is quite different here. No issues of national security are involved. Secrecy is not an issue. No material is withheld from the party represented. There is no bar on full discussion between the advocate and that party. Indeed, if justice is to be done, there is an imperative for the advocate to take full instructions and to consider, in the light of the evidence and the party’s account of the facts, what questions should be asked.
The starting point has to be that the advocate owes a responsibility to the client and I see no reason to depart from that. The advocate should, for example, owe the client a duty of care, and a duty to take instructions accurately, read the papers carefully and approach the case on the basis of the client’s instructions. The advocate should be answerable to the client if he or she performs negligently, does not do the work, or fails to understand or appreciate the import of the evidence. Of course there will be some questions that it would be improper for the advocate to ask. In that event, it is for the advocate to advise the client and, if necessary, to seek the direction of the judge before putting such questions. It should be for the judge to determine what questioning is permissible and appropriate.
That is why my Amendments 122 and 127 would provide for the cross-examination to be conducted subject to
“such directions as the Court may give to protect the witness from significant distress or to prevent the quality of the witness’s evidence from being diminished.”
Those are the considerations that the court has to have regard to in appointing the advocate. In most cases, I do not believe that directions such as that are likely to be necessary. The intimidation of a victim in these cases usually arises from the presence of the perpetrator as cross-examiner and/or the style of his cross-examination. Once a sensitive advocate is conducting the cross-examination, attuned to the vulnerability of the witness and the advocate’s duty to the court, the risk of intimidation is reduced.
However, if there are areas where the advocate advises that particular questions or lines of questioning cross the line, that is usually on the ground that such questions are irrelevant or unhelpful. The party will usually accept the advocate’s advice, but if there are lines of questioning where the party persists in wishing to pursue questions that the advocate regards as inappropriate, it should be for the judge, not the advocate, to decide whether the questions may be asked. There is no good reason for removing the advocate’s responsibility to the client, fundamentally undermining that responsibility.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and I am grateful to him for the attention he has given to it. I understand the Government’s position to be that where lawyers are appointed to conduct cross-examination in circumstances such as these, such lawyers should, in a way, be independent, so that they may decline to ask questions which the party whose interests they represent wishes to have put to the witness. They should be able to say to the client, “I’m not putting that”, without having to be answerable to the client for that decision. At first blush I see the force of that, but on analysis it is quite unfair, because the party represented is in fact denied true representation, and such an arrangement blurs the function of the judge and the advocate, to which I referred. In proceedings of all types, judges will frequently rule questions out of order. That is all part of the trial process and I see no basis for changing it here.
Amendments 123 and 128 raise questions of assistance by court-appointed advocates and legal representation in domestic abuse proceedings more generally. They make broadly two points. The first is that an appointment of an advocate for the limited purpose of conducting a single cross-examination is unlikely significantly to enhance either the fairness of the proceedings or the chance of their leading to a just outcome—a point touched on in the last group.
The answer to this difficulty is that the court should be able to ensure that the advocate will remain in place for as long as needed in the proceedings to assist both the parties and the court to deal with the case justly, in line with the overriding objective, having regard, in family cases, to dealing with it justly and to any welfare issues involved. One can imagine the frustration that judges would feel when, having had the assistance of an experienced court-appointed advocate for the cross-examination of the victim, the advocate’s role in the case is brought to an end and the judge is left with the parties in court in as conflictual a situation as they were before the proceedings started and with no help in resolving it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who was due to speak next, is still in the debate in Grand Committee, so I call the Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for setting out the rationale for these amendments. As he said, I deferred my comments on the particular point of an advocate’s duty to this group because his amendments directly raise that issue. I am grateful to him for the discussions we had about this matter, as indeed we have had about several matters arising from the Bill.
Amendments 122 and 127 would have the same effect in relation to a qualified legal representative appointed by the court to conduct cross-examination in family and civil proceedings respectively. It is the Government’s intention that such a court-appointed representative is not responsible to any party. They are, in effect, appointed by and responsible to the court in relation to their conduct of the cross-examination, having regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor in connection with this role under what we intend should become Section 31Y(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, accepts, the amendments would alter fundamentally the representative’s role by making them responsible to the party who has been prohibited from carrying out such cross-examination. While the tabled amendments contain safeguards to counter the resulting tension between being responsible to the prohibited party on the one hand and needing to protect domestic abuse victims on the other by requiring the representative to have regard to protective directions issued by the judge, this does not affect the Government’s view that, as a matter of principle, the representative who has been appointed by the court should not be responsible to the party. That is particularly the case when that party could have, but has not, appointed his own lawyer. Had he done so, a court-appointed lawyer would not have been required and the lawyer appointed by him would have owed him a duty.
Therefore, the Government do not want this to become a client-lawyer relationship. The advocate is appointed for only one function: to ensure that the best evidence is obtained fairly from the witness in cases where the party is prohibited from conducting the cross-examination by themselves. Altering this and introducing such a relationship between the party and the advocate would, in the Government’s view, be a mistake.
The rules pertaining to the advocate scheme will be set out in statutory guidance and relevant procedural rules. Consistent with what I have been explaining to the Committee, the focus will be on ensuring that the function of a cross-examination is carried out—that the witness is questioned on the evidence that they have provided. Before these provisions are commenced, we will work with relevant stakeholders to develop and finalise statutory guidance, to be issued by the Lord Chancellor, for the appointed legal representatives to assist them in discharging this role. We will work with the appropriate rule committees to develop suitable court rules and practice directions to provide a clear structure and process for the operation of these provisions.
For those reasons, we take issue with the proposal in the amendment. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about SIAC and court-appointed advocates there, those are completely different circumstances and there is no read-across from SIAC to these provisions. The way that the Bill is set out reflects the Government’s deliberate intention and the clauses have been designed with this in mind.
The framework for the provision of publicly funded legal representation is set out in the LASPO Act. While I have listened carefully to the arguments made on this point, both today and in previous discussions, I do not agree that we should mix the different purposes of LASPO and these clauses as has been proposed. As anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I refer to the review that I mentioned in the last debate.
Amendments 123 and 128 relate to the provision of legal aid. Legal aid is available for family cases where there is evidence of abuse, subject to domestic violence, or child abuse evidence requirements, and the relevant means and merits tests. We have expanded the acceptable forms of evidence and removed all time limits on providing that evidence. As I have said, we are also reviewing the means test. The Government are clear that victims of domestic abuse must have access to the help that they need, including to legal aid. The review of the means test is assessing the effectiveness with which that test protects access to justice. As I said in the last debate, we are specifically considering the experience of victims of domestic abuse. I will not repeat the other points I made in that context in the previous debate.
However, legal aid may also be available through the exceptional case funding scheme, where a failure to provide legal aid would breach or risk breaching the ECHR or retained enforceable EU rights. As I have explained, the Bill includes provisions that give the court a power, in specified circumstances, to appoint a publicly funded legal representative to conduct cross-examination. Where a prohibition on cross-examination applies, the court would first consider whether there are alternatives to cross-examination and invite the party to appoint a legal representative to conduct the cross-examination. In circumstances where the party does not, the court considers whether it is in the interests of justice so to appoint. Therefore, publicly funded legal representation is intended to conduct the cross-examination, but not to go beyond it. That is the sole reason why the advocate is appointed.
In that context, we must appreciate the need to protect against unnecessary expenditure of public funds or alteration of the legal aid regime without a wholesale and proper examination of the ramifications of doing so. In circumstances where this provision for a publicly funded advocate is put in the Bill for a limited and specific—if I can still use that phrase—purpose, it would be wrong in principle for us to conduct a review of legal aid provisions in Committee.
I fear that I may not have been able to persuade the noble Lord, as I was not able to persuade him earlier, of the merits of the Government’s approach. I am sure he will tell me that I have not, but I hope that I have been able to explain the Government’s approach and thinking on this issue. In those circumstances, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, unquestionably the Minister—to whom I am very grateful, for both his engagement and his considered and careful response—is right about one thing, which is that he has not convinced me of the difference in responsibility to the client between court-appointed advocates and normal lawyers. I accept that the role of legal representative would be altered by my amendments, and that is all to the good.
One point made by the Minister can be considered in a way that he did not. It is a precondition to the appointment of a legal representative by the court that the client or party who would have conducted the cross-examination, but for the prohibition, should have been given the opportunity to instruct his own lawyer. That lawyer would have had full responsibility to the client in the normal way—full duty of care, answerable in negligence and everything else. Generally, Members of the House will appreciate that the reason that that condition is not often met—in other words, the client does not appoint a lawyer—is lack of funds, not that he or she, usually he, does not wish for the lawyer to have a responsibility to the client. There is very little distinction to draw between the two cases, apart from the fact that the rich client gets the lawyer and the poor client has a court-appointed lawyer.
The Minister referred to the safeguards that I built into the amendments in their directions to the judge—
“such directions as the Court may give to protect the witness from significant distress or to prevent the quality of the witness’s evidence from being diminished.”
There may be further room for discussion about those directions and the guidelines within which cross-examination by a lawyer with a responsibility to the client could take place. I will carefully read the guidance that he mentions by which court-appointed lawyers will conduct their cross-examinations.
I completely reject the Minister’s explanation that SIAC involves different issues, as a justification for removing the responsibility. It is precisely because SIAC special advocates and their appointment involve different issues that the responsibility is removed. I explained that in opening. That point does not seem to have been treated with full understanding.
Of course I will withdraw this amendment to enable further review. The point about legal aid is one of accessibility. We know that there is a review under way and I accept that we should not be reviewing this question in Committee, but the problem is one of evidential and financial accessibility. Until both parties can be represented in domestic abuse proceedings, it is difficult to see that proper representation will be achieved. With those points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 124. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
85EA Prohibition of cross-examination in person: victims of offences(1) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings who has been convicted of or given a caution for, or is charged with, a specified offence may cross-examine in person a witness who is the victim, or alleged victim, of that offence.(2) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings who is the victim, or alleged victim, of a specified offence may cross-examine in person a witness who has been convicted of or given a caution for, or is charged with, that offence.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a conviction or caution that is spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, unless evidence in relation to the conviction or caution is admissible in, or may be required in, the proceedings by virtue of section 7(2), (3) or (4) of that Act.(4) Cross-examination in breach of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity of a decision of the court in the proceedings if the court was not aware of the conviction, caution or charge when the cross-examination took place.(5) In this section—“caution” means—(a) in the case of England and Wales—(i) a conditional caution given under section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,(ii) a youth conditional caution given under section 66A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, or(iii) any other caution given to a person in England and Wales in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;(b) in the case of Scotland, anything corresponding to a caution falling within paragraph (a) (however described) which is given to a person in respect of an offence under the law of Scotland;(c) in the case of Northern Ireland—(i) a conditional caution given under section 71 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, or(ii) any other caution given to a person in Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;“conviction” means—(a) a conviction before a court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland;(b) a conviction in service disciplinary proceedings (in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere);(c) a finding in any criminal proceedings (including a finding linked with a finding of insanity) that the person concerned has committed an offence or done the act or made the omission charged;and “convicted” is to be read accordingly;“service disciplinary proceedings” means—(a) any proceedings (whether or not before a court) in respect of a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (except proceedings before a civilian court within the meaning of that Act); (b) any proceedings under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (whether before a court-martial or before any other court or person authorised under any of those Acts to award a punishment in respect of an offence);(c) any proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court established under the Armed Forces Act 1976;“specified offence” means an offence which is specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.(6) The following provisions (which deem a conviction of a person discharged not to be a conviction) do not apply for the purposes of this section to a conviction of a person for an offence in respect of which an order has been made discharging the person absolutely or conditionally—(a) section 14 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000;(b) section 80 of the Sentencing Code;(c) section 187 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 or any corresponding earlier enactment.(7) For the purposes of this section “offence” includes an offence under a law that is no longer in force.85EB Prohibition of cross-examination in person: persons protected by injunctions etc(1) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings against whom an on-notice protective injunction is in force may cross-examine in person a witness who is protected by the injunction.(2) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings who is protected by an on-notice protective injunction may cross-examine in person a witness against whom the injunction is in force.(3) Cross-examination in breach of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity of a decision of the court in the proceedings if the court was not aware of the protective injunction when the cross-examination took place.(4) In this section “protective injunction” means an order, injunction or interdict specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.(5) For the purposes of this section, a protective injunction is an “on-notice” protective injunction if—(a) the court is satisfied that there has been a hearing at which the person against whom the protective injunction is in force asked, or could have asked, for the injunction to be set aside or varied; or(b) the protective injunction was made at a hearing of which the court is satisfied that both the person who applied for it and the person against whom it is in force had notice.85EC Prohibition of cross-examination in person: evidence of domestic abuse(1) In civil proceedings, where specified evidence is adduced that a person who is a witness has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by a party to the proceedings, that party to the proceedings may not cross-examine the witness in person.(2) In civil proceedings, where specified evidence is adduced that a person who is a party to the proceedings has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by a witness, that party may not cross-examine the witness in person.(3) In this section—“domestic abuse” has the meaning given by sections 1 and 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified evidence” means evidence specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. (4) Regulations under subsection (3) may provide that any evidence which satisfies the court that domestic abuse, or domestic abuse of a specified description, has occurred is specified evidence for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendments to Clause 64 in the name of Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames would allow for the same prohibition of direct cross-examination in civil proceedings as that which is available in family proceedings.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, could I have a moment? I apologise for the delay. Following so closely on from my last speech, it was difficult to see where we were.
Having spent some considerable time this afternoon introducing my amendments in groups 1 and 4, I will be relatively brief in introducing this group. The amendments are intended to extend to all civil cases the same protection from direct cross-examination by a party as is to be afforded in family cases to victims and vulnerable witnesses where certain conditions are met.
The reason for my relative brevity in this group is that the principles upon which I contended in the first group that special measures should be available on the same basis for civil proceedings as for family proceedings apply with equal force to the prohibition of direct cross-examination. Therefore, I will not dwell on them again, save to make the point once again that there is no justifiable distinction to be drawn between the trauma likely to be caused to the vulnerable by direct cross-examination in civil cases and such similar trauma as may arise in family cases.
However, because the proposals are complex, the amendment is long. Clause 63 inserts new Clauses 31Q to 31U into the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, which broadly prohibit direct cross-examination in family cases in a number of circumstances. First, direct cross-examination by someone convicted of, cautioned for or charged with a specified offence—that is, an offence specified by the Lord Chancellor—of a witness who is a victim or alleged victim of that offence is prohibited and, importantly, vice versa. No victim or alleged victim of such an offence may directly cross-examine the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator. Secondly, direct cross-examination by either party of the other is prohibited in cases where one party has obtained an on-notice protective injunction which is in force at the time of the proceedings. Thirdly, in cases where specified evidence—that is, evidence of a description specified by the Lord Chancellor in regulations—is adduced that a witness in proceedings has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by a party to the proceedings, that party may not directly cross-examine that witness. Correspondingly, where there is such evidence that a party to proceedings has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by a witness, that party may not directly cross-examine that witness.
What is important is that these three categories of cases involve a prohibition that is absolute. That offers vulnerable parties and witnesses an assurance that there will be no direct cross-examination that offends against those provisions in any of the cases covered by the prohibition.
Finally, in other cases not coming within the first three categories of cases, the court may prohibit—that is, it has the power to prohibit—direct cross-examination of any witness by a party if the court takes the view that two conditions are met. The first condition is that the quality of the witness’s evidence would be likely to be diminished if direct cross-examination were permitted and improved if it were prohibited. The second condition is that the witness’s distress would be more significant under direct cross-examination by the party than were the cross-examination differently conducted. Before prohibiting direct cross-examination in such a case, the court must be satisfied that the prohibition would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
So while those provisions may be complex, they are, by and large, admirable, as they cater effectively for all circumstances where a vulnerable witness is liable to be directly cross-examined by a party to proceedings of whom she or he is plainly frightened, or where a vulnerable party may be put in the position of being obliged to cross-examine directly a witness who has in the past abused that party. It goes without saying that such a cross-examiner may be afraid of the consequences of putting questions to such a witness. But the important point to note is that the first three categories of case involve mandatory prohibition.
In civil cases, however, for a reason that once again I do not understand, there is no provision in Clause 64 of the Bill for the mandatory prohibition of direct cross-examination in any of the categories 1 to 3—that is, commissioner-specified offences, a mandatory injunction in force protecting a party, or evidence of domestic abuse by a party against a witness or a witness against a party. All that remains is the fourth category of protection: the discretionary and conditional protection offered in family cases that do not fall into the first three categories.
Again, I understand from the Minister—who has been keen on this issue, as on all others, to listen to noble Lords and to help—that the Government’s position is that civil proceedings lack the intimacy of family proceedings and so do not merit the same protection for vulnerable witnesses and parties. However, as I said in the earlier group, there are literally thousands of civil cases—as the noble Lord recognised—of many types involving vulnerable parties and witnesses, and exactly the same considerations apply in those civil cases as apply in family cases. I would suggest that the parties and witnesses involved in them should be entitled to exactly the same protection from direct cross-examination on the same basis as in family cases. I mention before closing that this view is shared by the Civil Justice Council, the Law Society, Refuge, Women’s Aid, and many others.
I invite the Government to reconsider whether they wish to stick with this illogical distinction or to instead come back on Report having ironed it right out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid we cannot hear the noble Baroness. She might still be on mute.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
Let me try an alternative technology—apologies, my Lords.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for the second time, on this group of amendments, on which it is clear that he has done a great deal of work, and for which he deserves great thanks. I am simply here again as a support act for the reasons that I set out in the first group of amendments we addressed today. I think the arguments of justice and compassion are the same in this group of amendments as they were in that first group.
Sitting in many courtrooms over the years as a journalist, looking at the witnesses, you think about what the experience of being a witness is like. Earlier, I used the theoretical but eminently likely example of civil proceedings arising out of the collapse of a farm business that is also associated with domestic abuse. Later on, we will be talking about attempts to insert into the Bill an offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation. If we think about the actual experience of a witness who suffered that kind of assault and is then expected to stand in a courtroom and look in the eye the person responsible for that assault, and who is expected to look strong, stand tall and not seem what anyone might determine as shifty or uncertain, we can imagine the pressure that puts on such a witness.
In his answer to the first group of amendments, the Minister said, “Well, there is always judge’s discretion.” We know from many other debates in your Lordships’ House on the Bill that much domestic abuse is not fully reported. Indeed, we know that non-fatal strangulation and suffocation are sometimes recorded simply as common assault. Full information about what witnesses may have been subjected to may not be available and full reporting may not have happened, so it may not be open to a judge to be in the right place to rule on this. There should be an automatic protection available to witnesses who need it.
I will be brief because we have a great deal to do, but I believe that this is an important set of amendments, and I really hope that the Government will reconsider.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will start by making a general point about an issue that has been concerning me regarding the amendments on cross-examination on special measures. I apologise that I am not a lawyer, and if I have not quite have grasped what Committee stage is. I could have been jumping up to speak to all these amendments, so I have bundled my comments into one. I hope that will work. If I have got it wrong, I will not do it again.
I have found the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, hugely helpful and insightful throughout these Committee discussions, but something he said on Monday troubled me. He said:
“My Lords, for reasons of brevity and clarity, I will refer to the person to whom a domestic abuse protection notice is given as the ‘perpetrator’, rather than the ‘alleged perpetrator’ or ‘defendant’, and the person the notice seeks to protect as the ‘victim’, rather than the ‘complainant’, the ‘alleged victim’ or ‘plaintiff’.”
He went on to say:
“Clearly it will be for the court to decide, ultimately, whether they are in fact perpetrator and victim.”—[Official Report, 1/2/21; col. 1925.]
I understand entirely the noble Lord’s shorthand point, but I get anxious that sometimes, that sort of shorthand becomes the presumed fact or reality. That has been the case throughout Committee stage—nowhere more obviously than in the discussion about cross-examination —and I worry that that might prejudice justice and fairness in proceedings. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly stated, it is up to the court ultimately to decide on guilt or innocence. It seems to me that cross-examination is a key part of making such weighty decisions. Testing the evidence thoroughly is very important, and demands for special measures for cross-examination should not compromise that.
We have already heard the way in which this can happen. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, say, in calling for special measures in an earlier set of amendments, that if a witness claims that they are frightened, this can be seen as sufficient reason to treat the alleged perpetrator as a perpetrator, and the alleged victim is secure in special measures. I just worry about a slippery slope. Because of the importance I place on cross-examination, in relation to the distinction between family courts and civil courts, I would actually prefer that a legal representative be appointed by both courts in order to facilitate the most objective and thorough cross-examination and to make sure that the evidence is objectively tested.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has explained, these amendments intend to bring the provisions relating to prohibition of cross-examination in civil courts into line with the provisions on the same measure in family courts. As the noble Lord explained, we have covered some of the questions of principle already in earlier groups. He indicated that he was therefore going to be brief—as he indeed was—and I hope that both he and the Committee will not take it as any disrespect if I am equally brief in response, given that we have canvassed the points of principle already.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, described herself as a “support act”, an appellation with which I respectfully but firmly disagree. She spoke eloquently in an earlier group of her personal experience of seeing how court procedures operate in cases involving domestic abuse, and her contribution to this short debate has been equally valuable. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, will forgive me if I gently point out to her that she should not apologise for not being a lawyer. What is apparently, based on my short time here, a repeated cause for apology in this House is generally regarded as a badge of honour everywhere else.
Turning to the substance, let me explain that the approach we have taken in civil cases differs from that taken in family proceedings for good reasons. The clause dealing with banning cross-examination of vulnerable parties or witnesses stems from the report by the Civil Justice Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, also referred, and which I spoke about when commenting on the amendments to Clause 62.
The council recommended that the prohibition of cross-examination by a self-represented party should be extended to cover civil proceedings, thereby ensuring some parity with the criminal and family jurisdictions. Importantly, however, the Civil Justice Council cautioned that the ban or prohibition should not be absolute: rather, it should be left to the court’s discretion, given that, as I explained in an earlier group, the civil and family jurisdictions are very different as regards the types of cases, with the civil jurisdiction having a much wider range. As I also said earlier, those cases can have a much broader range of circumstances, where there is no prior close connection between the parties, as there would generally be in the family courts. We have therefore tailored our approach to allow for those differences, which is why the provisions in respect of cross-examination in the civil jurisdiction differ from those in family proceedings. I hope that that explains my thinking to the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
In response to points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Fox of Buckley, I say it is important that two things are fundamental. First, it is important that protection is available to all witnesses who need it—this was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In response to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the court will of course look at all circumstances in that regard. The overriding concern is to ensure that justice is done in the particular case, which is why leaving it to the discretion of the judge in an individual case to decide when a ban is necessary is based on an unlimited range of factors, including, obviously, the views of parties to the proceedings, any past convictions or the behaviour of parties during the trial. That is how we suggest this matter is best resolved.
Having said all that, I respectfully say that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has put forward, as one would expect from him, a cogent and well-argued case for his amendment. As such, while we consider that the approach taken in the Bill in relation to the civil courts is well founded, and certainly not—to use a word adopted earlier in this debate—illogical, I hear the arguments he put forward and undertake to consider these amendments further ahead of Report. I will continue to listen with interest to any arguments made by him or others in this regard. Therefore, given this undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, once again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has proved herself much more than a support act. I say to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that there is a crying need in these legal debates for experience from outside the law to inform our debates and bring the lawyers down to earth.
Many noble Lords may well have formed the view that the differences between the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and me are arcane legal arguments, in some senses—but we can only have those arcane arguments in a relevant way if we have real-world experiences to back them up. Some of these will be ours, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, not only clearly demonstrated how the principles that apply to cross-examination in civil proceedings also apply in family proceedings; she also graphically described the personal experience of witnesses in court proceedings. I challenge anyone to explain why that experience differs between the two types of proceeding, where witnesses are, or are liable to be, victims of domestic abuse and are vulnerable.
Although I greatly valued the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I do not agree with her that this legislation or these and other amendments overstate the significance of vulnerability or trauma, when the evidence is serious and extensive of how deep vulnerability can go, how serious the trauma can be and how long-lasting it can be as a result of domestic abuse. That is the reason why the Government have brought this Bill; it is why it is widely welcomed around the House and the reason for the protections that are afforded to witnesses and parties in court proceedings.
I come to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who frankly accepts the differences and parallels between us in respect of cross-examination in cases of special measures. I do not accept that a discretionary system in relation to the prohibition of cross-examination is an acceptable substitute. One of the principal reasons for this is that a party or witness has no assurance that there will be a prohibition in a discretionary case. She—or, in some cases, he—is totally reliant on judicial discretion having regard, as the Minister says, to all sorts of other factors, including previous convictions and all the circumstances of the case, in relation to knowing whether a prohibition of cross-examination will be extended. This means that such a witness or party is exposed to the risk that there will be direct cross- examination, which they may well be unable to face.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his undertaking that he will consider these amendments further; I know that that undertaking is given with every intention that he will do so. I and others remain completely open to discussing these amendments with him and refining them if necessary, but we hold the basic belief that vulnerable witnesses need protection from direct cross-examination on exactly the same basis in civil cases as is to be extended in family cases. Saying that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 124.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 130. 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 130
Lord Rosser
“Proceedings under the Children Act 1989
(1) Part I of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (welfare of the child) after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) Subsection (2A) shall not apply in relation to a parent where there has been domestic abuse which has affected the child or other parent.(2D) Evidence of domestic abuse may be provided in one or more of the forms set out in regulation 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.”(3) Part II of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.(4) In section 9 (restrictions on making section 8 orders) after subsection (7) insert—“(8) No court shall make a section 8 order for a child to spend unsupervised time with or have unsupervised contact with a parent who is—(a) awaiting trial, or on bail for, a domestic abuse offence, or(b) involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence.(8A) In subsection (8)—“unsupervised” means where a court approved third party is not present at all times during contact with the parent to ensure the physical safety and emotional wellbeing of a child;“domestic abuse offence” means an offence which the Crown Prosecution Service alleges to have involved domestic abuse.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to change the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It also prohibits unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences, or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 130 would include in the Bill a new clause that would disapply the presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare in cases where there has been domestic abuse. The new clause would also preclude unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial, or on bail, for domestic abuse offences or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Meacher, for adding their names to this amendment. Amendment 130A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would further extend prohibitions on unsupervised contact, and I look forward to hearing her speak to her amendment.
The purpose of the new clause set out in Amendment 130 is to act to protect the lives of children who live with domestic abuse where the cases end up in the family court. Between 2006 and 2019, at least 21 children were killed during contact with fathers who were perpetrators of domestic abuse.
“(c) pending a fact finding hearing or has been found to have committed domestic abuse in a previous fact-finding hearing; orwho has a criminal conviction for a domestic abuse offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to change the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It also prohibits unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences, or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, some of the earlier amendments to the Bill have been about removing stress from survivors, particularly when they are in court. I support Amendment 130 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my amendment is a friendly amendment. Our amendments are about removing stress from children, which I think noble Lords will agree is a very noble cause. As other noble Lords have found, we have been contacted by an incredible number of people and organisations, who have explained that this is a problem and it needs fixing. The presumption of contact in certain family law cases involving domestic abuse needs to be rethought. Obviously, it is incredibly important in many family situations to help children maintain contact with both parents, but in circumstances of domestic abuse this can be precisely the opposite of what needs to happen and can result in disaster.
The whole point of family courts is that they are supposed to be about the welfare of the child, but it seems that too often a court maintains contact in situations that are obviously very harmful to children. The courts apply this presumption of contact too rigidly. Rather than acting as a presumption which can be rebutted, it has become more of an overriding obsession. It has been described as creating a “culture of contact” which pervades the entire family court system and then excludes other aspects of a child’s welfare, including listening to the child’s wishes and protecting them from abuse.
This culture of contact has led to serious tragedies. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the Women’s Aid report Nineteen Child Homicides documents 19 children in 12 families who were killed at the hands of abusive fathers during unsupervised contact between the years 2005 and 2015. One example of a tragedy was Darren Sykes, who murdered his two children and took his own life by setting fire to his attic. Despite a consistent history of domestic abuse, and against the wishes of the two little boys, the pro-contact culture of the family courts led to Sykes being granted unsupervised contact with the children for five hours each week. This culminated in him taking the boys up to the attic, barricading the three of them in, and setting multiple fires. Mortally wounded, one of the boy’s last words were spoken to a firefighter. He said, “My dad did this, and he did it on purpose.”
Each one of these deaths is a preventable tragedy. Your Lordships have a duty, through the Bill, to prevent each one of them happening again to another child. My amendment to Amendment 130 has a straight- forward purpose: to ensure that unsupervised contact is not granted where the court has found that domestic abuse has taken place, or where there is a relevant criminal conviction. It should be put beyond doubt that a parent cannot have unsupervised contact when they have been proven to be a domestic abuser. This is a simple proposition: too many children are murdered by parents who are known—and who have been shown —to be abusive. We must protect these children and say, “Never again”.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very supportive of the Bill. The mental and physical damage of domestic abuse goes far beyond the pain and anguish caused at the time it occurs and stays with victims and their families for many years, if not for the rest of their lives. It is important that we do all we can in this legislation to help victims to get out of abusive relationships and rebuild their lives.
I will speak on Amendments 130 and 130A and propose to add parental alienation to the definition of abusive behaviour and, therefore, every provision of the Bill. I fear that the amendments may undo much of the work which the Bill seeks to do to protect victims of domestic abuse and swing the pendulum of control back to the perpetrator of that abuse, rather than the victim, if they make counter-allegations.
Without meaning to sound flippant I say that, at the extreme, any parent going through a break-up or divorce could find themselves accused of domestic abuse under this Act. That is not what the Bill is intended for. I wonder if the concerns of noble Lords on these amendments are already covered by the combination of Clause 1(3)(e) and (5). Alternatively, if they had a specific instance in mind, they should look at where that can be catered for in specific clauses, not by a wholesale change to the entire Act in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has made it clear that direct cross-examination can cause great distress. It is important to help all people in vulnerable situations. I can see these amendments having massive unintended consequences if they are included. I urge the House not to accept either of these changes, so as to maintain the integrity of the Act.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak principally to Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Parental contact is, of course, enormously important. Continued contact can be very dangerous both mentally and physically, but it can be beneficial. To make the right decision for each family is of the utmost importance, and sometimes people get it wrong. However, my support for the amendment is nuanced. I support proposed new subsection (4) but I add that a parent of either sex who has been found to exercise controlling or coercive behaviour should probably not have continued contact with the children. Such contact is likely to be used to continue controlling the partner. The child becomes a pawn in the fight with the partner.
I know an appalling example of this. Years after a divorce between an American dad and a British mum, the mother is required to pay to fly to the US five or six times a year to take her child to the father for contact. Because she cannot trust the father to allow the child to come back, the mother keeps the passport. This means that, after the week’s contact, she has to fly to the US and pick up the child. Even Covid was not accepted as a reason not to go, and the mother caught it on the plane back to the UK over Christmas. The child does not want to go to see her father but is being used as a pawn.
I accept that anecdotal evidence is of limited value; I am a great believer in research. However, I ask that, before Report, the presumption of parental contact be considered in the context of controlling or coercive behaviour and the results of relevant research on the issue.
The first part of the amendment assumes that the presumption of parental contact should not apply in relation to a parent where domestic abuse has affected the child or other parent. I support the implication that parental contact should be very carefully assessed in these circumstances, but the wording of the amendment could be nuanced before Report. I fully accept that it should not be presumed that parental contact would apply in these circumstances.
In my experience, even when domestic abuse against children as well as a partner has occurred, this should not necessarily rule out parental contact. This depends on the nature of the abuse, the ages and level of understanding of the children, the presence or absence of controlling behaviour—a key factor in the situation—and an overall assessment of the potential harms and benefits involved. I also broadly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but I would qualify it on Report.
While again recognising the limited value of individual cases, I will illustrate with a personal experience my point that very serious domestic abuse and continued parental contact may be compatible and, indeed, helpful. The case I will cite involves abuse of children by a mother. As with abuse by a father, abuse by a mother can be extraordinarily damaging, and it can take the authorities a very long time to recognise it.
A male member of my family and his children suffered what can be described only as severe trauma over several years. It took Cafcass and the judicial system two and a half years to recognise that the person who was lying about her abuse of her children, and making up allegations, was in fact the mother. The authorities assumed at that time that mothers did not abuse their children. The very little eight year-old girl climbed up on a chair and unbolted the front door—she was always locked into her mother’s house—ran to the bus stop, managed to get on the right bus and get off at the right stop, and ran one mile through Tottenham to her dad’s house. Only then did the matter go back to court and the judge recognised that he and everyone else involved had made an appalling mistake. Having required the children to live with their mother for two and a half years, the lead social worker in the case finally made it clear that the children should only visit her but certainly not live with her.
The children have lived with their father ever since, but all have suffered from various levels of PTSD. They have had years of therapy, paid for the father, not by the state. Despite the abuse of the children and the damage to them, this father has encouraged contact with the mother. Once the children were safely placed with their father, he felt it was important for them to accept that their mum could not provide parenting but that she was, nevertheless, herself a victim. Her behaviour very much reflected her own experiences as a child. The children know that they cannot expect normal parenting, but they understand her mental state and therefore see her as a person with her own problems. In my view, they have benefited very much from the fact that they are not left with only the horrendous memories of their abuse as small children.
My personal experience, while only anecdotal, explains why I feel so strongly about the issue of parental contact. It is very complex yet hugely important. In conclusion, I support both these amendments but would like to see them adjusted before Report.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, throughout the preparation for proceedings on this Bill, I have been extremely impressed, and greatly assisted, by the work of Women’s Aid, the Victims’ Commissioner for London, the Victims’ Commissioner and many others who have worked tirelessly, with the grain of this Bill, to improve the response of us all, and the courts, to the scourge that is domestic abuse. However, with this amendment and the amendment to it, which many of them support, I have a number of concerns.
The amendment, as we have heard, seeks to disapply the presumption in Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. I turn for a moment to two provisions of that widely admired legislation. As is well known, Section 1 provides:
“When a court determines any question with respect to … the upbringing of a child … the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”
That overriding requirement lies at the heart of the Act, and judges and lawyers have long regarded it as the central canon of our law relating to children. The presumption under Section 1(2A) requires courts hearing proceedings, which include making orders about where children are to live and orders for contact between a child and their parents, to presume that
“unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare.”
That presumption reflects a wealth of evidence not mentioned so far in this debate, but it is generally in a child’s interest to have a relationship with each of their parents. However, that presumption is rebuttable, hence the words
“unless the contrary is shown.”
It is often the case that judges will make a decision, which generally they do not like to make but do, that given a history of domestic abuse by one parent of the other and the effect upon the child, contact with one parent will be withheld. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, confirmed that the statutory guidance for judges ensures that they carefully consider whether contact is justified or should be withheld.
I do not suggest for a moment that all contact is safe. As many have said, cases of abuse and very serious abuse can arise during and around occasions on which contact takes place, as it can on other occasions. But I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I rarely do on these issues, that the presumption is treated by the courts as overriding. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that different solutions may be right for different families. The question for the House is where that leaves us. My concern is that there will be cases where this amendment runs the risk of putting the interests of children behind the interests of parents.
However, the removal of the presumption in this subsection is not the only reason I am concerned about this amendment and the amendment to it. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause would forbid the court from making any order for unsupervised access with a parent who is
“awaiting trial, or on bail for, a domestic abuse offence, or … involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence.”
That prohibition would be absolute, and I think it would be wrong. It would forbid a child from having unsupervised contact with a parent which may, in particular circumstances, work against the best interests of the child, contravening the paramountcy principle I mentioned. It should be for the judges to determine what the circumstances in each case demand. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out that circumstances differ and the extent to which they do.
Furthermore, the amendment is not limited to cases involving domestic abuse against a parent of the child concerned. Section 9(8) of the Children Act referred to in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause is concerned with allegations of “a domestic abuse offence.” The subsection would prohibit, for example, a court making an order for unsupervised contact between a father and his older child because the father had been accused of a domestic abuse offence committed against a new partner who was not the child’s mother, irrespective of any relationship between the new partner and the child. Such a prohibition would be grossly unjust, depriving the child of his or her relationship with the father. It would again run entirely counter to the paramountcy principle.
What is more, this amendment only requires, before unsupervised contact is prohibited, that allegations have been made. They need not have been established; they might be wrong or malicious. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned a case where they were indeed wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, mentioned a case where allegations might be malicious. This provision runs the risk of inviting unwarranted allegations of abuse calculated to destroy a child’s relationship with a parent against whom nothing has been found, on the basis of allegations that may be irrelevant to the welfare of the child. A family judge would determine whether such allegations of abuse were made out and would do so on the basis of evidence adduced before the court, not on the basis of unproved allegations. This amendment involves, to that extent, a denial of justice and a denial of justice to children.
I firmly believe that judicial discretion should not be withdrawn in this sensitive area of family life. There are many cases where abusive behaviour by one parent towards another entirely justifies the withdrawal of contact between the abusive parent and the child. But there are other cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, recognised, where withdrawing contact is inimical to the welfare of the child.
Improving the way in which family courts understand and respond to domestic abuse of all sorts is of the greatest importance, but this amendment is too prescriptive in its statement and its outcome. Removing the power of judges to act in the best interests of the child, on whose behalf they daily make very difficult decisions, is not the way to achieve the aims of this Bill.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, at the outset, I was attracted to these amendments. As a lay person, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, with his usual measured way of introducing amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I found the arguments compelling. But as I listened, I thought that although there is sometimes merit in having us lay people who have no knowledge of the law involved—as was mentioned in the previous group—the arguments showed why it is so important to have people who have experience with what the laws we are making would mean in practice in the courts. Having heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in particular, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Gardner of Parkes, and believing that the intentions behind these amendments are worthy, because it seems self-evident that this must be done, I am not convinced that this way of dealing with the issue will be beneficial for the people we want to protect—the children.
Of course, those chilling statistics of where children have been killed by an abusive parent, after this has been discovered, are very concerning, but I am not necessarily sure that passing any of these amendments would completely rule it out. I think we all agree, those of us lucky enough to have happy families and know other happy families, what the harm would be for those who need it and that parental involvement is paramount.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my quick message to Hansard is that they can tear up the note I sent earlier. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has just made the speech I decided to make having listened to the debate. I do not propose to repeat what he said, save for the fact that the general thrust of his conclusion as a lay person is the same one I have come to. I read the briefings, considered the issue and listened to my noble friend Lord Rosser; I was then surprised when listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As the debate went on, I started to have second thoughts. This is the benefit of Committee—that is what it is for. The idea can be taken away and reworked.
I will raise one point from one of the briefings, from Support Not Separation and Women Against Rape, which quoted the harm review. They said they found a pattern of bias in the court professionals which gave weight to the views of the child who wanted contact but dismissed the views of the child who did not. That is extremely worrying.
However, having come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I will leave it there.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I view this amendment, which is in two parts, with some concern. To a very large extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
When I was President of the Family Division—and throughout the 35 years I was a family judge—I heard a great many cases which had some element of domestic abuse. I do not like presumptions, if they can be avoided. I remember that, when the amended Section 1(2A) was introduced while I was a Member of this House, I was very dubious about it, because I do not like presumptions. The important point of the Children Act is Section 1, which says that
“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”
Any family judge or magistrate has to look at all the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate, in those circumstances, for both parents to have a relationship with the child after their separation. In normal circumstances, one takes it for granted that both parents will have a relationship, but there will be cases in which there should not be one.
I am not quite so concerned about the first part of Amendment 130, because it says that subsection (2A) shall not apply in situations which have affected the child. Even so, it should be a matter where the welfare of the child is paramount and the judge exercises his or her discretion, having come to a conclusion based on all the facts.
I am particularly opposed to the second part of Amendment 130: the restrictions on Section 9. This is, first, because it does not require domestic abuse to have affected the child. Other points have been made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with which I entirely agree, but I can see circumstances where a child was for one reason or another—possibly at boarding school or away on holiday—not present when there was domestic abuse between the parents, and the child had no knowledge of it. In those circumstances, it would not be inappropriate for the child to have unsupervised contact with a parent who had done absolutely nothing wrong to the child but who may have been involved in a single or unusual circumstance which could be classified as domestic abuse of the other parent.
This draconian proposal that Section 9 be restricted is inappropriate, although I entirely understand and share the concerns about the parents—mothers as well as fathers—who have been given unsupervised contact where there are issues of domestic abuse which are true, where the children are then killed. That is extremely sad; there should be adequate training of all judges and/or magistrates trying family cases. It may be more important to get the Ministry of Justice to discuss with the Judicial College and the President of the Family Division whether the training of judges and magistrates in issues of domestic abuse, to which I shall refer on the next group, should be improved. I will later refer to a useful case in the Court of Appeal which has been discussing this.
I am completely opposed to the second part of Amendment 130. I am sympathetic to what lies behind it, but I believe there should be a broader consideration of whether, where the welfare of the children must be paramount, there should be any presumptions of any sort—but certainly not in the way this has been drafted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
In place of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I once again congratulate the Government on bringing forward this important Bill and on the constructive and helpful manner in which my noble friends the Ministers have all engaged with so many noble Lords to try to ensure that this legislation achieves its aim of protecting victims of domestic abuse.
I am speaking to Amendments 130 and 130A because I share the concerns expressed by other noble Lords that they may unintentionally undermine the aims of the Bill. I recognise the rationale and thinking behind them and the desire to protect children, who can be innocent victims in these awful cases, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and so many others that contact with both parents is normally in the long-term interests of children. That is why I supported amendments at an earlier stage to ensure that parental alienation is taken seriously, rather than being left to statutory guidance or, as these amendments might suggest, removed from the guidance as well.
The current legal position reflects huge amounts of evidence that children benefit from contact with both parents and that significant psychological damage can be caused by loss of such contact. I therefore have serious concerns that removing the presumption of contact could cause more harm to more children than this amendment is designed to prevent. Of course, there will be dreadful cases in which an abusive parent will perpetrate harm on the children, but that is extremely rare. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have explained, the family courts already have the power, under the Children Act 1989, to decide against contact in individual cases where it is judged to be appropriate for that case. The Act presumes only that contact with both parents will be in the child’s interests unless the contrary is shown. Should the contrary indeed be shown, rather than merely alleged, and should abuse be proven, then those are clearly the exceptional cases in which a court would hardly be likely to grant access.
Do we not have a principle of ensuring that someone is proven guilty before being deprived of such important rights? Amendment 130 would require that, even where there are allegations of domestic abuse, whether it is against the child or a parent, the deprivation of access to children would still hold. That clearly invites the risk of unfounded allegations being made by one parent who wishes to prevent their ex-partner seeing the children, potentially as a way in which to punish the other parent or for other reasons. That could lead to the other parent being accused, for example, of emotional or psychological abuse, for which there may be no visible signs and which, indeed, may subsequently be disproved. However, the amendment would mean that the courts would deny access to the person who is accused before any judicial opportunity to find that parent innocent.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who mentioned parental alienation, which we discussed in an earlier group, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others: these cases can be hugely complex. We have to trust the courts to apply the expertise necessary in such cases, which are the vast majority. The presumption of contact seems to have so much weight of evidence behind it that it would be extremely unwise and damaging to many children if the amendment, and Amendment 130A, were accepted.
We do not want the Bill to damage children in a misguided attempt to help them. It does not seem to fit with natural justice to impose automatic sanctions without the normal judicial oversight or a conviction to substantiate claims. I recognise the intention of these amendments and I share the desire to prevent any children being severely harmed or even unwittingly put into the hands of an abuser who may kill them. However, I hope that Amendments 130 and 130A will not form part of the Bill because the alternative, whereby children are denied access to their parent, and the other parent is denied access to their children, on the basis of unsubstantiated and potentially false claims, could lead to substantial harm and, indeed, the suicide of a parent or children, who often suffer terribly if they are unable to have contact with a parent.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, there has been a varied response to the Bill. What has come out of it is that nothing is as simple as it might appear in situations of the kind described. The somewhat harrowing example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, underlines that.
As we have heard, Amendments 130 and 130A seek to change the presumption that it is in the welfare of a child to have unsupervised contact when one parent has either a domestic abuse conviction or court proceedings against them. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, told us that she does not like presumptions and that we need to consider all the circumstances—that has certainly come out of this afternoon’s debate.
As we know, the presumption of the courts is that it is in the welfare of the child for both parents to have access now, everything else being equal. However, when one parent is accused of abusing or has abused the other parent or the child, or they are subject to a Crown prosecution case, everything is most decidedly not equal. We have discussed enough times during the course of the Bill just how difficult and stressful a domestic abuse situation can be for a child, who can be used and abused as a pawn between warring partners. And it can get far, far worse than that.
Several noble Lords used statistics to back up this argument. Mine come from the charity Refuge, which, in partnership with a Sunday Mirror journalist, conducted an investigation which found that, between 2004 and 2019, 63 children were killed at the hands of a domestic abuse perpetrator who had contact with their children after being convicted of a serious criminal offence. Refuge reports that the actual figures of child harm are even higher, with many children dying from other causes, such as neglect. This is the danger of under- estimating the risk that perpetrators can pose to their children. It does not apply to all perpetrators, of course; many who have committed domestic abuse against their partners are different altogether with the children—a point another noble Lord made.
We should also consider how previous matters are taken into consideration. In particular, my colleague and noble friend Lord Marks gave an example of a previous situation in which domestic abuse took place, perhaps in a previous life. But domestic abuse still figures in that situation, so if an alleged perpetrator has a previous domestic abuse conviction, it would be better to be safe than sorry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, moved Amendment 130A, as an amendment to Amendment 130, which takes matters a little further to include fact-finding hearings in the family courts, which most commonly concern domestic abuse. In such hearings, it is for the person making the allegations to prove that they are true. The judge considers on the balance of probabilities whether the allegations are true or not. The presumption in Amendment 130 is therefore extended while the hearings take place. I think it is better that, where there is a previous conviction, even with another partner in a different situation, it is still far better to be safe than sorry.
I hope that the Minister will be minded to consider these amendments carefully and, if necessary, make changes to make them a little better on Report.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, Amendment 130, formerly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, seeks to make it clear that the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare cannot apply where there is evidence of domestic abuse. It also seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
Amendment 130A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, extends this. It seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent pending a fact-finding hearing in family proceedings or where domestic abuse is alleged or is proven—either in such a fact-finding hearing or as the result of a criminal conviction for a domestic abuse offence.
Before proceeding, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I make two overarching points. First—and I say this respectfully, given my short time in this House—the debate we have just had shows the value and importance of Committee stage. A number of contributors have listened to and considered the points that have been made and, on occasion, have changed their position. There is nothing wrong with that. If I have one regret—and again I say this respectfully—it is that our PR means that the value of these Committees is not as well understood outside this House as it is within it.
Secondly, in the last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, made the point that what seems an arcane legal matter to lawyers—and perhaps to others in this Chamber—is improved by real-world experience and examples. In this debate, contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, have done just that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that anecdote is not evidence and that we must have research. I will come to this issue later in my remarks. Hearing the case of an eight year-old girl unlocking the front door to catch a bus to get to her father’s house is a powerful example. The image of a child saying his last words to a fireman in a smoke-filled attic will stay with me, and rightly so. It reminds me that, although we are debating words on paper, they have consequences in the real world. I am sure that many, if not all, noble Lords will feel the same.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of these amendments, and I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the courts take proper account of the impact that domestic abuse can have on children’s well-being and safety. To that extent, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we should seek to remove stress from children, in so far as we can. That was why, late last year, following the recommendations from the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, the Government launched a review on the presumption of parental involvement. Importantly, the panel did not call for immediate legislative change. Instead, it recommended a full review. They were right to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said and as noble Lords will be aware, this review is under way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, it will give us important data, research and a considered analysis.
The review will focus on the presumption—and its exception—and the impact on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of these provisions. It will allow us to build a stronger evidence base and ensure that any changes brought about as a result are rooted in a solid understanding of the effect of the presumption and the associated evidence on child welfare. It would therefore be premature to amend the legislation relating to the presumption, including Section 9 of the Children Act—as proposed in the amendment—before gaining the in-depth evidence from the review.
It is worth highlighting that the current legislation on the presumption makes it clear that it should be disapplied where there is risk of harm to the child. This means that the risk of harm from a parent perpetrator of domestic abuse should already be taken into account by the courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, reminded us, Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 makes the child’s welfare paramount. It should also ensure that courts consider the risk of a child suffering harm, or further harm, when deciding on any aspect of the child’s upbringing.
Some noble Lords asked how contact between a child and a parent who has committed domestic abuse, or against whom it has been alleged, could ever be in the best interests of the child. The short answer is that this is not an easy question, but it is for the courts to decide in each case, taking into account all the evidence presented to them. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has vast experience in this area. She gave us an example of such a possible case. She also made an important point about judicial training, which we shall come to in a later group.
In addition to my general point that this issue is catered for in the current statutory architecture, there are two further problems to which the amendments would lead. First, domestic abuse is only one of many circumstances which may impact on a child’s well-being and safety. By expressly referring to it, these amendments could be seen to give domestic abuse prominence over other valid considerations which the court should take into account in deciding whether such an order would be in the best interests of the child—for example, other sexual or violent offending, or a history of or allegations of child abuse. I say this without downplaying in any way the importance and effect of domestic abuse.
Secondly, as a number of contributors have said, the second part of the amendment would lead to an automatic ban. The court could not exercise discretion. If we legislate to create automatic bans on a particular form of contact, there may be concerns that we are not allowing courts to take sufficient account of whether there are risks to the child in the particular circumstances of the case. Risks and rights must be weighed carefully, allowing courts to assess each case on its merits. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave an example where, on the facts of the case, a court might want to permit contact.
Other noble Lords, who are not lawyers, have also contributed to this debate. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge summarised it very well—so much so that he led the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to tear up his speech. This must be a rare, if not unique, occurrence. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said it was “likely” that the court would reach such a conclusion. This is the point I am making: it may be likely, but we should not force the court to do so. We should not remove the court’s discretion. Ultimately, the court should make the decision, based on all the facts of the case. Furthermore, it is not clear from the terms of the amendment whether such bans, if they prevent unsupervised contact following a conviction or finding of fact, would or should be capable of being lifted or modified if the risks in an individual case materially change. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes when she said that she was not persuaded that the amendment was necessary, and that it might have unintended consequences.
I also agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull: that nothing is as simple as it first appears in this area of the law. There are risks on all sides in this area, so to speak. There are risks of contact and, as my noble friend Lady Altmann reminded us, there are risks in preventing contact as well. I therefore suggest to the Committee that the approach in the current legislation, which was identified and explained by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with, if I may respectfully say so, her customary clarity, is the correct one.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this extremely valuable debate. In particular, I thank the Minister for his sympathy for our point of view. As he says, there are real consequences in rejecting these amendments. I note the heavyweight opposition on several points but I am not convinced. The fact is that we have a problem and just rejecting these amendments will not solve it. I hope that there will be further working together on this, and that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not note all the responses, as it was fairly clear these amendments will not be going forward.
I really want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for her very constructive comments. The fact is that, as she said, we can underestimate the damage done by perpetrators. This is the problem. We have not fixed the problem of children’s deaths through abusive parents. Going forward, I want to find out how we can solve that problem. Let us please remember that deaths are a figure we can point to but that mental, physical and emotional abuse are much harder to quantify. This must happen. If we have 20, 24 or 60 deaths, whatever, then a multiplicity of other abuses will have happened. We must take that into account in rejecting these amendments. I said at the beginning of the debate that there is always a presumption of parental involvement—that it is better to have two parents involved—but the way that things stand at the moment is too strong, so this must be rethought.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and presume that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will also be withdrawn. I feel that he was absolutely right to table his amendment, because it has enabled a debate. Hopefully, we will move forward and find a solution.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I am not quite sure what right of reply I have, since my name is not shown on the speakers’ list as being able to speak at the end of this debate. I do not want to test the patience of the House, so I had probably better keep my comments brief.
It was the expert panel set up by the Ministry of Justice which came to the conclusion that the presumption in favour of contact
“further reinforces the pro-contact culture and detracts from the court’s focus on the child’s individual welfare and safety.”
I would add that my amendment does not prevent a court coming to the conclusion that, nevertheless, where there is domestic abuse, there should still be involvement with both parents. It is just that it would not start off with a presumption that it should be the case.
I will leave my comments there. I thank the Minister for his full response, and thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. Bearing in mind that I am not actually shown as having a right to speak at the end, I had better conclude my comments by begging leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord was entitled to speak. He was just left off the list inadvertently.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 131. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 131
Baroness Bertin
“Confidentiality of refuge addresses
(1) In family proceedings, where a person (“P”) is—(a) witness or party to the proceedings; and(b) has been subject to domestic abuse as defined under section 1 of this Act; and(c) is residing at a refuge;the provisions in this section apply.(2) The court must not share the residential address of the refuge with any individual or third party.(3) A court order must not be served on P at the residential address of the refuge.(4) A court order may be served on P at the refuge’s office address or by an alternative method or at an alternative place, in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.(5) The residential address of the refuge must be redacted from any court documentation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent the residential address of a refuge being shared as part of court proceedings.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 131 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has added his name, I will leave the other amendments in this grouping in the capable hands of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. However, I support them.
Amendment 131 seeks to provide a legal safety net for the secrecy of refuge addresses. The refuge model is predicated on the secrecy and protection of safe addresses. The responsibility for protecting these addresses falls not only on staff but on each and every resident at a refuge. Licences are assigned upon entry, with the penalty that a resident must leave if they reveal the address to anybody. Despite these safeguards, refuges can find themselves the subject of orders from the family court—particularly location orders from fathers trying to locate mothers and children. Refuge providers are forced to disclose their addresses to facilitate the service of court orders on mothers. Although some protections are in place, it is clear that there are some loopholes.
I do not want to overstate how often this happens but it is certainly true that, in nearly all such cases, information is kept confidential. However, last year, I was made aware of two cases where this information was released by the court, with concerning and dangerous consequences. In one case, the police visited the refuge and searched the mother’s belongings for passports, which did not exist, on the basis of false information from her abusive partner. This visit was deeply distressing for an already traumatised mother and child, as it was for other residents of the refuge who felt that their safety had been entirely jeopardised. In the second case, the father used the information to locate and stalk his victim and, ultimately, abduct his child and take them abroad. Having worked on the introduction of stalking protection orders, I am aware how prevalent stalking is in domestic abuse cases and how quickly it can escalate once the victim flees.
The principle behind my amendment is a very simple one: that court orders should never be served at the refuge itself and that the refuge address should remain confidential. It provides that the orders be served
“at the refuge’s office address or by an alternative method or at an alternative place, in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.”
As such, the amendment would not make a significant change to the existing protections. It would simply strengthen and clarify the cases in which they should be used. When similar issues were raised in Committee in the other place, the Minister stated that the Family Procedure Rules already provide for alternate routes to service and that, in domestic abuse cases, the information would be kept confidential by the court, meaning that the measures in this amendment were already provided for.
The other issue raised by Ministers was around the urgency of cases where a child’s safety is at risk. There was some concern that an alternative route to service, such as using the office address of a refuge, would present a delay in proceedings and could have the unintended consequence of endangering the child. I respectfully disagree and contend that the current situation, where refuges are pressured into revealing their most fiercely guarded information, causes more delay. In the two cases that I have outlined, the refuge provider was resistant to revealing the address and took additional time to seek legal advice and to consider all the options, including genuinely considering not complying with a court order, which in no way is to be encouraged.
By formalising the refuge office address as the alternative route to service, providers will understand that they have a duty to locate the mother as soon as possible and will not be faced with a serious conflict in doing so. Unfortunately, the cases that I have outlined demonstrate that the existing safeguards are not adequate. We cannot say with confidence that refuge addresses will always be appropriately protected. I believe that the practice on the ground is not consistent with what is intended by the Family Procedure Rules, which therefore require strengthening and updating.
In addition, alleged perpetrators do not state in their application that domestic abuse is involved in their case and, as such, the court may not always have the full picture of each case. It may not be able to assess the risk of sharing the refuge address and may not be aware that that information should absolutely not be shared—unusual though that may be. In some cases, the courts do not know about the victim’s allegations until after the order has been served and the damage has been done. The existing provisions for the confidentiality of addresses in domestic abuse cases can therefore be easily circumvented.
This is a probing amendment that seeks to understand the Government’s response to these occasional but none the less unacceptable lapses in confidentiality. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) (V)
My Lords, the case for the protection of a refuge address has been made eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. Refuges are places of safety and the sharing of a refuge address is a clear risk to both the survivors of abuse and the staff operating the service. It simply should not happen.
Amendment 132, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, deals with the issue of the sharing of information, or indeed the lack of it that currently occurs. We recognise that the drafting may not be perfect, but the aim of the amendment is to put a duty on courts of all jurisdictions to share information where the same victim or complainant of abuse is involved in multiple proceedings in which the other party is or is linked to the perpetrator of the abuse.
The impact of silo working and the lack of information sharing between agencies and the different parts of the justice system were highlighted in the Ministry of Justice harm review as a significant barrier to the effective tackling of abuse. In particular, the review raised the fact that different approaches and a lack of information sharing could lead different courts to reach conflicting and contradictory decisions, including, for example, risk assessments and indicators recognised in the criminal courts not being similarly recognised and responded to in the family court. This issue is often raised and perhaps we all tend to nod our heads, yet we have seen little improvement. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are doing or intend to do to prevent silo working and to improve the sharing of necessary and relevant information in these cases.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support measures to improve the safety of family court proceedings for survivors of domestic abuse and their children so will use my time to speak to Amendments 132 and 135.
Amendment 135 would offer victims of domestic abuse transparency about their right to appeal in the family courts. It would not introduce a new right to appeal; rather, it would make victims aware of the existing rights that they can exercise. As someone who has navigated the justice system, I can attest to how overwhelming and disempowering it can be. Basic information about the most fundamental rights is often not communicated properly. In fact, it is never known until many years later. This is particularly worrying when there are time limits on accessing rights, as is the case with appeals in the family courts, where you have 21 days unless the judge has specified otherwise.
These issues are only deepened when you are without legal representation. Following legal aid reforms in 2013, most private-law children cases now involve at least one litigant in person. Research has shown how the challenges of self-representation are particularly pronounced in cases involving domestic abuse, a fact reflected in the Ministry of Justice’s harm panel report. Indeed, I have heard from many survivors of domestic abuse who have represented themselves in court and have felt that their abuse was dismissed or misunderstood and that the fact-finding procedures, such as practice direction 12J, were not followed. None of them was aware of their right to appeal.
The Court of Appeal has recently heard evidence from four linked cases and will consider the family court’s approach to domestic abuse. During these proceedings, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, noted his surprise that systemic issues have been identified with how the courts handle domestic abuse as so few cases are appealed. Many factors will inform a decision to appeal, including financial limitations and emotional strain. However, from the survivors of domestic abuse whom I have spoken to, it appears that one of the biggest factors is the lack of awareness that such an avenue is available to them. The President of the Family Division has been clear that the appeals process is the correct mechanism for examining the courts’ approach to domestic abuse. This amendment would help that to become a reality on the ground.
Amendment 132 would place a duty on courts to share information about proceedings involving the same victim. It is something that we know should happen, but unfortunately it often does not. Again, I point to the Ministry of Justice’s harm panel report and the recurring issue of the family courts not adequately managing risk. The report specifically acknowledged the courts’ failure to identify abuse through repeated court applications. The criminal courts can often offer crucial information that would give family judges a clearer picture of risk in a case—for example, where protective orders, such as restraining orders or non-molestation orders have been granted. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust recently estimated that 38% of its domestic abuse and stalking casework clients who are in the family courts have some form of protective order—a restraining order, non-molestation order or stalking protection order—against the perpetrator. Equipping judges with this information would support them to better identify abusive dynamics and provide some contextual evidence when suspected repeated and vexatious applications are being made.
The second half of the amendment is designed to address these repeat applications. While barring orders technically exist to allow intervention on such behaviour, the reality is that they are rarely used. The Ministry of Justice’s review heard evidence from a specialist organisation which was not aware of any barring orders being made in the child sexual abuse cases it had supported, even when there had been a conviction and the abusive parent had made multiple applications for child arrangement orders or variations. In the Government’s implementation plan, there was a commitment to urgently review the use of barring orders and to consider them for inclusion in this Bill, so I ask my noble friend for an update on this commitment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I feel slightly embarrassed to be coming in ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, who has her name to one of these amendments. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
I think—and I apologise if I have this wrong—that on Monday it was said from the Government Front Bench that refuge addresses were never disclosed. We need to allow for human error and human ingenuity. We have previously touched on how many victims have moved away from their home area in order that their whereabouts will not be discovered but, as we have also heard, abusers can be determined. So much of the issue is about power and control, so it is not difficult to see that an abuser might do everything to track down a victim. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, referred to the prevalence of stalking. Knowing that a victim has moved to a refuge must be a red rag to some bulls. The dangers are not only to the victim of that abuser but to other occupants of the refuge. I am aware of situations where others have been endangered, including the children of the occupants, as well of course as the children of the victim and of the abuser, themselves victims. What must a child think when they are uprooted by Mummy, told that they are going somewhere where Daddy cannot get at them, and then Daddy appears? The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, also referred to the horror stories on which I have been briefed.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I intend to focus mainly on Amendment 133, which is in my name. Like the other amendments in this group, which I support, it is trying to make sure that the courts protect survivors of domestic abuse from further harm. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support on this amendment and for his leadership on the others, and I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Bertin for their contributions. I have learned a lot from them.
I approach this debate humbly. I am not a legal expert and I have not had what is called “a lived experience”. My intervention is informed by many cases I have come across, in particular the case of a close friend whose experience at the hands of a judge and experts lacking domestic violence training has been traumatic, painful and unjust. I also want to put on the record the work of the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office and Women's Aid, from whom I have learned an enormous amount.
The Ministry of Justice review into the risk of harm in family court cases involving domestic violence, which concluded in June last year, found serious systemic issues. Despite good intentions, domestic abuse allegations are being overlooked, misunderstood and dismissed. Survivors and their children are being put at risk as a result, something which I have heard about directly from survivors. To quote one survivor who spoke to Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University of London:
“All professional witnesses supported me but despite overwhelming evidence, the judge said that I didn’t fit the profile of domestic violence victims as I wasn’t scared enough. Also I was too educated and knowledgeable to allow DV to happen to me.”
This runs against everything we know about domestic abuse and the damage it does.
I am afraid that underpinning this is a lack of judicial understanding. This is not a criticism of individual judges; they face tremendous challenges, given the complexity of domestic abuse cases and the way that society’s awareness and understanding of domestic abuse has improved in recent years. But, unfortunately, the family courts’ approach to domestic abuse remains much the same as 20 years ago, and the system is stacked against the survivor because of both the pro-contact culture of the courts and the intersecting structural disadvantages women experiencing domestic abuse face within then.
If we want to change the practice and culture of the courts so that they truly put the best interests of the child at heart, they need to work at the cutting edge of our understanding of domestic abuse and its harms, not years behind, and, for that, specialist training is absolutely crucial.
We have already heard several times in Committee about the need for better training. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, discussed judicial training, while Amendment 53 looked at the issue from another angle. Among those calling for improvements from outside are Women’s Aid and the London Victims’ Commissioner. The Government have also recognised the importance of training. The Ministry of Justice review panel recommended
“training for all participants in the family justice system”,
and I was heartened to hear my noble friend Lady Williams agree that judicial training needs to be revisited. I hope that she and my noble friend Lord Wolfson will be receptive to this amendment.
Domestic abuse affects all aspects of a family court case. It shapes how participants present at court, the evidence they give and how they give it, and it is a critical factor in determining the interests at stake and how safe child contact is arranged. However, as is recognised in the Bill, domestic abuse has a wide range of impacts and requires a wide-ranging, intersectional understanding. Mandatory training, delivered by domestic abuse specialists, will ensure that judges at all levels are much better equipped to understand the effects of domestic abuse and how to respond to it. As such, it will support and make possible the implementation of all aspects of the Bill. I note also that similar training is required for sexual violence, although that remains outside the scope of the Bill.
By stipulating that the training should be developed in consultation with the domestic abuse commissioner, we can ensure that it truly teaches current best practice and is aligned with national and specialist efforts to tackle abuse. As our understanding of domestic abuse improves, the courts will not, and should not, be left behind.
My focus so far has been on judicial training, but perhaps the real importance of the amendment is that it goes further than that, extending not just to members of the judiciary but to any Cafcass employees, social workers or appointed experts advising the court. That is why this amendment is so necessary. The Judicial College could offer better training for judges without it, but that is not enough.
Expert witnesses rightly play an important role in advising and guiding the family courts, but of course they do not have a thorough understanding of every field or every issue. Many expert witnesses, whose opinions might be crucial in shaping a court’s decision, are not experts in domestic abuse at all. They are not well placed to advise on whether domestic abuse is taking place or on what its impact might be.
Training which gives a full picture of domestic abuse—the context, the impact and how to respond—is therefore necessary in order that experts in our courts have a full picture of the situations they advise on. It will make them more aware of the risks and more attuned to the harm that could be inflicted. It will help implement the recommendations identified by the Ministry of Justice review, which called for training for all participants, including a cultural change programme and a multidisciplinary approach across all agencies and professionals. The result will be better processes for survivors and, crucially, better outcomes for children.
One survivor who contacted me recently described how Cafcass does not see her as a victim of domestic abuse because there are no broken bones or scars and because she seems like a strong and capable woman. But, as we all know, and as the Bill recognises, domestic abuse takes many more forms than just the worst manifestations of violence. It is no good changing our legislation to reflect that if we do not change practice as well. That requires training, and that is why we need this amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I will speak to Amendments 131, 132, 133, and 136. I shall not go back to my time in the Commons, when I dealt with some cases in a personal way.
I have had the benefit of a briefing from someone who has sat as a court independent domestic violence adviser and has what I will call direct, hands-on street experience and remains involved in the wider processes. She has worked in the voluntary sector and in law enforcement, so her experience comes from both sides.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support as much training as possibly can be given to everyone who works in any way in the family courts, but I strongly oppose the proposal that this provision should be in primary legislation. This is a matter for the Ministry of Justice; in relation to judges and magistrates in particular, it should be a matter for the Judicial College.
I am interested to see that magistrates who sit in the family proceedings courts have been consistently ignored in this debate, throughout many of the amendments. Many of these cases are actually in the family proceedings courts. Both the judiciary and magistrates have specific training from the Judicial College. I used to be the chairman of family training in the predecessor to the Judicial College; I certainly gained a great deal from seeking the advice outside the judiciary. Involving the domestic abuse commissioner is an excellent idea. She should be able to advise the Judicial College, particularly speaking to the family judges and the family magistrates, but this should not be part of primary legislation.
It is also important to bear in mind that each of the groups which are set out have their own training processes. Again, it would be important for the Ministry of Justice to discuss with social services and with the medical profession—almost certainly through the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the similar organisation for psychologists —whether they have adequate training for dealing with evidence of domestic abuse. Any other independent appointed experts should be looked at for appropriate training. I have no doubt that Cafcass gets training. It works with the Ministry of Justice and with the family courts, and its training is very important. But it is not appropriate in my view for this to be put into primary legislation.
I was interested to read a case in 2020 called H v F; the Court of Appeal gave helpful advice on the importance of the interface between the criminal courts and the family courts on domestic abuse issues and suggested that there should be specialist training for judges. I hope that that will be picked up by the Judicial College. It would be helpful for discussion for the president of the Family Division, but please do not put any of this into primary legislation.
However, although I do not support Amendment 133, I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has said about the importance of training. I entirely agree with her suggestions and her very powerful speech, apart from the matter of primary legislation. I strongly support Amendment 134 because of the important research on trauma and its effect, as has already been said, on the ability of witnesses to give evidence. It is believed that very often the problems of not remembering certain things are because of trauma. There is a lot behind this which needs to become part of the training of all those involved in the family courts and domestic abuse cases. It is very important that there should be far more awareness of the impact of trauma on those who are the sufferers of domestic abuse.
Let me mention the two groups that I have referred to throughout Committee: the victims of forced marriage, and those of modern slavery who may not have gone through the NRM; even if they have, they need help for their trauma.
I do not think there is anything more to say about Amendment 136. Clearly the victim should not have to pay for the perpetrator to have contact; I should have thought any parent seeking contact should be expected to pay for it as a general principle.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, I feel very privileged to be following noble Lords in speaking to this amendment. I want to put it on the record that I am chair of UN Women UK.
I shall speak briefly to Amendments 132 and 133. I fully support sharing information, from the perspective of women from minority communities. With the support of the work that H.O.P.E training is doing through Meena Kumari and her team, I have learned an awful lot, even though I have been working in this area for a very long time. I have come to the conclusion that the silos that exist have been compounded even further if someone is from an ethnic minority background, English is not their first language and they do not understand how to access services and opportunities. They live within multigenerational households, and when they finally try to leave and enter a refuge, it may not be equipped for their needs, or they enter the home of a friend of a relative who can also be put at risk.
It is critical to offer as much protection as possible and to try, through training of all our services,—whether it is the judiciary as in this case, or all our other services—to get a much deeper understanding of the perspective of women coming from minority communities, who do not have the opportunities to understand the wider support mechanisms that may be available to them. That is not just through language, but it is also through cultural norms of acceptance.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about forced marriages and modern slavery. I have come across numerous cases of forced marriages, and seen the trauma and the effects of having lived within households where every single day was a day of abuse, not just by one perpetrator but by many family members. Trying to find the will to escape and then finding yourself sitting in court rooms with the whole family on one side and you alone as a survivor on the other—it is incredibly difficult to explain the long- lasting effects of that. I cannot imagine how that is ever going to leave you and your psyche.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly on these amendments. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and indeed all the speakers in this thoughtful and very practical debate.
I support Amendments 131 and 133 in particular. On Amendment 131, the Minister has already said that under no circumstances should the address be disclosed of the refuge in which the sufferer of domestic abuse resides, but we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, of the extraordinary lengths to which perpetrators will go to stalk or otherwise pursue their victims. We have also learned of not only the physical danger to which this exposes the sufferer but the mental fear and anguish that it perpetuates.
The Government accept the principle that an address must not be disclosed in any circumstances because of the potential appalling consequences, but unless non-disclosure is a legal imperative captured in the Bill, embedding this principle and maximising compliance with it will be weakened. Ambiguity and thoughtlessness in releasing a victim’s address will be allowed to prevail, with all the potential consequences we know that could reap.
The formal procedures of a court are intimidating enough for any citizen to think at least twice before embarking on a judicial case. How much more intimidating it must be for those who know that their very life might depend on the anonymity of their whereabouts. If they have any doubt that they can rely on the court to protect them, that in itself could be a deterrent against proceeding with their case. Putting this amendment in the Bill would be an enormous reassurance to a victim, and a greater discipline and constraint on those who could potentially release their address.
On Amendment 133, it is worth reminding ourselves of the amount of evidence we have heard about just how traumatic survivors of domestic abuse find the court process. One cannot help thinking that some of those procedures were designed, even if not intentionally, to daunt or dishearten those who did not have the greatest confidence either in themselves or in the merits of their case being understood and accepted, especially as waiting times are as long as they are. Those who have had their confidence and courage systematically beaten out of them might be forgiven for thinking that the courts are not there to help them.
From reading the debate in the other place on the Bill, I was struck in particular by a comment from Peter Kyle MP, a long-time campaigner on these issues. Having recounted the awful experiences of some of his constituents, he went on to say that in his lobbying for change
“Minister after Minister told me that a cultural change was needed in the … justice system.”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 11/6/20; col. 271.]
The evidence submitted to us in the briefings from Refuge and other organisations suggests that there are too many such instances of judges and other professional workers in the judicial system failing to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse and so failing the survivor, who has often made a brave and fearful decision to make the accusation and come to court in the first place.
Most organisations and systems must at some time accept the need for cultural change, and it is never easy. I hope that this proposal is not dismissed on the basis that such soft skills do not belong in a court of law. The courts have come a long way but, on the evidence of the many cases that we have been told about in letters and briefings, they clearly have further to go. Putting this requirement in the Bill would be a real signal of intent to make that change. I noted what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, and if the Minister is inclined to agree with her, I hope that he will take personal responsibility for ensuring that the necessary training is undertaken.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I broadly welcome this group of amendments. Although I have concerns about some of them, which I will explain, and it may be that the precise drafting of some would benefit from revision before Report, it is clear that they are drafted and tabled with a view to responding to the harsh plight of victims of domestic abuse as they go through the court system. If they have a common thread, it is about understanding and responding to the vulnerability of victims and the trauma of the abuse that they have suffered.
I will make a few points on each of the six amendments. On Amendment 131, it is plainly right that the addresses of refuges should be kept confidential. The whole point of a refuge is to enable victims of domestic abuse to feel safe from their abusers. It is of the essence that victims should feel confident that they will not be sought out and found by abusive former partners. Often such victims are with children, and the trauma that they have suffered at the hands of their abusers has left them not only protective, but scared for their own futures and those of the children who have come with them to the refuge. Courts must guard against giving refuge addresses away.
We have heard that abusers have traced victims to refuges as a result of carelessness within the court system, which has sometimes had serious results. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, gave us a harrowing example. It may be that the provisions of the amendment are slightly too wide, and that the assumption that refuges can be expected to have both an office and a residential address is too optimistic, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, but the principle is one that I hope the Government will welcome.
Amendment 132 is designed to ensure that courts dealing with different cases of domestic abuse involving the same victims share information with each other. This is to enable greater co-operation between courts and to ensure that where, for example, criminal proceedings and family proceedings concerned with the same victim are continuing alongside each other, each court will know about the proceedings in the other. Again, the amendment may need some redrafting to achieve clarity, but the principle is right. However, I wonder whether an enlarged or parallel provision should be introduced requiring a similar exchange of information between courts involving the same abusers, as this amendment deals with information about the same victim.
Amendment 133, concerned with training for the judiciary and professionals in the family court, is the most important of these amendments, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others, have reflected, though I share the hesitation of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about enshrining this in primary legislation. Judges generally try to keep up to date with evidence about domestic abuse and try hard to apply the law in accordance with the evidence that they hear, putting aside, as far as they can, their own prejudices. However, we must recognise that most judges and legal professionals come from a world that differs dramatically from the world that is home to many of the litigants who come before them: victims, abusers, witnesses and others. The more training that judges and professionals receive in understanding domestic abuse, the better.
The amendment as drawn does not define how the training is to be established, except that it is to be in consultation with the domestic abuse commissioner. On reflection, I think that is right. We have a commissioner- designate who is genuinely expert in this field and dedicated to achieving an improved response to domestic abuse. I believe that training should also encompass learning to recognise and respond to vulnerability and to take into account the effect of abuse-related trauma on the ability of witnesses and parties to give evidence before the court, and the quality of the evidence likely to be received. I would go a little further than the amendment and require that, before any circuit or district judge sits to hear a family case, they must have completed mandatory training in domestic abuse, as arranged pursuant to the amendment.
I regard the training Amendment 133 as more likely to be effective than Amendment 134, which would require the court to consider the vulnerability of victims of domestic abuse, who are witnesses and parties to proceedings, and the impact of trauma on the quality of the evidence that they give. This is in tune with the objects of the Bill and no one could disagree with the motivation behind it but, generally in domestic abuse cases, judges try to consider the vulnerability of witnesses and parties, and the effect of trauma. Many, even most, succeed in so doing. I hope that the view I have just expressed does not reflect complacency. It reflects the general view that judges are trying to do justice, with regard to vulnerability, sensitivity and the circumstances of particular cases. Such judges benefit enormously from training but, for them, I expect the amendment is unnecessary.
Secondly, if judges fail properly to consider vulnerability and the impact on evidence from the trauma of abuse, that stems from a lack of understanding or training to which the training amendment is directed. It cannot be properly addressed by a bare statutory requirement imposed on judges to consider these matters.
Finally—and I hope I will be forgiven some cynicism—there is the problem well known to lawyers that, if a statute requires a judge to consider two or more factors, call them A and B, the judgments of the less good judges will always state, boldly but sadly inaccurately, “I have fully considered factor A and factor B. In the circumstances, I have concluded”, and the conclusion follows, however flawed it may be, in its unappealable compliance with the statute, which is matched only by its lamentable lack of understanding.
I agree with the principle of Amendment 135 on the transparency of court arrangements, which is that every litigant who is unhappy with the result of a court hearing should leave court with full information about the appeal process. However, I do not believe that that should go into the judge’s ruling. Often, although not always, rulings in family cases are given in oral judgments delivered at the end of hearing the case. They are very important in setting out the judge’s reasoning, particularly for the Court of Appeal, but also for the parties. I have never been completely confident that the parties, who are generally shell-shocked by the proceedings, listen to every word that the judge says.
It should be incumbent on the court administration to ensure that a document setting out the appeal process, in clear terms, is given to every party and possibly others who want it, on departure from court at the end of the day. It should contain details for the court and a helpline equipped to assist with the relevant information. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said in his introduction, this is a probing amendment and it could easily be met by ensuring that this information is available through administrative functions in the court.
Amendment 136, the final amendment in this long and diverse group, would impose an absolute rule on costs of contact. I find this difficult because it appears to be a provision dealing with extraneous financial matters in the context of contact, and that is something that the courts try not to do. I cannot see, for example, why a court that decided that contact between a parent and child was appropriate in the particular circumstances of a given case should be forbidden in some circumstances, though they may be rare, from directing that the other parent pay for or contribute to the cost of arrangements for that contact on the sole ground that the other parent has made an allegation of domestic abuse, or even on the ground that the parent with whom the child is to have contact has in fact been found guilty of domestic abuse.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Bertin and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who have spoken to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The amendments relate, as has been said, to a number of different aspects of the family courts. I hope it will be convenient for the Committee if I take each amendment in turn.
I turn first to Amendment 131, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, which, as she says, is a probing amendment. It recognises the crucial role of refuges in supporting victims of domestic abuse and their children. I must thank my noble friend for her time in being willing to discuss with me this amendment, and indeed others.
The amendment raises two important issues. I will first address that of the disclosure of the residential addresses of refuges. Existing legislation and family court procedural rules allow parties to apply to withhold their address and that of their children from other parties. There is therefore no requirement for those engaged in family court proceedings to disclose their address. During family court proceedings, when adequate information about the location of a child is not known to the court, the court can order any person who may have relevant information to disclose it. In those circumstances, details of the child’s address and who they are living with are disclosed only to the court, not the other parties, in the first instance. The court then determines how that information should be used. Where there are allegations of domestic abuse, the court can and does hold that information as confidential. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that this was of critical importance and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said it was essential, and I do not dissent from that.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause would prevent the service of a court order at a refuge’s residential address. I fully appreciate that victims living in a refuge are fearful for their safety, and that receiving or witnessing the service of an order at a refuge could be very distressing. In that context, I take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that one must bear in mind the position of other occupants of the refuge as well. In that context, therefore, the two cases illustrated by my noble friend Lady Bertin are concerning.
However, I am clear that there are contexts in which the court may need to serve an order on a party at the refuge they are staying in, and where not doing so may pose unintended risks to the safety of children involved in family law proceedings. For example, there may be a concern that a child might imminently be taken out of the jurisdiction. The welfare of the child is of key concern in family court proceedings. Where the courts have urgent welfare considerations, they must be able to take swift action to locate the child. We must not risk impeding the court’s ability to act immediately to safeguard a child by limiting the addresses at which an order can be served.
As my noble friend has outlined, the courts may already direct bespoke service arrangements based on the facts of a case. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 allow for court orders to be served at alternative addresses, such as the refuge office address, if that is suitable. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, it may not always be suitable. As such, I am confident that the important outcomes sought by my noble friend are already provided for in existing legislation and court procedure.
I should add in this context that the Family Procedure Rules, as I have said, allow for parties to apply for their contact details to be kept confidential from other parties. But even where such an application has been made, parties retain responsibility for ensuring that any form or document they submit to the court does not contain the information they wish to keep private. We have to consider in this context documents received from other people, such as medical reports or financial statements. It is difficult, if not impossible, for court staff to check all documents submitted to the court for any unintentional—I emphasise unintentional—disclosure of contact details.
Therefore, given that background, I submit that the proposed clause is unnecessary and, perhaps more importantly, would bring with it some obviously unintended, but very real, potential risks to some of our most vulnerable children. Existing legislation and rules allow for the protections sought through this amendment. But we recognise that, as we have been told in a number of cases this evening, concerns have been raised in individual cases before the courts. The Government are committed to protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and of course this extends to those residing in refuges in particular. We actively work with members of the judiciary, who are committed to exploring whether and how existing procedures and guidance could be strengthened to ensure that those residing in refuges are protected.
Before I turn to the next amendment, I once again thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for raising this issue, both by way of this amendment and in her discussions with me on this matter. It is clear that, across the Committee, we share the same aim—the only real question is how we best achieve it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, Amendment 132 seeks to place a duty on courts to share information relating to victims or those at risk of domestic abuse, and imposes an obligation on the family court to consider making a barring order where information shared by another court identifies that court proceedings may be being used to continue abusive behaviour towards the victim.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of this amendment, and I agree that better information sharing, in particular between the family and criminal courts, on the issue of domestic abuse is important. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was kind enough to acknowledge that there were some drafting issues with this amendment. Indeed, there are such issues, and therefore I hope the Committee will find it helpful if I reply on the questions of principle and not on points of drafting.
The Government are actively considering what more can be done to improve the sharing of information between civil and criminal courts dealing with family proceedings, including through the development of integrated domestic abuse courts, which will be piloted later this year and seek to progress family and criminal cases in parallel. I hope that goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed this evening by my noble friend Lady Newlove.
In particular, I draw to the Committee’s attention the recent amendment to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which comes into effect on 5 April. This will impose a duty on parties to criminal proceedings to alert the criminal court to any related family proceedings, and it encourages the exchange of relevant information with a court dealing with those proceedings. We consider the issue of information sharing between the jurisdictions to be more appropriately addressed through procedural rules, rather than in primary legislation, because the court processes are somewhat technical in nature, I am afraid—and, of course, one has to bear in mind the often technical nature of management information systems.
Alternatively, there is also the issue here of judicial guidance, where the court has a discretion over what information should be shared and with whom. I assure my noble friend Lady Verma that, in that context, the position particularly of women from minority communities, who may be more affected by the sometimes siloing nature of our court processes, is kept very much in mind. How to access support and manoeuvre one’s way through the system once one is in it is of central importance in this context.
I move on to the related but separate issue of the use of Section 91(14) orders under the Children Act 1989, often referred to as “barring” orders. The amendment proposes that the family courts are placed under a duty to consider such an order where it appears, based on information shared by another court, that cases are being brought by a perpetrator of abuse as a means to carry on their abusive behaviour.
The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of perpetrators using the family courts as a means to continue their abuse, highlighted in the report by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm in the family courts, published in June last year. The sad fact is that domestic abuse perpetrators do sometimes use the courts as a way of perpetrating their abuse, often bringing their victims back to the courts repeatedly, which, obviously, can be retraumatising. In our response to the report, the Government committed to exploring how we could further clarify the availability of Section 91(14) orders in the family courts to further protect victims of domestic abuse.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would place a duty on courts to consider making a Section 91(14) order, but only where relevant information has been shared by another court. We are determined that courts should never be used as a forum to perpetrate further abuse. In that context, I am clear that further clarification is indeed required to the law on barring orders to ensure that the use of Section 91(14) is available to parents and children to protect them where further proceedings would risk causing them harm or further abuse. The evidence suggests that these orders are currently underused in circumstances involving domestic abuse and that they could be an effective tool to further protect victims and survivors.
In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Newlove as to when we will come back with further thoughts on this matter, the short answer is: before Report. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to this matter, which we are actively considering. We are considering what more can be done to ensure the effective use of Section 91(14) orders in domestic abuse cases. As I have said, we will consider this issue carefully ahead of the next stage of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment 133, on training for judiciary and other professionals in the family court. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that this amendment was the most important of the group. I am tempted to agree, though that is not in any way to undermine the importance of any other amendment. To use a word that I think was used by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, training is critical in this area.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
It is a huge honour to try and sum up such a rich and important debate. I made many notes, a lot of which I cannot read, so I will try to keep my remarks very brief. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and I have learnt a huge amount. I put it on record that the Government have made significant and worthwhile changes to the family court system. They have listened to the experts and been constructive in this area.
Perhaps I may respond briefly on the amendment—the only one in my name in this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his thorough response. He is kind, even when he disagrees with you, and I am grateful for small mercies. I noted that his position has not moved a great deal since Committee in the other place. That is a shame and I respectfully and robustly refute the charge that the amendment could somehow endanger children; I do not accept that. Wanting to keep refuge addresses completely confidential does quite the opposite. When the matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham the other week in another debate, my noble friend Lady Williams expressed serious concern that not keeping refuge addresses confidential could ever happen, and I believe that the MoJ has now reached out to the refuges in question, which I welcome. I therefore thank the Minister for reiterating the point that the Government are working closely with the judiciary to explore how existing procedures and guidance could be strengthened to ensure that those residing in refuges are protected.
I thought the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Helic, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and many others did an excellent job at explaining the remaining amendments in this group. On Amendment 132, I am genuinely shocked that there is no duty on courts to share information, so you can have a victim of domestic abuse in several processes—family courts, civil courts, criminal courts—yet there is no sharing of the information. Surely the judge needs a full understanding to assess the risk. I am not a lawyer, and I know that the law is a complicated creature, but it seems to defy basic good sense. The Minister said that the Government are going to try and change things to make the criminal and family courts run in parallel, which I welcome. This is a little awkward, because I want to do justice to other noble Lords but I do not know what they think of the response from the Minister. But I thank him for the positive remarks on Amendment 132. This sounds like a step in the right direction; improving the use of barring orders certainly does.
I think we can all agree that Amendment 133 is a key amendment and hugely important. It is a great shame that the Minister is not persuaded by primary legislation. I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on this. I have enjoyed all her contributions and I think she is so knowledgeable, but I say on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that she wants to pursue this in later stages of the Bill.
On Amendment 134, it sounds like family courts are behind the curve on trauma, and we need to do a great deal more to understand the implications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, set out a powerful case for Amendment 135. Feeling totally overwhelmed and alone are such common emotions for victims and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said, and many noble Lords echoed, we must not disempower people.
There are more conversations to be had, if I am honest. But, as I said, mine was a probing amendment, and I withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 137. 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 the other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 137
Baroness Newlove
“Offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation
(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if that person intentionally strangles or suffocates another person (“B”), where the strangulation or suffocation does not result in B’s death.(2) A strangles or suffocates B if A impedes B’s breathing, blood circulation, or both, by doing any of the following (manually or using any aid)—(a) blocking B’s nose, mouth, or both; or(b) applying pressure on, or to, B’s throat, neck, chest or more than one of these.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or six months, if the offence was committed before the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020), or(ii) to a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or to a fine, or both.”
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 137 and 138 are in my name and the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilcox. I thank them for working with me on this, as have the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Anderson, Lord Blunkett, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and others. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have indicated their support to me. I am also grateful to the Government for listening to the arguments put forward on Second Reading and for meeting my colleagues on this.
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that he wants to see this offence on the statute book, with a maximum sentence of seven years. The Government are minded to include the offence in the police, crime, sentencing and courts Bill rather than this one. I will argue that it sits best in this Domestic Abuse Bill; I very much welcome the Government being open to discussions on where it should sit and on the wording of the amendment.
This new offence should be in this Bill because it is concentrated in domestic abuse cases. One police force recently assessed a random sample of its cases featuring strangulation and found that 80% were intimate partner violence while 20% were other family abuse cases. This is clear evidence that this crime features predominantly within domestic abuse. It is important that this offence is regarded by the police and prosecutors as part and parcel of the criminal justice response to domestic abuse. Having it in this Bill will enhance the understanding that this type of offending is very much about domestic abuse. It is an offence used to frighten and have control over a person.
The amendments I am proposing would each add a new clause to the Bill to establish an offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation. Amendments 137 and 138 are alternatives. The first refers to all non-fatal strangulations or suffocations; the second limits the offence to those where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected, as defined in Clause 2. If the first amendment fails, the second will be next best. The first, Amendment 137, is preferable, as it would protect more women—for example, those attacked by acquaintances or strangers and those in a more casual dating situation.
Some might argue that as the Bill is for domestic abuse only, Amendment 138 should be considered. However, there are two reasons I urge noble Lords to accept the first alternative. First, it is consistent with the Istanbul convention, which forms part of the policy context of this Bill. The Istanbul convention sets out to prevent and combat violence against women in all situations, as well as to tackle domestic violence. The wider amendment is consistent with this. Secondly, the Government’s amendment, described as the “rough sex” amendment, introduced in the other place and now in the Bill as Clause 65, is rightly not limited to people who are personally connected. It covers any situation, as the Government accepted this was an opportunity to address such harm more widely. The same logic applies for non-fatal strangulation or suffocation, which affects 20,000 victims every year in the UK.
As noble Lords can imagine, being strangled is terrifying. Fear of imminent death is a primal fear—we can all imagine that—and victims of these attacks are right to be fearful. Less pressure than it takes to open a canned drink stops blood flowing to the brain. Loss of consciousness quickly occurs, normally in as little as 10 to 15 seconds. Incontinence of urine tends to happen at around 15 seconds and bowel incontinence at around 30 seconds. A strangulation can quickly be fatal if it triggers a heart attack, in which case death can occur within a few seconds.
When a strangulation is survived the victims may have other health problems, such as a fractured trachea, internal bleeding, dizziness, nausea and tinnitus. A break in the flow of oxygen to the brain causes neurological problems such as memory loss, facial droop and an increased risk of miscarriage—even a stroke several months later, as a result of blood clots. Many of these medical effects would come as a surprise to most members of the public, including the police, who therefore do not understand the seriousness of these crimes. Similarly, survivors of domestic abuse may not realise the true dangers they face.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the important issue of non-fatal strangulation has been introduced comprehensively and powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I commend her on her tremendous work in campaigning and lobbying to bring this issue to public attention. We support these vital amendments and our stated preference is Amendment 137 as opposed to the wider Amendment 138. However, both of the amendments would make non-fatal strangulation or suffocation a standalone offence on the statute book and should be located within this Bill.
A separate offence of non-fatal strangulation would help the police to spot domestic abuse and coercive control. This is our opportunity to help those women who have suffered this dreadful form of abuse and forced control at the hands of their perpetrator. At its heart, the Bill must be about providing services for people who have become the victims of abuse, and indeed torture, in their own home. The importance of the Bill and these measures has only grown during the coronavirus crisis as perpetrators have exploited lockdown to intensify their control and abuse. Calls to helplines and concerns have increased greatly across all the four nations of the United Kingdom.
My good friend Rachel Williams, who is from Newport, is a leading campaigner. She has set up her own charity, Stand up to Domestic Abuse. I am proud to wear the organisation’s badge through every day of these proceedings. Rachel’s abuse story is well chronicled and her support charity for survivors is simply outstanding. On the issue of non-fatal strangulation, Rachel has set up a petition to ask the Prime Minister to support its inclusion as a stand-alone offence. When I looked at it about an hour ago, the petition had secured 202,288 signatures. These are Rachel’s words:
“Strangulation is a very symbolic act of control which leaves its victim in no doubt that there is a real and visceral threat to their life. If you put your hands on someone’s throat and squeeze, the message and terror for the victim is clear. As a survivor of domestic violence, I know the impact it has.”
When Rachel knocked at my door at the civic centre asking for help and support for victims, I said that we would do our very best within the limited financial framework of a local authority in such austere times. But what I could never have foreseen a couple of years ago is that I would be in a position in your Lordships’ House where I have the privilege of speaking to improve and amend the laws of our lands so that survivors such as Rachel and support organisations will have the very best protection that can be afforded by the most appropriate legal framework.
We have such an opportunity before us today. Non-fatal strangulation or suffocation must finally become a stand-alone offence for the perpetrators of this most repugnant of crimes. I support the amendments.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I give my strong support to Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and I want to congratulate her on her comprehensive and extremely powerful presentation of the arguments in favour of these amendments. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with every word that she spoke. I also want to thank our Ministers for their support for this amendment, and indeed thank the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary, both of whom, I understand, support the amendment. I thank too all those who have provided briefings for us, in particular Julia Drown, who has been absolute stalwart in support of our work on this issue.
I understand that the Government have accepted the principle of the amendment and agree that it should have general application rather than be limited to cases of domestic abuse; that is, between couples who are personally connected, albeit that the amendment should stand within the Domestic Abuse Bill. That is what I understand, and no doubt the Minister will update us on developments in the work of the Government’s lawyers, who I believe are drafting an amendment that would work in practice. It would be helpful if he could confirm that the Government support the broader amendment but also that it must be included in this Bill for the reasons already given. I do not want to repeat them.
In the circumstances, I want to keep my remarks extremely brief and will just spell out the key reasons why I feel so strongly that the amendment should be agreed. First, women who are victims of non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely to be killed subsequently. If there is anything that we should do, surely it is to prevent murder.
Secondly, the fact is that these very serious crimes are not being dealt with effectively by our criminal justice system simply because of the peculiarity that there might not be much to observe in the way of immediate symptoms, while the medium or long-term consequences, both mental and physical, of this heinous and horrendous crime are extremely serious. Again, all that has been outlined by other speakers, so I will not repeat it.
I have a lot of sympathy for the police, who do not—of course, they cannot—handle this very well. There needs to be a very specific, stand-alone offence that they can grapple with and understand. The police are overloaded—they are very busy, as I know well from my work with the Police Complaints Authority some years ago—so all my sympathies go to them. For the police, as well as for the victims, we need to get this amendment on the statute book.
Thirdly, this is a particularly horrible way to be assaulted. The idea that it is not dealt with effectively and that people are not punished for doing it is completely unacceptable, so I say again that I very strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and her amendments.
The Lord Bishop of London [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have preceded me and those who will follow. I also thank the steady campaigners, researchers and wider members of civil society for their tenacity in bringing the issue of non-fatal strangulation to the forefront of the Bill. It is something so nuanced that, if addressed, it has the potential to change the trajectory of women’s lives post strangulation.
Researchers, lobbyists and specialist organisations alike have spent significant proportions of their lives trying to highlight the one thing that we all know to be true: that there is almost always more than meets the eye. That said, I am delighted to have heard that the Government are committed to addressing this issue, and it is good to have heard so many noble Lords speak in favour of the amendment at Second Reading and today.
We have heard powerful contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Wilcox, and many noble Lords will have received briefings and accounts of the impacts of this crime on victims. I add my voice in support of the amendment, which calls for non-fatal strangulation to be included in the Bill as a stand-alone offence.
International research by Glass showed that non-fatal strangulation by a woman’s partner was associated with a 700% increase in the likelihood that he would attempt to kill her and an 800% increase in the likelihood of him actually killing her. Data collected by organisations such as Stand up to Domestic Abuse suggests that non-fatal strangulation is not a single, spontaneous assault but a pattern used by some perpetrators.
I am sure that noble Lords have read the details of what it is like to face this type of assault. We have heard them today and previously in your Lordships’ House, so I will not repeat them. The reality is that the effect of putting this amendment in the Bill really will be a reduction in the number of cases whose details we might have to share on this matter in the future.
At present, the police too often deal with non-fatal strangulation as a tick-box exercise on a risk assessment form, rather than as a crime. Furthermore, the current law leads to perpetual undercharging or no charging at all. Work from organisations such as the Centre for Women’s Justice highlights how serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and coercive control should have an official history that reflects their potential risk to others.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I give my strong support to Amendment 137. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her determination and commitment on this issue and thank the Centre for Women’s Justice for all its work. I thank the Government for listening. It is right that non-fatal strangulation, for all the reasons that we have just heard, will be a new stand-alone offence. It is very encouraging that we are discussing this issue with a shared understanding. However, I hope the Government will listen again and agree that the Domestic Abuse Bill is the natural home for this amendment. The Bill has finally reached the stage where we can look forward to Royal Assent in the not too distant future. Let us take the opportunity and place this offence on the statute book now.
Having the offence in this Bill sends a powerful message that this kind of offending is concentrated in domestic abuse cases above all others. A rural police force in England selected 30 cases of strangulation at random from within its data. It found that all were cases of domestic abuse. That is not to say that there are not other situations where this form of violence is used—primarily against women and we do not forget them either—but the majority are domestic abuse cases, where strangulation is part of a wider campaign of terror and control that victims and survivors endure day after day.
It is important for our criminal justice agencies to understand this offence in its proper context as a well-established aspect of domestic abuse. This will help them recognise it and take a robust approach. It will aid increased training and better investigation techniques. We have heard that about 20,000 women suffer from this form of abuse. It is frightening, traumatic and deeply harmful. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, was right to set out exactly what it means. It was not easy to listen to but we need to understand it.
As a society, we have been blind to this crime for far too long. We are now finally shining a light on it and need to protect those women as soon as we can. I lost my own cousin to fatal strangulation and I know that a greater understanding of non-fatal strangulation will save lives. We must not delay this.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join everyone who has spoken in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for bringing forward this amendment, for the tireless way in which she has campaigned for it and for her powerful opening of this debate. I also want to record how grateful I and other noble Lords are for the careful and sympathetic way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have listened to the arguments and responded to this amendment since Second Reading.
I believe there is a clear consensus that the absence of a distinct offence of non-fatal strangulation is a serious defect in our criminal law, which allows many cases of appalling attacks to be treated with far too little seriousness—undercharged and insufficiently punished. We have long had an offence outlawed by Section 21 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 of attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle in order to commit an indictable offence. However, not only is that Act now seriously in need of replacement, but that offence does not answer the need because it criminalises strangulation only with an intent to commit an indictable offence, so leaving untouched the violent strangulation with which this amendment is generally concerned. As I said at Second Reading, this horrible form of violence is appallingly common and devastating in its physical and psychological effects. Yet because the injuries are difficult to prove, prosecutions, where they happen, are often for common assault, or ABH at most, demonstrably understating the severity the violence involved. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and all other noble Lords who have contributed of the appalling statistics and the overwhelming evidence that demonstrate how serious this form of domestic abuse is, how often it stems from or leads on to further violence, and how a history of strangulation is a tragic, but regular, predictor of later homicide.
I shall say a little about the legal aspects of the amendment and its drafting. In particular, I shall address the points raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who unfortunately cannot speak today but invites me to mention his continued strong support for the amendment and his gratitude to the Government for their commitment to taking the best possible technical advice to ensure its effectiveness.
The first point raised by the noble Lord was whether we ought to have a specific offence of non-fatal strangulation at all or whether a generic offence not confined to strangulation or suffocation would do as well. For the reasons so ably set out so far in this debate, strangulation and suffocation raise a particular issue because the violence involved is extreme and the consequences in terms of abuse and terror for the victims so serious, yet often there are very limited physical injuries to support a prosecution as a result. The New Zealand Law Commission, in its 2016 report Strangulation: The Case for a New Offence, accepted the case for a specific offence and recommended this approach. I understand that the former criminal law commissioner at the Law Commission, Professor David Ormerod, who generally favours generic offences rather than specific ones and so recommended in his 2015 on the reform of the 1861 Act, nevertheless sees a strong case for a new specific offence of non-fatal strangulation. I agree. As to the actual acts constituting strangulation or suffocation, the amendment closely follows the New Zealand legislation, the Family Violence (Amendments) Act 2018, which implemented the Law Commission’s recommendation, and there are no reports of any significant difficulties with the definition of which acts are required.
I turn to whether a new offence should be limited to the context of domestic abuse. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, explained, we are considering two versions of this amendment, one limited to domestic abuse and one general. My firm view is that the new offence should be generally applicable, as in Amendment 137, even though the evidence outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, establishes firmly that this is generally an offence involving domestic violence. However, I fully agree with the noble Baroness that the new offence of non-fatal strangulation should not be confined to the domestic context, particularly not as limited by the constraints of the definitions in the Bill, under which a similar intentional act which did not meet the definition of domestic abuse would be left to the inadequacies of the pre-existing law.
I turn next to the difficult question of intent. The amendment as drafted now provides that A commits the offence if he “intentionally strangles or suffocates” B. In my opinion, the use of the word “intentionally” is correct and appropriate. It makes it a requirement that the prosecution demonstrate that the act of strangulation or suffocation—that is, blocking the victim’s nose, mouth or both, or applying pressure to the victim’s throat, neck, chest or more than one of these—is intentional. It does not require that the offender be shown to have a further intent of causing any particular type of harm to the victim. The necessary intention is what lawyers call a “basic intent”, rather than a “specific intent”. In my view, that is right because it is difficult to see an offender doing any of these acts without either intending to cause injury or being completely reckless about whether such injury is caused. It should not be a necessary element of the offence that the exact state of mind should have to be proved, and this follows the New Zealand Law Commission’s report.
However, when the New Zealand Parliament implemented that recommendation in that report, the word “intentionally” was supplemented by the words “or recklessly”. In my view, the addition of possible recklessness to the basic intent adds nothing, because it is hard to see the acts involved in strangulation or suffocation being unintentional. I suggest sticking to the word “intentionally” as included in the amendment.
The question also arises whether consent should be a defence against the new offence. In my view, it should not, and the removal by Clause 65 of the defence of consent to the infliction of serious harm for the purpose of sexual gratification points the way. I can see no merit in permitting a defence of consent, which would doubtless lead to frequent court disputes when the defence case would involve an assertion that the victim consented to her own strangulation. I cannot believe that that would be right.
On the last question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the sentences proposed lie somewhere in the middle of the range applicable to similar offences around the world. They seem to me to fit in with our general sentencing guidelines. Setting maximum sentences is always an art and not a science. The sentences proposed are, of course, maximum terms of imprisonment, and actual sentences in practice always vary with the facts. However, this amendment seems to me to have the tariff about right.
Finally, our Law Commission and Professor Ormerod, with his wide experience in the field, have both been consulted as to the formulation of a new offence, and will continue to be so. Professor Ormerod has expressed his willingness to assist the Government and the House with further consideration of the details of a new offence before Report stage. I express the hope that the Government and we will take advantage of that generous offer.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Newlove for her powerful introduction to this standalone offence. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and to give my support to the many victims who have endured violence—for them, it has been a long wait for justice.
I rise to speak to this amendment, which addresses the offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation whereby a person commits such an offence if they intentionally strangle or suffocate another person but it does not result in death. This must be recognised as a distinct offence in its own right and not just treated as common assault, as has happened in so many cases, particularly given that many victims display hardly any external signs of abuse even after serious assault. Crimes of strangulation and asphyxiation are the second most common method, after stabbing, of killing in female homicides. The amendment would also help the police identify the harm which has occurred, thereby enabling them to respond appropriately to this method of domestic abuse. This offence should be embedded in the Domestic Abuse Bill and should carry a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years.
Non-fatal strangulation is used as a weapon to exert power and control and to instil fear in an abusive relationship. Most victims experience a real fear that they will die, and many go on to suffer long-term mental health issues.
Given the aims of the Bill, this amendment provides us with a real opportunity to save lives. We must not miss this opportunity to introduce the offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in the UK. We must do all we can to protect victims and help them to recover and rebuild a life free from abuse.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. I support the important Amendments 137 and 138, particularly Amendment 137, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I am pleased to be in the company of so much wisdom and experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as we know, is the distinguished former Victims’ Commissioner, and I understand that Dame Vera Baird, the present commissioner, and Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner designate, are also committed to these amendments. The noble Baroness has said today that the Police Superintendents’ Association—comprising all chief superintendents, who are in charge of public protection units across the country, which will include domestic abuse specialist officers—also support the amendment. It sees the benefits of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation to charging regimes, to more serious custodial sentences and to better police training and information.
It is very good news that the Government are now openly in favour of filling this gap in the law in future legislation, but our argument today is that we have a completely appropriate Bill in front of us now that could incorporate these amendments and could get this offence on the statute book this year, with all that that could imply for victims and survivors. The highly respected charity SafeLives estimates that 37% of high-risk abuse victims experience non-fatal strangulation. Research in America, where 37 states have introduced a specific offence, estimates that victims of non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely than non-victims to be killed in domestic abuse incidents, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said. New Zealand and Australia have also been proactive in this area of law. The Centre for Women’s Justice has argued that this is a gender-specific crime that should be recognised in the Bill.
Dame Vera Baird and Nicole Jacobs, in a joint statement, have called attention to the fact that this terrifying experience of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation can cause significant long-term mental and physical trauma, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has so powerfully described, and that at present the law is not fit for purpose. Non-fatal strangulation is a common feature of domestic abuse and a well-known risk indicator, yet, given the inadequate tools available to them at the moment, the police are often only able to deal with it on a risk assessment form rather than as a crime. When a charge is brought it is often common assault, which does not reflect the severity or hidden scale of the offence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, has said.
Ultimately, non-fatal strangulation is a highly effective tool of power and control, used to engender fear and terror in families, and is no doubt being used today with enthusiasm by perpetrators behind the closed doors of another Covid lockdown. There is really no time to delay in coming to the aid of such vulnerable victims and survivors. We need to see these amendments incorporated into this Bill, rather than waiting for future Bills, especially in these very uncertain times.
I am sure that the Minister, who appears to be a good listener, recognises the urgent need to resolve this matter and to fill this gap in the law. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 137 and 138 and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove and many others for their tireless work and campaigning. I, too, thank Julia Drown for her help and support, and I very much welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of this issue and thank Ministers for their support.
I stress that this is the right Bill for this offence: non-fatal strangulation is about fear, control and a toxic mix of physical and psychological abuse, and it is often done with the express intent and insidious subtlety of evading detection. As such, it can be protracted and cause lasting and even permanent harm. Crucially, the current law is letting victims down; this Bill is our chance to put that right and protect them.
Many other noble Lords have already spoken about the horrific nature of non-fatal strangulation, but the current problem of undercharging highlights that the true nature and intent of the crime is not fully understood. As always, context matters: the current narrow approach not only limits the sentencing options but has other serious consequences, as it impacts on future risk assessments and public protection decisions. These include future bail applications, sentencing decisions—including dangerousness determinations—and Parole Board decisions.
As the seriousness of the crime is not currently understood, neither, unfortunately, is the management of its consequences. This is particularly the case when it comes to contact arrangements for children. To protect the welfare of children, these arrangements should reflect the seriousness of the crime; unfortunately, they do not.
I am conscious that, to tackle non-fatal strangulation as effectively as possible, we need all relevant agencies to work together. Early intervention is needed to mitigate damage and even save lives. Unfortunately, current understanding of symptoms and consequences will likely lead to cases being missed and narrow or absent diagnoses offered. If those in the health service seeing patients with the relevant physical and psychological conditions are conscious of the links to non-fatal strangulation, the problem can be picked up earlier and the victims supported.
This would not only save the victims from further and more serious harm; it would also be better for society, as the earlier intervention would be easier and more cost-effective, compared with dealing with the horrific further abuse and deaths of victims. In many of these cases, this will be about protecting children as well as the victims themselves.
It is shocking that, in this country, thousands of victims experience the trauma of non-fatal strangulation every year. Given that the current criminal justice system is clearly not able to protect these victims, we cannot afford to let this Bill pass without addressing this issue. We all know how commitments to introduce something in a future Bill can get derailed through no fault of those making those commitments. There is a suggestion that this new offence could go in the police, crime, sentencing and courts Bill, but that is not the Bill before us now; it has not even started its journey in the other place, and it may well be delayed for months into the future.
We need to get this right, and there is no reason why this offence cannot be included in this Bill to get the victims the protection they need now. If we miss this opportunity to introduce this offence, many women will die, others will suffer unnecessarily and we will be behind most of the English-speaking world on domestic abuse protection.
The UK has been rightly proud of its leading role on the world stage on gender-based violence over many years; this amendment is needed to ensure that we stay ahead and do all we can to protect victims. Rather than have the uncertainties of a future Bill, we can address this issue now in a Bill that will come into law very soon. I urge the Government and Ministers to work with my noble friend Lady Newlove and to include this new offence in this Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I join every speaker in this rather large group of speakers in offering my support for Amendments 137 and 138, with a preference for 137. I join all of the others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her very hard work on this issue. However, when the idea of a new offence was first put to me, I started from a position of scepticism. We all know that there are far too many cases in history where Governments who are wanting to be seen to be doing something say “Oh, we will have a new law and create a new offence”.
However, when I looked at the evidence and saw the extensive briefings and data assembled by campaigning groups and NGOs, I found that there is clearly a case. There is a specific set of behaviours that constitutes an offence. The case is made very clearly that non-fatal strangulation and suffocation is not generally a failed attempt to kill, but rather a deliberate attempt to control and exert power. The law currently has no real proper way of dealing with that. The fact that there is little visible injury in many cases means that at best it may appear as a charge of common assault, and many others have pointed out how inadequate that is. It is also worth pointing out that it means there is a six-month limit for charges being brought. We know that domestic abuse is very often disclosed only after a large number of incidents have occurred. It also means that, as a summary offence in a magistrates’ court, it does not get the level of attention and resources that this proposed new offence would attract with the charges.
The other point which has not been made but should be, is that I very much do not believe in reinventing the wheel in terms of law and government policy. We can look around the world to see other places that have been leading on this. Reference has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, to the 37 states in the US which already have comparable laws, and most Australian states do.
The real leader in this has been New Zealand. I note that this started with the Aotearoa—New Zealand—Law Commission 2016 report, which in December 2018 led to its introduction of a new law. I would imagine that the Minister is well aware of the recent report from the Chief Victims Advisor to the New Zealand Government to the Centre for Women’s Justice, which notes that in the first year after the offence was brought in, there were 2,000 charges—most occurring in a domestic violence context. A calculation has been made that, comparing our populations, that means in the first year we could see 26,400 charges in the UK. Of course, no two countries are exactly comparable, but I think that rough comparison tells you that if we delay introducing this charge, there will be thousands and thousands of women who will not have the protection of the law who should and could have the protection of the law if it is included in this Bill. It is very good to hear that the Government are listening on this issue, but the case for action now is overwhelming. I commend Amendment 137, in particular, to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]
My Lords, I greatly support Amendment 137 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for such a powerful and comprehensive introduction, thus making it necessary for me to make only a few brief remarks. During my time at the Home Office, I remember a particular incident that demonstrates the attitudes at play in the issues before us.
In 2014 a so-called pick-up artist, Julien Blanc, was due to visit the United Kingdom giving lectures to men on how to successfully pick up women and get them into bed. On Twitter, the photo he used to advertise his tour showed Blanc with his hand around the throats of women. He then tweeted the photo with the hashtag #ChokingGirlsAroundTheWorld.
I spoke out, as my responsibility was for tackling violence against women and girls, to say how concerned I was by the sexist and abhorrent statements Julien Blanc had made about women and that if he was allowed to perform in the United Kingdom, I had no doubt cases of violence and intimidation of women would follow, because his thesis was that physical aggression made you more attractive as a man and would give you more success and more sex. Someone who, in my view, wishes to incite sexual assault should not be granted a visa.
I simply use this as an example of the mindset that is out there that illustrates how women are in jeopardy. In days gone by, that mindset echoed down the corridors of our judicial system; to an extent, it still does so, because we are debating it today. It is part of the history of women being blamed for their own rape. Not that long ago, a woman’s previous sexual history was used to exonerate a male rapist. There is a long tradition in matters sexual to blame the woman for her own downfall: she wore a short skirt or a low top; she was asking for it, and so on. It put the onus for male behaviour on to the woman.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords I pay warm tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove, Lady Wilcox, Lady Meacher, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for their tremendous campaign to deal with this abhorrent crime. It is so pleasing to know that the Government have agreed to put this offence on to the statute book.
I cannot really add to the extraordinary speeches we have heard tonight but I give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in proposing why this Bill—as opposed to the police and sentencing Bill—is the right vehicle for this offence. We have heard in this debate and at Second Reading about the issues facing the police; the problems they have experienced in giving the right attention to non-fatal strangulation and, subsequently, the undercharging of the offence. Surely then, if we want to change this around, it is better for this new offence to be part of a cohesive package of measures in the Domestic Abuse Bill. When the Bill is enacted—as it will be in a few weeks’ time—accompanying the rollout of the new legislation will be a package of training and support measures, so that people in the field are prepared for it. It also makes sense for the police that it is dealt with as a cohesive package of measures.
The third reason why it should be in this Bill is the one spelled out by my noble friend Lady Crawley: we are dealing with an abhorrent crime. This Bill, with its huge support around this House and in the other place, will be law in a matter of weeks. Why wait for a new Bill, which would take months to come through and be enacted? Ministers have shown that they are listening. It is much appreciated. I hope they will listen to our arguments that this Bill is the right vehicle.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome these amendments. However, if this law is going to be passed it should be accompanied by clear advice for the young. Having been guided around TikTok by a young, adult female, there seems to be something of a fashion for strangulation among young women. They say, “I like this”; they say that a boy who will not do it is a pussy, not sexy enough, not interesting enough and not man enough to do what the girl wants. Under those conditions, it is really important that the Government issue clear, unambiguous and easily found advice on the consequences that the introduction of this amendment would have for that sort of activity. I would be grateful if my noble friend would let me know what the Government’s intentions are in this regard, in writing if not this evening.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee has heard some extremely powerful and focused speeches this evening. I add my voice to those commending the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the signatories of these amendments, and give my support to Amendment 137. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just said, I hope that the online harms Bill will deal with social media outlets that perpetrate the kind of messages that he enunciated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and all those who have spoken, have done so with clarity and unusual brevity for the hybrid House; I will try to emulate that. I have two things to say. First, women police officers who have spoken to me are crying out for this focused and clear piece of legislation, as enunciated in Amendment 137. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, they do not want a tick-box approach. They want to change the relevant form—124D—to be able to obtain the Crown Prosecution Service’s direction to take those who are perpetrating this crime through to a successful criminal prosecution. As has been said so often this evening, this is clearly about domestic abuse.
Secondly, why should this Bill be the vehicle to take this forward? There are two reasons. One is that it is self-evident from everything that has been said, the briefings that have been received and offline discussions, that everyone accepts that this legislation is needed and is needed now. There is no reason whatever to delay until another criminal justice or sentencing Bill which may take its turn after a forthcoming Queen’s Speech, somewhere down the line, where this amendment would have to be moved all over again. We would have to go through all the same campaigning, representations and speeches to gain something that the Government themselves have thankfully conceded is a necessary improvement to the law.
I have one plea for the Minister. He has taken to this House like a duck to water, but there is one lesson that those of us who have been around in politics know all too well: you do not ask your own colleagues in another House to vote down something that they know is eminently sensible and required, in some vain hope that they will forgive you for not having done it as quickly and effectively as possible because someone in the legislative committee of government—it changes its name from time to time—has decided that they do not want to have any further substantive amendments to the Bill. We all know that this would be arrant nonsense: the Minister knows it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has been extremely helpful on this, knows it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in his erudite speech, indicated that even the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has changed his mind since Second Reading. I am glad if he has, because I was going to refer him to the excellent Second Reading speech by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about his experiences in 1975.
All of us can coalesce and praise the Government and applaud the campaigners, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for what is tonight a unified approach to dealing with a horrendous crime, which has led to so many deaths and can be stopped from doing so in the future by a single agreement by government Ministers.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendments 137 and 138, especially Amendment 137. It has been introduced extremely powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I do not think that any of us would be here at this stage of the evening, late in the Bill, if we were not absolutely convinced of the importance of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation, and of course the Government also recognise this.
Perhaps we could pause briefly to pay tribute to, first, those victims of domestic violence—particularly those affected by non-fatal strangulation—and their bravery in coming forward, to the campaigning groups that have been willing to take up the issue on their behalf, and to the parliamentarians, both in the other House and in this place, who have been willing to respond to it. In a dark time, it is good to celebrate the fact that something is working in our democracy in this kind of way.
The key issue this evening for the Government to face is not whether there should be such a stand-alone offence—I think everyone is convinced of that now—but whether or not it should be in this Bill. It seems to me that the Minister has to face two real questions put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and also very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others. First, if 80% of non-fatal strangulations take place in the context of domestic violence, is there any reason at all why it should not be in this Bill? That is where it belongs. Secondly, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and many others as well, the police are crying out for something clear and associated with this Bill, because it will both raise awareness of this terrible form of cruelty and ensure that there is appropriate training in order to help the police to recognise it.
I very much hope that, when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to look at these two issues in particular and agree that there is a proper place for this in the Bill.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—and other noble Lords, but particularly she—on her determination and her excellent speech in explaining the horrific nature of this crime and its repercussions. Like many noble Lords, I was delighted to receive a letter from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, regarding the Government’s willingness to introduce a new offence of non-fatal strangulation on to the statute book as soon as possible, albeit not within this Bill.
I had thought that the Minister would be at the Dispatch Box this evening, so I am going to put a number of questions to the noble Lord, which I hope he will do his best to answer, although of course he cannot stand in the Minister’s shoes. Can he tell us what the Minister meant by
“a commitment to consider a new offence of non-fatal strangulation”?
Are the Government going to introduce one or are they not? Something a little bit definite would be very much appreciated. Could the noble Lord elaborate on what she meant by making the offence “proportionate”? She spoke of ensuring that more convictions can be achieved, but can he please give any indication of what this might look like?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, I offer my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lady Newlove, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilcox, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for the clear case they have submitted today before the Committee on why the offence of non-fatal strangulation is necessary. All the matters that we have discussed today are important, but this may well be the most important. In that context, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not acknowledge each of the contributions individually, both because of time and because, if I may say, many of the contributions were to the same effect. I will seek to respond to the substantive points made without always a personal reference; I hope I will be forgiven for that.
I must, however, make a personal reference to my noble friend Lady Newlove. I join with others in paying sincere tribute to her for the way in which she has promoted this issue. She explained how non-fatal strangulation can be terrifying and the effects long lasting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, it is often used as a method of control and, to adopt the phraseology of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, there is a real and visceral effect. I also mention in particular the personal and very moving speech by my noble friend Lady Bertin, with her mention of some circumstances very close to her.
As noble Lords will have noted, there are two amendments on non-fatal strangulation before the Committee. Amendment 137 would have general application: it would apply to all cases where non-fatal strangulation or suffocation has occurred, including cases where non-fatal strangulation or suffocation featured as a factor during a domestic abuse incident. By contrast, Amendment 138 creates the same offence, but the application is limited to cases of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation where this occurs in a domestic abuse context. The maximum penalty for the new offence in each proposed clause is the same—that is, on conviction or indictment, seven years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.
I am aware that the proposal to create a stand-alone non-fatal strangulation offence stems from campaigns conducted last year by the Centre for Women’s Justice and We Can’t Consent to This. Specific clauses to create a new offence were tabled in another place, although they were different to those before us today. Those proposed clauses were, however, withdrawn on Report in the other place and were not put to a vote.
Before setting out the Government’s position on this matter, let me start by saying that we entirely sympathise with and fully understand the strength of feeling. We unequivocally support the intention behind these amendments and have given a firm commitment to legislate for a new offence of non-fatal strangulation. I hope that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London explained, this will indeed lead to a reduction in the appalling details that we may have to hear in the future. In answer to my noble friend Lady Redfern, that would be a stand-alone offence.
Several contributors have mentioned the position in other jurisdictions. It is right to say that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several states in the USA have created a non-fatal strangulation offence. Those offences have been cited by the two groups that I mentioned as offering a basis on which any new offence in England and Wales could be modelled. Those stand-alone offences, however, differ across those jurisdictions. Some apply widely but are dependent on certain factors being met, such as the victim not giving consent, or the act causing them to lose consciousness. Other variations of the offences are narrower in scope, in that they are restricted to instances of strangulation that occur in a domestic abuse context. Those offences are not without criticism. Some people claim that they are too broad and can capture behaviour that is not intended to harm and should not be criminalised.
It is also worth pointing out that the offences in those jurisdictions have not been placed on the statute book without significant prior review to assess their impacts on other areas of law. In addition, most of those legislative measures tend to be accompanied by a package of non-legislative measures—for example, programmes for seeking to change perpetrator behaviour, toolkits for the police to assist in identifying non-fatal strangulation cases and guidance for agencies to support victims of non-fatal strangulation.
I also draw the attention of the Committee to the current law and how non-fatal strangulation is currently captured. Such behaviour can be captured, depending on the seriousness of the crime, under offences ranging from common assault and battery to attempted murder. However, in addition to those offences, there are others that can cover non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. For example, it can be part of a pattern of behaviour amounting to an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Additionally, a specific offence under Section 21 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it an offence to attempt to choke, suffocate or strangle any person, or to choke, suffocate or strangle a person in an attempt to render that person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance. That offence also requires there to be an intention by the perpetrator to commit another indictable offence.
It is that range of offences that initially led the Government to believe that the law was sufficient in covering the diverse circumstances and levels of seriousness that may be involved in non-fatal strangulation cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, set out, one would not want to create a stand-alone offence if it were not necessary to do so. However, we have now been persuaded that this may not be the case.
We are also aware of claims of evidential difficulties in prosecuting any allegation of strangulation, particularly if there is no—or insufficient—evidence of injury, not even reddening or minor bruising to the skin. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out in relation to the Section 21 offence, there is the additional requirement for evidence that another indictable offence had been intended, and that may create difficulties.
Our concern had been that the same difficulties would apply to any new offence, as there would still be a requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt that a serious offence was intended. We have also been concerned about the risks associated with creating a new offence and that it could limit the circumstances covered and create additional evidential burdens when compared with existing offences.
More importantly, as was pointed out by a number of contributors, non-fatal strangulation is relevant to and found in, but plainly not limited to, domestic abuse circumstances. Although I understand and accept that it is more likely to occur in a domestic abuse setting, it is nevertheless the Government’s position to ensure that if we create a new criminal offence, it applies equally to all parts of society, does not create any loopholes, or conflict or impact on other parts of the legal framework.
I turn now to the detail of the amendments: as drafted, both are deficient and could not be accepted by the Government. Importantly, both amendments seek to create a new offence to criminalise conduct that is already unlawful. In addition, the proposed maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for conviction or indictment is problematic—the level of the penalty needs careful consideration. Our main concern here is that seven years exceeds the maximum penalty for serious offences such as GBH, when the injury caused by non-fatal strangulation may be significantly less than the injuries that amount to GBH.
There are other significant problems. The amendments do not deal with the element of consent, do not consider any exemptions and do not provide explanation of how they would work with, and alongside, the current legal framework. The amendments are also limited to a person’s breathing, or blood circulation, or both, being impeded manually—by hand or through the use of an aid. We are, however, aware of offences of this nature where a person’s breath or blood circulation has been impeded in other ways, such as the use of other body parts—a knee placed hard upon a neck, for example—or, simply, using bodyweight.
As noble Lords will have seen in the media over the weekend of 9-10 January, the Government have now committed to creating a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, characteristically generously, was thanking Ministers. It will be important, however, to ensure that any new offence is proportionate—I hear the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and I will come back to it—allows for more prosecutions to be brought and for convictions to be secured. There is a number of legal and technical issues to be addressed for this to be achieved that are not addressed by the amendments as currently tabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as has been said, rightly pointed to some of these issues on Second Reading, and we should not underestimate the challenges of getting this right. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for passing on the later comments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I can say, particularly given his reference to Professor David Ormerod, that officials have already taken up the offer of meeting the learned professor. They have had initial discussions with him and will continue to have such discussions, which I am sure will be extremely useful.
As I am sure noble Lords will agree, it is important for any new offence to work in practice and not pose difficulties for other parts of the law. In creating any new offence of non-fatal strangulation, the Government will have to consider several factors. Let me set out just four. First, the Government will have to consider whether the behaviour should be captured through a single offence or through two offences to capture lower-level and more serious cases of non-fatal strangulation. Secondly, we have to define the term “strangulation and suffocation,” and consider whether any terminology about serious harm requires definition. Thirdly, although I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, we have to consider the issue of consent—when consent becomes invalid is a notoriously thorny legal issue. Fourthly, we have to consider the application of public policy exemptions, such as for some sports or medical treatments.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in support of these amendments. It has been quite emotional listening, and I am very grateful for the praise, but it goes to the great team behind me. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Bertin for her contribution, which was quite personal. As someone who has gone through the criminal justice system and who knows what it feels like to speak from the heart, I thank her.
I was very grateful to the Minister for his winding-up speech and his answers to questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that he seems to be a very good listener, and I am very grateful for that, but when one listens to judgments, which I have done in the appeal court, one always needs to pay attention to the last few paragraphs. I am a little disappointed because I heard words that seem to go far away from what the amendment seeks to do in this important Domestic Abuse Bill. The Minister suggested that he had concerns that seven years’ imprisonment exceeded the maximum penalty for GBH. The amendment suggests seven years as a maximum as that is what the Secretary of State for Justice said would be appropriate. It is the maximum for the offence, given its coercion and control elements, and it may well be appropriate to have a higher maximum penalty than for grievous bodily harm.
The amendment covers instances of putting a knee on a person’s throat, as it covers applying pressure to a person’s throat. These examples demonstrate that we have thought very carefully about these amendments. I agree that we can work together and look at the right amendments, but I feel that we are now looking at non-fatal strangulation being placed further down the legislation programme in a police and sentencing Bill. The commitment is a very grey area because it can go on for as long as a piece of string. I ask noble Lords to bear with me as I am not a lawyer, so I do not speak in that terminology. I come from passion and from going through the system and listening to victims and survivors of this horrendous crime.
I have listened to the Minister. He is a good listener and a careful lawyer; that is what the survivors of this horrendous, repugnant offence want him to be. I ask the Government to place non-fatal strangulation in the correct Bill—and the correct Bill is the Domestic Abuse Bill. I do not want any more blood on my hands knowing that non-fatal strangulation is going to have to wait to go into another Bill. How will the Government face families who have lost a loved one when strangulation has been a pattern in a relationship? At this stage I will withdraw the amendment but, if we can make more progress before the next stage, it would be welcome. I draw attention to the fact that I may test the opinion of House on Report, because this matter has to sit in the Domestic Abuse Bill, for all the survivors listening to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it has been agreed that a short break of 15 minutes would be welcome.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 139. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 139
“Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases
(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5A) after “In a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.(3) In subsection (6) after “In a case other than a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.(4) After subsection (8F) insert—“(8G) For the purposes of this section “a domestic abuse case” is a case where—(a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence,(b) D is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse, and(c) the force concerned is force used by D against the person who has perpetrated the abusive behaviour referred to in paragraph (b).(8H) Subsection (8G)(b) will only be established if the behaviour concerned is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).”(5) In subsection (9) after “householder cases” insert “and domestic abuse cases”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to clarify the degree of force which is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse alleged to have used force against their abuser.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like others, I want to express my gratitude to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his generosity in giving time to discuss my amendments with me and those supporting me in seeking reform in a place where it is needed. I am grateful that he heard me and listened. I do not know what the response will be, but I ask him to listen again very carefully, because this is a matter where justice really should say that there must be some sort of conformity in law available in what I would say are very comparable circumstances.
It is important to remember that domestic abuse can lead to death. We have just heard a very powerful debate about strangulation, which really emphasised the ways in which those who have experienced non-fatal strangulation described how they felt they were going to die—that they could not breathe and somehow were losing consciousness. Of course, that is what happens if the pressure is continued. We also heard the statistic that one in seven of the women killed after a history of abuse have experienced strangulation. Let me tell you that this one in seven statistic is based on the circumstances where women have already given accounts to others—to their doctors, family members and lawyers—about experiences of strangulation. There are many women who have not given those accounts because of the shame still associated with domestic violence. Some of us have acted in cases involving fatality; one can rely only on the fact that strangulation is a very common feature in the patterns of domestic violence that lead to death.
Today, I will speak about a different set of circumstances from those that have engaged the House up until now. One of the tragic outcomes of domestic violence and abuse can be that the person at the receiving end of it ends up being the person in the dock, having taken the life of their abuser in the end. This happens rarely, unlike the other way around, where two women a week are murdered in this country by a spouse or partner. The statistics show that the number of women killing abusers is very small.
I can draw from my experience—it may be that my noble friend Lady Mallalieu has the same experience—as a criminal lawyer and a Queen’s Counsel for 30 years this year: the women I represented in homicide cases have invariably had a background of abuse, and one of the patterns or things that they describe in the histories that they give is fearing for their life on occasions. The women who end up killing a partner who has abused them have almost invariably felt that they were going to die on many of the occasions when they were assaulted previously.
It is important to remember that, when an accused person ends up in the dock, they can be wrongly convicted because of the law’s inadequacy—remember Sally Challen, a case that we have spoken about before in this House. This was a case in point where gaps in the law had failed a woman because she was convicted initially of murdering her husband before coercive control, which she had suffered for years, was understood properly by the courts.
In a high percentage of the cases that I have dealt with where women have killed a partner, pleading self-defence should have been available to the accused—the woman—but she has ended up seeking recourse in the fact that, very often, because of long-term abuse, women end up suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder of some kind or another, or depressive illness. Those are the tolls that domestic abuse takes on victims. It is one of the great scandals of our system that we do not often think about the impact of things relating to women and domestic abuse until pretty late in the day.
A great deal of thought has gone into the amendment that I am presenting to the Committee today. It looks at self-defence and the objective test of reasonableness that is applied in self-defence, and I shall explain in a minute what that means.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was intending not to speak to her next amendment, which is grouped with this one, but perhaps I will, though it will not be as good a speech as she would have made. This is another group of amendments that I would say seeks to apply up-to-date thinking to bring the law up to date. I am pleased to have been able to add my name to the noble Baroness’s amendments because I always want to be on the same side as she is; I think her middle name must be “Indefatigable”.
Parliamentarians learn from experts by experience. I think we have used that phrase already today. That does not mean being uncritical or bringing a hearts-and-flowers sentimental approach to things but being open to really listening to experiences. We are lucky to have in this House experts with another sort of experience—the lived experience of applying professional expertise in acting for clients—so they have a well-informed perspective. Clearly, the Minister who will be replying—he is not being given much time off today—to yet another group of amendments has been applying his own expertise as well as having his brief. It has been very refreshing to listen to him.
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which would be amended by Amendment 139 is—it says so in terms—intended to clarify the operation of the common law defences of self-defence and defence of property. Those two were very closely linked in the minds of the public in the reaction to reports of Englishman Tony Martin defending his castle. This brought about the householder defence but it is, in fact, just about self-defence, and so is this amendment, although one might substitute the notion of home as a haven rather than as a castle, as it was referred to in the Martin case. The amendment uses Section 76 to address whether the degree of force is reasonable in the circumstances but—or maybe “and”, as in the householder case—does not allow force which is “grossly disproportionate” in the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be. This is why this is so much a matter of bringing the law into line with up-to-date thinking about domestic abuse, in particular coercive and controlling behaviour.
We have already debated, and will go on to debate in other amendments, the impact of such abuse on the whole person. It is a traumatic response that goes far deeper than a black eye “because I walked into a door, silly me”. I am not going to repeat the amendments and arguments that we have already heard today, because noble Lords will hear them in the context of the days of debate—we have had several days of debate—on this issue. My relative brevity on this amendment does not mean that I support it any less strongly.
I turn to Amendments 140 and 145. Amendment 145 is very long but is, if you like, consequential on Amendment 140. This is modelled on the statutory defence in the Modern Slavery Act, which recognises that a perpetrator may actually be a victim of modern slavery. In this amendment, the compulsion to commit offences is attributable to being a victim of domestic abuse and having no reasonable alternative. The provisions are adjusted for those under 18. Similarly, this amendment uses up-to-date thinking about what drives a woman—it is usually a woman—to offend. I cannot read my writing. I have written “significant”—I hope I am not leaving out a significant point.
The Modern Slavery Act defence was in the independent review of the Act, whose findings were accepted by the Government as striking the right balance between protecting victims and, in that case, preventing opportunistic misuse. There was careful consideration of the reported difficulties in disproving the defence to the criminal standard, but the review panel was satisfied that the jury system which applied was appropriate. The Government said they would keep this under review, as they should.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has withdrawn, so I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 139 and 140, to which I have added my name. I draw attention to my interests set out in the register. It is an immense privilege to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy; I am grateful for her immense wisdom, knowledge and experience. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her excellent and candid laying out of the issues. It is a privilege to follow her.
In my role as Anglican bishop for women’s prisons and my recent appointment as Anglican bishop for the whole prison estate in England and Wales, I have made prison visits and spoken with prisoners, volunteers and staff, including governors and chaplains. As president of the Nelson Trust, I have heard first-hand the positive impact of trauma-informed practice in its excellent work with women serving their sentences in the community and women leaving prison.
Over the past few years, I have spoken with charities, organisations and community workers. In all those conversations, common themes emerge. One is the so-called revolving door of short custodial sentences, leading to catastrophic consequences for a woman and her family and often exacerbating a downward spiral into more serious offences and an inability to secure employment. A second theme is the number of women coming into contact with the criminal justice system who have experienced domestic abuse and previous trauma, and how this becomes a driver for their offending—in some circumstances, defending themselves against their abuser, as we have heard.
Women become trapped in a vicious cycle of victimisation and criminal activity. Their situation is often worsened by poverty, substance dependency or poor mental health; almost 60% of women supervised in the community or in custody who have an assessment have experienced domestic abuse. The true figure is probably much higher.
The Nelson Trust recently shared with me a painful example of this complex issue and how important it is to have a trauma-based approach. During the first lockdown, the Nelson Trust was called on a point-of-arrest referral scheme; if a woman is arrested and identified as vulnerable, she can be referred to organisations such as the Nelson Trust for support. A woman had been arrested as a perpetrator of domestic abuse and was very distressed. At the women’s centre, they found she was covered in bruises; she had experienced horrific sexual and physical violence during lockdown. She had taken to alcohol to cope with the abuse, and then retaliated against her abuser and ended up in custody. In this case, the Nelson Trust was able to help the woman access a refuge and enabled her to leave her abusive partner.
Another story I heard was of a woman serving a sentence for murder after retaliating against her abusive partner who had assaulted her for many years, including when she was pregnant with their child. Recently, the Nelson Trust advocated for a vulnerable woman who had retaliated against her partner after years of psychological abuse. She was acquitted, but many like her are not.
These amendments provide an opportunity to extend much better legal protection to the victims of domestic abuse whose experiences lead them to offend. At the moment, there is very little legal protection within the system to allow those victims to be diverted away from the criminal justice system to vital support. There is much overlap in the criminal justice system between the victims of crime and those who are the perpetrators.
Last year, a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System, of which I am an officer, uncovered cases of women contacting the police to report domestic incidents, only to end up being arrested themselves. The Howard League for Penal Reform asked one police force to analyse its data on arrests of women and girls over a two-year period. It turned out that almost three-quarters of the women who had been arrested had previously come to the attention of the police as victims of violence or sexual violence. More than half of them had been victims of domestic abuse. Obviously, much more needs to be done with police forces and diversion work, as well as changing the law.
I am not a lawyer, but I am a passionate supporter of trauma-informed interventions and doing all we can to recognise the root causes and drivers of criminal behaviour. As a Christian and as a Lord Spiritual, I am committed to a legal framework that emphasises restorative and reparative justice. I wholeheartedly support these amendments and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) (V)
It is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I shall speak to Amendment 140 and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on introducing it so ably and eloquently. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for speaking so strongly in support of it.
At Second Reading and in Committee, we have heard powerful speeches about dreadful personal experiences. They are stark reminders of the horrific impact that domestic abuse has not just on the individual, but, through the ripple effect, into the family across the generations and then on into the wider community. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has rightly highlighted the fact that domestic abuse can lead to desperate events where victims who were seeking to defend themselves end up in the dock, having been accused of committing a crime.
Research by the Ministry of Justice suggests that many prisoners have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse as children, and that these prisoners are more likely to be reconvicted within one year of release. The 2019 report of the Prison Reform Trust, There’s a Reason We’re in Trouble, cites domestic abuse as a driver of women’s offending. It sets out that 57% of women in prison report having been victims of domestic violence. More than half, at 53%, report having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child, compared with 27% of men.
I can well remember visiting Holloway prison and talking to some of the women about their experiences. The report goes on to highlight the fact that women often encounter a culture of disbelief in the criminal justice system about the violence and exploitation to which they have been exposed. Alternatively, they may not be able to reveal what they have been through, and many women feel that they cannot support criminal proceedings against their abuser. As one woman commented in a discussion, “You’re too scared to charge him because you know you’ll get a worse time when he comes out.” All this means that women can become trapped in a vicious cycle of victimisation and criminal activity. Their situation is often worsened by poverty, substance dependency or poor mental health.
My noble friend the Minister argued at Second Reading that a number of defences are already potentially available in law to those who commit offences in circumstances connected with their involvement in an abusive relationship. I hope that this debate will make the Minister pause and think again, because the present situation is very unclear. In the meantime, we are told that it is being monitored. Can he advise the Committee of when an assessment was last made, and will he make the report of the results available in the Library of the House?
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, declaring my interest in the register as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, I will make a brief contribution to wholeheartedly support Amendments 139 and 140, proposed my noble friend Lady Kennedy and other noble Lords. She introduced them expertly and I will not attempt to replicate any of that excellent material. As the Committee heard, the amendments would provide essential new protection for survivors involved in alleged offending which results from their experience of domestic abuse.
Members of this House will be aware, as I am from my 2009 report on mental health, learning disabilities and the criminal justice system, of the particularly high prevalence of mental health need among women in prison. It is getting worse. Ministry of Justice safety in custody statistics tell us that the annual rate of self-harm incidents for women in prison nearly doubled between 2012 and 2019, from 1,558 to 3,130 incidents per 1,000 women. This compares to an increase among male prisoners from 201 self-harm incidents per 1,000 men in 2012 to 650 in 2019. As we know and the Committee has heard tonight, the majority of these women are likely to be victims of domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women.
Further, women with a learning disability are more likely than those without to experience domestic abuse. Too little is still known about women with learning disabilities in prison, but they are likely to be far more over-represented compared to those in the community. A recent research report, published in 2018 by the Prison Reform Trust and KeyRing, entitled Out of the Shadows found that, of 24 women with learning disabilities who were in contact with or on the edge of the criminal justice system, most were driven into offending as a result of abuse by men. For example, this included one woman who had been repeatedly drugged and abused by her partner before retaliating and finding herself sentenced to prison. For some of the women, their learning disabilities may have been the result of traumatic brain injury, which is not always assessed and identified successfully.
The Government have acknowledged the strong links which often exist between women’s offending and their experience of abuse. However, I do not feel confident that the strong links are properly taken into account in criminal proceedings. The evidence presented by the Centre for Women’s Justice, the Prison Reform Trust and others suggests that practice on the ground is, at best, inconsistent and that many women do not even feel confident to disclose the abuse until they reach the relative safety of prison after they have been convicted. This is surely not good enough. It is certainly not clear to me why these survivors should not be entitled to the same level of protection as, for example, trafficking victims who are forced to offend as part of their exploitation, or householders facing an intruder in their home, as in the Tony Martin case, referred to so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Kennedy.
We have heard from the Government that they want to strike the right balance in dealing with these women as suspects and defendants. I therefore urge the Government to afford them the legal protection that they deserve from our justice system. It may well be a complex task, but it is surely not beyond us or our justice system.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, has so clearly explained—and I pay respect to her enormous experience over decades in this area—Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 raises the threshold from disproportionate to grossly disproportionate before the force used by a householder for the purpose of self-defence can be considered unreasonable.
The fear generated by being attacked in your own home—the visceral reaction, the instinct to defend yourself and your property in such circumstances—is considered so strong that using disproportionate force to defend yourself is considered to be reasonable in the domestic setting. While it can be argued that there should be no distinction and that reasonable force in the circumstances should be enough, Parliament decided that being attacked in your own home sets apart this kind of self-defence from other situations. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me use the same expression as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What was seen, at least by the tabloid newspapers, as the “Englishman’s home is his castle” provision in Section 76 of the 2008 Act should equally apply to what will in most cases be a woman defending herself against domestic abuse.
I have personally been in both these scenarios. I have cowered behind my front door as a violent stranger tried to kick down the door of my flat; thankfully, the police arrived before the door gave way. I have also cowered as my violent partner kicked and punched me. The fear caused by not feeling safe in your home is truly terrifying, especially when you are being physically attacked. The fear I experienced was similar in both cases, but the latter was far more frightening. Being attacked by a random stranger does not hurt as much as being attacked by someone you have allowed yourself to be vulnerable with, and who has subjected you to coercive and controlling behaviour over a number of years.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been keen to ensure that male victims and those in same-sex relationships are not forgotten. Even here, we are talking about someone who is physically weaker being attacked in their own home by a stronger person. In most cases, but not exclusively, this will be male violence against women. If she is to defend herself against a much stronger man, her options are limited and she may have to resort to using a weapon—for example, as the only way effectively to defend herself, or simply because of the instinctive reaction to grab whatever is available, such as a kitchen knife.
It is not difficult to envisage how such a use of force might be considered disproportionate but understandable, particularly if you fear for your life in circumstances such as we heard described when considering the previous group of amendments, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, explained. It might be considered disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate. Can the Minister explain why this amendment should not be accepted, in the light of the higher standard of acceptable force available to a householder under attack from a burglar?
Awareness has recently grown of how prolonged and sustained abuse can turn a victim into an assailant. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, Amendment 139 and the subsequent amendment would bring the law into line with these recent developments. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has explained, a trauma-based approach needs to be adopted. There clearly needs to be a change of culture in the criminal justice system in this respect, as well as a change in the law.
The mental health impact on women prisoners has been clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, Amendment 140 is almost identical to Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In the same way that I believe the burden of proof lies on the Minister to show why Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 should not apply to victims of domestic abuse in relation to Amendment 139, I ask the Minister why Amendment 140 should not apply to victims of domestic abuse when a very similar statutory defence is available to victims of slavery and trafficking. The Government must come up with very strong counter-arguments if these amendments are not to be accepted.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully support Amendments 139, 140 and 145, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and others. The issues addressed in these amendments have been raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, Jess Phillips, and others during the Bill’s consideration there.
The amendments, as noble Lords have heard, are modelled on existing law and should not cause the Government any trouble whatsoever; I look forward to the Minister’s response. My noble friend Lady Kennedy explained the problems women face when they have killed a partner, having been the victim of abuse for years and years and then find themselves in the dock. The amendments seek to address that and reflect the realities of domestic abuse.
Everybody has been very complimentary about the Bill—it is a very good Bill, long overdue and we wish it success—but to become really effective legislation, it must incorporate these amendments or government amendments with the same intent. It is reasonable to afford the victims of domestic abuse who act in self-defence, often in their own homes, reasonable protection. They are compelled to defend themselves, having suffered years of abuse. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy reminded us—we have heard it many times before—on average, two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner. That is an horrific figure.
Amendment 139 would provide domestic abuse survivors with the same legal protection as householders have in cases of self-defence. Members have referred to such cases. Amendments 140 and 145 are modelled on Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and would give victims of abuse a statutory defence where they have been compelled to offend as a result of experiences of domestic abuse.
We have heard excellent speeches in this short debate from all noble Lords, particularly from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I endorse all the comments of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Bradley, in particular, made a compelling speech. He raised the issue of mental health, its effect on women prisoners and the need for proper context to be taken into account when deciding to prosecute cases. I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. If he cannot accept these amendments, I hope he will tell the Committee that he understands the issue and will go away and reflect on it, and maybe come back on Report.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I first offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for outlining the case for these amendments. In response to her early comments, I can assure her that I have indeed listened to her and benefited from discussing these matters with her, both outside the Chamber in advance of today’s proceedings and in listening to her most diligently this evening. She has considerable experience in this area of the law.
In effect, these amendments seek to create two new defences: first, a defence of reasonable use of force by victims of domestic abuse who, in self-defence, react to violence from an abusive partner; and, secondly, a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit a criminal offence. While in tonight’s debate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, focused on the first of those defences, I have had the benefit of discussing both issues with her. I have read briefings on both and therefore hope that my reply will meet the points she has made inside and outside the Chamber. None the less, I will take each amendment in turn, because they raise different issues.
Amendment 139 is on the reasonable use of force. The Government are aware that what is being sought here is an extension to the current provisions to enable victims of domestic abuse to have the same level of protection as those acting in response to an intruder in the home. I am aware that the proposed new clause stems from a campaign by the Prison Reform Trust seeking to clarify the degree of force that is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse. It has been suggested by the Prison Reform Trust that the common-law defences are unsuitable in the context of domestic abuse.
In that context, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hamwee, explained, the amendment seeks to build on existing provisions in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, with the intention that, as with householders, the degree of force used by the defendant would have to be “grossly disproportionate” rather than simply “disproportionate” by reference to the circumstances that the victim believed them to be, and to take into account other factors set out within Section 76. It has been suggested that this would fill a gap in the law.
Let me start by saying what I hope does not need to be said, given the terms of the Bill and what has been said in Committee on this and previous occasions. The Government recognise the harm suffered by victims of domestic abuse. Several defences are potentially available in law to those who commit offences in circumstances connected with their involvement in an abusive relationship, including the full defence of self-defence. In addition, the broad definition of domestic abuse in the Bill should assist, I hope, with identifying and clarifying the wide-ranging and pernicious nature of domestic abuse, and alerting all those involved in the criminal justice system to it.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the courts—by which I mean the judges—have developed the common-law defences and their relationship to domestic abuse. We should perhaps pay tribute to the judges for having recognised the nature and impact of coercive and controlling behaviour in the application of the criminal law and in sentencing, as well as in family and civil law. It is sometimes the case that the courts are quicker, more nuanced and more flexible in developing the common law than Parliament can ever be in introducing, by their very nature, more rigid and narrowly drawn statutory provisions. For fans of the common law, of which club I am an enthusiastic member, that is an important point to bear in mind.
There is also a need to balance recognition of the abuse suffered and its impact on the victim with the need to ensure that, wherever possible, people do not resort to criminal behaviour. The Government believe that the balance is currently reflected in the law, which continues to evolve and which aims to strike the right balance between those factors.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the House for the opportunity to ask this question, which applies to all these amendments but particularly to Amendment 139, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is a signatory. She was unfortunately unable to take part in this debate.
My noble friend would have referred to the fact that the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill allows blanket legal protections for undercover police and informants. The forthcoming overseas operations Bill creates similar new protections against prosecution for military personnel acting overseas. The Government have fought intensely for these protections against prosecution for the police and the military; they have fought against many attempts in your Lordships’ House to reduce or check these protections. In that context, how would the Minister explain—having granted such broad protections to the police and military, even in cases of fundamental wrongdoing—why the Government should refuse what are comparatively far more limited legal defences for survivors of domestic abuse, particularly with such well thought-out and well drafted amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for that question. I do not wish to be thought flippant in any way, but the short answer is that the situations are different, and therefore you have different considerations and different legal results. However, if she will permit me, given that I am not personally acquainted with that sort of detail—certainly of the overseas operations Bill—to respond to her this evening, I will add to my reply in writing.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I have two questions which rather puzzle me. First, he talked at length about praising judges for how they can quickly and flexibly adapt the common law of self-defence to new cases and how beneficial it is for it to be dealt with in that way, rather than with rigid primary legislation. Can he therefore explain why Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was thought necessary?
Secondly, the Minister talked about the option to retreat in domestic abuse cases. Referring to the two scenarios that I spoke about from personal experience, I certainly had the option to escape out of the flat—luckily it was a ground-floor flat—when somebody was trying to break the front door down in the burglar scenario, but when my abusive partner had me up against the kitchen wall, I had very limited options to retreat. I cannot see how the option to retreat is more valid in the burglar situation than it is in the domestic abuse situation. Perhaps the Minister can help me.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for those questions. First, Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act dealt with a specific circumstance, whereby Parliament considered that that instance ought to be reflected by way of a specific statutory defence. The question for this evening is whether there is a suitable read-across into the matters we are discussing. For the reasons I sought to explain, I suggest that there is not.
Secondly, as to the option to retreat, I hope I made it clear that I was not saying that there is always an option to retreat in domestic abuse cases; I was making the point that there is generally very little option to retreat in the householder case. Again, that is an instance where you cannot simply read across to the domestic abuse case. I hope the noble Lord is content with those responses, but I am very happy if he wants to take those points up with me hereafter so that we can discuss them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand the points that the Minister has made about the common law developing—that is inherent in it—but, like my noble friend, I want to pursue the point about flexibility. If the courts were that flexible—I suppose this is a rhetorical question—would we be moving and speaking to these amendments?
The proposed new clause in Amendment 140 is modelled on—but, I accept, does not completely repeat—the provisions of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, referring to “the person’s circumstances”. As far as I am aware, I have not received the briefing from the Prison Reform Trust, but does the Minister accept that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, go very much to the point about a person’s circumstances? The Minister referred to concern about misuse. At Second Reading, I think I made the point that if there is misuse we should be looking at the misuse, not at not applying a defence which should be a good defence in general.
Finally—again, I suppose this is rhetorical—with regard to the balance, and we are for ever searching for the right balance, does the Minister agree that, given the fast-developing understanding of domestic abuse and its impact, civil society will likely pretty quickly, in parallel, be developing its ideas about what is the right balance?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for those various questions. On the issue of the person’s circumstances, I hope I set that position out in my reply. Perhaps it is the sort of point I could set out to her in writing in a couple of paragraphs, if she would not mind.
We are concerned when defences may be being misused; I made it clear that there are some concerns with the victims of slavery defence in that context. On the last point, which I think the noble Baroness accepted was somewhat rhetorical, she is certainly right that we always seek a balance. The point she makes that the law must keep up with the expectations of civil society is a profound one; it is, indeed, one of the big advantages of the common law. I am sure, therefore, that the issues raised by these amendments will continue to be discussed. The question before the Committee this evening is whether the legislature should provide for explicit statutory defences in these terms. For the reasons I have sought to set out, in my opinion, it should not.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I should tell the Committee that I turned a page too soon in my opening address on these amendments. I did not have the chance to really lay out the second of the statutory defences I am promoting, in Amendment 140.
I regret that I used the term “read-across,” because there are always lawyers who will use language literally. Of course, I did not mean it is an absolute read-across to talk about a householder as distinct from a victim of abuse, but the gravamen is the same. The core of it is about somebody put in fear in the place they want to feel safe: their home. I cannot think of any domestic homicide where I have represented a woman who has killed her partner or ex-partner that did not happen within a household—a place where she was hoping to feel safe but did not, and where experience had taught her to feel fear and terror.
I am afraid I have to say to the Minister that some time, I will take him by the hand into a women’s prison and have him sit down and listen to the accounts of women, by asking them to look him in the eye and tell him their stories. They are so often there because of childhood abuse, having been brought up in abusive households and with direct experience of partner abuse. We could almost empty our prisons without them having women who are there because of their mental health. They are not mentally ill for no reason; almost invariably, it is because of the kind of abuse we have heard about in the debates on this Bill.
I say this respectfully, but the Government are again falling into the trap of saying there are nice victims and bad victims, or of saying: “We will change the law for the good, conforming victims but not for the victims who somehow transgress”. These are the victims who, in the end, defend themselves because they are so in terror for their lives, who are so in fear of a partner that they commit a crime—carrying the drugs from A to B or hiding them in their sock drawer, for example. All I am saying is that there is a double standard in this debate: as soon as you move to that which involves crime and a woman, or anybody who is abused, is in the dock, then suddenly your compassion for the issue of domestic abuse somehow dissipates.
I am very concerned that there is not enough real consideration of the toll of abuse: we are moving into the field where somebody ends up transgressing the law but it is really because of what they are experiencing. If a psychiatrist were to speak to this Committee, they would tell noble Lords that when somebody has experienced fear for their life—we have heard about it in relation to strangulation—and thought “I am going to die at the hands of this person”, and then suddenly smells that level of fear again, in the air, in those circumstances they might take a knife and defend themselves, or take a heavy weapon and hit somebody fatally on the head. The test of “reasonableness” or whether the force was “disproportionate” has to be read in the context. That is why I am saying that it would have to be “grossly disproportionate” for it not to afford a defence of self-defence for somebody who has experienced long-term and serious abuse.
What we are seeing here are the very double standards that are so often experienced by victims of abuse and by women. It goes back to the nature of law and its patriarchal roots. It is about saying that, yes, women who are abused deserve all our compassion but if they overstep the mark, they do not.
Our prisons are full of women who have had these experiences—indeed, I have acted for women who have ended up killing a partner. They do not do it because they suddenly want to wreak vengeance; they do it in exactly the circumstances of the householder who feels in absolute terror for their life.
The failure to make those links and to understand this may be because one has not spent enough time sitting in a cell with people who are coming up for trial. I can tell the Committee that that is the circumstance, and if you can afford, because the Daily Mail demands it of you, to lower the standard of reasonableness and be more flexible for a householder—as indeed you should—then that kind of flexibility should be available to those who have been experiencing long-term abuse.
I ask that the noble Lord look again at the double standard that is operating here. It is partly, of course, because Governments always want to play the law-and-order card and do not want to be seen to be soft on people who commit crime. But very many of the women who end up in prison did what they did because they were under the coercion and control of somebody else, and were absolutely in fear of that person. I really regret the response I have received from my friend, the noble Lord. I ask him to take his great lawyer’s skills and go back to the drawing board again, because he is missing something very important here, which is about justice for women. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with great regret, and I am really disappointed in the ministerial response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 141. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 141
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services
(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—(a) A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person (“B”),(b) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards B that is controlling or coercive,(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will or may have a serious effect on B.(2) A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or(b) it causes B psychological harm which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A “ought to know” that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that— (a) in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B’s best interests, and(b) the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.(5) A is to be taken to have shown the facts mentioned in subsection (4) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the facts is adduced to raise an issue with respect to them, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(6) The defence in subsection (4) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment, in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, addresses an extremely serious issue that affects far more lives than noble Lords might have expected. Psychotherapists and counsellors are not in any way regulated by law. In opening a debate on this issue on 2 March last year, my noble friend Lady Jolly pointed out:
“The terms ‘counsellor’ and ‘therapist’ are not protected. All of us could call ourselves such”.
She also pointed out that there is
“no assurance of the level of training or competence … nor a redress system to access should something go wrong”.—[Official Report, 2/3/20; cols. 468-69.]
We should all be clear that this amendment is not a criticism of the work undertaken by many straightforward, honest and understanding therapists and counsellors up and down the country, who are dedicated to helping their patients or clients address difficult issues in their lifw and get through particularly troubling periods. Nothing I say is intended to disparage their commitment or undermine their work. However, it is a tragic reality that a combination of this lack of regulation and the cruel techniques of coercive control adopted by some who offer so-called therapy and counselling services leads to many—mostly young—lives being, quite literally, ruined.
There is a pattern to these cases of abuse: charlatan therapists or counsellors secure clients—usually young and always troubled people—and proceed, over a period, to take over their life. Sadly, the typical case involves such so-called counsellors persuading their clients, quite without foundation in fact, that they have been dreadfully wronged or abused by their parents or families during their childhood. They generally implant entirely false memories in those clients. As the clients come to believe, under an insidious form of persuasion, that these false memories represent reality, they are led to blame their parents and families for all that has gone wrong in their life and all that troubles them. In this way, the clients involved are gradually alienated from their parents and families in a sinister process of coercive control.
The well-known and well-documented phenomenon of transference, originally explored by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s, plays its part in this sad process. It involves the clients projecting on to the therapist or counsellor feelings that they originally held towards a parent or other important figure in the client’s early life. The clients’ parents and other close family and friends are supplanted by the counsellor in the client’s affections by a learned dependence on them.
In our debate last March, I said that such clients are
“brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 477.]
Everything that I have read and learned since that debate in relation to this issue and in preparing for this debate has strengthened my concern not only that that description was fair but that I underestimated the extent of the problem.
These issues have been widely recorded in the press and I will not detail them now, but I will repeat a question posed in the Daily Telegraph not long ago:
“What made two seemingly happy young women from loving homes sever all contact with their families and friends, renounce their inheritances and vanish into thin air?”
The journalist investigated how
“a self-styled ‘personal development coach’ digging for ‘forgotten’ childhood memories opened a door to catastrophe.”
The article went on to describe how a rogue counsellor had ruined two young lives in the way I have described, pointing out that there had been absolutely nothing the courts could do about it, given that the clients were adults—although they were young. The law offers no protection whatever for the victims of what is so clearly abuse by coercive control. The fact that such counsellors often charge their clients substantial fees, as the rogue counsellor did in those cases, only serves to make the matter worse.
Our amendment would introduce the following offence:
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons ... providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services”.
The proposed offence is closely modelled on Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which covers “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship”. The definition of coercive and controlling behaviour in that Act is mirrored in this amendment, and the definition of the required relationship for the Act is mirrored in Clauses 1 and 2.
As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who would have liked to speak today but is unable to do so, said when we debated this issue last March:
“Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act covers domestic abuse. The Government accept that individuals can be coercively controlled, and they have rightly made it illegal for a spouse, partner or parent to coercively control somebody with whom they have a relationship—that is an imprisonable offence. However, in the case of coercive control, the law does not apply equally to everyone. A person coercively controlling their daughter would be breaking the law, but the same person coercively controlling someone else’s daughter is not covered by the law. There does appear to be a gap in the law, so will the Government look into this?”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 472.]
The logic of that question is inescapable. This amendment is directed to filling the gap identified by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. The gap has been filled by legislation in France, Luxembourg and Belgium. The French litigation broadly criminalises persistent or repeated pressure on a person which abuses a vulnerable person’s weakness or abuses a person in a state of psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure or techniques used to affect their judgment in a way which is seriously harmful.
I have been grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Fairfax and Lord Dannatt, and my noble friend Lord Alderdice and others, who have not been able to speak tonight. Numbers of noble Lords have told me that they know families and young people who have fallen victim to the actions of charlatan psychotherapists who would be liable to be prosecuted for the new offence proposed by this amendment.
My hope is that the Government will agree to legislation reflecting this amendment and that it will be supplemented in the future by provisions requiring psychotherapists and counsellors to be licensed and regulated, with a register of qualified members, recognised qualifications and a clear statement of ethical standards. Meanwhile, serious cases where charlatan psychotherapists and counsellors are guilty of coercive control which is plainly abusive should be met by their prosecution for a criminal offence, as set out in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part on Second Reading, although I have read the Official Report. I also apologise for keeping my noble friend the Minister, new to his job, a bit longer at the crease.
Amendment 141 proposes a new clause that is within the scope of the Bill, but its value is not dependent on the Bill. The wording and effect of Amendment 141 is self-explanatory but, if it needed any further elaboration, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has just provided it in his excellent speech. I cannot improve on what he said, but now is the moment when Parliament must at last legislate to outlaw the quack counsellors who predate on vulnerable people through controlling or coercive behaviour, and to provide some sort of protection to their victims or intended victims.
I have been concerned about these quacks and trying without success to get the Government to legislate for some years. I worked with Oliver Letwin and Tom Sackville, two former Ministers, as well as parliamentary counsel and Ministry of Justice officials with the support and encouragement of David Cameron, who had a constituency interest in the matter. I spoke about these quacks at Report on the Modern Slavery Bill in November 2014 and the Serious Crime Bill in February 2015 when I was a Member of Parliament, and then again in your Lordships’ House on 2 March 2020 in the debate on the unregulated treatment of mental health, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. Now, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, again, and the other contributors to this debate—as well as my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, who spoke in the debate last March about the Serious Crime Act—we are making real progress.
We have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity through intellectual impairment, disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who dishonestly take old and frail people’s money, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted on them by others of malevolent intent because their exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law.
From the outset, I have had in mind some young, adult women whose experiences were brought to my attention by their parents and families. In essence, they had been brainwashed or suborned by quack counsellors. They persuaded these young people to break off all contact with their families, infected them with false memories and got them to pay fees for the so-called counselling. Some of these young women were well-off and suggestible but all of them, for no apparent reason, broke off all contact with their families.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has just said, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have laws to criminalise the behaviour of predatory charlatans who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. It must be assumed that their laws do not conflict with those articles of the ECHR that protect the right to private and family life, the right to freedom of expression and association, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. To take the French example, in that jurisdiction it is an offence punishable by imprisonment and very heavy fines to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness or infirmity, to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender. It is also an offence to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure or from techniques used to affect his judgment in order to induce the minor or other person to act, or abstain from acting, in a way seriously harmful to him.
Amendment 141 is clearly different but, I believe, as useful. One way of considering whether the proposed defence in Amendment 141 would work is to ask oneself the following questions. Would it be prosecutable in theory and in practice? Could each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real-life example? Would the measure deal with the mischief that was identified, and would it catch no one else? The answer to those questions is yes. How would it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence? It need not do so. Would it allow the mentally capable who want to give away their fortunes and leave their families to do so? Of course it would. Would it make sufficiently clear what was criminal behaviour and what was not? Would it comply with the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, it would. What effect would it have on religious freedom, or freedom of expression or association? In my view, none at all.
The victims of these bogus therapists have been waiting far too long for Parliament to help them. The amendment is humane and practical, and it has nothing whatever to do with party politics. If the laws of France, Belgium and Luxembourg can protect the people that this amendment seeks to protect, the law of England can and ought to do so as well. Amendment 141, or something like it, should be added to the Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid we have to leave it there for this evening.