House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The UK offers a wide range of routes for people to settle in the UK, including those in need of protection and those who settle through marriage or work routes. There were 80,710 decisions on applications for settlement in the UK from non-European economic area nationals in the year ending September 2020, of which 97% resulted in a grant.
Douglas Ross [V]
Since I was elected in 2017, I have been supporting Matt Jun Fei Freeman in his efforts to secure indefinite leave to remain. Matt has been in the UK for 17 years, and for the last nine he has made Lossiemouth and the wider Moray community his home. Will the Home Secretary agree to meet me to look at the considerable case for Matt to remain in Moray, so that he can continue to benefit from the friendship and support he gets here and so that Moray can continue to gain from Matt choosing this part of the world to be his home?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises a very important case. He spelt out the duration for which Matthew has lived in the UK and in his constituency. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the detailed nature of the case, and I am happy to follow up on the concerns he has.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
This Government are recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers by March 2023—an unprecedented increase in the next three years that reflects the biggest recruitment drive in decades. I am pleased to tell the House that, as at 31 December, the police have recruited an extra 6,620 police officers—620 ahead of target and three months ahead of schedule.
Alexander Stafford [V]
It is great to hear about the huge increase in police numbers, especially here in South Yorkshire, but what we really need is these new police to be visible and accessible. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need these new police officers to be front of house at Maltby police station, so that they can speak to residents and address their concerns, and to be established at a new base on Dinnington High Street, to clamp down on antisocial crime?
Kit Malthouse
It is no surprise that so diligent a Member would take every opportunity to maximise the benefits from this enormous uplift in police officers for his constituents. While the decision on particular police stations is an operational matter for the chief constable, in consultation with the police and crime commissioner, my hon. Friend is quite right that an expansion in numbers on this scale means that all police forces should be reviewing their property strategy, to ensure that the presence he looks for in his constituency is felt across the country.
Martin Vickers [V]
Under the leadership of our chief constable Lee Freeman, Humberside police has made good progress from the position it was in a few years ago, and we have benefited from increased officer numbers. If we are to maintain that progress and meet the expectations of my constituents, we must continue to increase force numbers. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that we will be able to further increase the number of officers in Humberside?
Kit Malthouse
In my nearly six years in the House, I have watched with admiration as my hon. Friend, terrier-like, holds the Government to their commitments; he is doing exactly the same today, and I do not blame him for it. He is quite right that we have seen a big increase in police officer numbers, but there is much more to come. We have done 6,620, which means that there are 13,000-odd yet to go. The Government’s commitment to the number of 20,000 is about as solid as it gets. It is the same as if the ravens were to leave the tower: if we fail to fulfil this promise, there will be fundamental problems and consequences for Government, not least, I am sure, from my hon. Friend.
Peter Gibson [V]
I welcome the brilliant work of my hon. Friend’s Department, putting more bobbies on the beat in Darlington. Does he share my concern that those same officers will spend more time ferrying detainees across County Durham and less time on the beat if the plans of the acting police and crime commissioner to spend £21 million on a single custody suite for the whole county go ahead, robbing my constituency of its accessible custody suite? Does he agree that this decision should wait until after we have elected a new, democratic police and crime commissioner?
Kit Malthouse
What a joy it is to hear a Conservative voice for Darlington once again! You will be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that in my very first general election in 1987, I fought in Darlington for the then young and fresh-faced Michael Fallon, who was the successful MP in that election.
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When deciding about the disposition of custody suites in police stations across a particular force area, chiefs must have in mind the amount of time that will be spent by police officers in ferrying miscreants to and from those custody suites. I applaud him for pushing his temporary police and crime commissioner, and I hope there is soon to be a Conservative one—George Jabbour is a fantastic candidate—who will make a sensible decision in favour of all the people of Durham.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The Government remain committed to supporting everyone through this pandemic. Many of the wide-ranging covid-19 measures the Government have put in place are available to migrants with NRPF, including the coronavirus job retention scheme, statutory sick pay and discretionary hardship payments for those who have to self-isolate. In addition, migrants with leave under family and human rights routes can also apply to have the NRPF condition lifted, something that is successful now in 85% of cases, in just 17 days.
Ian Byrne [V]
After hearing evidence at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on homelessness, I know that the unwillingness of the Home Office to suspend no recourse to public funds and a lack of clarity over support have had devastating consequences during this pandemic for many. Despite being over a month into this lockdown, policy is still opaque around section 4 eligibility for individuals with no recourse to public funds. Will the Minister provide an update on this as a matter of urgency?
Chris Philp
There is absolute clarity about the benefits. I have mentioned things like the coronavirus job retention scheme already, and I have mentioned how people on family and human rights routes can get the NRPF condition lifted, but I did not mention the over £8 billion available via local authorities for NRPF-eligible migrants to apply for. In addition, the hon. Member asked about section 4: people on section 4 support do get accommodation provided by the Home Office. We currently now have, I think, about 61,000 people in accommodation. That is up from about 48,000 before the pandemic, precisely because we are looking after the people most in need.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The United Kingdom is a world leader in resettlement. My hon. Friend will know that, in the last five years, we have resettled nearly 30,000 people—more than any other country in Europe. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we will be completing the 20,000 people under the VPRS in the coming weeks, and after that we will be continuing to offer further resettlement places beyond that, as far as we are able to, given the current coronavirus circumstances. Beyond that, we will be making announcements—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making announcements—in the relatively near future about how we plan to continue resettlement beyond that.
David Simmonds [V]
My hon. Friend has rightly championed the record of this country and this Government in providing support to the most vulnerable people here and abroad, and it is clearly vital that safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK are available to disrupt smuggling and people trafficking. Is my hon. Friend confident that using the very successful current scheme as a template, the new UK resettlement scheme will have the necessary level of support and funding to resettle refugees effectively and in line with our aspirations?
Chris Philp
I can absolutely give that assurance. Of course, our resettlement work will have the financial support it requires. We intend to build upon, but also learn the lessons from, the previous resettlement scheme. There are going to be significant ways in which we can improve it. Not only was our resettlement scheme over the last five years the largest resettlement scheme of any country in Europe, but there is more we are doing. Our refugee family reunion provisions see 6,000 people a year or more come into this country, and just a short while ago our BNO—British national overseas—route opened up, allowing people being persecuted by the Chinese Communist party to seek refuge here as well.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The United Kingdom’s world-beating vaccination programme is saving lives and livelihoods, and it is always vital that we arm ourselves with the facts and call out wrong information on vaccines. The counter-disinformation unit is responding to the misleading online content and working with social media platforms to ensure that all action is taken to remove harmful disinformation so that authoritative sources of information are promoted.
Kate Hollern [V]
I have seen the brilliant work Labour councillors in Hounslow, Swindon and Blackburn have been doing to appeal to communities to take the vaccine. This work is being undermined by misinformation on social media, and is literally a matter of life and death. What plans do the Government have to bring forward legislation on, for example, financial and criminal penalties for social media companies that fail to act to stamp out this dangerous anti-vaccine content?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady raises a really important point at this very delicate time with the vaccine roll-out, and I would like to make two comments.
First, the Government are absolutely focused on zapping down the disinformation and misinformation that is circulating around the vaccine, because we cannot allow people—lives will be lost—basically to be duped into believing that this vaccine is not safe. I urge everyone—Labour councils, Conservative councils, and everyone in positions of authority—to get the message out to take the jab; it is safe, and it will protect individuals and their families.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about legislation and actions by the Government. A lot of work is taking place across Government, by the Home Office, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and other colleagues, around sanctions and penalties, and work has also taken place with the online harms Bill very much to target social media platforms and the way in which they operate.
Finally, it is worth concluding, as we see the vaccine roll-out taking place, that everyone should, when called, take the vaccine, and collectively—no matter what our backgrounds politically or in terms of gender or ethnicity—everyone should be out there praising the efforts on the vaccine and making sure that people take the jab.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The spread of disinformation and anti-vaccine content on social media is presenting a real danger to the NHS in its efforts to vaccinate against covid-19, and some communities are hesitant to accept the vaccine, with people risking their own health and, in some cases, their own lives. In an agreement with the social media giants it was revealed that their only commitment was not to profit from or promote flagged anti-vax content, but there was no commitment to close down these groups, so is it not time that the Government got tougher to stop the anti-vax message getting through?
Priti Patel
I very much refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made: a lot of work is taking place with social media platforms. False information, disinformation and manipulated information are intended to deceive and mislead people, and when it comes to the vaccine that is going to risk lives. The Government are very clear about that, which is why action is taking place across all Government Departments, as I have outlined.
It is worth nothing that Ofcom’s latest research shows that the NHS remains the most trusted source of information on covid-19, and therefore it is right that we continue absolutely to put pressure on social media platforms when disinformation materialises, but also make sure that we maximise the right kind of information going out about the vaccine through respected channels of communication.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins) [V]
After a very difficult weekend in London, our thoughts are with the families, friends and neighbourhoods affected by those incidents of violent crime. Across England and Wales we are increasing police capacity in the forces most affected by violent crime, investing £176 million over two years. We have recently consulted on serious violence reduction orders, which will give the police stop-and-search powers to target individuals previously convicted of knife offences, and we are investing many millions of pounds in early intervention schemes to stop young people being drawn into violence in the first place.
Edward Timpson [V]
After the recent tragic knife-related murder of a young man in Winsford, Cheshire police have secured funding for 25 16 to 18-year-olds to take part in an employment mentoring programme led by We Mind The Gap, as well as identifying a former community centre to deliver youth and apprenticeship activities. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Cheshire police on a constructive and long-term problem-solving approach to this issue and ensure that they have the funding necessary to prevent knife crime from happening in the first place?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend has a distinguished record of helping the most vulnerable children in our society, and I join him in welcoming the investment in this and other intervention projects in Cheshire to tackle the root causes of violent crime. I commend the work of Cheshire police in supporting such projects. In this financial year, Cheshire police will receive up to £219 million in funding, and it has already recruited 91 additional officers under the police uplift programme.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The programme continues to make steady progress, and confidence in the technical viability of the solution continues to increase. The core network has been built, and much of the ultimate functionality has already been demonstrated. We are working hard to demonstrate the emerging product and agree realistic plans with users for the final stages of delivery and deployment.
Craig Williams [V]
I know that my hon. Friend knows the critical importance for the shared rural network of delivering the ESN. It is vital for my constituency, to deal with the notspots that are sadly all too common in mid-Wales. As well as the technical capabilities he outlined, will he update us on the delivery of the ESN, alongside the shared rural network, in Montgomeryshire and other rural areas across the UK?
Kit Malthouse
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. Representing a large rural constituency myself, I know exactly his experience and therefore his keenness to have his constituents better connected—all the better to reach him with their various problems and difficulties, which he will no doubt solve with skill and speed. We are rolling out the programme. I am pleased to say that, after a difficult period, shall we say, last year, the programme is back on track. We expect to appoint contractors to allow the execution of the shared rural network later this year, but I am more than happy, once we have clarity on the programme, to write to my hon. Friend with details of where and when he can expect his mast to be lit up.
Andrew Bowie [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), many communities in my constituency, in particular around Auchenblae, Drumtochty and the wider Mearns area, remain unable to get an adequate phone signal or even any at all. Having been promised that the emergency services network would contribute to solving that issue, many are still to be connected to decent 4G services. May I ask what the delay seems to be in opening up mobile telephone masts to commercial operators, as was initially planned?
Kit Malthouse
I know that living in one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country is not sufficient compensation for a lack of connectivity, although it provides some commiseration to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As somebody who found out just the other day that, frustratingly, the fibre network in my constituency stops 200 metres short of my house, I understand the impatience for connectivity in his area. It is true to say that we have experienced some delays, not least on legal negotiations last year. Happily, those have now been overcome, and I am confident that we can now proceed with all speed to make sure that the shared rural network, alongside the emergency services network, is rolled out on schedule to 2025.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]
The new emergency services network, which is much needed to replace our outdated system, has become yet another embarrassment for the Home Office. Costs have spiralled to an eye-watering £10.3 billion, and constant delays mean that the project will not be finished for up to seven years. Local police forces, already under strain from cuts and covid, have to foot a large part of the bill, and their bill has just increased by £600 million. That would fund around 8,000 new police officers, yet when I asked the Minister about this in a parliamentary question, he said that the extra cost was “minimal”.
There is a pattern: £600 million is “minimal”; the catastrophic loss of 400,000 essential data records is brushed aside and still no answers given; and the Home Secretary breaks the ministerial code and we are all somehow to brush that aside as well. When will the Government accept that their incompetence is wasting taxpayers’ money, delaying vital work and putting the public at increased risk?
Kit Malthouse
I understand that the hon. Lady feels that her job is to trade in hyperbole, but I think she has slightly overstated her case today, not least on the cost of the emergency service network, which is actually only—“only”— £4.2 billion, not the £10 billion-plus that she quoted. Governments of all stripes—and, indeed, many private companies—experience challenges, shall we say, in executing large technical IT projects, and this project has been no different. Having said that, we have made significant changes to the leadership team and we have reset the project. It is broadly back on track and, critically, we now have a new system of, effectively, joint decision-making with the end users—the police and the other emergency services—which we believe is breeding much greater confidence in the programme at the moment and hopefully over the next two or three years as we bring it to execution. This is an absolutely vital piece of equipment for police officer safety and, indeed, for the better prosecution of crime, and we are determined to get it right.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The asylum system is in need of fundamental reform, and the Home Secretary and I will be introducing legislation in the relatively near future to do exactly that. Too many people come into the UK having first passed through a safe country—for example, France—without having claimed asylum there. We are determined that we are going to have an asylum system that will protect those people in genuine need of protection while preventing the abuse that we sadly too often see.
Mark Logan [V]
I completely agree with the Minister: our asylum system needs to change ASAP. My constituents are vocal about how long it is taking to process their applications, often leaving them in limbo for months on end. For example, Shahid suffers from severe depression and has been waiting 16 months while he cares for his disabled wife. He cannot get carer’s allowance while his application is pending. Likewise, Aswad was told that their application would take a maximum of six months to process, but it has now been 13 months. May I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how we can bring some closure to my constituents?
Chris Philp
I would certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the particular case that he raises, and I will follow up to arrange that. I agree that we need to do more to speed up the system. Coronavirus has had a significant impact on asylum decision making, as it has on so many other areas of our public life. In the short term, we are hiring considerably more decision makers, we are introducing better IT and we are spending £20 million next year on system transformation, but beyond that, we need to legislate to make the system work more fairly and more efficiently, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has laid out.
Damian Collins [V]
Can my hon. Friend confirm that Napier barracks in Folkestone is only a temporary facility to accommodate people in the asylum system, that it is unsuitable for individuals to be placed there for prolonged periods, and that, post-covid and with a reformed asylum system that is swifter in processing applications, we should avoid using facilities such as this in the future?
Chris Philp
I can confirm that Napier was set up in response to the enormous pressures placed on our asylum system by the coronavirus pandemic. We have set it up in such a way as to be safe, and it is of course accommodation that was previously used by the brave men and women of our armed services. We ensure that it is clean and secure and that there is health provision on site. It is not intended for use in perpetuity. I know that my hon. Friend spoke to the Home Secretary over the weekend, and we would be very willing to maintain a close and active dialogue with him and the local council to ensure that it is managed as well as it possibly can be.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The repurposing of disused Army barracks to house asylum seekers is proving a disaster and a disgrace. What is worse, the leaked impact assessment shows that this dreadful policy was justified by wild notions that proper support and accommodation could undermine public confidence in the asylum system. In short, the Home Office was pandering to gutter politics. Will the Home Office apologise for suggesting that people in the UK oppose decent support and care for asylum seekers, and close these barracks urgently?
Chris Philp
No apology is due. As I just said, the barrack accommodation units in question were previously used by the brave men and women of our armed services. They were good enough for the armed services and they are certainly more than good enough for people who have arrived in this country seeking asylum. We fully comply with all the relevant guidelines.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about this country’s stance on asylum seekers, we now spend getting on for £1 billion a year on accommodating them. That record bears comparison with any country in Europe and, indeed, around the world. No apology is due and certainly none will be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
The sad fact is that the policy undermines the UK’s reputation as a welcoming place. Almost as bad as the impact assessment are the Home Office claims that people who criticise the use of barracks are insulting our armed forces: it is the Home Office that insults our soldiers by using them as cover for such disgraceful policies.
The former senior military legal adviser Lieutenant Colonel Mercer has agreed that it is “wholly inappropriate” to house asylum seekers in disused Army barracks, saying that
“this treatment is nothing more than naked hostility to very vulnerable people.”
If the Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to Lieutenant Colonel Mercer and a host of respected medical organisations and close the barracks quickly?
Chris Philp
The closure of the barracks would be made a lot easier if more councils in Scotland—other than only Glasgow—would accept dispersed accommodation. That is the sort of thing that puts pressure on our accommodation estate. Thanks to the generosity of our approach, the number of people we are accommodating has gone up from 48,000 to 61,000 during the pandemic, because we have taken a thoughtful and protective approach. That is the right thing to do and we stand by it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
On Napier barracks, the equality impact assessment makes it clear that the use of disused barracks as asylum accommodation is absolutely a political choice. The Government have consistently refused to confirm the numbers of those who contracted the coronavirus while staying at Napier barracks, but I understand that, out of around 400 people, 105 who did not have the virus were moved out, leaving us to draw our own conclusions about just how massive an outbreak took place there. Does the Minister not agree with me and others that the use of barracks as asylum accommodation has been both a moral and public health disaster and that people must be moved into dispersed accommodation as a matter of urgency?
Chris Philp
I do not agree with that. As I have said already, we have closely consulted Public Health England throughout this episode. The use of accommodation of this kind is appropriate and suitable. We need to have regard to a range of factors, including value for money. We have had to use a large number of hotels to accommodate people during the coronavirus pandemic and they do not represent particularly good value for money. Barrack-type accommodation is not only suitable but a great deal cheaper than hotels. We all owe the general taxpayer a duty to ensure value for money and the Government make no apology for that.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster) [V]
Throughout the pandemic we have kept our border measures under constant review, including through regular liaison with the devolved Administrations, given their responsibilities in this policy area. On 27 January, the UK Government announced further action for outbound and inbound passengers to minimise travel across international borders and reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission.
Martin Docherty-Hughes [V]
I am sure I am not the only person on these islands who has been left to wonder why the party that has spent so much of the past five years talking about taking back control of borders seemed to completely fluff the opportunity to do so when there would have been almost unanimous support in the House. Will the Minister advise the House what defence the Prime Minister previously offered to the Cabinet for not closing the border on the Home Secretary’s advice?
Kevin Foster
Given the overall positive engagement that we have had with the Scottish Government in this policy area, it is disappointing to hear the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. In deciding on border measures, the UK Government must take into account a number of factors, including the rather obvious need to keep open key supply lines across the short straits, and routes to and from the Republic of Ireland.
To give some background, since the health measures came in we have conducted more than 3.7 million spot checks of passengers arriving at the border, as part of the new testing requirements, carriers are required to check test results, and a fine of up to £4,000 in England and Northern Ireland and £960 in Scotland and Wales can be levied on passengers who fail to comply with the requirements.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The Government are taking a huge range of measures to prevent these dangerous and illegal crossings. Most notably, the Home Secretary reached an agreement with her French counterpart in late November to increase the number of gendarmes deployed on the French beaches and to take a variety of other steps aimed at preventing embarkations from the French shores. To anyone considering this trip, I say that it is dangerous, they are putting their lives at risk, it is illegal, but, most of all, it is unnecessary because France is a safe country where it is perfectly possible to claim asylum.
Caroline Ansell [V]
Last month, the Eastbourne Royal National Lifeboat Institution rescued more than 30 migrants who had got into difficulty in the channel. I commend its sterling work. Its mission is simply to save lives at sea. I have every concern for those it rescued, but, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, there are serious concerns that this is pump-priming human traffickers, and the fact remains that people are putting themselves at risk. Can he outline to the House the work that is being undertaken with the French and with our European neighbours to intercept and close down human traffickers long before they reach the channel coast?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Let me start by paying tribute to the RNLI for the work that it does at sea keeping people safe in what are often very treacherous and difficult circumstances. She is right to outline the work that we need to do to disrupt and prevent these dangerous criminal gangs before they even launch the boats in the first place. The National Crime Agency and many other law enforcement agencies across Europe and beyond are working together to disrupt these criminal gangs. We regularly prosecute people for facilitating these small boat crossings. Last year, we successfully prosecuted 50 or 60 people. There have been several more prosecutions just in the last week, in addition to the law enforcement work we are now doing with the French, doubling the gendarme patrols, for example, which, just in the last few days, has resulted in literally hundreds of people being intercepted before they even set off. So these measures are now working, but we are certainly not going to give up: we will continue working with our French colleagues until these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings are completely stopped.
Mrs Elphicke [V]
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking Kent police and the police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, for their important work on this issue of migration and border policing? Can he assure me that, across my whole constituency, in Dover and Deal and at nearby Napier barracks, Kent police are having extra funding for carrying out this vital work?
Chris Philp
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done in consistently standing up for her constituents on this issue, and to Matthew Scott, who does such a fantastic job as Kent’s police and crime commissioner. No doubt he will be triumphantly re-elected shortly. On the question of resources, Kent has had an extra 162 police officers recruited so far and I believe that there are many more to come. Assuming the precept is used, it will have an extra £19.5 million in the next financial year as well. In addition to that, if there are particular issues caused by small boats or, indeed, by the barracks at Napier, it is able to apply to the Home Office for exceptional funding and, if it feels that that is merited, I would certainly encourage it to do that.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins) [V]
We will bring forward legislation this Session to give the police the powers they need to tackle unauthorised encampments by moving people on and seizing vehicles where necessary. Intentional trespass will become a criminal offence, and we will broaden the range of harms that can be considered by the police when directing trespassers away from land.
Sarah Atherton [V]
The Home Secretary will know that I wrote to her back in June regarding unauthorised encampments. I thank her for her response. Although the majority of Travellers stay on authorised sites, a disproportionate amount of council and police time is spent dealing with the effects of unauthorised encampments. Does the Minister agree that communities such as mine in Wrexham need more protection against trespass on sites where there is no right of access?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head in standing up for her constituents on this issue. People want to see greater protection for local communities, and for the police to be given enhanced powers to crack down on trespassers. That is why we consulted on how we might strengthen police powers and why we will introduce legislation in this Session. We will act on these concerns, and I very much look forward to working with my hon. Friend in so doing.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Throughout this pandemic, we have given the police not just guidance but funding to support them in dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. That also means working with them on increased support around guidance, changes to regulations and legislation. Of course, we also work with them every single day as various measures are constantly kept under review.
Robert Largan [V]
So far, more than 1,000 local people have taken part in my High Peak crime survey. Many residents have raised concerns about antisocial behaviour and drugs, particularly on Fairfield Road in Buxton. I am really pleased that Derbyshire police are being proactive and just last week made multiple arrests in the area, but I want to make certain that they have the resources that they need. Will the Home Secretary assure the people of High Peak that we will get our fair share of the 20,000 additional police officers?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues. On a fair share of police officers, I understand that his force has already recruited 67 more police officers, and our plans to recruit 20,000 police officers go from strength to strength. I note that Derbyshire police have received over £400,000 in covid surge funding very much to step up on enforcement and fines, and to deal with issues such as antisocial behaviour, which is a particular issue that my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of his constituents.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
According to the crime survey for England and Wales, overall levels of violent crime have reduced since the peak in the mid-1990s. However, this trend has begun to stabilise and there is growing public concern. We are taking action by surging police capacity in the forces most affected by violent crime, and investing in early intervention to prevent young people from being drawn into serious violence.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
Last month, I found out through an answer to a written parliamentary question tabled in September that the serious violence taskforce has been discontinued. Are the Government still committed to a long-term public health-based approach to tackling violence affecting young people? I fear for other measures they may be looking to scrap via the back door.
Kit Malthouse
I am slightly mystified by the hon. Lady’s attempt at surprise, not least because I think there was an exchange at this Dispatch Box some months ago when we discussed the serious violence taskforce, and, indeed, there have been previous questions. The Prime Minister—given that he had been a renowned crime-fighting Mayor—decided on coming to office that he wanted to take leadership of the crime effort himself, so we created the criminal justice taskforce. Beneath that sits the National Policing Board, and a performance board sits beneath that. That is all focused largely on fighting violent crime.
Our commitment to fighting violent crime remains strong. Just this morning, I was able to announce an extra £35 million of funding into violence reduction units, a very large proportion of which will obviously come to London. Both the Prime Minister and I have experience of fighting crime, and along with the Home Secretary—who was previously chair of the all-party parliamentary group on victims and witnesses of crime—have shown enormous commitment to this issue over a prolonged period, and that will continue into the future.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Crime has not stopped because of covid-19. After a brief respite during the first lockdown, the Department’s own figures show that overall violent crime is rising, and that drug and firearms-related offences are back at previous levels. The Government received the findings of Sir Craig Mackey’s review into serious and organised crime last February and told the House in June that the recommendations were being considered, but, as of today, they still have not come forward with them. So can I ask what we are waiting for and what it is that Ministers have been doing for the last year?
Kit Malthouse
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been dealing over the past year with a pandemic—it might have passed him by, but it has not the rest of us. That pandemic has had a significant impact on UK policing, its disposition, what it has been involved in and, critically, the types of crime and the trends in crime that it has been dealing with.
The hon. Gentleman is correct that post the second lockdown we saw a surge in violence for one particular month. That number has stabilised since, and we are trying to understand, by research and analysis, what the implications of the pandemic have been for crime and therefore what they are for the police. Alongside that, we have been in conversations with our partners at the National Crime Agency, with chief constables involved in serious and organised crime and with territorial forces about what the disposition of serious and organised crime should look like into the future, and we will be making announcements about how it will be disposed in the near future.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I am proud to say that on 31 January the Government launched the Hong Kong British national overseas immigration route. The commitment to create this route was made following the Chinese Government’s imposition of the new national security law in Hong Kong. It is an unprecedented and generous offer and reflects the historical and moral commitment of this country to the individuals who retained ties with the UK at the point of Hong Kong’s handover.
Through this route, we will welcome BNO status holders and their family members to the UK on a pathway to citizenship. From 23 February, those with a BNO, Hong Kong special administrative region or European economic area biometric passport will be able to apply for the route through the fully digitalised process, using new technology developed through the UK’s points-based immigration system. I am clear that we must give BNO status holders every opportunity to thrive in the UK, and officials are working with colleagues across Departments to look at integration. This absolutely speaks about global Britain and how we will always stand up for what is right in the world, welcoming those who come to the UK in the right and proper way.
Damian Collins [V]
On 20 January, my constituent Andy Aitchison, an accredited journalist who had taken photographs that morning at the demonstration at Napier barracks in Folkestone, was arrested by five police officers at his home, charged with criminal damage and held for questioning for seven hours. The police confiscated his mobile phone and photo camera card. Last Friday, the charges were dropped and the case closed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a review of the guidance given to police before such actions are taken against accredited journalists, and does she agree that Mr Aitchison should have a clean record, as he has committed no offence?
Priti Patel
Regarding the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted, he will know that Kent police were called following a report of a particular protest and an incident. All decisions on arrests are an operational matter for the police, and the police make arrests in line with their duties to keep the peace and to protect communities. I am afraid at this stage that is all I can say, because an arrest has been made, but I have no doubt that Kent police will continue to keep all interested parties, including my hon. Friend, updated on this particular case.
Mr Speaker
In fairness, I was contacted as Speaker as well, so it did go a long way.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I would like to begin by wishing the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) a swift recovery following his recent surgery.
Hotel quarantine for travellers will be introduced on a far too limited basis for 33 red list countries on 15 February, more than 50 days after the South African variant was discovered in the UK. To prevent a variant reaching our shores that could threaten the vaccination programme, that should be a comprehensive policy. Worse still, analysis over the weekend showed that, of the 41 countries that have confirmed they have cases of the South African strain of the virus, 29 are not subject to the hotel quarantine controls. Neither are a further six with the Brazilian variant. When will the Government publish the specific scientific basis for their existing red list?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman and I have spent some time at this Dispatch Box discussing this particular issue, and I think it is important that I make a couple of points to emphasise the work of the Government. The new health measures at the border are necessary to protect public health and our world-class vaccination programme. We have throughout the pandemic kept all measures under review, and that is absolutely right. He mentions new variants. However, I do want to emphasise, in the light of the many discussions that have taken place at the Dispatch Box between the hon. Gentleman and me, and colleagues from other Government Departments, that the Labour party has repeatedly flip-flopped on hotel quarantining measures. The Government have been very clear about measures that will be announced, some in due course, because a lot of operational and logistical planning is taking place around these measures. At the same time, it is worth recognising that there are many people on the frontline looking at the implementation of this policy, which is based on the advice by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and other Government advisers. It is important that we take time to absolutely make sure that these measures are put in place in the right way.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, the Labour party has not flip-flopped on this. The 14-day blanket quarantine was only necessary because of the Government’s own failure on testing. Secondly, although the Home Secretary and I have had plenty of discussions about it, she was very clear about her own views last March that the border should have been closed, and we have all seen that on the video.
Is it not true that Ministers have been behind the curve throughout? There was no formal quarantining system until June last year, and when it was introduced, it proved ineffective. The South African variant is already here. Border testing was only introduced in recent weeks. On the hotel quarantining policy, we hear today that no formal contracts have been agreed—too little, too late. Is not the truth that the borders policy is a gaping hole in our defences against the virus? When is the Home Secretary going to take charge of this situation and put in place the proper protective measures that she knows are needed to protect the health of the British people and safeguard the vaccine roll-out?
Priti Patel
I appreciate that it has been a while since Labour has been in government, and Labour Members will obviously fail to realise that there is cross-Government work on the delivery of these measures. We are in a pandemic. Just to restate this to all colleagues in the House, health measures at the border have been in place since January last year. Those measures have been developed, as everyone would expect, as the situation changes; they are calibrated measures. I think it is an absolute shame to see the hon. Gentleman joining his colleagues in playing party politics with this crisis while attacking the Government, because although he originally welcomed the measures on the border that we brought in last year, he then wrote to me calling for the “blunt tool” of our border quarantine to be lifted quickly. Labour’s behaviour throughout this pandemic has shown the British public that it has no interest in being constructive or acting in the national interest, and that is exactly what we can see right now, while the Government are getting on and dealing with this hotels policy.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes some very good, strong and important points that, absolutely, the British public support the removal of foreign national offenders, those who come to our country to cause harm, and also those who are, quite frankly, making asylum claims that are not legitimate. We intend to introduce legislation later this year. I have spoken frequently about the need for a firm but fair asylum system, with fairness to target those who genuinely need our help. I have already spoken about one new safe and legal route that this Government have supported. Absolutely, fairness is needed, and firmness is needed to stop abuse of our system and to make sure that we remove those who come to our country to create harm and participate in criminality. I should remind my hon. Friend—he will know this—that Labour has been campaigning against that over the past 12 months.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
The South African variant has now been identified on many continents, and the risks to the vaccine programme are concerning. Can the Home Secretary confirm, following her letter to me last week, that even under her future plans, the majority of passengers will not be covered by hotel quarantine, no one will be tested on arrival before going on public transport, and less than one in four travellers will get a follow-up phone call check? Is this worrying information correct, and why are there all these gaps?
Priti Patel
The answer to the question is no, because as I have repeatedly said in this Chamber throughout the pandemic, all our measures are kept under review. We already have 100% compliance checks taking place at our airports. Ironically, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) was complaining at me three weeks ago about queues at Heathrow airport, but those queues were there because compliance checks were being undertaken. It is absolutely right that those checks take place, including through the passenger locator form, the pre-departure testing, and the impacts and liabilities that are now on the carriers.
I have already stated that my colleagues across Government will report to the House on the subject of hotel quarantining, but it is really important to say that, yes, there are concerns about new variants. We are working across Government—and, I have to say, a lot of people are working valiantly on the frontline—on vaccine roll-out, but we keep all our measures under review, obviously to protect the vaccine but also to ensure that as the number of passengers coming into the country reduces, full checks are in place.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) [V]
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has already heard me speak about the amazing work of people on the frontline, which includes our police officers but also our serving fire officers, who are working in local resilience forums to deliver and safeguard the vaccine and make sure people are getting vaccinated—including, no doubt, at local sites in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The British public are fed up of seeing egregious breaches. It is the police on the frontline, day in and day out, who are not only protecting the public but putting themselves in harm’s way, and we are absolutely right to support them.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Priti Patel
It is absolutely right that we provide accommodation—the right kind of accommodation—for people who have come to our country to claim asylum, and we have a statutory duty as a Government to do so. No one would dispute that at all. With regards to Napier, I spoke to one of the ward councillors at the weekend, and I have been in touch with local MPs and representatives from the local authority. We are working with everyone to make sure that base is secure, which it absolutely is; that it is covid compliant, which it has been from day one; and that all the suitable accommodation measures are put in place, which is absolutely correct.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, we have already mentioned this afternoon that the legislation will soon be coming before this House, and I am sure that his constituents and many other constituents will welcome the change. I would like to give my hon. Friend and his constituents reassurance that the legislation we will bring forward will address many of the issues related to groups that have that disproportionate impact on the local community.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Priti Patel
First, on misinformation and disinformation on the vaccine, as I said earlier, we are working across Government to ensure that the right information is being put out. With specific reference to refugee groups, we have health facilities, and refugees have access to medical help and support, and obviously that has continued throughout the coronavirus pandemic. When it comes to people getting the vaccine, as I said earlier, everyone should ensure that when their turn comes, they take the jab and ignore this misinformation. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member is shaking her head; everyone across Government is working night and day to deal with misinformation. I have said it many times; I hope that all colleagues in the House will unite across the board and forget political divisions to ensure that everybody who should get the jab absolutely takes a jab.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend, and I look forward to coming back to Wolverhampton, obviously when circumstances permit. I also thank him for the great work he is doing with local groups, organisations and police to protect the victims of crime, but also to do much more on preventing crime. The police uplift, more police officers, the record sums of cash that we are putting into policing—all of this will go towards preventing crime, but also ensuring that victims are safeguarded.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Priti Patel
As I have said several times already, all measures are under review. Colleagues across Government are working to implement the hotel quarantine policy and the logistics involved in that, but this is not just about hotels. This is absolutely about compliance and enforcement, and we have measures in place at our ports and airports to ensure that people are being checked and to ensure compliance.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend and I have spoken about this previously, and I very much recognise the pressures experienced in his constituency. Obviously we have had accommodation pressures throughout the pandemic, and we are implementing a recovery programme, with which he is familiar. Within that, we are looking to accelerate, where we can and in a covid-compliant way, working with Public Health England and all the relevant organisations that he is familiar with, the movement of people out of contingency accommodation and into much more dispersed accommodation across the UK.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman will know my very strong views on this—I have spoken about it previously. Last year when the pandemic started, we saw the most appalling abuse and attacks on shop workers. We are working with colleagues in Government, so please let me give the hon. Gentleman my assurance on that. This type of violence and abuse should never, ever be tolerated at all, and we will also continue to work with employers to ensure that they are doing everything possible to protect shop workers—their employees.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises such an important point. He is right to say that throughout the pandemic we have seen criminality manifest itself and reinvent itself—and, quite frankly, become far too agile and a bit clever as well. Cyber-security and cyber-crime absolutely top the list when it comes to criminality, and there is a lot of work. We now have a new national cyber-security strategy supported by almost £2 billion of investment. Through the national cyber-security programme we are constantly bolstering our police and law enforcement response at a national level, working with those organisations at grassroots level—local levels and regional levels—deemed to be vulnerable. I am afraid there are far too many vulnerable organisations that absolutely need to step up and enhance their own cyber-security.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Priti Patel
First, it is important that the House recognises we always work constructively with the PCS union when it comes to the protection of Border Force staff. Secondly, the rosters were changed to enhance covid-compliance measures and so that there was fairness across all staff, who could be protected in their shift work. We continue to work with the union, and we are committed to doing that, but my absolute priority is to ensure that Border Force staff are protected, because they come into contact with members of the public every single day.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend will know the details of the scheme and the numbers that were published six or so weeks ago. We are working on the new scheme with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which as the lead Department will look at the roll-out with seasonal agricultural worker providers. We have a number of providers, and he will be familiar with them, but we are happy to provide him with a written update because I know that is of great interest in his constituency.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Priti Patel
The scheme has only just been launched. I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with all sorts of civil society organisations, and I have spent a lot of time in dialogues and roundtables with a range of representatives. Therefore, having just launched the scheme, which is a bespoke humanitarian route created for BNOs, we are absolutely looking at how we can ensure that the route works well. We are also engaging with non-governmental organisations and civil society to ensure that we do not miss people.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Given that planning permission for the asylum seekers temporary accommodation at Penally in Pembrokeshire is due to run out at the end of March, can the Home Secretary confirm that the local community will this time be fully consulted on the camp’s future and that all new transfers to the site will cease in the intervening period?
Priti Patel
If I may, this is an important point that the Minister responsible for immigration compliance and the courts, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), touched on. I am so disappointed to hear that colleagues across the House are not supportive of asylum accommodation, when many local authorities fail to co-operate with the Home Office to identify sites in their constituency. Quite frankly, the hypocrisy of basically saying, “We don’t want asylum seekers here, send them elsewhere.” is simply not acceptable. We consult with everybody—I can assure the right hon. Lady—
Mr Speaker
Order. Home Secretary, I am sure that you did not mean the hypocrisy of a Member. It was a general term.
Priti Patel
I will correct that, Mr Speaker. In the broadest possible sense, we cannot have this situation where local authorities literally refuse to engage with us while at the same time saying that consultation is not taking place.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
We know that Greater Manchester police are in special measures and that the chief constable is on gardening leave. We know that victims of crime in Greater Manchester are at risk. We even know that police officers going out on calls are at risk, because they are not getting the information. The Mayor of Greater Manchester tells us that he is not getting the information from the police. I know that the Home Secretary has previously replied that she is not getting the information from Greater Manchester police. Can she tell the House when she expects to get the information from Greater Manchester police that will enable us to know if there is an improvement in the appalling situation?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is an absolutely appalling situation. He will also know that the Mayor’s responsibility is to ensure that Greater Manchester police act immediately on the force improvement plan. My hon. friend the Minister for Crime and Policing has been working assiduously on this and has met the deputy Mayor and the acting chief constable. We have a force improvement plan and we intend to use it to get information and data as well as to hold everybody to account over what has happened with that failure in data collection and, ultimately, the impact that has had on victims.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to allow the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Yemen
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on Yemen.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for asking a question on this important matter. The ongoing conflict and humanitarian situation in Yemen remain a challenge for the international community. The new Houthi offensive in Marib has only made our efforts to bring peace and stability even more difficult. Nevertheless, we continue to work with the international community to find a peaceful resolution, with an emphasis on the political process.
The UK is playing a leading role in responding to the crisis in Yemen through both our humanitarian response and our diplomatic influence. We actively support the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths, in his work to reach a political solution, and we pay tribute to his tireless efforts to bring about peace. The UK has pledged over £1 billion in aid to the humanitarian response since the conflict began.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have regular calls with partners on Yemen. Recently, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Secretary Blinken in the new United States Administration and to the Saudi Foreign Minister. Last month, I spoke with the Yemeni Foreign Minister to offer my condolences after the attacks at Aden airport. The UK has also used its role as the penholder at the UN Security Council to help move the Yemen peace process forward, working with our partners and allies at the United Nations to ensure that Yemen continues to be a top priority for the international community.
We welcome the recent statement by President Biden to instigate a review of US foreign policy towards Yemen. Our ambassador in Washington has already spoken with the new US envoy to Yemen. I also welcome reports that the US may reverse the previous Administration’s designation of the Houthis as foreign terrorist fighters. The UK has engaged closely with the US Administration on that very matter.
However, we cannot—we must not—ignore the Houthi actions. Those include the use of children and sexual violence as tools of war, the persecution of religious minorities and attacks on civilians. On 30 December, the Houthis attacked Aden airport, killing 27 civilians and injuring more than 100 others. We must address the Houthi sense of impunity, to make the peace process meaningful, and that must extend to other actors in the region, notably Iran. I note the US decision to pause its arms exports while it reviews its policy towards Yemen. I reassure the House that the Government take their own export responsibilities extremely seriously and assess all export licences in accordance with strict licensing criteria.
The political settlement is the only way to bring about long-term peace and stability in Yemen and to address the worsening humanitarian situation. The Government remain committed to bringing an end to the conflict.
Mr Ellwood
Last week, President Biden gave his first foreign policy speech, reversing many of the isolationist policies of his predecessor and seeking to re-engage with like-minded allies in order to revisit major global hotspots neglected by the west. The complex civil war in Yemen, now entering its seventh year, was named specifically. Today, it is the largest humanitarian catastrophe in the world. The US President has appointed a new envoy, as we have just heard, and will end support for the offensive operations and connected arms sales, seeking to establish the conditions for a ceasefire and fresh peace talks.
The war in Yemen is complicated. The country never properly stabilised following unification in 1990, and President Hadi has struggled to handle corruption, unemployment, tribal disputes and, most critically, separatist and extremist agendas pursued by the Houthis and al-Qaeda respectively. The Houthi advance into the capital in 2014 led to UN Security Council resolutions that legitimised a Saudi-led military coalition to support President Hadi. Despite many rounds of talks—some of which I was involved with, as a Minister—six years on, we are no closer to peace. Indeed, the conflict has spilled out into a wider proxy war.
The US reset is to be welcomed, and this poses our first big test of what global Britain means in practice. In that spirit, I encourage the UK to fully align ourselves with our closest security ally by ending arms exports connected to the war and to reverse the cuts to our overseas aid budget. I recommend that, as the UN Security Council penholder on Yemen, the UK offers to host a UN summit that looks at political options for peace and that the UK is willing to commit British forces to any UN stabilisation effort that may be required once a political settlement is reached. This is a real opportunity for Yemen to end the war. I hope the Minister can confirm today Britain’s resolve to play a leading role.
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution and the work he did as Minister on this portfolio. I can absolutely confirm that the United Kingdom’s desire to bring about a peaceful settlement in Yemen is unwavering. We will continue to work with our international partners—both the United States and regional partners—to bring that about.
My right hon. Friend made a number of specific points. The UK has—indeed, I have on a regular basis—spoken with the UN envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths, and we fully support his work. We will look at ways to bring together the various parties around the negotiating table. I note my right hon. Friend’s idea about a UK-hosted summit. He will understand that I cannot commit to something like that at the moment, but I welcome his thoughtful contribution. Similarly, he will completely understand that it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about what a military intervention might look like. The Saudi-led coalition was mandated at the UN Security Council; as he said, this is something he worked on during his tenure. We also note that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a legitimate right to defend itself against attacks, and we completely condemn the attacks both within Yemen, at Aden airport, and cross-border, into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]
We are not a bystander to this conflict—UK arms, training and technical support sustains the war in Yemen and the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. More than 80% of Saudi’s arms imports come from the US and the UK. The US’s decision to end all support for offensive operations, including relevant arms sales, is welcome, but it leaves the UK dangerously out of step with our allies and increasingly isolated. What is worse is that the UK is the penholder for Yemen at the UN. We cannot be both peacemaker and arms dealer in this conflict.
It was the Foreign Secretary who said:
“human rights will be at the forefront of our leadership this year”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 178.]
This is the first test since that statement just four weeks ago, and he has failed it. It is surprising, given the obvious panic in Downing Street about relations with the Biden Administration, that the Government were so reluctant to challenge President Trump’s decision to change the designation of the Houthis and are now determined to continue to be an outlier in arming Saudi Arabia. It puts us out of step with our US and EU allies, despite the compelling moral and diplomatic case to change course.
When the Foreign Secretary re-emerges, perhaps he could confirm that he will now take long overdue action to end arms sales and support to Saudi Arabia and explain what possible reason there could be for not doing so earlier. Can he tell us whether he spoke with Secretary Blinken about this announcement before it was made and whether the US Government have asked for UK support in this matter? Will he tell us what he will do to live up to our responsibilities to reinvigorate the peace process and help bring this appalling conflict to an end?
James Cleverly
I do not know where the hon. Lady gets her assessments of Anglo-US relations from. I was very pleased that our Prime Minister was one of the first world leaders to speak with President Biden upon his taking office, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with his counterpart shortly after that appointment and that we have engaged with both the last Administration and the current Administration on our concerns about the implications of the designation of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist fighting organisation, particularly the implications for the passage of humanitarian aid, to which the UK has committed over £1 billion since the conflict started.
Obviously, the decisions the US takes on matters of arms sales are decisions for the US Government. The UK takes its own arms export responsibilities very seriously, and we continue to assess all export licences in accordance with strict licensing criteria.
I mentioned in my opening response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) the very recent assault by Houthi forces on Marib and the Government of Yemen’s need to defend themselves and to have support from the international community to do so.
I can assure the hon. Lady that our relationship with the United States of America remains very strong indeed, and we welcome the commitment that President Biden has made to the United States’ international responsibilities and his engagement on this most important of issues.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned Marib, because does he recognise that much of this dispute is about water and the missile technology now being used to threaten Saudi Arabia’s water desalination plants on both the western and eastern side of the country? Will he stand up for Britain’s interests in the regions and our partners in the area, and oppose the Iranian action that is causing a spread of violence across the Arabian peninsula the like of which we have not seen since perhaps even the year of the elephant?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. We are clear that we must see an end to Iran’s destabilising interference in Yemen, which has stoked further conflict through its support of the Houthis. As I have said, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has the legitimate right to defend itself and its key national infrastructure. We have raised the issue of Iran’s behaviour with the Iranian Government. Iran’s provisions of weapons to the Houthis contravenes United Nations Security Council resolution 2216, and while Iran has stated that it supports UN-led efforts to bring about peace in Yemen, we encourage it to ensure its actions are consistent with its comments. It is important that Yemen is not used as a theatre for the escalation of conflict in the region.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
The Scottish National party is in fundamental and deep disagreement with the UK Government position on Yemen. It is impossible to pretend to be the humanitarian honest broker on one side while also simultaneously being the biggest arms dealer to the conflict; we are tackling the symptoms of a problem that the UK has in no small part helped create. The situation in Yemen is, of course, complex, but this is a test for global Britain, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has said; the US policy change is to be welcomed, and I would be the first to welcome a similar announcement from the UK Government, because they risk being behind the times. Surely now is the time to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia while we work towards a peace?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the fact that we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue. The UK’s position is that we have been not just the penholder at the United Nations but an active player in attempting to bring about peace. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have engaged extensively with the regional players, including with the Houthis directly and with the Government of Yemen, to try to bring about a negotiated political settlement to bring peace to the people of Yemen. The best thing that we can do in terms of pursuing our humanitarian aid is to bring about an end to the conflict, and we work tirelessly with international partners and the United Nations to do that.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
On 18 February, the UK will chair the UN Security Council meeting on Yemen, where the Security Council will consider the final report of the UN panel of experts. The publication of the panel’s latest report has caused a stir in Yemen and the wider region. It has alarmed numerous organisations in Yemen, which suggest procedural irregularities in the report’s drafting and raise questions about the credibility of its content. Ahead of the Security Council meeting next week, will the Minister urgently consider representations from parties in Yemen and the international community to hear their concerns about the report, including fears that inaccuracy in the report could lead to the food security challenges on the ground being compounded in what is already the world’s worst humanitarian crisis?
James Cleverly
The food insecurity situation in Yemen is of great concern to us in the United Kingdom, which is why we have focused so much on our humanitarian response. I am more than happy to receive details of the concerns that my right hon. Friend raises, but he will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in more detail until I have seen the points that he has brought forward.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
The Liberal Democrats have long called for arms sales to Saudi Arabia to be suspended in response to its consistent targeting of civilians in Yemen, in clear breach of international law. The humanitarian impact of this conflict is hard to put into words. At least one child dies every 10 minutes because of preventable disease, and 100,000 children are on the brink of starving to death. On the issue of arms sales, the Minister rightly says that the US’s decision to stop selling arms was a matter for it. The matter for this House is whether we continue to sell arms, so I ask him to answer plainly: will the Government follow the example of our ally and finally stop all arms sales supporting this horrific war—yes or no?
James Cleverly
The United Kingdom takes its arms export licensing responsibilities very seriously. We will not issue any export licences for items where there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. Every licence application is rigorously assessed against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about Iran, but is he as surprised as me that we rarely hear from the Opposition parties about Iran and what it is doing in Yemen? Unless Iran stops its malign activity there, it will fundamentally affect the progress of peace.
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I publicly welcomed Saudi Arabia’s unilateral ceasefire last year, and I was very disappointed to see attacks and attempted attacks on both Riyadh and key national infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. We have been clear that we must see an end to Iran’s destabilising activities in the region, and it would be nice if some of the comments from those on the Opposition Benches were more balanced when they are holding parties responsible for the terrible situation in Yemen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. In 2020, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office “Human Rights & Democracy” report asserted that in Yemen:
“Freedom of religion or belief was widely denied in 2019.”
It further noted that the Baha’i minority was the “most visibly persecuted” group, but that many others are also facing difficulties. For example, according to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Yemeni Christian community that once numbered 41,000 has shrunk to a few thousand. What steps are the Minister and our Government taking to address freedom of religion or belief violations in Yemen?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As he knows, freedom of religion is something this Government take very seriously. We welcome the long overdue release of six Baha’is from Houthi detention, but it is worrying that they were detained for their beliefs in the first place and that they cannot live freely in their country. We continue to follow the treatment of the Baha’is in Yemen closely, including through meetings of their representatives in the UK and lobbying the relevant authorities, and we strongly—strongly—condemn the continued persecution of religious minorities in Yemen.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The actions of the Iranian regime continue to destabilise the middle east, as my right hon. Friend has said. In particular, the supplying of Houthi rebels with arms is only prolonging the conflict in Yemen. Is my right hon. Friend able to update the House on what discussions he has had with the new US Administration about their policy on Iran and any potential implications for the current conflict in Yemen?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. I can confirm that on Friday, the E3, which of course includes ourselves, and the United States discussed a united approach—or discussed how a united approach—could address our shared concerns about Iran. We will of course continue to work with the new Administration in the White House as well as with our European partners to pursue this agenda.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Will the Minister accept that there is a serious and huge humanitarian disaster in Yemen at the present time: 80% of the population are in need of aid and, as others have pointed out, hundreds of thousands have died and many more are on the brink of starvation? Britain’s contribution over the last five years has been to sell to Saudi Arabia billions of pounds of arms and logistical equipment that have been used to bomb Yemen. Will he welcome the moves by Martin Griffiths to go to Iran to try to broker a regional peace agreement that will bring about a long-term peace, but will he also give a clear commitment that we will no longer supply any arms to Saudi Arabia so long as the war in Yemen goes on?
James Cleverly
I have spoken with Martin Griffiths on a number of occasions, and the United Kingdom fully supports his role in trying to bring about peace. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the provision of arms to the conflict. I do not remember recently hearing him criticising Iran for their support, with weapons, to the Houthis and the devastation that Houthi military activity has caused to the people of Yemen. Were he to do so, I think his criticisms of this Government’s actions might carry a little bit more weight.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]
It is extraordinary that there has still been no mention of the malign influence of Iran in this whole tragic situation. The humanitarian crisis has got far worse since we last debated the situation in Yemen back in September, with 2 million children now out of school, half of all medical facilities having been destroyed and at least one child dying every 10 minutes, as we have heard. Will the Minister undertake that, at the pledging conference in March, the UK will maintain its very generous aid towards Yemen and perhaps work with partners to see how we can make vaccines available in the battle against covid, which is just one of many battles that that country faces at this time?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the UK’s contribution in Yemen. As I have said, we have contributed £1 billion since the conflict started. He will know that the official development assistance budget will be constrained because of the economic situation brought about by coronavirus. He also made the very important point that cash is not the only way that the UK is supporting people in Yemen. We have worked with our international partners to try to pursue peace. He also mentioned vaccinations in response to the coronavirus. I am very proud of the leading role that the United Kingdom took in working with international partners to raise funds to roll out vaccinations to those countries that were unable to do so, and I have no doubt that the UK will continue to be a leading player in the equitable and global distribution of vaccinations, as they are manufactured.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
For too long, Yemen has been the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, so what steps is the Minister taking to protect UK aid spending to Yemen from his Government’s cuts, and how is he encouraging the participation of women and girls in conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Yemen?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Lady for the points that she has made. As she knows, coronavirus has, in the UK and around the rest of the world, had severe and detrimental effect on our economies, and this will have an impact on our aid spend. Nevertheless, Yemen will remain a UK priority country, and we will continue to use the full force of our diplomatic efforts to bring about peace. I am also glad that she raised the importance of women peacebuilders. I myself have spoken—virtually, unfortunately—with women in Yemen. I am the ministerial lead for women, peace and security, and I have on numerous occasions called for the voices of women in Yemen and further afield to be right at the heart of decision making about peacebuilding. I will continue to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Two of the most worrying aspects of the role of the Houthi rebels in this conflict are, first, their use of increasingly advanced and increasingly long-range missile technology procured from Iran, targeted indiscriminately at civilians in Saudi Arabian cities and, secondly, their persistent recruitment and engagement of child soldiers. How are these two issues best addressed?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have seen recent news about long-range attacks by the Houthis on Riyadh and, as I mentioned in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the use of child soldiers is of very significant concern. Ultimately, the best way to address both those problems is to bring about peace in Yemen as quickly as possible, and that will absolutely be a priority in the work that we do. We fully support Martin Griffiths and the UN-led peace process, and we speak directly with regional partners, with the Government of Yemen and with the Houthis directly to encourage them to the negotiating table to bring about a political solution, because that is really the only sustainable way of protecting the very people that my hon. Friend has identified.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
May I say once again to the Minister, as I have to his predecessors, that the Scottish National party unequivocally condemns the actions of Iran in this conflict and the atrocities committed by the Houthis and by everybody else? The difference is that the United Kingdom is not providing weapons to Iran or to the Houthis, but it is providing £5.5 billion-worth of weapons to the Saudis. The only reason that the British Government have no evidence that those weapons are being used in deliberate attacks on civilians is that they have made a great point of not looking hard enough in the right places where everyone knows the evidence is. So will the Minister explain how the continued provision of weapons to one party in this conflict is helping to end the conflict? If he cannot do that, will he agree that the best contribution that Britain can make to peace in Yemen is to stop arming Saudi?
James Cleverly
I am genuinely amazed that the hon. Gentleman in some way equates a UN-recognised state—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—and its legitimate right to defend itself against the attacks that we have heard detailed by Members of this House, with an organisation that is not a state actor.
The UK supports the pursuit of peace. We do speak with the Houthis, but ultimately we look to support the legitimate Government of Yemen, which was, in our assessment, attacked by the Houthis. To equate the actions of a nation state in defending itself with the actions of a group of people trying to prevent peace embarrasses the hon. Gentleman and he should reflect on making a false equivalence between the two.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have a long personal memory of Houthi atrocities and well recall the activities against my father’s battalion, the Aden Protectorate Levies, when I was a boy in Aden. Several of my father’s brother officers were killed—one in a very brutal way—by Houthis in June 1955. It does not surprise me that the Houthis have utterly failed to reciprocate the Saudi-led coalition’s unilateral ceasefire, and they have recently made a grievous attack in Aden. Apart from fully supporting the United Nations special envoy Martin Griffiths’ efforts to secure a lasting peace, is there anything more that we in the UK can do about it?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend and I have spoken privately about this issue and he knows that I have a huge amount of respect for his knowledge of the region, born out of his personal experience and that of his family. Our assessment is that the best way to bring about meaningful peace is to work through the UN and the work of Martin Griffiths. We support his work by speaking directly to the various parties involved—with both the Government of Yemen and the Houthis directly —to encourage them to bring about a meaningful political resolution to the situation. I genuinely hope that in years to come other people who sit on these Benches will not have repeatedly to see deaths and conflict in Yemen, as my hon. Friend has done. The UK will continue to work tirelessly to bring about a sustainable, peaceful resolution to this long-standing and difficult issue.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) [V]
This year will mark the seventh anniversary of the start of the war in Yemen, which has led to the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. UNICEF has described Yemen as “a living hell”. Last week, the US pledged to stop support for offensive Saudi operations in the country; does the Minister agree that it is now time for the UK to follow suit and commit to go that extra mile so that we can stop this horrific war?
James Cleverly
The thing that will stop the war is if the Houthis respect and reciprocate the Saudi-led coalition’s unilateral ceasefire that we saw last year. Unfortunately, we see through things such as the attack on the Yemeni Government at Aden airport, the drone attacks on Yemen and the other attacks raised by right hon. and hon. Members in this House that at the moment the Houthis are not reciprocating the overtures towards peace. We strongly encourage them to do so. We will work with the international community to support meaningful peace efforts and we will do what we can to alleviate the humanitarian situation caused by the conflict. That is our commitment to the people of Yemen, and that commitment is enduring.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
Yemen has been described as one of the worst places in the world to be a woman, and has for 13 consecutive years been ranked last in the World Economic Forum global gender gap index. With the situation continuing to deteriorate for both men and women, and with famine, human rights abuses and the use of sexual violence commonplace, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that the UK Government are doing all they can to work with all the parties involved to bring this dreadful civil war to an end, support victims of sexual violence, and allow the country to rebuild and recover in peace?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for the point that she has raised. When I made a virtual visit to Yemen, I was able to speak to Yemeni midwives and medical professionals. Their reports of the situation, particularly for women, were horrific. On a personal level, I found it very difficult to deal with, which is part of the reason why I and the UK Government are so committed to being a leading player in the pursuit of peace in Yemen. The conflict brings a particular horror to the lives of women that we want to address and to alleviate, but the best way of doing so is to bring about a meaningful and lasting peace. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I will do what I can to ensure that the voices of women are at the heart of those peace negotiations and beyond.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I welcome this urgent question, because the humanitarian situation is just dire. I heard what the Minister said about the rigorous nature of British arms licences, but I am afraid that it just sounds like whataboutery while innocent people are being killed by British-made arms. The Biden Administration have made absolutely the right call on this, so can the Minister explain to the House how our selling arms to Saudi Arabia will assist the UN special envoy for Yemen in his diplomatic efforts in trying to secure a negotiated political solution to this dreadful conflict?
James Cleverly
The ability of a nation state to defend itself is widely recognised as legitimate. The UK’s work, both bilaterally with the Government of Yemen and also through Martin Griffiths and the United Nations, is a completely separate issue. We are working very hard, and we will continue to do so, to alleviate the humanitarian situation until a sustainable peace is brought about. We will work just as hard to support Martin Griffiths and the United Nations and the regional players to bring that peace about.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
The United Nations said last week that it had indefinitely delayed the salvage operation off the coast of Yemen to avert an ecological disaster from the oil tanker FSO Safer, which holds roughly 48 million gallons of oil, citing a failure by the Houthis to guarantee the salvage team’s safety in writing. Has the Minister any further information on the efforts to stabilise and empty the oil tanker, and has he any indication that the new Biden Administration will prioritise this in their agenda in Yemen?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have liaised directly with the Houthis on this issue. The ecological disaster that would inevitably happen were the oil from the Safer tanker to be released into the sea is unimaginable, and we must do everything we can to prevent that from happening. Ultimately, it is up to the Houthis to ensure the safety of the people who would seek to secure that tanker. We have encouraged and we will encourage them to deliver on that promise so that we can avert what would be the worst ecological disaster probably in our lifetime—it is significantly larger than the Exxon Valdez spilling—costing an estimated £20 billion to repair.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Yemen is the world’s gravest humanitarian emergency, with 80% of the Yemeni population reliant on humanitarian assistance and protection. If President Biden’s decision to end support for Saudi Arabia’s offensive operations in Yemen was part of his pledge to restore US moral leadership, how would the Minister characterise the UK’s continuing support for and arming of Saudi Arabia —moral indifference, perhaps?
James Cleverly
The UK has played a leading role in pursuing peace in Yemen. I have spoken to the representatives of the Government of Yemen and representatives of the Houthis, as well as to Martin Griffiths, in pursuit of that. The UK absolutely stands by its leading position in attempting to bring about a meaningful and sustainable peace in Yemen.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to this timely urgent question. What role can the UK play to ensure that all partners in the region are working actively to end the war in Yemen?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right to highlight the diplomatic work that is necessary in this. The UK plays a very active role: as a humanitarian donor in our own right; in encouraging other countries around the world and the region to support the humanitarian effort; and in encouraging active engagement both within Yemen and beyond Yemeni borders to bring about a coalition of the willing to drive forward the peace agenda. We will continue to act as humanitarian supporters, and as the convener and encourager of the diplomatic efforts to bring about peace.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
This is a complex conflict, on which any sensible Government would not take sides. There is clearly evil on all sides, and the Houthis are some of the worst of all of them. But the UK has repeatedly sided with Saudi Arabia, its coalition partners and even its proxy terrorist group, al-Qaeda in Yemen. The Government have been found guilty by British courts of illegally approving arms sales, and even broke UK court orders to prevent further arms sales last year and had to apologise to the courts. Surely now is the right time to stop the rhetoric and mistruths that we have the strongest arms control in the world—we do not—and to follow the US lead, stop British complicity, stop the arms licences being approved, and revoke those that continue to be extant. Will the Minister just do the right thing?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman’s comments equate the activities of regional players as equal—I am sorry, but it is almost beyond credible. His deployment of the word “evil” betrays his prejudices, rather than any flaw in UK Government policy. We will continue to pursue peace in the region and to support humanitarian efforts until that peace is brought about.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is clear that the reason the Houthis will not meaningfully engage in the quest for peace is that they continue to get militarily, financial and political support from an Iranian regime, so may I ask the Minister what steps the UK is taking to pressure the Iranian regime to end this reckless and destabilising intervention?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right; Iranian involvement is without a doubt prolonging the conflict, and therefore, by extension, prolonging the suffering of the people of Yemen. We support the work of Martin Griffiths and the United Nations in attempting to bring about a resolution to this issue by speaking to all the parties involved, and we will work with our E3 partners and the new Administration in the White House to put pressure on Iran to stop supporting the violent activities of the Houthis and to help us bring about peace in Yemen.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Despite the UK Government’s claims that they provide training to the Saudi-led coalition to avoid civilian casualties and prevent Saudi Arabia from breaching international humanitarian law, there is no sign that that has reduced the deadly toll of the air raids. How can the Government justify not only profiting from the crisis in Yemen through arms deals, but spending £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money since 2016 via secretive funds to bolster the Saudi forces as well?
James Cleverly
The UK is proud of the role that we have taken in trying to uphold international humanitarian law, working with countries around the region to try to improve and support their institutions. That is part of our ongoing agenda of being a force for good in the world, and we are proud of that role.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Other Members have raised the issue of the nefarious activities of Iran, acting in a proxy fashion in Yemen. The reality is that the people of Yemen are suffering as a result. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential for the United Kingdom to retain good relations with Saudi Arabia, to ensure balance in the region and to eliminate the humanitarian problems that are occurring in Yemen as a result of Iran’s activities?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; Saudi Arabia is one of the larger contributors to humanitarian support for the people of Yemen, and maintaining good bilateral relations is an important part of that. More broadly, it is also the case that Saudi Arabia is a strong bilateral partner on a whole range of issues, including security issues, which keep British people and British interests, as well as Saudis, safe. We will continue to work with it, with the Government of Yemen and with other countries in the region to try to bring about a sustainable political solution and peace for the people of Yemen.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
UK Shellfish Exports
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU ban on UK shellfish exports.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We have a long-standing trade in live bivalve molluscs to the EU from UK waters. This has benefited both our own shellfish industry and EU restaurants and retailers, which rely on these premium products from the UK.
Recently, concerns have emerged for our trade in live bivalve molluscs to the EU coming from UK class B production waters that have not been through purification or have not cleared testing. The European Commission has changed its position in recent weeks. It advised us in writing in September 2019 that the trade could continue. We shared the Commission’s view and worked with the industry on that basis, and that included explaining that for one small part of the industry—wild harvested molluscs from class B waters—there would need to be a pause while we awaited new export health certificates to become available in April, but that, in line with the guidance from the EU, trade in the molluscs from farms could continue uninterrupted.
We continue to believe that our interpretation of the law and the EU’s original interpretation is correct, that the trade should be able to continue for all relevant molluscs from April, and that there is no reason for a gap at all for molluscs from aquaculture. However, last week the Commission gave us sight of instructions that it sent to all member states on 3 February, stating that any imports into the EU from the UK of live bivalve molluscs for purification from class B waters, such as the sea around Wales and the south-west of England, are not permitted. Exports from class A waters, such as we find around parts of Scotland, may continue.
Bringing an end to this traditional and valuable trade is unacceptable, and I recognise that it is a devastating blow to the businesses that are reliant on the trade. While we do not agree at all with the Commission’s interpretation of the law, we have had to advise traders that their consignments may very well not be accepted at EU ports for now. I am seeking urgent resolution to this problem and have written to Commissioner Kyriakides today. I have emphasised our high shellfish health status and our systems of control. I have also said that if it would assist the trade, we could provide reasonable additional assurances to demonstrate shellfish health, but that this must also recognise the existing high standards and history of trade between us. It is in the EU’s interests to restore this trade. Many businesses in the EU had invested in depuration equipment and are configured around managing the export of molluscs from class B waters.
We have met the industry several times, and it is of course extremely concerned. We are working well with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, which is taking up the issue in meetings with European counterparts. The molluscs affected include mussels, oysters, clams and cockles. In general, the scallop trade is less affected. Scallop exports may instead undergo pre-export testing, as was the case before exit. However, we know some businesses have not traditionally been working in that way, and we are discussing with them how we may help. The issue does not affect molluscs landed in Northern Ireland. It does, however, affect movements from GB to Northern Ireland.
I know that this issue will be of great concern to many exporters around the country. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will continue the technical discussions with the European Commission, and I will update the House with any developments in due course.
Stephanie Peacock
Whoever is to blame, the fact is that shellfish farmers and fishermen are not able to export their most valuable product to their most important market. The rule banning imports from third-party countries of untreated shellfish from class B waters has been in place for decades. The Secretary of State claimed in front of the House of Lords EU Environment Sub-Committee last week that the EU had changed its position on how the rules would affect the UK. He had originally told the industry that the ban would be lifted in April, but we now hear it will not. On that basis, will he publish and put in the Library all the correspondence between his Department and the EU that demonstrates why he believed a change would occur? Can he explain to the House today what mechanism he expected the EU to use to make that change?
The letter that the Secretary of State has published today is welcome, but it does not answer those questions. It refers to contact in September 2019, when the UK’s future trading agreement still was not clear. Many fleets are unable to sell their catches and exporters unable to ship and trade. What assessment has his Department made of how many businesses and employees are affected by the situation? What provision has his Department made to use some of the £23 million compensation fund that the Government recently announced to support the businesses who are unable to trade and how long will that support last? A multimillion pound industry has ground to a halt overnight. Jobs and communities are at risk. Unless this situation is resolved, the UK shellfish industry will not survive.
George Eustice
The hon. Lady refers to the evidence I gave to the House of Lords, and indeed that is entirely in line with what I have just set out. It is the case that in September 2019 the European Commission told us that for wild caught molluscs there would be a need for a new health certificate and, when that was discussed more recently, indicated that that could not come on stream until April. The Commission said that the existing trade in farmed molluscs could continue under existing export health certificates, so it has indeed changed its position. The hon. Lady asks whether I would be prepared to put that correspondence in the Library; I am happy to do so, including the letter I have written to the Commission today and that earlier letter from 2019.
The hon. Lady asks what we wanted to have changed. The answer is that we do not really want anything to be changed. We simply want the European Union to abide by its existing laws. The export of molluscs is governed by the animal health regime, and falls under directive 2006/88/EC and regulation 1251/2008. The directive and regulation are clear that the export of bivalved live molluscs is indeed lawful.
The Commission now seems to be pointing to separate public health regulations, namely regulation 853/2004 and regulation 2019/628, and suggests that they are the reason for a prohibition on sale. Again, that is incorrect, because legislation is clear through article 12 of the Commission implementing regulation 2019/628, which makes it clear that it does not apply where the molluscs are exported to a depuration centre. That is because when they are sent to a depuration centre, they are not yet food for sale. Therefore, the reason given by the European Commission for this change in position is not consistent with the EU’s existing law. That is why we will continue to raise these issues with the Commission because under both the aquatic animal health regime and the public health regulations that the EU has cited, there is no legal justification for a bar on this trade.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
This is all very disappointing and unfair. Following what the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) has just said, I have many small independent fishermen and wholesalers whose very livelihoods depend on the export of live molluscs to the European Union. I know that my right hon. Friend is working very hard on the issue, but will he redouble his efforts? We just want the law to be upheld. The EU changed its mind on vaccines; perhaps it will change its mind on shellfish.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We believe that the EU has simply made an error in interpretation of the law in all the regulations it has cited. We are working closely with it to try to resolve this at a technical level. We do not think that the ban it has put in place is at all justified and, indeed, it represents a complete about turn on everything the EU has told us to date. We want the EU market to have access to the fantastic shellfish we produce in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
The past five weeks have been an absolute nightmare for food-exporting businesses. Fishing businesses face bankruptcy, dairies cannot shift their cheeses, and meat was sitting rotting in lorries, stuck in customs. Small businesses ended mail order deliveries to Northern Ireland and European truckers are refusing UK loads bound for Europe for fear that they will end up stuck in a lorry park in Kent. Forty years of building good customer bases in Europe have been swept away in one month by this Government’s incompetence. The Government blamed the companies for not getting the paperwork right, said it was teething problems or blamed the French, the Dutch or any other big boy who might have done it and run away. Will the Government accept that the fault and the blame lie with them, because they made a bollocks of Brexit? Will they go back to the EU to seek a grace period and new negotiations on market access, even if that means accepting some regulatory alignment?
George Eustice
We will not accept regulatory alignment. This country voted to become an independent, self-governing country again, and to make its own laws again. We were elected as a Government on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver what people voted for in the referendum, and that is what we have done.
Of course, there have been teething problems in these early stages, as people familiarise themselves with new paperwork—not just businesses, but border control post inspectors in France and in the Netherlands, who are also on quite a steep learning curve. They are getting better, and we are working with them to iron out difficulties: for instance, the French at one point said that everything needed to be in blue ink, but they now accept that that is not correct and is not what is required in law. We are working to iron out those difficulties, working with authorities in France, the Netherlands and Ireland to try to improve these processes, and of course we would be willing to have a discussion with the European Commission about how we might modernise some of the forms they have to make them more user-friendly.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
I did not realise that “bollocks” was parliamentary language, Madam Deputy Speaker, but obviously that is for you to decide.
My right hon. Friend is very familiar with the Filey fishing community, and lobster and crab are important markets for them. Food exporters of all types are currently finding it more difficult in instances to export to the EU than to non-EU countries and, as he said in his opening remarks, this seems to be a consistency problem related to a common understanding of the rules. Will he do whatever he can to build an agreement that deals with food and plant exports and resolves these issues as soon as possible?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have focused my comments so far on bivalve molluscs, where the European Union is now proposing an outright ban, which is a change from its former position. We are aware that there have also been some teething issues in other sections of the shellfish industry, notably crabs and lobsters, particularly when they are exported live. There have been improvements: a lot of consignments are now going through the short straits, clearing border control posts, often in no more than 45 minutes, and reaching their destination on time. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the paperwork associated with that could be improved. That would require the EU to engage constructively in such a discussion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
On the matter of unparliamentary language, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is quite right to question the matter. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) uttered a phrase that I would not have allowed had she directed it specifically at any individual Member of this House. I did not interrupt her for the way in which she used it in her question, but I remind all hon. Members that regardless of whether they are participating virtually or physically, they ought to be very careful never to use any language that could be considered offensive. We are honourable Members in this place.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
Families in Flookburgh in my constituency have fished on the sands for centuries. In recent generations, they have built a market that means the majority of their catch is sold in France. The Government’s failure to secure export rights for Flookburgh fishermen is a negligent betrayal of my communities. My constituents do not care whose fault it is, and are not impressed with the Secretary of State’s buck passing while their livelihoods are destroyed. Will he be clear about what he will do to compensate my constituents and restore their access to live shellfish markets, as they had been promised?
George Eustice
The UK Government, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and other bivalve mollusc producers around the country were all promised by the European Commission that this trade could continue. We are all greatly disappointed by the about-turn by the European Union, which made the change just last week. I have written to the Commissioner setting out why that approach is wrong in law. We will be progressing those technical discussions, so that this trade can resume, since there is no justification—neither animal health nor plant health—for such a ban to be put in place.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend share my utter frustration that the European Union has completely changed its position on the rules governing the export of unpurified shellfish with virtually no notice, putting UK exporters in an extremely difficult position and hardly acting in the EU’s promised spirit of fairness and co-operation?
George Eustice
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s frustration at the way the EU has conducted itself in this matter. It changed its position just last week, having assured us all along that it simply sought a new export health certificate for wild-caught molluscs. That is why we want to work with the EU to try to get this situation resolved. There is no justification for it whatsoever.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
May I seek clarity from the Secretary of State in relation to the measures being taken to support the Northern Ireland fleet in making the shipment of shellfish landed in GB and returned to Northern Ireland unfettered? May I also take this opportunity to urge him to ensure that opportunities are maximised for our Northern Ireland fleet by delivering a full Brexit dividend in the allocation of extra quota won from the EU?
George Eustice
As I said in my opening comments, the ban that the EU proposed does not affect bivalve molluscs that are landed into Northern Ireland or that are farmed in Northern Ireland waters. It is a restriction on GB trade, although under the Northern Ireland protocol, it could affect the trade in these molluscs from GB to Northern Ireland. As the hon. Lady points out, we are working on other issues with the Northern Ireland industry, particularly around the allocation of new quota as we depart from relative stability.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of the Cornish fisherman who died while fishing off the coast of the Isles of Scilly at the weekend and remember the fishermen onboard who witnessed this horror.
The Government and the Secretary of State are right to do everything to unblock this. Shellfish is normally purified or processed in the EU before it is distributed to supermarkets, restaurants and bars. Surely a further course of action available to the Government is to urgently fund the setting up of the necessary processing plants in the UK and identify what other infrastructure investment is needed to satisfy and increase our export market. Will the Secretary of State support those investment priorities, including here in Newlyn?
George Eustice
First, I join my hon. Friend in offering our condolences to the family of the fisherman who was tragically killed in an accident off the Isles of Scilly over the weekend. It is a reminder that fishing is a dangerous occupation, and our thoughts are with his family at this very difficult time.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which we will consider: if we are unable to unblock the current situation and get access to the EU for our undepurated shellfish, one of the options available to us is to support the industry in procuring the depuration equipment, so that it can be done here. We will be exploring that and other options.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Despite the EU’s well documented position on third country exports, the Government breezily assured our shellfish industry that the ban would be lifted. We now know that that is not the case. Agriculture and fishing are devolved; negotiating trade deals is not. It is this Government’s responsibility that the Welsh shellfish industry is now unable to export to Europe, and further proof—if any were needed—that Wales needs a seat at the table when it comes to negotiating. Will the Government now guarantee to cover the costs of all necessary export facilities for Welsh businesses such as Bangor Mussel Producers in Gwynedd, which are presently unable to trade with their export market?
George Eustice
As I pointed out earlier, it is not the case that we sought assurances or thought we had them and that the EU has not made a change to accommodate this trade. Nor is it the case that the EU had a ban on the trade from third countries for bivalve molluscs. Indeed, its own health certificate—in the notes to guide it—makes it very clear it is within scope, because it states:
“This certificate is to be used for the entry into the Union of consignments of live aquatic animals intended for all other aquaculture establishments including purification centres”.
So the status quo law the EU has does allow this trade to continue. That is the guidance that the EU gave us all along. It has changed its position. In the short term, our objective is to get the EU to abide by its own laws and legal processes here. Obviously, if it refuses to do so, or it decides to change its law to make things more difficult, we will consider what steps are necessary at that point to support industry.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Under the terms of the UK-EU trade deal, two committees are to be set up: a trade-specialised committee on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; and a specialised committee on fisheries. If those are not being set up, which they should be given the urgency of those issues, surely it is right to move towards an arbitration panel to figure out what can be done. The fishermen of Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth are incredibly worried about that point and, if they go under, they expect compensation from the EU for changing its mind over this issue.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Under the trade and co-operation agreement, there is provision for a specialised committee dealing with SPS issues. There are some early discussions on what that would look like—it would probably be a senior level technical group, probably led by our chief veterinary officer. At the moment, the issue is that the EU, because it has not even got around to ratifying the TCA, is not yet in a place to have formal discussions on how we would form those groups. That of course does not prevent us from doing what we are doing, which is working very closely with the EU at a technical level to iron out the difficulties.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister and Conservative Ministers made grand promises about how they would take back control of our fishing waters and how the fishing industry would prosper. The Leader of the House stood there recently, smiling and saying that
“they are now British fish, and they are better and happier fish for it.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 510.]
The reality, however, is that our shellfish industry is on the verge of collapse and that, thanks to this Government, costly new red tape and bureaucracy are holding back British businesses and our economic recovery. Does the Secretary of State accept that no business, consumer or community should have to pay the price for this Government’s incompetence?
George Eustice
The reality of the trade and co-operation agreement is that its fisheries section delivered a 25% uplift in fishing opportunities, a rebalancing of the sharing arrangements and an abandonment of relative stability as the quid pro quo for granting the EU continued access to our waters for five and a half years. We are free to review it after that. We also have the freedom to set our own regulations in this area. But we recognise that there have been teething problems. That is why the Government announced a new £23 million fisheries disruption fund to support those businesses that struggled with the paperwork in the initial weeks.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Fishermen who land scallops into Scarborough and Whitby have been told by their wholesalers that there is no market for their fish, so they are currently tied up, despite approaching peak season, which ends at the end of April. Is the situation with regards to the European Commission—this flies in the face of the advice it gave in September 2019—an example of its vindictiveness, or its incompetence? Will the Secretary of State write to the chair of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, whose job it is to hold the Commission to account?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes an important and a good suggestion, so I will indeed write to the chair of the fisheries committee to ensure that they are apprised of the discussions that we are also having with the European Commission. I am happy to do that.
My right hon. Friend invites me to comment on why the EU might have done this. I am afraid I am not going to be drawn on that, since I do not know. We very much hope that on reflection the European Union will look at this again and realise that the judgment it has made on the legal position is wrong and that it can adjust it at this late stage.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
What compensation do the Government intend to provide to the shellfish industry and other fishing industries, and boats like the Kirkella, which I have mentioned many times and currently remains tied up in Hull unable to fish?
George Eustice
We have announced a £23 million fisheries disruption fund specifically to help those exporters who attempted to send consignments of shellfish, or indeed any other fish, during the month of January and encountered difficulties and delays that led to a verifiable loss. On the issue of access to Norwegian waters to catch cod, which, as the hon. Lady highlights, is what the Kirkella vessel undertakes, it is not unusual, in the absence of a bilateral agreement, for access to one another’s waters to be suspended during the month of January. The normal situation is that once an agreement is in place, that access resumes, and I am sure that the Kirkella would be able to catch anything it might be allocated under that agreement.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
Will the Secretary of State work with fish and general food retailers to promote and sell more of our great fish and other food products to domestic consumers? Will that in mind, will he urgently make grants available to expand cleansing facilities for shellfish, because we will need them for the domestic market?
George Eustice
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important that we build domestic demand. Indeed, many fish processors say that demand in the European Union is flat anyway because of the coronavirus and the lockdown, while UK retail demand remains quite buoyant for some species, although sadly not for all—in particular, the shellfish sector is quite reliant on export trade. He is right that we should do more to promote fish, and we are working on a project with Seafish that the Government will co-fund to help build demand in exactly the way he outlines.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Scotland Food and Drink has said:
“There’s still a huge amount of uncertainty. It feels like we’re scrabbling around in the dark”.
Does the Secretary of State think that suggesting that businesses “give it a go” is alleviating uncertainty for them or perpetuating their feeling of being lost in darkness?
George Eustice
We have been working closely with the industry over the past month to iron out some of the difficulties that have been encountered, helping businesses to understand where they have made some small errors on the paperwork at the beginning, helping to understand from businesses the problems that they are encountering on the French side of border control posts, and helping to understand any errors that fish certifying officers might have made. We are meeting twice a week in a stakeholder group, working very closely with industry to resolve all the problems being encountered.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to send my condolences to the family of my constituent who suffered a fatal accident aboard a Newlyn fishing vessel on Saturday. It is almost a decade since Neil was killed, and I know how they feel.
I know that my right hon. Friend has tried his best, but the time has now come to show the EU that we will not surrender to its games over these shellfish exports. I call on him to start the necessary and frequent boardings on EU vessels in our exclusive economic zone to ensure that they comply with UK laws. If we disrupt their fishing activity, so be it, but we must show the fishing industry support and also provide details of the promised financial support without which our industry will not survive.
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I appreciate that this was a constituent of hers and that it was therefore close to home. All parts of the House also recognise the personal tragedy she suffered with the loss of her husband, Neil.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point about the approach we are taking to the European Union, in many, many areas we have taken a pragmatic, sensible, phased approach in the initial months, but there is no obligation on us to continue that. Indeed, as she points out, we want to see some reciprocation from the EU on the application of common sense and reasonableness. We reserve our position in all those other areas. Of course, it goes without saying that any EU vessels accessing UK waters will need to abide by UK law.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
Our superb west country shellfish sector faces ruin because of the Government’s botched Brexit deal. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that he does not want to water down UK food standards now that we have left the EU, so why not do what fellow non-EU fishing nation Norway does and agree to European food standards? That would solve these problems in one fell swoop.
George Eustice
I do not think it would solve this issue in one fell swoop, since the regulations that require the depuration of molluscs coming from class B waters are already in EU law. This is really a change that the EU is making to its law. It is not even that the EU would accept it if we had the same approach; indeed, standards in our own waters are higher than in most EU waters. I therefore do not accept that offering to align with the EU would be of any assistance at all in this instance. What we need is for the EU to abide by its own laws.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
On vaccines, on Northern Ireland and now on fishing, is it not the case that the EU says one thing and does the other? Will the Government supercharge their investment in the UK fish processing industry so that coastal communities like mine in Redcar and Cleveland can be supported?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend speaks for many Members of the House representing coastal communities. Yes, indeed, as we leave the European Union there is an opportunity to build back those coastal communities and invest in aquaculture, port facilities and fish processing facilities. We have launched a new £100 million fund to support such investment.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Did the Secretary of State know, when the Prime Minister dumped his half-empty EU deal on us on Christmas eve, that it might mean export bans for fishermen from south Wales fishing in the Welsh sea for cockles, mussels and oysters? If he did, why did he not make arrangements for those products to be sold for British consumers, and in particular those in food need? Will he make such arrangements so that those fishermen can face a sustainable livelihood and not possible bankruptcy?
George Eustice
We did not know that there would be such a ban since, at that point, the European Commission was telling us that the trade could continue with the exception of wild-caught molluscs, for which it said there would be a short delay while an export health certificate was designed. This is a complete change in position by the European Union that occurred just last week.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
Businesses such as Menai Oysters and Mussels in my constituency are struggling to export their molluscs because our Welsh sea waters are grade B and they will not be accepted into EU ports. What can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say to reassure local businesses on Ynys Môn that this matter will be resolved?
George Eustice
We are doing everything possible to get the European Union to revisit the decision it appears to have taken and revert to its original interpretation of the law, which we believe to be right. We believe the approach it has taken is not consistent with EU law and is completely unjustified under either animal health or public health reasons. That is why we are working very hard to get the position changed.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
The UK currently has a very basic trading regime with the EU with respect to food, akin to World Trade Organisation rules. Surely these problems with shellfish and other food exports point to the need for a UK-EU veterinary agreement, which could be negotiated through the sanitary and phytosanitary standards specialised committee. Does the Secretary of State recognise that such an agreement would go a long way to defusing many of the current tensions around the Northern Ireland protocol?
George Eustice
I very much agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course, during the negotiations, we made arguments to the European Union around equivalence—the fact that we could recognise each other’s equivalence and have more proportionate regimes. At that point, the EU was simply unwilling to entertain such a discussion, but it has veterinary agreements with countries such as New Zealand, with lower levels of inspection and simpler procedures to enable trade to continue. Of course, we very much hope that, now that the trade and co-operation agreement is in place, the EU will see fit to be much more pragmatic and proportionate in the measures it puts in place.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
At the weekend, I got to enjoy some amazing St Austell bay mussels, which I get to watch being harvested by the sea regularly through my window. However, that exceptional produce, along with Cornish scallops and Cornish oysters, currently cannot be enjoyed by people in France or across Europe because of the change in policy by the European Commission. The Secretary of State will know what a devastating impact that is having on the Cornish fishing industry and how urgently action is required. What discussions has he had with the European Commission about its change in policy, and what hope can he give us of progress being made in the coming days?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend does indeed have some fantastic mussels grown at St Austell; I visited one of the mussel farms there myself. We have written to Commissioner Kyriakides today, but my officials and the chief veterinary officer have been in regular dialogue with officials in the Commission over the last couple of weeks on this matter and, as I said, a change in position manifested itself just last week. We are in regular dialogue, and in my letter to the commissioner I requested an urgent discussion on this matter.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Deepdock, a mussel exporting specialist, says that it now requires 41 pieces of paper to ship 10 bags of mussels to the EU where only one was required before. Is this just, as the Secretary of State likes to say, a teething issue, or is it yet another sign that the Tories’ Brexit deal has completely failed the UK’s fishing industry and communities?
George Eustice
It is the case that people seeking to export all fish or products of animal origin will now require an export health certificate. It is also the case that the design of the forms that the EU prescribes in the schedule to its animal health regulation is sometimes a little clunky and not particularly user-friendly. We have had many suggestions from industry about how the form could be improved, particularly from businesses that are experienced in exporting around the world to other developed countries, many of which do this far better than the European Union. We will obviously seek to learn the lessons from that and try to encourage the European Union to change the nature of its forms.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
This arbitrary action by the European Commission is causing real concern in fishing communities that have already suffered losses from export disruption, and I urge the Secretary of State to confirm details of the compensation scheme. While I strongly support his efforts to have this ban lifted, will he also put in place contingency arrangements to support fishing firms in King’s Lynn and elsewhere, with grants for purification facilities?
George Eustice
As well as seeking to unblock this problem with the Commission and resume the trade, which is obviously our first and most important objective, we are considering other options and other interventions to help the industry to adapt should the EU permanently change its position.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
Does the Secretary of State have any idea of the devastating financial impact that the ban is going to have on historic cockling communities such as Penclawdd in Gower? What conversations has he been having with the Welsh Government to ensure that the fisheries disruption fund reaches Penclawdd?
George Eustice
As I said in my opening remarks, we realise that this situation is devastating for many sections of the mollusc industry. We recognise that a large proportion of bivalve molluscs—in some cases up to 80%—are exported, which is why we are working so hard to get the Commission to revisit its decision. We have indeed had conversations about the fisheries disruption fund. It is a UK-wide scheme and will be open to anybody, including those from Wales, who attempted to export and ran into difficulties.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his letter to the EU Commission that addressed these issues, but what is being done to ensure that generations of fishermen, such as those in Ilfracombe in my North Devon constituency, can return their fleets to the waters and do not moor up forever? Will my right hon. Friend assure desperate fishermen who have had no income all year that they can rapidly access the announced £23 million and the £100 million fund, to give them hope for the future?
George Eustice
We will shortly announce further details on and open the fisheries disruption fund for those exporters who encountered difficulties in January. I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise the impact of the European Union’s change of heart on the bivalve-mollusc industry, which is why we are working to unblock the problem. This particular step by the European Union does not affect the wider shellfish industry, including not only most scallop producers in the catching sector but those doing crabs and lobsters, but we recognise that some of those producers nevertheless encountered difficulties in January, and the fisheries disruption fund is there to support them.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
I associate myself with the comments of colleagues and send my condolences to the family of the fisherman who was lost this weekend.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work to resolve this matter. I reiterate that it is vital that the cash assistance reaches not only the affected shellfish exporters but the smallest boats on the Fal estuary, which are currently tied up and facing serious difficulties. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the opinion of some in the industry that its French market was, in fact, intact and profitable, despite restaurants in France having been closed in November and December, but is now non-existent, which adds to the current issues?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP has an important heritage oyster fishery in the Fal. I have been on board one of the vessels and seen its work at first hand. The export market will of course be important for some oyster fisheries, including the farmed oyster sector. As I have said, we are working very hard to try to get the position resolved. There will be a good future for our fishing industry once we can resolve these particular issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
To allow the Chamber to be prepared for the next item of business, I shall now briefly suspend proceedings for a few minutes.
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a privilege to open this debate today on our Armed Forces Bill, not least because it carries with it such historical significance. Decades after the disaster of the English civil war, the Bill of Rights of 1688 required Parliament to pass an Act every five years to maintain a standing army. That landmark document states that
“the raising or keeping a standing army within the United Kingdom…in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law”.
Centuries on, that pivotal constitutional function still stands, and by reviewing what has evolved into the Armed Forces Act 2006 every five years, this Bill is the mechanism for ensuring that members of our armed forces obey lawful orders. It underpins military command, discipline and justice. Without it, our military would be unable to operate as a professional body beyond the end of 2021. In other words, this legislation is essential for our forces to act effectively, and a vital bulwark of our democracy.
The legislation we are discussing today is as much about our future as about our present and our past. This is a moment of renewal, as will become clear when I move on to discuss some of the Bill’s key measures. It will have far-reaching benefits for defence and for our broader service community, and it is fitting that we are reviving our pledge to our people at this time. Over the past 12 months they have been shoulder to shoulder in the thick of the struggle against covid, performing Herculean tasks in support of our excellent NHS doctors and nurses.
Perhaps no one sums up the enduring spirit of our armed forces through the ages better than the late great Captain Sir Tom Moore. Always humble, never entitled, ever using his unique experiences to help others, he was a special man, a true patriot and the perfect veteran. When I spoke to Captain Tom, I always thanked him not only for his generation’s service, which was the perfect example for mine to follow, but for the example he gave to us all, young and old, during this pandemic. Captain Tom was one of a disproportionate number of veterans who have stood up and served again during this time, and as the UK Government’s Veterans Minister, I pay tribute to them today. This Bill is designed to deliver for them.
The Bill has three main elements, and I will deal with each in turn. First, renewal. I start with clause 1. As previously mentioned, this legislation renews the Armed Forces Act 2006. The 2006 Act covers matters such as: the powers of commanding officers to punish disciplinary or low-level criminal misconduct; the powers of the court martial system; and the powers of the service police. This Bill provides for continuation of the 2006 Act for a year from the date on which it receives Royal Assent. It provides for its further renewal for up to a year at a time until the end of 2026, ensuring that Parliament has a regular opportunity to debate our nation’s armed forces.
Secondly, the Bill makes important changes to the service justice system. This Government are committed to achieving justice in all allegations of criminal offending by or against service personnel anywhere in the world, just as we are equally committed to supporting the victims and witnesses of the most serious crimes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I apologise for intervening so early, but I wanted to do so while the Minister was mentioning justice. In this Bill, he deals with justice to our armed services and forces, but we are still waiting for protection against vexatious allegations in cases from Northern Ireland where people have already been tried and found innocent. I served there back at that same time, and many people I know live in fear that they are going to be called for something that they thought was over, done and gone. When is that legislation going to come in front of the House?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I think it is appropriate that I deal with this matter now, although it may come up a number of times during the debate. Let me be absolutely clear: this Prime Minister, for the first time in this country’s history, has committed to ending the vexatious nature of repeat investigations of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland; this Northern Ireland Secretary has given the same commitments; and we are closer now than we have ever been to delivering on that promise. Those veterans are not left behind. I pay tribute to them for their service. Legislation will be coming in due course from the Northern Ireland Office. The Government are working and are committed to this issue like never before. I just urge a little more patience. Colleagues will know my commitment to the issue, and I am determined to see it through.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I certainly endorse everything that the Minister has said about his own commitment and the commitment of the Government to this issue. May I just make an appeal that, when he does bring forward the legislation for Northern Ireland veterans, it focuses not only on the question of prosecutions, but on the question of investigations, the vast majority of which never lead to prosecutions but are still terribly oppressive? That is what is missing from the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill; it is good on prosecutions, but has not yet done enough about repeated reinvestigation.
Johnny Mercer
My right hon. Friend is very knowledgeable and learned in this space. The issue is a lot more complicated than it is made out to be by a lot of people who contribute to this debate. There is no evidence, essentially, of vexatious prosecutions per se. It is the investigations that are the trouble. There are elements of this Bill that address how we investigate. There are elements not in this Bill that are being brought into the Department, such as a serious crime unit, to ensure that these things can never happen again.
Let me be clear that if we were to invent a system that essentially said, “We will not investigate”, that would be the equivalent of an amnesty, and this Government are not committed to going down that route either. This is a difficult area and it is a delicate balance, but the strategic objective has been set by the Prime Minister; it is one that I and many Members in the House have campaigned on for years, and we will deliver on it. It is a tough ask and a tough battle, but we will win it. I urge patience while we get to the end of this battle.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Minister is not the problem; the problem is the Northern Ireland Office, as everyone knows. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) chairs the veterans support group in this place; he has been followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), a previous Chairman of the Defence Committee and now Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee; and I am a member of the veterans support group. The Prime Minister promised 18 months ago that we would have this legislation before the next general election. Well, we have had the general election and we have had a year, so with the greatest of respect, will the Minister take back to the Northern Ireland Office the fact that our patience is now exhausted? We do not want words and we do not want to be patronised; we want a Bill. Where is it?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and it is a fair point. However, I would just say that we have had 18 months since that election, but this challenge has existed for 40 years—for 40 years—and our predecessors have not dealt with it. It is unrealistic to expect the Northern Ireland Office and the Prime Minister to have delivered on this by now, but they have made that commitment. I would slightly push back on this idea that the Northern Ireland Secretary is the roadblock, as my right hon. Friend has put to me before. That is not my experience, and I am engaged in this every day and I think on this matter every day. That is not fact; what is fact is that this is extremely difficult, but this Government will get it over the line. I am going to make progress now.
Johnny Mercer
No, I will not give way. I will make progress now.
The service justice system remains a fair and effective system, but no system, as we know, should remain static. The service justice system review underlined that we must do more to strengthen it so that our people and their families have confidence that they will receive fair treatment. That is why clauses 2 to 7, along with clause 11, implement important recommendations of the service justice system review. In the interests of time, I will focus today on only the most salient measures.
Clause 7 deals with the notion of concurrent jurisdiction. For offences committed by service personnel in the UK, justice can be delivered through the civilian criminal justice system or the service justice system. The service justice system review of 2020 found the system to be fair, robust and ECHR-compliant, but it also proposed that some of the most serious offences should not be prosecuted at court martial when they are committed by service personnel in the UK, except where the consent of the Attorney General is given. To be clear, the review was not saying that the service justice system should stop dealing with certain categories of cases that occur in the United Kingdom; it was saying that, when such cases come up, controls should be introduced if they are to be tried in the service justice system. Meanwhile, jurisdiction would remain to deal with such cases overseas.
The Government have considered this recommendation fully and carefully, but we have concluded that the concurrency of jurisdictions must remain. We are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur, though there are important improvements that can and should be made to ensure the system is as resilient, robust and transparent as it possibly can be. However, we do agree that the current non-statutory protocols and guidance about jurisdiction must be clearer, so clause 7 of the Bill places a duty on the heads of the service and civilian prosecutors in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree protocols regarding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. We believe that such decisions on jurisdiction are best left to the independent service justice and UK civilian prosecutors, using guidance agreed between them. The Bill ensures that civilian prosecutors will have the final say should a disagreement on jurisdiction between the prosecutors remain unresolved. I want to be clear: this is not about seeking to direct more cases into the service justice system and away from the civilian criminal justice system, or vice versa; it is about guaranteeing that both systems can handle all offending and are equally equipped to deliver justice for victims.
Moving on from clause 7, clause 11 is the first step in creating an independent body to oversee complaints against the service police. To support our world-class armed forces, we need a highly skilled and capable service police, and we are always looking for improvements. Once again, the service justice system review has provided several important recommendations. These include the creation of a defence serious crime capability, something we are pursuing separately since it does not require legislation, but it is the report’s proposal for an independent service police complaints system, modelled on the system in place for civilian police in England and Wales, that we will take further today.
The rules governing oversight of the civilian constabulary are set out in part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is overseen by the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. We are, in essence, replicating that system, by establishing an independent service police complaints commissioner. They will have the power to investigate serious and sensitive matters involving the service police, including those relating to conduct, serious injury and death. They will also set the standards by which the service police should handle complaints. As in the case of civilian police, provision will be made to handle both whistleblowing and super-complaints—those issues raised by designated organisations on behalf of the public about harmful patterns or trends in policing.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I thank Justice Lyons for his contribution in putting together the service justice review, which happened on my watch, as my hon. Friend’s predecessor? I see that the Defence Secretary is in his place. Will he use the opportunity to clarify why certain types of offences—the most serious offences—could not, as per the recommendation, be moved across to the civilian courts which, it was argued, had better experience to deal with these matters?
Johnny Mercer
As I have said, the review was not saying that the service justice system should stop dealing with certain categories of cases. All it was saying was that, when cases came up, controls should be introduced if they are tried in the service justice system. The control that was recommended by the review was the Attorney General’s consent. Instead, we want something that is more transparent for both victims and those accused, that is more resilient and more robust, and that is the protocol that is agreed between civilian prosecutors and service prosecutors, which we think will lead to better outcomes for all users of the service justice system.
Clause 8 goes to the heart of the Bill. As the House is aware, the armed forces covenant was introduced a decade ago. During that time, we have seen an irreversible, strategic shift towards looking after our people. Veterans have found work, reservists have got the time off needed to deploy, and military spouses have received further help in their careers. If we analyse last year’s annual report, we will see how the scope and effectiveness of the armed forces covenant has continued to advance: 79,000 service children in the United Kingdom now benefit from £24.5 million of additional pupil funding; 22,200 service personnel have been helped on to the housing ladder by the Forces Help to Buy scheme; and 800 GP practices in England are now accredited as veteran-friendly with more joining their ranks every day.
Despite the pandemic, we have provided cash boosts for family accommodation, introduced free breakfast and after-school clubs for military children, brought in the veterans railcard and given millions to service charities. We have come far in recent times. As someone who beat a path to the door of this Parliament to force this place to honour the nation’s responsibilities to veterans, I can genuinely say that I can feel the sands shifting under my feet, but we have further to go. Today is an historic day, as we legislate to put the armed forces covenant—that promise between the nation and those who serve—into law. What is still evident is that some members of our armed forces community are still suffering disadvantage in accessing public services. Often the provision that they get is something of a postcode lottery. When disadvantage occurs, it is often because there is little understanding of the unique nature of service in the armed forces.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving way. I welcome what he says, and we on the Labour Benches indeed support the covenant. On the issue of the postcode lottery, which is really important for my constituents in Barnsley, may I push him further and ask whether he will be introducing measurable national standards in the covenant so that there is not that postcode lottery?
Johnny Mercer
We bring out a report every year that attempts to pull together everybody’s different experiences of the covenant. We are clear that we will not prescribe specific outcomes. We want local authorities to adhere to the principles of the armed forces covenant and, because of the way that local authorities deliver their services, to have a due regard in law to consider the covenant but not to prescribe outcomes. That is reflected in the covenant report, which gives us a good firm idea of how the covenant is going down in communities such as Barnsley.
In this clause, we tackle those problems head-on. We are placing a duty to have due regard to the covenant principles on public bodies responsible for the delivery of key functions in housing, education and healthcare. We have chosen those three areas because they are the bedrock of a stable and secure life. Unsurprisingly, they are also raised by members of the armed forces community as areas of greatest concern.
Johnny Mercer
Not at this time.
The legislation does not mandate specific delivery outcomes or advantageous treatment of the armed forces community, not least because it is important that relevant public bodies retain the flexibility required to tailor decisions on service delivery to local circumstances. But the Bill will legally oblige relevant public bodies to consider the principles of the covenant when carrying out specified functions in these three areas. To support its delivery, we are also making sure that public bodies are supported by statutory guidance explaining the principles of the covenant as well as, for example, how and why members of the armed forces may experience disadvantage as a result of their service. Some will say that we are going too far, others that we have not gone far enough, but my colleagues and I carefully weighed up a number of options before devising this response.
Critically, this is just the first step. This legislation will provide the Government with the power to widen the scope of the duty to apply to additional public bodies and include other functions should it be felt beneficial in future; in other words, we are turning the covenant into a minimum requirement—a tangible tool that our service personnel and veterans can use to hold their service providers to account, a tool that has the capacity to deliver today as well as evolve and adapt as society changes.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I think the whole House agrees with him on the need to enforce the armed forces covenant. Critical in any environment, whether the private sector or local authorities, is the role of the armed forces champion, a single person that anybody can go to, and it must be clear who they are. Will the Minister consider putting into the legislation that every local authority must have a designated armed forces champion?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. We carefully considered including such a measure, but local authorities were not supportive because they deliver the principles of the armed forces covenant through a variety of mechanisms and in different ways. They specifically mentioned to the Department and to me as the Minister that they did not want us to specify that sort of outcome, which is why we have put in the “due regard” to pay duty to the principles of the covenant and to bear them in mind when delivering public services. But, as I have said, this is legislation that we will review going forward to ensure that it is working and that it genuinely feels that it works for those who need it.
This reform is also about our broader aspiration.
Johnny Mercer
Not at this time.
By cementing the covenant in the minds of the public, we are not lowering the ceiling but are raising the floor of our collective expectations. For example, my own constituency of Plymouth, Moor View has undertaken many good initiatives to support the local service community. I want others to view their efforts not as exceptional, but rather as a new normal, just as I want my constituents to see their successes merely as a springboard to better and bigger things.
In conclusion, I began by saying that an Armed Forces Bill is always an historic moment, but, by augmenting service justice, by improving our service police and by finally enshrining the covenant into law a decade on, we are cementing its standing further still. Our armed forces people are our nation’s first and last line of defence. We depend on them, but they also depend on us, and that is why it is incumbent not just on those of us in Government but on everyone in this House to work in partnership with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that this nation does right by those who serve, so that decades from now our future personnel will look back on this period and say, “This was the moment”—the moment when our nation finally awoke and delivered on its promise to the incredible men and women who serve our country without question or quibble and defend this proud nation and act on the will of this House; the moment when incremental strategic and irreversible change was delivered in law for our service personnel and veterans and their families. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it will be obvious to anyone who has examined the call list that a very large number of Members wish to participate this afternoon, so there will be an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I join the Minister in his tribute and thanks to the men and women of our armed forces—those deployed to standing commitments, from Cyprus to the Falklands; those serving as part of our NATO defences in Estonia or the UN peacekeeping in Mali; and of course those who are part of the largest ever peacetime deployment in this country, helping this country through the covid crisis. British forces are respected worldwide for their professionalism and for the values that we most admire: integrity, loyalty, discipline and service.
This Armed Forces Bill renews the legal basis for our armed forces and system of military law, and in turn also renews the nation’s commitment to our forces personnel through the covenant; and, with almost 70 speakers from all parts of the House, it is quite clear this afternoon that the House is determined, together, to do exactly that.
Labour supports this legislation. We share that aim, and we welcome the order that will follow this debate to extend the present Armed Forces Act from the end of May until the end of December, so that Parliament has the time to give the proper scrutiny to improving this Bill. As it stands, this Bill is a big missed opportunity—the opportunity to make good in full on the commitments in the armed forces covenant, so that Britain becomes the best country in the world to serve and to be a veteran; the opportunity to fix long-run problems for forces personnel, their families and veterans, which have become so clear over the last decade; and the opportunity to set a framework for the armed forces that is fit for the challenges and complex threats that Britain must face.
Let me make this point about the Armed Forces Bill, in particular to Government Members who are used to toeing the line on legislation. This Bill is different. This Bill is bipartisan and goes next to a Select Committee, not a Public Bill Committee. The Bill can be improved from all sides as it goes through Parliament. The Bill rests on the groundbreaking Armed Forces Act 2006, which consolidated half a century of service law. To stress the point, on Second Reading of that Bill, in 2005-06, a Government Back Bencher made a strong argument for a service complaints commissioner, which at first was knocked back by the Secretary of State, John Reid. However, by the time the Bill became an Act, the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) had been incorporated fully into the legislation. He will no doubt have fresh proposals for this Bill to put to this Secretary of State.
On clause 8, we stand fully behind the armed forces covenant and the aim to give it full legal force. In fact, in 2009 Labour in government consulted on introducing legally enforceable rights for the forces, their families and veterans, and our 2010 manifesto proposed to enshrine those rights in the armed forces charter. I am therefore pleased that the Secretary of State could say on publication of the Bill at the end of last month:
“For the first time ever we are putting into law the Armed Forces Covenant.”
The Secretary of State might just want to let David Cameron know that. In fact, he might be surprised to learn it, because he boasted in 2015 that he had already done so, saying:
“We are the first Government to put the military covenant properly into law”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 961.]
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry that the Minister did not want to take interventions. He said that the armed forces covenant is now 10 years old, but it is actually a lot older. It started in 2008 with the Command Paper under the last Labour Government, and the document he referred to, which came out in 2009, referred not only to putting the covenant into law but giving it teeth. The proposal in this Bill does not have teeth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit strange that the weakened version that we have now has none of the proposals in the 2009 Green Paper? Let us also remember that this is the same Government who, in 2011, opposed the motion tabled by me and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to put the covenant into law.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right, of course. I want to stress, to the extent that I can, the cross-party, long-term and long-run support for many of these provisions. He is right that the covenant has its roots in the previous Labour Government—we called it a charter then, rather than a covenant—but over the past two decades, I believe we have made great strides in providing better services, support and opportunities for service personnel and veterans.
That is to the credit of Ministers who have made it their personal mission, of hon. Members on both sides who have championed the cause, of councils and local agencies that have delivered services to our veterans, and of service charities such as the Royal British Legion, Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, the RAF Families Federation, SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity and Help for Heroes, which have hugely improved Government policy, advanced public understanding and developed direct support for forces and veterans. Those charities welcome the Bill, as I do, but they are disappointed by the limitations of the legislation, as I am.
I must say to hon. Members that, if they read one background briefing for this Bill, they should make it the background briefing that the Royal British Legion has sent to us today. It rightly says that a decade’s experience of the covenant confirms that,
“the range of policy issues that have a significant impact on the Armed Forces community is wide and ever-changing: including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration”.
The Bill is too narrow. It covers only aspects of health, housing and education. The Bill creates a two-tier covenant. It applies only to local councils and local agencies, not to national Governments. The Government are letting themselves off the hook entirely when, as the Legion says, many of the areas in which forces personnel and veterans have problems are the responsibility of national Governments or are based on national guidance to delivery agencies.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the clauses relating to service justice and terms of service were ultimately requested by the armed forces. They should therefore be non-contentious, although I agree that perhaps clause 8 could be more prescriptive. However, to bring the armed forces covenant into statute, to do it equally and to make it deliverable across all local authorities, across all devolved nations and also Northern Ireland, where particular circumstances reign, will be no easy feat. My view therefore is that, far from being overly prescriptive in primary legislation, it may be better to be less prescriptive. Does he agree that we should commend the Bill for what it is, not attack it for what it cannot necessarily be?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this. I think there is potential, as he indicates, for cross- party support for doing more than is currently in the Bill on the implementation of the covenant. The problem is not that it is prescriptive, but that it is prescriptively narrow at present, directed only at local councils and local agencies and not the responsibilities or services of national Government, and that it is too narrow, in that it mentions three areas when the lived experience of armed forces and veterans quite clearly raises problems on a wide range of other fronts. That is the lesson of the experience of the past decade and more—that is the challenge we must meet. This is a once-in-five-years piece of legislation and I want to ensure that we on the Opposition side play a part in helping Parliament to meet that challenge.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) read the Green Paper of 2009, which actually set out some real teeth there, including setting out a clear charter of what was in the covenant; the ombudsman’s role, so that people could have redress; armed forces champions, as already mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee; and a five-yearly review to coincide with the Armed Forces Act, so that the disadvantage could be looked at. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is letting Government Departments and the MOD off the hook?
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right. He mentions teeth, and I will come to that in a moment. Members on both sides of the House and the Select Committee can help the Minister with his personal mission to do best by forces personnel and veterans. We can make this stronger and better than the missed opportunity that the provision in clause 8 represents. It is too narrow. It creates a two-tier covenant, and it is too weak. It offers no definition of what “have due regard to” the covenant means, and it offers no enforcement for members of the armed forces community who feel they have been let down.
That makes the statutory guidance that the Minister promised at oral questions last week essential before the Bill’s Select Committee scrutiny stage. When only one in 10 judicial reviews succeed and the cost of unsuccessful judicial reviews is upwards of £80,000, proposals for easy, accessible redress beyond a judicial review are also essential before the Select Committee stage. I trust that all Members on the Select Committee will want to pursue those shortcomings with the Minister. Let us not allow this golden opportunity to reinforce the covenant remain a missed opportunity, as it is in the Bill.
I turn to the service justice system and clauses 1 to 7. In the five years since the last Armed Forces Act, the Government have extensively reviewed the service justice system, with his honour Shaun Lyons reporting early last year, backed by a service policing review carried out by Professor Sir Jon Murphy. Many of the recommendations from those reviews are in the Bill. Lyons rightly said:
“Independent oversight is a critical factor in bringing transparency and building confidence in policing.”
We welcome the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, modelled on the civilian police’s Independent Office for Police Conduct. We will want to ensure in the Select Committee that the Government get important details right on matters such as time limits for bringing complaints, protections for whistleblowers, scope to consider super-complaints and respective remits for the commissioner alongside the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We also welcome the expansion of the courts martial boards, with new rules on reaching qualified majority verdicts.
However, there are two big gaps. First, Ministers are missing the opportunity to improve confidence and results in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape committed by service personnel in the UK. As the Minister has conceded, Lyons recommended that those cases should be dealt with by the civilian justice system. He pointed out that the military courts secure convictions in only one in 10 cases of rape, while Crown Prosecution Service figures show that the civilian rate is around 50%. Such a move would restore the position that Parliament intended when the principle of concurrent jurisdiction was first introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Secretary of State has so far just said no but has offered no rationale for rejecting that recommendation, and the Minister this afternoon has again offered no justification for rejecting that recommendation.
Johnny Mercer
First, we cannot reject a recommendation that did not exist. That was not the recommendation of the Lyons review, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. Secondly, I have given a justification a number of times: this decision was made because we want to see more integrity and resilience in the system and agree a protocol between prosecuting jurisdictions to ensure that the system works better for everyone. What was advised was Attorney General’s consent. We have gone for better than that, and this will achieve better outcomes for our people.
John Healey
That is not an explanation of why; that is an explanation of what, and the protocol is about the what, not the why. The Government are missing the opportunity to improve the results and the confidence in how these very serious cases are dealt with. If the Minister thinks that this was not a recommendation in the Lyons report, I suggest that he re-reads it.
Secondly, and importantly, the Bill has little to say about fixing the biggest flaw in the service justice system—investigations—and it has nothing to say about investigations of overseas allegations, despite the Minister telling me on Third Reading of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill in November:
“The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]
They are not. He also knows that 99% of the allegations against British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan did not make it to prosecution and would not have been affected by the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. The Government have already had three reviews in the past five years and have more than 80 recommendations on investigation, so I urge them to work with us and with a wide range of peers in the Lords on the changes needed to that Bill.
The Minister quite rightly said that this legislation is as much about our future as our past. This is indeed five-year legislation that will take our armed forces beyond the Government’s integrated review, when it is finally published, beyond its four-year funding plan and beyond the next general election. For it to function as the future framework for our armed forces to keep this country secure, the Bill must fix the flaws that have become so clear since the last Act in 2016.
On maintaining the strength of our armed forces, there is serious concern that Britain’s full-time armed forces remain 10,000 below the total strength Ministers said was needed in the 2015 strategic defence review, and an MOD report revealed over the weekend that all but one of 33 infantry battalions are seriously short of battle-ready personnel. The Minister responded on social media to that report, saying that it is not secret but a “routine update”. I want to see Parliament use the Armed Forces Bill to mandate Ministers to report to Parliament each year on the fighting strength of our armed forces.
On maintaining the pay of our armed forces, the decade of decline since 2010 has seen military pay fall behind and with it, by the way, morale and retention. For instance, last year an Army private was getting almost £2,000 a year less than they would have done if the pay had kept pace with inflation. I want to see Parliament use this Armed Forces Bill as the basis for a debate about making the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body binding on Ministers.
On justice in our armed forces, more than 6,000 personnel serve in Britain’s armed forces from overseas, mainly from the Commonwealth. Their service to our country earns them the right to live in our country, yet the Government charges huge fees to apply for British citizenship, so someone leaving the forces now with a partner and two children has a bill of almost £10,000. It is unjust; it is un-British. I want to see Parliament use the Armed Forces Bill to get Ministers to scrap these unfair fees.
Finally, on the role of reservists in our armed forces, covid has made it clear that our military are essential to our national resilience, not just our national security, and that reservists will contribute more in future to our defence capabilities. While the Government’s moves to make reservist training more flexible are sensible and welcome, I want to see Parliament use the Armed Forces Bill to deal with other problems they face, especially with employers.
In conclusion, the Minister has said to the House that he is open to proposals to improve the Bill. We will take him at his word. We will at times test his word, but we will work with the Minister if he will work with us. We will work cross-party and with a range of interests beyond Parliament to build consensus so that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, really does make the most of this opportunity to strengthen the nation’s commitment to our forces, their families and veterans.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate. May I join the Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces and what they are doing? They watch our backs, they keep us safe at night and, as we have seen with the pandemic, they step forward when the country needs them the most. Perhaps that, if anything, is justification as to why armed forces numbers should not be cut.
The Minister also paid tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, quite rightly, too. Every so often, a kind, selfless character emerges who does something quite simple yet extraordinary, setting an example to us all. He left the world a better place and he was a soldier to the end. He will certainly be missed by the entire nation.
As the Minister has explained, Armed Forces Bills come around every five years, like buses, and we have put some bells and whistles on this one. I want to speak to two aspects of that, which he has mentioned: the first is to do with the armed forces covenant, and the second is the justice review itself.
The armed forces covenant is absolutely well intended, in order to make sure that our armed forces are looked after correctly. In practical terms, this means that regular personnel and their families receive the necessary support when they are moving from one part of the country to the other, whether that be education, housing or welfare. For reserve forces, it means the ability to take time off work given to them by their employers; for veterans, of course, it also means the support that we talk about on a regular basis, not least in the area of mental health. The bronze, silver and gold accolades, awarded to private companies large and small and public organisations to thank them for what they are doing and encouraging them to do more, are working well indeed. Over 4,000 companies across the nation, and every single local authority, have signed this covenant.
I therefore ask how we will actually enforce this. I appreciate that the Government have pledged that the covenant will become part of the law of the land, but there is no reference in this Bill to any enforcement mechanism for ensuring public bodies are held to account if a member of the armed forces community feels they have not been treated correctly. I made the point slightly earlier that this primary legislation is aimed at local authorities, yet the Minister is saying that we cannot create the obligation to have an armed forces champion. I would like him to show me any elected councillor in the nation who would not support such an amendment, were it to be added to the Bill in Committee. I absolutely believe that every single local authority that has signed up to the covenant will support an obligation to have an armed forces champion, making it much easier to identify who is the single point of contact in order to get that support for veterans, reservists and regular members of the armed forces, and indeed their families as well.
Turning to the issue of service justice, I have already made my points about the court martial and the serious offences, and we will endeavour to pursue those in Committee. I will end by saying that the things we will be concerned with are the things that are missing: the vexatious claims aspect has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I know the Minister is engaged with that issue, but we need that to be realised in this legislation.
When it comes to supporting this Bill, given that its function is to confirm that we can have a standing army for another five years, there is little prospect of Britain’s standing army having to stand down because the Bill does not pass. That is absolutely the case; however, a test for the Committee is how we can advance the Bill, improve it and build on it to make sure we do the best for our armed forces, and make sure that whether a person is a reservist, a regular soldier, part of the family or a veteran, we are there to help them.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
This Bill renews our commitment to our armed forces for another five years. As we signal our consent, we should reflect on the hard-won democratic freedoms that enable us to do so, and should recognise that many in the world do not have such liberties. I add my thanks to the members of the armed forces who are currently contributing to our fight against covid, and pay tribute to their service. In Scotland, our healthcare workers will receive a £500 thank you payment; it would be fitting to do likewise for members of the armed forces, and I hope the Minister will join the Scottish National party in calling for that payment.
Unlike the last Bill on the armed forces that we debated, there is nothing controversial in this Bill, and while we will be supporting its progress, that does not mean we are entirely satisfied with what has been presented. While our armed forces comprise some of our most dedicated and professional public servants, their lack of representation means they have little recourse or opportunity to raise issues of concern. The commitment to the armed forces covenant in the Bill falls far short of what it needs to be and ought to be. According to the Royal British Legion, the Bill can and should go further in strengthening the covenant in law.
The Bill is an opportunity to give power to the covenant, but too many areas fall outwith the scope of the Bill, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel. With the ongoing case of eight Fijian soldiers, it is both unfair and unjust that many of our veterans remain without legal status in the UK. The Bill does not hold the Home Office to account or, indeed, include any provisions to rectify that situation.
On housing, anyone who read last week’s National Audit Office report on improving single living accommodation cannot fail to be shocked by the litany of deliberate neglect. Will the Minister confirm whether forces’ housing is covered by the Bill? How can we expect local councils to provide veterans and their families with high-quality housing if the MOD cannot do the same for service personnel and their families? When will the Government lead by example?
Many of the veterans and families who contact me do so because of a lack of support from the DWP, but pension issues, including widow’s pensions, are out of scope of the Bill. Rectifying the situation that means payments awarded for injury or death as a result of service are treated as normal income for DWP calculations is out of scope of the Bill. In fact, the most pressing and difficult issues for veterans all seem to be out of scope.
The risk is that the Bill, according to the Legion, will create a “two-tier Covenant”, under which some matters may be pursued but others are covered only in an annual report. For local authorities, the Bill is supported by a promise of additional funding, which will be key when providing resources. Involved parties only having a duty “to give regard” to personnel and veterans means that there will be a lack of enforcement. The Bill does not put the armed forces covenant properly into law, nor does it guarantee no disadvantage in access to services. It has taken 10 years to get this far; surely we can do better.
The SNP supports a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look to the militaries of Germany, Norway, the USA, Belgium, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, which all benefit from armed forces representative bodies. Such a body should be considered to ensure that our personnel can participate in services that cater for their needs. I have heard lazy arguments from the Government Benches that we could not possibly countenance such a body, as it would undermine the chain of command or could encourage strike action. However, we already have such a body in the Police Federation, which does not allow strikes and does not impact on the chain of command, but it gives voice to those it represents.
Such a federation for the armed forces could negotiate terms and conditions, including establishing a clear career progression structure, the expectation of options for flexible career paths, and guarantees on salary, conditions and pensions. It could be an advocate for personnel to have access to housing that is of a decent standard and is appropriate for their personal circumstance. Such an organisation would substantively fulfil the objectives of the covenant. Despite the lazy arguments, I believe the real reason for Government resistance is that it would give our forces and veterans a real voice.
The Scottish Government have taken their own initiatives in a number of areas. On housing, they offer funding from the affordable housing programme to deliver additional homes for disabled ex-service personnel. They have worked with stakeholders to develop a veterans homelessness prevention pathway. On recruitment and employability, the Scottish Government have sought to help personnel by encouraging skills development and putting military experience to use in the civilian world. They have offered service leavers fixed-term appointments in the Scottish Government. On education, Skills Development Scotland has established a pilot to retrain Scottish veterans and to address skills gaps in the nation’s cyber-security workforce. On health, the Scottish Government have committed to ensuring that all personnel and veterans can access the best possible care, and they have provided funding to Combat Stress and Legion Scotland for befriending and mental health first aid training.
There is always more we can do, but the UK Government should aim to mirror such examples of good practice. Although the Minister would not commit to armed forces champions in local authorities in England, it is notable that in Scotland every local authority already has a veterans champion.
Finally, getting back to the Bill, our issues lie in two areas: its lack of teeth and its lack of scope. There is no one in this place who does not want to improve our offerings to the armed forces, but without the ability to enforce, this Bill will sadly fall short. That said, we will support the Bill this evening, and we look forward to engaging with it as it progresses through Committee. I hope that this time the Minister will be open to accepting amendments.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
By way of a declaration of interests of sorts, my dad is a military historian, so when I was knee-high to a grasshopper, I was talking to veterans and learning about groups of medals. My brother served in the RAF for 18 years, finishing last year. His passing-out ceremony into the ranks, then into a commission years later, continue to be some of the proudest moments of my life. Family stuff aside, thankfully I do not need to be told to be patriotic and support our armed forces, unlike some on the Opposition Benches.
The thing is that our armed forces veterans are everywhere. They are quietly getting on with their day and not shouting about the years of putting themselves in harm’s way to protect us. Across Stroud, the valleys and vale, they are serving as councillors and school governors, working with the British Legion and charities and volunteering in our communities. From covid testing to vaccinations, flooding to border controls, our serving armed forces are deployed across the country to help us in addition to their normal day jobs.
I spoke to an Army veteran earlier. He impressed on me how important this Bill is to the armed forces communities. He asked me to support the Minister, not least given that on the 10th anniversary of our armed forces covenant, we are creating a legal obligation for public bodies. It is a promise by the nation to those who serve or have served, and it is part of a well-deserved thank you, but he reminded me that we cannot rest.
The focus on armed forces personnel is not always thorough and is not always joined up. Even dedicated services do not always recognise the particular experiences of a forces veteran. Tribunals, veterans’ support and other bodies do not always function as hoped, and sometimes there are chronic delays, making matters even worse. The Minister is kindly helping me with a wonderful constituent veteran, who gave his entire adult life to the Army family, only to find that he has since spent years battling to be heard on a range of issues. That is why this Bill is so important.
If our public bodies are to ensure that the principle of special provision for service personnel in connection with housing, education and healthcare is to be effective, there must be oversight. I hear what the Minister says about local authorities, and I am pleased to say that Stroud District Council has adopted the covenant and voted to put a councillor in charge of the work. I am however informed that there is no budget behind the role. Given its importance, I would like to see that happen.
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for strengthening couple relationships and a former family law solicitor, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and Professor Janet Walker for the superb work that they have done with the Ministry of Defence on the report, “Living in our Shoes”. It is not rocket science to work out that couples and families who spend their lives apart due to one person being on tour abroad or move from base to base with children in different schools will struggle more than most and will need help to stop family breakdown. I urge everyone to look at the recommendations of that report.
Finally, a word for our reservists. I received a letter recently from a colonel speaking up for the Gloucestershire Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. He was extremely concerned about the suspension of training, and I share his concern that there are times when reservists should receive more attention. They cannot be turned on and off like a tap, and if they are treated as a non-serious part of the national defence effort, many volunteers will take their energy and commitment elsewhere.
I know the Government care an awful lot about reservists. This Bill amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to replace the full-time service commitment and seeks to put them on par with their regular counterparts. I would like to hear more from the Minister about our crucial reservist forces and how training and other aspects of their roles will be treated going forward. Most of all, I think we are getting closer to the Americans with our love for the veterans.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate as the proud aunt of a serving Royal Marine Commando. My nephew Joseph is one of thousands of north-east men and women who for generations have made our region one of the top recruitment areas for the forces. We certainly owe them a great debt of gratitude.
The north-east’s strong connection to the armed forces is brought home by a number of the excellent armed forces charities based in our region. There are several armed forces charities in North Tyneside alone, and I am honoured to be a parliamentary patron for Forward Assist, an award-winning charity that supports military veterans adjusting to civilian life. It recognised that the needs of women veterans are more often than not hidden, and it established “salute her”, the only UK gender-specific support service to offer tri-service trauma-informed mental health therapy and interventions for survivors of in-service sexual abuse. Walking With The Wounded has its regional hub in North Shields and, only last summer, Operation Veteran opened its premises in the town centre, with a coffee shop for the public and, above that, a veterans’ centre offering support services and activities for veterans and their families.
The success of those charities in North Tyneside is in no small way due to the local authority’s commitment to the armed forces covenant. The council has an armed forces champion, Councillor Gary Bell, who served in the Royal Air Force and ensures that the covenant’s aims are considered in all council policies. In 2018, North Tyneside was the first local authority to fund an armed forces officer to strengthen support for the armed forces community across the borough, with a focus on advising and signposting serving and ex-serving personnel to services such as housing, benefits and health. The council’s Labour cabinet and our elected Mayor, Norma Redfearn, also approved a scheme to guarantee service personnel, veterans and reservists an interview for vacant posts if they met the requirements. In 2019, the authority was recognised for its outstanding support for the armed forces community when it was awarded the prestigious MOD employer recognition scheme gold award.
Local authorities must do all they can to honour the covenant but, as Labour has pointed out, one of the Bill’s weaknesses is that it places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver services such as housing, healthcare and education, but that is not matched by any extra funding from Government. Despite the good work going on in North Tyneside, some very real problems still exist, according to our armed forces champion. Veterans find it hard to access their benefit entitlements and often give up at the first hurdle; there are long waiting lists for access to mental health treatment; and there are not enough decent houses to meet need.
Our armed forces have shown their worth in peace as well as in war: just look at the role they have played during the pandemic. As Councillor Gary Bell said to me, let us get the Bill right and provide those who serve with a promise in law that the state will look after them as a debt of honour. I echo Labour’s demand that the Government must go further and deliver the armed forces covenant in full.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Let me begin, as a former Armed Forces Minister, by expressing my support for the Bill and what it is trying to achieve, and for the Minister who is carrying it through. Clause 8 strengthens the legislative basis of the armed forces covenant, including its two key principles of no disadvantage for the wider armed forces family and of special treatment, where appropriate, especially for those who have given the most. Those principles were articulated the Armed Forces Act 2011, but clause 8 gives them much stronger form, especially in encouraging public sector bodies such as local councils, education institutions and the NHS to adhere to them.
Clause 20 affects the ability to claim war pensions of those from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although that is important, it does little to address the burning injustice of the shameful treatment of those veterans of active service in Northern Ireland who bravely upheld the law against terrorists—both so-called loyalist and republican—for decades as part of Operation Banner. Without their courage and sacrifice, there undoubtedly would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, and we should never forget them.
The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have repeatedly promised to introduce legislation to protect those Northern Ireland veterans from vexatious and politically motivated allegations, but still, even now, not even draft legislation has been published. When he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) published an open letter in The Sun newspaper, on 11 July 2019, that included a “veterans pledge” containing three key commitments.
The first was to
“create an Office of Veterans Affairs within the Cabinet Office”.
That has been done. The second was to
“enshrine the Military Covenant into law”,
which this Bill does. The third—I quote my right hon. Friend’s pledge directly—was:
“New legislation to end repeated and vexatious investigations into historical allegations against our servicemen and women—including in Northern Ireland—to be passed”—
passed—
“before the next General Election.”
That is completely unambiguous—it could not be clearer—and the Prime Minister very publicly signed the letter himself. However, over 18 months and a general election later, where is the Bill?
My friends and I in the Veterans’ Support Group do not doubt the Prime Minister’s sincerity on this; we simply want him to keep his promise. We want action now, not words. That is because some of these men, many of whom are now in their 70s or even their 80s, are being reinvestigated for allegations in relation to which they were previously exonerated, in some cases almost 50 years ago. Some of these men have died, and others are dying, with the sword of Damocles still hanging over them and their families. Unlike some others, our service veterans have no letters of comfort, while the Northern Ireland Office, whose Bill this is supposed to be, continues endlessly to drag its feet for fear of upsetting Sinn Féin. It makes Handforth parish council look efficient.
Tonight, a former leader of the Conservative party, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and two former Armed Forces Ministers to boot, have all made the same call: bring forward the Bill. If everything we have heard this evening about honouring the covenant is true—if we mean it—the Prime Minister urgently needs to knock heads together in Whitehall to get this critical legislation on to the statute book. All we ask is that the Prime Minister fulfils his public solemn promise and thus defends those who defended us.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
Just as when I first took part in Armed Forces Bill debates, in 2016, I am afraid there is a feeling of a missed opportunity. While we will be back here tomorrow to talk about the integrated review, it always strikes me as odd that these changes either to the armed forces covenant or to the service justice system, while welcome and worthy, squander the opportunity that a Bill of this scope has to redefine what the armed forces mean for all of us in the 21st century, in the same way as the integrated review seeks to.
I am afraid we are at something of an inflection point with civil-military relations in the history of this political state. The confluence of two contemporary currents—namely, the politicisation of our armed forces by the Government of the day, and the need for armed forces to redefine their role in society—is, for my part, pushing us towards the creation of a discrete military class removed from the society it has vowed to protect, unrepresentative and poorly understood.
How can we better define what the armed forces are for and what they represent in the 21st century? I have spoken many times in the House about my military family, but it is undoubtedly the case that, with a shrinking armed forces and a move away from the overseas operations that defined the cold war, there is a diminishing number of people across these islands with first-hand knowledge of what military life means.
Let us turn to covid. The pandemic is undoubtedly a threat to the economic and health security of all who live in this political state. Those of us who read the MOD’s threat assessments and global trend papers know that the military have known that all along, so it is bit of a surprise to see such confusion, particularly among many of those sitting—virtually, at least—on the Government Benches, about what the armed forces’ role should be. Over the past year, I have felt myself to be something of a lonely voice in turning the question around: why does there always need to be a military solution to a wide-ranging public health emergency? On several occasions, Government Members have called for the military to take charge of the logistical challenge in some way or another, saying they are happy about the vital role that the military have been playing in support of the civilian uniformed services.
I recognise and am grateful, as we all are, for the service of many on the Government Benches, such as my friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), but I cannot help but conclude that the lived experience of those whom I represent and those in my family are increasingly at odds with the vision of service put forward by the Government. I began this speech by talking about fears of the creation of a military class because I see such differences between the way the armed forces are talked about in the House and the experiences of the predominantly working-class people who make up the ranks. These are people for whom the rather abstract way we talk about military justice makes it an impediment to their availing themselves of it, should that be required—people who often find it difficult to make their way through the alphabet soup of the military charity sector to access the rights to which they are entitled and that they should theoretically be given when the Bill is passed.
For many, muddling through is very much part of the charm and the bonds of forces life, but my almost four years with Defence Committees have shown me that an opaque and inconsistent military justice system, and an opaque and inconsistent application of the armed forces covenant, is the logical end point of a system that is in dire need of root-and-branch reform. Ever since the first Armed Forces Bill that I saw in 2016, there has been the assumption that such reform refers to the need to adapt the civilian sphere to the needs of the military—something that continues to baffle me. Why is it that we do not seek to address this imbalance the other way as well, by allowing the members of our armed forces as many rights that they had as civilians as possible?
As I often say, members of our armed forces should have the ability to form an armed forces representative body; the right to a contract that sets out not only their responsibilities as members of the armed forces but the obligations and responsibilities of their employer, the Government, to them; and the guarantee—
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore.
Our armed forces are, without doubt, one of this country’s foremost and most prestigious institutions. They are held in the highest regard throughout the world as a benchmark of military excellence to which other nations aspire. We should never forget the men and women of the armed forces who serve and have served us so well, wherever that is, at home or abroad. Yet again, during the coronavirus outbreak, our armed forces showed that they were able to offer support and professionalism in times of national need.
We owe so much to our armed forces. Their bravery, discipline and professionalism, and unflinching and steadfast loyalty to duty, are all too often tested in the most challenging and varied environments and circumstances. It is critical to ensure that our veterans’ healthcare needs are met, so I am delighted that the number of GP practices accredited as veteran friendly has recently more than tripled to over 800. I am also aware that the MOD has recently launched HeadFIT, an important tool to support mental health fitness among the armed forces and to promote the good management of mental health. Speaking about mental health is important, but making sure that support is there for those who need it is critical.
Ensuring that our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged by their service when accessing key public services is the very least we can do. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill embeds the armed forces covenant into law. That was a 2019 manifesto commitment that I was delighted to make to my constituents. It introduces a legal duty for the relevant UK public bodies to ensure that our UK armed forces community is fairly treated. From housing to healthcare and from childcare to education and training, our armed forces families face unique challenges, and we must rise up to support them in the way that they support our nation. The Bill is a big step on the way to ensuring that the debt we owe our armed forces is honoured, and I am delighted to support it today.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
The story of the selfless actions and incredible bravery of Corporal Sukanaivalu, who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, is but one example of the kind of sacrifices that were made and continue to be made by Commonwealth servicemen and women in our armed forces. It is therefore deeply regrettable that, despite that sacrifice, they are facing shameful treatment when gaining visas and regularising their immigration status. During their service, Commonwealth personnel are exempt from immigration controls, but within 28 days of their discharge they must either apply for some form of leave to remain or return to their country of origin. After serving four years, they are entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain but must pay the associated costs. As the shadow Secretary of State said, that means that a service leaver with a partner and two children would get a bill just shy of £10,000 to settle in the country that they have risked their life for, right at the moment they are transitioning to civilian life. Without leave to remain, they cannot legally live and work in the UK, claim benefits or access free NHS treatment.
This issue has gained media attention recently following the unsuccessful efforts of eight Fijian British Army veterans to bring legal action against the Government. One of the claimants, Taitusi Ratucaucau, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, was given a bill in the region of £30,000 following an emergency operation after he was deemed ineligible for free NHS care. These veterans may have lost their legal argument, but it is the Government who are now losing the moral one. These men fought for our country and are now living here in limbo, fearing destitution and deportation.
To their credit, the Government have acknowledged that there is a problem and have taken some steps to ameliorate the harm that is being done. The Home Secretary promised me that she was working to correct the situation, and the Veterans Minister has stated his intention to launch a public consultation to introduce a path to citizenship. These measures have my support, but it is time for the Government to stop tinkering and get on with making amends.
To be truly effective, any reforms must address three key areas. First, under current rules, service personnel can apply for indefinite leave to remain after four years, and naturalisation after five. These should be the benchmarks for any fee waiver scheme that is introduced. Secondly, the proposals must also incorporate dependants. Thirdly, the Government must bring forward a plan to help veterans and their families who have already been caught up in this mess. As a show of good faith, the eight veterans involved in that legal action should be granted emergency leave.
Ministers have committed to making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. It is a lofty ambition, but one around which I hope we can all unite. However, if the Government want to ensure that their vision is realised, they must as a matter of urgency deliver justice for all our Commonwealth service personnel. We must never forget that we owe these men and women a huge debt. Telling them to pack their bags is not the manner in which to repay them.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) [V]
As a veteran and an advocate for our armed forces, I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate and to recognise this Conservative Government’s commitment to make the British military the best in the world and to make Britain the best place to be a veteran. I congratulate the Minister on the significant progress that has been made to improve the lived experiences of veterans and their families. I know that his determination to improve their support is matched by the progress he has made on the armed forces covenant.
This Bill enshrines in law the principles of the armed forces covenant. Local authorities will now need to demonstrate due regard to veterans to ensure that the principles of the covenant are upheld. It places a legal duty on councils to meet veterans’ needs, which can now be done in a locally responsive way. Some councils, including Wrexham County Borough Council, have appointed an armed forces champion and are proactive in identifying support services. However, some councils are not so focused, and a requirement in the Bill for councils to appoint a champion would be welcomed.
The scope of the Bill includes housing, health and education. For a veteran living under a devolved Administration, the ownership of these services lies with that Administration—in Wales, with the Welsh Labour Government. However, the Bill does not place a legal duty on the Welsh Government to make them accountable for what they do or do not deliver. The devolved Administrations should be involved, have ownership and be subject to scrutiny on how they support veterans, in line with the legal duty being placed on Welsh local authorities.
There are over 1,800 armed forces charities serving approximately 6.3 million personnel, veterans and families across the UK. A UK-wide charity called Blesma has supported limbless and blinded veterans since world war one. It is quietly doing excellent work. It has highlighted the trouble with veterans receiving timely service when they move between the charitable sector and NHS Wales, specifically around the issue of pain management. Some Welsh veterans find themselves with no other option than to travel from Wales to King Edward VII’s Hospital in London in order to receive adequate pain treatment. Surely this is not acceptable.
The Defence Committee currently has a sub-Committee looking at the experiences of women in the military and female veterans. Evidence sessions are running until Easter, and the Secretary of State for Defence has been supportive in allowing us to engage with serving personnel.
I would like to see more women recruited in our armed forces. Many women have a positive military career and recommend it to others, as do I. However, preliminary findings suggest that six out of 10 women who experience in-service harassment, bullying or intimidation, usually of a sexual nature, do not report their complaint because they have no faith in the service complaints system. They feel that it proves counter-productive to their careers and, in some cases, affects the rest of their civilian lives. This needs to change. The service justice system review—the Lyons review—has made a number of recommendations to improve this area, and I am pleased that they have been integrated within the Bill. However, there is still debate on the issues of murder, manslaughter and rape, and I take note of clause 7 on concurrent jurisdictions. I know that Ministers are working hard to address certain issues. I look forward to hearing that kit such as body armour will soon be designed to fit women and that the veteran ID cards are on their way, working on the back of the very successful veterans’ railcard.
I support this Bill, which, with the pending integrated review and corresponding defence White Paper, will set out a positive blueprint for our military and veterans, and defence sector, going forward.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Government have said that this Bill will help to prevent service personnel and veterans from being disadvantaged when accessing services such as healthcare, education and housing, but again the rhetoric does not match the reality, because clause 8 simply devolves the covenant’s responsibilities to local authorities and other public bodies away from the Government, it provides them with zero financial support to do so and simply states that they have a “duty” to give “due regard” to the covenant. I have been in this place long enough to know that every time “duty” and “due regard” are used as a substitute for “must”, the result is no real change at all. When services are strapped for cash, they adhere to what they have to do, not what they have to give due regard to. It will again fall to charities and local communities to support their serving personnel and veterans.
There are currently over 2,000 charities specifically aimed at supporting veterans and serving armed forces personnel. This alone is testament to the Government’s failures, because those charities are filling a very big gap left by the state. It is they, not the Government, who are providing for our armed forces and veterans, and thank God they are, because without them, the alternative does not bear thinking about.
The Government’s record has been abysmal. Just this year, the Royal British Legion highlighted how let down disabled forces felt by the Department for Work and Pensions. In my constituency pre-pandemic, veterans’ breakfast mornings were held by local charity Veterans Response on a regular basis. I remember the anger that I felt after repeated conversations with proud veterans, who told me that without this breakfast and local food banks, they would be going hungry. Some spoke about having to rely on charity for basic white goods, clothes and shoes. Veterans are yet another group of people who are not protected from the cruelty of the welfare state under this Government.
Let me turn to the mental health of our forces and veterans. The Defence Committee recently heard from Combat Stress and Help for Heroes that they have not really seen any tangible effect of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, nor an impact from any potential change in resources.
My constituent John Taylor is a nuclear veteran. Like other veterans, he has been repeatedly let down. Mr Taylor, who is now 83 years old, was sent to Maralinga in 1957 as part of Operation Antler, where he was involved in the testing of atomic bombs with no protection whatever. Along with others, he has long campaigned for proper recognition and compensation to acknowledge the effects that these atomic tests have had on his health and that of other families. Of those 20,000 nuclear veterans, less than 1,000 are believed to be alive now. Time for justice is running out for all of them.
The north-east, including South Shields, has an incredibly proud tradition of being a high recruitment area for our forces. Many families, including my own, are linked to someone who is serving or who has served. We in South Shields always have and always will take care of our forces and our veterans. We will always treat them with the utmost respect and honour that they deserve. I sincerely wish that this Government would do the same.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
It is right to point out that what I am about to share is personally very hard for myself and my family, but it is also right for me to share this experience as we discuss this Bill.
As I have said before, I was only 17 when I was shot in training, during a live firing section attack. As the bullet entered my foot, it shattered and blew out the corner of my foot, taking several metatarsals and muscle with it. I was left with a clump of bone fragments and shrapnel—nothing like a working foot. Over the coming month, I had many major operations to try to fix my foot and lower leg. My foot could not be rebuilt, but it did not have to be amputated. My foot was saved, but I had no use of it and was told that my military career was over. In the Army’s infinite wisdom, after my foot had been saved they decided to send me to a military hospital to amputate it. It was not an option that I liked. My dad, who died when I was only young, had been in the SAS, so my mum contacted the SAS Regimental Association, which basically said to my regiment, “Give him to us and we’ll rehabilitate him.”
James Sunderland
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s heart-wrenching story; his father would have been very proud of him today. May I quickly ask whether the armed forces covenant would have helped him at that early stage of life?
Stuart Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In the next two minutes, the House will be able to hear what I went through and how the armed forces covenant would have helped me.
The SAS said to my regiment, “Give him to us. We’ll rehabilitate him.” I spent 10 months being rehabilitated by the SAS. I then returned to my unit, the Royal Green Jackets, and went straight on to the streets of the troubles in Northern Ireland. My foot was still part-paralysed, full of shrapnel and did not function, but I could walk, run and carry out the duties of an infantry soldier—very painfully, but I could do it.
What was getting worse was my head; as my physical aspects were recovering, my mental health was really impacted. In the evenings, I used to relive the time that I got shot and would wake up screaming, covered in sweat. It was hard, but I realised that alcohol subdued the pain and I could escape it for a short period of time. Violence was also a way of releasing the anger that I had inside me. I was on a slippery slope. I enjoyed and often excelled on different operational tours. I was fearless, because I did not care if I died. By that time, I did not enjoy life and I found ways to get through each day. When back in camp, I was always in trouble because I was always drinking and fighting. Despite all this going on and everybody telling me I had a problem, nobody gave me any support or help.
I needed to change. I was now married with a child, so I left the Army, and continued to work in security and defence in different conflict zones around the world. My foot got worse, and the shrapnel started working its way out, so I went to the MOD and said, “Can you help me?” It told me, “You are not our problem any more.” In the end, I raised the money myself to pay for private treatment to have an operation, or I would have had to walk with a walking stick for the rest of my life. If the Army took this approach to my foot, there was no way it was interested in my mental health. I did not even know where to look. I could not show love to my wife or my children. It was not only my foot that did not feel anything; for everything, I was in a darkest pit, more than most people can imagine.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking incredibly movingly about his experience in the Army and as a veteran. Does he not agree that there must be care for those in service, but also as veterans, for as long as it is necessary to help those who have served their country?
Stuart Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend. I really appreciate everything that is being done, but we have to keep doing more and more, and that is why I am really championing this.
From that pit, my marriage broke down. We separated, and life for me was hell on earth. How did I ever get to this stage? This battle went on in my mind, and for 15 years I fought that battle. I would spend the evening drinking a litre of vodka, in a garage with the light off, trying to get rid of the pain. This was night after night, and in the end I realised, of the country I had fought for, that I had been abandoned by that country and by the people who sent me to those conflicts. I knew how to fight and I was good at it, but I was tired. There was nothing left in me. I went at that stage to take my life, but I could not do it, because I did not want my children to grow up, as I did, without a father. I had to face the reality that I had to live, and I hated the idea of it.
It was in this pit of despair, after many years of fighting that battle, that I found faith in God, and for the first time I had some hope. My wife and I started again, renewed our vows and sought help. For many years, we walked through a recovery of and reconciliation with what was a horrible life. I learned to love my wife, I love my children, and every day I made progress. I thank everybody who stood alongside me during this process. My life could have ended many times. Now I live life to the full, and I really appreciate it.
I want to use that experience to help the people who are going through what I did. When I delivered something similar in my maiden speech, somebody stopped committing suicide in the middle of the night because they had seen what I had said on Facebook, and we need to reach these people. I would never want anybody to go through what we did. We have truly been on a journey from death to life, but it is from this experience that I know this Bill will make changes to people’s lives. Some will say it does not go far enough and some will say it goes too far, but it is a massive positive step, and I also welcome the campaign the Minister has had to bring this Bill to the House.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), with that powerful and very personal contribution to the debate.
This Bill is an opportunity to ensure basic rights, support and care for every member of the armed forces, veterans and their families. I want to address access to mental health services and, in particular, the treatment of addiction in the armed forces and veteran community, where rates are higher than in the general UK population. That should be of no surprise, because the unique demands of life in the military too often include experiences of serious trauma, violence and loss; because the Army, in particular, recruits from deprived working-class communities, where incidences of alcohol and substance misuse are higher; and because, as the charities that work with service families and veterans attest, the culture, on which no judgment is needed, is one where harmful drinking rates are considered normal, vulnerability is considered a weakness and seeking help is seen as failing to meet the demands of service. All of this has to change if we are to see an end to the shameful number of veterans ending up in mental health crisis—homeless, in prison or committing suicide—and it can change. The number using MOD treatment services is alarmingly low, and the majority of veterans enrolled in treatment programmes left service many years earlier, which prompts the question: what more can be done to improve early intervention?
Tom Harrison House in Anfield in my constituency is a residential veteran-specific addiction treatment centre, and I have got to know veterans there and heard their stories and about their struggles to get the support and understanding they need. I have not met one who was referred by, or got the support they required, from the MOD or armed forces. If we truly want to honour these men and women, we can and should use this Bill to guarantee them the mental health services they deserve.
There remains stigma and intolerance towards addiction. For too long, substance misuse has been regarded as a moral affliction—a testament to someone’s character rather than a legitimate health issue. We have to defeat that stigma in order to make progress in society and in the forces. With addiction, the substance of choice is irrelevant: it is a route to escape, the way to cope, or the way to manage mental ill health and past trauma.
Last week, in a written answer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans stated:
“Drug and alcohol abuse is incompatible with the standards we expect of those who Serve in the Armed Forces.”
I am afraid that such opinions are outdated, ignorant and a roadblock to effective treatment. Regardless of someone’s training or dedication to their duty, mental health disorders and addiction do not discriminate.
This Bill presents a chance to end the zero-tolerance approach, as other professions have rightly done, stop the perverse situation where the act of seeking help could itself lead to dismissal, deliver addiction treatment programmes for those serving in our armed forces, and fund the military-specific addiction treatment services veterans need and deserve.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
The Select Committee on the 2011 Bill considered whether the armed forces covenant should be codified and contractualised and, after taking lots of evidence, decided that would be unwise. This Bill continues in that vein but places further duties on public sector deliverers that will be of practical help to the service community, including people I have the honour and privilege to represent.
Like the 2011 Act, the Bill does not create rights, but does reaffirm society’s responsibilities. Others have said that the covenant is a contract with country not county, but local councils, schools, NHS trusts and housing associations control things that servicepeople might be disadvantaged in securing by virtue of their service. May I probe the Minister on where this new obligation to have regard to the covenant stands legally—who arbitrates on whether local bodies have discharged the duty placed upon them, and what penalties may ensue if they are judged to have fallen short?
There is increasing public scrutiny of the separateness and differentness of the armed forces. Defence reasonably points out that its distance is necessary, important and enduring by virtue of the extraordinary things its people do. Nevertheless, Defence is not the total institution of even 10 years ago; the trend is for confluence with society at large, and this Bill reflects that.
Justice is done differently in the military. Government are right to have tested that difference with a series of independent reviews, and they have reflected most of the recommendations in clauses 2 to 7 and 11. Servicepeople should not be dealt with any more or less harshly than civilians in relation to the criminal law, either as victims or perpetrators; otherwise the central “no disadvantage” plank of the covenant is merely rhetorical. That is why in the debate on the 2011 Act I said the powers of service police should not be extended unless there is demonstrable service need, and Sir Jon Murphy’s recent review appears to share my caution.
The same goes for setting up service structures that are separate from the civilian mainstream. Lyons recommended a new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, which is in the Bill, but it needs to be tested against the obvious alternative: handing the job to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
There will likely be detailed discussion in Committee and in the other place of the main Lyons recommendation that the MOD has, up to now, declined: that the most serious offences—murder, rape and manslaughter—should go to the civilian courts. We learn that a rape victim’s assailant tried at court martial is significantly less likely to be convicted than if the case had been heard in a civilian court. At the very least, that sits uncomfortably with “no disadvantage”. Service-necessary difference has to work hard to justify such a divergence of process, outcome and confidence in criminal justice from the civilian mainstream. I know that Ministers have worked really hard on this and considered it extremely carefully. It seems to me that the position adopted in the Bill was finely balanced. We learn that it is already under threat of judicial review.
I welcome the defence serious crime unit proposed in the Bill, which may well help to approximate service justice to the civilian mainstream in very serious cases. Nevertheless, one wonders where trials for serious crime will end up, if not in 2021 then in 2026 or 2030. Finally, as an active reservist and an ex-regular, may I say how helpful the Bill’s extension of the regulars’ part-time service opportunity to reservists will be to both individuals and defence?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Today’s debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to our nation’s armed forces and their families for the immense sacrifices they make. I would like to echo the sentiments of previous speakers in expressing my wholehearted appreciation for everything that Britain’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen do to keep our country safe both at home and abroad.
During the pandemic—undoubtedly our darkest hour since the second world war—our armed forces have once again stepped up to protect our communities and keep us safe from covid-19. Service personnel have played a leading role in supporting our health service to deliver mass testing and vaccine deployment. This is the largest peacetime resilience operation in history, and without it, we would undoubtedly be in a much darker place today.
In return, we owe it to our service communities that their hard work and tireless self-sacrifice do not go unrecognised. That means going beyond lofty rhetoric and taking meaningful action to ensure that our armed forces and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they rightly deserve. The Bill provides the Government with the chance to do just that. It represents a historic opportunity to step up support for our armed forces, veterans and their families and to correct some of the profound injustices that they continue to face.
While I applaud everything that local authorities and third sector organisations are doing to support service personnel and veterans, too many are simply not getting the support they need in the critical fields of housing, employment and mental health. Just last week, the National Audit Office found that the Ministry of Defence is failing in its duty to provide service personnel with high-quality subsidised accommodation. Nearly 80,000 people are living in single person accommodation, with less than half satisfied with the quality of their housing—a significant decline on recent years. Whatever happened to homes for heroes?
That is why I am so emphatic in my support for the armed forces covenant. The covenant reflects the immense depth of gratitude that is owed by us all to our armed forces, and it is a matter of deep regret that the Bill fails to implement its promises in full. In fact, on a number of points, the Bill simply does not go far enough. While it would oblige councils and other public bodies to deliver on the principles of the covenant, it fails to address the all-important issue of underfunding. It also does nothing to establish binding national standards that would end once and for all the postcode lottery faced by many veterans and service personnel. I therefore urge the Defence Secretary to go further and ensure that the Bill makes good on the principles of the armed forces covenant and on our country’s commitments to serving members of the armed forces, veterans and their families.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Printed at the beginning of every annual report on the armed forces covenant made by the Secretary of State for Defence is the following statement:
“The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death as a result of their duty. Families also play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. In return, the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families.”
Clause 8 places a duty on organisations throughout the UK to give what is termed “due regard” to the main principles of the armed forces covenant. The bodies affected include local authorities, health authorities, education authorities and housing authorities in particular. These principles—the unique obligations and sacrifices by the armed forces, the desirability of removing disadvantages arising from membership or former membership of the armed forces, and the special provision for servicepeople that may be justified by the effects of membership or former membership of the armed forces—already lie on the Secretary of State himself. It is interesting to see, in the short time available, what the reports that he makes every year on the armed forces covenant have said about issues such as the war-damaged, the war-widowed and the war-targeted for repeated reinvestigation.
On the question of the war widows, the issue of the 200 to 260 war widows who lost their war widow’s pension on cohabitation or remarriage has been raised many times by me. In these reports, the Government show again and again that they are well seized of the injustice and, indeed, impropriety of having been unable to restore those pensions to those widows. It is good that the reports show that the Government are persisting in this, and they should persist.
Less attention is given in the reports to the problems arising for so many veterans from having been injured by blast on active service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something called traumatic brain injury, and in particular the blast variant, has been mentioned only once in the annual reports, yet it has been shown time and again that more attention needs to be paid to it, because the resulting symptoms can sometimes be mistaken for post-traumatic stress disorder and, as a result, gravely incorrect treatment can be given. More attention needs to be paid to that.
On the question of prosecutions, it is fascinating to see successive comments in the Secretary of State’s annual reports, starting with one in 2018 that noted, quite rightly, that
“There is a growing strength of feeling within Parliament and elsewhere that our Service Personnel and Veterans should be afforded greater legal protection from prosecutions related to historical operations than they currently receive.”
Time and again, the Secretary of State makes it perfectly clear that he totally agrees with that. The only point that needs to be expressed, and which cannot be emphasised too strongly to Ministers, who I know are determined to protect our servicemen, is that they must not only protect them from prosecution; they must protect them from vexatious reinvestigation.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who is always worth listening to on these matters.
In referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, may I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for the experience that they have given me on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, where I have seen the resilience, adaptability, dedication and expertise of our servicemen and women? I am really grateful for what has been a fantastic opportunity.
Our armed forces’ primary role is the protection of the realm and of our allies. The threats we face are constantly evolving, and now is not the time to be putting distance between ourselves and countries that share our democratic values. I also pay tribute to the services for their military assistance to civilian authorities. This week in the north-west, we saw military crews supporting the North West Ambulance Service when it was overstretched. I am grateful for that.
In Chester, we have a long history of association with the services, as a military headquarters, as home to the nearby RAF Sealand, as a garrison city and as a sponsor city for HMS Albion. Now we are also home to the University of Chester’s Westminster centre for veteran affairs, led by Professor Alan Finnegan, himself a former colonel in the Royal Army Medical Corps. Professor Finnegan reminds me of the demands that we place on our servicemen and women and how this specifically affects their pensions and the pensions of their families. During a military career, a veteran and his or her family face regular moves, including having to live overseas. In addition, service personnel spend long periods away from their home due to operational tours and training exercises. The longer the soldier serves, the greater the number of moves and the greater the level of separation. As a result, the spouse’s education and employment profile is negatively impacted on and their ability to build a career and a pension is reduced. For the service person, the longer they serve, the better their pension, but when the veteran dies, the spouse is entitled to only 50% of that figure. Service personnel are approximately 90% men, and males tend to die in the UK around four years younger than women, so women generally outlive their partner and have to try to survive on half of the pension. For a veteran on end-of-life care, the knowledge and distress that his death may lead to financial hardship for his wife or partner is clear.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants this to be the best place in the world in which to be a veteran, it should also be, as Professor Finnegan reminds me, the best place in the world in which to be a veteran’s spouse. Providing these elderly women with their husband’s full pension would go a long way to achieving that.
Finally, I would like to talk about the Army in Chester. We are a proud garrison city, but the Government’s plans to close our last remaining barracks—the Dale barracks—are still in place, even if they have been delayed. I am clear that this is based solely on the mistaken view of the land value of the barracks. In other words, it is seen as somewhere easy to sell and make money quickly. The quality of the accommodation is good at the Dale. It is popular with the servicemen and their families. When we are discussing the importance of retaining our experienced soldiers and the importance of providing them and their families with decent quarters, it seems absurd to sell off one of the best sites. The plan is to move every military site in the north-west to a new super barracks north of Preston. The plan is flawed. As I say, Chester is popular with servicemen and with their families, which is important when considering attrition rates. It also reduces the social and operational footprint of the Army in the region. Chester can serve operationally across the southern part of the north-west, the north Midlands and north-east Wales. I simply float the example that the bomb disposal team based at Chester is required for emergency call-outs. If the explosive ordinance disposal team based at Weeton in Preston had to get down the M6 on a Friday afternoon, I would have to wish them all the luck in trying to do that.
I am calling on the Government to abandon plans to close the Dale barracks, which make no sense other than perhaps the short-term financial gain. I am proud to represent a garrison city with a large ex-services contingent. May that long continue.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is absolutely right that military personnel should get special recognition for housing, education and medical treatment. I particularly like clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill, with the powers to rectify mistakes. As an ex- commanding officer, I sometimes had to send people to district court martials when I did not want to. I would have liked to have had some influence on what happened subsequently and this Bill will help that.
In particular, I want to talk about the Service Police Complaints Commission—this is the point of my speech really. I think that is a great idea, and let me give an example of why I feel that way. Just after I left the Army, I was involved in the case of an officer grievously wronged by the service police. His name was Major Milos Stankovic of the Parachute Regiment. He was of Serbian-British background. Members might think that, with a name like that, he would be more Serbian, but, actually, his father fought against Tito in the war and his mother manned an ambulance at El Alamein. He was a liaison officer for me, then Brigadier Andrew Cumming, then General Rose, and then General Smith. For about four years, he was in Bosnia. For his service there and his gallantry, he was awarded an MBE. Then in 1997, when he was a student at the Army staff college, he was arrested by the Ministry of Defence police on what I consider to be a trumped up charge, implying that he had been spying for the Bosnian Serbs. He was isolated and not allowed to talk to any of his friends, and I was interviewed by the MOD police in my office, which was in Mayfair at the time. They tried to bribe me by saying something he had put in his diary against me. I said, “That is totally unacceptable”, and I threw them out of my office.
Stankovic was in limbo for three years. At the end of three years without any support, he resigned his commission. His career had been trashed by the MOD police. There was nobody in the system who could help him. Then the Crown Prosecution Service announced that there was absolutely no case to answer. He was innocent, but he had lost his career and the chance of advancing in the military. There was no rectification whatsoever and, indeed, to this day they have not returned his war diary, which they used to try to turn me and, I understand, other senior officers such as General Rose against him.
If the Service Police Complaints Commissioner had existed when Milos Stankovic needed help, perhaps he might not have suffered the torment that he went through for three years. I fully support this Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and to hear his story of Milos Stankovic. It is also an honour to speak in this debate on a Bill that we welcome, but that we believe has limitations and could do more.
In Croydon, our armed forces play a huge part across the community, and I want to begin by thanking them. I pay tribute particularly to the role of reservists, who we all want to see play an even greater role in future. There are five reserve units in Croydon, embedded in our community and playing vital roles to keep us safe, including during these covid times.
The Royal Yeomanry are currently deployed to Operation Cabrit in Estonia and Poland, and we send them our best wishes and our thanks. We have the Corps of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Parachute Regiment, with its strong links between Arnhem and Croydon. The Royal Logistics Corps in my constituency has been very active during covid, moving personal protective equipment and ensuring people are safe. The Royal Corps of Signals unit in Croydon actually set up its own manufacturing to produce NHS-grade visors, which it donated to local care homes and the St John Ambulance.
Crucially, every one of our reserve locations has a cadet unit—young people who will thrive on the benefits of being part of the cadets. We only have to look at the evidence from the University of Northampton, which quantified the social value of cadets services: reducing truancy, improving health and qualifications, embedded in our community, vital for our safety and training our young people.
I will touch on the importance of supporting our veterans, who we still so often let down, through the covenant. I know the success of the covenant is a bit of a lottery and the reality does not always match the rhetoric. It is clear that, although everyone has signed up to the covenant, because there are no sanctions, the implementation of it varies. Where local authorities have strong armed forces champions, the covenant has worked best.
Croydon is lucky to have a fantastic armed forces champion in Councillor Toni Letts, an active role model. In Croydon, where the council signed the covenant in 2011, a number of our community groups also ensure that they play their part. We have a variety of local charity partners, such as the Royal British Legion, the Croydon BME forum and Croydon Commitment, which support our serving personnel veterans and their families.
Croydon Council has been recognised for its excellent work, particularly its housing allocation policy, in the Royal British Legion’s “Best Practice Guide to Community Covenants”. It has gone beyond the central Government guidance on the covenant in a number of ways, including giving serving or former members of the reserve forces the same rights as serving or former members of the armed forces, having nominated housing officers to handle inquiries from the armed forces community and allowing some discretion in ensuring eligibility on the housing register.
I am sure the Government want every part of the country to be as committed to the covenant as Croydon is. That is why we suggest that the Bill should set measurable national standards that would end the postcode lottery, why we want to see the statutory guidance now and why we agree with the service charities that are rightly concerned that the scope of the Bill is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as employment. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed, and we know that the wider welfare and healthcare systems let our veterans down too often. All MPs in the House will have spoken to food banks that have provided food for veterans. Wider reform is necessary. The nation’s safety, and the safety and wellbeing of those we ask to risk harm on our behalf, should always be the Government’s first concern.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]
We live in an uncertain world, and given this uncertainty, it is vital that we have a strong military. That is why it was so critical that in November, the Prime Minister announced the biggest programme of investment in British defence since the cold war. So much has changed since the end of that cold war, not least the fact that the threat from our adversaries is no longer confined to the traditional battlefield, but now exists throughout our digital network too.
Just as the threat has evolved, so too must our capabilities for protecting our citizens. That is why the creation of a national cyber-force and a new space command are no longer optional, and why evolving our capability has also led to the growing importance of our reservists to our national defence. I am pleased that this Bill allows for flexible working for our more than 35,000 reserve personnel, allowing reservists—such as those who are trained at the Prince William of Gloucester barracks in Grantham, in my constituency—the opportunity to serve on a full-time or a part-time basis. Making up one sixth of our armed forces personnel, reservists bring specialist outside knowledge, expertise and experience that enriches our military capability. Whether regular or reservist, we should praise everyone who serves our country in uniform.
However, of course, praise is not enough. We must ensure that no veteran or any of their family faces unfair obstacles or discrimination as they enter civilian life after service. That is why the armed forces covenant has been so important over the past 10 years, and I look back with pride on the fact that my home county of Lincolnshire has played a prominent part in its success so far. All of our local authorities are signatories, and South Kesteven District Council has gone even further by appointing a dedicated armed forces champion in Councillor Dean Ward, who is himself a veteran. We also have a wide range of other local organisations that have signed the covenant, such as Grantham College, RecruitME, and Stamford Endowed Schools.
I am confident that with this Bill and this Government, our nation is in safe hands as we seek to protect our country, enhance our capabilities, and honour those who have served this United Kingdom.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s important Armed Forces Bill debate. Currently, over 5,000 members of our armed forces are on the frontline battling the coronavirus pandemic, in what has been described as the biggest homeland operation in peacetime. The vaccination roll-out, lateral flow testing site support, and community testing are just some of the 70 different tasks undertaken across the UK by service personnel in response to this deadly virus. My Slough constituents and I are extremely grateful for our armed forces’ work during this time. Their commitment to protecting our nation continues to be proven through their invaluable service, further proving the need for the Government to fully commit to the armed forces covenant. This Bill presents a real opportunity—a chance to practise what the Ministry of Defence preaches, and ensure legislation reflects our armed forces covenant.
I support this Bill, but I encourage the Government to widen its scope to ensure that it makes a real difference for our armed forces, veterans and their families. As we know, generally, the covenant covers a pledge that service personnel will not be at any disadvantage compared with civilians with equal circumstances, and that there will be special consideration in specific circumstances—sadly, often due to injury or bereavement—as is right. I am proud to have had family members in the armed forces, and to have had the privilege of being involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, meeting inspirational people along the way and learning about their essential roles. Having also served as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and headed up the national Sikh war memorial campaign, I fully appreciate the immense dedication of and sacrifices made by our brave servicemen and women. With service to our nation must come lifelong recognition of those things, but as things stand the promises made to them are not being delivered and it is clear that the Government must do more.
Last year, the Government said that they were
“concerned that the current legislation is not enough in itself to ensure the future of the Covenant and the support it offers our Armed Forces Community.”
Yet as the Bill comes to the House today, it is clear that those concerns have not been fully addressed. It also appears as though the Government, as with many other matters, want to outsource their covenant commitments but without giving adequate resources, leaving the service community with a postcode lottery of potential support based on local authority budgets that have already been squeezed by Tory austerity and this pandemic. There are too many barriers to accessing the services people need and these must be addressed rather than allowed to proliferate.
Whether in housing, healthcare or education, there is a serious risk that setting a legal standard below the current voluntary level could mean a race to the bottom. Even the assurances that the flawed investigations process introduced in the overseas operations Bill would be remedied by this Bill have yet to be seen. These are real lives, and real consequences. I am extremely disappointed that Ministers have not taken the opportunity to go further in improving the support for service protection and access to justice for our service community.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Two and a quarter years ago, I attended the armed forces covenant debate in this House and spoke about service family accommodation. There were many warm words said then about the standard of our armed forces, the bravery that they show on a daily basis and the need for us as lawmakers to value them. However, there was very little of legal substance.
I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to speak on a Bill that will finally give the armed forces covenant a firm base in law, but like my colleagues I have deep concerns about the weight of the legislation. As others have said, the phrase “to give due regard” to the principles of the covenant is too vague and does not provide any real legal recourse to the families living in service family accommodation. We need measurable, national standards set at a higher level than the existing voluntary commitments.
In my speech two years ago, I highlighted the deep structural problems caused by the decision in 1996 to sell off 55,000 service family homes on a 999-year lease to Annington Homes. That not only left a black hole in the MOD finances but caused a huge selling off of housing stock to the private sector as well as to desperate local authorities who were under pressure to acquire low-cost social housing to tackle their ever-increasing waiting lists.
Those issues prevail, but today I want to highlight the human impact of the low standards that are common in our accommodation, particularly in respect of cheap outsourcing to Amey, formerly Carillion Amey. In preparation for the debate, my office contacted and spoke with many service families. It is beyond vital that we hear those voices. Our service families have made huge sacrifices in their commitment to our country. Military children are vulnerable to inequalities in health, education, and wellbeing because they move so regularly. The family unit is vulnerable to stresses that most of us are not. Most of us do not have to worry about one parent being absent for weeks or months or sacrifice our own career because of the transient nature of our partner’s. The least that we can provide for these families is dependable adequate housing that is subject to few faults. When problems do occur, we owe it to them to ensure they are dealt with promptly and properly.
We spoke with Rushmoor Borough Councillor Nadia Martin, herself living in an SFA. She has been working for years to highlight these issues and has herself experienced huge problems with Amey, including a poor-quality repair causing injury to her child. She produced a report from a survey she undertook with military families living in SFAs. I am grateful to her for sharing that with me. Sixty-six per cent. of respondents said that the SFA was not in full working order upon march in; 69% said that faults had to be reported at least every quarter; 60% of the contractors do not always turn up; and an astonishing 68% have to call Amey back to redo the same job. That reflects not only the national picture—three in 10 said that they were satisfied with the work done—but countless stories, a couple of which I will relate in the time remaining.
Cathryn, whose husband has been in the Royal Navy for 12 years said:
“It’s very frustrating. I’ve been told a number of times ‘well its cheap housing. should be grateful that you have somewhere to live it’s not meant to be a luxury.’ We don’t expect to live in a castle or in a life of luxury. However I would love to come home from frontline work myself and be able to enjoy relaxing in my bathroom or having a shower without wondering if my boiler works today! I’d love to have the security of coming home and…not have an indoor water feature…every time it rains! We should be entitled to the same as everyone else”.
Another SFA resident, Emma, was scathing:
“We are treated like the lowest of the low, like absolute idiots, made to wait an unreasonable time for fixes, told to live in housing I wouldn’t put my dog in let alone my family. In short there is a nationwide problem with”
service families accommodation.
If I had more time, I could read out many more stories, but I am happy to share those testimonies with the Minister. These families are losing faith in the Government, and in all of us in this House, to help them and improve their situation. They see neighbouring houses sold off to the private sector and their communities lost. They feel as though they are being forced out of SFAs and into the private sector, with all the noted problems that brings. They are seeing their already complicated lives made harder. Is it not time for us to end the scandal of poor service families accommodation and to build, repair and maintain decent service families housing?
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be called in this debate on the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
I must declare my interests as a member of the Royal British Legion; my father was a second world war navigator in the RAF; and my most prized possession is my grandfather’s annotated Bible from his time in a prisoner of war camp in the first world war. The debt of gratitude we owe our armed forces is something I never forget.
I will focus my remarks on two aspects of the Bill: clause 8, “Armed forces covenant”; and clause 9, “Reserve forces: flexibility of commitments”. As the previous leader of a council, I always thought that we should pay more than just lip service to the armed forces covenant. We had a named councillor who was our champion. We introduced priority help for housing, and financial incentives for leisure activities. I am pleased that clause 8 strengthens the covenant by imposing a legal duty on authorities, removing the disadvantages arising from either serving or former personnel. That is particularly necessary in the matter of not just housing but education.
We have all heard stories of how the education of the children of serving personnel has been disrupted. Even when families have chosen to stay put, it is not always clear that the school has made every effort to receive the pupil premium that is allocated for children of serving personnel. The silos of the different government authorities are affected. Those authorities have a tendency not to look outside their own boundaries and proactively see how to ensure that the service provided for serving and former personnel is as wide-reaching as possible. I therefore welcome that clause.
On clause 9, like many other MPs, I have had constituents contact me to say that they would like to do more as part of the volunteer force to support the full-time services. This clause amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996, replacing the full-time service commitment with a new continuous service commitment that can be part-time. That will enable members of the reserve forces to undertake further work in a period of full-time or new part-time service, putting them on a par with their regular counterparts. The clause is an excellent and pragmatic way of enhancing the strength of the regular forces, in particular with specialists, who can do more as part-time volunteer forces.
To finish, I am always struck by the depth of loyalty felt by our volunteer reserve forces. Some have finished as permanent members of the armed services and some have joined as new volunteers. Indeed, we are blessed that so many of our colleagues in both Houses are reservists. That new clause will enable those reservists to do even more for our forces. I have no hesitation in confirming that I will vote for this Bill later and, as my father always says, “We never know when we might need them again.”
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
It is an enormous privilege not only to contribute to the debate but to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). As a member of the Defence Committee and, indeed, as the only Northern Ireland parliamentarian contributing to the debate, I think it is important to reflect on Northern Ireland’s role and contribution to our armed forces. Although we make up just less than 3% of the population of the United Kingdom, we contribute far greater not only to our regular forces but to the reserve forces across the United Kingdom, yet at times we have to remind colleagues in Parliament that implementation of the armed forces covenant has not been as smooth in Northern Ireland, where frustrating barriers and, at times, inappropriate political ideology have blocked the full implementation of the covenant. It is in that vein that I wish to contribute to the debate on the covenant provisions in the Armed Forces Bill.
I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence for the fortitude they have shown in recognising that we can do more for veterans who live in Northern Ireland. We should always remember that those veterans who live in Northern Ireland often live in what was their theatre of war. That brings with it added challenges and added complexities. We know—it has been referred to —that our former Health Minister and now Deputy First Minister once wrote to a colleague of mine to say that the armed forces covenant does not apply here. She was wrong, and we have the opportunity here in the Bill to bring forward a statutory duty to have due regard on public bodies throughout the United Kingdom.
I tabled a private Member’s Bill on this issue back in February 2019, and the Democratic Unionist party secured from the Government a commitment in the “New Decade, New Approach” document that we needed such a statutory duty. I am therefore delighted that tonight the Government are bringing forward this commitment and that it is UK-wide, appropriately specifying the bodies involved with the delivery operationally of health, education and housing in the Province of Northern Ireland.
At the conclusion of the debate, the Minister will have the opportunity to reflect on contributions to the debate. I ask him to respond to questions raised by the Royal British Legion on why we have confined the provisions of the Bill to health, education and housing. Is this not an opportunity to include other aspects such as pensions, employment, social care and immigration issues for those serving from Commonwealth countries? The Secretary of State retains a power in the Bill to introduce further aspects. Should there be a more comprehensive trigger mechanism for introducing such aspects to the Bill and the covenant commitments?
There is no requirement in the Armed Forces Bill for Ministers, whether in Whitehall or devolved institutions, to have due regard. I am keen to hear from the Minister why, when such a due regard clause is present in the Environment Bill, as highlighted by the House of Commons Library, it was not considered appropriate here. Finally, will we see the statutory guidance published before the conclusion of the parliamentary process? That would greatly aid our understanding of the operational impact.
Let us not forget that the Bill is a great stride forward for veterans in this country. I commend the Government for bringing it forward, and I will support them through its passage.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
I am very proud to declare my interest in that my partner is currently on overseas deployment with the army, and his mother is the chief executive of the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. The Conservative party is the party of the armed forces and the Union, and it is with immense pride that I represent a community of both active and retired service personnel. Brecon and Radnorshire is home to the Infantry Battle School, the Sennybridge training area and, of course, the barracks in Brecon, which is the home of the army in Wales.
Since my election, I have been banging on the door of the Ministry of Defence to get the Secretary of State to change his mind on the decision to close the barracks in 2027. While I have not quite won that battle yet, I am so grateful that the Ministry of Defence last week confirmed that the headquarters of the Army will remain in Brecon, even if the closure goes ahead. That is a huge step forward, and a resounding acknowledgement of the vital work that is carried out in the barracks. I extend my heartfelt thanks to every member of the armed forces based there and all those supporting the coronavirus response.
Ten years ago, we made a promise to those who have served, through the armed forces covenant, that military personnel should never face disadvantage as a result of their military career. It is not enough to recognise serving personnel with medals and good service accommodation; we need to recognise the lifelong sacrifice that serving your country asks of you. This Bill is another step forward in that direction, but I want to highlight one area where I feel that veterans in Wales are being short-changed.
Wales is the only nation in the UK not to have a veterans commissioner—somebody who has the sole focus of supporting our veteran community. Vital public services in Wales are controlled by the Welsh Government and, without a veterans commissioner, the voice of former military personnel in Wales is not being heard. Rather than being used for a photo opportunity to boost the Labour party’s public image, veterans in my constituency want to see a comprehensive approach to veterans’ affairs, focusing on welfare, mental and physical health, education and employment.
This afternoon, I spoke to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which is based in my constituency. I know the Minister is working with it as it seeks to close the gap, both in our history and in our recognition of those veterans’ service, but I encourage him to consider attending the celebration event it is holding later this year ahead of the 70th anniversary of Operation Hurricane. There are only 2,500 nuclear veterans still with us, and despite it being a little known part of our history, their immense service should be recognised.
Finally, I close with an important point: we must never forget that we would not have a military without military families. Navy wives, soldiers’ husbands and RAF children have all paid a price they themselves never incurred—something I have come to learn very keenly in the past six months. The armed forces covenant should wrap its arms around every military family and ensure that gaps in coverage are ironed out at every level. I commend the Minister for his dedication in bringing this Bill to the House, and I hope he will join me in ensuring that veterans in Wales get the same level of support from the Welsh Government that he is willing to offer their comrades in England.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Armed Forces Bill fulfils the legal responsibility on the MOD to update the Armed Forces Act every five years, but it of course does much more. First, it honours the recommendations of the Lyons review, several of which I argued for as a serving officer. It delivers what the armed forces want, and it shows that the MOD is supportive of them. It delivers, too, on a commitment made in the 2019 manifesto to bring the armed forces covenant into statute and fulfil a long-standing promise to our service community. The Bill also shows that in this post-Brexit era, the British Government are able to pass laws that may have been more difficult under the EU. Our service justice system has long been in the sights of the EU courts, and the MOD has done well to preserve it for the good and benefit of our armed forces.
No doubt the legislation will get attacked for what it is not, but from experience the Bill is a good one. The technical term for it is “no-brainer”, and I will be supporting the Government today. At its simplest level, the legislation provides the framework for the excellent work conducted for many years by councils and health and education providers across the UK, and I pay my own tribute to the many councils and armed forces champions who have done so much. Why not legislate, too, to establish armed forces champions in law? Having reinforced the covenant myself for so many years, not least among our brilliant champions in Surrey and Berkshire, I can say that with complete confidence.
Moving on to the clauses, the Armed Forces Act operates on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, so it is entirely correct that under clauses 4 to 7, commanding officers in courts martial are provided with a means of rectifying errors of judgment. To be worthy of their pre-eminence, the ability to admonish or even overturn outcomes, notably when new evidence comes to light, is welcome.
Bob Stewart
I thank my good friend for giving way. He was a commanding officer, as I was, and will have sent people to courts martial when he did not really want to. The Bill brings in the ability for commanding officers to give their men and women additional support when they have to send them to a court martial, and will mean they can involve themselves more in the court martial by saying, for example, “Please can this man or woman come back to my unit rather than be discharged from the service, because they are a good person?”.
James Sunderland
I thank my good friend for his intervention and agree completely. It is really important that commanding officers have some input into the service-law process, not only by providing mitigation and character references but by influencing court outcomes. The ability for soldiers to continue to serve, on the recommendation of the commanding officer, is really important.
Clause 8, which brings the armed forces covenant into statute, is long overdue. I welcome the clarification that provisions for housing, health and education will be mandated in law. Further guidance on exactly what councils will be asked to do will be welcome. I would also welcome confirmation of when the Secretary of State might present his annual report on the covenant at the Dispatch Box.
On clause 9, I welcome the increased flexibility that will be available to our reserve forces through the provisions on the new continuous service engagement. Part-time work rightly augments full-time work.
On clauses 10 and 11, I agree that the MOD wishes to speed up the complaints process, but I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to remain cognisant of just how busy most senior officers are. I welcome the creation of the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner, for all the reasons we heard earlier from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), as long as a mechanism is built in to ensure that clearly vexatious complaints are filtered out early. That needs to happen for all service complaints: the chain of command must have the ability to filter them amount if they are clearly vexatious.
Lastly, I really welcome the enhanced powers given to commanding officers and courts martial in clauses 13 to 17. Not only is it right that the service justice system can now preside over offences that previously could be heard only in a civil court, but as a former commanding officer I am positively salivating at the prospect of deprivation orders. The proceeds of or means of executing crime can now be confiscated from errant soldiers—what a brilliant way, perhaps, to offset the costs of the regimental Christmas party.
The Bill reflects what our armed forces have asked for. It brings them up to date with what they need and I will vote for it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the members of our armed forces for the work that they do.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans said in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee that the Government would bring forward legislation in this Bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against servicemen and women and veterans; this Bill does nothing of the sort. It says that a limited number of public bodies, outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), must have “due regard” to
“the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages”.
The way some people talk, we would think the covenant was invented 10 years ago. It was not: it originated in the 2008 Command Paper published by Bob Ainsworth when he was Minister of State for Defence. We then implemented measures on no disadvantage, and the welfare pathway, with pilots in Hampshire, Wigan and Kent, implemented things like the armed forces champions. I am pleased that the coalition Government took on board those things, which have then gone forward. We produced a Green Paper in 2009 to get those parts of the covenant into law, and it was sad that the Government opposed that in respect of the 2011 Bill. The proposals in this Bill are limited and we need to make sure we strengthen them in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned an important omission from the Bill: Northern Ireland veterans, about whom I feel very strongly, like the right hon. Gentleman. This is the Bill in which to put that injustice right, but it is not there. Promises have been made and they need to be kept. The Bill should have done that. No doubt veterans will be pleased that their great, great-grandfathers who committed buggery 200 years ago will be given a pardon, but then they will ask the question, “Well why aren’t we being looked at in this Bill?” I therefore urge the Government to bring forward a proposal in the Bill for that.
The other area is the whole issue of investigations, which came up in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Reinvestigations are clearly an issue in relation to Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said. On 20 October, the Minister told the Public Bill Committee:
“We will see more stuff on investigations in the Armed Forces Bill.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2020; c. 220.]
However, there is nothing in this Bill about investigations and it needs to be there.
The other issue we need address is pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) raised, because the armed forces cannot go on strike and rely on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to fight on their behalf. I was proud that the last Labour Government implemented that every year—this Government have not done that—but I would like to see that in the Bill.
There are many things in this Bill, around housing and other issues, that need to be improved. We need a co-operative approach, but I very much doubt that will happen, given the Minister’s attitude and approach to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. I have served on, I think, every Armed Forces Bill for the last 20 years, and I am sure he will be delighted to know that I will also be on this Bill Committee, pressing on the points in the Bill that need to be improved. However, if he takes the same attitude as he did to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, we will not get very far. I urge the Secretary of State to take on board what my right hon. Friend for Wentworth and Dearne said: there are things in the Bill that can be improved to actually make sure that life for both servicemen and women, and veterans is improved.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for all his work in introducing this Armed Forces Bill, and also thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) for their work over many years on the armed forces covenant.
The Minister will not remember, but he and I made our maiden speeches in the same debate. His contribution was powerful, talking about his time in Afghanistan and how he was in this place to change things for veterans and the armed forces. It was impactful at the time, and I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to follow his dreams and put that into reality. This is a start, but I know there is much more to do, and I hope we will continue to improve the offer for those in the armed forces and those who have left.
During my time away from this House, I took on a public appointment role as chair of the south-east region for the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee, which was set up 100 years ago, in 1921. Its original aim was to help armed forces widows with their pension claims. It has branched out into helping veterans and their families in a number of areas, including informally monitoring the armed forces covenant. I was able to see that at first hand and how the covenant works on the ground.
I cover four councils: Hampshire County Council, and Winchester, East Hampshire and Havant Councils, all of which have armed forces champions and good procedures in place to support armed forces personnel and their families. We are lucky. Not every council is the same, so this Bill is much welcomed. However, I hope we can find the right way of monitoring how each council adopts and puts in place the education, housing and health requirements for their local armed forces personnel. We need to be clear on what it entitles them to and to hold each council to account when they fail to support our brave servicemen and women. The Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee is already in place and is UK-wide. It is in a perfect position to have an important role in monitoring the armed forces covenant. I hope that the MOD will put its role on a statutory basis, as the eyes and the ears on the ground for this purpose.
My other point is that complaints have been taking far too long to settle, to the extent that many people do not think it is worth complaining. The armed forces must not be frightened of complaints. An open and transparent organisation is a much happier one. Complaints must be taken seriously and dealt with quickly. Again, my time at the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee has shown that this is not always the case, and it is causing mental health issues, which affect not only the person concerned, but their families too. That is why I welcome the service justice system clauses, but urge that once the complainant has put in their complaint to appeal, the service should respond equally quickly. It would be good if the same six-week limit also applied to the response time from whichever authority has received the complaint. I hope that the Minister has considered that.
I look forward to the passage of this Bill and I will be supporting it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
It is probably prudent for me to remind the Chamber that one of my children is a serving officer in the armed forces.
Like the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), through the armed forces parliamentary scheme I have learned a great deal about the education of armed forces personnel. I also recognise the excellent contribution that our service personnel are making to fighting the pandemic and want to express my personal thanks to the Secretary of State for several exchanges we have had in recent times about armed forces personnel coming to help Scotland, which has been lagging behind in the vaccination roll-out; I am grateful to him for that.
The armed forces covenant is about making sure that no service personnel past or present are disadvantaged in society compared with those in other walks of life or other citizens. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and several other Members asked why the duty is being extended only to local government and not a little further into some of the devolved institutions or, indeed, some of the ministerial functions of Her Majesty’s Government.
The Highland Council, of which I was formerly a member, has a joint armed forces champions system. It is shared between Councillor Major Carolyn Caddick, who is also honorary colonel of the 1st Battalion Highlanders Army Cadet Force, and Councillor Major Roddy Balfour, who once upon a time was my company commander. I should imagine the House would probably be quite interested in what he might have to say about the service record of Private Stone some years ago—and I suspect he might also quite enjoy telling the House about that. I have an agreement with them that I will take back to them what is proposed tonight and as the Bill progresses through Parliament in order to see how we might improve it. As armed forces champions, Councillors Caddick and Balfour know probably better than anyone where the gaps are, and I hope to relay that information back to the House and am grateful to them for agreeing to do this.
I want to make two short points before concluding. First, it has been raised with me that we are the only country in Europe, NATO and indeed among permanent membership of the UN Security Council that has this16-year-old system, and that perhaps we should be looking at a slightly different system in future, perhaps an armed forces education offer for 16 to 17-year-olds with an option to enlist at 18.
Finally, I absolutely associate myself with the remarks made about our excellent services personnel from the Commonwealth. It is wretched that after four years they can apply and that, as has been pointed out, a family of four will have to pay almost £10,000. That is deeply unfair and we owe it to them to put it right.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) [V]
It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I want to pay particular tribute to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans who, along with the Secretary of State, has steered this Bill with a marvellous passion; he is a true advocate of whom all Members, especially on this side of the House, can be very proud. I also refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone); he alluded to the armed forces parliamentary scheme, on which I have served for two years, and I pay particular tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Longbottom MBE who I think can be personally singled out for helping to improve the quality of this debate, along with the scheme more broadly.
This is truly an historic moment; these debates have taking place every five years since 1689, after the Bill of Rights made it necessary for us to have them and a Bill every five years in order to have armed forces. I take particular pleasure in participating in the debate this year, from Montgomeryshire, with the armed forces deployed across our country supporting the effort against the pandemic.
I welcome many measures in the Bill, but I want to highlight a few of them, including the service justice system, introduced in 2006, with updates and reviews since 2017. I very much welcome the independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner established by the Bill, to ensure that there is an independent route for redress. I also welcome the clearer guidance for prosecutors on the way that service personnel are handled in the United Kingdom.
As a Government Member, I very much welcome the armed forces covenant being enshrined in law. That was in our manifesto, and we welcome it wholeheartedly. I welcome particularly the focus on healthcare, housing and education. As somebody who served on a local authority, I pay tribute to the 6,000 organisations that have signed up to the covenant since 2011. I look forward to the Secretary of State’s update on the covenant and, particularly, how the Bill will help to advance it. We have seen the strong provisions on wraparound childcare and the pilots on service family accommodation. Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have, like other Members, talked to members of our armed forces about how these provisions help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) commented on the need for the devolved Administrations to step up, particularly in Wales. I echo the call for a veterans commissioner. Many of the levers in the Bill would be improved in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A veterans commissioner would give the power to push veterans’ causes, and I would like to work with Russell George, my Member of the Senedd for Montgomeryshire, to ensure that that happens.
I pay tribute to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. As she said, we have recently been told that the headquarters of the Army will remain in Brecon, in Powys—in the heart of Wales. I very much welcome that, and I will continue to champion, alongside her, that role in Brecon and Powys. I look forward to expressing my support for the Bill through the Deputy Chief Whip.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I speak today on behalf of everyone across my constituency who has served in, supported or contributed to the fantastic work of our armed forces both here at home and abroad. I pay particular tribute to the incredible work of our armed forces in supporting frontline efforts to tackle the coronavirus pandemic here in Wales and across the UK. From working with our fantastic ambulance crews to supporting the delivery of the vaccine, I know that our armed forces are playing a unique and crucial role in the fight against this virus.
Last Friday, we celebrated the 80th birthday of the Air Training Corps. As a very proud former air cadet, I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic work of our cadet forces in my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf and that of our armed forces champion, Councillor Maureen Webber. Our city council was one of the first local authorities in Wales to sign up to the armed forces covenant, and it was also the first Welsh local authority to receive the Ministry of Defence’s prestigious gold award in recognition of the council’s approach to supporting the armed forces community locally.
Only a year ago, I attended an event in my very first weeks as a Member of the House that sought to commemorate the remarkable work of the Welsh regiments. While I am sad not to be able to speak to those serving in the Welsh Guards, the Royal Welsh and the 1st the Queen’s Dragoon Guards in person, I recognise now more than ever the vital role that they provide to the armed forces and to the Union.
With that in mind, I welcome the Bill, as it represents a real and meaningful opportunity to improve the lives of our armed forces, veterans and their families. But the Government’s focus remains too narrow, and the Bill, as currently drafted, is a missed opportunity to deliver real and meaningful improvements for our service communities. I welcome the provision in the Bill to allow flexible working for Army reservists, allowing them the opportunity to serve on a part-time basis if they so choose. That is an all-important step to enable people with a wide range of responsibilities and from a wider range of backgrounds than ever before to consider joining the reserves.
However, there are still important questions that must be answered. First, why have the Government stopped short of adopting the recommendation in the Lyons review that civilian courts should have jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK? Surely if justice is to be done in such serious cases, independence is crucial.
I have a number of comments to make on clause 8. The armed forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. The Bill would place a legal responsibility on services such as local authorities to deliver on the covenant in areas of housing, healthcare and education, but in setting this legal standard—below existing voluntary commitments in some areas—the Minister and his Government risk creating a race to the bottom on services for our forces and their communities. This Government talk a good game about support, but are again failing to deliver the real change that service personnel and their families are crying out for.
All three principal Welsh regiments have a long and distinguished history, and retain a significant footprint across Wales, but in recent years we have sadly seen a significant decline in the number of Ministry of Defence personnel in Wales. Now, with key Welsh regiments located across the UK, our Welsh soldiers with families and partners in Wales find the cost of commuting prohibitive. We need to do all we can to encourage new recruits to join, rather than creating barriers to prevent new starters. As ever, this Government are light on details. They have promised statutory guidance to support local authorities and other bodies in meeting these responsibilities, but I have real concerns that the Government are trying to outsource their responsibility without providing the clarity and funding to local authorities to deliver these all-important services.
Beyond housing, healthcare and education, the scope of the Bill is simply too narrow. I urge the Minister to take action now to provide meaningful change to armed forces personnel, veterans and their families here in Pontypridd and across the UK by widening the scope of the Bill and providing the necessary funding to put these words directly into action.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, just a week after my family welcomed to the world my new great-niece Lyla Mae, who was born on a British military base in Cyprus.
Our armed forces, and especially our veterans, do not always get the recognition and support that they deserve. I welcome the Government reaffirming their commitment to the armed forces covenant. The armed forces and veterans community in Hartlepool forms a strong support network, and many want to see all parties in this House working together constructively to get the best from this Bill for our forces and to ensure that the covenant is delivered in full. However, as was evidenced in the review of the service justice system by Shaun Lyons, there are gaps in the system that have left some of our servicemen and women, and some of our veterans, high and dry.
Many Members will be familiar with the case of my constituent Mr Richard Lee, who is a veteran of the King’s Royal Hussars. His daughter, Katrice, went missing from the NAAFI in Paderborn, Germany in 1981. The search for Katrice is ongoing, and Richard and his family have lived with the impact of her disappearance for almost 40 years. A review of the investigation carried out by the Royal Military Police established that failures and mistakes were made in the initial investigation. Richard and his family have sought answers from the RMP to explain these failures, but no clear answers have been brought forward. At a meeting that I attended with Richard in January, the RMP told us that with no new leads, the investigation—known as Operation Bute—would essentially be mothballed.
Although Richard and I were grateful for the intervention of the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), during his time at the Ministry of Defence, we are little further forward from where we were a few years ago. I therefore welcome the establishment of an independent complaints commissioner for the service police to deliver for those who have been let down or failed by the service police. This is essential. My constituent should not have had to wait 30 years for even the simplest of apologies.
In my view, Shaun Lyons’s report and recommendations should be endorsed by this House and implemented in full. That includes the handling of serious criminal proceedings in civilian criminal courts, which are, according to the review, better placed to deal with serious criminal acts. I, along with many other Members, would very much like to hear why this recommendation from Shaun Lyons’s report was omitted from the Bill when other recommendations have been accepted and endorsed. A serious crime is still a serious crime, whether it is committed in or out of uniform, and our justice system should reflect that, as other NATO and Commonwealth allied armed forces have done already. The Government must provide a credible explanation for this omission and ensure that parity and fairness for victims and defendants are at the heart of the armed forces justice system, as well as the civilian system.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to speak in this important armed forces debate. One of the most significant changes that the Bill makes is to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law. The covenant was put in place 10 years ago to protect and support those who serve us as members of the armed forces. It is our very promise as a nation to ensure that those who serve or have served, and their families, are treated fairly.
Our armed forces defend and protect us, and we often think of them in the context of conflict overseas. However, in the past few months, we have seen at first hand the value of our servicemen and women, as they have built our field hospitals, carried out covid-19 testing and been part of the team vaccinating those at greatest risk. Only last week, a further 96 military personnel were detached to help with the vaccine roll-out here in Wales. Members of RAF Valley in my constituency of Ynys Môn have been assisting with testing across the UK.
Since its inception, over 6,000 businesses have signed up to the covenant, including Isle of Anglesey County Council and Môn Maintenance Services here in Holyhead, but once the Bill becomes legislation, the principles of the covenant will become a legal requirement. That will ensure equal treatment for our serving armed forces and for those who have left the services.
Our local poppy appeal co-ordinator, Piers Beeland, reminded me recently, “Don’t forget the veterans. We may be suffering genuine PTSD, long covid or live in substandard accommodation. Most of us were prepared not just to serve but to put our lives at risk to save others.” On behalf of all current and former servicemen and women, and particularly those in my constituency of Ynys Môn, I thank the Government for their work to create a country in which they can expect fair and equal treatment.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
May I add my thanks to all our armed forces personnel for everything they do and for the sacrifices they make to keep the rest of us safe? Today, I want to touch on what we can do to keep them safe outside their jobs and when they leave service.
A King’s College London study five years ago confirmed that there were in excess of 70,000 veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Now, mid-pandemic, that number will likely be higher, and there just are not the resources to get adequate help for all those individuals. The sad statistics show the blunt reality of what our service personnel face. More Falklands veterans have committed suicide since the conflict than those who lost their lives during it. Mental health issues can affect service personnel and veterans just as much as physical injuries, leading to unemployment, homelessness, social deprivation and addiction.
Gambling addiction is on the increase in the armed forces. One of the biggest challenges that those in the military face is getting that addiction recognised, as it is often seen as a weakness. To date, it is an offence to borrow money in the forces, but we know from the volume of case studies that every single week, disordered gamblers borrow money and will steal to fund their addiction. For those leaving service, it is evident that there is a worrying lack of support. Many find the transition back to civilian life very difficult, and mental health support falls far short, resulting in veterans being up to four times more likely than any other cohort to experience gambling-related harm.
With over 10,000 veterans thought to be suffering from or at risk of gambling-related harm, more really needs to be done to address the causes. Gambling becomes a coping mechanism, blocking out the anxiety, the anger and the loneliness. With an industry ready to prey on these vulnerable individuals, we need far better regulation to provide protection, if not through this Bill, then through other forms of legislation.
In addition to this Bill, I ask the Defence Secretary to please work with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as they undertake the long-awaited gambling review. That review is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that gambling legislation in this country is both robust and future-proof. We have to get this right. The review needs to look not just at the industry but at its customers, and particularly at the cohorts, such as our armed forces and veterans, who are most vulnerable to harm.
Our armed forces serve to protect all of us and, in turn, it is our duty to protect them from associated public and mental health issues, of which addiction is one of the most isolating. We owe a real, huge debt of gratitude to every serving member of our armed forces and to all veterans, but thanks and accolades are not enough. There is so much more we need to be doing to help these heroes, many of whom suffer in silence after witnessing things the rest of us cannot even imagine. In truth, the scope of this Bill is too limited. Social care, pensions, compensation, employment and benefits are all excluded and, while it focuses on healthcare, mental health is, sadly, lacking. The answer to what we are doing with this Bill is, sadly, very little.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The defence of the realm is the first duty of Government, and this Bill provides the legal basis for the armed forces. In three years advising the then Defence Secretary, I had the privilege to meet many servicemen and women, at home and around the world, helping to keep Britain safe, and it is in recognition of their unique sacrifices and obligations that we have the armed forces covenant. This pledge from the nation commits to remove disadvantages arising from being a serving or former member of the armed forces, and to consider whether special provision is justified for those who have given the most.
I warmly welcome the new duty on public bodies to have due regard to the covenant’s principles when providing housing, education and healthcare. This is a very good start, and reflects the areas the Secretary of State is required to report on. However, the annual report typically covers a broader range of issues where personnel face disadvantage, including family life, criminal justice and employment, so I encourage the Government to broaden the scope in due course. I hope the Minister will reassure the Royal British Legion and others that the case for adding further areas is under active review.
While I support public bodies being subject to this duty, the Bill would be improved by including Government Departments, which determine policy, allocate resource or provide national guidance to other delivery bodies. I know how committed Ministers are to the armed forces covenant, and a legal duty would help ensure that it is properly adhered to. Clearly, it also needs to be enforceable, and judicial review is expensive and slow, so it would be helpful to clarify that the local government and social care ombudsman and other bodies will have responsibilities for enforcement.
During my time at the Ministry of Defence, I helped instigate the service justice review in 2017. I did so because I was concerned about the transparency, fairness and efficiency of the system and the impact on service personnel who have been let down. The Government have rightly accepted many of Shaun Lyons’s proposals to improve the system. However, I am concerned that they have not accepted his first recommendation that court martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when offences are committed in the UK, except with the consent of the Attorney General. That is the approach that other countries have adopted, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans for the discussion we have had on this issue, and I do think it would be helpful to send a clear message from the House that, as a general principle, civilian authority should take precedence for investigating and prosecuting those offences in the UK. This is about giving victims confidence to come forward, and also about public confidence. Another important step to improve confidence are the changes to bring the court martial system into line with the Crown court by introducing qualified majority voting where there are six lay members.
Finally, I was pleased to work on measures to enable part-time working for our armed forces. This Bill will allow reservists to benefit from the same flexible working provisions that regulars have to undertake full-time or part-time service. Churchill called reservists “twice the citizen”, and this is very much a welcome move. Our armed forces represent the best of us, and I am pleased to support the Bill, which will strengthen our commitment to their service.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I want to tell the story of my constituent Maurillia Simpson, who has served in the Royal Logistic Corps for 13 years. Maurillia grew up in Trinidad. Becoming a British soldier was a dream of hers from the age of seven after she saw Her Majesty the Queen on a state visit.
During her third tour in Iraq, Maurillia was a corporal and a section leader on the frontline. Her position was hit by a mortar, everything went black and silent, and she did not know if she was dead or alive, buried under deep rubble. During the hours in that darkness, a song her mother used to sing to her as a child came to her, and she started to sing it as a form of comfort and as a way of trying to tell her family that she loved them.
It took 20 hours to get Maurillia out from under that rubble and into hospital. She survived, but it was not the end of her troubles. In 2010, while preparing for a tour in Afghanistan, Maurillia was in a traffic accident that ruptured her left leg, and it had to be completely rebuilt. She was left with a disability and still needs surgery to improve her mobility and reduce the pain.
In 2013, despite being on a waiting list for surgery and having no other home to go to, Maurillia was invalided out of the Army, ending her 13 years of service against her will. She was told she would be looked after; told to wait. She is a soldier; she followed instructions. She waited alone, not knowing who to turn to—and it got worse. After a year spent sleeping on her cousin’s sofa or in her car, Maurillia had a visit, out of the blue, from a sergeant major, not to offer the support she clearly needed but to demote her. There were two weeks to appeal but she was just about to go finally into hospital for surgery and she did not understand the system. Losing her rank had a huge impact on Maurillia: on her mental health and on her financial security. If the covenant means anything, it should mean a guarantee that no one is abandoned like she was.
The duties in this Bill for health, education, housing and local government could help to ensure that more support is available, but the reality of the story, it seems to me, is that the MOD failed Maurillia, even though the covenant has been in force since 2012. How many more veterans has the Ministry failed in this way? How can we improve the Bill to ensure that no one else is failed? At the moment, the covenant offer sometimes allows an outsourcing of responsibility from the MOD to our underfunded councils and our public services. But the Ministry passes the buck without passing the bucks, and that has to change, because the covenant must become a true guarantee of support for veterans. We owe that to Maurillia; we owe it to so many others.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Hull and the East Riding have always been popular recruitment areas for the armed forces, so the whole of the UK owes our local veterans and armed forces community a huge debt. Labour’s Hull City Council takes this debt and these obligations very seriously. Hull Labour understands the need to increase local knowledge and awareness of how the armed forces community’s requirements may differ from those of civilians, how service can affect access to public services, and the benefits of creating greater consideration of their specific needs in the provision of those services.
Because of this, Labour’s Hull City Council has already embedded much of the covenant into its systems and practices, and its efforts have been recognised with the award of gold employer standard, as it has demonstrated due regard through its initiatives. For example, reference to the covenant is linked into existing equality protected characteristics, and veteran status is included in all questionnaires circulated through the council’s people power surveys. Reference to valuing our armed forces community is included as a social cause in the council’s commissioning process, and dedicated reference to the covenant is included in a section of the schools admission guidance.
To help to ensure awareness among council staff when dealing with veterans, Hull Labour has designated armed forces champions in the council’s customer service centres. Hull City Council has made training available for all members of staff, and this training is mandatory for housing staff. To ensure oversight and accountability, the council has in place an elected armed forces champion and a senior office lead for the authority. An armed forces covenant officer is already employed to further ensure that the council adheres to its duty.
Labour’s Hull City Council supports and maintains strong links with the veterans community hub, which I am proud to have situated in my own constituency of Hull West and Hessle. The hub provides specialist support for veterans, including money and employment advice. The council’s relationship with the service has been recognised as an example of best practice. We are also very fortunate to have active local charities and breakfast groups such as Hull 4 Heroes and the Hull Veterans Support Centre. The council also leads the armed forces forum, which is well attended by charities and statutory services, including the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Health and Wellbeing Alliance, which, as one of its core outcomes, is improving outcomes for veterans.
Labour’s Hull City Council’s commitment to the veterans of Hull cannot be doubted. Despite the huge cuts to its budgets imposed by successive Conservative Administrations since 2010—now standing at £120 million a year less—it continues to put veterans’ welfare front and centre. However, the impact on resources of embedding the new statutory covenant legislation cannot be ignored by the Government, who are creating that legislation and requirement. Veterans are facing increasingly complex issues, and the services they need are in high demand from all quarters of society. I know that Labour will play its full part in improving this legislation by pushing to include measurable national standards for the covenant, equality of treatment for all British armed forces veterans, regardless of country of birth, and Lyons’ recommendation that civilian courts have jurisdiction in the matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences. I look forward to seeing this Bill proceed through Parliament.
Veterans deserve the support that this legislation is intended to provide, but the fact is that there is no additional funding to allow local authorities to deliver on its expectation. Like many councils up and down the country, Hull City Council is actively engaged in providing that support our veterans need. It must now be given the means to continue to do so.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Let me declare my own family interests, not least those going back multiple generations: my father and uncles who served with the Royal Corps of Signals and Royal Navy; cousins who bravely served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and more; my grandfather in the 1st Airborne Division taken prisoner of war at Arnhem; and my great-grandparents who served in the artillery and the King’s Own Scottish Borderers on the Western Front.
I am hugely proud of the strong constituency connections with our armed forces in Cardiff South and Penarth, not least our Welsh family of regiments: the Welsh Guards; the Royal Welsh and the Queen’s Dragoon Guards. We also have the brand new HMS Cambria training facility, MOD St Athan, which was previously RAF St Athan, and our amazing veterans organisations locally, including the Welsh Veterans Partnership, Woody’s Lodge and many others.
I am proud to have witnessed at first hand our incredible forces worldwide from Afghanistan to Canada, and from Norway to Cyprus, and I thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for the incredible insights that it has offered.
There have been some excellent speeches today. In particular, I want to commend my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for West Ham (Ms Brown), and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his brave and rightly challenging speech. I am pleased by the cross-party and constructive approach taken by most Members today, many of whom I have been proud to work with through the all-party group for the armed forces. It is vital that those who serve us know that they have support from all corners of this House. I therefore take some issue with a small minority today who have tried to imply otherwise. That does our serving forces and veterans no good. There should never be a monopoly on patriotism or pride in our armed forces. We all, regardless of political party, owe them so much. Critical is the example shown by the remarkable work in response to covid-19, including in Wales, where our armed forces, working with Governments of all political colours across the UK, are showing the strength of working together across this Union. Our Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, spoke proudly this week of the work of our UK armed forces in supporting the vaccine efforts, our NHS, and logistics among so much else.
There have been powerful links between Wales and the armed forces over hundreds of years. One of my most recent visits before these difficult times was with the Royal Welsh on Salisbury Plain, where I was driven around in a Warrior by a fantastic Royal Welsh soldier, who also happened to be a Fijian. As we have heard today, there is a proud tradition of Commonwealth soldiers serving in our armed forces, especially the Army. There are particularly strong links with some countries such as Fiji in Wales. On many visits, I have met personnel from the Caribbean, Africa, the South Pacific, Canada, and Australia. Then, of course, there are the remarkable Gurkhas, who I was holed up with under simulated attack at the infantry training centre in Catterick. They serve alongside us and for us, as have so many for so many generations, with the same bravery, determination and professionalism as anyone else. They serve alongside us and for us, as have so many for so many generations, with the same bravery, determination and professionalism as anyone else. With recent issues in recruitment, they have become even more critical to our forces, in some cases comprising well over 10% of an individual unit.
Yet we are letting them down. I have been appalled to hear of Fijian veterans who have been left destitute, homeless and without adequate food, relying on veterans’ organisations and regimental associations. What on earth is happening on discharge, and where are the support and resettlement processes? The issues around visas for settlement of family, travel for compassionate leave, other administrative issues, separated families and so many others have rightly been exposed. The Ministry of Defence needs to get a grip on the issue, undertake a root and branch reform, do the right thing by those who serve us from across the Commonwealth and ensure that we treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve for the service they have given us.
Lastly, I refer to clause 18 of the Bill, regarding historical injustices against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender service personnel of the past—people who, simply because of their sexual orientation, were prosecuted and punished. I praise Lord Cashman, Lord Lexden and all those involved, but there is still a series of historical injustices, including to lesbians who served and who were often discharged under provisions such as “services no longer required”. We need to do the right thing by all those people who were wrongly persecuted for their sexuality or gender identity, and judge them on their bravery and professionalism, not on those characteristics.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
We owe our armed forces personnel and veterans and their families an enormous debt of gratitude for their selfless actions to help keep our country safe. Our armed forces are exceptional people who work in unique circumstances, and they deserve our very best in terms of support. It is only this Conservative Government that will give our troops the full support they need. It was not so long ago that some on the Opposition Benches were toying with abolishing the Army; I am so very pleased that that has been abandoned and now we are all working together.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank our servicemen and women personally. I have seen first-hand their commitment and hard work during the covid pandemic. I have seen just how efficiently they assisted the delivery of the roll-out of testing for covid in Matlock in my constituency, and how important they have been in assisting with the vaccination programme. Quite literally, we owe many lives to them, and I thank them.
I thank my former unit, the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (Princess Royal’s Volunteer Corps), who have also been assisting ably in the covid pandemic. I would also like, in some small way this evening, to convey the heartfelt values of support for our servicemen and women and the understated, proud patriotism that has been held by so many ordinary people in the United Kingdom since the second world war—many of whom have now sadly died, some indeed having passed away in this recent pandemic.
Moving on to the armed forces covenant, I am so very pleased that this Bill delivers the manifesto commitment to our service people and veterans by, for the first time ever, creating a legal obligation for certain public bodies to have due regard to the armed forces covenant. No matter where our armed forces and their families are in the Union, they will receive the same level of consideration for their specific needs from local public bodies in relation to housing, healthcare and education. Those issues are of prime importance to our serving and former members of the armed forces and their families.
This Bill represents a significant milestone in that journey. The duty it will place on public bodies is really important. From my work at the Bar and within the care system I have seen many tragic cases where veterans have not had their needs met in housing, education and mental health provision, and I see how that affects not only the serviceman or woman, but the wider family, including through suicide and domestic violence.
Since my election, I have raised at ministerial level the issue of suicide, and I will continue to do so. I want to continue this work, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his moving contribution. I have witnessed in my legal work families facing the difficulties he faced. This Bill will help such families, and I thank the Government for that.
Since my election in 2019, I have been hugely impressed by the support of the British people for service personnel. Locally, in Derbyshire Dales, I have had the pleasure of seeing the hard work undertaken by the Ashbourne Ex-Servicemen’s Club, and I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to them.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore on behalf of the people of Stockport. Sir Tom sadly passed away last week, but he represented the best of Britain and gave joy to millions of us during the lowest points of the crisis. He served with distinction during the second world war, and as we debate the Bill, I would like to thank Captain Sir Tom and all the armed forces for their service, not least during this covid pandemic when their efforts have further helped to keep our country safe.
As well as keeping our citizens safe, the armed forces also help to pull our communities together. For example, in my constituency, I would also like to give a special mention to Army veteran Peter Millns of the Stockport branch of the Armed Forces and Veterans Breakfast Clubs. I had the wonderful opportunity to visit the club in March last year and meet the incredible people such as Peter who give their time to help run the club and provide such a worthy service. Peter is an inspirational individual. He is the driving force behind my local branch, helping to create a close-knit community for Stockport veterans. Peter is not unique, though. Liz Murray from the Stockport branch of the Royal British Legion also does so much to support our veteran community in the town. The help that the likes of Liz and Peter give to armed forces personnel past and present is vital, and it is never more important than at times like these, which are particularly challenging and can place an even greater burden on our veterans.
Voluntary organisations are amazing, but it should not be left to them to make up the shortfall in Government support. Too often, the armed forces covenant is not upheld and the promises made do not match the reality experienced by our service communities, from substandard housing to veterans’ mental health and social care. Just last week, a scathing report by the National Audit Office revealed that tens of thousands of troops live in “substandard accommodation” while the Ministry of Defence refuses to pay for £1.5 billion pounds worth of repairs and half the rooms in MOD barracks would fail to meet current building regulations. That is no way to treat those who have put their lives on the line to keep our country safe.
The Armed Forces Bill places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver on the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education, but without providing any extra funding to do so. That commitment is even harder to keep when the likes of my local authority, Stockport Council, have not only faced repeated cuts and austerity for more than a decade but now face a shortfall of millions after the Government failed to deliver on their promise to fully fund local authorities for the cost of covid-19 and keeping the people of Stockport safe. A fair financial settlement for our local authorities is the only way that the likes of our serving and veteran armed forces personnel can continue to receive the support they deserve.
Indeed, it is only right that our armed forces, veterans and their families do not continue to experience any disadvantage when accessing services, as we have seen most recently on the housing issue. The sad reality, though, is that too many still face barriers to accessing the support they need. That is why this Government must go further and deliver the armed forces covenant in full. To ensure that that happens, this Bill should set measurable, national standards that would once and for all end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Anthony Mangnall, I must inform the House that the wind-ups will start at 9.40 with Stephen Morgan, followed by Ben Wallace at 9.50. The question will then be put at 10 o’clock, and I apologise in advance to those Members who may not get in.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this Bill, and I would like to start by congratulating the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). He has been assiduous in helping my constituents—veterans and those who are currently serving—with mental health issues and with housing issues, and I thank him for everything that he has done. Today should be a moment for us all to reflect on the hard work that he has put in to the Bill, and into the armed forces covenant to get it where it is. He should rightly be proud.
I am proud to have in my constituency the Britannia Royal Naval College, and I cannot talk enough about it. Last year, I was proud to attend the passing-out parade as ratings and officers were, for the first time ever, able to graduate as they went off into the Royal Navy. I thought then, as I think now, about the future that they will have in the armed forces and what they will have when they retire, become veterans and serve in other occupations, and about what we must do to support those who so bravely put their lives on the line to protect our borders and to push our interests overseas. I hope that today is an opportunity for us to reflect on the fact that we are matching action with words, that we are delivering on our promise to our armed forces and that this will be the start of the many promising steps that we can deliver to those who serve our country.
This is a historic moment, as the Minister has already said, and I welcome the fact that the Bill updates the Armed Forces Act 2006 and that it provides an update to the service justice system, ensuring a fair and effective route to justice. However, I would specifically like to pay attention to the armed forces covenant, which, as I have already said, has been championed so well by the Minister. It is covered in clause 8. We are doing this not just because we have a duty to those servicemen and not just because a focus group tells us to be patriotic, but because this is the right thing for us to do. I come from a military family. My uncle served in the Welsh Guards, and my father was a Green Jacket for his entire career, so I understand what it is like to be in a military family: the requirement to move at the last minute, the onerous stresses of the job that go with it, and the impact that they can place on a family. As such, the fact that this Bill focuses and delivers on the defence transition services that help people move from the military into the private sector, provides flexibility for reservists, and recognises the need to support our veterans and servicemen through education, healthcare and employment are all steps that we should rightly be proud of.
However, we must also recognise that this is a job that will never be finished. It will always require this House, and Members from across this House, to work together to find ways in which we can improve housing and address the mental health issues that are so likely to arise from conflict and crises. These are all welcome steps, but what we must learn for now is that we must improve access to mental health care. With a rural constituency, I know how hard it often is for veterans to access mental health services, so it is particularly welcome to see that the Government’s HeadFIT scheme, launched in April last year, has had such a positive impact, and that 800 GP practices are now recognised as veteran-friendly. I hope that is something we are going to see delivered again and again and improved upon, and that the Minister will come back to the House to provide an update on the progress of these steps.
This is not just about our determination to create the best armed forces in the world; it is about providing support that lasts from when a person joins the service, through their service, and during their careers afterwards. We have that duty. I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken through this Bill, and I welcome this Bill overall.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to our armed forces for everything their personnel have done and continue to do, including in our ongoing battle against coronavirus. I would also like to pay tribute to Labour-led South Tyneside Council in my constituency of Jarrow, where earlier this month, a motion was passed unanimously outlining the council’s support for Commonwealth veterans.
I support the aims of this Bill. However, in its current form, it does not put the armed forces covenant properly into law, to ensure that the long-term failings in the military justice system are put right. As evidenced by the Government’s annual reports, 10 years of the covenant’s operation have shown that the issues the armed forces community face are far-reaching, including health, housing, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, education, criminal justice and immigration. This legislation should include all those broader issues, so it is disappointing that the Bill as introduced covers only certain aspects of health, housing and education.
There is nothing in the Bill to address the long-standing issues around criminal and civil justice for our veterans. How can the Ministry of Defence provide duty of care oversight for service personnel in the service discipline system when it is responsible for investigating, charging and prosecuting them? One of my constituents, Gavin Brearley, has a complaint against the Royal Navy that goes back many years. During his last year of service with the Royal Navy, Gavin was in a hit and run that left him with long-term injuries. He received no rehabilitation and was not medically discharged. His service complaints have never received a satisfactory outcome, and his main concern is that an independent complaints procedure has never been available to him. Various service charities are concerned that the scope of the Bill is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as compensation. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage for veterans such as Gavin are addressed.
Additionally, the Armed Forces Bill does not address what many regard as the injustice of the income requirement that can prevent Commonwealth veterans who have served in our armed forces from living here with their families. A change to the immigration rules for veterans and their immediate families would have been a tangible gesture of gratitude to the brave Commonwealth nations men and women who served in our armed forces. This is a huge missed opportunity in the Bill, and being granted citizenship should not come with having to pay extortionate fees. The Government must treat all veterans with the respect they deserve. Leaving them in a state of bureaucratic limbo for years is both shameful and immoral.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill and especially the way in which it further incorporates the armed forces covenant into law. I am proud to have two RAF bases in my constituency: RAF Halton, which is primarily a training base; and RAF High Wycombe, which is the home of Air Command and will soon be the home of space command. I pay tribute to all service personnel at Halton and Wycombe and, indeed, those serving everywhere in the UK and worldwide. It is absolutely right that they and their families should be treated fairly and with respect, wherever they are asked to live and work.
Given my experience in the civilian criminal justice system prior to my election—specifically 12 years as a magistrate and a time on the Sentencing Council—I shall concentrate my remarks on changes to the service justice system. Perhaps unsurprisingly, my interest centres on concurrence between the two systems. I take the view that if an offence is committed by a member of the armed forces in the UK, and that offence is not directly linked to military conduct or the maintenance of good order and discipline, the defendant, witnesses and victims should be afforded the same broad principles and rights of justice as if the offence had been committed by a civilian. I am pleased to see that there are several clauses in the Bill that aim to achieve exactly that, as a result of the implementation of recommendations from the review by His Honour Judge Lyons. Notably, these include allowing more junior ranks to sit on a court martial board and permitting only one dissenting voice majority decisions at courts martial rather than the current system, which requires just a simple majority. I am also very pleased to see the introduction of a power to rectify mistakes, which reflects the system in the civilian criminal justice system.
One area that gives me cause for concern, however, is the rejection of Judge Lyons’s first recommendation, which was that unless the Attorney General decides otherwise, the offences of murder, manslaughter and rape should be investigated and prosecuted in the civilian system, not investigated by the service police and prosecuted at court martial. These, after all, represent the most serious offences, and it is imperative that they should be handled in a way that will ensure confidence from all participants in the justice process, especially victims as well as the general public.
Those offences were not subject to the service justice system prior to 2006, so following the Lyons recommendation would not undermine a long-standing precedent. Indeed, Judge Lyons’s report states that in many other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, offences that are so serious in nature are dealt with in the civilian system unless an exemption is granted by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of Australia or the Attorney-General in the case of New Zealand. The intention in the Bill is instead to require the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions to agree a protocol to determine whether civilian or service jurisdiction apply in cases of murder, manslaughter and rape. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister expanded on the principles that will guide this protocol.
I am absolutely sure that, like me, the Minister wishes justice to be done and to be seen to be done when serious offences are committed, on those rare occasions, by service personnel in the UK. I feel confident that the added information I seek will provide crucial reassurance that will further strengthen this excellent Bill.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
I am rightly proud of the UK’s armed forces, which are respected around the world for their professionalism and their expertise. Although my own experience is limited to being a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am proud to say that my nephew is a serving soldier.
That professionalism has been seen once again in this past year, from battling floods across the UK and collapsing dams in Yorkshire to the health pandemic, bringing the forces’ expertise in logistics and capacity to support the Government. With the evidence of the value of those forces so fresh in our minds, it seems obvious for the Government to use this moment to make a clear and meaningful statement to improve the day-to-day lives of our forces personnel, our veterans and their families. That is what Labour believes, and what I believe.
Something is clearly not working. Having met several veterans in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, I can vouch for the challenges that they face. For example, soldier C came to me in 2018, in a surgery visit. His eyes betrayed his traumatic situation. I want to focus on some of the issues that came to light in that conversation with soldier C and in others. Although the covenant will provide some focus on healthcare, housing and education, it could go much further.
As charities such as the Royal British Legion have highlighted—and as we in the Labour party believe—the fact that the covenant contains little to address important issues such as employment demonstrates that the Bill is too narrow. If the Government are serious about improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community, they need to address substandard housing, veterans’ mental health and social care. The promises made in the covenant often do not match the reality experienced by our service communities.
Let me start with housing. I have seen with my own eyes, and heard about at first hand, the dreadful state of accommodation on visits to MOD sites with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Of course, there is little choice for most personnel on our bases; it is not like they can head off and lodge somewhere else if it is not up to scratch.
Just last week, the National Audit Office released a report concluding that thousands of armed forces personnel are living in substandard accommodation. Some 80,000 people are occupying single living accommodation blocks —that is half the armed forces—and, of those, the National Audit Office found that more than a third, or 36%, were living in poorer-grade accommodation, while almost 2,400 were in housing considered to be of such bad quality that they were not even charged any rent.
The report said that the Ministry of Defence was failing in its commitment to provide high-quality subsidised housing, with a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs, following decades of underinvestment. The failure of the Government to provide sufficient housing for veterans—as we saw in the case of soldier C—is underlined by the Royal British Legion statistics showing that between 3% and 6% of homeless people have an armed forces background. This Government talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
When it comes to mental health, recent King’s College London and Forces in Mind Trust research found that veterans are at greater risk of mental health disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol misuse when compared with the general population. Yet a Defence Committee report reveals that less than 0.007% of the annual NHS budget is spent on mental health services specifically for veterans, despite the traumatic experiences they have suffered. Among the difficulties reported by veterans to the Royal British Legion’s survey was the failure of benefits officials to understand post-traumatic stress disorder when carrying out and scoring health assessments for disability benefits. Also, of course, it is so hard for veterans to find work in civvy street.
The Bill goes some way to address the issues facing our forces through the covenant, but so much more could have been done. Let us not forget that the armed forces are there to defend the realm and to keep us secure, and that many—as we commemorate every November—have made the ultimate sacrifice. We should safeguard them and provide for them as we would wish to be provided for.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I am delighted to have been called to speak in this debate. Approving the continuation of the armed forces is one of our solemn duties in this House. They allow us as a country to sleep soundly at night, in the knowledge that a world-class organisation stands ready to defend us and our allies 24/7. In the past 12 months, we have seen the incredible reliance we have on the armed forces here in the UK, too. Without their expertise and manpower, we would not be where we are today in the fight against covid-19 and in the roll-out of the vaccine.
This legislation does not only renew our armed forces for another five years; it goes much further. It delivers on another manifesto promise to back our veterans and our active personnel properly. We have already established the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, ably led by the Minister. We introduced the railcard for veterans. We introduced legislation to end vexatious claims against our serving and former personnel. Through this legislation, we will enshrine the military covenant further into law. I thank Ministers and the Secretary of State for all their work to protect our armed forces.
The reason we need this legislation is that the support provided to veterans by local authorities is inconsistent at best. Although it might be excellent in some towns and cities, particularly those with long and deep histories of armed forces garrisons, in other areas it is lacking. The Bill will help to fix that gap by finally putting into law the obligation that authorities have to ensure that, on housing, education and healthcare, we stand by those who served our country. In doing this, let us encourage local authorities and public bodies to think about how the ecosystem of support that exists can be better integrated. Hundreds of charities and community groups do incredible work in all these areas. The Bill should be the catalyst we need to bring all that together and, rather than replacing activity, co-ordinate and enhance it, with the public, private and third sectors all working together for our former and current members of the armed forces. There are still too many instances of public bodies, local authorities and charities competing for funding, which means that they do not always work together even where that is in the best interests of veterans.
I believe that every area should have an armed forces champion, but if we cannot mandate that, let us give guidance on it and best practice, because even in those areas where that role exists, it is not always what we need it to be. It can be someone who shows the leadership needed to pull all the services together and act as a central point of contact. We should all be incredibly proud of this legislation, which demonstrates our enduring commitment to the armed forces and the whole family.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to speak in the debate. Many in the House will know that I have a great deal of respect for our armed services personnel, who have put themselves in harm’s way and made the ultimate sacrifice to protect all of us here the UK. We owe them so much. As the Member for Coventry North West, I am proud to have several army reserve centres in my constituency including at Westfield House on Radford Road with the Signal Regiment and the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers to name a few. I am here because I stand behind our armed forces in totality. I recognise their ongoing efforts to make our country safe, and today I want to pay tribute to them in particular for the frontline work they have undertaken to help us during the pandemic.
The Bill is a good start, and I welcome it, but the work is far from over. To truly honour our service personnel, we must build on it. Not to do so would be a disservice to our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. The armed forces covenant presents a binding moral commitment between the Government and the service community to ensure that men and women and their families get the respect and fair treatment they have earned through their service to our country. It is imperative that the Government deliver on the covenant in full, but the Bill as it stands is a bark without a bite. The Government cannot talk up commitments to our service personnel and not provide concrete action to match it. As it stands, we are already letting them down with substandard housing and a lack of service provision for mental health and social care. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity for us to do more.
The Government state in the Bill that public bodies should give “due regard” to the principles of the covenant, but that is too ambiguous. If the Bill is passed with such ambiguous language, there is a real threat that our service personnel will not see positive change in their day-to-day life. It will be business as usual, and we will continue to see things such as a high homelessness rate among our veterans.
The Bill places a legal responsibility on local authorities to deliver on the covenant in housing, healthcare and education without providing them with any additional funding to do so. If the Government intend to outsource responsibility for delivering on the covenant for our armed forces, I hope they will provide local authorities with the funding needed to make that a reality.
Our servicemen and women—those currently serving—and veterans deserve better, and so do their families. I want to see our armed forces, veterans and their families fully supported, but there are still too many barriers that stop them from accessing key service and support. The Government need to do more by our service personnel, and the one way they can do so is by going further in the Bill and delivering the armed forces covenant in full.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his incredibly brave speech?
This Bill enables our exceptional armed forces to exist and delivers our manifesto commitment and the vision of my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. It is a testament to his commitment to the armed forces and veterans, using this as an opportunity to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
While our brave men and women are supported in their service around the globe, that has not always been the case back at home. They have often had to join the back of the queue. Thankfully, that wrong will, in part, be righted by the Bill. Sadly, in recent days I have heard from a number of veterans in Darlington who have in the past failed to receive adequate access to local services upon their discharge. They have felt forgotten, their needs not understood. One of my constituents, who left the services in 2007, having served in Iraq and Northern Ireland, put it to me:
“The armed forces spend months and thousands of pounds turning civilians into soldiers. However, once leaving, it’s a quick handshake and off you pop.”
In preparing for tonight’s debate, I took the opportunity to discuss the Bill with my former colleague in legal practice, Michael Menzies-Baird, or Mingus to his pals. Mingus served as a soldier in Northern Ireland, defusing bombs, before retraining to become a litigation solicitor. He now gives up his free time to serve SSAFA, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Mingus said to me:
“Enshrining the armed forces covenant in law is solely about fairness. The armed forces are sent worldwide whenever the nation requires us to serve, to give everything, putting our lives on the line to protect the UK. I was very lucky, but many of my colleagues have either not returned, done so with disabilities or suffer with PTSD having witnessed the horrors of war. They just want to be treated fairly and to have their efforts recognised—a little helping hand, rather than being ignored, which it has felt they have been for many, many years.”
I have also met Councillor Brian Jones, Darlington’s armed forces ambassador. He warmly welcomes the obligations that will be placed on local authorities. As he said, it is to do the right thing.
The Bill is welcomed by the armed forces community in Darlington precisely because it enshrines the armed forces covenant in law, ensuring protection and fair treatment for our armed forces community and imposing a legal duty on UK public bodies and local authorities to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, ensuring that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of or by their service when accessing key public services.
This Bill builds on the Government’s investment in the welfare of our armed forces and honours our manifesto pledge. I look forward to supporting the Bill this evening and continuing our commitment to those who serve as we work to protect those who have put their lives on the line to protect us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Peter. You took less than four minutes. Everybody remaining on the call list is a Government Member. While we will keep the time limit at four minutes, if Members are able to speak for less than four minutes, they will be helping those lower down the call list. I call Andrew Bowie.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
There is a challenge I hope to meet, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not often that the professionalism and adaptability of our men and women of the armed forces are witnessed up close by the British people. Occasionally we see our armed forces step in to support communities suffering natural disasters. For example, I remember from my youth the Green Goddesses being deployed during the 2002 fire service strike. Thankfully, however, in our country the occasions when we see armed service personnel deployed on our streets are few and far between. Far more often, the skills and determination of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are seen overseas.
This year has been very different. Since this awful pandemic hit Britain, we have seen the very best of the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force here at home. The enemy may not be the traditional kind; we are not asking our troops to face foreign combatants. Nevertheless, it is an enemy that we must defeat, and that is why it is right that the skills of our armed forces are at the forefront of this battle.
As of 5 February 2021, some 5,000 military personnel were committed to assist with 69 open requests for covid-19 military aid to civilian authorities. Around 14,000 personnel are on standby as part of the winter preparedness package. Here in Scotland, we have seen 115 military personnel, including soldiers from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, help to set up and operate vaccination centres, including just down the road from where I am speaking, where they have worked with the amazing people at NHS Grampian to deliver a vaccination centre at the P&J Live arena in Aberdeen. From assisting in planning with the devolved Administrations to supporting our NHS on the ground and running testing centres, our armed forces are the tip of the spear of our attack on coronavirus. When we beat it, as we will, it will be in no small part due to the professionalism and dedication of our men and women in uniform.
Our armed forces have done all that while continuing to defend and protect the British interest and that of our allies in Afghanistan, the Baltics, Belize, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, the Falklands, Iceland, Germany, Gibraltar, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, the Red sea, the Gulf, the south Atlantic and the Antarctic, and across the north Atlantic and Mediterranean, while maintaining our continuous at-sea deterrent for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every year since 1965, with the RAF now monitoring space. That is why it is apt that the debate on this Bill is scheduled for today and in this year. The Bill’s primary purpose is to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006, update and improve the service justice system and, importantly, deliver the Government’s commitment to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
I am proud to represent Aberdeenshire: last year, my local authority, Aberdeenshire Council, was awarded the Ministry of Defence employer recognition scheme gold award. Much of the work was driven by Aberdeenshire veterans champion, Conservative councillor and deputy provost Ron McKail, himself a veteran.
On reserves, briefly, I welcome the new continuous service commitment, which will enable members of the reserve forces to volunteer to undertake a period of full-time or part-time service. That is a positive step, but in welcoming this Government support for our reserve forces I must raise the concerns of those in my constituency who currently serve in the Royal Naval Reserve, who saw the service suspended at the tail end of last year. Drill nights, training weekends and two-week training has been paused and those serving feel let down, with some in my constituency describing the decision as a real kick in the teeth. We must support our reserves properly and ensure that those serving know that they are full, valued members of our armed forces family and are not easily pushed aside, as many feel they have been at this time. I look forward to April, when the pause will end, and hope it never happens again.
The debate on the issues covered in the Bill will go on in Committee and beyond, but it is right that tonight the House seems to be coming together and that we acknowledge and understand that, as the covenant says, those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy and society that they serve with their lives.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I speak on this important Bill as the daughter of a veteran, the founder of a charity that supports vulnerable veterans, and an early signatory of the armed forces covenant. I want to concentrate on the covenant element.
My late father Eric served in the Royal Artillery in world war two. When war broke out he was 17, a young man from Birmingham who had never travelled beyond the midlands. He saw active service in Iraq and Sicily before landing on Gold beach on D-day, crossing northern France and being part of the liberation of Brussels. My father was only 23 when the war ended, yet it defined him for the rest of his life.
Nowadays, we recognise the mental health challenges of those who have experienced trauma on the frontline and understand the difficulties faced by some in making the transition to civvy street. The armed forces covenant recognises that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Such core principles go to the very heart of our values in Stoke-on-Trent: our recognition of, gratitude for and respect for our veterans runs through our veins.
I am sure the Minister will want to join me in congratulating Stoke City football club on its outstanding achievement as the first English football club to be awarded gold in the employer recognition scheme. In 2019, the club hosted a regional employer conference to promote the covenant and encourage small businesses to sign up. Many businesses in Stoke-on-Trent have stepped up to support our veterans, and 15 have been awarded the gold, silver or bronze award in the national employer recognition scheme.
The Bill will ensure that local authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent City Council now have a statutory responsibility to underpin their voluntary covenant commitment, but a big problem remains: we simply do not know how many veterans there are in our area. As a result, many may be unintentionally disadvantaged. Of the 1,900 people currently on the housing register in Stoke-on-Trent, just eight are known to be veterans, yet SSAFA estimates that approximately 47,000 veterans live in Staffordshire. The absence of this information might mean that access to funding from veterans charities for adaptations to properties for veterans with disabilities is denied. I therefore welcome the commitment from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans to improving the data available on veterans, as well as the Government’s £300-million investment in the development of an enhanced veterans portal. However, in the meantime we must encourage veterans to identify themselves to local authorities, particularly during next year’s national census.
In conclusion, for my father’s generation, the shared experience of a world war meant a shared understanding of service to our country. Now, a new understanding is vital to support those who are struggling. That is why I welcome the covenant commitment in this legislation and the ongoing work to strengthen the support network for our military family.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
In many countries, across four continents, I have had the rare privilege of living and working alongside United Kingdom servicemen and women, who serve not only Queen and country, and our hard interests, but British values and humanity. Our forces, and the men and women who compose them, are our nation’s finest asset.
Ever since the Bill of Rights in 1688, Acts of Parliament have provided the necessary provisions for the armed forces to exist as a disciplined force. The Armed Forces Bill in 2021 provides a continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006, establishing the legal basis for the armed forces to operate as a disciplined body. Not only does the Bill guarantee a legal basis for the armed forces, but it introduces vital reform to strengthen the basis of the armed forces covenant. By doing so, we can ensure that those who currently serve or have served and their families are treated with the respect and fairness they deserve.
By implementing some of the key recommendations of the service justice system review conducted by His Honour Judge Lyons, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant. Such provisions include providing the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales with the power to nominate a circuit judge to sit as a judge advocate, following a request by the Judge Advocate General, and creating a new regime for complaints against the service police, through the creation of the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, ensuring oversight of the service police forces. Changes to the service complaints appeals system are also included. Personnel are provided with a clear route to justice wherever they are operating, whether that is through reducing the minimum time for complainants to lodge appeals or applying to the service police complaints ombudsman.
Putting into law the armed forces covenant will ensure that all armed forces personnel and veterans are treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve by other public bodies, whether for healthcare, housing or education. Enshrining the covenant in law bolsters the initiatives that have already been introduced to support veterans. For the 4,200 veterans who live in Wakefield, this Bill will help to eliminate any disadvantages or discrimination they may face in accessing public services.
Labour’s post-war track record on the armed forces is evidence that it cannot be trusted to champion our veterans, defend our national security and safeguard UK interests. This Bill proves yet again that the Conservatives prioritise the rights of our veterans and service personnel. I want to thank the Secretary of State for Defence and his entire team for all the work they have undertaken and to recognise the great efforts that they continue to take in promoting the rights of our veteran community. It is a record to be proud of and one that, through this Government’s actions, demonstrates the Conservatives’ entirely authentic, truly genuine affection and gratitude for all our service personnel, past, present and future.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]
I am very glad of this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude and respect for our armed forces for all they do for peace and democracy and British interests abroad and our security and wellbeing at home, particularly during the past year, when they have played such a vital role, often behind the scenes, in the fight against covid. I particularly honour the troops stationed at Tidworth, Bulford and the other bases in my constituency. Despite what it says on the gates of Aldershot, Salisbury plain is the true home of the British Army, and I am proud to represent it.
Listening to the debate this evening, it has been good to see the House so united, and that is right. The Minister referred at the outset to the foundation of our modern parliamentary democracy in 1688, which is also the foundation of the British Army, which only exists because this House votes for it every five years. The subjection of the armed forces to Parliament is the foundation of a free society. It is what makes the Army a force for good. If we consider recent events in Myanmar, we appreciate the value of that.
If through these Acts every five years Parliament gives the Army its life, we also owe it our duty, so I am proud to support the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill, which, uniquely among its many predecessors, brings the armed forces covenant not just into statute, but into the operations of the British state at the most local level, because the personnel of our armed forces live, like everyone else, in local communities.
Here I acknowledge the work of Wiltshire Council in recent years. The county council was one of the first councils, if not the first, to sign the armed forces covenant. That was not just because of the historic presence of the British Army on Salisbury plain, but because 4,000 soldiers and their families have come home to the UK from Germany over the past 10 years, all needing housing and healthcare, education for their children, civilian jobs for partners and communities for everyone. The military’s civilian integration programme, led by the MOD and Wiltshire Council, has been a great success. I particularly welcome the work that Councillor Chris Williams, our armed forces champion in Wiltshire, has done and the wonderful new civic centre that is opening in Tidworth.
Everyone I have spoken to on both sides of the civilian-military divide has confirmed that the programme has been a great success. Perhaps the best indicator of that is that the divide between the military and the civilian is not so huge as in former days. The famous phrase “behind the wire”, and the fact that soldiers lived literally fenced off from the community they were situated in, has less and less meaning in Wiltshire.
I welcome this Bill and hope it continues the excellent work I see locally, but I echo the point that my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), made about the enforcement of the covenant under the new rules. I do not believe we need extra enforcement in Wiltshire, but there may be places that do. It would be good to understand how the covenant will be enforced.
I end with a word on the justice elements of the Bill. I believe our Army is the best in the world, but as many soldiers have told me, being the best means behaving the best. No one wants soldiers to have carte blanche in foreign conflicts, and no one wants the Army to be a law unto itself at home. I welcome the strengthening of the Army justice system. The Bill will ensure that our armed forces remain morally as well as operationally secure—secure in our constitution and subject to Parliament, but also secure in the higher jurisdiction of right and wrong—and that we can continue to have an armed forces of which we can be proud.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
Bury is the proud home of the Lancashire Fusiliers. We are a military town, but in recent years, there has been an acceptance that our responsibilities to local armed forces personnel under the Bury armed forces covenant—signed in 2014 by our local council—have waned, and that is simply not acceptable. A review of the Bury covenant was announced in June last year and is now taking place for that very reason. I therefore welcome clause 8 and will confine my remarks to that important provision.
Clause 8 creates a duty on principles that specified persons or bodies must have regard to when exercising certain housing, education or healthcare provision. It is a welcome attempt by the Government to ensure positive support and outcomes for our veterans. We all agree that they must never be disadvantaged, but if local councils and service providers do not live up to these duties and principles, I am concerned about the action that can be taken at a local level to guarantee that veterans receive the support that clause 8 envisages.
We must also be ambitious in how we are to deliver improved and better services for our armed forces personnel. Words are not enough. We must ensure joint partnership working between veterans associations, volunteers, all those who provide support for veterans—including through breakfast clubs, veterans cafés and many other forms of support—local councils and clinical commissioning groups.
In Lancashire and Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, I have had the opportunity to see how good practice works, and how the delivery of services to multi-purpose armed forces hubs has fantastic outcomes for veterans from all backgrounds. I point briefly to two examples: the Wigan Borough Armed Forces Community HQ hub and Healthier Heroes CIC in Burnley. Both facilities provide a wide range of support services and social activities for veterans. Wigan has even started building its own housing stock for local veterans.
Having visited both facilities, I know that full-time mental health support is fundamental to the wellbeing of many veterans. We must find innovative ways of delivering these services and funding such fantastic provision. I have spoken many times to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and I welcome the funding that he champions, including through the armed forces covenant fund, to support local authorities and groups that are ambitious to deliver the best outcomes for their local armed forces personnel.
This is a fantastic Bill that builds not only on our manifesto commitment, but on the deep affection that we all have for those who give so much for our country. I will work tirelessly with others in my constituency to deliver the armed forces hub that will benefit all veterans who have given so much to our country and who are proud to live in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. We are truly an area which values our armed forces personnel. I will work with everyone to ensure that we have the services, outcomes and facilities that they deserve.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I have often spoken—both in and out of the Chamber—of the patriotic nature of my constituents in Dudley North. Their gratitude, and mine, was particularly evident in November last year during our fundraising drive for the poppy appeal. Our armed forces do so much, not just to keep us safe in, and from, conflict, but by delivering vital community support in peacetime. I thank them. I pay tribute to the veterans and those who are still in active service from my constituency here in Dudley North. In times of crisis, those who step forward to risk their lives to protect others are heroes, but in their heroism they often sacrifice the most suffering, bereavement and injury.
I am very pleased that the armed forces covenant is being enshrined in law. It is essential that we ensure that all armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are treated fairly. Despite the great respect and admiration that so many of us have for our armed forces, there is too often a lack of understanding of the intricacies of the unique obligations and sacrifices made by service personnel and their families. Whether it is the struggle to find housing, to access healthcare or to ensure that their children receive consistent and continuous education when they may face disruption from moving between bases, veterans need and deserve all the support that we can give them.
I am a very outcome-focused person. When I chaired an armed forces covenant committee in recent times, I could see many good intentions from local councils, health trusts, housing providers and so many more, but translating those good intentions into the practical differences they could make to that veteran sleeping under a bridge because he or she could not face what we regard as normal life is a very different thing. We have heard very movingly tonight from my colleague and near neighbour, my hon. and brave Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). Support needs to be over-arching and proactive. Typically, our traumatised veterans do not ask for help and, if they wanted to, it would not be that obvious to them where they could find it, so we need to do more; we must do more.
The Bill increases awareness among public bodies of the unique nature of military service, improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community no matter where in the UK they live. I look forward to seeing it implemented in every possible practical way and as soon as possible.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
May I start by paying tribute to Members of this House who have contributed to this debate this evening who have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces? I am extremely grateful to every single one of them, and I extend those thanks to every citizen of this nation who has given their service to Queen and country.
I welcome this Bill very much, and I would particularly like to commend the Secretary of State and the Minister for the hard work they have put in to make this happen. How pleased I am that this is a Bill that is unifying across this House in support of our armed forces.
As the Member for West Dorset, it is important for me to note in this Chamber tonight that one in seven people in Dorset has a connection to the armed forces. The progress, therefore, with the armed forces covenant is very important to me and it is very important to the constituents in West Dorset. I am very grateful to the Minister for the progress he is making in that area.
Dorset has a considerable military presence. We have 6,500 serving members in the surrounding military bases: whether that is Blandford Camp, Bovington Camp, RNAS Yeovilton or the Royal Marines base in Poole, Dorset is particularly well served by forces. But it is also important to note that, while West Dorset is the home to many serving and retired members of the armed forces, we play a very important role as well for those who are looking to progress their career in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or the Marines. At Kingston Maurward College on the outskirts of Dorchester, our county town, there are many students who are preparing for their career in the armed forces with military preparation diplomas.
In Dorset County Hospital in the county town of Dorchester, we have 30 Royal Marines coming to support our doctors, nurses, our support staff, our porters and so on to make sure we can really make progress in this coronavirus pandemic at this time.
It is also very proud for me to be able to articulate, briefly, the very proud history that we have in Dorset with the Dorsetshire Regiment, dating all the way back to 1751, and its successor regiments: the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment and, indeed, today The Rifles; we celebrated its 14th anniversary of inauguration just a week or so ago.
But it is important for me tonight to make very clear that this debate and this Bill are about actions rather than words. For far too long, we have heard warm words rather than actions. I see it. I even see it this last week, when a priest from the Church of England, in the diocese of London, the Rev. Jarel Robinson-Brown, said that the celebration of Sir Tom Moore’s life is an act of white cult nationalism. That is fundamentally shocking and it should be called out, and each and every one of us in this place has a role to make sure that happens. Indeed, when we see action such as Extinction Rebellion’s act on Armistice Day this year to put a protest on the Cenotaph, it is absolutely shocking. I hope I can call on every single Member of this House to ensure that those actions do speak louder than words.
To conclude, I feel it is my duty and it is the duty of all of us in this House to represent our constituents in supporting Her Majesty’s armed forces. I, indeed all of us, have sworn an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, alongside members of the armed forces, and it is with great pleasure and pride tonight that I support this Bill.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I was down at Bovington not that long ago with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham). My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and I share a separate connection too: both Dorset and County Durham are Rifles recruiting grounds. I associate myself with his comments regarding the sad death of Captain Sir Tom Moore.
I am delighted to speak today. It is so important that we recognise what an important role our armed forces play in our country. As a former special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, I witnessed the actions that they take—overt and sometimes covert—on our behalf across the globe, and at home in their support to the civil authorities in dealing with coronavirus and various other issues.
I am particularly delighted that the Bill delivers on our manifesto pledge, ensuring protection for our armed forces and putting responsibility on public bodies at the heart of what we are doing. It is great to see the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), on the Front Bench. I know that he has campaigned for this for so long. Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), spoke very well today, but I think the whole House recognises the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who made a superb speech.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, I am particularly glad to see clause 8, which moves towards enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. It is also superb to see clause 9, with the flexibility around commitments for our reserve personnel. More broadly, schedule 1 and clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 help to deliver better justice in the armed forces for our serving personnel.
My constituents in North West Durham are more than patriotic, but it is not a jingoistic patriotism. It is much deeper than that; it is much more personal. As I mentioned, my constituency is a major recruiting ground for the Rifles, formerly the Durham Light Infantry, and for the Royal Marines.
I was delighted on the 14th anniversary of the Rifles to speak to Major General Charlie Collins, who is currently the commander of 1st Division and commanded British forces abroad not long ago. He emphasised to me the importance of our armed forces’ regional connections. In County Durham, we have seen in recent years the sad loss of the DLI museum. I really hope that we can get it a new home as soon as possible, because it is such a key part of recognising the deep personal relationship that so many people across County Durham have with our armed forces.
Finally, I would like to speak up on behalf of the professionalism and dedication of those who put their lives on the line for us. I have met several families with young people going through basic training at the moment. It really is amazing to see how those young people develop so quickly in our armed forces. I want to put on record the thanks of all my constituents to them for what they do. They are there for us. They are the hard edge of Britain’s global power. They deserve our respect, they deserve our support, and they deserve a Government behind them every step of the way. I am glad to hear that the Bill goes some way further to delivering on that.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
In Wantage and Didcot, I represent a constituency with a strong tradition of admiration for our armed services but also of service in them, including by some of my predecessors, one of whom was Airey Neave, who had a proud record of service in world war two. His immediate predecessor was Ralph Glyn, who fought in the first world war and was given a Military Cross. We have the Defence Academy at Shrivenham, and we have the 11 EOD & Search Regiment in Didcot. However, my admiration for the services came long before I became an MP. My dad served in the British Army for 18 years, and that left me with a close interest in what we do and how we treat our armed men and women.
The Bill has a lot in it to welcome. I have spoken to quite a number of people from the veteran community in my constituency, as well as to some serving personnel, and there is a lot that they welcome too, from the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner to allowing reserve forces to serve flexibly in the way that regular forces do. I heard particular praise for allowing the rescinding of judgments made in error; one person made the point to me that, particularly where judgments are done very quickly, mistakes can be made, and they thought that was a very welcome provision of the Bill. The extension of the posthumous pardons, often for crimes that should never have been crimes, provides at least some small relief to the family members who are still alive.
The armed forces covenant runs throughout the Bill, of course, and I welcome the “due regard” that will be paid in the areas of housing, health and education. The people I talked to suggested that those were the three areas where they most commonly saw complaints—either their own or those of colleagues. I hope that in time we will be able to extend it to other areas, and perhaps employment is one of the areas that has the strongest case.
I also think it would be good for us to extend this to national Government Departments in time. What we are doing with local authorities is very welcome, and I recognise that health, education and housing are in keeping with the Armed Forces Act 2011, but my general view on a lot of things that go on in the UK is that national Government Departments could and should lead by example. I recognise that there are challenges with that at this time, but I hope we can aspire to that in due course.
Overall, this is a very welcome Bill that builds on everything this Government have been doing, from the guaranteed interview scheme to the veteran’s railcard to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. None of us, unless they are a gallant Member of this House, has made the sacrifices that our armed forces do. Many of those sacrifices are out of sight of most of us, but they should not be out of mind, and with this Bill today we take an important step towards recognising that and giving them the respect and care they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Aaron Bell. I am not going to put the clock on you, Aaron. Just carry on talking, and I will stop you at 9.40 pm. If you stop earlier, we will go straight to the winding-up speeches.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow so many distinguished contributions from so many hon. Members who have known service, either themselves or through their families, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who gave us a speech that was brave, honest and full of integrity. He did not spare himself and he did not spare this House, and the whole House is much richer for his presence in it and his contribution here today.
This is a very good Bill that will be welcomed by my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am glad it has cross-party support. It renews the mandate for our armed forces, and I cannot be the only hon. Member somewhat awed by the fact that we are here today with a Bill that is necessary because of an Act that was passed in this place one third of a millennium ago, in 1689. The Bill of Rights is fundamental to our constitution and that of so many countries around the world, and this is a useful reminder of the supremacy of Parliament and where we have come from.
This Bill makes improvements to the service justice system, with a new independent mode of redress, and offers more support for reservists. However, like many colleagues, I want to focus on the armed forces covenant in this, its 10th anniversary year, and on clause 8 in particular. Members of the armed forces and their families simply must not be disadvantaged, particularly in the areas we are talking about today: healthcare, education and housing.
I recall that every time I went to visit my cousins when I was growing up, they seemed to be living somewhere else, all over the country, because their father was in the RAF. Now my sister and her husband are both serving in the senior service—they are both commanders in the Navy. There is a real burden for service families. Servicemen and women put their lives on the line, but I know how difficult service life is for their families too—having to re-establish themselves frequently, maybe every couple of years, in a new place, with a new school and new friends. We owe it to them to get this sort of thing right.
I also welcome the fact that the covenant covers veterans. We have many veterans’ organisations in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I highlight 58 Signal Squadron Association and the Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre, which works with SSAFA to support veterans who may have fallen on harder times. I have met them, and they have been doing great work throughout covid.
As I come towards the end of my shortened speech, speaking about veterans brings me nicely on to Captain Sir Tom Moore. Over 75 years ago, he served our nation with his service in India and Burma during the second world war, as part of that greatest generation, and then he served our nation again last year. Veterans such as him are truly the very best of British; I am proud to support them, to support servicemen and women and their families, to support the Government and to support this Bill.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
I want to start by echoing the contributions from across the House that have recognised and honoured the commitment and service of our armed forces, and it has been a really good-spirited debate this evening.
Labour stands firmly behind our service personnel. We are immensely proud of the role our world-renowned servicemen and women continue to play in making our country and our world safer, and we pay tribute to the local authorities, public bodies, service charities and voluntary organisations that support our forces across the United Kingdom; they are working hard to make the covenant a reality, as my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said.
From peacekeeping missions in Mali to helping frontline services tackle the pandemic and vaccinating Britain, our forces continue to embody the values that British people most admire: courage, integrity, loyalty, discipline and service. While our forces will continue to evolve and modernise, they will always have our brave servicemen and women at their core.
My grandfather left Portsmouth—the constituency I now have the privilege to represent—turning just 17 on D-day, to take part in the Normandy landings. He is one of the reasons I am standing at this Dispatch Box today. He fought for peace and fairness, and he would later establish the Portsmouth Normandy Veterans Association, which provided support as he and others left service. For him and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make sure that this legislation provides the very best.
The Armed Forces Bill presents a real opportunity to make meaningful improvements in the day-to-day lives of our armed forces personnel and veterans and their families. There are welcome efforts to provide new flexibility for reservists, who continue to balance work and military training as the hidden heroes among us. But the central part of this legislation is an effort to enshrine the armed forces covenant into law. Labour welcomes those efforts and the intentions of the Bill, but while the Government like to talk up their commitment to our service communities, the Bill misses a crucial opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant. From substandard housing to veterans’ mental health and social care, the promises made in the covenant often do not match the reality experienced by our service communities.
I want to acknowledge the personal and passionate contribution of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and the sense of abandonment he described. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) spoke about the need to guarantee services for those who have served, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) addressed ending the injustice faced by war widows, a point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) rightly recognised the work of our personnel during the pandemic, yet the Government want to outsource responsibility for their support. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), a thorn in the Minister’s side, for reminding us of the great record of the last Labour Government in standing up for service people and veterans, and I look forward to his sharing his expertise and insight on the Select Committee. Finally, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who spoke passionately about support for Commonwealth veterans. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his tireless campaigning on this important issue.
The covenant guarantees priority healthcare for those who have served, but service charities continue to point out the uneven nature of its application. We know that waiting times for mental health treatment have skyrocketed, and we know that service housing is in an appalling state and those transitioning out of the forces are increasingly struggling to find jobs, but the Bill does little to tackle these issues head-on. The proposals requiring public bodies to have due regard to the covenant are unlikely to make any real impact on the day-to-day lives of forces personnel.
Ministers have already let the cat out of the bag that they are not serious about delivering for our armed forces. Last week at Defence questions, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans said that
“the legislation is very clear that it does not specify outcomes, but simply ensures that a set of principles is adhered to.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 668.]
I invite the Minister to explain exactly how these principles and the ambiguous legalese of due regard would deliver practical action for our service personnel: the squaddie in poor-quality, single-living accommodation who is without the basics such as heating and hot water; the veteran struggling with their mental health who has to endure waiting times for treatment more than twice as long as Government targets; or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting into work. Instead of lumping extra responsibilities on cash-strapped local authorities and other stretched public bodies, the Bill should set measurable, enforceable national standards for which central Government are accountable. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
Ministers say that they will be producing statutory guidance on how the new responsibilities should be delivered by public bodies. Given the importance that this guidance will have on the impact and delivery of this legislation, I urge Ministers to publish it during the passage of the Bill to allow for proper scrutiny.
Service charities such as the Royal British Legion have also expressed disappointment that the scope of the Bill is narrow. While the focus on housing, healthcare and education is welcome, this legislation should ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed. The Bill is silent on employment, for instance. We are all seeing joblessness among veterans rising above the national average, particularly among black, Asian and minority ethnic service personnel and those medically discharged. There are no specific commitments on forces’ pay, which has been below inflation for seven years running, leading to real terms cuts for our servicemen and women. It fails to seize the opportunities to make a long-overdue step change in the way that we approach the welfare of veterans and particularly the transition back into civilian life. It could finally take steps to improve coroners’ data collection, so that we can better understand and combat the tragedy of veteran suicide. It could tackle the ongoing challenges of access to benefits, but here as well it falls short. By setting a legal standard that is below the existing voluntary offers in some areas, the Government risk creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on services for our forces’ communities.
The threats of poor pay and conditions posed to recruitment and retention, and our overall defence capability were made clear this weekend, with leaked reports, suggesting that 32 of 33 infantry battalions are dangerously short of battle-ready personnel. The Government cannot simply outsource responsibility for delivering on the covenant with this performative show of support for our armed forces.
Let me now turn to proposals on the service justice system, because here again we find that this legislation fall short of what was promised. Labour welcomes the efforts to implement key recommendations in the Lyons review. We particularly welcome the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner, which will ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases, but it must urgently clarify why it has not adopted the Lyons’ recommendation of civilian courts having full jurisdiction over murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK. Civilian courts have a much better record of trying these cases.
Labour believes that the armed forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between Government and service communities. The last Labour Government delivered the first cross-government strategy on welfare of armed forces personnel. That introduced the armed forces compensation scheme, doubled the welfare grant for families of those on operations, gave better access to housing schemes and healthcare, offered free access to further education for service leavers, and extended travel concessions for veterans and those seriously injured. The Tories have not only stalled this progress, but reversed it. Every time a member of service personnel is deployed overseas, every time a reservist signs up, and every time they deliver a covid test or vaccine, the promises in the covenant are renewed, but when I speak to service personnel, they often do not know what the covenant promises or how it can help them in their day-to-day lives. The Government’s ambition in this Bill should match the high standards our armed forces display in their service and demand of themselves. While we welcome the principle of this legislation in its current form, it is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises set out in the covenant. The Government must deliver on the covenant in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. Our country expects it and our troops deserve it.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Let me declare at the outset that I am president of the Scots Guards Association for veterans and have been for nearly 20 years.
I pay tribute to all Members who have spoken in this debate. Looking after our veterans and our armed forces does not belong to any one political party, nor to any one Member of Parliament. Reflecting on the contribution from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), one would easily be forgiven for thinking that serving personnel’s experience of the armed forces is that they all live in substandard accommodation, have an awful time and want to leave. One would also think that the veterans in this country are not enjoying successful careers, becoming incredibly employable, working hard, contributing to society and using their skills. Up and down this country, tens of thousands—nay, even hundreds of thousands—of people who have enjoyed service to this country, whether short or long, show those skills to all and sundry. They show their loyalty to their country, they show their patriotism, they show their ability to work, and they are incredibly employable.
For many people, the system works and they have a great time in the services. For many people, the best part of their lives—probably the best part of my life—was as a serving soldier in the armed forces. Was it perfect? No. Did I lose 30% of my sight? Yes. Did I find myself rushed to hospital being told that they would not save my sight? Yes. Did I feel slightly abandoned when afterwards, with a one-inch gash in my eyeball, I woke up alone in a hospital in west Belfast, and did not really know how to transition? Yes. But do I regret a minute of my service? No. Do I regret the skills it gave me? No. Do the hundreds of thousands of veterans in this country regret it? No.
It is true, however, that for a proportion of veterans and serving personnel, all is not well, and we all recognise in this House that we could always do more and do better. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made the very important point that the journey never ends. The reason the journey never ends is that conflict never ends, and the nature of conflict never ends. The distance between society and the people who serve in the armed forces—fewer and fewer people—never ends. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who is a very thoughtful Member of this House who seeks the best for the armed forces, and, as a member of the Scottish National party, is always open to listening, understanding and exploring ideas, made the very real point that there are fewer and fewer serving personnel in society and the gap between the understanding of what they do and what others do is growing greater. We must address that.
This Bill is a good step in the right direction. It improves many of the things that in my day were not even really in existence. I served as a member of the armed forces under both a Conservative Government and a Labour Government. If we just consider the treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder—the transition and liaison service, the complex treatment service and the high-intensity service now delivered by the NHS for the mental welfare of our veterans—we can see that all that is much, much better; a step change from what it was.
This Bill takes another step forward—it goes further—because clause 8 puts the armed forces covenant into law. As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, this has been a long journey. It started off with a charter, then a Green Paper, then it became a duty to report, and now this is a step forward whereby we will put a duty on a number of services to pay regard to the covenant.
The Bill is also a step forward in improving the assurances around investigations, which many Opposition Members said during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was something that is missing. It is about improving the quality and the independence of those investigations, alongside that of the prosecutions and the judiciary. It is about improving the training so that our soldiers—men and women of our armed forces—are never again in the position they were in in the early years of the Iraq war, where they were accused of war crimes when they thought they were simply doing what they were trained to do. That happened because the training had fallen far behind the development of the law and human rights legislation.
Many Members called for the Bill to go wider and deeper, and I will do my best to respond, given that nearly 60 colleagues spoke during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) suggested a £500 thank you payment to our troops in the same way as was provided for NHS workers in Scotland. She also said that we could do more in health and education. The Scottish Parliament has those devolved powers, and there is nothing to stop the Government of Scotland tomorrow morning doing even more on a whole range of issues to support the covenant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) pointed out the excellent report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), “Living in our Shoes”—an extremely good piece of work. As Secretary of State for Defence, I have not only listened to and read the reports from my colleagues and from Select Committees on issues such as protecting veterans and legacy, but have made sure that the Department does not put those reports on the shelf and ignore them. I believe that many of our colleagues have some of the best ideas, and throughout the conduct of this Bill, I assure the House that the Government will be open to suggestions about how to improve it. Everyone in the Government will be interested in doing that, because we all have that interest at heart.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and many others raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans. I refer him to the written ministerial statement on 18 March by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and add that we are all keen to get the legacy over the line as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) gave us an insight into what it means to be a commanding officer, having to discipline soldiers and balance military discipline with the needs of the unit, sometimes on operations—that experience is unique. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) referred to his experiences as a magistrate in the civilian world. I have sat on a court martial in the military world—before the reforms—but the military world and the civil world are different, so that is a unique experience.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire talked about why it is always the military that is called upon to do the resilience. The fundamental reason is how we are trained: it is the pressure, the different discipline and structure, and often the difference between life and death in operations. There is no need to always replicate that across society. It is a unique experience—a unique set of circumstances—because only we in the armed forces are called upon to kill or be killed. It is a unique thing, one that we often take with us for the rest of our lives, and that is why we provide resilience at pace in anything from a pandemic to flooding and snowstorms. That will always continue, because that is the very nature of why our armed forces are special, and we must make sure we protect that special nature. At the same time, we must modernise welfare and aftercare for our troops, but the military is different, and will always be different.
That is why when it comes to co-jurisdiction, there is the obvious difficulty around murder, manslaughter, rape and other offences, but there are many serious offences. There is attempted murder; there is grievous bodily harm; there is armed robbery. Why is it okay for those offences to remain in a service system, but it is recommended that three other offences be potentially removed into a civil system? It is perfectly legitimate to argue against the concept of service justice, although I would disagree, but if we accept that there is such a concept, where we draw the line has to balance the needs of the victim with those of the accused. That is why I think the solution we came up with, which was not the Lyons recommendation of Attorney General consent—which can happen behind closed doors—but consent based on an open and transparent protocol that will be decided between the Crown Prosecution Service and the service justice fraternity, was the right one.
I will just make one other point on this topic, because a number of colleagues make this mistake: the service justice system is independent. I do not appoint the judge advocate; I do not appoint the judges; I do not interfere with the police and the justice system, in the same way that the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor do. It is independent. People seem to think that it is all cosy because we are in the armed forces, and that we sit around and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. We do not. Yes, the service justice system and the quality of investigations have been found wanting over many years. That is why we commissioned the Lyons report, and it is why Sir Richard Henriques has been commissioned to increase the assurance, because that is the best way to make sure we do not constantly get taken to court under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to ensure that people are not dragged through the courts. We will continue to do that.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about the need for the 16-year-olds. In response to his question, I urge him to visit the Army Foundation College in Harrogate—I will happily make that possible.
All I will say in conclusion is that at their heart, our armed forces are about the people. Over the next few months, we will have debates about equipment, integrated reviews, and which service wins over which—which regiments do and do not—but in the end, if we do not invest in our people, we will not have anything for the future of our armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Armed Forces Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:
Select Committee
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.
(2) The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 29 April 2021.
Committee of the whole House, Consideration and Third Reading
(3) On report from the Select Committee, the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.
(4) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(5) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.
(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming committee
(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill (Carry-Over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
(1) The Committee shall have 16 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
(2) The Committee shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;
(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and
(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Bill.
(3) The Order of the House of 24 March 2020 (Select Committees (Participation and Reporting) (Temporary Order)) shall apply to the Committee as if it had the power to report from time to time.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Covid-19: Zoos and Aquariums
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
It is with great pride that I rise virtually today to speak up for the zoo and aquarium sector—a sector that every year makes a substantial contribution to our society and to the world at large. The members of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums contribute more than £31 million to conservation projects. Those projects protect, conserve and add to our understanding of precious species, from seahorses to elephants, many of which are now on the precipice of extinction as a result of human actions on this planet. Aquariums and zoos inspire more than 1.2 million schoolchildren every year through learning outside their usual classroom experiences. They employ more than 11,000 people and bring an economic benefit to this country of more than £650 million.
I would like to thank the members of the all-party parliamentary group for zoos and aquariums for all the work that they do on behalf of these fantastic organisations. Because I am unable to take interventions, I would like to mention the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who secured an Adjournment debate last summer to raise the issues that zoos and aquariums were then facing, after which the Government announced the zoo animals fund. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for that, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford for all the work he has done. However, the APPG has since expressed grave concerns about the lack of funding that has been released and the fact that the sector has not received the specific support it requires in this pandemic and is now in urgent need of help.
I am deeply motivated in this matter by the plight of one of Hull’s iconic landmarks and great success stories: The Deep aquarium. My first visit to The Deep was as a newly graduated teacher, shortly after it opened in 2002. The building, designed by Sir Terry Farrell, remains as striking today as it was then. The experience inside lived up to the promise outside. I was impressed that, while it clearly inspired and captivated its visitors with its astonishing deep-sea tanks and fantastic collection of creatures, it tackled difficult issues too, such as ocean acidification, species loss and the urgency of protecting our marine habitats, in the same innovative, engaging manner.
Since its opening, this educational and environmental charity has continued to engage and enchant visitors from all corners of the globe, and to inspire future generations. A lottery-funded millennium project, The Deep was conceived as a catalyst for regeneration in Hull—a continuation of the city’s historic relationship with the sea and a focus for reimagining the waterfront for the 21st century. It is, by some considerable margin, the most successful of the lottery-funded millennium projects, and this success is not an accident. From the very start, those involved knew how vital it was for the city that the project was sustainable. Intense effort went into every aspect of the planning, especially the finances. Visitor estimates were deliberately conservative and budgets were meticulously scrutinised. The Deep would wash its face from day one, and it did.
As it turned out, 850,000 people visited The Deep in its first year—well beyond the numbers planned. The Deep now contributes £14.8 million of economic benefit every year to the city of Hull. It employs 130 local people and is home to 345 species of animals, including rescue loggerhead turtles and its most recent addition, a breeding colony of penguins. 2019 saw over 33,000 children from the surrounding area visit as a part of their formal education. The Deep also operates a successful partnership with Hull University, supporting dissertation and master’s students each year, and housing its total environment simulator, a state-of-art research facility that is in constant use. The simulator supports 10 high-skilled jobs and has attracted £10 million of research funding into the university over the last three years.
The Deep is now an integral part of our identity as a city, and of both the monetary and learning economy of Hull. I share the pride of everyone in the city in being home to such a well-respected charity—one that contributes so much to the conservation and welfare of precious species. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of The Deep, and the rest of the industry, in bringing the urgent issues facing zoos and aquariums to the attention of the Minister.
The pandemic has meant that, since March last year, The Deep, which relies on visitor income to operate and support its work, has so far been closed to the public for 32 weeks, with no firm reopening date in sight. It is highly likely that indoor attractions will be among the last to reopen, and with daily animal care costs of £5,500, this normally self-sufficient charity is facing an uncertain future. It has survived this far on its own reserves, on what was generated during the short restricted opening in the summer, from much welcome local public support, and with a loan. However, this money is fast running out.
The whole sector is of course grateful for the coronavirus job retention scheme, and I know that The Deep has furloughed 90% of its crew. But just as in other establishments, those caring for the animals cannot be furloughed—those scuba diving in the huge tanks to care for the needs of all the animals, feeding the penguins and providing ongoing rehabilitation for two loggerhead turtles are needed every day. As with many of the animals, there is no option of a return to the wild for these two turtles. Sensa and Mabouche have suffered lower jaw amputations from being caught on long lines and propeller blade damage to their shells, resulting in nerve damage. There is no prospect of them surviving in the outside world. They now have their forever home at The Deep, as one of the only aquariums in the UK with the facilities to care for them.
As I have said, I cannot take interventions, but I have been asked by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) to mention Marwell Zoo, on the edge of his constituency, and I am happy to do so. On its behalf, he would like to call on the Minister to consider a commitment to the earliest possible safe reopening. Marwell was able to open under tier 3 restrictions, as it was considered able to offer secure venues and open green spaces. It would like to impress on the Minister the current extreme financial pressures it is experiencing, which are jeopardising the future of the important conservation and educational work it does.
I wish also to mention the marine research work done on commercialising carbon-sequestering seagrass by the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, which is being championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
The loss of an aquarium or zoo such as Marwell, the National Marine Aquarium or my beloved The Deep would not only wipe out the conservation work these facilities undertake but devastate the local economy. It would result in the loss of much-needed jobs and reduce educational opportunities for 1.2 million children—particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths—as well as graduate and postgraduate learning and vital research projects.
I acknowledge and thank the Minister for recognising, although to a limited extent, the unique position of the industry through the creation of the zoo animals fund. Although the sector’s income was reduced to nil for the majority of the last year, it cannot compromise on its substantial animal care costs. They are fixed and non-negotiable. It is true that the zoo animals fund has had the deadline for applications extended until 28 February. However, I must bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that all parts of the sector have told me that that has no practical benefit. The fund remains incomparable with recovery funds put in place successfully for other sectors.
The zoo animals fund supports only animal costs, not the costs associated with supporting the organisations through this pandemic, and, crucially, these funds become accessible too late in the day for large zoos and aquariums. They simply cannot run with resources as low as eligibility for the fund requires. It is in effect a winding-up fund, available to support the costs of rehoming the animals or downsizing a collection should a facility fail; I do not want The Deep to fail. That is why, from the £100 million available, £94 million of the zoo animals fund remains and only 8% of the sector has managed to access the fund—that is, 33 facilities out of 400.
For the vast majority of zoos and aquariums, those funds are inaccessible at the point at which they would do any good. The fact that 94% of the fund lies untapped when zoos and aquariums are likely to continue to remain closed for some time to come should make it clear that the fund is not functioning to provide the support intended in a timely manner. There is therefore a clear need for the Government to commit to amend the scheme so that it becomes a true recovery fund, as we have seen implemented so proactively elsewhere in the cultural and heritage sector. Such a fund is needed to support the teams who have worked painstakingly throughout the pandemic to conserve the species in their care and to safeguard the many benefits to society, the economy and the environment that they provide. It seems only right and proper that we fight for the survival of a sector that takes such considerable time and effort to fight for conservation and the survival of the natural world.
If the Government genuinely believe, as they stated in their 2019 manifesto, that:
“Conservation is, and always has been, at the heart of Conservatism”,
they should have no hesitation in protecting the sector that is at the forefront of much of this work with money they have already ring-fenced but not actioned. I would like to remind the Minister that this is an industry that contributes over £650 million a year to the UK economy.
So, my ask. The British and Irish Association for Zoos and Aquariums is calling for the remaining funding allocated for the zoos and aquariums fund to be ring-fenced and made available to support zoo licence holders in the 2021-22 financial year in the form of a zoo recovery fund. This should not be an extension of the existing emergency zoo animals fund, which as I have explained is not meeting the needs of the sector, but a recovery fund similar to those made available to other visitor attraction sectors, such as the cultural recovery fund.
The recovery fund should focus on supporting zoos and aquariums as they transition back to a viable and sustainable operating model during the 2021-22 financial year, by covering the shortfall between operating costs and income until restrictions are lifted; support zoo and aquarium operations more fully, including in their key statutory mission work in conservation, education and research, to sustain these vital projects during the recovery period; and require organisations to demonstrate the financial impact of covid on their income, rather than needing to be close to running out of reserves to access support, which will enable the fund to support a wider proportion of the sector to recovery in a more timely manner.
I ask the Minister to consider these steps as a necessary response to the shifting context of the pandemic. Further, this action is consistent with the Government’s stated desires to support the sector through covid-19, and in particular to avoid animal welfare concerns and ensure that otherwise successful zoos and aquariums are match-fit and ready to thrive post covid. By contrast, allowing support to cease at the end of this financial year would not align with the Government’s arguments put forward throughout 2020, nor would it be consistent with the support provided to other sectors in the visitor economy.
I have spoken already of the fantastic work that The Deep charity does and the wonderful animals that call it home. I will finish by mentioning my favourite creature from The Deep, the great diving beetle. That fantastic insect carries its own air supply with it from the surface, in the form of a bubble attached to its rear. It forages at the bottom of ponds, lakes and streams, returning to the surface to replenish its supply of air when needed. The sector’s air supply is running out, and the very necessary covid-19 restrictions are preventing its return to the surface. A realignment of the zoo animals fund into a zoo recovery fund to support those important organisations over the coming months would provide the air they need and help to ensure their survival.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for securing this important debate. She is right to be proud of The Deep. It is the largest aquarium in the UK and an international player in marine conservation. It was lovely to hear more about some of the animals and other creatures for which it cares so well, and to hear the passion with which the hon. Lady spoke about them.
I also thank hon. Members from across the House for their extensive engagement with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on zoos and aquariums since the outbreak of the pandemic. The hon. Lady will remember—as may you, Mr Deputy Speaker —that the last Adjournment debate on this subject went on for some three hours. I do not know that this one will, but I single out two hon. Members who would like to be with us: my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), already referred to, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group; and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has the honour to represent Whipsnade and has made a lot of the running in this area.
I thank the zoos, aquariums and wildlife sanctuaries that have worked so hard to ensure the welfare of the animals in their care. Zoos, as we have heard, contribute to conservation and education, helping both to sustain endangered species and to teach us all about animals’ natural habitats. We know, too, how hard zoos have worked to provide well managed covid-secure spaces, when they have been permitted to open. We ensured that the outdoor areas of zoos could open after the first lockdown, and we allowed those areas to remain open in tier 4 before Christmas.
We will continue to press the case for zoos to be allowed to open as it is safe to do so. A great deal of work on the procedure for reopening is under way, and our officials are working very closely with the sector on safe guidance for that. We understand the particular issues of indoor areas, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred.
I reassure the House that Government support schemes remain in place and available for zoos to access. Zoos can apply, and are applying heavily, for furlough, VAT deferral, business rates relief, the business interruption loan schemes, the option to reclaim the costs of statutory sick pay, and ordinary hospitality and leisure grant funding.
In addition, as we heard, we set up the zoo animals fund to help zoos at immediate risk and to prevent the unnecessary euthanasia of animals. The priority of the fund is to ensure that animal welfare is maintained. This fund, together with its predecessor, the zoo support fund, has supported a wide variety of zoos, both large and small. We are continually keeping the fund under review, and it is fair to say that we have already made significant changes to it. We now allow claims not just for feeding livestock but for maintenance and repair, for example, and we have extended the fund to run until the end of the month to allow for the impacts of the latest lockdown. We now also allow zoos to claim when they have reached their last 12 weeks of reserves, and they can start the application at any point in the run-up to that period. I would strongly encourage zoos to apply to the fund .
I am aware that The Deep is in conversation with my officials, and I know that it has furloughed staff and tried hard to reduce its running costs. I am also aware that it has received a substantial loan from the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. I have talked to Lord Goldsmith, who leads on this policy area, about this again today, and we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the fund with a view to ensuring that it is meeting its aims. We have already made changes to the zoos fund in order to move flexibly and adapt to the changing circumstances of the pandemic. I know that Lord Goldsmith will be following this debate with interest, and he has asked me to reassure the hon. Lady and the House that the fund is very much being kept under active review. I can assure the House that the Government fully appreciate the value of well-managed zoos to society, and I am very much looking forward to the day when they are able to open again and we can all visit them.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021 HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS AND SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Sir David Amess
Andrew, Stuart (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)
Carter, Andy (Warrington South) (Con)
Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)
† Dorries, Ms Nadine (Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health)
Double, Steve (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)
Freer, Mike (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household)
Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Jones, Darren (Bristol North West) (Lab)
McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
† Madders, Justin (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)
Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
† Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
† Throup, Maggie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended (Standing Order No. 118(2)):
Harper, Mark (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 8 February 2021
[Sir David Amess in the Chair]
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
The Chair
Mr Speaker has asked that Members wear masks in Committee unless they are speaking. I do not think it is an attempt to shut people up. Will Members kindly keep them on?
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 53).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. (S.I. 2021, No. 97).
Ms Dorries
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I hope that the Committee will approve the regulations, which are in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I will briefly explain each statutory instrument.
SI No. 2021/53 amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 and came into force on 20 January 2021. The need for the changes in it was identified in the ongoing review of regulations. It provides for minor and technical clarifications, including of the fact that competitive sport can continue, that cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings are able to remain open, and that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted. These changes provide legal certainty that these activities are permitted.
SI No. 2021/97 amends the all tiers regulations and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, and came into force on 29 January 2021. It allows for additional data to be shared between NHS Test and Trace and the police for the purpose of effective enforcement of the self-isolation regulations. The statutory instrument also amends the all tiers regulations to introduce a new, higher fixed penalty notice to persons aged 18 or over participating in a gathering of more than 15 people in a private dwelling, in education accommodation, or at an indoor rave. The first penalty is £800, reduced to £400 with early repayment. Subsequent offences double the size of the fixed penalty, to a maximum of £6,400.
I will now outline in further detail the main changes made by SI No. 2021/97. As I noted, the main amendment it makes to the all tiers regulations is that it provides for FPNs that can be levied against individuals who participate in gatherings of more than 15 people in a range of settings. We have introduced a new fixed penalty notice, because although the majority of people follow covid regulations and guidance, it is important that the police have the right tools to take action against the small number of people who break the rules. We know that the virus is transmitted through close contact; as a result, larger gatherings of people who do not live together pose an increased risk of transmission. The existing regulations already penalise people who organise unlawful gatherings of 30 or more people, but there was no enhanced penalty for those attending, other than the £200 FPN for breaching social contact and gathering rules. This new, larger fixed penalty notice will support wider efforts to improve compliance with the regulations, thereby helping to bring transmission rates down.
I will now focus on changes to the self-isolation regulations, as I am aware that many Members are most interested in this. The self-isolation regulations came into force on 28 September 2020 and make self-isolation a legal requirement for individuals who have been notified by NHS Test and Trace that they have tested positive for covid-19 or are a close contact of such a person, subject to a number of exemptions. Non-adherence to the regulations can result in an FPN ranging from £1,000 to £10,000, and failure to pay the FPN can result in court action and conviction. The SIs being debated today do not change those levels of FPN.
In order for police to issue FPNs, they need sufficient information about the suspected breach, and evidence that the individual is supposed to be self-isolating and has received a notification from NHS Test and Trace to do so. This SI allows for the minimum necessary information to be shared with the police in order for them to enforce self-isolation. Four key changes have been made. The first is the addition of date of birth and email address, which will help strengthen the evidential base by enabling the police to verify the identity of someone who is suspected of a breach. Secondly, information on whether the individual is participating in coronavirus-related research will be used, where available, to determine whether the subject is permitted to leave their place of self-isolation under an exemption in the regulations. Thirdly, the SI permits the sharing of notification information, including the method of notification, the contact details—
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On the point of notification information, I understand that now, to improve the contact rates, if Test and Trace notifies someone that they have to self-isolate, and there are other members of the household, that person is asked to notify those members and confirm that they have been notified. For the purposes of the regulations, if someone has notified members of their household, does that count as a notification that makes those members legally have to self-isolate? Is the information that someone has passed on to them communicated to the police in some way, so that they can take action under the regulations?
Ms Dorries
The only time the police would contact a person would be if a breach had taken place. On the point about the relatives, household members or close contacts of somebody who has been notified by NHS Test and Trace that they are positive, my right hon. Friend asks whether the data of those people who the person has taken on the responsibility to notify will be transferred to the police. I will ensure that I get a swift response to that question.
Ms Dorries
I would say yes to the second half of my right hon. Friend’s question. Again, I will seek legal clarification on this issue, but if someone has been notified that they have been in close contact with somebody who has tested positive, they have a responsibility to self-isolate. On whether that person’s details are put on the NHS Test and Trace database, and on whether the police can therefore be notified if they breach the social contract that we have with Test and Trace, I will need to find out for my right hon. Friend.
Mr Harper
This will be the last question. I am pressing her because it was very clear that the initial self-isolation regulations, which, for the avoidance of doubt, I strongly support, applied only to people whom the Test and Trace service had notified. There was no legal requirement for a person to self-isolate if, for example, the app told them to. That is why I want to be clear. I completely agree that people should self-isolate, but there is a real difference between whether someone should, and whether there is a legal duty on them to do so or face criminal action from the police.
Ms Dorries
I take my right hon. Friend’s point entirely. It is a legal point, and I will get legal clarification for him swiftly, if not before the end of the debate. I will certainly make sure that question is answered, because there is a legal nuance on where the legal responsibility lies. I welcome his intervention—in fact, interventions from Members on both sides of the House—because they challenge us on how we deal with this new virus, and the world of covid regulations and social distancing. They challenge us all the time to think about these points and to do things better.
Thirdly, the SI permits the sharing of notification information, including the method of notification, the contact details, and a copy of the notification issued to the person informing them of their duty to self-isolate. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that happens when someone is informed by NHS Test and Trace that they have to self-isolate. That is so that the police can confirm that the individual received a notification to self-isolate and was aware of their legal duty to do so. If required, the police can use that copy to remind the individual, as I have said.
Finally, the SI allows information to be shared on whether the suspected breach is a positive case or a close contact. The police require a distinction to be made between the two types of cases—I think I am answering my right hon. Friend’s question; perhaps I am not—and the relative circumstances may need to be evidenced by the police in criminal proceedings. It is crucial that the police know the precise circumstances and the chain of events that may need to be investigated and evidenced in each individual case.
That data will primarily be shared with the police where there is a reported breach of self-isolation regulations. This is for the purpose of access. The police do not have direct access to the NHS Test and Trace database and its details on all individuals who need to self-isolate, and that will remain the case. Sharing this additional information is both necessary and proportionate, as it gives the police the information that they need to effectively enforce the law. The police have a role in upholding and enforcing the regulations, and we must ensure that they have the tools necessary to carry out their job efficiently and speedily, so that we can deter people from breaching self-isolation at a time when adherence to self-isolation requirements is crucial.
Above all else, the self-isolation regulations are a safety measure designed to drive up compliance among those most at risk of spreading the virus. Any improvement to the way the regulations are upheld will have a positive impact on the public health of the country as a whole by bringing down rates of transmission, protecting the most vulnerable, reducing pressures on healthcare and aiding a return to normality for us all.
Both statutory instruments were introduced using emergency powers, so that we could respond quickly to the threat to public health posed by covid-19. The urgency of SI No. 2021/97 stems from the critical national situation, the need for the police to be able to conduct their duties efficiently in this context, and the crucial impact that it should have on improving compliance with self-isolation and bringing down the R number.
The SIs demonstrate our willingness to take tougher action against the most serious breaches of the rules. They are designed to protect us all. We keep wider regulations under ongoing review and clarify them as appropriate. We also understand that it is crucial to take steps to allow people to return to a more normal way of life. The most effective way of doing that is by reducing transmission of the virus while we continue to deliver our vaccination programme. The SIs set out to achieve that, and should therefore remain in force. We are committed to ensuring that the measures are in place only for as long as is necessary. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
I apologise to Committee members for the room’s being so gloomy and desperately cold, but the views of Queen Victoria seem to have prevailed.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. No room is gloomy when you are in it.
I thank the Minister for her introduction, and I pay tribute to our NHS and social care staff, and indeed all key workers, who have done so much, and continue to do so much, to fight through this incredibly difficult period for our nation. As we know, we have sadly passed the tragic milestone of 100,000 people having died from covid-19. As of yesterday, 111,634 people have died, over a third of them since the start of this year. Those truly shocking figures show us how far we still have to go in this fight. We have the highest number of covid deaths in Europe, and every step should be taken to fight the virus.
We are here to discuss two sets of regulations, as the Minister set out. The first set came into force several weeks ago on 20 January. As we heard from the Minister, they make minor amendments and corrections to the all tiers regulations to clarify that the exemption to leave home to collect goods from businesses operating click and collect also applies to libraries; that elite sports competitions are permitted; that cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings can remain open; and that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted.
The Opposition do not oppose these regulations, but I have some observations and questions for the Minister. As I have said many times, we are once again retrospectively approving legislation, particularly regulations that have a dramatic impact on individuals’ liberty, as well as an economic impact. We have discussed these issues many times. These regulations should not be approved after the event, and I thought that there had been a commitment given that regulations of national significance would be debated in advance. Although it could be argued that the first set of regulations, which primarily make corrections, is not within the ambit of that promise, the second set of regulations certainly is, so will the Minister set out why that commitment has not been honoured on this occasion?
The first set of regulations deals with errors and oversights from earlier regulations. This is not the first time that we have had to address this. Of course, we are in a rapidly evolving situation, but we are on the third lockdown, so one would expect enough experience to have been gathered for there not to be a need to come back and make such corrections. The instrument states that it
“is being issued free of charge to all known recipients of those Regulations.”
Will the Minister tell us how many organisations that is, and what the cost of this error is to the taxpayer? What is the legal position of people who were fined for attending the premises concerned before the regulations came into force? Does the Minister know whether anyone has been erroneously fined as a result of the drafting error? And what about the businesses that have been affected? Have any indicated that they have lost profit or income for that period when they were erroneously told they could not operate? Mistakes have consequences, and there have been too many. A proper explanation ought to be forthcoming about why we are having to deal with these things after the event. They should not be dealt with in this way when people’s lives and livelihoods are involved.
I will move on to the second set of regulations that came into effect on 29 January. They concern self-isolation requirements and, as we have heard, gatherings of more than 15 people in a private dwelling, in educational accommodation, or at an indoor rave. I thank the Minister for Care for writing to me regarding this instrument to outline what the amendments primarily concern, particularly in terms of the enforcement of offences and allowing police to receive additional information, as the Minister said, so that they can verify those individuals who are under a legal duty to self-isolate.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made an interesting point about whether the regulation covers those who have been advised by an individual in their household that they have a duty to self-isolate. That has had a dramatic impact on the performance figures for Test and Trace, but it raises a series of difficult questions about enforcement. I hope the Minister can clarify whether those notified outside the system, so to speak, are also covered by the regulations. I suspect that they will not be, and I think the issue of how a person is notified will cause all sorts of evidential difficulties, particularly if they are not in a household that is a family unit. It would certainly make for awkward dinner conversations if such issues arose.
In her letter to me, the Minister for Care stated that
“sharing this additional information is both necessary and proportionate in order to give the police the information they need to effectively enforce the law.”
That may well be the case, but it begs the question why, a year into this pandemic, that has only just been acted on.
As we have heard, the statutory instrument increases the fixed penalty notice for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people. Unlike the fines for gatherings of more than 30, this fine applies to both organisers and attendees, although one assumes that attendees and organisers of gatherings of more than 30 would be covered, given that that is more than 15. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
Considering the fines first, it is fair to say that the announcement was met with a little bit of scepticism. Most of the debate that I saw was about why gatherings of 14 would not attract fines. I do not know if this is an unintended boost for unauthorised seven-a-side football matches, but it looks like 15 has been chosen arbitrarily. I am not sure that was the message the Government were hoping to send. Of course, the most important thing is the message that people should stay at home and not organise gatherings of any nature. That message on compliance is absolutely critical to our getting through this.
However, in order for that message to be most effective, we need to hear very clearly why 15 is the magic number. When the policy was announced, the Home Secretary said, “The science is clear”, but is it? There is clear scientific evidence on the impact of indoor gatherings on transmission, but not having seen the scientific modelling for this particular set of regulations, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the regulations set the number of people at 15. We had similar debates over why the rule of six was six and whether children were included. Will the Minister advise whether children are included within the 15? However, what we really want to know is why it is 15.
We also want to know why this is so urgent. Surely the time to have looked at this would have been over the Christmas and new year period, when one would have naturally expected there to have been a greater risk of large gatherings taking place. I hope I am not being overly cynical when I say it appears to me that the regulations seem to have been introduced in response to that period of the year and the number of illegal gatherings that took place, rather than being part of a strategic approach to the issue.
The timing is interesting, because the statutory instrument was laid before Parliament at 11 am on 29 January 2021 and then came into force at 5 pm—the same day. Why was it rushed so quickly on the same day? Was there a specific reason why it needed to be introduced on 29 January? There have been many instances of regulations being published and then introduced at incredibly short notice, and while there have been occasions when that could be justified, I simply do not see why such speed and such disregard for parliamentary scrutiny were necessary on this occasion. The Minister referred to the critical situation that we were in in January, with the number of infections and hospitalisations, but by 29 January we were clearly on a downward trend. Anything the Minister could say to clarify why this had to be rushed through on 29 January would be appreciated.
We agree with Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, that increased fines will act as a disincentive for people thinking of attending or organising such events. Was there specific intelligence about 29 January? Was there something on that date to suggest that groups of 15 people or more would gather more? I hope that the response justifies the need for speed on this occasion.
I will now turn to the sharing of data, on which I have several questions. We all know that the self-isolation regulations impose certain requirements on individuals to self-isolate. As the Minister outlined, the statutory instrument amends the information that needs to be disclosed. Of course we can see why sharing that information might be helpful, particularly for the police in verifying an individual and helping to carry out self-isolation enforcement, but I have a few questions. Lord Bethell, a Health Minister, said that the police are accessing
“isolation information, not health information.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1418.]
There is concern that that is not the case, because whether an individual is required to self-isolate is, to all intents and purposes, health information. I hope the Minister can see that a rather fine distinction is being made. I draw attention to that because health data is highly sensitive and therefore falls under a special category of data under the general data protection regulation rules. Concerns have been raised about that. Given that medical privacy is the bedrock of a functioning public health system, its disclosure should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny before it is enacted.
There are also concerns that the broad definition of who the information can be shared with means that it can be provided not only to the police, but to anyone else the Government enlist to uphold the rules. We do not have any particular concerns about public health officials, but we need clarity about who can receive this information and who is entitled to see it under the regulations. It could be the covid marshals we used to talk about a lot but do not hear so much about anymore. If the Minister can advise us who exactly is entitled to receive this information, that would be helpful.
There are also concerns about whether the police are permitted to use this information for the purposes of these regulations. Some people have expressed concerns that it could be used for other investigations that they are conducting. I have had the benefit of visiting my local police station, as I am sure many Members have, and seeing how access to personal information has been used to aid their investigations, but the police have done that with very clear safeguards in place. In order to ensure confidence in the uptake of the test and trace system, it is important that we have confirmation that that information will be used only for the purposes of these regulations.
I turn briefly to the app. Can the Minister advise us whether those notified by the app to self-isolate will be covered by these regulations? They were not covered by the original self-isolation regulations, which in my opinion was a huge oversight. If that has not been rectified, why not?
How will the police powers that have been provided under these regulations be resourced? Last month, John Apter, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said that some forces in England have as many as 15% of staff off. Since these regulations came into force at the end of last month, we have heard that the police will be expected to play a role in the enforcement of hotel quarantine. Our police officers have worked incredibly hard throughout this pandemic, and they face very difficult circumstances. Can we have some assurances from the Minister that they will be adequately resourced to take on the additional responsibilities that they have been given?
On the subject of public confidence, there is concern about the lack of transparency over the memorandum of understanding between the police and the Department. In a Delegated Legislation Committee on 19 October 2020, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked the Minister for Care about the memorandum of understanding, and she said:
“It has not been yet, but it will be.”—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 October 2020; c. 25.]
Hon. Members can see a clearer response from the Minister for Care in Hansard, but we still have not seen that memorandum of understanding. I understand that a freedom of information request for sight of the memorandum was refused on 15 December, on the basis that it was intended for future publication. I ask the Minister what is going on here. Can she confirm when exactly we will see the memorandum? Why has there been a delay in its publication? Can she also confirm whether these regulations have led to a new memorandum of understanding and whether that will be available for public scrutiny?
At the heart of this is a question of public trust. We need assurances that sensitive health data will be kept private. Many people could be unwilling to take a coronavirus test or engage with the Department’s contact tracers, particularly if there is a threat of harsh punishment, if they are not given those assurances. Many public figures have raised concerns along those lines. The British Medical Association says it is concerned that some people are deterred from being tested because they are anxious about a loss of income should they need to self-isolate, and it is worried that police involvement will add to that.
Professor Chris Whitty has also expressed concerns. Professor Susan Michie, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ behavioural science adviser, has said that the move could cause further distrust in the Government, which is a massive problem for adherence to the regulations. Those are serious concerns from very respected people. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the data-sharing arrangements will not deter people from giving information to contact tracers or, indeed, giving their own information? These are all essential to combatting the spread of the virus.
We know that compliance rates for self-isolation are already low, so everything must be done to ensure that the message and the practical help is there, to encourage as many people to self-isolate when they are required to do so. We want to get as high a compliance rate as possible. Anything the Minister can say to address those concerns would be appreciated.
There are practical steps that the Department can take too. The Government have known for many months that rates of self-isolation remain too low and there is a gaping hole in the system, because not everyone can work at home or comfortably isolate themselves. The system still expects families to go hungry to stop spreading the infection. We have seen the serious side effects of this at the weekend, with evidence that the rates at which cases of covid-19 have fallen since the start of the year are dramatically lower in some of the UK’s poorest regions when compared with wealthier areas.
Figures show that the number of cases of covid-19 infections per 100,000 people remained markedly higher in the last full week of January in many poorer parliamentary constituencies than in more affluent ones. For example, in Preston, infection rates fell by just 9% in January, and in Bradford they fell by just 14%, but in more affluent areas, such as Oxford West and Abingdon, and Saffron Walden, cases declined by 72%. Does the Minister agree that these stark differences demonstrate the serious consequences of the failure to offer financial support to help people on lower incomes with the self-isolation requirements?
The Government have been too slow to address this. Even Baroness Harding recognised last week that there was a big flaw in the Government’s approach to self-isolation support. She said that 20,000 people a day were not self-isolating when they should be. That is simply an unsustainable figure, if we are ever going to see some of the relaxations of current measures that we all wish to see.
On self-isolation, these regulations deal with the stick, but they do not address the deficiencies in the carrot. I again urge the Government to fix the payments regime so that it does not act as a disincentive to people who want to do the right thing and self-isolate. We have said this many times before, but I will make no apology for saying it again: the £500 test and trace support payment is not reaching enough people. Seven out of eight people do not qualify for it. Rejection rates in councils are over 70%. At the time it was announced, the amount given by the Government to councils to continue the fund for a further two months would only have been enough to cover everyone who tested positive on one day. That is not good enough.
In conclusion, we are in our third lockdown. This is extremely difficult. The British people have done their part, staying at home and helping to keep the virus under control. But it is incumbent on the Government to do the right thing by them as well, by ensuring that support for self-isolation and for test and trace genuinely supports people, as well as by dealing with those who do not comply.
Mr Harper
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I know that she is assiduous in her duties. I am pleased that she answered my earlier intervention in the right spirit, which is the spirit in which I am asking the questions. I genuinely believe that asking questions, which Ministers have to answer, means that you get better laws and regulations, and a good Minister should never be afraid of scrutiny. I am grateful to her for taking my intervention in that spirit.
By way of opening, I should say that I support the principle that people who test positive for coronavirus, or who are contacts of people who test positive, should self-isolate, to protect those around them and reduce the rate of infection. The real question that faces us and is at the heart of these enforcement powers is this: how do we more effectively get people to self-isolate? Is it with the stick or the carrot? That is why I have some concerns about the approach set out in this SI. I am particularly concerned that sharing information with law enforcement authorities does not lead to the best public health response.
I asked the Minister a question, and she kindly said that she would get back to me with a response. There is a second part to my question, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on. I think I am right in saying—I am very happy to be corrected if I am not—that one of the qualification criteria for the isolation payment, which is very important for people on lower incomes, is that someone has been notified by Test and Trace that they have to self-isolate.
Part of the reason I was pressing the Minister on the legal position was not just from the point of view of enforcement and the police’s ability to enforce self-isolation. If someone is in a household where another person is notified that either they have tested positive or they have to self-isolate, they notify that person. If someone is on a low income and needs the isolation payment but has not been told to self-isolate by Test and Trace, I think I am right in saying that they do not qualify for the payment. One of things I am trying to test is whether the way that the test and trace system has changed the rules on how it notifies people has inadvertently led to more people not qualifying for the payment, which is therefore driving down the rates of self-isolation.
Ms Dorries
Just to save my right hon. Friend having to elongate that point, I have had information that I need to clarify the legal nuance—the point that he raised last time. Where a positive case undertakes to inform their household contacts of their duty to self-isolate, NHS Test and Trace takes details of those contacts and will separately SMS or email them, so that they are in the system and are notified. I do not know whether that makes it any clearer. I would imagine that applies to the points that my right hon. Friend raised about financial remuneration, but also in respect of the legalities about whom the SI applies to and what powers the police have to enforce the SI.
Mr Harper
I am grateful. That should therefore deal with the payment issue.
My second point comes back to the point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised about my question in October about the memorandum of understanding. One of the issues that concerns people is the scope of the information that is to be shared and the basis on which it is shared by the Department. If the Department were to publish the memorandum of understanding—the Minister will obviously tell me if it has been published—I cannot see what the problem would be. It seems to be that if there is nothing to hide, if the rules for sharing information are as set out in the explanatory note in the regulations and as the Minister set out, and if there are good, clear reasons for doing these things, that would help allay people’s genuine concerns.
People also have concerns about things for the sake of having concerns about them, and publishing the information and being transparent allays those concerns. It also stops people being able to whip up scare stories. We know there are people who deliberately set out to spread anti-vaxx nonsense, and to scare people about taking the vaccine or getting tested. The more the Government are transparent and open, the more we reduce the opportunity for people to do that.
Can the Minister confirm that the memorandum of understanding has been published? If it has not been published, and given that the House will be asked to approve the regulations—I presume that once the Committee has considered them, they will be on the Order Paper tomorrow—it would be outrageous if the memorandum of understanding was not available to the House at the point at which it was asked to take a decision on the regulations. It seems to me that that would be less than satisfactory.
Can I probe a point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised about the necessity to use the emergency procedure to lay the regulations? I completely accept that both at the early stage of the pandemic and at certain stages throughout it, there have been times when it has been necessary for Ministers, even subsequent to their commitment to coming to the House in advance, to legislate using the emergency powers under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and then get Parliament to sign them off afterwards.
An obvious example was when we saw the new variant spreading very quickly. It was, I think, after Parliament had risen for Christmas. I agree it was necessary for the Government to take steps and then get the House to sign them off. To be fair, the Government did so. They recalled Parliament and held a debate at the earliest opportunity, and that was absolutely right.
In the present case, I do not understand what the urgency was when the need for the regulations was identified. Why was it not possible, a few days later, simply to have them debated by the House? I ask that because paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that
“it has become clear that changes around data sharing are necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of the current system.”
However, no further details are given.
Later, under the heading of “Policy background”, paragraph 7.4 includes the words:
“Feedback from policing suggests additional data”.
I should welcome more clarity from the Minister about what exactly suggested to the Department that more data was needed. What information did the Department get from policing? The memorandum is a bit vague about what “policing” means. It does not say whether it means the National Police Chiefs’ Council, individual police forces, or what.
What information was received from the police to suggest that they needed more data? When did that take place? Why was it necessary for the regulations to be made by Ministers and to come into force a few hours after they were made, before Parliament was given the opportunity to debate them?
The issue is important because it is important that the regulations be proportionate. The Minister used that word several times, and the statutory instrument states that the Secretary of State considers them a “proportionate” response. We need to know what evidence there is of people not following their legal duty to self-isolate. How many people, for example, who were under a legal duty to self-isolate were not doing so, and what is the evidence from behavioural science—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston quoted a member of SPI-M, part of the SAGE committee, about that—that the changes in the regulations will improve compliance and lead to more people self-isolating than the opposite?
The Secretary of State is said to be satisfied on the legal test that the provisions are a proportionate response, and in order to be satisfied about that he must have data about it available to him. It would be helpful if the Minister would furnish the Committee with that information. That would also enable us to judge whether it was appropriate for the measures to be made in advance and put into law before the House had a chance to consider them.
Having discussed the background, I have some specific questions about what information can be shared, and in what circumstances. Some of those would be answered if the memorandum of understanding were available. The Minister set out clearly that it would include information on the individual’s date of birth, the means by which they were notified—whether their postal address, telephone number or email address was used—and whether they are participating in coronavirus-related research. I would be grateful if she would confirm that that means just the fact of participation in the research, with no further details about what the research is. The final aspect was about whether someone had to self-isolate because of receiving a positive test, or being a contact. The reason why that is important, and why the regulations have caused some concern, is that if someone tests positive, that is health information. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, under data protection regulations, health information is a specific category that is very sensitive.
Members of Parliament know that there is a general assumption, set out in law, that when we contact organisations on behalf of our constituents, those organisations are entitled to presume that we have the constituents’ consent, and that a specific document is not required as evidence of that in each case; however, quite often with health data, the NHS will insist on a specific piece of information, showing a constituent’s explicit consent, before it will disclose health information. That is, rightly, because the health information is very sensitive. I want to know why Ministers feel that disclosing health information to the police is essential to carrying out this law enforcement, and whether it is proportionate to the problem that was being encountered when the information could not be disclosed. That is the implicit assumption.
I am also concerned about the uses to which the police can put the information, and how they get it, which would again be covered by the memorandum of understanding. First, it is not clear what the mechanism is for the police to get the information. Does the NHS choose information to send to the police—such as information about people who have tested positive or have positive contacts—for the police to do proactive enforcement work, or do the police have to approach the Department of Health and Social Care if they receive information about an individual that leads them to believe that the individual has a duty to self-isolate but is not doing so? I assume that it is the Department, as opposed to individual NHS bodies; it is presumably the Department and NHS Test and Trace, which is part of the Department of Health.
Do the police have to ask for the information on that individual, and what information does the Department ask for to evidence the fact that the police have a reasonable basis for wanting that health information? In other words, can the police choose anybody they feel like, contact NHS Test and Trace and say, “Can I have information about whether this individual has tested positive for coronavirus?” or do they have to have some information that gives them reasonable grounds for thinking that a criminal offence is taking place?
That is really important, because it would put people’s minds at rest. If a large-scale piece of data was being transferred, that might not put their minds at rest, but it is something that Parliament should know about. Is the information proactively sent from Test and Trace to the police for enforcement, or do the police have to ask for it, and are they able to do so—and will the Department release it—only if there are good grounds for suspecting that a criminal offence is being committed?
The final area concerns contacts, and the extent to which the police can use the information to go enforcing down the chain of contacts. In other words, if they get information that someone has tested positive for coronavirus, can they then make inquiries about whether that person’s contacts have a legal duty to self-isolate, or does responsibility for that sit with Test and Trace?
I ask those questions because there is anecdotal information that some people are worried about the impact of the legal duty on their contacts, in terms of their not being able to work and not having enough income. Let us be frank: there are people who engage with the police on, as it were, a professional basis for reasons not to do with coronavirus who may well feel that they do not want to go anywhere near the police, and therefore will not do what they should under a public health remit. If they thought that the police could go fishing around their contacts and get information about who they meet and when they meet them, they would not disclose it to Test and Trace. They would not engage with any of the public health information at all, and by introducing these measures we would have made ourselves not safer, but less safe.
A very good example, which I support, is what the Government have announced today. As a former Immigration Minister, I welcome the fact that the Government have said that even people who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully should contact the NHS and get a vaccine, and no steps will be taken, as a result of their doing so, to deal with the fact that they are in the country unlawfully. It is in all our interests that that essential public health measure, rather than the legal need to deal with the fact that they are in the country unlawfully, comes first, so Ministers have made the right choice. That is why I want to understand whether there is the right balance in the regulations, and I want to know that we are focusing on public health and reducing the effective transmission of the virus rather than inadvertently putting sticks in place—to use the words of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—and making things worse rather than better. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those few questions.
Ms Dorries
That was a large number of questions covering a number of points. I know that officials are furiously trying to group them at the moment. I will do my best to answer them as well as I can. If there are any that I do not answer, I give the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean absolute assurance that they will be written to quickly with more detailed answers.
The first point raised by the hon. Gentleman was about why the regulations have come in after the event. Public health underpins what we are doing today. My right hon. Friend’s last question was about this being a public health initiative, and not a stick or a means of taking away people’s freedoms for the sake of it. That is absolutely not what the regulations are about; they are very much a response to the South African variant. We need to do what we can to ensure that people self-isolate when they are supposed to, that they are deterred from gathering in groups and that we do as much as we possibly can, using the instrument of the law, to protect the health of the nation.
Coronavirus is a brand-new virus, and we knew nothing of its biology or pathology when it landed on our shores this time last year. One thing that I have learned since then as a Health Minister is that when the virus mutates—there have so far been more than 10,000 mutations—the figures go in only one direction when they start to rise. They do not rise to small numbers and then suddenly drop off and disappear without very restrictive action, such as that taken in China and other countries where there is a much stronger social contract with the population.
We move very quickly, but the virus moves faster. It would be wrong of us, as a Government, to see a variant such as the South African one and not look at what further public health measures we can put in place now to protect the health of the nation and stop the variant rising.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I only wish that such action had been extended to quarantining international arrivals for the South African variant. Does that explanation also apply to the question of gatherings? Does anything about that variant apply to large gatherings and explain why the regulations were brought in as they were?
Ms Dorries
As I said in my opening remarks, we know that the virus, in whatever mutation, transmits well indoors with groups of people who are not socially distancing and who are close to each other. That is true whether it is the South African variant or the current dominant variant in the UK. We know from experience, from weddings and other gatherings, that it transmits when people are together indoors in numbers. Our objective is to stop the virus transmitting and to keep the R number low.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised a number of points about the police. He asked what information we had about the police wanting the measures to be put in place. The National Police Chiefs’ Council fed back to us that police needed more information on someone to whom they may need to issue a fixed penalty notice. If they do not have the information to say, “Yes, this person has a legal responsibility to self-isolate,” it puts them in a very difficult position. This information is not used in the pursuit of any other crimes, or in any other way whatsoever. It is used for the purpose of a FPN, in order to deter others from breaking their legal responsibility to self-isolate when they have been identified as testing positive.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was additional funding for the police to carry out this work. We have given them over £30 million, again in consultation with the NPCC. We are responding to a request from the police. They do not want to issue fixed penalty notices to someone who is telling them, “No, this is a mistake; I don’t have a responsibility to self-isolate. No, I’m not covid positive. No, I haven’t been in contact.” They need the evidence. They need to be able to say, “We know that you are somebody who has been asked to self-isolate.”
Ms Dorries
I will just finish my point to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. On his comments about stick and carrot, the police have had a great deal of extra responsibility put on their shoulders. There have been times when they have exercised what they call the four Es. It is not about enforcement and a heavy hand.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have discussed this before, it is about encouragement, explaining and helping people to understand their social responsibility, both towards the people that they are with and in terms of keeping the virus down. It is not a case of the police going in and handing out fixed penalty notices. It is about explaining to people what is expected of them once they have received a notification that they are a close contact or they have tested positive, and their responsibility is to self-isolate. This is about encouraging people to comply with the regulations more than it is about hitting people with a stick.
Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman spoke about the memorandum of understanding. I understand that it is between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office. I will make some further inquiries about how that stands. I am not fully aware of the details, and I will get back to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman about that.
I was asked if the police had to request information on an individual or if they had access to the database. My understanding is that the police do not have open access to the Test and Trace database. This is about information on a need to know basis, when the police have been given information or when they are aware, or they suspect, that people are breaking the law. The police do not just access the database and take the information from it. My right hon. Friend and I have been in this place for a long time together, so he should know that I would not be happy with such a situation, purely from the point of view of civil liberties; I know he would not be happy with it either. The police have access to data that they request. I will write to him with further information on that, because there are many legal points around it. I know how thorough he is, and he will want those questions answered.
Mr Harper
Can I press the Minister on that? I am not sure that her answer has helped, because she said that the memorandum of understanding was between the DHSC and the Home Office. I presume that individual police forces, not the Home Office, access the information, although I do not know that because we have not seen the memorandum. That is the whole point about publishing the MOU—it would reassure us.
I think the Minister has confirmed that the police would have to suspect an offence was being carried out in order to get information. We are still not clear about who asks for the information, who discloses it and who makes the decision about whether to disclose it, to whom and what other information is disclosed.
Those are the things that are worrying people; if we can all be reassured about them, I think a lot of people will then stop being worried about them. The Minister herself is an experienced medical practitioner—a trained and qualified nurse—so she will know how important it is that medical information is not disclosed beyond the needs for which it was ascertained in the first place, and also how sensitive such information is.
Ms Dorries
We are totally in tune on that. In terms of the present system of information, I misspoke: it is a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Health and Social Care and policing, not the Home Office—I should be quite clear on that. My apologies—I misspoke there.
The present system of information-sharing with the police is reactive; as I said, it is based on the police receiving information from Test and Trace following a report of a suspected breach of the regulations—I probably said that more clumsily in my previous answer. It is when somebody has contacted the police to say that they believe somebody is breaking the regulations, or when there is a gathering of people—I think we called it a “rave” in the regulations—and somebody has reported that a gathering is taking place, and some of those people should be isolating.
Mr Harper
Just to be clear—I hope this will be my last question for the Minister—if, say, somebody’s neighbour rings up the police and says, “I think Mrs Bloggins has tested positive for coronavirus and isn’t self-isolating,” is that sufficient grounds for the police then to be given confidential health information about Mrs Bloggins, or does there have to be a bit more to it than somebody just ringing up and telling them something? I ask that because I think this is the bit that people are worried about—the basis on which the police asked for this information and the basis on which the DHSC will then give it to them. Again, it may be that all these questions are answered in the memorandum of understanding, in which case I really do think that if the Minister published it everyone would probably let out a big sigh of relief and would not be very worried about this—I hope that that is what we would find.
Ms Dorries
Our police are very responsible individuals. If they receive a report that somebody is believed to be breaking regulations, or breaking isolation, they will not automatically ask Test and Trace for the individual’s information before they have carried out an assessment of the situation. They would need to clarify for themselves whether a breach was actually taking place, such as a breach of the numbers—for example, if it was not a single-household individual mixing within their bubble. They would have to assess the situation and see if the regulations were being broken. If they were being broken, the police would have the right to revert to Test and Trace to ask for clarification on the individual’s details.
Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are pursuing a definition—as my right hon. Friend knows well—in legal terms within the legislation. I will need to seek legal clarification and write to both of them with the details on that point.
Justin Madders
I appreciate the Minister’s valiant efforts to explain how this all works in practice. I think that the answer, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, is to publish the memorandum of understanding. That is the way that we will all gain clarity on how this all works—I hope.
I will just go back to what the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Care, said on 19 October last year. When asked if the memorandum of understanding would be published, she said, “It will be.” The Minister seemed to be backtracking a little from that tonight. Can she confirm whether we will actually get sight of it?
Ms Dorries
I am aware that it exists as a working understanding, as I said, between DHSC and policing. Obviously I will consider both points about transparency and take them both on board. However, I need to seek further clarification—if, why, legally, and how?—around the memorandum of understanding. The hon. Gentleman’s points have been well made today and have been noted. I will take the process further and explore the options, then get back to him with an answer.
Justin Madders
I am sorry to press the point, but one of the Minister’s colleagues said on the record that it will be published and she is now saying that that is not, or might not be, the case. That is not acceptable. We must have things said by Ministers on the record adhered to.
Ms Dorries
I completely agree. I have just been informed, in the form of our old notes, that the memorandum of understanding is currently being updated to reflect feedback from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the recent changes made by this SI.
Mr Harper
This is my final point, and it is probably less for the Minister and more for her colleagues in the Whips’ Office. There are a number of complex legal questions, which the Minister says she will write to the Committee about. That is perfectly understandable, but may I ask for an assurance, either from her or from those who are listening, that the House will not be asked to take a decision on this statutory instrument until the memorandum of understanding has been published and she has furnished the Committee, and indeed the House, with answers to the questions that have been asked? It would not be acceptable for us to ask questions and for her reasonably to go off and make inquiries, and then for the House to be asked to make a decision tomorrow before Members have been furnished with that information. That would not be an appropriate way to behave, especially as the regulations have come into force before being debated by the House. If she cannot give that assurance, I hope that others are listening and will feed that request back through the usual channels.
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. As a former Chief Whip, he knows that these conversations will be taking place through the usual channels. I am glad that his comment was not directed toward me, because, as he also knows, the decision does not rest with me.
My closing remarks will cover some of the points that have been raised, but if I do not have the answers to any of them now, I will, as always, respond in writing. I really do thank both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for the important contributions they have made today. The hon. Gentleman did not go too far outside the scope of the SI this time, as he often does. He usually goes miles off-piste, but today he was very well behaved, and I thank him for that. I absolutely take on board the point made by my right hon. Friend. When we are fighting a virus, with the Department of Health, public health bodies, SAGE and everyone else involved, the probing questions asked here help to create better laws and a better process. Hopefully, we are all trying to do the same thing—to get back to normal as soon as it is safely possible to do so. Anyone’s efforts as part of this process are as valuable as everyone else’s, so I thank my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their probing questions and for pushing me on certain points, because that will create better answers.
The Government have always been clear that the highest priority is managing this national crisis, protecting the public and saving lives. As I stated in my opening remarks, the amendments in the SIs are necessary and proportionate for legal coherence and clarification. [Interruption.] Don’t worry, I haven’t got covid; I coughed because I have been talking so long. The ability to enforce more effectively and issue enhanced FPNs will ensure that we limit the spread of the virus and increase compliance, protect the NHS and safeguard public health.
Coronavirus remains a serious threat. The current level of confirmed cases and the identification of new, more transmissible variants of covid-19 have reinforced existing patterns. As during the first peak, we are witnessing a high number of infections, hospital and intensive care unit admissions and, sadly, high mortality rates. Even when mortality rates are not high—there are dips—that does not mean that our ICU beds are not full of people being treated for covid. If we are managing to keep people alive, that is a good thing, but it does not mean that beds are not full or that we are not trying to protect our NHS and prevent it from falling over. We continue to mitigate the threat to our NHS before it becomes overwhelmed, and strive to give it the best ability to provide a safe and effective service for all. Protecting our NHS is about keeping beds available and enough staff on the wards to treat people when they come in and need that treatment in order to save their lives.
It has been necessary to make a number of minor technical amendments to the all tiers regulations to provide coherency and ensure that there is no confusion about these measures, all of which have been implemented to limit transmission and reduce the spread of the virus.
As set out previously, the intentions of the amendments to the all tiers and self-isolation regulations are threefold: to reduce contact between people who do not live together, to drive down transmission; to increase fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, to increase compliance; and to enhance data-sharing with the police to improve the evidentiary chain, to support effective enforcement against those who breach their duty to self-isolate. To issue a fixed penalty notice, the police need to be satisfied that they are engaging with the right person—this comes back to the substantive point that was raised a number of times during this debate: they need to be sure that they are engaging with, and issuing the FPN to, the right person—that the person is aware of their duty to self-isolate, and that the person has indeed breached that legal requirement. These changes to the self-isolation regulations will support the police in taking effective enforcement action when that is appropriate.
Fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people will double for each successive offence, up to a maximum of £6,400. There is one point on which I will not have to write to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. He asked, “Why 15? Why is that the number?” This will just take the number of questions to be answered down by one. This is the new fine for attending larger gatherings, where there is a higher risk of spreading the virus, which goes back to my point that we know how and where the virus travels and where it is most transmissible. It was the scientists who decided this: it was seen as the right level, balancing public health risk versus social impact—for example, the impact on larger households. There continues to be a fine for breaching covid regulations, including by attending a gathering of 15 or fewer.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. It seems that, as we would expect, this decision is based on scientific advice. Would the Minister be able to publish that, so that we can see it in full?
Ms Dorries
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s request has been listened to—he knows that publishing the advice from SAGE is above my pay grade.
As I said, fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people will double for each successive offence, up to a maximum of £6,400. These amendments to the all tiers and self-isolation regulations will provide the police with the enhanced powers that they need to tackle egregious breaches of the law.
Unfortunately, covid-19 has forced us to balance the increasing social contact restrictions with the protection of public health. These decisions are not easy ones to make, but with alarming epidemiological evidence suggesting that the new variant is much more transmissible, urgent action has become appropriate. We will continue to work alongside scientific and medical experts to ensure we have decision making appropriate to the circumstance at each stage of this crisis, and we will review the regulations regularly, assessing them in the light of the latest science and other data. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
I reassure the Committee that all the exchanges have been perfectly in order and well within the scope of these two instruments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 53).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 97).—(Nadine Dorries.)
Committee rose.
Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Everybody is already distanced, mask wearing and everything, so I just remind the Committee that Hansard would be very grateful if any speaking notes can be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021.
Sir Graham, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I welcome all right hon. and hon. Members to this important debate. These draft regulations make a discrete amendment to regulation 60 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 to enable borrowing to fund Crossrail.
If these draft regulations are agreed, the effect will be an extension of the duration for which community infrastructure levy receipts can be collected by the Mayor of London to fund capital borrowing for Crossrail. Consequently, the Greater London Authority will be able to borrow against future CIL receipts to fund the completion of the Crossrail project. The funding provision inserted into the 2010 CIL regulations, as amended by this instrument, will allow CIL receipts in London to be collected for the purposes of Crossrail until 31 March 2045. This amendment solely affects CIL collected in London, and the borrowing will be limited to funding Crossrail only.
Crossrail is of national importance. It may be situated in London, but the benefits are and will continue to be felt across the UK. Once completed, the Elizabeth line will run from Reading and Heathrow in the west through 42 km of new tunnels under London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. The new railway, to be operated by Transport for London, will be fully integrated with the existing transport network, along with future High Speed 2 services arriving at Old Oak Common. Crossrail continues to support the wider economy, creating 55,000 full-time jobs, 1,000 apprenticeships and 70,000 supply chain opportunities. The majority of contracts—96%—have been awarded to UK companies, and 62% of those suppliers are based outside London.
In August 2020, Crossrail Ltd announced that the central section between Paddington and Abbey Wood is expected to open in the first half of 2022. It also estimated that the cost to complete the project could be up to £1.1 billion more than forecast. That is in addition to the £2.15 billion funding package agreed by the Government, the Mayor and TfL in December 2018. We are disappointed by the delays the project has faced and the need for additional funding.
On 1 October 2020, TfL implemented new Crossrail governance, bringing the project directly under TfL’s responsibility. The transport commissioner is now ultimately accountable for the delivery of the railway, including managing costs. That will benefit the trial running and trial operation phases of the project in anticipation of services opening to the public.
However, we should not forget that the operational benefits of Crossrail are being felt. New Crossrail trains are already improving journeys for passengers from Paddington to Reading and Heathrow airport, as well as between Liverpool Street and Shenfield. Many national rail stations along the route have seen significant upgrades by Network Rail.
To support the completion of Crossrail, on 1 December last year the Government announced that an additional £825 million of borrowing had been made available to the GLA to be repaid by 2043, using two London-specific funding schemes, which are both dedicated to Crossrail: the business rate supplement, which runs until 2041, and a community infrastructure levy, which currently runs until 2033.
The amendment to the 2010 regulations contained in this statutory instrument is our focus today. Its approval is necessary to extend the period for which CIL can be collected for the purposes of Crossrail until 2043, allowing the GLA to repay the additional Crossrail borrowing. A further funding shortfall may remain after that additional borrowing has been fully utilised. Any shortfall will be subject to further discussions between the Government, TfL and the GLA. The TfL commissioner remains confident that the project can be delivered within the additional £825 million borrowing, and I welcome his commitment to managing costs.
I conclude my remarks by reminding the Committee that the Crossrail project continues to support jobs and apprenticeships right across the UK. Once open, it will transform the travel experiences of 200 million passengers a year. It will also help to deliver significant benefits to the UK economy, supporting economic growth at a critical time. It is vital the project is completed as safely and as quickly as possible to release those benefits. By approving the draft regulations, the Committee will support the delivery of Crossrail.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship for my first statutory instrument as shadow Minister, Sir Graham. I thank the Minister for her remarks. I put on the record that the Labour party does not oppose the changes made on 1 December 2020, in accordance with the Crossrail funding agreement between the GLA and the Department for Transport.
By directly taking on the governance of Crossrail in October last year, Transport for London stepped up to the plate at a time when many thought that the Government should perhaps do more to support it. Despite the project being jointly sponsored, with enormous benefits for the whole of the UK economy, as the Minister rightly pointed out, Crossrail’s shortfall will be covered initially by the GLA borrowing up to £825 million from the DFT in the form of a grant.
The ambition is to stay within that figure—one hopes that that remains the case—but it is far from a given, in the light of the huge complexity and various pressures of the project. The GLA will pay that loan from business rate supplements and mayoral community infrastructure levy revenues. Importantly, the statutory instrument enables repayment by extending the period within which the Mayor of London can collect and apply the CIL for borrowing for Crossrail projects from 2030 right through to 2043.
This is a statutory instrument, so I do not mean to play politics, but I will make the small point that the Government could perhaps have done more at an earlier stage in the project so that Londoners were not asked to chip in. That comes despite the fact that the Treasury receives the overwhelming majority of the economic benefit of Crossrail. It is important to state that it is generally forecast to generate at least £42 billion for the wider UK economy. Furthermore, more than 60% of the project’s suppliers are based outside London, which is incredibly important because it means that the additional funding will support the economy across the country. That is a further example of London supporting the economy, in stark contrast to the way that the Government sometimes talk about London and its payback to the rest of the country.
Members may well point to the recent deal struck between the Government and the GLA, but in reality, far from providing urgently needed grant funding, the deal only forced the Mayor to borrow more, meaning that ultimately, Londoners and businesses will pay. That was the only deal on the table, but it makes available only an initial £825 million of the potential £1.1 billion shortfall that is projected—that is a concern. I know that Crossrail Ltd and TfL are working incredibly hard to deliver the project within that funding structure. I hope that, should the full £1.1 billion be needed, the Government will adopt a more responsible approach to those discussions with the Mayor, and end the brinkmanship on such an important project that benefits so much of the country.
London needs the Elizabeth line more than ever as we emerge post-covid, and UK-wide, the railway will help the UK economy to recover as life returns to normal in, I hope, the not-too-distant future. Although the pandemic has significantly impacted transport ridership, as London reopens to business, the Elizabeth line’s capacity will, I hope, enable passengers to adhere to social distancing guidelines more easily when they travel, and provide relief to other methods of travel, including the London underground. The Elizabeth line—I think this is where the Opposition and the Government agree—can and should be the spearhead of that recovery.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the regulations, and I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South for his support of the statutory instrument. I agree that this is not the place to discuss the wider finances of Crossrail and Transport for London, but I put on the record that the Mayor of London has actually delayed the opening of Crossrail for more than three years, forgoing considerable revenue in the bargain, and has mismanaged the finances, leaving the project’s budget with a £275 million hole.
Today, however, we are considering the statutory instrument. It is a vital part of the December 2020 funding package for Crossrail, to place the project and Crossrail Ltd on a stable financial footing, which is something that we all agree with. We have agreed that the GLA will borrow additional funding to meet Crossrail costs overruns. The instrument will extend the period for which the GLA can use the community infrastructure levy in London to repay sums borrowed for Crossrail, ensuring that it has the funding necessary to complete the project and open to the public. I hope that the Committee has found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ALL TIERS AND SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Mr Speaker has asked that Members wear masks in Committee unless they are speaking. I do not think it is an attempt to shut people up. Will Members kindly keep them on?
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 53).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. (S.I. 2021, No. 97).
Ms Dorries
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I hope that the Committee will approve the regulations, which are in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I will briefly explain each statutory instrument.
SI No. 2021/53 amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 and came into force on 20 January 2021. The need for the changes in it was identified in the ongoing review of regulations. It provides for minor and technical clarifications, including of the fact that competitive sport can continue, that cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings are able to remain open, and that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted. These changes provide legal certainty that these activities are permitted.
SI No. 2021/97 amends the all tiers regulations and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020, and came into force on 29 January 2021. It allows for additional data to be shared between NHS Test and Trace and the police for the purpose of effective enforcement of the self-isolation regulations. The statutory instrument also amends the all tiers regulations to introduce a new, higher fixed penalty notice to persons aged 18 or over participating in a gathering of more than 15 people in a private dwelling, in education accommodation, or at an indoor rave. The first penalty is £800, reduced to £400 with early repayment. Subsequent offences double the size of the fixed penalty, to a maximum of £6,400.
I will now outline in further detail the main changes made by SI No. 2021/97. As I noted, the main amendment it makes to the all tiers regulations is that it provides for FPNs that can be levied against individuals who participate in gatherings of more than 15 people in a range of settings. We have introduced a new fixed penalty notice, because although the majority of people follow covid regulations and guidance, it is important that the police have the right tools to take action against the small number of people who break the rules. We know that the virus is transmitted through close contact; as a result, larger gatherings of people who do not live together pose an increased risk of transmission. The existing regulations already penalise people who organise unlawful gatherings of 30 or more people, but there was no enhanced penalty for those attending, other than the £200 FPN for breaching social contact and gathering rules. This new, larger fixed penalty notice will support wider efforts to improve compliance with the regulations, thereby helping to bring transmission rates down.
I will now focus on changes to the self-isolation regulations, as I am aware that many Members are most interested in this. The self-isolation regulations came into force on 28 September 2020 and make self-isolation a legal requirement for individuals who have been notified by NHS Test and Trace that they have tested positive for covid-19 or are a close contact of such a person, subject to a number of exemptions. Non-adherence to the regulations can result in an FPN ranging from £1,000 to £10,000, and failure to pay the FPN can result in court action and conviction. The SIs being debated today do not change those levels of FPN.
In order for police to issue FPNs, they need sufficient information about the suspected breach, and evidence that the individual is supposed to be self-isolating and has received a notification from NHS Test and Trace to do so. This SI allows for the minimum necessary information to be shared with the police in order for them to enforce self-isolation. Four key changes have been made. The first is the addition of date of birth and email address, which will help strengthen the evidential base by enabling the police to verify the identity of someone who is suspected of a breach. Secondly, information on whether the individual is participating in coronavirus-related research will be used, where available, to determine whether the subject is permitted to leave their place of self-isolation under an exemption in the regulations. Thirdly, the SI permits the sharing of notification information, including the method of notification, the contact details—
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On the point of notification information, I understand that now, to improve the contact rates, if Test and Trace notifies someone that they have to self-isolate, and there are other members of the household, that person is asked to notify those members and confirm that they have been notified. For the purposes of the regulations, if someone has notified members of their household, does that count as a notification that makes those members legally have to self-isolate? Is the information that someone has passed on to them communicated to the police in some way, so that they can take action under the regulations?
Ms Dorries
The only time the police would contact a person would be if a breach had taken place. On the point about the relatives, household members or close contacts of somebody who has been notified by NHS Test and Trace that they are positive, my right hon. Friend asks whether the data of those people who the person has taken on the responsibility to notify will be transferred to the police. I will ensure that I get a swift response to that question.
Ms Dorries
I would say yes to the second half of my right hon. Friend’s question. Again, I will seek legal clarification on this issue, but if someone has been notified that they have been in close contact with somebody who has tested positive, they have a responsibility to self-isolate. On whether that person’s details are put on the NHS Test and Trace database, and on whether the police can therefore be notified if they breach the social contract that we have with Test and Trace, I will need to find out for my right hon. Friend.
Mr Harper
This will be the last question. I am pressing her because it was very clear that the initial self-isolation regulations, which, for the avoidance of doubt, I strongly support, applied only to people whom the Test and Trace service had notified. There was no legal requirement for a person to self-isolate if, for example, the app told them to. That is why I want to be clear. I completely agree that people should self-isolate, but there is a real difference between whether someone should, and whether there is a legal duty on them to do so or face criminal action from the police.
Ms Dorries
I take my right hon. Friend’s point entirely. It is a legal point, and I will get legal clarification for him swiftly, if not before the end of the debate. I will certainly make sure that question is answered, because there is a legal nuance on where the legal responsibility lies. I welcome his intervention—in fact, interventions from Members on both sides of the House—because they challenge us on how we deal with this new virus, and the world of covid regulations and social distancing. They challenge us all the time to think about these points and to do things better.
Thirdly, the SI permits the sharing of notification information, including the method of notification, the contact details, and a copy of the notification issued to the person informing them of their duty to self-isolate. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that happens when someone is informed by NHS Test and Trace that they have to self-isolate. That is so that the police can confirm that the individual received a notification to self-isolate and was aware of their legal duty to do so. If required, the police can use that copy to remind the individual, as I have said.
Finally, the SI allows information to be shared on whether the suspected breach is a positive case or a close contact. The police require a distinction to be made between the two types of cases—I think I am answering my right hon. Friend’s question; perhaps I am not—and the relative circumstances may need to be evidenced by the police in criminal proceedings. It is crucial that the police know the precise circumstances and the chain of events that may need to be investigated and evidenced in each individual case.
That data will primarily be shared with the police where there is a reported breach of self-isolation regulations. This is for the purpose of access. The police do not have direct access to the NHS Test and Trace database and its details on all individuals who need to self-isolate, and that will remain the case. Sharing this additional information is both necessary and proportionate, as it gives the police the information that they need to effectively enforce the law. The police have a role in upholding and enforcing the regulations, and we must ensure that they have the tools necessary to carry out their job efficiently and speedily, so that we can deter people from breaching self-isolation at a time when adherence to self-isolation requirements is crucial.
Above all else, the self-isolation regulations are a safety measure designed to drive up compliance among those most at risk of spreading the virus. Any improvement to the way the regulations are upheld will have a positive impact on the public health of the country as a whole by bringing down rates of transmission, protecting the most vulnerable, reducing pressures on healthcare and aiding a return to normality for us all.
Both statutory instruments were introduced using emergency powers, so that we could respond quickly to the threat to public health posed by covid-19. The urgency of SI No. 2021/97 stems from the critical national situation, the need for the police to be able to conduct their duties efficiently in this context, and the crucial impact that it should have on improving compliance with self-isolation and bringing down the R number.
The SIs demonstrate our willingness to take tougher action against the most serious breaches of the rules. They are designed to protect us all. We keep wider regulations under ongoing review and clarify them as appropriate. We also understand that it is crucial to take steps to allow people to return to a more normal way of life. The most effective way of doing that is by reducing transmission of the virus while we continue to deliver our vaccination programme. The SIs set out to achieve that, and should therefore remain in force. We are committed to ensuring that the measures are in place only for as long as is necessary. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
I apologise to Committee members for the room’s being so gloomy and desperately cold, but the views of Queen Victoria seem to have prevailed.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. No room is gloomy when you are in it.
I thank the Minister for her introduction, and I pay tribute to our NHS and social care staff, and indeed all key workers, who have done so much, and continue to do so much, to fight through this incredibly difficult period for our nation. As we know, we have sadly passed the tragic milestone of 100,000 people having died from covid-19. As of yesterday, 111,634 people have died, over a third of them since the start of this year. Those truly shocking figures show us how far we still have to go in this fight. We have the highest number of covid deaths in Europe, and every step should be taken to fight the virus.
We are here to discuss two sets of regulations, as the Minister set out. The first set came into force several weeks ago on 20 January. As we heard from the Minister, they make minor amendments and corrections to the all tiers regulations to clarify that the exemption to leave home to collect goods from businesses operating click and collect also applies to libraries; that elite sports competitions are permitted; that cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings can remain open; and that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted.
The Opposition do not oppose these regulations, but I have some observations and questions for the Minister. As I have said many times, we are once again retrospectively approving legislation, particularly regulations that have a dramatic impact on individuals’ liberty, as well as an economic impact. We have discussed these issues many times. These regulations should not be approved after the event, and I thought that there had been a commitment given that regulations of national significance would be debated in advance. Although it could be argued that the first set of regulations, which primarily make corrections, is not within the ambit of that promise, the second set of regulations certainly is, so will the Minister set out why that commitment has not been honoured on this occasion?
The first set of regulations deals with errors and oversights from earlier regulations. This is not the first time that we have had to address this. Of course, we are in a rapidly evolving situation, but we are on the third lockdown, so one would expect enough experience to have been gathered for there not to be a need to come back and make such corrections. The instrument states that it
“is being issued free of charge to all known recipients of those Regulations.”
Will the Minister tell us how many organisations that is, and what the cost of this error is to the taxpayer? What is the legal position of people who were fined for attending the premises concerned before the regulations came into force? Does the Minister know whether anyone has been erroneously fined as a result of the drafting error? And what about the businesses that have been affected? Have any indicated that they have lost profit or income for that period when they were erroneously told they could not operate? Mistakes have consequences, and there have been too many. A proper explanation ought to be forthcoming about why we are having to deal with these things after the event. They should not be dealt with in this way when people’s lives and livelihoods are involved.
I will move on to the second set of regulations that came into effect on 29 January. They concern self-isolation requirements and, as we have heard, gatherings of more than 15 people in a private dwelling, in educational accommodation, or at an indoor rave. I thank the Minister for Care for writing to me regarding this instrument to outline what the amendments primarily concern, particularly in terms of the enforcement of offences and allowing police to receive additional information, as the Minister said, so that they can verify those individuals who are under a legal duty to self-isolate.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made an interesting point about whether the regulation covers those who have been advised by an individual in their household that they have a duty to self-isolate. That has had a dramatic impact on the performance figures for Test and Trace, but it raises a series of difficult questions about enforcement. I hope the Minister can clarify whether those notified outside the system, so to speak, are also covered by the regulations. I suspect that they will not be, and I think the issue of how a person is notified will cause all sorts of evidential difficulties, particularly if they are not in a household that is a family unit. It would certainly make for awkward dinner conversations if such issues arose.
In her letter to me, the Minister for Care stated that
“sharing this additional information is both necessary and proportionate in order to give the police the information they need to effectively enforce the law.”
That may well be the case, but it begs the question why, a year into this pandemic, that has only just been acted on.
As we have heard, the statutory instrument increases the fixed penalty notice for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people. Unlike the fines for gatherings of more than 30, this fine applies to both organisers and attendees, although one assumes that attendees and organisers of gatherings of more than 30 would be covered, given that that is more than 15. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
Considering the fines first, it is fair to say that the announcement was met with a little bit of scepticism. Most of the debate that I saw was about why gatherings of 14 would not attract fines. I do not know if this is an unintended boost for unauthorised seven-a-side football matches, but it looks like 15 has been chosen arbitrarily. I am not sure that was the message the Government were hoping to send. Of course, the most important thing is the message that people should stay at home and not organise gatherings of any nature. That message on compliance is absolutely critical to our getting through this.
However, in order for that message to be most effective, we need to hear very clearly why 15 is the magic number. When the policy was announced, the Home Secretary said, “The science is clear”, but is it? There is clear scientific evidence on the impact of indoor gatherings on transmission, but not having seen the scientific modelling for this particular set of regulations, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the regulations set the number of people at 15. We had similar debates over why the rule of six was six and whether children were included. Will the Minister advise whether children are included within the 15? However, what we really want to know is why it is 15.
We also want to know why this is so urgent. Surely the time to have looked at this would have been over the Christmas and new year period, when one would have naturally expected there to have been a greater risk of large gatherings taking place. I hope I am not being overly cynical when I say it appears to me that the regulations seem to have been introduced in response to that period of the year and the number of illegal gatherings that took place, rather than being part of a strategic approach to the issue.
The timing is interesting, because the statutory instrument was laid before Parliament at 11 am on 29 January 2021 and then came into force at 5 pm—the same day. Why was it rushed so quickly on the same day? Was there a specific reason why it needed to be introduced on 29 January? There have been many instances of regulations being published and then introduced at incredibly short notice, and while there have been occasions when that could be justified, I simply do not see why such speed and such disregard for parliamentary scrutiny were necessary on this occasion. The Minister referred to the critical situation that we were in in January, with the number of infections and hospitalisations, but by 29 January we were clearly on a downward trend. Anything the Minister could say to clarify why this had to be rushed through on 29 January would be appreciated.
We agree with Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, that increased fines will act as a disincentive for people thinking of attending or organising such events. Was there specific intelligence about 29 January? Was there something on that date to suggest that groups of 15 people or more would gather more? I hope that the response justifies the need for speed on this occasion.
I will now turn to the sharing of data, on which I have several questions. We all know that the self-isolation regulations impose certain requirements on individuals to self-isolate. As the Minister outlined, the statutory instrument amends the information that needs to be disclosed. Of course we can see why sharing that information might be helpful, particularly for the police in verifying an individual and helping to carry out self-isolation enforcement, but I have a few questions. Lord Bethell, a Health Minister, said that the police are accessing
“isolation information, not health information.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1418.]
There is concern that that is not the case, because whether an individual is required to self-isolate is, to all intents and purposes, health information. I hope the Minister can see that a rather fine distinction is being made. I draw attention to that because health data is highly sensitive and therefore falls under a special category of data under the general data protection regulation rules. Concerns have been raised about that. Given that medical privacy is the bedrock of a functioning public health system, its disclosure should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny before it is enacted.
There are also concerns that the broad definition of who the information can be shared with means that it can be provided not only to the police, but to anyone else the Government enlist to uphold the rules. We do not have any particular concerns about public health officials, but we need clarity about who can receive this information and who is entitled to see it under the regulations. It could be the covid marshals we used to talk about a lot but do not hear so much about anymore. If the Minister can advise us who exactly is entitled to receive this information, that would be helpful.
There are also concerns about whether the police are permitted to use this information for the purposes of these regulations. Some people have expressed concerns that it could be used for other investigations that they are conducting. I have had the benefit of visiting my local police station, as I am sure many Members have, and seeing how access to personal information has been used to aid their investigations, but the police have done that with very clear safeguards in place. In order to ensure confidence in the uptake of the test and trace system, it is important that we have confirmation that that information will be used only for the purposes of these regulations.
I turn briefly to the app. Can the Minister advise us whether those notified by the app to self-isolate will be covered by these regulations? They were not covered by the original self-isolation regulations, which in my opinion was a huge oversight. If that has not been rectified, why not?
How will the police powers that have been provided under these regulations be resourced? Last month, John Apter, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said that some forces in England have as many as 15% of staff off. Since these regulations came into force at the end of last month, we have heard that the police will be expected to play a role in the enforcement of hotel quarantine. Our police officers have worked incredibly hard throughout this pandemic, and they face very difficult circumstances. Can we have some assurances from the Minister that they will be adequately resourced to take on the additional responsibilities that they have been given?
On the subject of public confidence, there is concern about the lack of transparency over the memorandum of understanding between the police and the Department. In a Delegated Legislation Committee on 19 October 2020, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked the Minister for Care about the memorandum of understanding, and she said:
“It has not been yet, but it will be.”—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 October 2020; c. 25.]
Hon. Members can see a clearer response from the Minister for Care in Hansard, but we still have not seen that memorandum of understanding. I understand that a freedom of information request for sight of the memorandum was refused on 15 December, on the basis that it was intended for future publication. I ask the Minister what is going on here. Can she confirm when exactly we will see the memorandum? Why has there been a delay in its publication? Can she also confirm whether these regulations have led to a new memorandum of understanding and whether that will be available for public scrutiny?
At the heart of this is a question of public trust. We need assurances that sensitive health data will be kept private. Many people could be unwilling to take a coronavirus test or engage with the Department’s contact tracers, particularly if there is a threat of harsh punishment, if they are not given those assurances. Many public figures have raised concerns along those lines. The British Medical Association says it is concerned that some people are deterred from being tested because they are anxious about a loss of income should they need to self-isolate, and it is worried that police involvement will add to that.
Professor Chris Whitty has also expressed concerns. Professor Susan Michie, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ behavioural science adviser, has said that the move could cause further distrust in the Government, which is a massive problem for adherence to the regulations. Those are serious concerns from very respected people. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the data-sharing arrangements will not deter people from giving information to contact tracers or, indeed, giving their own information? These are all essential to combatting the spread of the virus.
We know that compliance rates for self-isolation are already low, so everything must be done to ensure that the message and the practical help is there, to encourage as many people to self-isolate when they are required to do so. We want to get as high a compliance rate as possible. Anything the Minister can say to address those concerns would be appreciated.
There are practical steps that the Department can take too. The Government have known for many months that rates of self-isolation remain too low and there is a gaping hole in the system, because not everyone can work at home or comfortably isolate themselves. The system still expects families to go hungry to stop spreading the infection. We have seen the serious side effects of this at the weekend, with evidence that the rates at which cases of covid-19 have fallen since the start of the year are dramatically lower in some of the UK’s poorest regions when compared with wealthier areas.
Figures show that the number of cases of covid-19 infections per 100,000 people remained markedly higher in the last full week of January in many poorer parliamentary constituencies than in more affluent ones. For example, in Preston, infection rates fell by just 9% in January, and in Bradford they fell by just 14%, but in more affluent areas, such as Oxford West and Abingdon, and Saffron Walden, cases declined by 72%. Does the Minister agree that these stark differences demonstrate the serious consequences of the failure to offer financial support to help people on lower incomes with the self-isolation requirements?
The Government have been too slow to address this. Even Baroness Harding recognised last week that there was a big flaw in the Government’s approach to self-isolation support. She said that 20,000 people a day were not self-isolating when they should be. That is simply an unsustainable figure, if we are ever going to see some of the relaxations of current measures that we all wish to see.
On self-isolation, these regulations deal with the stick, but they do not address the deficiencies in the carrot. I again urge the Government to fix the payments regime so that it does not act as a disincentive to people who want to do the right thing and self-isolate. We have said this many times before, but I will make no apology for saying it again: the £500 test and trace support payment is not reaching enough people. Seven out of eight people do not qualify for it. Rejection rates in councils are over 70%. At the time it was announced, the amount given by the Government to councils to continue the fund for a further two months would only have been enough to cover everyone who tested positive on one day. That is not good enough.
In conclusion, we are in our third lockdown. This is extremely difficult. The British people have done their part, staying at home and helping to keep the virus under control. But it is incumbent on the Government to do the right thing by them as well, by ensuring that support for self-isolation and for test and trace genuinely supports people, as well as by dealing with those who do not comply.
Mr Harper
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I know that she is assiduous in her duties. I am pleased that she answered my earlier intervention in the right spirit, which is the spirit in which I am asking the questions. I genuinely believe that asking questions, which Ministers have to answer, means that you get better laws and regulations, and a good Minister should never be afraid of scrutiny. I am grateful to her for taking my intervention in that spirit.
By way of opening, I should say that I support the principle that people who test positive for coronavirus, or who are contacts of people who test positive, should self-isolate, to protect those around them and reduce the rate of infection. The real question that faces us and is at the heart of these enforcement powers is this: how do we more effectively get people to self-isolate? Is it with the stick or the carrot? That is why I have some concerns about the approach set out in this SI. I am particularly concerned that sharing information with law enforcement authorities does not lead to the best public health response.
I asked the Minister a question, and she kindly said that she would get back to me with a response. There is a second part to my question, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on. I think I am right in saying—I am very happy to be corrected if I am not—that one of the qualification criteria for the isolation payment, which is very important for people on lower incomes, is that someone has been notified by Test and Trace that they have to self-isolate.
Part of the reason I was pressing the Minister on the legal position was not just from the point of view of enforcement and the police’s ability to enforce self-isolation. If someone is in a household where another person is notified that either they have tested positive or they have to self-isolate, they notify that person. If someone is on a low income and needs the isolation payment but has not been told to self-isolate by Test and Trace, I think I am right in saying that they do not qualify for the payment. One of things I am trying to test is whether the way that the test and trace system has changed the rules on how it notifies people has inadvertently led to more people not qualifying for the payment, which is therefore driving down the rates of self-isolation.
Ms Dorries
Just to save my right hon. Friend having to elongate that point, I have had information that I need to clarify the legal nuance—the point that he raised last time. Where a positive case undertakes to inform their household contacts of their duty to self-isolate, NHS Test and Trace takes details of those contacts and will separately SMS or email them, so that they are in the system and are notified. I do not know whether that makes it any clearer. I would imagine that applies to the points that my right hon. Friend raised about financial remuneration, but also in respect of the legalities about whom the SI applies to and what powers the police have to enforce the SI.
Mr Harper
I am grateful. That should therefore deal with the payment issue.
My second point comes back to the point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised about my question in October about the memorandum of understanding. One of the issues that concerns people is the scope of the information that is to be shared and the basis on which it is shared by the Department. If the Department were to publish the memorandum of understanding—the Minister will obviously tell me if it has been published—I cannot see what the problem would be. It seems to be that if there is nothing to hide, if the rules for sharing information are as set out in the explanatory note in the regulations and as the Minister set out, and if there are good, clear reasons for doing these things, that would help allay people’s genuine concerns.
People also have concerns about things for the sake of having concerns about them, and publishing the information and being transparent allays those concerns. It also stops people being able to whip up scare stories. We know there are people who deliberately set out to spread anti-vaxx nonsense, and to scare people about taking the vaccine or getting tested. The more the Government are transparent and open, the more we reduce the opportunity for people to do that.
Can the Minister confirm that the memorandum of understanding has been published? If it has not been published, and given that the House will be asked to approve the regulations—I presume that once the Committee has considered them, they will be on the Order Paper tomorrow—it would be outrageous if the memorandum of understanding was not available to the House at the point at which it was asked to take a decision on the regulations. It seems to me that that would be less than satisfactory.
Can I probe a point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised about the necessity to use the emergency procedure to lay the regulations? I completely accept that both at the early stage of the pandemic and at certain stages throughout it, there have been times when it has been necessary for Ministers, even subsequent to their commitment to coming to the House in advance, to legislate using the emergency powers under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and then get Parliament to sign them off afterwards.
An obvious example was when we saw the new variant spreading very quickly. It was, I think, after Parliament had risen for Christmas. I agree it was necessary for the Government to take steps and then get the House to sign them off. To be fair, the Government did so. They recalled Parliament and held a debate at the earliest opportunity, and that was absolutely right.
In the present case, I do not understand what the urgency was when the need for the regulations was identified. Why was it not possible, a few days later, simply to have them debated by the House? I ask that because paragraph 3.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that
“it has become clear that changes around data sharing are necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of the current system.”
However, no further details are given.
Later, under the heading of “Policy background”, paragraph 7.4 includes the words:
“Feedback from policing suggests additional data”.
I should welcome more clarity from the Minister about what exactly suggested to the Department that more data was needed. What information did the Department get from policing? The memorandum is a bit vague about what “policing” means. It does not say whether it means the National Police Chiefs’ Council, individual police forces, or what.
What information was received from the police to suggest that they needed more data? When did that take place? Why was it necessary for the regulations to be made by Ministers and to come into force a few hours after they were made, before Parliament was given the opportunity to debate them?
The issue is important because it is important that the regulations be proportionate. The Minister used that word several times, and the statutory instrument states that the Secretary of State considers them a “proportionate” response. We need to know what evidence there is of people not following their legal duty to self-isolate. How many people, for example, who were under a legal duty to self-isolate were not doing so, and what is the evidence from behavioural science—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston quoted a member of SPI-M, part of the SAGE committee, about that—that the changes in the regulations will improve compliance and lead to more people self-isolating than the opposite?
The Secretary of State is said to be satisfied on the legal test that the provisions are a proportionate response, and in order to be satisfied about that he must have data about it available to him. It would be helpful if the Minister would furnish the Committee with that information. That would also enable us to judge whether it was appropriate for the measures to be made in advance and put into law before the House had a chance to consider them.
Having discussed the background, I have some specific questions about what information can be shared, and in what circumstances. Some of those would be answered if the memorandum of understanding were available. The Minister set out clearly that it would include information on the individual’s date of birth, the means by which they were notified—whether their postal address, telephone number or email address was used—and whether they are participating in coronavirus-related research. I would be grateful if she would confirm that that means just the fact of participation in the research, with no further details about what the research is. The final aspect was about whether someone had to self-isolate because of receiving a positive test, or being a contact. The reason why that is important, and why the regulations have caused some concern, is that if someone tests positive, that is health information. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, under data protection regulations, health information is a specific category that is very sensitive.
Members of Parliament know that there is a general assumption, set out in law, that when we contact organisations on behalf of our constituents, those organisations are entitled to presume that we have the constituents’ consent, and that a specific document is not required as evidence of that in each case; however, quite often with health data, the NHS will insist on a specific piece of information, showing a constituent’s explicit consent, before it will disclose health information. That is, rightly, because the health information is very sensitive. I want to know why Ministers feel that disclosing health information to the police is essential to carrying out this law enforcement, and whether it is proportionate to the problem that was being encountered when the information could not be disclosed. That is the implicit assumption.
I am also concerned about the uses to which the police can put the information, and how they get it, which would again be covered by the memorandum of understanding. First, it is not clear what the mechanism is for the police to get the information. Does the NHS choose information to send to the police—such as information about people who have tested positive or have positive contacts—for the police to do proactive enforcement work, or do the police have to approach the Department of Health and Social Care if they receive information about an individual that leads them to believe that the individual has a duty to self-isolate but is not doing so? I assume that it is the Department, as opposed to individual NHS bodies; it is presumably the Department and NHS Test and Trace, which is part of the Department of Health.
Do the police have to ask for the information on that individual, and what information does the Department ask for to evidence the fact that the police have a reasonable basis for wanting that health information? In other words, can the police choose anybody they feel like, contact NHS Test and Trace and say, “Can I have information about whether this individual has tested positive for coronavirus?” or do they have to have some information that gives them reasonable grounds for thinking that a criminal offence is taking place?
That is really important, because it would put people’s minds at rest. If a large-scale piece of data was being transferred, that might not put their minds at rest, but it is something that Parliament should know about. Is the information proactively sent from Test and Trace to the police for enforcement, or do the police have to ask for it, and are they able to do so—and will the Department release it—only if there are good grounds for suspecting that a criminal offence is being committed?
The final area concerns contacts, and the extent to which the police can use the information to go enforcing down the chain of contacts. In other words, if they get information that someone has tested positive for coronavirus, can they then make inquiries about whether that person’s contacts have a legal duty to self-isolate, or does responsibility for that sit with Test and Trace?
I ask those questions because there is anecdotal information that some people are worried about the impact of the legal duty on their contacts, in terms of their not being able to work and not having enough income. Let us be frank: there are people who engage with the police on, as it were, a professional basis for reasons not to do with coronavirus who may well feel that they do not want to go anywhere near the police, and therefore will not do what they should under a public health remit. If they thought that the police could go fishing around their contacts and get information about who they meet and when they meet them, they would not disclose it to Test and Trace. They would not engage with any of the public health information at all, and by introducing these measures we would have made ourselves not safer, but less safe.
A very good example, which I support, is what the Government have announced today. As a former Immigration Minister, I welcome the fact that the Government have said that even people who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully should contact the NHS and get a vaccine, and no steps will be taken, as a result of their doing so, to deal with the fact that they are in the country unlawfully. It is in all our interests that that essential public health measure, rather than the legal need to deal with the fact that they are in the country unlawfully, comes first, so Ministers have made the right choice. That is why I want to understand whether there is the right balance in the regulations, and I want to know that we are focusing on public health and reducing the effective transmission of the virus rather than inadvertently putting sticks in place—to use the words of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—and making things worse rather than better. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those few questions.
Ms Dorries
That was a large number of questions covering a number of points. I know that officials are furiously trying to group them at the moment. I will do my best to answer them as well as I can. If there are any that I do not answer, I give the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean absolute assurance that they will be written to quickly with more detailed answers.
The first point raised by the hon. Gentleman was about why the regulations have come in after the event. Public health underpins what we are doing today. My right hon. Friend’s last question was about this being a public health initiative, and not a stick or a means of taking away people’s freedoms for the sake of it. That is absolutely not what the regulations are about; they are very much a response to the South African variant. We need to do what we can to ensure that people self-isolate when they are supposed to, that they are deterred from gathering in groups and that we do as much as we possibly can, using the instrument of the law, to protect the health of the nation.
Coronavirus is a brand-new virus, and we knew nothing of its biology or pathology when it landed on our shores this time last year. One thing that I have learned since then as a Health Minister is that when the virus mutates—there have so far been more than 10,000 mutations—the figures go in only one direction when they start to rise. They do not rise to small numbers and then suddenly drop off and disappear without very restrictive action, such as that taken in China and other countries where there is a much stronger social contract with the population.
We move very quickly, but the virus moves faster. It would be wrong of us, as a Government, to see a variant such as the South African one and not look at what further public health measures we can put in place now to protect the health of the nation and stop the variant rising.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I only wish that such action had been extended to quarantining international arrivals for the South African variant. Does that explanation also apply to the question of gatherings? Does anything about that variant apply to large gatherings and explain why the regulations were brought in as they were?
Ms Dorries
As I said in my opening remarks, we know that the virus, in whatever mutation, transmits well indoors with groups of people who are not socially distancing and who are close to each other. That is true whether it is the South African variant or the current dominant variant in the UK. We know from experience, from weddings and other gatherings, that it transmits when people are together indoors in numbers. Our objective is to stop the virus transmitting and to keep the R number low.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised a number of points about the police. He asked what information we had about the police wanting the measures to be put in place. The National Police Chiefs’ Council fed back to us that police needed more information on someone to whom they may need to issue a fixed penalty notice. If they do not have the information to say, “Yes, this person has a legal responsibility to self-isolate,” it puts them in a very difficult position. This information is not used in the pursuit of any other crimes, or in any other way whatsoever. It is used for the purpose of a FPN, in order to deter others from breaking their legal responsibility to self-isolate when they have been identified as testing positive.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was additional funding for the police to carry out this work. We have given them over £30 million, again in consultation with the NPCC. We are responding to a request from the police. They do not want to issue fixed penalty notices to someone who is telling them, “No, this is a mistake; I don’t have a responsibility to self-isolate. No, I’m not covid positive. No, I haven’t been in contact.” They need the evidence. They need to be able to say, “We know that you are somebody who has been asked to self-isolate.”
Ms Dorries
I will just finish my point to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. On his comments about stick and carrot, the police have had a great deal of extra responsibility put on their shoulders. There have been times when they have exercised what they call the four Es. It is not about enforcement and a heavy hand.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have discussed this before, it is about encouragement, explaining and helping people to understand their social responsibility, both towards the people that they are with and in terms of keeping the virus down. It is not a case of the police going in and handing out fixed penalty notices. It is about explaining to people what is expected of them once they have received a notification that they are a close contact or they have tested positive, and their responsibility is to self-isolate. This is about encouraging people to comply with the regulations more than it is about hitting people with a stick.
Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman spoke about the memorandum of understanding. I understand that it is between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office. I will make some further inquiries about how that stands. I am not fully aware of the details, and I will get back to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman about that.
I was asked if the police had to request information on an individual or if they had access to the database. My understanding is that the police do not have open access to the Test and Trace database. This is about information on a need to know basis, when the police have been given information or when they are aware, or they suspect, that people are breaking the law. The police do not just access the database and take the information from it. My right hon. Friend and I have been in this place for a long time together, so he should know that I would not be happy with such a situation, purely from the point of view of civil liberties; I know he would not be happy with it either. The police have access to data that they request. I will write to him with further information on that, because there are many legal points around it. I know how thorough he is, and he will want those questions answered.
Mr Harper
Can I press the Minister on that? I am not sure that her answer has helped, because she said that the memorandum of understanding was between the DHSC and the Home Office. I presume that individual police forces, not the Home Office, access the information, although I do not know that because we have not seen the memorandum. That is the whole point about publishing the MOU—it would reassure us.
I think the Minister has confirmed that the police would have to suspect an offence was being carried out in order to get information. We are still not clear about who asks for the information, who discloses it and who makes the decision about whether to disclose it, to whom and what other information is disclosed.
Those are the things that are worrying people; if we can all be reassured about them, I think a lot of people will then stop being worried about them. The Minister herself is an experienced medical practitioner—a trained and qualified nurse—so she will know how important it is that medical information is not disclosed beyond the needs for which it was ascertained in the first place, and also how sensitive such information is.
Ms Dorries
We are totally in tune on that. In terms of the present system of information, I misspoke: it is a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Health and Social Care and policing, not the Home Office—I should be quite clear on that. My apologies—I misspoke there.
The present system of information-sharing with the police is reactive; as I said, it is based on the police receiving information from Test and Trace following a report of a suspected breach of the regulations—I probably said that more clumsily in my previous answer. It is when somebody has contacted the police to say that they believe somebody is breaking the regulations, or when there is a gathering of people—I think we called it a “rave” in the regulations—and somebody has reported that a gathering is taking place, and some of those people should be isolating.
Mr Harper
Just to be clear—I hope this will be my last question for the Minister—if, say, somebody’s neighbour rings up the police and says, “I think Mrs Bloggins has tested positive for coronavirus and isn’t self-isolating,” is that sufficient grounds for the police then to be given confidential health information about Mrs Bloggins, or does there have to be a bit more to it than somebody just ringing up and telling them something? I ask that because I think this is the bit that people are worried about—the basis on which the police asked for this information and the basis on which the DHSC will then give it to them. Again, it may be that all these questions are answered in the memorandum of understanding, in which case I really do think that if the Minister published it everyone would probably let out a big sigh of relief and would not be very worried about this—I hope that that is what we would find.
Ms Dorries
Our police are very responsible individuals. If they receive a report that somebody is believed to be breaking regulations, or breaking isolation, they will not automatically ask Test and Trace for the individual’s information before they have carried out an assessment of the situation. They would need to clarify for themselves whether a breach was actually taking place, such as a breach of the numbers—for example, if it was not a single-household individual mixing within their bubble. They would have to assess the situation and see if the regulations were being broken. If they were being broken, the police would have the right to revert to Test and Trace to ask for clarification on the individual’s details.
Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are pursuing a definition—as my right hon. Friend knows well—in legal terms within the legislation. I will need to seek legal clarification and write to both of them with the details on that point.
Justin Madders
I appreciate the Minister’s valiant efforts to explain how this all works in practice. I think that the answer, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, is to publish the memorandum of understanding. That is the way that we will all gain clarity on how this all works—I hope.
I will just go back to what the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Care, said on 19 October last year. When asked if the memorandum of understanding would be published, she said, “It will be.” The Minister seemed to be backtracking a little from that tonight. Can she confirm whether we will actually get sight of it?
Ms Dorries
I am aware that it exists as a working understanding, as I said, between DHSC and policing. Obviously I will consider both points about transparency and take them both on board. However, I need to seek further clarification—if, why, legally, and how?—around the memorandum of understanding. The hon. Gentleman’s points have been well made today and have been noted. I will take the process further and explore the options, then get back to him with an answer.
Justin Madders
I am sorry to press the point, but one of the Minister’s colleagues said on the record that it will be published and she is now saying that that is not, or might not be, the case. That is not acceptable. We must have things said by Ministers on the record adhered to.
Ms Dorries
I completely agree. I have just been informed, in the form of our old notes, that the memorandum of understanding is currently being updated to reflect feedback from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the recent changes made by this SI.
Mr Harper
This is my final point, and it is probably less for the Minister and more for her colleagues in the Whips’ Office. There are a number of complex legal questions, which the Minister says she will write to the Committee about. That is perfectly understandable, but may I ask for an assurance, either from her or from those who are listening, that the House will not be asked to take a decision on this statutory instrument until the memorandum of understanding has been published and she has furnished the Committee, and indeed the House, with answers to the questions that have been asked? It would not be acceptable for us to ask questions and for her reasonably to go off and make inquiries, and then for the House to be asked to make a decision tomorrow before Members have been furnished with that information. That would not be an appropriate way to behave, especially as the regulations have come into force before being debated by the House. If she cannot give that assurance, I hope that others are listening and will feed that request back through the usual channels.
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. As a former Chief Whip, he knows that these conversations will be taking place through the usual channels. I am glad that his comment was not directed toward me, because, as he also knows, the decision does not rest with me.
My closing remarks will cover some of the points that have been raised, but if I do not have the answers to any of them now, I will, as always, respond in writing. I really do thank both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for the important contributions they have made today. The hon. Gentleman did not go too far outside the scope of the SI this time, as he often does. He usually goes miles off-piste, but today he was very well behaved, and I thank him for that. I absolutely take on board the point made by my right hon. Friend. When we are fighting a virus, with the Department of Health, public health bodies, SAGE and everyone else involved, the probing questions asked here help to create better laws and a better process. Hopefully, we are all trying to do the same thing—to get back to normal as soon as it is safely possible to do so. Anyone’s efforts as part of this process are as valuable as everyone else’s, so I thank my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their probing questions and for pushing me on certain points, because that will create better answers.
The Government have always been clear that the highest priority is managing this national crisis, protecting the public and saving lives. As I stated in my opening remarks, the amendments in the SIs are necessary and proportionate for legal coherence and clarification. [Interruption.] Don’t worry, I haven’t got covid; I coughed because I have been talking so long. The ability to enforce more effectively and issue enhanced FPNs will ensure that we limit the spread of the virus and increase compliance, protect the NHS and safeguard public health.
Coronavirus remains a serious threat. The current level of confirmed cases and the identification of new, more transmissible variants of covid-19 have reinforced existing patterns. As during the first peak, we are witnessing a high number of infections, hospital and intensive care unit admissions and, sadly, high mortality rates. Even when mortality rates are not high—there are dips—that does not mean that our ICU beds are not full of people being treated for covid. If we are managing to keep people alive, that is a good thing, but it does not mean that beds are not full or that we are not trying to protect our NHS and prevent it from falling over. We continue to mitigate the threat to our NHS before it becomes overwhelmed, and strive to give it the best ability to provide a safe and effective service for all. Protecting our NHS is about keeping beds available and enough staff on the wards to treat people when they come in and need that treatment in order to save their lives.
It has been necessary to make a number of minor technical amendments to the all tiers regulations to provide coherency and ensure that there is no confusion about these measures, all of which have been implemented to limit transmission and reduce the spread of the virus.
As set out previously, the intentions of the amendments to the all tiers and self-isolation regulations are threefold: to reduce contact between people who do not live together, to drive down transmission; to increase fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, to increase compliance; and to enhance data-sharing with the police to improve the evidentiary chain, to support effective enforcement against those who breach their duty to self-isolate. To issue a fixed penalty notice, the police need to be satisfied that they are engaging with the right person—this comes back to the substantive point that was raised a number of times during this debate: they need to be sure that they are engaging with, and issuing the FPN to, the right person—that the person is aware of their duty to self-isolate, and that the person has indeed breached that legal requirement. These changes to the self-isolation regulations will support the police in taking effective enforcement action when that is appropriate.
Fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people will double for each successive offence, up to a maximum of £6,400. There is one point on which I will not have to write to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. He asked, “Why 15? Why is that the number?” This will just take the number of questions to be answered down by one. This is the new fine for attending larger gatherings, where there is a higher risk of spreading the virus, which goes back to my point that we know how and where the virus travels and where it is most transmissible. It was the scientists who decided this: it was seen as the right level, balancing public health risk versus social impact—for example, the impact on larger households. There continues to be a fine for breaching covid regulations, including by attending a gathering of 15 or fewer.[Official Report, 22 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 4MC.]
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. It seems that, as we would expect, this decision is based on scientific advice. Would the Minister be able to publish that, so that we can see it in full?
Ms Dorries
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s request has been listened to—he knows that publishing the advice from SAGE is above my pay grade.
As I said, fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings, such as house parties, of more than 15 people will double for each successive offence, up to a maximum of £6,400. These amendments to the all tiers and self-isolation regulations will provide the police with the enhanced powers that they need to tackle egregious breaches of the law.
Unfortunately, covid-19 has forced us to balance the increasing social contact restrictions with the protection of public health. These decisions are not easy ones to make, but with alarming epidemiological evidence suggesting that the new variant is much more transmissible, urgent action has become appropriate. We will continue to work alongside scientific and medical experts to ensure we have decision making appropriate to the circumstance at each stage of this crisis, and we will review the regulations regularly, assessing them in the light of the latest science and other data. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
I reassure the Committee that all the exchanges have been perfectly in order and well within the scope of these two instruments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 53).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 97).—(Nadine Dorries.)
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown [V]
More needs to be done to create jobs in decarbonised transport. I have three asks of the Secretary of State: introduce mandatory e10 fuels; provide funding for sustainable aviation fuel plants; and provide a bus strategy that copies the combined Scottish Government-EU initiative that saw the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses in Aberdeen. The bus strategy needs to include orders for Scottish and UK manufacturers. Will he confirm dates and funding for these initiatives and in writing as well, please?
Grant Shapps
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for all things hydrogen, and I think I am right in saying that the UK Government fund a hydrogen bus project in Glasgow.
[Official Report, 28 January 2021, Vol. 688, c. 537.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport:
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for all things hydrogen, and I think I am right in saying that the UK Government fund a hydrogen refuse trucks project in Glasgow.
Petition
Extension to transition period for UK exit of the European Union
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Elections
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am updating Parliament on the Government’s plans to proceed with the local elections on 6 May 2021 and the statutory instruments I am laying today on nominations.
Safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. The Government have long been clear that there should be a very high bar for delay, but they were responsible to keep the situation under review in order to take into account the views of the electoral community and of public health experts. Having considered these views, the Government confirmed on Friday 5 February 2021 that the range of polls scheduled for 6 May 2021, including council and mayoral elections in England, and the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, will go ahead as planned. It is important that we give this certainty to the electoral sector and political parties.
The Government haves also published a delivery plan setting out how the polls will be delivered in a covid-19 secure and effective way. It sets out how these polls will proceed, from announcement to results, and then covers the four major areas that we are addressing: public health and social distancing; nominations and campaigning; voting; and the delivery of elections. The Government are providing a package of measures to support statutorily independent returning officers to deliver these elections successfully and with the right precautions in place. Those measures include changes to proxy voting rules so that those affected by covid-19 can still vote; and the provision of indemnity to returning officers for covid-19 risks in respect of these elections.
There will be an estimated £92 million of Government grant funding that will be provided to local authorities for the elections; of this, £31 million is an uplift to directly address costs associated with making the elections covid-19 secure.
I am today providing further detail of the measures the Government intend to take to change temporarily the nominations process, in light of the exceptional circumstances. For potential candidates standing for elected office in the council, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, we are introducing measures to reduce the travel and contact involved in completing their nomination form.
The Government have listened to the views of the electoral sector, candidates and political parties that the need to collect a high number of signatures for nomination as a candidate in some types of poll was encouraging an unhelpful and unnecessary amount of interaction, as well as complexity for candidates. While it is essential that candidates in a poll can demonstrate a clear amount of local support, we must balance the importance of democracy with the need to protect people in these unique circumstances. In reaching a decision about the approach to nominations we have consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel and considered other cross-party representations.
These statutory instruments, one affirmative and one negative, will therefore make changes to the nomination process to reduce the number of signatures that candidates are required to collect for almost all types of poll due to be held on 6 May, including council elections, mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. These provisions are time-limited; the elections next May (2022) will automatically revert to the standard rules.
I intend to publish further guidance for candidates, their agents and political parties later this month. The Government will be engaging with the Parliamentary Parties Panel on the new guidance and on campaigning provisions, to ensure the views of political parties are taken into account.
The associated documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS773]
Free Schools and School Rebuilding Programme
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I am confirming details of the first 50 schools to benefit from the new school rebuilding programme announced by the Prime Minister in June 2020, as well as details of a further 21 new
free schools.
As part of the Government’s plan to drive growth beyond the covid-19 pandemic, we are committed to investing in infrastructure, skills and innovation. Investing in our school buildings is vital to deliver the world-class education needed to get the country back on its feet.
As set out at the recent spending review, we are delivering on our promises by launching a 10-year rebuilding programme, with a commitment to 500 school rebuilding projects over the next decade. This will replace many poor condition and ageing school buildings with modern, energy efficient designs, transforming education for thousands of pupils.
The 10-year school rebuilding programme demonstrates our continued commitment to investing in the school estate and providing a long-term pipeline of projects for the construction sector as we build back better.
The Department for Education will build on its existing construction expertise with a continued focus on innovative modern methods of construction to support more highly skilled jobs and improved productivity. Our market leading frameworks, including a new construction framework later this year, will continue to provide opportunities across the industry and enable small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from the opportunities that a decade-long pipeline will bring. The construction projects procured through these frameworks will support jobs and create apprenticeships and T-level placements across England.
The first 50 schools to benefit from this programme have been prioritised based on condition need and will be supported by over £1 billion in capital funding. These first projects include primary and secondary schools as well as a sixth-form college and special and alternative provision settings.
This also represents a substantial investment in schools in the midlands and north of England, with 38 out of 50 projects located in these regions. We expect construction on the first sites to begin from autumn 2021.
The 10-year programme will continue to target school buildings in the worst condition across England and we will set out further plans shortly.
Alongside the rebuilding programme, the Government have committed £1.8 billion in 2021-22 for maintaining and improving the condition of the school estate.
Thousands more children across the country are also set to benefit from a new free school opening in their local area in the years to come, as I have approved 21 successful new free schools, providing over 15,500 new school places once open. In addition, I have approved in principle a further eight schools, subject to meeting certain conditions.
These schools will help level up opportunity across the country by providing high- quality school places in the areas where they are most needed. Ten of the 21 free schools approved will open in some of the most deprived areas—including three in opportunity areas, where the Department works to remove barriers that could stop young people achieving their potential.
These new schools reflect the Government’s continued commitment to the free school programme. Two hundred and forty nine free schools have now been approved to open in the coming years, spreading the benefits of the free schools programme to even more areas of the country and joining the 558 free schools already open.
We are also investing £10.1 million of funding in schools across England, to allow them to open their existing school sports and swimming facilities outside of the school day.
Funding will be distributed via Sport England’s network of county-level Active Partnerships. Schools will have the opportunity to bid for this funding in the summer term.
Further details, including lists of the school rebuilding projects and successful free school applicants, have been published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the House Library.
[HCWS768]
Remote Education
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
On Friday 5 February, I laid before Parliament the Education (Coronavirus, Remote Education Information) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which require schools to publish information on their website about the remote education they are providing to their pupils. If schools do not have a website, the regulations set out alternative requirements for ensuring that this information is accessible.
The regulations come into force on 12 February 2021, which is seven days after being laid, rather than the 21 days required by convention. This is to ensure parents have the earliest access to the information they need about schools’ remote education. The Department for Education has published a suggested template that schools may use to present this information.
The requirement for schools to publish this information on their website will not be more onerous than what has already been asked of schools in the guidance, “Actions for schools during the coronavirus outbreak”. This guidance was updated on 3 December 2020 to include an expectation that schools would publish this same information by 25 January 2021.
On 4 January 2021, the Prime Minister announced that all schools would immediately move to remote education provision for all but vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. The Prime Minister’s statement on 27 January confirmed that full return to on-site education will not occur until 8 March at the earliest.
Remote education has become the principal means of delivering the school curriculum. Requiring schools to set out the details of their remote education curriculum will provide parents with key information about schools’ plans for ensuring pupils continue their education at home.
[HCWS771]
Deletion of PNC Records: Response and Recovery
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Further to my statement to the House on the 18 January, this is an update on the work being carried out to recover the records deleted from the Police National Computer (PNC) in error.
The Home Office is taking forward a four-phase plan to respond to the incident and recover the data:
Phase 1 has been completed and involved using code to identify and extract the complete list of what had been deleted;
Phase 2 has also been completed and involved analysis to establish an accurate list of the affected systems and records for each force;
Phase 3 is ongoing involves recovering the data from the PNC and the IDENT1 (Fingerprint) and National DNA systems;
Phase 4 will involve work to ensure we are deleting any data that should have been deleted as usual when this incident first began.
Phases 1 and 2 of the work found that a total of 209,550 offence records have been wrongly deleted, which are associated to 112,697 persons’ records. Of these 15,089 individuals have had their data deleted in totality. Our analysis has identified that only 195 full fingerprint records were deleted, with all these records relating to cases over 10-years old. We have also confirmed that no records of convictions have been deleted. Our analysis shows that 99.5% of the deleted records were created prior to 2011.
Phase 3 is now well under way and technicians are confident that all the data that has been deleted can be restored. Work to recover that data is moving forward as quickly as is possible, but it is vital that the data is restored safely to protect the integrity of the data. Our current assessment suggests that the work will take approximately 12 more weeks to complete, though clearly, we will accelerate this if we possibly can.
While the data is incomplete, there is the possibility that law enforcement partners will not have access to records and information that could help progress their inquiries and investigations.
Outlined below are details of such mitigation activities:
First, they can search the Police National Database (PND). This is a national intelligence database that holds records of arrests of individuals and contains information that will allow law enforcement partners to judge whether there is biometric information or other key evidence missing from the affected systems. If missing data records are identified, then the investigating officers can request copies of biometric samples and arrest records from the owning organisations.
Second, forces have a wide variety of local systems in place to log calls and to maintain custody records. These are frequently used as the primary system into which information is entered, before it is then integrated into PNC for national use.
Third, the police can also continue to search other relevant national databases, such as the violent offender and sex offender register.
Fourth, where an individual is suspected of a crime and the PNC confirms the existence of a duplicate set of fingerprints then officers can request the set of prints from the force who retain a hard copy.
Fifth, if the police have enough evidence and they believe that the DNA of a suspect is required but cannot find any records on the PNC or other systems, they can arrest suspects and collect their DNA in line with their powers.
Sixth, the Home Office, and our suppliers, have worked to make the incorrectly deleted DNA profiles available to policing while the full capability is restored. In order to deliver this mitigation, we have restored the DNA database backups to a temporary, secure location. We have made this data accessible to forces and national agencies this week and setup a business process has been created to enable matching in support of ongoing investigations. During this period all audit and legislative requirements will be met.
Finally, the Home Secretary and I have commissioned an external review led by Lord Hogan-Howe to ensure the necessary lessons are learned to avoid similar incidents in the future.
The review is expected to report by the middle of March. After the review has concluded and been considered by the Home Secretary, a summary will be placed in the Library of the House.
We will provide a further update to the House in due course.
[HCWS774]
UK Terrorism Threat Level
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
On 4 February, the joint terrorism analysis centre (JTAC) lowered the UK national terrorism threat level from severe to substantial. This means that a terrorist attack is still likely.
The decision to change the UK terrorism threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers. JTAC keeps the threat level under constant review and conducts a formal review every six months. This is a systematic, comprehensive and rigorous process, based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which drive the threat.
The decision to lower the threat level from severe to substantial is due to the significant reduction in the momentum of attacks in Europe since those seen between September and November 2020. However, the UK national threat level is kept under constant review and is subject to change at any time.
Terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to our national security. “Substantial” continues to indicate a high level of threat; and an attack on the UK is still likely. The public should continue to remain vigilant and report any concerns to the police.
The Government, police and intelligence agencies continue to work tirelessly to address the threat posed by terrorism in all its forms and the threat level remains under constant review.
[HCWS769]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I hereby give notice of the Wales Office’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The Department requires an advance to meet an urgent cash requirement pending parliamentary approval of the supplementary estimates 2020-21.
The Wales Office’s net cash limit for 2020-21, approved in the main supply estimate, will be reached by mid-February 2021. This is a consequence of meeting in full the funding requirements of the Welsh Government. Significant additional consequential funding for the Welsh Government, arising from announcements made by the UK Government, will be provided in the supplementary supply estimate. This will cover the increased costs incurred by the Welsh Government in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
Parliamentary approval for additional non-budget expenditure of £3,800,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Wales Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3,800,000,000 will be met by a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid immediately following Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill in March 2021.
[HCWS767]
Plan for Jobs
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our Plan for Jobs is an ambitious programme of job creation and support to help people of all ages move into work or gain the skills that will open up job opportunities. I would like to update the House on two of the schemes: SWAPs—our Sector-based Work Academy Programme, and our new Job Finding Support service, which went live across Great Britain on 11 January.
SWAPs are helping people in England and Scotland to upskill, retrain and pivot towards surging sectors, including construction, infrastructure and social care to meet local labour markets and employer demand. SWAPs are not currently offered in Wales as there is a similar programme provided by the Welsh Government. Today I am pleased to inform the House that we are increasing the number of placements on the scheme to 80,000 for the upcoming financial year. This builds on the more than 40,000 starts we have already seen since last April.
I am very excited about this expansion of SWAPs—it will mean work coaches can help many more people open the door to jobs they may not have previously considered and move back into work with new skills, work experience and a guaranteed interview for a job. They will join those who have already started roles through SWAPs, including in care worker jobs with Derby City Council, security roles with the Mercury Group and GMS Group in Birmingham, and banking jobs with Barclays and the Wise Group in Kilmarnock.
These are just a few examples of how SWAPs is helping people gain the right skills and experience to support them into work following the impact of the pandemic and into the jobs employers and the country needs as we look to secure our national economic recovery.
Job Finding Support also launched last month and has made rapid progress to help people quickly bounce back into work. The new digital support service is in operation across Great Britain and we expect this vital service to help up to 160,000 people over the course of the next 12 months.
This new light-touch support, provided entirely online, is helping those who have become unemployed and claimed benefits within the past 13 weeks. Many of them will have worked in continuous employment for several years and will not have recent experience of applying for jobs, so Job Finding Support aims to address any skill gaps and help people move rapidly back into work.
Participants receive a minimum of four hours’ flexible, personalised support, including a mock interview, and at least one digital online group session aiming to help identify their transferable skills and provide sector-specific job advice. Participants will also be helped to fine-tune their CV, with a Job Finding Action Plan tailored to their needs. Those who fulfil the eligibility and suitability criteria will be referred by Jobcentre Plus Work Coaches, on a voluntary basis.
Our Plan for Jobs is a plan for everyone; creating the opportunity to level up the nation, the opportunity for hope, and the opportunity to build back better.
[HCWS770]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (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 must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, these instruments were laid between July 2019 and December 2020 under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. As noble Lords will be aware, the sanctions Act 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 EU. It is the foundation for an independent sanctions policy in support of our foreign policy and national security interests.
To establish individual sanctions regimes within that framework, we are required to lay statutory instruments. Of the nine instruments we are considering today, seven transition existing EU regimes into UK law. As set out in my letter to parliamentary colleagues of 25 January, the new UK regimes and the measures they contain are intended to have substantially the same effect as those they replace. The two remaining instruments amend the other statutory instruments that establish sanctions regimes.
The amendments in the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 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 we strive for consistency in language to promote consistency in interpretation, application and enforcement. British businesses often export goods or provide services to more than one country subject to sanctions, and any inconsistency in the wording of the legislation can cause confusion and increase their compliance costs.
The amendments in Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 ensure that UK persons in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not unduly affected by the extraterritorial application of UK law. They create an exception to the extraterritorial prohibition so that a licence from the authorities in that jurisdiction is sufficient to authorise UK persons’ conduct there. Those persons do not then need also to obtain the licence from the UK authorities to avoid committing an offence under UK law.
I would now like to elaborate further on the purposes of the seven regimes which these instruments establish. First, the Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions regulations are aimed at promoting peace, stability and security 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.
The Burundi sanctions regulations aim to encourage the Government of Burundi to respect democratic principles and institutions, and the rule of law and good governance in Burundi; to participate in negotiations with their political opponents in good faith to bring about a peaceful solution to the political situation; to refrain from policies or activities that repress civil society; and to comply with international human rights law and respect human rights. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions.
The cyber sanctions regulations are aimed at preventing certain types of cyberactivity that undermine the integrity, prosperity or security of the UK or any other country. They are also intended to prevent certain types of cyberactivity that cause the economic loss or prejudice of 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. We have imposed sanctions on the same 12 individuals and entities as were sanctioned in 2020 by the EU. These include actors from Russia, China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The Guinea sanctions regulations aim to encourage the Government of Guinea to properly investigate the violent repression that took place on 28 September 2009 and its aftermath, as well as to hold those responsible to account. The regulations permit the imposition of targeted financial and immigration sanctions.
The misappropriation sanctions regulations 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 geographical regimes, as existed under EU legislation, this 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.
The Nicaragua sanctions regulations are aimed at encouraging the Government of 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.
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.
In conclusion, sanctions are a key part of many of the UK’s political and diplomatic strategies. They also contribute to our efforts to uphold and defend the rules-based international order. The United Kingdom has long been a global leader in this field and this will not change now that we have left the European Union. Our independent sanctions policy allows us to use sanctions to achieve maximum impact by working in a way that is agile, expertise-driven and in support of our values, and enables collaboration with both new and established partners. International co-operation is at the heart of our policy. As I have said a number of times, sanctions are most effective when implemented and enforced collectively. We will continue to co-ordinate closely with our European and other international partners on sanctions, using the excellent relationships and networks we have already established.
These regulations are a crucial part of the legal basis that underpins our sanctions policy and of which the sanctions Act is the 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, they will help us to project the United Kingdom as a force for good in the world. I beg to move.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for his introductory comments. Allow me first to declare my interest as a partner in the advisory board of Transparency International UK. Under the guidance of its offices, I presented a Private Member’s Bill to curb corruption. The then Labour Government did not support it and it fell in the Lords. A remarkably similar government Bill subsequently appeared and sailed through on to the statute book. Be that as it may, there have been remarkably few prosecutions under the Act in the years that followed; perhaps these SIs will help jog the institutional memory—perhaps through the updates that the Minister alluded to.
My remarks focus on Burundi and Guinea, primarily because they are two countries of which I have personal knowledge and experience, and thus like to think I can speak on with a degree of authority. I shall deal with Burundi first—this small, poor country in central Africa, overshadowed by its larger, more powerful neighbour, Rwanda. Like Rwanda, Burundi is threatened by ethnic turbulence, with a population of some 10 million split between 14% Tutsi and 85% Hutu. A visit to the genocide museum over the border in Rwanda is a telling reminder of where this can lead.
The Minister mentioned the importance of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in relation to the coming sanctions. It is questionable whether that is accepted in the country itself. Since independence from Belgium in 1962, Burundi has been governed as a presidential democratic republic. Its first elected President was assassinated in 1993. Since then, some 200,000 Burundians have perished in ethnic violence and hundreds of thousands more have become internally displaced or refugees. Human rights abuses abound. President Ndayishimiye, in office since mid-2020, claims to have made policy changes to provide the opposition with political space and to mend relations with the international community. This assertion is challenged by the leader of the opposition, Mr Rwasa, who says that there have been no changes, with opposition meetings banned and the President himself stating that there is no room for opposition. Democracy, the rule of law and human rights seem to be way down the agenda.
I recall speaking at a conference on aid effectiveness in Maputo, Mozambique, and being heckled from the audience. It turned out to be two Burundian MPs. They were complaining loudly that the UK had withdrawn all financial aid from Burundi, which was then about $20 million a year, and replaced it with technical assistance in its Treasury. In fact, a Burundian Vice-President told me later that it was the best thing we ever did. He said the taxes collected through the revenue officials the UK trained were four times greater than the cancelled aid. In his reply, can the Minister say what, if any, changes have been made to the sanctions regime in recognition of the change of leadership in Burundi? What is the current situation regarding aid for Burundi?
Similarly, in Guinea, what impact have the changes in the leadership had on the sanctions regime? With the collapse of France’s Fourth Republic, Guinea was the only colony in France’s African empire to take the harsh option of immediate independence without transitional support, rather than joining the French community of nations created by de Gaulle. In 1958, France abruptly left Guinea, taking with it everything it could move. The incoming President, Ahmed Sékou Touré, swept to power and introduced a centralised Marxist socialist regime. A third of the population fled the country. Those who remained suffered the privations of a failing state—hyperinflation, food shortages, starvation and riots. Sékou Touré called for help, first from the Russians and then the Chinese.
Guinea is potentially an incredibly wealthy country in terms of natural and mineral resources. It has up to one half of the world’s bauxite reserves and a large deposit of high-grade iron ore. In parallel with failed economic policies and state-sponsored drug smuggling, a series of brutal dictatorships have enforced control through murder, human rights abuses and imprisonment. My client at the time, the Minister of Public Works, was imprisoned by the President and starved, eventually to death. The 2009 violent outbreak was just one of many such incidents. In January this year, the French-Israeli mining tycoon, Beny Steinmetz, was sentenced in a Swiss court to five years in jail, guilty of corruption by bribing the late President Conté’s fourth wife, Mamadie, with $10 million to persuade the President to transfer the Simandou iron ore concession to Steinmetz for $170 million. Steinmetz later sold on a 51% share for $250 billion. Is the Minister confident that the sanctions delivered under these SIs are sufficient to tackle this level of extreme corruption?
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will confine my remarks to the unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean regulations. I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—the TRNC.
By way of background to this statutory instrument, since 2006 Europe has increasingly viewed eastern Mediterranean gas as a resource with huge potential to provide economic growth, mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on Russian gas supplies. European companies have been involved in gas exploration while the European Union has largely supported the idea of a new pipeline that connects Israeli and Egyptian fields with Cyprus and mainland Europe. However, things might be changing. As there is an oversupply of non-Russian liquefied natural gas—LNG—the importance of Mediterranean gas is waning for Europe. Eastern Mediterranean gas is also providing a massive headache, with rival claims by Turkey, Greece and Cyprus on exclusive economic zones—EEZs—and exploration rights. In this short contribution I want to focus on Cyprus. Gas production would be a veritable boon for the cash-poor island.
EEZs are not easy. Greece is one of the signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. This designates a country’s EEZ as extending 200 miles from its shores. Yet regional powers, Turkey, Israel and Syria, have not signed UNCLOS and do not accept its rulings on EEZs. Lebanon disputes its maritime border with Israel, which it claims was compromised by Israel’s bilateral agreement with the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey argues that Cyprus is entitled to only a 12-mile EEZ until it reaches a resolution on the island’s status, and claims that the TRNC has the right to explore in Greek Cypriot waters. The TRNC believes that the gas resources belong to the whole island and that the north should have its share—a view that I do not feel is unreasonable.
Turkey, as an ally of the TRNC, has deployed exploration and drilling ships to Greek Cypriot waters and sent naval vessels there as well. As a result, the development of gas in these disputed waters has been frozen. Indeed, the tensions between Greece and Turkey over the issue became extremely high last year. Conflict was only narrowly averted and cannot be ruled out in the future. As a guarantor power in Cyprus, I would have hoped that the UK might take a more circumspect view on the gas issue. Now that we have left the EU, this seems a good opportunity to think more outside the box. Instead, we seem to be blindly copying EU regulations, without instead trying to fold the issue into revived Cyprus peace talks.
The failure of these peace talks at Crans-Montana in 2017, despite a major effort by former TRNC President Akıncı, was a great disappointment, especially as the TRNC went out of its way to make concessions, some of which alarmed mainland Turkey to such an extent that it did not want him to have another term. As these bi-zonal, bi-federal talks have failed, the new TRNC President Tatar—rightly, in my view—believes that a two-state solution is the only answer. According to the island-neutral Cyprus Mail, it is reported that, in private, President Anastasiades of the Republic of Cyprus is keen on the idea. The Cyprus Mail’s recent article stated that a section of the population of the Republic of Cyprus believed that he
“had calculatingly spurned the opportunity of a reasonable settlement at Crans-Montana”
because he really believes in a two-state solution.
With regard to the UK’s relationship with the TRNC, I welcome the recent meeting between our Foreign Secretary and President Tatar. Can the Minister say what came out of these talks? After Brexit there are good trade opportunities. As an interim measure, could the UK copy our Taiwan policy, whereby we have a trade office in Taipei, which is very successful, even though we do not have diplomatic relations?
A recent press release from the TRNC President sums up the opportunities well. He said the Turkish Cypriot side desires a win-win situation on Cyprus and believes that solving the decades-long Cyprus problem would help reinstate stability in the eastern Mediterranean. He also said that we should see what ideas and proposals the British diplomats bring to the table. He pointed out that he had also raised the issue of strengthening bilateral relations and commercial ties with the UK now that it had left the EU. Tatar also expressed concerns regarding the opening of certain parts of the British bases for non-military development. Can the Minister write to me on this?
I also ask the Minister, who is so well regarded in this House and has such expertise on FCO issues, when the UN Secretary-General’s 5+1 informal talks convene, will the FCO look at reality and the long-standing deadlock to realise that a two-state solution is the only answer and that the gas situation should be part of these talks, rather than just reinstating this unhelpful statutory instrument?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these statutory instruments. I support sanctions as long as they are compliant with human rights legislation. Exiting the EU means that the UK is now responsible for the legal framework within which the UK may impose, update and lift sanctions, whether autonomously or in line with United Nations obligations. Therefore, I ask the Minister: what is the relationship now with the EU in relation to the sanctions regime? Will there be continued co-operation in an effort to address those areas globally which are flagrant abusers of human rights and are involved in money racketeering, paramilitary activity and corruption—often involving death?
I believe it is a desired objective of your Lordships’ House to address issues to deal with money laundering on an international scale and how it can be accompanied on many occasions by those human rights abuses. We definitely need a sound global sanctions scheme whereby the rule of law, democratic accountability and the proper and ethical use of state funds are the very kernels of our foreign policy.
Those who abuse human rights, attack civilians—whether in Nicaragua, Burundi or Guinea—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 here in the UK, the overseas territories or, in fact, in any part of the world.
I note that the regulations date from 1 January 2021. Since these regulations were debated only last week in the other place and today in your Lordships’ House, what actual legislation covered the last five weeks? Could the Minister provide assurances that the UK Government were covered in terms of sanctions against these countries, where, in some instances, there have been significant abuses of regulations and human rights issues over the last number of years?
I would like to concentrate on two areas. I noticed in doing some research for this debate that there were regulations on Burma—or Myanmar—but they are not mentioned. The other area missing from this list which I believe needs to be covered is that of the Uighurs and China.
In relation to Burma, in particular, the coup d’état that took place last week and the—shall we say—unlawful imprisonment of the leadership there, could the Minister outline what consideration the Government have given to introducing sanctions on members of the Burmese military linked to human rights abuses and the recent coup d’état in Myanmar? What assessment have they made of the coup d’état which took place on 2 February and its potential impact on the rights of the country’s religious and ethnic minorities and the process of democratisation in Myanmar?
In relation to China, what further sanctions will the Government take against the human rights abuses and acts of genocide against the Uighur community? Will there be separate legislation on this matter? I believe that what has happened there is also a violation of human rights, and sanctions should be in place.
Therefore, what actions will the UK Government take at the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council against human rights violations in those countries and to ensure adherence to democratic standards? What representations will they make to the International Court of Justice regarding such violations of human rights?
I hope that the Government will work with the EU, NATO and the UN, along with the new political dispensation in the USA, against human rights abuses and to ensure that democratic standards are upheld. While supporting the sanctions that will be in place as per the statutory instruments—as long as they comply with human rights legislation—I ask that further consideration is given to Burma, and to China and the Uighurs.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I first raise a couple of procedural points. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, just said, we are considering regulations weeks after they came into force on 1 January. This makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny, and I hope that the Government will look into this so that it does not continue to happen as it has so frequently. Secondly, I raise the way in which this hybrid Grand Committee unfortunately makes it impossible to properly question and challenge the Minister. If we were in the Moses Room, we could intervene on the Minister, ask questions and seek assurances, particularly during the reply, but we are unable to do so properly today. I blame no one for this, least of all the Minister, but it illustrates how important it is that we get back to our normal procedures as soon as it is safe to do so.
Turning to the SIs, I want to deal in particular with the No. 4 regulations, which grant an exception for activities carried out under a licence granted by the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. This causes me great concern and I seek assurances from the Minister on this. But I first point out that these sanctions apply to financial measures, including asset freezes, as well as to trade sanctions and travel bans for key people in the regime. As the Minister explained, among the countries included are Russia, Belarus and Myanmar—formerly Burma. These are currently of the greatest concern and where sanctions are vital to show our concern at the unlawful imprisonment of Alexei Navalny in Russia—as we did previously with the annexation of Crimea and the poisoning of Skripal—and at the unlawful imprisonment of so many people in Belarus, which I am particularly concerned about. We want also to protest and have sanctions in relation to the military coup in Myanmar, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others have said.
While I have some reservations about the determination of the UK Government to take really powerful and effective sanctions, at least we have the capabilities to do so and an effective Opposition to keep up the pressure—whereas I have serious doubts about both the willingness and the capability of some of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to do so.
Many years ago, when I was an opposition spokesman on foreign affairs in the Commons, I agreed with the then Minister that we should suspend the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands because of financial irregularities there. Incidentally, this was done again some years later. We also know that the TCI, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Channel Islands are used regularly by people, including some from the countries listed, to set up bogus companies and to carry out and cover up illicit activities. The Governments in some of these territories do not have the financial or legal infrastructure to enforce sanctions, and they often turn a blind eye to, or are even tempted to encourage, the avoidance of sanctions.
We need clear assurances from the Minister, and I hope he will give them to us. First, what assurances have been sought, and received, that each territory will rigorously enforce sanctions—at the very least in the same way as we do it here in the United Kingdom? Is he satisfied with these assurances? Secondly, what confidence does he have that each territory has the infrastructure in financial supervision, legal checks and procedures for prosecution necessary for enforcement, and what help has been offered to those territories which are not properly equipped?
We will have to trust the Minister to answer all these questions in his reply, since we will not be able to properly or effectively intervene if he fails to do so, notwithstanding the opportunities that we do have. But if he does not provide satisfactory assurances, we will need to find other ways to ensure that they are answered and to pursue the matter further. I otherwise support the regulations.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he outlined the purpose of these pieces of delegated legislation. From 1 January this year, the United Kingdom is responsible for its own sanctions policy, which is given statutory force by the 2018 Act, under which these regulations are made. I trust that these new-found freedoms will give the United Kingdom the flexibility and authority to respond using sanctions quickly and effectively where required. It certainly means that, in future, sanctions can be decided independently by the United Kingdom without having to await an EU-wide response. Sanctions clearly work best when they are implemented in tandem with other countries and it is important that we maintain a shared co-ordination with our partners as much as possible. In all circumstances, the legislation and these statutory instruments provide an opportunity for the Government to take effective, swift action against corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations and hostile or aggressive actions aimed at undermining our national security.
I have no issue with the list before the Committee this afternoon of regulations dealing with individual countries. There are good reasons for each them. I particularly welcome the cyber sanctions regulations, dealing with the prevention of cyber activity that undermines our national security or that of other places across the world. This is a growing area of concern. These attacks are becoming more intense and sophisticated; our own Parliament has been subjected to such an attack in recent times. It is important that effective sanctions are in place to counter the threat of such attacks and that we demonstrate that there will be real-world consequences for countries or individuals who engage in this kind of pernicious activity.
I also welcome the misappropriation sanctions regulations, which are about corruption and the misappropriation of state funds. While the regulations today refer mainly to Tunisia, Egypt and Korea, this new thematic approach is the right one. It provides a great deal of flexibility in responding to this challenge. The cost of corruption worldwide is estimated to be more than 2% of global GDP—a staggering figure. Anything that can deter the mass thieving, often but not exclusively from the world’s poorest countries, is to be welcomed.
On sanctions more widely, I would like to press the Government on a number of areas. What more can be done to combat the Putin regime in Russia? Under him, the Russian state has, sadly, become more and more lawless, both domestically and in its aggression abroad. We have seen the outrageous treatment of Alexei Navalny, which is symptomatic of the way in which any dissent is dealt with under this authoritarian regime, with its gross violations of human rights. The UK has been the subject of attack by Russia and is now in a position to take more effective action against the Russian regime and those with close links to it. How will that become evident?
Recent events in Hong Kong have seen China try blatantly to stamp out the flickering light of freedom of speech and democracy in all its forms. The treatment of the Uighur minority has been utterly appalling. These are but two examples—many more could be related. Can the Government indicate what more can be done to ensure that China is held to account?
Recent events in Myanmar have also been mentioned. The actions of the military there represent a massive backward step for democracy in that country. While all was not well under the previous democratically elected regime, the setting aside of the election results in such a draconian way surely demands the most robust response.
Then there is Libya, where the Government have frozen assets from the previous Gaddafi regime. The Government will be well aware of the campaign to call Libya to account for its support for IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and its supply of illicit weaponry, including deadly Semtex, which resulted in the murder of, and injury to, thousands of innocent people. Will the Government elaborate further on the action that they will take to ensure that the assets that are currently frozen in this country can be used to provide compensation to the innocent victims of Libya-sponsored IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom? This Government, and previous ones, have looked at this issue, but action seems to be in short supply. There are over £12 billion of Gaddafi assets frozen here. Last year, £17 million was raised in tax from these assets. Surely some of this could be used to pay the victims of Libya-sponsored terrorism. Will the Government commit to publishing the Shawcross report into this whole area? The Government had it last May, but various reasons have been rolled out for non-publication. Will the Government now move to publish it? Victims have had enough of procrastination and prevarication. I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this and to other issues raised by noble Lords.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, as published in the register, particularly as president of Remembering Srebenica. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn; I agree very much with his points about the importance of cybersecurity. I thank my noble friend for setting out the background to this suite of regulations. I support what has been said in general about the need for these effective sanctions regimes. I emphasise in particular the importance of the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. I welcome what the Minister said about stability and continuity. I note that he also committed to the regimes being substantially the same going forward. Will he enlarge on that point? In what way will the regulations in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina differ—if at all—from the previous ones? The substantial point seems to indicate that they will differ in some way.
It is timely that these regulations are launched this week. At the end of last week there was, with ministerial support, a cross-party launch of the Remembering Srebenica memorial week theme for this year, “Rebuilding Lives”. This is a reflection of the importance of memorial week in July. This year we commemorate 26 years since the dreadful genocide perpetrated on Bosnian Muslims at Srebenica and widely throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I trust that my noble friend will feel able to reiterate the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Dayton peace accords which followed the war and which the late Lord Ashdown did so much to cement. The Minister referred to them in his introduction, but this bears reiterating. I ask my noble friend to restate the commitment to the settlement and territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Some 25 years after the dreadful genocide, the scars on that beautiful country are still very present and tensions are inevitably heightened by the spurious appeal made by Ratko Mladić in August last year against his conviction for genocide at The Hague. The outcome is expected in May this year. That provocative appeal slows the process of reconciliation and makes it more difficult.
The United Kingdom has many close ties with Bosnia-Herzegovina, helped by two excellent ambassadors—the Bosnia-Herzegovina ambassador here, Vanya Filipović, and the UK ambassador to Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo, Matt Field—as well as strong parliamentary activity, with all-party groups for Bosnia-Herzegovina, for remembering Srebenica and against genocide, all helping to build a better future by supporting that country.
Can my noble friend tell us when the guidance on prohibitions and requirements previewed by the Explanatory Memorandum will be published? It is important for people to be aware of how it will operate. Will he please also say, as called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, what joint action on sanctions we will be taking alongside the EU? Will we be working with our EU partners, continuing to co-operate on sanctions regimes, or do we intend to do something different and strike out on our own? I am not quite clear on the long-term position. Clearly, in the short term, there will not be a massive difference. I appreciate that it allows us some freedom for manoeuvre, but how will that operate within working with our allies? That will also apply to other like-minded states. I think, in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, of the United States, which has a particular significance given the Dayton peace accords and their role in bringing the war in Bosnia to a conclusion.
With those comments, I lend my support to the regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that it is undesirable that we are looking at them in the rear-view mirror. It would be far better if we did not have to do that and could consider them in a more timely way. I appreciate that, on some matters Covid-related, that is not always possible, but I cannot see that that excuse—that reason, perhaps I should say—operates here.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Zimbabwe and, in doing so, I thank the Minister for Africa, James Duddridge for his courtesy in briefing me ahead of last week’s statement on the imposition of specific measures against four Zimbabwe security sector chiefs.
On the detail of the No. 4 regulations, I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the effect of the power to disapply the relevant prohibitions of the UK sanctions regime in Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories, if conduct that would otherwise be prohibited is authorised by a licence issued under the law of those jurisdictions. The Explanatory Memorandum sets out that those provisions are necessary to ensure that prohibitions relating to UK persons do not create a double licensing burden on a UK person in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Can the Minister assure us, however, that the power to authorise conduct that would otherwise be a contravention of the sanctions regime is operable only where an equivalent prohibition applies under other law—that is, that this is to be used only to prevent double licensing and that it cannot be used by the Crown dependencies or overseas territories to circumvent the application of sanctions?
As we discuss these SIs, it is timely to consider the effectiveness of the sanctions regime that we have operated over the past few decades and how we will take it forward now that we have left the European Union. I see this principally through the lens of the targeted measures we have applied against Zimbabwean politicians, officials and military over the past two decades. In themselves, they are hard to argue with. Who would want gross violators of human rights to be able to travel freely or to make use of UK financial institutions to launder the money that they loot from their people?
There is no doubt that sanctions can be an effective tool as part of wider political, economic and diplomatic approaches, but too often, it seems, they are deployed not as part of a wider strategy but instead of one. Nowhere could that be clearer than in Zimbabwe. In the 32 years since I first went to teach in Zimbabwe and the 22 years since I spent a couple of years working in the first post-apartheid South African Parliament, I have watched with dismay as the UK has squandered its influence in the region and as other players—most notably China, of course, but also some of our European allies—have taken a much more strategic approach.
In his statement accompanying the most recent travel restrictions and financial measures against Zimbabwe security sector chiefs, the Foreign Secretary stated that the Zimbabwe sanctions regime
“seeks to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to respect democratic principles and institutions; refrain from the repression of civil society; and to comply with international human rights law and to respect human rights.”
If that has been the objective of the sanctions regime over the past two years, who can claim that it has been anything but an abject failure? The political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe is as great as it has ever been, the economy has been looted to a state of collapse, corruption is rampant, the rule of law is practically non-existent and gross human rights abuses are routine.
Today, journalists such as Hopewell Chin’ono, who expose corruption, are constantly harassed and regularly imprisoned, while the Ministers they expose walk free. Trade unionists, opposition MPs and activists are abducted, beaten, tortured and then jailed for daring to speak out. As we speak, MDC youth leaders Joana Mamombe and Cecilia Chimbiri languish in the notorious Chikurubi maximum security jail on trumped-up charges, simply for speaking out for a better life for the people of Zimbabwe. The courage and integrity of these individuals cannot be overstated and is testimony to the country that Zimbabwe can become again.
Fundamentally, change in Zimbabwe will come about as a result of the actions of the Zimbabwean people, but we could play a much more constructive role in supporting the rule of law, the restoration of constitutional government and a return to economic prosperity if, instead of signing the latest sanctions regulations and then complacently turning to other matters, we committed to a joined-up economic and political strategy that could give succour to the valiant Zimbabwe people that when they achieve change, their friends in the international community will be there to help them with a comprehensive support package, so that everybody in the region and around the world can see the dividends that democratic government and the rule of law bring.
By all means, let us have sanctions against individuals who brutalise their fellow citizens and loot their country, but let us not pretend that they can deliver a return to democratic norms in the absence of a long-term and creative strategy for democratic renewal in the region. We could start by putting together an internationally agreed Marshall plan, ready to be implemented as soon as constitutional government returns to Zimbabwe. That would offer hope to the people of Zimbabwe as they continue their heroic struggle for freedom.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I ask my noble friend what assessment is undertaken of our sanctions policy in each specific case. We have a list before us today, but of course it is not complete. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, a point can come when we become blasé—we apply sanctions and then sit back, feeling that we have done our duty. It is their outworking and the effectiveness of that policy that is critical. I also ask my noble friend: what is the mechanism for co-ordination with the European Union? Lots of our sanctions are done in tandem with it and, indeed, under specific EU laws. Therefore, I would like to know what the mechanism is. Is it haphazard and case by case, or is there something more formally established?
The Minister alluded to the United Kingdom being held in worldwide regard because of our adherence to sanctions and willingness to implement them. However, he may have heard a recent interview with the new chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the United States, Senator Menendez. According to him, London was awash with Russian money, which Russians were able to dispose of through the purchase of assets, damaging our international credibility and reputation. Does the Minister consider that our policy there needs to be looked at? If, on the one hand, we are saying that we have an international reputation but, on the other, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at the start of a new presidential term, believes that about our actions with regard to Russian money coming into this country, it is not a very good starting point. I should like the Minister to address that matter.
The other issue I want to raise, Libya, will come as no surprise to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised it and the Minister’s attention was drawn to it earlier today in an Oral Question, to which, I suspect, many of us wished to contribute but did not get the opportunity. My noble friend will be aware that, on two separate occasions, I brought a Private Member’s Bill on asset freezing to your Lordships’ House. It was passed on both occasions, but one ran out of time and the other was blocked in the other place, so it did not become law. However, its purpose was to draw attention to the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised earlier.
It is almost the 25th anniversary of the Canary Wharf bombing. That attack was possible only because of the provision of Libyan-supplied Semtex to the IRA. I am a member of the parliamentary support group for the victims of Libyan terrorism. We had a meeting with the North Africa Minister, James Cleverly, on 5 November. We have been anxiously awaiting news, particularly on the Shawcross report, but also as to whether the Government are really prepared to do anything about this. A recent reply the other day merely stated that the Government were looking at it and consulting on a cross-departmental basis. Of course, that is a necessary part of government, but this is going well into its third decade. People are ageing, some have died and some are still suffering. I appeal to my noble friend to pass that point on to his colleague.
Key to the principles behind our policy is whether it is being successful. Are our sanctions working? Do we have examples of where they have brought about an improvement in the policy and in those individuals and countries subject to them? If not, we will be doing something simply for the sake of it. Is any real substance being achieved? If not, will it be achieved by some other mechanism? In broad terms I support what we have before us, but it is only part of the picture. In some respects, the matters I have raised are missing from this because it is part of an overall government policy. I would appreciate a response in the Minister’s reply.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I should make it clear that I hold office in the TRNC All-Party Group and have been a fairly regular visitor to north Cyprus over a long period. It is always nice to give the Government a pat on the back, but people have grumbled about the length of time before these regulations were debated. I have raised this and I am satisfied with the reply that the Government made the regulations on 7 December, brought them partially into force from 14 December, and fully into force from the end of the transition period on 31 December. They then had 60 sitting days for the regulations to come before both Houses under the affirmative procedure. The Government are fully within their rights in what they are doing. They are not always, but on this occasion they are.
When I look at these regulations I wonder: what are they actually worth? What will they achieve? The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned that it is 30 years since the Libya atrocities. It is 46 years since the breakdown in Cyprus. Indeed, it goes back almost 60 years to the foundation of the state. I am not sure whether this will bring us any further forward. We say that the regulations are to
“discourage … hydrocarbon exploration, production or extraction activities which have not been authorised by the Republic of Cyprus in its territorial sea or in its exclusive economic zone”,
but that is exactly what the dispute is about: the economic zone and whether the Republic of Cyprus, in the eyes of the Government of the TRNC, can allocate drilling rights across what the Northern Cyprus Administration feel is an important part of its area.
In other words, until we get the Cyprus problem sorted out, this will be just a minor sideshow. It is one of many, but the fact is that the previous President, President Akıncı, put in a huge amount of work. If anyone was ever to get a solution, it was him. He was the mayor of Nicosia, or Lefkoşa as the Turkish call it. He was the one politician from the north who had good relations with people in the south. He went a huge amount of the way to get a UN agreement and he failed. The Turks thought that he went too far and effectively campaigned against him in the recent election.
Now we have President Tatar, who has something in common with the UK. Nobody really wanted what he was offering a few years ago: a completely new start in Cyprus. He said that the whole basis of UN negotiations was false and that they would not work. He has now put forward the two-state solution, which has always been on the back boiler in Northern Cyprus. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to take a very close look at it. We cannot carry on as one of the guarantor powers, pretending that we have nothing to do with it and that all we have to do is say, “Naughty north Cyprus, you don’t exist”. I quote a Written Answer that came out only last week:
“The United Kingdom does not recognise the self-declared ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’.”
Hard luck: I am afraid it is there and not doing too badly, actually. It could do much better if we get an agreement, but it is there and it exists.
I want to ask the Minister this: what is the purpose of the sanctions? Will they ever be applied to anyone at all? Can he tell me any individuals or entities they apply to, or that the Government are looking to apply them to? Who at present is, and what sort of people are, being fingered for these sanctions, or will they be a dead letter? The explanatory statement says:
“Sanctions can be used to change behaviour”,
but they have not done very well over the past 46 years. I wonder whether they are changing or reinforcing behaviour, because every time I go to Cyprus I notice a little more hardening of actions and views, a little more intransigence, and a few more people who do not remember a united island and who think that the status quo is quite acceptable if they can negotiate a few more changes at the margin to make it slightly easier to live with.
Will Her Majesty’s Government take a more proactive role than just sitting around, as they have done throughout our membership of the EU, saying, “We hope something turns up. We really want it to, but we don’t know what to do”? I am afraid that is what it has seemed like up to now.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will raise the sanctions on unauthorised drilling in the eastern Mediterranean, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Balfe, and then comment on the UK’s broader sanctions policy.
Turkey’s unauthorised drilling in Greek and Cypriot waters is a cause for concern and it is right that Her Majesty’s Government should align themselves with the EU’s position to give Ankara pause for thought. The EU agreed back in December to condemn Turkey’s aggressiveness and unilateral actions in the eastern Mediterranean, giving Turkey a three-month grace period for further diplomacy. It agreed to add new names of individuals and companies connected with unauthorised and provocative drilling off Cyprus to a sanctions list involving travel bans and asset freezes.
This is a dangerous, complicated and underreported crisis, not least because both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, there are two strategically important British sovereign bases on Cyprus, the position of Cyprus and Greece as EU members, and Turkey’s status as a candidate for European Union membership. Ankara also has a pivotal role in restricting the flow of migrants, primarily from Libya and Syria, into the EU.
Turkey’s President Erdoğan unhelpfully reignited tensions with Cyprus last November, calling for a two-state solution for the island, divided since 1974, rather than the federalist solution supported by both the EU and UN. However, I am glad that the EU rejected Athens’ proposal last August at the Berlin foreign affairs meeting for sectoral sanctions targeting aspects of the Turkish economy such as the energy and banking sectors.
Here, I want to turn to the general principle of sanctions. While targeted sanctions against individuals or companies can have the desired effect in support of human rights or to correct serious misbehaviour or provocation, sectoral or country-wide sanctions are often counterproductive or have unintended consequences. President Erdoğan’s purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft systems is at least in part because of his belief in the West’s complicity in the 2016 coup attempt against him. While the West and the US were silent, Moscow was effusive in its support. The proposed new US sanctions against Ankara for buying the S-400s will merely throw Erdoğan further into Russia’s embrace.
I commend to the Minister the work of the highly-respected US Brookings Institution on the impact and effectiveness of sanctions. In one of its reports, it said that
“all too often sanctions turn out to be little more than expressions of U.S. preferences … without changing the target’s behavior for the better.”
It points to sanctions’ patchy results, which, as I mentioned, can lead to unintended consequences. The report further outlined:
“More generally, sanctions can have the perverse effect of bolstering authoritarian, statist societies.”
Making the population at large suffer can lead just to the propping up of a regime and a bunker mentality. On the other hand, targeted sanctions against individuals, companies or types of equipment or technology can have a real impact. Finally, the Brookings Institution states:
“Sanctions should not be used to hold major or complex bilateral relationships hostage to a single issue or set of concerns.”
Will the Minister admit that this is why HMG have imposed sanctions on Guinea for the indefensible death of 150 people in 2009 but have held back on sanctions against China for the alleged enslavement and internment of hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds?
We have just had a brief discussion about the effectiveness of sanctions, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Balfe, but can HMG have consistency in its sanctions policy? None of the 40 countries sanctioned is a friend. We have sanctioned Nicaragua for human rights abuses but not Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Panama, which are arguably as bad if not worse. Having read through the 555-page UK sanctions list, I could not identify a single individual from the Middle East outside Syria, Iraq or Iran condemned for any human rights abuses. James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, said in the other place on 3 February:
“Our sanctions regime is the foundation for an independent sanctions policy in support of our foreign policy and national security interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 976.]
Yet sanctions should be the last resort of diplomacy, not the first resort that they have often become; nor should we end up using sanctions to impose our British world view rather than to uphold universal values such as human rights and the right to life itself.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister for laying these sanctions provisions before us. From these Benches, we support them—as far as they go. As he said, most come straight out of the EU regimes.
He rightly pointed out that the United Kingdom played a large part in shaping the EU’s approach. He will know therefore that we regret having left the EU, because sanctions are most effective when applied jointly and because we took a leading role in the EU and have withdrawn that influence. I note, for example, that the EU seems more reluctant than when we were integral to its thinking to place sanctions against Russian individuals in the light of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and now his imprisonment.
I welcome the sanctions in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have just marked Holocaust Memorial Day, when we remember not only the Nazi Holocaust but later genocides such as that in Bosnia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred—I thank him for his reference to my noble friend Lord Ashdown. It is encouraging that some programme of reform may be brought to the Balkans as they seek to join the EU recognising its enormous benefits—something which, ironically, we are encouraging.
The pressure of sanctions on Burundi, Guinea and Nicaragua, to encourage respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights, is important given the ongoing challenges to those, but my noble friend Lord Chidgey challenged us on whether those sanctions were adequate; for example, in Guinea. My noble friend Lord Oates did the same in relation to the effectiveness of sanctions in Zimbabwe. He was surely right that they can be but one tool and that far more extensive engagement is required.
We are becoming acutely aware of how cyberactivities can undermine democratic and economic systems. I am sure the integrated review will address this threat to our country. When is that now expected?
The sanctions relating to the misappropriation of state funds from a country outside the United Kingdom establish a single thematic regime rather than geographic regimes, as the EU specified. As the Minister said, corruption undermines development. Can he update us on how a corruption sanctions regime can now be added, which the Government have said they wish to do? Is he sure that a thematic, rather than geographic, spread will be as effective?
On the sanctions relating unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean, the Minister did not say so in his introduction, but it is very clear from the Explanatory Notes that these relate to the troubling involvement of Turkey in this matter. This area of the world has enough tensions and instability without this becoming a further one. As the Minister said, Cyprus’ oil and gas should be used for the benefit of Cypriots. The involvement here of Turkey is very risky. However, I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Balfe, that it would have been far better to have achieved a settlement of the Cyprus dispute before it joined the EU. It is therefore vital that all Cypriots, from north or south, should potentially benefit. Our leaving the EU risks making it even more difficult to secure a long-term resolution in Cyprus.
On the miscellaneous amendments regulations, the Minister needs to assure us that we are not deviating from what was agreed when we were in the EU. I am rather sceptical about avoiding an apparent double effect with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I do not see any concern about their being covered twice by the same provisions. What is the possible down side of that? Can he assure us that they are indeed fully covered by these regulations? The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Oates, expressed their own strong concerns. Funds have often directed through some of those territories. There is a sense of the regulations addressing long-standing problems, but it is clear that they need to be updated.
In terms of updating, we still see no sanctions in relation to the Uighurs. We welcomed the global human rights, or Magnitsky, sanctions. The legal opinion announced this morning that acts being carried out in Xinjiang amount to crimes against humanity and genocide bears this out. The Minister will not say whether the Government are considering such sanctions, but we are all watching.
What about going further in Myanmar in the light of the military coup there? The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others asked about that. What of Ethiopia and Tigray now? I ask the Minister, as I have before: can there be some independent assessment of what sanctions need to be applied, and where? A number of noble Lords have questioned their direction and effectiveness.
In the previous session that we had on arrangements carried over from the EU it turned out that on some conflict minerals, for example, the UK had failed to put in place all that was required in Northern Ireland, as it sat within the EU single market and customs union. Has that now been rectified and have we adequately addressed the different position of Northern Ireland here? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome these instruments, intended primarily to roll over the EU sanctions regimes into UK legislation. Last Wednesday in the other place, my honourable friend Stephen Doughty covered the Opposition’s position on each of the individual country sanctions in some detail. Due to the limited time, I do not intend to repeat that exercise. However, there were points that the Minister, James Cleverly, did not cover in his response to my honourable friend.
First, as the Minister has repeatedly stated in the Chamber, the strength of sanctions depends on a unified framework across multiple jurisdictions—a point highlighted by noble Lords today. The EU and the US work together co-operatively to secure the applicability of measures, and the UK must be part of that process. In his introduction, the Minister said that the UK would be using existing networks. Just how will this work? How will we ensure that, along with the EU, we have a unified approach? Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I would like to know exactly what mechanisms will be used.
The second set of miscellaneous regulations deal with issues relating to the overseas territories. Here, I strongly amplify the point made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who were absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will explain the mechanisms for overseas territories and the sanctions regimes. Whether it is done by Order in Council or another mechanism, it would be good for that to be set out. In the other place James Cleverly made the point, which we have heard this afternoon, that we do not want to see double prohibition through these regulations and therefore a double licensing burden on individuals. However, it is crucial that we ensure that individuals cannot exploit any administrative gaps. James Cleverly failed to answer Stephen Doughty on what support is being provided to the overseas territories to ensure that they can apply the sanctions regimes, and that we have one unified approach across all territories. I hope the Minister will be able to give us much more detail than James Cleverly did in the other place.
Noble Lords have highlighted the discussion on China when these SIs were debated in the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, press reports today have highlighted a strong legal opinion confirming the overwhelming evidence of systematic human rights abuses, amounting to genocide against the Muslim Uighur people. We have also seen other minorities in China targeted, along with the attacks on the democracy and freedom of the people of Hong Kong. The United States Government have already barred members of the Communist Party of China from the US and introduced Magnitsky-style sanctions, but we have seen no further designations from the UK. We have been pressing for this for some months, so I hope the Minister can assure us that such sanctions are under consideration and say what discussions we are having with our allies, particularly the US, on how we have a unified approach.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Northover, stated that some of these regulations relate to previous sanctions on Myanmar. Many noble Lords will have watched over the weekend the brave demonstrations against the military coup in Myanmar. Last week, I asked the Minister to seek the toughest kind of sanctions by the international community, including on the enterprises owned by the generals and their families. I hope he can update us on what discussions we have had with our allies to ensure we are stepping up sanctions on those responsible for such a brazen attack on the democratic rights of the people of Myanmar.
I also hope the Government will look again at how the UK’s CDC has been investing in telecommunications companies in Myanmar that have been complying with that country’s government-ordered repression and blockages of internet sites. These not only have potentially covered up atrocities against the Rohingya people but are being used now in the military coup. I hope he will look again at that investment and whether it is really appropriate in the current circumstances.
The Government need to do more with the powers they have through the Magnitsky sanctions regime. Expanding their scope and usage is vital. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an update on the timetable to extend the scope of this regime to include corruption. Finally, as I said in my opening, we support these sanctions regulations and agree that they should continue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very valuable contributions and the broad level of support that we saw during this debate. I also recognise the important role of, and the various points made on, the process and procedure. I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for articulating in a succinct manner—as it saved me having to answer the question—what the current procedures are. However, I never shy away from any challenge in the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, always poses most courteously. I look forward to debates on this issue and others with him.
Having thanked all noble Lords for their participation, I will get to the specific questions raised. Following the normal courtesy, if there are questions that I am unable to answer in the time allocated, I will certainly write to noble Lords and review Hansard to pick up on some of those specifics.
Along with his original questions, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, raised the importance of his expertise and insights in parts of the world. He raised specific issues about certain individuals in Guinea not being rolled over in the original sanctions tabled by the EU. This will in part also answer the question raised by various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, about the effectiveness of sanctions. When these original sanctions were approved it was partly to ensure that there would be a change in behaviour, while recognising any steps taken by new Governments and individuals within them.
I also reassure noble Lords that when applying the sanctions, through the sanctions Act itself and the subsequent global human rights sanctions regime, we are relatively new to this area in terms of specific sanctions on individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, recounted specific sanctions on individuals and countries, and mentioned the Middle East. I am sure he will recall that, when it came to the global human rights sanctions, a number of individuals from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were covered in the original sanctions designations.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Northbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised Cyprus and the sanctions as they apply there. I agree with the noble Baroness on the wider context of the discussions in Cyprus. As noble Lords will recognise, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cyprus on 3 and 4 February. He met the President of Cyprus and the leader of the Turkish Cypriots. The primary focus in the areas covered was on not just the issues in the sanctions—as put forward by many noble Lords, with whom I agree—but bilateral and regional issues ahead of the UN-convened talks, which I believe take place next month. The context of the peace talks was very much part and parcel of the discussions that my right honourable friend had in country. I therefore hope my noble friend is reassured that we are looking at all elements and talking to all sides when it comes to not just the areas covered in the sanctions regime, but the wider issues of settlement. We recognise the important role the UK can play in this regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others talked about the importance of our EU partnerships. It did not surprise me when the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, did so in her opening remarks. As I have said, we will of course continue to work very closely with our EU partners and others in this respect. I have said to noble Lords that I regularly have discussions with the lead human rights official in the European Commission, Eamon Gilmore. Indeed, we were in deep discussions prior to the introduction of the EU global human rights regime.
My noble friend Lord Empey raised the formality of structures. I assure him that the strength of our relationships with the European Union and key partners in it is shown in various statements we have made beyond sanctions—particularly on the situation of the Uighur Muslims—which demonstrate the open communication that we retain and, equally, how we work with other key partners on sanctions, such as the United States, Canada and other allies. We will continue to do just that. The primary basis of any sanctions regime is that it is co-ordinated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly talked of Myanmar, as did other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, specifically mentioned the leadership we showed during our membership of the European Union against 16 individuals. As noble Lords will recognise, of the military leadership that has taken control in the coup in Myanmar, the leader and his deputy are currently sanctioned. Whether in Myanmar or in China, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised, specifically on the Uighurs, we keep the situation in review.
I cannot get into specifics. Noble Lords rightly raise timelines and when particular designations happen around the world, but I cannot speculate in that respect. However, I assure noble Lords, as I have sought to do as FCDO Minister and Minister for Human Rights, that I will take on board the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, acknowledged of talking through specific situations as and when we can, and as early as possible, as well as sharing information with noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the process, which I have already covered specifically. He also talked about the importance of working with our overseas territories. I assure all noble Lords that the Orders in Council for each designation, with the exception of Bermuda and Gibraltar, are initiated by the United Kingdom. They will reflect exactly the same provisions that apply in UK jurisdictions to allow for a co-ordinated approach. I can also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, as a Minister who worked directly with the overseas territories during the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, that our co-ordination is for territories that do not have capacity for technical support. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised this, and it arose in the other place. We are lending technical support to the overseas territories. I am sure noble Lords recognise that many do not have the infrastructure for financial services, for example, and need support. We are working directly with the OTs in this respect.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that prior to the introduction of, for example, the requirement for public registers, we also operated with key overseas territories on the exchange of notes, which allowed tax and legal agencies to access all the required information. If any specific concerns arise for noble Lords on the application of these issues in the overseas territories, they should raise them with me. I will seek to address them directly.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his support. He rightly raised cyberactivity. As he recognised, we saw an increase in such challenges in our own Parliament a few years back. Indeed, I recall that we had a cyberattack on the same day as the tragic terror attack on Parliament. It shows the vulnerabilities, and the increased activity required, in this area. It also underlines the importance we attach to this area of our sanctions work.
The noble Lord rightly raised the Putin regime and issues around Navalny, China and Myanmar. As I am sure he recognises, we have sought to lead and provide direction on sanctions in Myanmar and in the case of Mr Navalny. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Empey raised the situation in Libya and the Shawcross report. We discussed this in your Lordships’ House. I have taken note of the concerns that have again been expressed. If there is any more detail on the questions my noble friend Lord Empey raised I shall seek to raise it.
I am being told by my noble friend who is whipping the debate that I am running out of time. In my last few seconds, I acknowledge the valuable work done by Remembering Srebrenica and the points made by my noble friend Lord Bourne. I assure him that we look fully at guaranteeing the sovereign and territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He talked about guidance. I believe that it has already been published.
On the specific area of continuing to work at and ensuring the refreshing of our strategy, I say to all noble Lords who raised the effectiveness of the various regimes that provisions in the sanctions Act require reporting back on the effectiveness of each regime. The Act also allows opportunities for individuals to review sanctions applied to them so that they can have a process for appeal. I will continue to update your Lordships’ House on the operation of the sanctions regimes. Indeed, I look forward to further discussions on specific designations in this important area.
I once again thank all noble Lords for their participation. This work is evolving. I noted again with great care various noble Lords’ specific questions and practical suggestions on strengthening work in this area. I look forward to further debate and constructive discussions in this regard.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.05 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one and a half hours.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 43rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, at the outset, I thank the massive cross-government and civic movement that has mobilised to fight the disease. It is not possible to name-check everyone, but I single out for thanks all those in the NHS, social care, volunteers, returned healthcare staff and the Army involved in the deployment of the vaccine. I thank scientists at universities and pharmaceutical companies and those running clinical trials for developing new vaccines, antivirals and all manner of therapies to combat the threat of mutant viruses. I thank all those in the Border Force, test and trace, the hospitality industry, Project Eagle and local authorities who have worked so hard in the last week to stand up new mechanisms for protecting the vaccine from variants of concern. Lastly, of course, I thank the general public for continuing to follow the lockdown rules. The attitude of the public remains resolute. I know there are exceptions, and I appreciate that there are huge sacrifices everywhere, but the actions everyone is taking now are doing a huge amount to protect your family and loved ones as well as the family and loved ones of others.
Our focus remains on the rollout of the vaccine, the development of a sure-fire system to battle any mutations, and an exit strategy from this awful pandemic. In the meantime, social restrictions are necessary while this occurs, so it is important that we bring forward this SI.
This SI makes a number of minor technical amendments to the all tiers regulations, which is necessary for legal coherency. It removes the provision for a linked Christmas household—the “Christmas bubble”—to prevent any scope for misinterpretation. It adds the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to the list of Acts governing permitted marriages, civil partnerships and conversions, so that we treat everyone equally under these restrictions no matter their sexual orientation. It allows cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings to remain open. It inserts an exemption from the closure of sports facilities in tier 3 to allow for elite sports competition, which essentially ensures that elite sports competitions such as the Premier League are permitted. It clarifies that the exception to leave home to collect goods from businesses operating click and collect also applies to libraries. We know that libraries have been a lifeline for many during the pandemic, providing educational and IT support to those who need it, and this amendment will ensure that this keeps happening.
These regulations came into force on 20 January 2021, and we regret that we are only now debating them. However, they were simply technical amendments to existing law. They do not change policy which noble Lords have previously approved.
I thought it would be helpful to provide a short update of the situation we are currently in and our understanding of its impact. The general public recognise the importance of following social distancing rules to control the virus and protect the NHS, which is why the vast majority of people continue to follow the rules. An example of this is limiting social contact. The most recent ONS survey shows that only one in seven respondents reported meeting with someone that they do not live with or are not in a support bubble with outdoors. Some of these people will have met one other person for the purpose of exercise, which is allowed by the regulations. For those people who do not comply, we have a strategy. Police officers will engage, explain and encourage, and for those people who simply refuse to comply, we do enforce. We continue to review the tools available to police to take action and have introduced a new penalty for attending a gathering of more than 15 people in a private dwelling or educational premises, or as a rave.
I am cautiously delighted to be able to inform noble Lords that, as a result of the restrictions put in place and the efforts of the nation to follow the rules, we are now seeing the first signs of improvement. There has been a positive impact in reducing transmission of the virus, and as the Chief Medical Officer stated last week, we have passed the peak of the second wave. I said I was only cautiously delighted because, despite this being a very positive development, we still have more to do. The virus is still prevalent, with approximately 21,000 people testing positive for Covid across the UK each day last week and significant pressure still placed on the NHS.
We also still have approximately 29,000 Covid patients in UK hospitals as of 4 February. That number has been decreasing since the peak on 18 January 2021, when there were more than 39,000 Covid patients in hospitals. That said, the number is still far too high, much higher than the previous peak of just under 22,000, and this sustained pressure is coinciding with the period of greatest seasonal pressure on the NHS. As we know, any new measures take some time to take effect on our hospital numbers, so it is right that we remain cautious and continue, for now, with the restrictions.
This is clearly a challenging and worrying time for everyone. However, there is more good news. There is early evidence that the number of people testing positive has started to fall across England. As reported in the minutes from the SAGE meeting on 14 January 2021, we have indications that new infections are declining in those areas which have been in tier 4 for the longest. This indicates that it is likely that R can be brought down significantly during the lockdown, even with the presence of the new variant. It shows that our approach is working and that we are taking the necessary action to keep us all safe.
We intend to publish our plan for taking the country out of lockdown on 22 February. That plan will, of course, depend on the continued success of our vaccination programme and on deaths falling at the pace we would expect, as more people are inoculated. Our aim will be to set out a gradual and phased approach, easing restrictions in a sustainable way and beginning with the most important principle of all: that reopening schools must be our national priority. If we continue to make the progress that we want to see, and believe we can see, we hope to be able to begin to return to face-to-face education on 8 March. We will set out more detail in due course and will ensure that we give at least two weeks’ notice to allow students, staff and parents to prepare.
I again pay tribute to the wonderful staff of our NHS and social care sector, who are working tirelessly to protect the vulnerable and save lives. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
First, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. On Thursday 4 February, I asked about antiviral drugs: Synairgen’s compound SNG001, an inhaled interferon beta drug, and the controlled trial which had been published in the Lancet and which showed considerable success. I also mentioned ACTIV-2, research established by the National Institutes of Health in the US. With the limits on time to reply to the Statement, I muddled Synairgen’s seemingly effective trial with ACTIV-2, giving the impression that it was a different drug. This made it impossible for the noble Lord to answer my question effectively and I apologise for that.
As many noble Lords have repeatedly affirmed from across the House, we must work together, particularly at times of national emergency. While I speak from these Benches, it is good to celebrate the spirit of proper collaboration of which your Lordships’ House is proud. This is a time of global emergency. Of course, we want to be vaccinated as soon as possible. With vaccines still not plentiful, it is natural to be anxious about ourselves and our families, but we must recognise those elsewhere globally, and particularly in poor nations. It makes economic sense, just as it does with climate change. It may be costly, but it is morally right, and the global fight is essential, not least because of our self-interest.
We should learn from history. Yersinia pestis, the Black Death, caused at least three major pandemics: the plague of Justinian in 1541, the Black Death in 1347 and the Black Death in China in the 1850s. There were repeated, devastating waves in between for many decades. These were spread mostly by travel, by mixing of populations and by people in poverty with poor hygiene and inadequate public health. In 1665, when over 100,000 people in London—probably one-third or more of the population—died in the Great Plague, the greatest proportion were poor and disadvantaged. Lockdown then was rigidly imposed. People were even bolted in their houses, which were painted with a red cross.
The science community has repeatedly warned that we shall almost certainly need to live with Covid for a long time to come. This is likely for Covid-19 but is equally likely to be true of other deadly viruses in due course. So, in addition to global issues, we need everything we can muster: vaccines, better diagnostics, culture facilities, better public health—especially globally—and drugs which kill the virus. We also clearly need isolation, and that will reoccur from time to time. It is important that we do not breathe a huge sigh of collective relief at the blessing of new and better vaccines. There are still many important questions that we will need to consider. Randomised controlled trials must continue. One NIH trial, for example, done in the rhesus monkey, showed that they got protection with different vaccines, but these did not necessarily reduce the replication of the virus in nasal tissues, while some others did. Those are the sorts of reasons why we still do not know how problematic contact between people will be.
Whatever the effectiveness of different vaccines, apart from new mutations, there will be pockets of this virus in the population. If we are to reduce the presence of the virus in our communities, at what stage do we consider vaccinating children? If we eventually do, shall we ignore the serious anti-vaccination protests associated with measles, a far less clinically risky virus? We are relatively safe now from yersinia pestis, not because of vaccines but because of antibiotics. For example, a portable, easily distributed antiviral would be a real asset. Unfortunately, monoclonal antibodies, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in last Thursday’s debate, may not be quite as useful as a portable, easily distributed and administered antiviral, which could give safety, with fewer side-effects, at the early stages of infection. This might kill the virus before it starts to replicate rapidly. That would be useful during lockdown. An antiviral which gets access to the mucus membranes of the throat, pharynx, larynx and respiratory system, taken by mouth or as an aerosol, could be particularly beneficial because that is the route that the Covid virus generally takes. That would be another strategy to avoid the risk of mutations. This may be important, because we must remember how coronavirus is likely to have infected several animal species before moving into man. It is consequently more dangerous. In many parts of this crowded world, humans now perhaps live more closely to animals than at any time in our history.
Of course, we shall continue to jog the Government, but let us do so in the spirit of constructive collaboration that is important at this time of national emergency.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the time limit for Back-Bench contributions is four minutes.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, it is important to stress that, for political leaders at this time, there is one overriding job to be done: to ensure that the relief sensed by everybody that the vaccines are coming is not misplaced into a false sense of security. We need to understand that over the next year or so we must continue the important social distancing measures that we have become used to. I believe the Government have one priority at the moment: to enable the country to emerge from lockdown to a situation which is sustainable in terms of social and economic health and well-being.
Key to that will be the opening of schools of colleges. I say that, but schools and colleges are open and people are working; they are just not physically present. It is important that as many schools as possible open as soon as possible. I urge the Government to move away from central fiats announced at short notice towards a culture of working more co-operatively with teachers and local authorities to work out what resources are needed in different areas to enable schools to open safely.
I draw to the Minister’s attention one issue that requires urgent attention. He will know that to open legally any children’s service has to have staff with up-to-date first aid qualifications. He will also know that first aid training cannot be completed online. Last March, the Health and Safety Executive announced an extension in the grace period for renewal of a certificate from one month to six. The HSE’s current advice is that all training will have to be renewed by 31 March and there will be no extension. That means that staff—and, incidentally, staff of training providers—are being told on the one hand that to get their training certificates renewed they have to go out to a training course, but on the other that they have to observe lockdown. Does the Minister realise that this potentially is a very big problem for schools, colleges and preschools? Does he also realise that this kind of mixed messaging is the last thing that professionals working at a local level to try and give some hope to their communities need?
I understand that it is being reported that test and trace is getting rid of staff. I and many others have been deeply critical of the poor performance of the test and trace operation, particularly the lack of support for isolation. Can the Minister say whether, as we go into this current phase, resources will be diverted to local authorities and local resilience forums so that we can continue to make sure that people are given supported, practical help to isolate? We can then have much more localised efforts to reverse trace so that we can find out where different variants have come from and how they have been transmitted among the population.
I have two final points. First, it is evident that mental health is becoming the big issue of this pandemic for schools and colleges. Are the Government now starting to plan to have emergency first aid mental health services for schools and colleges, exhausted public health staff such as doctors and nurses, and self-employed people who have not been eligible for any government support? Finally, on care homes, nursing homes and domiciliary care workers, when will the Government stop reporting the number of vaccinations that have been offered and start reporting the number that have been completed?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, from the cheap seats at the far end, I pay a warm tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for his masterful handling of the vaccination drive. As the NHS called me a critically endangered species, I had my jab last Thursday night and I am in no doubt that it was months ahead of where it would have been were it not for the brilliant handling of vaccination by the Government.
It has been a textbook operation. The Prime Minister gave Kate Bingham the order: “Stop people dying”. She formed a task force that rapidly decided the best vaccines to back and funded their production, bypassing NHS bureaucracy. It was based on scientific judgment, not just buying up everything in sight. The Secretary of State for Health told Oxford University to dump Merck and go with AstraZeneca. That was inspired. It was a masterstroke for which he deserves the highest praise. Then the logistics were fine-tuned, with Professor Van-Tam apparently demanding freezers way back last June. Then contracts for vaccine supply were signed three months ahead of other countries.
I also thank the Prime Minister for getting us out of the slow-moving EU oil tanker. What a perfect description of the EU—a lumbering monster, unable to move quickly and full of last century’s concept of power. If we had stayed in then there is no way we would have approved the emergency use of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Theoretically, of course, we could have, but a vote to remain would have made us a very tame, subservient puppet, afraid to do anything on our own. We would also have been trapped into the corrupt EU purchasing racket, paying for French Sanofi vaccines that have not yet been invented. Little did we know four years ago that leaving the EU could save thousands of British lives or we would probably have put that on the side of the bus as well.
While the NHS staff, the military, the volunteers and others are doing a fantastic job of sticking needles in people’s arms, there would be nothing much to inject if it were not for the leadership, judgment and far-sightedness of the Prime Minister, Ministers and all in the Government. Thank you, Prime Minister, personally—the Boris haters will have to gnash their teeth a while longer.
I have a couple of ethical and moral questions to pose to my noble friend, but I do not want answers today. It seems that we will have tens of thousands of vaccine refuseniks. I defend their absolute right not to be vaccinated, so long as they respect my right to get hospital treatment ahead of them if they catch Covid. Hundreds of thousands of people with all other life-threatening illnesses—cancer, heart conditions and so on—have had their treatment postponed to give priority to Covid cases. That may have been the right thing to do when there was no cure for Covid, but now that there is a vaccine it will be intolerable if honest patients who have been vaccinated cannot get into hospital because refuseniks are blocking beds. My message is simple: if you refuse vaccination and catch Covid, then tough luck. You have absolutely no right to displace from a hospital bed a decent patient who has been vaccinated. No matter your colour, ethnicity or age, if you refuse vaccination you forfeit the right to jump the hospital queue.
Related to that, I assume that if, for example, care home or medical staff wandered round the wards, smoking 40 cigarettes a day they would be dismissed on the spot. Therefore, if medical or care home staff refuse vaccinations and wander round wards, belching out Covid all day, which is 100 times more lethal than passive smoking, should they not be considered to be sacked on the spot as well? I simply leave that for consideration.
Finally, we are repeatedly told that we must not call it the Chinese virus, but the variants are called the South African, Brazilian, Kent and UK variants. It simply identifies where they came from or were discovered. China is directly responsible for more than 2 million dead in the world. Since China let this virus escape from its Wuhan lab, covered it up and lies about it every single day, is it not about time that we called it by its true name—the China virus?
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister described the purpose of the regulations very clearly, so I will not repeat that. I thank the House of Lords Library for its additional information and the secretariat of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its comments. Thanks are also due, of course, to the statutory instruments committee.
I am also delighted at the success in developing and rolling out the vaccines. It has been efficiently and thoroughly launched, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, thanks to many people, including those appointed to oversee it by the Prime Minister. I am aware that the regulations have had many stages and many consultations, and that the Government have used the affirmative procedure so that, according to the Explanatory Memorandum,
“public health measures can be taken in response to the severe and imminent threat to public health.”
Apart from the amendments under discussion, there are pressing concerns that should be aired and resolved by the Government to avoid a preposterous assertion of slowness and confusion. I will briefly refer to some of those issues.
Problems remain with the amendment to the power to use and disclose information in relation to the police. Can the Minister say whether the Department of Heath will reverse plans to allow police access to NHS Test and Trace data to reassure the public of medical confidentiality? I remember discussing the concerns about confidentiality when test and trace was brought in—a long time ago now. Those concerns now seem to be disregarded.
I still have concerns about levels of Covid among disabled people and about the situation in care homes. I do not see the legislative clarity needed for relatives, residents and those running care homes. I realise that this is a wider concern than these regulations, but it is urgent and worth discussing.
Last week, I asked the Minister a question about the situation in care homes. I should have given him that question in advance, and I apologise for not doing so, as he was not able to answer it adequately, and I hope that today he will be able to, because I gave him prior notice of what I shall raise. Briefly, I seek clarification on whether, for a relative to be able to visit a loved one in a care home, it will be necessary for all the residents and all staff of the care home to have been vaccinated. If so, is it to be once or twice, and what priority can they expect? Many families have been unable to have other than distant contact with relatives in care homes for a very long time.
This issue is relevant to the human right to family life, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern. Have discussions taken place in the Department of Health with this in mind? I ask the Minister to clarify that as residents in care homes and their relatives are confused and distressed and, of course, longing to get back together again. It is a public health issue; it is also a human rights issue. I hope the Minister will give me a good response.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations, which, as the Minister stated, include a reference to an exemption for elite athletes who train or enter competitions, and it is to that subject I wish to direct my remarks.
A recent review launched by the Home Secretary and still under consideration in Government concerns the current status of elite sports remaining exempt when travel quarantine rules are introduced. This needs to be seen in the context of the likelihood of the Olympic and Paralympic Games going ahead—despite the armchair critics who say otherwise. Given that there are only 23 Mondays before the opening ceremony, the detailed, careful and safe approach being taken by the International Olympic Committee and the Tokyo organising committee is first rate and, barring another spike in Covid-19 in Japan, it should be the showcase televised sporting event across the globe in 2021.
The proposal that athletes should be limited to the athletes’ village and competition venues on arrival, and that regular testing will be a feature of the Games, is commendable. All participants will be expected to undergo a period of quarantine before travelling to Tokyo. In this context, I encourage the Government to open early discussions with the British Olympic and Paralympic associations to plan arrangements, should it not be possible to organise training camps close to Japan.
On arrival, the athletes will be subject to frequent testing, including at the airport and the village. All sensible moves are clearly being taken to ensure the athletes’ village will be the safest place in Japan. The price of not going downtown during the Games is a wise price to pay to prioritise their health, with athletes arriving only five days prior to their competition and departing a maximum of two days afterwards.
In passing, and should there be no crowds, I look forward to the first scientific study which demonstrates that athletic performance should be even better in the absence of the body heat generated by tens of thousands of spectators. The IOC is wise to wait until March or April before making a decision on the presence or otherwise of spectators. For—and this is the key point—the interests of the athletes, not the administrators or sponsors, should always come first.
Those athletes who have failed to observe the exceptional restrictions here in the UK have been rightly named, shamed and penalised. The vast majority who have followed the rules—not least in the Premier League—have provided much needed respite for the television-watching British population in lockdown. With such exceptional and comprehensive measures in place, I congratulate my noble friend on continuing with the current status of exemption of elite sports from these regulations and, I hope, from future travel quarantine rules. Should that not be the case, it would result in increased losses for national governing bodies, many of which are on the threshold of administration. It would remove opportunities for training and competition—including the rest of the Six Nations, which is already successfully under way—and cause further problems for all sports men and women if the quarantine requirement for athletes to stay in airport hotels for 10 days after arrival was introduced for this currently exempt group.
The scientists are publicly on record as recognising that, with the exceptional measures already in place, this is a very low-risk group. I thank my noble friend for taking representations on this and know that, from his diligence and concern for the athletes, the steps being taken by sport and the close co-operation between the sector and government have delivered sensible, safe and appropriate measures.
In the context of the advantages to international training and pre-Olympic competition schedules, I hope the athletes will be able to secure vaccination immediately after—and only after—the completion of vaccination among all vulnerable groups in society. This will considerably help those Olympic and Paralympic athletes seeking selection and, with them, their immediate entourage of coaches and support staff. This is all the more important as the momentum for international vaccine passports increases.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, another day, another statutory instrument on coronavirus. As the Hansard Society notes:
“The government has laid 364 Coronavirus-related Statutory Instruments … before the UK Parliament. The first two Coronavirus-related SIs were laid on 28 January and 10 February 2020, respectively. The rest have been laid since 6 March 2020, at an average rate since then of seven per completed week.”
No wonder people and businesses get confused. This makes a mockery of both Parliament and the tired excuse that Ministers keep trotting out:
“Owing to the speed with which the Government must take this emergency action to control the virus and save lives it is not possible for a debate to be held before these regulations come into force.”
The speed the Government said they needed for the 364 coronavirus-related SIs has not been effective, as we can see from the number of deaths. Some of the SIs have been superseded within days of coming into force, have caused confusion and have not achieved the goal of reducing the spread of transmission of the virus, thereby helping to keep people alive. The 364 SIs are indicative of a Government who have been far too reactive, rather than proactive, to the public health crisis we face. No other democratic Government across the world have introduced so much emergency legislation to deal with the coronavirus.
What is needed is a clear governmental strategy. It is sadly missing in the UK. That is what is required urgently, not more and more knee-jerk emergency legislation. The country is now at a crossroads in dealing with the virus. We have some hope on the horizon with the vaccination programme, but it is not the end. The world will be living with the coronavirus, new variants of it and all the health and economic risk this brings for years to come. It is time to reflect on what is needed for the next phase, what has been learned and what needs to change for the future. Part of this has to be less emergency legislation and more detailed and well thought-out laws and rules to genuinely save lives and get the country on a firmer footing to be able to deal with the next stage of the pandemic. This Parliament needs to stop just nodding through coronavirus emergency legislation. It needs to force the Government to come forward with a clear strategy for living with this pandemic and help set laws within that strategic framework.
As the past year has shown, 364 pieces of emergency legislation have not been the most effective way of keeping as many people alive as we would have hoped or proactively slowing down the virus. It is time for Parliament to do its proper job. For this House, that means having time to review and revise laws needed to deal with the public health crisis we face. This will help to ensure that the rules that people and businesses are required to obey are much more effective in reducing the spread of the virus and saving lives.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, my wife and I tested positive at the beginning of January. We isolated. Half way through the isolation, my wife was taken seriously ill and taken into Bedford Hospital. Thankfully, she is now at home. I pay a major tribute to the efficiency of the testing at Bedford town car park, and particularly to the care and attention in Bedford Hospital.
On Saturday, I had my coronavirus jab. The whole thing took 10 minutes. It was brilliantly organised. I spent some time talking to the volunteers, and we owe a huge tribute to them. In that context, I hope that some plans are being made for the Prime Minister to write a letter to all the volunteers who have come forward and taken part.
I have three pleas to my noble friend on the Front Bench. One comes from me as a marketing man. The tiers have worked, but one thing you learn about marketing is that you need to refine down areas, particularly if you are test-marketing new products. We are not test-marketing new products; we are test-marketing something which we cannot totally get a grip on. I wonder whether it would not be more sensible, instead of thinking about district council areas, to hone down to major towns and have a close look at them. That way, we would begin to really get a grip on it.
Secondly, on timing, any organisation—whether it be a business, a school, or whatever—needs time to plan ahead. I hope that when the Statement is made on 22 February, the Government will be planning for approximately three weeks’ notice of any substantial change.
Thirdly, I again make a plea for sport. I declare an interest as president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club. There was virtually no cricket at all last year. The new season starts, if my noble friend would like to note it, on 8 April with county games across the country. All the 18 major counties have Covid-secure grounds. A huge amount of energy, money and resources have been put into those 18 grounds. The staff are well briefed and organised; the players are the same. Can we please try really hard to start off this season—perhaps confining it to one member and one guest at the grounds? I hope that when the Twenty20 comes round, which will not be until the beginning of June, we will be in a position to open up to the public.
Finally, I make a plea for Wimbledon and declare an interest as a member. Wimbledon’s championship is the leading tennis championship in the world. A great deal of work has gone into ensuring that we can, if at all possible, hold a championship this year in the first two weeks of July. There would be no finer advertisement for UK Ltd, and for the great British public, than to see Wimbledon happening with spectators in those weeks. I wish my noble friend all success in the way he is handling these things, and to the teams working for him, I say: thank you—you have done a superb job.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the work he has done in fighting this terrible pandemic. I wish him well with all his efforts in future, but perhaps I can be a little critical of details today, because underpinning this SI are the basic nuts and bolts which make the system work—and they are creaking in places.
We sometimes do not realise that there is a difference between guidelines, which are what Ministers would like us to do but do not have the force of law, and regulations, which do have that force. As we have gone through the tiers created by the Government over the past year, some of the issues have been about guidelines and some about regulations. Let me give a couple of simple examples.
Colleagues will recollect that at the beginning of the year, two women were handed fixed penalty notices by Derbyshire police for reportedly travelling five miles for exercise. The police force subsequently stated that it was reviewing the action based on new national guidelines, but the issuance of the notice was still supported by the Health Secretary, although it did not have the force of law. Then of course we had a similar case—I am not making this as a political point—when the Prime Minister was cycling 18 kilometres to ride around a park in London. I have no trouble at all with that, but the issue is that it causes problems on a wider scale, and with tragic results.
I live in a national park. As I look out of the window, the snow is falling—the hills are covered in snow. Although people have guidelines that the Government’s wish is that they should not drive to the Lake District, but they do. Every weekend, they are still driving regularly from Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Kent and London. That is not illegal, but they are not allowed to spend the night. How do you trap people who are sometimes spending the night?
We had a tragic incident this last weekend involving the mountain rescue, which has been called out several times, when two young men went camping on the mountains above Kirkstone Pass. One of them got chest pains and called the mountain rescue in the middle of the night—it was two in the morning. One member of the mountain rescue slipped and fell; he has very serious injuries.
However, the police cannot stop people driving in to camp. Once they have camped, they can be issued with penalty notices because that is in a regulation: you cannot stay overnight in an area such as this. I am arguing that there needs to be some consistency in the regulations and guidelines so that we know where we stand, and that the police also know what they can and cannot do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Could the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, please mute himself?
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the work of my noble friend and Lords Ministers generally. They have had to deal with an unrelenting schedule in incredibly difficult times. Given the plethora of primary and secondary legislation, and the briefings that have kept my noble friend at the House and the Dispatch Box while many of us shield, self-isolate and keep safe at home, I am sure his work is valued by us all, whatever our political colours.
In the few minutes I have today, I want to focus on the wedding hospitality sector. It is an issue I have raised on previous occasions, and one which I have remained engaged with throughout this pandemic. The sector has been devastated by the pandemic, particularly the Asian wedding sector where large premises with high overheads have now lain empty for some 12 months. Many have had to return, quite rightly, hundreds of thousands of pounds in deposits to those who have had to postpone weddings. They feel that they have had little national engagement to plan for their futures, even where local councils have worked closely with them to ensure they are Covid-compliant.
This SI specifically starts to address this process, of course, but I want to ask three specific questions. If my noble friend cannot answer them today, I should be grateful if he could write to me. First, what specific engagement has taken place with those in the Asian wedding sector? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the size of venues-to-people ratio when determining the numbers allowed to attend wedding receptions, or do the Government intend, once things starts to ease, to deal with the matter as they did previously? I would argue that that was clunky and ill informed, and that the one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Thirdly, what are the Government’s plans and timetable for easing the restrictions for weddings and civil partnerships?
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to ask about the route out of lockdown. I fear the Government are relying far too much on the vaccine programme to get us out of trouble and may be planning to ignore the need to reduce the prevalence of the virus in the community before easing restrictions. I hope that the Minister will reply to my noble friend Lady Barker’s question about a lot of test and trace being laid off. Surely this is the time to continue the effort to find out where the virus is and stop it in its tracks by supported isolation strategies? Can the Minister justify this reduction in testing staff? If he tells me that resources are being switched from the eye-wateringly expensive centralised system to locally based—and more cost-effective—test, trace and isolate services, I will be very pleased to hear it. However, the Government were so slow to make use of local expertise in favour of their expensive national system that I somehow doubt it.
Unless we bear down on incidence in the community, mutations will continue to occur and variants will result, with a possible consequence for the effectiveness of current vaccines. What lessons have been learned from what happened last autumn, when cases rose again after the summer easing of restrictions and we had a second wave worse than the first? What lessons have been learned from abroad, specifically Portugal, where there is now an even worse crisis for which it is having to get help from Germany and other EU countries because they had a free-for-all over Christmas?
Are the Government watching what is happening in Israel, where the level of vaccination is higher than here but levels of illness are not reducing as fast as expected? As Israeli epidemiologist Dr Ran Balicer has commented:
“Vaccines work, but the picture is more complex than that. Other steps are needed as well.”
Experts there believe that the lower level of adherence to lockdown in Israel is part of the problem, which should be a clear lesson for us here in the UK.
Can other noble Lords mute, please?
All this indicates the need for timely parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals for loosening restrictions, so that Members of both Houses will have at least as much notice as schools. Members need the opportunity to counter the pressure that the Government are clearly feeling from the so-called Covid Recovery Group, which does not agree with restrictions and seems to believe, mistakenly, that herd immunity can come from widespread natural infections. It does not seem to care about the deaths and long-term illness that would ensue from such a strategy.
Looking to the future, can the Minister say, first, what studies are being set up to monitor the ongoing level of immunity of those who have been vaccinated, testing against not only current variants but others that may arise? This will be essential if scientists are to advise on the nature and frequency of future booster vaccines. Secondly, do we have sufficient capacity in genome sequencing adequately to track new variants, which will inevitably come into the country until the whole world is vaccinated? We are world leaders in genome sequencing but capacity is different from expertise. Do we not need to scale up this work and perhaps do what they are doing in Denmark: sequence the relevant part of the genome of every positive case in order to detect new variants early? I am afraid that when I heard a little while ago that we have two cases of the South African variant I cynically suspected that we actually had many more but did not know about it. We can know this only if we increase our genome sequencing capacity.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
Before calling the next speaker, I remind noble Lords to remain on mute when not speaking. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to comment only briefly and positively to support the application of the click and collect exception to libraries, as set out in the amended Schedule 3A. I know that reading books gives pleasure to so many people, particularly during lockdown. For many families, a trip to the library is usually a highly-anticipated weekly outing and it is important for a child’s development to help them pick out books to read and to expand their thirst for knowledge.
I have heard of families running out of books to read during lockdown having relied for reading books on libraries and schools, which are shut, and how limiting this is for a child’s development. Oxfam reported that after the first lockdown customers were desperate for books; it saw a massive rise in second-hand book sales. At a time when children in particular are spending so long in front of a screen, a book can be a magical place to escape. I welcome this provision to allow people to keep borrowing physical books from their local libraries. I urge local councils to ensure that this provision, albeit late in the day, is seized on and that local libraries expand their offerings from online to click and collect, and publicise that widely to help families and, particularly, children.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I greatly welcome the speed at which the vaccine programme is rolling out and the boost to morale that it has provided. However, news over the weekend regarding the South African variant makes it clear that we need to be constantly vigilant and prepared to adapt our response. The vaccine is no silver bullet.
I want to focus on the impact of lockdown on the mental health and well-being of both young and old, particularly those living alone who may be socially isolated and for whom lockdown has been especially tough. We have, quite rightly, thought a lot about the impact on families, but, in my view, not thought enough about the impact on those living alone. For many, their mental health has suffered, not least due to anxiety that if they catch the virus they will have no one to look after them and check they are okay. Local community groups, charities and local authorities have played a valuable role, but they are unable to meet all demand.
Reports in the press over the weekend talked of post men and women taking on the role of checking up on the elderly, something that has been trialled in the Channel Islands. I would welcome such a trial on the mainland but was very concerned to hear that people might have to pay for this service. Surely the Government should step in to fund any such scheme, particularly for the less well-off and those living in deprived communities. What plans do the Government have in this area?
Last week, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, a question about recent scientific findings from Cambridge University showing that one dose of the Pfizer vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies to kill off the virus, particularly for the over-80s. The scientists involved suggested that rapid antibody tests could be used to identify older people who had responded less well to their initial jab and prioritise them for a speedier second jab. What plans do the Government have to carry out such tests on older people and residents of care homes, who are currently having to wait 12 weeks for their second jab?
Like other noble Lords, I continue to be concerned about reports of care home staff not taking up the offer of a vaccine. While I understand that no one can be compelled to be vaccinated and that education and reassurance are the key, equally care homes have a duty of care towards their residents, including their well-being. I recently heard a union representative say that one reason some care home staff were refusing the vaccine was that they were fearful of having a reaction which would mean they had to take time off work. Surely the Government should be able to underwrite the pay of any care worker in this situation to encourage take-up. Unless action is taken, residents and relatives who have had a vaccination and had time to develop their immunity may still find that they are unable to visit their loved ones, which feels so unfair—a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.
The pandemic has put a huge strain on many young people who were already struggling with their mental health due to bereavement, social isolation, a loss of routine because of school closures or a breakdown in support. What plans do the Government have to provide additional funding for the rest of this academic year and the school year beginning in September to allow schools to invest in mental health and well-being support, including school counsellors, but, crucially, without having to divert resources away from academic catch-up funding which the Government have already announced?
This lockdown must be the last. The public would never forgive this Government if, by coming out of lockdown too soon or without a comprehensive strategy to defeat the virus, we once again found ourselves in a full national lockdown.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests with dispensing doctors as in the register. I add my congratulations to the Minister, the Government and all those involved with such a successful vaccination programme in which we can all take great pride.
I draw my noble friend’s attention to one aspect of the South African variation which is causing deep concern across the medical community: the fact that the mutation, or the variation, that we are now identifying as coming from South Africa actually arose during South Africa’s summer, but nevertheless spread quite widely and rapidly throughout the community. Does my noble friend share my concern that this shows that this particular variation—and perhaps others to come—is not a seasonal variation but could actually spread throughout the warmer months? Have the Government done any specific research on this, and do they have any plans for how to tackle this particular dimension of this variation?
Looking ahead to the fact that there will be, in all probability, a need for a booster vaccination this autumn and in years to come, what plans have my noble friend and the department made to ensure an equally smooth rollout of booster vaccinations in addition to the annual flu vaccination for the elderly and, as was the case this winter, the over-50s? Will my noble friend give a commitment today that the department will rely specifically on rural GP practices to ensure a smooth rollout of both the flu vaccination, as in previous years, and a booster vaccination this autumn and in successive years? Will he ensure that GPs, being closest to their patients in very outlying areas, will be asked to deliver these as effectively as they have this year? Can he update us about the inclement weather and what delays the department is expecting to occur—albeit in the short term—to the vaccination timetable which has been rolled out?
Through my noble friend, can we pay a heartfelt thanks to all those involved on the front line, particularly in hospitals? As my noble friend mentioned, this has been a very long winter, and those staff in hospitals, ambulance services and paramedics have been stretched to the utmost. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for all the work they are doing and will continue to do for the foreseeable future. It is important that we pay tribute to the department and all on the front line at this time.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
We are a stoic lot in this country, but I cannot go swimming. I cannot watch rugby. My team has been promoted to the Premier League for the first time in 16 years, and none of us can go to watch and cheer them on. I cannot accept the kind offer from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to be his guest at Northamptonshire cricket club. I cannot have any weekends away. I cannot go to the theatre with my wife, which is what she loves doing. I cannot climb mountains. In fact, I cannot do anything I want to do. I have no interest in Ocado, Amazon or Netflix—none. And I am in a better position than most people. A teacher on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning said three out of 25 kids in her school were in class today—22 were not there. People are struggling to cope.
The Government are making a fundamental error in what they are saying at the moment. It is the first big error, in my view. Of course, you can criticise various things from the past—whether they were done by the Government, NHS England or Public Health England—and say that they could have been done better with hindsight that we did not have before. But this is an error of the future, and it is a political error. I have heard Ministers in the past day or two say that we are not having a vaccine passport because we are not forcing people to have the vaccine, and that we are not a country that will legislate to force people to have the vaccine. But that entirely misses the point of a vaccine passport.
I can tell the Minister that no one will be allowed in the miners’ welfare clubs if they have not had the vaccination, because we are damned if we have been through everything we have gone through to have some Herbert turn up thinking they are better than the rest of us, choosing not to be vaccinated and causing problems. We are not having it.
A week ago, my tiny grandchildren, who I have not seen for eight months, packed their rucksacks in Budapest in Hungary—we are talking about under-sixes—and announced they were going to get a plane to come to visit us, but they cannot. I am damned if, when I am eventually allowed to go to Hungary, I have to ask my GP for a note and waste their increasingly valuable time to say that I have had the vaccine I need to get into Hungary. That is what will be required. The last time I went there, I had to prove that I had had the tests. I had to wait 24 hours—there was a big red cross on the door until those tests came through. They will require a vaccine card. You cannot get into Tanzania or other parts of Africa without a yellow fever card. That is sensible.
The vaccine card is not about saying you have to do it; it is absolutely about, “Here’s the injections you’ve had.” Idiots like me need it on one piece of card so we can remember what we have had—particularly if we will need to have boosters—just like you do if you go to places such as Africa, to remember that you are up to date. That is what it is about.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said. He usually speaks a lot of sense. I am with him in spirit, although not necessarily in the detail, on care homes. We have 308 Peers over the age of 75. I would expect Peers to demonstrate to the staff here that they have had their vaccines. Therefore, the vaccine card would be peer-group pressure to get people vaccinated. It is essential. The Government need to get this right.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, these regulations once again are being hurried because of their expiry date, before the Prime Minister addresses Parliament and the country on 22 February with his route map out of lockdown. I ask the Minister: what evaluation have the Government done of the tiered system and the total lockdown? Do they think that the slow decline to around 15,000 cases per day and just under 9,000 deaths per week means that it is safe to consider easing lockdown next month?
We note that the regulations make minor changes to the tiers legislation, including on elite sports competitions, the exemption to leave home to collect goods ordered via click and collect and from libraries, cafes and canteens in post-16 education centres being open, and marriages and conversions under marriage being permitted. I do not believe that these are contentious. But, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, it is the bigger, more strategic approach to what needs to happen to unlock the “stay at home” orders that must be considered.
As my noble friend Lady Walmsley outlined, too many people still think that vaccines alone are the answer, but in the light of the spread and strength of the new variants, can the Minister say how the surge testing in the postcodes announced last week is proceeding? Are there effective results in further isolating both the South African and UK variants? Are there any indications yet about the spread of these variants that might affect the easing of lockdown?
For 11 months, we from these Benches have urged the Government to run an effective test, trace and isolate system. The need for that will be even more important as part of the route map out of lockdown, so I echo my noble friend Lady Barker’s concerns that the Secretary of State is reducing or curtailing some contracts with tracing firms, which have summarily sacked their staff. On Friday, Sitel—one of the contractors—said:
“At this point in time as a business we need to reduce the number of agents because we have done our jobs.”
But while there is some reduction in case numbers, the daily level, at around 15,000, is substantially higher than the 1,000 a day when the first lockdown was lifted last year. As the Minister said, the numbers in hospital and number of deaths remain too high.
Does this mean that the Minister no longer believes that test and trace is an essential tool? Perhaps it means that, at long last, local test and trace teams, which have always had a much better success rate at contacting people and persuading them to isolate, will be increased. Can the Minister please explain what is going on?
Last week, in a reply to my noble friend Lord Scriven, the Minister said that 86% of contacts were now being traced, appearing to show a substantial improvement. However, “More or Less”, the Radio 4 programme, reported last week that if a tracer tells one person in a house of five that they must all isolate, that apparently now counts as five separate successes. Is this correct, and does it explain the rapid increase in tracing rates for call-centre companies such as Sitel? What arrangements are in place to give confidence that everyone in any household is self-isolating after they have been asked? Can the Minister say whether this higher level of success is connected to the new way that tracing data is assembled?
From these Benches, we have repeatedly listed the key steps needed for successful test, trace and isolation, especially the latter. Those self-isolating need to be paid their proper wages, as they are performing a civic duty. The Government’s sick pay levels are pathetic, with a theoretical, one-off £500 grant that hardly anyone can access because, local government tells us, the rules are too hard and complicated. Those with dependants, such as unpaid carers looking after disabled or elderly family members who are not allowed to be in the same room for their self-isolation as those they care for, may also need particular support.
As my noble friend Lady Tyler commented, there should be state-funded places in pandemic hotels for those who cannot effectively self-isolate at home, especially when there are many other family members living in a confined space. There should also be a proper care package of support for those isolating, as in Germany and Taiwan, with regular calls to check on mental health, and to ensure that food and pharmacy supplies are getting through. Most importantly, there should be consistent, strong, clear messaging to the public every day. That would provide confidence for those who currently have to choose between feeding their families or self-isolating.
Finally, as we approach 31 March, when the emergency pandemic legislation expires, I echo the comments of my colleagues on the broader issues relating to these almost daily Covid SIs. The Government took to themselves extraordinary Henry VIII powers on the understanding that SIs were to be brought to Parliament in a timely fashion for debate. They are not. Far too often they are enacted weeks ahead of when the Commons debates them, and we have to wait a number of days before they then come to the Lords. The Government must start consultation on the renewal of these powers with both Parliament and the wider public as soon as possible. When will this happen?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I start by placing on record, from these Benches, thanks and great admiration for the way that the NHS, in its widest capacity, is coping under the combined demands of so many Covid patients and, indeed, other patients. A dear friend of my family is about to go into one of our trust hospitals to have a baby any time now. The support for her and her partner has been exemplary, as has the tremendous drive for the vaccine, with the whole public sector and volunteers stepping up to deliver millions of jabs—the hope for the future.
I have some sympathy with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about vaccine passports. My husband, who is also a great supporter of Leeds United Football Club, travelled the world—pre-Covid—on internet safety issues for children, so has had a vaccine passport. Of course he has, because he has to show many different countries that he has had the right vaccines. I cannot understand why the Government are finding this such a challenge.
It is a few weeks since we last discussed regulations that were already in effect. These make minor amendments and corrections to the all-tier regulations, and offer an opportunity to scrutinise the detail and effectiveness of the lockdown at this stage. It seems that the public have taken a few weeks to come to terms with an effective lockdown and I think the Government need to recognise the strain that this is putting on families and communities across the UK. This was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Clark.
February is always a difficult month for illness and depression because it is dark and cold and miserable. I get the impression that people are struggling with this, so the light at the end of this tunnel is even more important. That is not only the vaccine, but cracking the test and trace system so that everyone who needs to self-isolate can do so, and protecting our borders from mutations of Covid by effective quarantine. Neither of these have been working effectively and both need to do so as we move forward. I so agree with my noble friend Lord Winston about the effort that needs to go into research and co-operation across the world.
I have three detailed questions. These regulations clarify that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted. Can the Minister advise the Committee whether the need for this clarification was identified as part of an administrative exercise or stems from difficulties that have arisen from conducting a same-sex marriage during the third lockdown? I sincerely hope he can assure us that it is not the latter, given that, under the regulations, weddings and civil partnership ceremonies are permitted only if there are exceptional circumstances, such as where one of those getting married is seriously ill and does not expect to recover, or due to undergo debilitating treatment or life-changing surgery.
The regulations also clarify the exemption to leave home to collect goods from businesses operating click and collect, and that this also applies to libraries. Everybody will welcome that fact as access to libraries is very important indeed. However, the Minister will be aware of concerns that non-essential retail click-and-collect services are a significant source of transmission and are undermining the lockdown due to people who are gathering to collect their items not wearing masks and failing to observe social distancing while queuing. Indeed, John Lewis suspended its click-and-collect services after a change in tone from the Government over the virus. Yet despite continuing to urge people to leave home only for essential purposes and government adverts asking us whether we really need go out, neither the guidance nor the regulations permitting takeaways and retail shops to operate click and collect in England and Wales have changed. Does the Minister recognise that this could be an anomaly and risks confusing the “stay at home” message?
The guidance clarifies that elite sports competitions are permitted. The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that despite strict protocols established during the summer, many athletes and players have been involved in various coronavirus rule breaches while the rest of society is locked down. This has ranged from scenes of crowded dressing room celebrations to players attending gatherings and parties in private homes. While the Government have been keen to stress personal responsibility, what discussions have they had with the sports’ governing bodies? Can the Minister confirm whether any of the athletes involved has been fined under the regulations or whether the consequences have been purely at the discretion of the club or body they represent? Does the Minister agree that this is inherently unfair, especially when allowances and different rules already apply to athletes than to ordinary members of the public?
Finally, my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised care homes. Can the Minister confirm how many people in care homes have been vaccinated rather than just been offered a vaccination which, of course, is important? What do the Government propose to do about staff in care homes who refuse vaccinations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a massive thank you to all noble Lords for their questions and, in particular, for the extremely kind and generous comments about the NHS, healthcare workers and all those who have contributed to our pandemic response. It is very rewarding to hear those remarks and I am sure that everyone involved is extremely grateful.
I will try to answer as many questions as I can. If I cannot answer now, I will endeavour to write to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was right at the beginning of this debate to point out that pandemics last for a long time. We are profoundly conscious of that from the Black Death, Justinian’s plague, the Chinese plague and 1665. We are in it for the long haul and we hope that the remedies and protections we are putting in place today will help protect society for years to come. The noble Lord is entirely right that those worst affected disproportionately come from areas of deprivation, the elderly and the poor. That is very much on our mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked about children. The green book is very clear about what vaccines are appropriate for children. We have endorsed the provision of vaccines for CEV children and are doing tests and clinical trials to see if the vaccine can be extended to children because, while not likely to be hospitalised, they are a source of transmission. He rightly raised antivirals. He and I have had correspondence on that subject. He also alluded to a key challenge in the administration of antivirals, which is portability. Access is a profound challenge in primary care for the delivery of antivirals, and that is one of the issues we have to resolve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about first aid training. If first aiders are unable to access annual refresher training face to face during coronavirus, HSE supports the use of online refresher training to keep skills up to date. If the noble Baroness has more questions about this important issue, I will be glad to answer them by correspondence. I reassure her, though, that when we publish the vaccination figures they are not vaccinations offered; they are vaccinations delivered. Some 549,078 were delivered on Saturday.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the massive liberal dilemma of refuseniks. He alluded to the massive public health truism that my health affects not only me but the people I meet. I confirm that surgeons currently have validation for their vaccinations. A surgeon cannot perform surgery if he or she does not have, for instance, a hepatitis vaccination. That is, indeed, food for thought.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked about police data. We are looking forward to debating that issue on 1 March. On the very challenging question of social care, she asked quite reasonably about when we will be able to change the extremely distressing current regime for meeting those in social care. At the moment, meetings do happen outdoors and with protective measures, such as screens, but close contact is not allowed. This is not just to protect those involved but also to prevent the virus entering care homes, where it runs rife. We are seeking data on asymptomatic infection, transmission and the other relevant details from post-vaccination clinical trials. We will publish updated guidance after this period of national lockdown. More than anyone, I hope that this uncomfortable and challenging regime can be changed.
I completely hear the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on sport. She asked some very specific questions and I will be glad to write to her. In reply to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I pay tribute to those in elite sports for raising our spirits. The Six Nations this weekend was great entertainment, even if the result was rather disappointing for England supporters. We are engaged with elite sport on the border issues, as he knows. We completely hear his arguments and we are trying our hardest to meet the hopes of elite sport. However, I say to him that we are in the hands of the variant and these matters are not completely in our control.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that Parliament has a voice and that these debates on regulations do have an impact on the way that they are delivered. We are working within the framework of the laws we have and are doing our best to respect the influence of Parliament. He makes important points about the use of emergency legislation and I suggest that he addresses these comments to the Constitution Committee, which is doing a report on emergency legislation at the moment and would, I am sure, take his comments into account.
To my noble friend Lord Naseby, I am very glad, as I am sure we all are, to hear to hear of both his recovery and, in particular, that of Lady Naseby. I share his tribute to the NHS staff who have been delivering the vaccine. However, I well remember my noble friend’s comments. On six occasions last year, he made comments about cricket. I also remember, on 3 September, his profound scepticism about my comments that a second wave was on its way, so I gently and kindly remind him that we are not through this pandemic yet and I just cannot give him the reassurances on the reopening of cricket that I know he is looking for.
I completely share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and I agree wholeheartedly with his appeal for consistency. The bottom line is that the current guidance is that there should be no travel beyond the most local area—full stop. I completely understand his frustration about those travelling to his area.
My noble friend Lady Warsi’s comments are best directed to MHCLG, which provides guidance on wedding issues. The PM has made it clear that he will be issuing new guidance on 22 February, and the matters she asked about will be addressed in that. Although I hear the concerns of the wedding venue industry, I cannot make any promises on this today. The close proximity that weddings inevitably create does not suit pandemic management.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is entirely right on Israel. Vaccinations are not a panacea. Social distancing remains essential, transmissibility after the vaccine is not clear cut, and therefore our message to the British public is to be patient and maintain the face, space and distance rules. She also asked about new genome sequencing. I reassure her that we are increasing our capacity for turnaround times and the amount of analysis that we provide. She is entirely right that about 5% of the positive PCR tests done today are genomically sequenced, so if a couple of cases of the South African variant are found today, you can expect there to be more tomorrow. But she is not right that central testing is more expensive than local testing; it is in fact much, much cheaper. Nor are we standing down resources: 783,851 tests were done yesterday—a phenomenal number. We continue to invest in local outbreak management: £925 million has been put in the contained outbreak management fund, supporting local testing.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that the CMO’s very strong view is that 12 weeks is a safe interval for the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and that an antibody test is therefore not needed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who echoed his remarks, very much for his sincere comments on certification, which he made extremely persuasively. I reassure him that we are at a very early stage of the vaccine rollout at the moment. There are questions of fairness and justice when only a small proportion of the population have had access to the vaccine at all, but I take his points very much on board and will take them back to the department.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the Project Eagle detective work and fire-blanket scheme is proceeding extremely well. It is too early to be able to give her categoric evidence of success, but the implementation is promising so far. She mentioned messaging and payment, and we have addressed those matters before. We have published an assessment of the tiering system, and I would be glad to email her a link to it. On her comments on test and trace, it would be generous and warm-hearted to say at least one word of praise to the management and the tens of thousands of people who work in test and trace for their phenomenal achievement over the past few months, turning around a massive enterprise that is having a huge impact on the virus.
In conclusion, I reiterate the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the NHS. She is entirely right that this shows the NHS at its very best. The vaccination programme has been a phenomenal achievement, and I look forward very much to its successful deployment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I 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 other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instruments is one hour.
Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, these regulations set the national insurance contributions limits and thresholds, as well as the rates of a number of national insurance contributions, for the 2021-22 tax year and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the National Insurance Fund if required. National insurance contributions, or NICs, allow people to make contributions when they are in work in order to receive additional contributory benefits when they are not working; for example, when they are retired or if they become unemployed. NICs receipts go towards funding these contributory benefits, as well as the NHS. As announced in November, the Government are using the September consumer prices index—CPI—figure of 0.5% as the basis for setting all national insurance limits and thresholds, and the rates of class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions, for 2021-22.
I will first outline the specific changes to the class 1 primary threshold and class 4 lower profits limit. The primary threshold and lower profits limit indicate the points at which employees and the self-employed start paying class 1 and class 4 NICs, respectively. These thresholds will rise from £9,500 to £9,568 per year. The rates of class 1 and class 4 NICs are unchanged by these regulations. Increases to the primary threshold and lower profits limit do not impact on state pension eligibility. This is determined by the lower earnings limit for employees, which will remain at £6,240 in 2021-22, and payment of class 2 NICs for the self-employed, which I will come to shortly.
The upper earnings limit, the point at which the main rate of employee NICs drops to 2%, is aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax. The upper earnings limit will increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. Similarly, the upper profits limit is the point at which the main rate of class 4 NICs drops to 2%. This will also increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. As well as class 4 NICs, the self-employed also pay class 2 NICs. The rate of class 2 NICs will remain at the weekly rate of £3.05, due to the rounding rules which require the calculation of the CPI increase to be rounded to the nearest 5p. The small profits threshold is the point above which the self-employed must pay class 2 NICs. This will increase from £6,475 to £6,515 per year. Class 3 NICs allow people to voluntarily top up their national insurance record. The rate for class 3 will increase in line with inflation, from £15.30 a week to £15.40.
The secondary threshold determines the point at which employers start paying employer NICs on an employee’s salary. This threshold will increase from £8,788 to £8,840 per year. The threshold at which employers of people under 21, and of apprentices under 25, start to pay employer NICs on these employees’ salaries will increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. The rate of employer NICs is unchanged by these regulations.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 17% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2021-22. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. The Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside the re-rating regulations forecast that a Treasury grant will not be required in 2021-22, but in view of the economic challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government consider it prudent to make the maximum provision at this stage.
These regulations will also ensure that tax credits, child benefit and the guardian’s allowance increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 0.5% in the year to September 2020. As noted in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, the increases provided for in these regulations result from the statutory annual review of benefits and credits rates and, as such, are separate from the temporary measure announced by the Chancellor in March 2020 and enacted in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The powers in the Act increased the basic element of working tax credit by an extra £1,045 for the tax year 2020-21 and ensured that the temporary increase was not to be considered for the purpose of the annual review.
In summary, this proposed legislation makes changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions and provision for a Treasury grant. It also increases the rates of tax credits and guardian’s allowance in line with prices. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who so often in the time she has been on the Front Bench has impressed with her clarity and detail. In fact, I did not really need to have read the Explanatory Notes because she has covered the situation extremely well. However, I thought I would join this Grand Committee discussion on these statutory instruments both to support my noble friend on the Front Bench and to make one or two points which I think should be made in the light of the changes.
The first relates to the national insurance uprating. I have no objection to these regulations except in thinking that there needs to be much wider debate about the regressive nature of the national insurance system. There needs to be a challenge—it is as much a challenge for my own party as it is for the present Government—to the nonsense that the more you earn, the less you pay in national insurance, given the new cut-off of £50,270 at the upper rate and the 2% contribution. There is also the silly situation where those who are over statutory retirement age and continue to earn do not pay national insurance. At a time when we need every penny we can get, this seems an area for future exploration. We just need to be honest with people who are doing very well while over the age of retirement. There are now very many of them—well over 1 million—who could make a small contribution. Associated with that is the reconsideration of the 2% contribution. I think this would be seen to be fair and would avoid having to top up the national insurance scheme by £200 million. I just lay that on the table.
I also wanted to contribute in relation to working tax credits and their associated uplift. As the Minister has already indicated, under Schedule 77 to the Act there was a temporary uplift of £1,045, or £20 a week, for working tax credits and associated credits, but also, of course, for universal credit. While there has been great public attention on universal credit, people have not necessarily understood that—if there is no change of heart by the Government—the £1,045-a-year uplift will be withdrawn.
I cannot read the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s mind for 3 March, but I can read the minds of those around me and those I used to represent. A reduction of £20 a week for people in the situation we are describing —including those we are dealing with tonight—is a substantial sum of money, even if it is not for those making the decisions.
I think the Minister has good contacts; she certainly ought to have, given how competent she has displayed herself to be over recent months. I appeal to her to get the message across to Treasury colleagues that it would be seen as grossly unfair at this time if people were to have withdrawn from them what is for them a very large sum of money, but is in greater government spending—in terms of the level of borrowing we have at the moment—a very small contribution to ensuring that people can survive. While I am in no way against the changes that have been described, they overlay a much more difficult and controversial situation that I felt it necessary to put on record this evening.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will address the NIC contribution matters in these regulations. I would have addressed the working tax credit point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but rather than repeating the point I will simply say “and I” and add amplification to it.
The standard uprating by CPI has been applied and, as this was only 0.5% last September, it has made only a minor difference on the current overall architecture of the NIC regime. There are bigger and wider issues concerning the NIC regime, but I will address and raise some issues relating to Covid, Brexit and international agreements with the Minister. Of course, these regulations concern social security matters.
The pandemic has produced many headaches for the administration of small companies in particular. Apart from their struggles to simply survive, the administrative burden of reporting and making payments to HMRC for their employee liabilities has continued. For many this has always been a challenge in terms of time and administration, but for small companies the administrative complication of furloughing employees is now added to that. Can the Minister update the Committee on how these extra administrative matters relating to submissions to HMRC have been managed? Has any extra help been provided to these small companies where the structure of their staffing has been so dramatically and sometimes irregularly affected?
I wish to explore a wider issue of the consequences of Brexit. Many UK citizens living and working in the European Union have seen their status changed. However, Article 30 of the EU withdrawal agreement gives social security rights where UK citizens were resident in the EU on 31 December 2020. The regulations on these rights are complicated and complex, but essentially, where an individual falls within the scope of the regulations established as a result of the EU withdrawal agreement, is in receipt of a UK state pension and resides in an EU member state, their state pension will be uprated in line with those in the United Kingdom. It is not clear to me, so perhaps the Minister could confirm either in writing or at the end of the debate, whether continuing NIC payments will also contribute to an uprated pension once it becomes payable when an individual UK citizen chose to live in an EU member state after 31 December 2020.
Regardless of this situation, I think the Minister would agree that a UK citizen living in an EU member state will, under most conditions, see their UK state pension uprated. This is an important principle: in most circumstances, as a result of a negotiated reciprocal agreement, the UK state pension will be uprated as if that person living in an EU member state was receiving their pension in the UK. The NIC eligibility for a state pension, using the individual’s contribution record and the criteria in these regulations, will mean a regular uprated pension, regardless of whether they are in the EU or the UK. The decision to follow this very sensible path was a result of a reciprocal agreement negotiated and agreed by the UK with the EU.
I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of the problem for overseas British pensioners, many of whom have not seen their state pension values uprated since their arrival in another country and all of whom fulfilled the NIC contribution record necessary for accruing a UK state pension. One such example is Anne Puckridge, whom I have met. Anne served the UK in all three Armed Forces, but despite a full contributions record she now lives on a pension of less than half of what it would be if it had been uprated as if she were living in the UK. Anne moved to Canada to be near her daughter.
The Government of Canada have now written formally to the UK Government with a request for a reciprocal social security agreement that will cover the uprating of pensions. The UK’s policy is dishonourable and long standing. With the chance to negotiate a reciprocal deal, will the UK now take up the Canadian Government’s offer? There are too many like Anne Puckridge in Canada, and the UK has let them down. This offer from the Canadian Government is a chance to put things right. I hope that the Minister will take this matter back to the Government to press for a reciprocal arrangement, just as they have done with the EU. Every time the matter has been raised in this House it has been referred back to the Treasury, which says that it is too expensive. Now there is a chance, with a Government in another country with whom we have a good and friendly relationship, to start to put this matter right for people such as Anne Puckridge. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this issue will be considered.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is little to comment on concerning the routine uprating of amounts following the CPI indexation, but that does not mean that there is nothing to say more generally about national insurance or tax credits. I identify with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and endorsed by my noble friend Lord German about the £20 top-up for working tax credit and universal credit, which I hope the Government will see the need for.
The Explanatory Memorandum on the SI relating to NI contributions brings two things to light. The first is that the higher-rate tax threshold and upper band of NI have previously been aligned and stay in step, but the bad news about that, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, is that one goes up and the other goes down, so the marginal increase is not what people think it is. The second point is that there is a calculator that can be used by small businesses to help with the complexity of determining what national insurance should be paid. That complexity is evident from looking at the list of different parts to upgrade. Many have wrestled with how to modernise national insurance, and I am sure that it is one of those things where “I wouldn’t start from here” applies—I will return to that.
From the employers’ side, NI has often been called a tax on employment, and that has led to changes being made to stimulate employment among those aged under 21 and for some apprentices aged under 25. Both of those had good reasons. Given the effect that Covid is having on younger workers, the obvious question is whether anything more can be done on both a long-term and short-term basis, although I accept that is more of a Budget question.
The issue of self-employed national insurance contributions was also brought into the spotlight by the Chancellor when he indicated that providing Covid help to the self-employed should carry with it some presumption that, in due course, more social security contributions should be paid by that sector. A similar connection between benefits and NI payments was also picked up in the Finance Bill Sub-Committee report, where it was suggested—I paraphrase, but as I was a member of the committee, I well remember the discussions—that changes in national insurance payments need to be accompanied by commensurate changes in, or access to, benefits. Concerns were highlighted around IR35 and the fact that contractors would be asked to pay for benefits that they did not get, such as sick leave and paid holidays—and, of course, many of them did not get much out of the various Covid provisions.
That leads me on to the fact that work is much more complicated and variable than it used to be. That point was made by the Office of Tax Simplification in November 2016 in its follow-up report on NI simplification, which states that
“we live in a changing business environment, with diverse ways of working, and there are a growing number of people who combine self-employment, multi jobs and freelancing”,
and that
“the current system was built for yesterday … let alone for tomorrow.”
Nearly five years on, that is even more true. Once we emerge from Covid, the change to work patterns that it is already bringing will, I suspect, accelerate further.
The Office of Tax Simplification also said that,
“from a policy perspective any change will be challenging for government.”
This has not changed. I am tempted to look a little on the bright side and suggest that adjusting to post-Covid work patterns and needs may create an opportunity to bring about more simplification. I ask the Minister whether that is under consideration.
Various measures have been proposed, and one that seems reasonable to explore first is to make employees’ national insurance contributions work in the same way that PAYE does for income tax, so that it is related to annual income. That was favoured by the OTS, and although it reckoned it would impact 40% of the working population, gainers would generally be part-time employees, women and those aged under 35, and there would be loss mitigation from the social security system where there were losses in lower income households. There would also be positive benefits in better qualification for state pension entitlements. Overall, it would mainly eradicate unfairness that has been going on for a long time. It is also clear that such a change would benefit seasonal workers, such as those in the tourist industry, and young people—again, helping many of those most hit by Covid. As a next steps simplification, does that have any attraction for the Government? It would also seem to fit better with Making Tax Digital.
On the draft tax credits regulations, again, I have no dispute with the computation of upratings, but there are underlying issues relating to child poverty that I cannot let pass by. As has already been mentioned, the temporary working tax credit uplift, which is due to expire in April, has not been extended. In a recent debate in the Commons, the Government claimed that they could not see what the landscape would look like in April. I hope that means that it will be extended in due course, because to me it is clear that matters are already worse in terms of job losses. As the “weaning off” furlough happens, it will be worsened further.
My final point is, I regret to say, a perpetual one: as with other benefits, the Government have restricted tax claims to two children regarding any children born after April 2017. As we know, this is part of the Government’s deliberate impoverishment strategy for those on benefits with more than two children. I repeat: this is the Government’s deliberate and despicable policy for child hunger. That speaks for itself, and I have no more to say.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these uprating measures and to the small band of other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Minister will be familiar with my standard line about the Opposition not voting down statutory instruments in this House. With our recess only a few short days away, I certainly have no appetite for creating a constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, even if I were feeling mischievous, we would not oppose these measures. As we all know, there is no mechanism for amending SIs, and without passing the instruments before us there would be no uprating of the various charges and entitlements.
As has been outlined, the first instrument gives effect to the annual re-rating of various national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds. As the acronym-heavy Explanatory Memorandum outlines, most of these increases are tied to the annual rate of CPI inflation, which was 0.5% in the year to September 2020. The instrument relating to tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance enacts the increases previously announced in a Written Ministerial Statement of November 2020. Again, those increases are generally linked to the CPI figure of half a percentage point. Paragraph 6.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes the position with regard to the Coronavirus Act 2020. This increased the basic rate of working tax credit in the 2020-21 financial year, from £1,995 to £3,040. This has been disregarded for the purposes of calculating the usual uplift.
That Act was passed some time ago. We had expected public health restrictions to have fallen away by now and the economy to be growing. Given that we find ourselves in less than ideal circumstances today, is the Treasury considering a review of its approach to the tax credit uplift, perhaps as part of the upcoming Budget? I also say to the Minister that while cases and deaths now appear to be falling, which we clearly welcome, we remain some way off the conditions required for the economy to fully reopen and for the withdrawal of wider Treasury support for workers, claimants of universal credit, and so on. I hope we will hear soon from the Chancellor, who has been uncharacteristically quiet in recent weeks, rather than people being left facing a financial cliff edge, as has been the case previously.
I will finish with a broader question, relating to the data in the report from the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs to the Treasury on the number of tax credit awards and offences. Is the Minister able to opine on the reasons for significant decreases in the number of penalties and prosecutions in 2019-20, when compared to the previous year? Are there cases outstanding which are therefore not included in these figures? Is it a result of better guidance for claimants? Alternatively, is there a link with the Covid-19 uplift?
We very much welcome the decreases. While, sadly, there are cases of fraud in the benefits system, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that these new figures demonstrate that the numbers are very small as a percentage of overall claims. We are all familiar with past comments from some members of the Government, which have exaggerated the situation and created stigma around claiming additional help. With the events of the past year having highlighted the importance of our social security safety net, I hope we can start to discuss these matters in a more productive manner.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short but interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, touched on the wider debate about the nature of national insurance contributions, particularly the fact that people over state pension age do not continue to pay national insurance contributions if they are still in work. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, touched on the complexity of the national insurance system overall and asked about any plans for simplification. The noble Lord, Lord German, made similar points about the burden that the complexity can place on businesses. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his constructive tone and, indeed, all noble Lords for their constructive tone in posing some of these questions.
I am familiar with many of these issues on national insurance. It is a complex area and many of these questions go beyond the scope of our debate today. I also express a small amount of caution because I have scars on my back from tentative proposals for reform of national insurance under a previous Government. I am well aware that proposals for changes in these areas may need to be looked at carefully and cautiously.
I will have to disappoint noble Lords in my response to today’s debate and remind the Committee that national insurance contributions are different from income tax and other contributions: they are social security contributions. The rationale for not paying contributions after state pension age is that there is no opportunity for an individual to increase their entitlement to the state pension. However, employer national insurance contributions are paid for those workers.
I think that all noble Lords touched on the question of extending the £20-a-week uplift to the basic element of working tax credit and the universal credit standard allowance. As was acknowledged, that is not a subject for this debate. However, as they have done throughout this crisis, the Government will continue to consider how best to support people as the economic and health situation develops. The recent development of the Covid-19 vaccine demonstrates how quickly the situation is evolving. It is important that we make the right decision at the right time and remain flexible.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that the costs of the uplift were small. As an illustration, I remind noble Lords that extending the £20 increase by a further 12 months would cost over £6 billion. That is equivalent to adding 1p to the basic rate of income tax, plus a 3p increase in fuel duty. The £20-a-week increase forms just one part of a wide-ranging package of support that the Government have provided to protect people’s jobs and incomes, including income support schemes, mortgage holidays, support for renters, the £500 million local authority hardship fund and the £500 payments for people on low incomes required to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace. There is also a temporary suspension of the universal credit minimum income floor for self-employed claimants and an increase to the local housing allowance rates for housing benefit and universal credit, which is being retained at the same cash value into 2021-22. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that I faithfully report back to Her Majesty’s Treasury the debates that we have in this House and noble Lords’ views on these matters. I will continue to do that, including on this topic.
The noble Lord, Lord German, touched on the administrative burden that small businesses are facing, particularly during the pandemic. The Government have provided an unprecedented package of support to help businesses through the pandemic. The noble Lord asked about the furlough scheme: that is a huge support in paying employees’ wages and encouraging employee retention. I would happily write to him on the administration of that scheme, but I understand that it has been made as straightforward as possible for businesses to administer. In addition, the Government increased the employment allowance in national insurance to £4,000 from April 2020. This includes over 650,000 businesses that have been taken out of paying national insurance contributions altogether since the introduction of the allowance in 2014.
The noble Lord, Lord German, also asked about the uprating of the state pension to those who live within the EU now that we have left the end of the transition period, and touched more closely on the payments to those in receipt of the state pension who live outside the EU. I say to the noble Lord that the policy on those receiving their state pension who live outside the EU is a long-standing policy of successive Governments. It has been in place for around 70 years and there are no plans to change it. We continue to uprate the state pension where there is a legal requirement to do so, for example in those countries with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement. The Government understand that people move abroad for many reasons, and the decision remains a personal choice. For a number of years, advice has been provided to the public that the UK state pension is not uprated overseas, except where there is a legal requirement to do so. As I said to noble Lords on the issue of tax credits, I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I will happily take this issue and the offer he raised from the Canadian Government back to Her Majesty’s Treasury.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, posed a question on some of the changing statistics on the number of inquiries conducted under Section 19 and the number of penalties and prosecutions on tax credits changing. The number of penalties and prosecutions in the 2019-20 tax year decreased due to multiple factors that affect volumes of penalties and prosecutions, and the cumulative effects of those different factors are significant. For example, universal credit has led to a reduced customer base, which would already naturally lead to a reduction in penalties.
As around 80% of the problems with tax credit claims stem from customer error, we have also embedded a further upstream approach to compliance whereby we look to educate customers to avoid errors and to identify those most likely to make an error or where we would have expected a change to be reported. This is paying dividends through reductions in error and fraud, which reduces the propensity for penalties to arise. The number of inquiries conducted under Section 19 increased from 13,752 in 2018-19 to over 15,000 in 2019-20. Section 19 allows HMRC to carry out inquiries into awards after the end of the tax year, once they have been finalised. The increase in the number of Section 19 inquiries is because our digital services, particularly around income, highlight where the customer has likely made a mistake when finalising their awards, giving us the basis to inquire about the information provided at finalisation. This process will help us to support claimants in getting their tax credit award on the right footing going forward, reducing the risk of claimants accruing further debt—which would occur if the issue was not corrected—receiving penalties or potentially being prosecuted.
I hope I have answered most points made by noble Lords in response to this debate. If there are any specific questions I have not managed to address, I will happily write to noble Lords. I therefore beg to move.
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee today. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. I ask those asking supplementary questions to keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Shawcross Report: Compensation for Victims
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hay of Ballyore
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish the report by William Shawcross on compensation for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism; and what steps they are taking in response to the findings of that report.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing our deepest sympathies to the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, and indeed to all the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. This is an important issue and we recognise that Parliament takes a close interest in it. Ministers across government are carefully considering the internal scoping report that Mr Shawcross has produced in order to do justice to the important and sensitive issues that it covers, giving due respect to the victims.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP) [V]
My Lords, the finding of the Shawcross report was submitted to the Government last May, and I have to say that it is deeply regrettable that the report has not been released. Sadly, as in so many other cases, many victims of republican terrorism continue to feel abandoned by the process, and some rightly ask why they must continue to wait for justice. The Minister will be aware that there has been a long campaign for the frozen assets of Colonel Gaddafi to be used to compensate the victims of Colonel-Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, in line with that previously paid out to French, German and American victims of Colonel-Gaddafi-sponsored terrorist attacks. Does the Minister agree that every effort must be made by the Government to support the victims in their long struggle for justice? The delay in the release of the report has left them feeling abandoned, hurt and betrayed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. On the delay, the challenges of the pandemic have meant that we wanted to give the report appropriate discussion across Westminster. I assure the noble Lord that we put victims at the heart of our approach. He mentioned victims from other countries, and he will of course note that where there are direct victims—in the case of the United Kingdom, those around Lockerbie—appropriate compensation has been paid out.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
Oh, come on, my Lords: the Government have sat on this report for almost a year. The first excuse, which the Minister has repeated, was Covid. Then, in response to an FOI request, the excuse was that it would affect unspecified British interests abroad; next, that it would somehow prejudice relations with the Northern Ireland Executive; and, lastly, that it contains private and confidential information, which presumably could be redacted. So what is the real reason? US victims of Gaddafi-backed terrorism have been compensated. There are £12 billion-worth of frozen Libyan assets in the UK. Last year, the Government promised that they were committed to supporting the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, so why have they been dragging their feet?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe I have already answered the noble Lord in part. I do not agree with him that we have been dragging our feet. As I said, the report is wide-ranging, and we are giving it careful consideration. On the asset freeze that he specifically mentioned, he will know that UK regulations prohibit any dealings with assets owned, held or controlled by designated persons, as specified in law. I note what the noble Lord has said, but I assure him that we are looking at this across government.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
As others have said, it is now over nine months since William Shawcross submitted his report to the Government and over a year since new wider commitments to legacy issues were set out in New Decade, New Approach, yet victims are still waiting for action. Even given the complications caused by Covid, does the Minister not accept that this is an unacceptably long wait for the victims, who have already waited for so long?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, as I have said, yes, I accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question about the delays caused by Covid, but equally the report needs a measured response. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that we are looking at it very carefully.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next question, which I myself was due to ask, in strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, is withdrawn because of unexpected Woolsack duties. I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, very often, when Governments—I put it in the plural because it is not just this Government—sit on reports, that has a disproportionate effect on the febrile imagination of people looking on, because they assume that something is being hidden? Even more important in this case are the victims. We have heard of their pain and suffering, and it is quite possible that some of those victims will die before they get compensation. Is that an aspect of the speed of this that worries the Minister, and how is he going to address it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as ever, I note the concerns that noble Lords are expressing on this important and sensitive matter. Again, I assure the noble Lord that we are looking at this with the victims fully in mind and at the heart and centre of our approach.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in 2019 it was reported that the UK Government had collected £17 million in tax on the £12 billion of frozen Libyan assets. All the while, victims have received no compensation. How can that be right?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in accordance with international law, when assets are frozen they continue to belong to the sanctioned individual or entity—in this case, the Libyan state. Any revenue raised specifically from frozen assets would have gone into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. I assure the noble Lord that the victims of such actions, and terrorism, are very much at the front of the Government’s mind and we will seek to continue to support victims across the piece when it comes to issues of terrorism.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I served on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for Great Britain until 1992. There was then a concurrent scheme for Northern Ireland, which was subject to a strict one-year limitation period for claiming, without any discretion to extend, save for children. Would it not be desirable now—particularly if the Government are in receipt of income from frozen Libyan assets in the way of tax—to open up a window of, say, six months, for claiming on an ex gratia basis for those who were too terrified or intimidated to claim as victims of terrorist acts at the time?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said but, as he will appreciate, I cannot respond to the specific terms of his proposals. He will be aware that in January 2020, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government did legislate to establish a victims’ payment scheme. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for delivering the scheme, which will be open for applications from March 2021.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister really understand how the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism feel genuinely abandoned by this Government? Other countries’ Governments all negotiated substantial payments for their victims—victims of the Docklands bombing of 25 years ago tomorrow, of the Harrods bombing and of the Enniskillen bombing, all got compensation. Why will the Government not even commit definitely to publish the Shawcross report? Have they got something to hide, or are they perhaps trying to protect the republican movement and aspects of people in the IRA? Will the noble Lord the Minister now commit that Her Majesty’s Government will veto any attempt by the United Nations Security Council to release the millions of pounds of assets held in London banks unless there is a deal with the United Kingdom on compensation for the victims?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly raises the issue of the US, French and German Governments’ claims for atrocities. She will also note that these were direct atrocities—including, from a UK perspective, the killing of WPC Fletcher, as well as the victims of Lockerbie—and they have been compensated. By contrast, Libya was defined as a third party in IRA terrorism. I understand what the noble Baroness says, including about the importance of a UN review of the regime within the context of UN Security Council resolutions, but I assure her, as I have other noble Lords, that we are continuing to look at victims. An important and sensitive report has been produced internally and we are looking at all matters before responding appropriately. I cannot give the noble Baroness more detail than that at this time.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
I understand why the victims finally deserve an answer, but can I ask the Minister to encourage the publication of William Shawcross’s conclusions and recommendations, rather than publishing the whole—obviously sensitive—report?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have said before, I note what my noble friend said; it is a practical suggestion and I will certainly take that back.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
HS2: Phase 2B
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on (1) the East Midlands, and (2) Yorkshire, of not delivering the eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2B in full.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east realise the benefits of high-speed services. The integrated rail plan will set out the best way of delivering the eastern leg of HS2 phase 2b and will consider how to sequence its delivery to ensure that benefits are realised sooner and that it is integrated with other major schemes such as Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine Rail.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. Only the full HS2 eastern leg and Midlands Engine Rail—including the developments from regeneration around the HS2 East Midlands hub at Toton—would deliver the connectivity and ambition needed to revive the Midlands economy post Covid. Does the Minister agree that the HS2 East Midlands hub should remain at Toton? The scale of development at Toton, creating 84,000 jobs and adding £4.8 billion to the value of the regional economy, will be key to levelling up the Midlands region after years of underinvestment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we have been very impressed by the scale of the regeneration plans for the proposed HS2 station at Toton. In the IRP it is very important that we consider regeneration and economic impacts on local areas, as well as how to create the right kind of rail network.
Lord McLoughlin (Con) [V]
The Government were right, following the review by Doug Oakervee, to continue with HS2, which is now happening and taking place to Birmingham and Manchester. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that the eastern leg of the project, which takes in the cities of Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, also gets the benefits from what is a major engineering project for this country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend might have seen a letter published today by Connecting Britain, which is made up of 120 leaders from the places that he mentions and beyond. It says:
“The Integrated Rail Plan is your chance to move on from Covid to what the future of the UK should look like. Levelling up parts of the country that have seen traditional and considerable underinvestment, and that would benefit from a plan for growth.”
That is exactly what we intend to do.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK has underinvested in rail and road infrastructure under all Governments for over 50 years. As a consequence, we have the worst transport infrastructure of any major country. Does the Minister agree that the payback to the economy of major infrastructure investment—think of the M1, for instance—comes not only over decades but, more likely, over the best part of a century?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this Government completely agree with the noble Lord, and that is why transport infrastructure and building back better is our priority for Britain over the coming years.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join the general trend of support and welcome for the Government’s continued commitment to the entire HS2 project. Could the Minister take the opportunity to reinforce the point that this is not a zero-sum game, with one part of the country gaining at the expense of another? We all gain from the introduction of the project, not least those of us who live in London; we gain because the north gains. Would the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is completely right—this project is about connectivity and capacity, and the connectivity strand is about connectivity throughout the country. HS2 provides a wonderful opportunity to create a high-speed rail spine down the centre of the country which will benefit both the cities it connects and the local communities beyond them.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Government made manifesto promises on levelling up the north-east and produced a prospectus called HS2: Getting the Best out of Yorkshire. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s words today; can she tell us the timescale for legislation to allow the HS2 eastern leg to go forward? Can she unequivocally confirm that that will be happening?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness has been in this House long enough to know that I cannot possibly confirm that, because of course to have legislation, particularly a very complicated hybrid Bill, there are a number of steps that we have go through beforehand. One of those steps will be the publication of the integrated rail plan. It will be published in early 2021—so, very shortly—and in it we will set out exactly what we will do for the eastern leg and how we will integrate it with plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine Rail.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The National Infrastructure Commission’s report is clearly a further blow to the east Midlands and Yorkshire economies, the Government having already pulled back on the full electrification of the east Midlands main line. Reference has already been made to the 120 business leaders from across the north and the Midlands who wrote to the Prime Minister calling for the full delivery of the eastern leg of HS2. Is the Minister giving us a commitment that the Prime Minister will be restating his commitment to the eastern leg of HS2 in the integrated rail plan, within the existing timescale for the completion of that eastern leg?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure precisely what commitment the noble Lord would like me to give, but the Prime Minister recently spoke about
“the power of great infrastructure projects to deliver jobs, which is why we are getting on with both the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/21; col. 839.]
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, on 31 January 2017, I tabled an amendment to the HS2 Bill which would have stopped this ridiculous vanity project in its tracks. I lost, but 26 Members of your Lordships’ House who really understood HS2 supported me. A petition demanding a Commons debate on its continuation has so far received approximately 150,000 signatures and will have to be granted. Rather than tinkering with the existing scheme, I urge the Minister to scrap it, and to urgently and carefully look at all the available proposals to spend money on worthwhile railway schemes across every region in the country. This would be of great benefit to passengers and commuters nationwide, do less harm to the environment and people’s lives, utilise all the expertise acquired by HS2, and, in the light of the effect of the Covid pandemic, which has changed working practices forever, allow us to extricate ourselves from a doomed project which cannot possibly succeed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government will not be scrapping HS2.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, why did the Government press ahead with London to Birmingham and allow costs to rise so that the much more useful eastern leg looks as though it will now become unaffordable?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
A couple of things are conflated in that question. Regarding the pressing ahead, the London to Birmingham section was far more developed than any other section, and therefore it could be taken forward more quickly. Regarding allowing costs to rise, the Government have a laser-like focus on the cost of HS2. I am sure that my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Stephenson, will continue to ensure that they are as low as possible.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the recent delays, is it not now the case that the north-east—Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear—will not now benefit from HS2 until after 2040? If the Government want to level up, are there not other schemes in the north-east far worthier of immediate support, such as the full reopening of the Leamside line, which MPs, local authorities of all parties and business leaders are very keen to support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, it is not an either/or when it comes to railways in the north or anywhere else. That is why we have the Restoring Your Railway Fund, which is looking at reopening certain lines. I assure the House that the integrated rail plan is about not only ensuring that all these projects are integrated but delivering them as quickly as we can.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
Do the Government still agree with the economic justification for HS2, which shows that in Sheffield, Leeds, Chesterfield, Nottingham and the east Midlands, HS2 will create over 136,000 new jobs, including many highly skilled positions, and that the full multibillion pound increase in GVA will come to fruition only if the eastern leg goes ahead all the way to Leeds?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We are in frequent discussions with stakeholders across the north and the Midlands to fully understand the economic benefits of HS2 to their areas. It is absolutely clear to us that the benefits are very significant. We will set out the exact way forward in the integrated rail plan.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time for this Question has now elapsed.
Tigray
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the impact of the conflict in Tigray upon the stability of the Horn of Africa region, and (2) the implications of that conflict for their Overseas Development Assistance policy.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are concerned about the impact of the conflict in Tigray on the humanitarian situation and wider regional stability. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary urged all parties to bring an end to fighting, prioritise the protection of civilians, allow unfettered humanitarian access and preserve regional stability when he met Prime Minister Abiy on 22 January. As a result of the conflict, the UK is considering its safe delivery model in Ethiopia. Our priority remains to support Ethiopians in need, which we will do by supporting the most vulnerable in the country.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome last week’s agreement allowing the UN access to Tigray, whereas some refugees are reduced to eating tree bark as a result of the Ethiopian Government blocking humanitarian access. What specific action will the UK take during its presidency of the UN Security Council to resolve the crisis in a country which is the fourth-highest recipient in the world of UK aid?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very pertinent point. The situation on humanitarian access remains dire in country, as was emphasised by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit. Regarding the UN Security Council point, on 3 February, UN Security Council members under the UK presidency discussed the humanitarian situation. At that time, we also heard from Sir Mark Lowcock, who heads up humanitarian affairs at the UN. The situation remains very challenging, but we will continue to implore all sides to allow unfettered humanitarian access.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, although in receipt of budgetary support, the federal Government can find resources to carry on this war, and allegedly are using starvation as a weapon of war. In 2019, we gave Ethiopia £300 million in bilateral aid, which was then the second-highest amount, after Pakistan. Does this give us any leverage at all in this conflict, and will we and the international community be expected to pick up the vast bill for the reconstruction of Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise bilateral support. Ethiopia remains one of the largest recipients of UK support, although, as I said in my original Answer, we are reviewing, particularly with an eye on Tigray, whether that support is getting through. The noble Lord also raises a valid point about the leverage that this provides. I assure him that we are talking directly to the Ethiopian Government about the support that we give to the most vulnerable, to ensure that it reaches those most in need.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in January 2021, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees learned of additional military incursions consistent with open-source satellite imagery showing fires and other signs of destruction at two Eritrean refugee camps in Tigray. Have Her Majesty’s Government made any representations on an independent investigation into human rights violations in those camps?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise those camps. We have raised concerns directly. Our ambassador on the ground has also raised concerns with the Eritrean authorities. I assure the noble Baroness that the issues of violence in this conflict, particularly gender-based violence and sexual violence, are at the forefront of our approach and challenges, and once the situation settles, we must ensure that perpetrators are held fully to account.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UN interagency response plan for this crisis is less than 60% funded, and the UK has an important role to play here, but nearly three months on from the announcement that the Government will cut £4 billion from our overseas development budget, we have yet to see any details of how these cuts will be made. Will they come from UN agencies, which are doing such vital work in Tigray, or from bilateral programmes such as our important nutrition work in Ethiopia? Can my noble friend the Minister tell us when any information on these cuts will be made available to Parliament?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are focused very much on ensuring that the most vulnerable are supported in this conflict, particularly those in Tigray, and our funding—whether through multilateral or bilateral support—is focused on that. On the specifics of future funding, we are currently reviewing our ODA budget for this year, and I will, of course, share that with my noble friend as soon as that decision is made.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the BBC reports that an immense tragedy is unfolding in Tigray. Has anyone from the British embassy, other members of the diplomatic community or one of the four African Union special envoys been able to visit Tigray to make an independent assessment of the situation? Do the UK Government have firm evidence of the involvement of Eritrean forces in Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s final point, we need to ensure that all the facts are fully available before any assessment is made, but undoubtedly the Eritrean forces have been present. We continue to call for full cessation and the allowing of humanitarian access. That is why we have continued to emphasise that some NGOs are operational, specifically in Tigray. When the Foreign Secretary visited Ethiopia, he called for unfettered access into the region. I will continue to update the noble Baroness as further details unfold.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, in order to ensure that our aid to the Horn of Africa reaches the right people, is it still Government policy to give aid to charities that are reliable and transparent, such as the Tropical Health and Education Trust, CAFOD and others in the same league that are free from somewhat dubious political activities?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that that very much remains our focus and approach.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, apart from the humanitarian crisis in Tigray, what actions are being taken to protect the key strategic trade routes to the Horn of Africa? In the knowledge that the region is highly vulnerable to climate change and water security issues, and with Ethiopia controlling the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, what measures are being taken to address tensions relating to trans-boundary water relations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises extremely important points, particularly in respect of strategic locations. This is why we have taken a very strong approach through a direct intervention by the Foreign Secretary in country. The matters he raised in terms of both the situation in Tigray and the wider implications were very much part of his discussion with Prime Minister Abiy when he was in country.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on the impact of some of the cuts in our bilateral programmes, but also in our multilateral programmes. As food security is obviously a critical issue in the Horn of Africa, will the Minister tell us whether we will make food security a priority at the G7 summit, which will take place later on this year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there are many elements in the G7 discussions, but the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of food security. In any conflict zone, that becomes an immediate personal priority and I support his view. We have managed in Ethiopia, over many years, to support efforts on sanitation, school education and avoiding famine. However, the situation in Tigray in particular remains extremely worrying, not just with regard to the refugees in nearby Sudan but also with regard to the internally displaced refugees, whose numbers at the moment are very fluid.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, what discussions have the UK Government, as president of the Security Council, had with the African Union on efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict and to secure urgent humanitarian access to Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there are important discussions to be had. I have already alluded to the UN Security Council meeting. In addition to this, we are talking to key players within Africa, most notably leaders in Sudan and South Africa, among others. We emphasise the important role of the UN and other agencies, as well as the African Union, in finding a resolution to this conflict.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, with more than 6 million sick and starving refugees from the conflict, does the Minister agree that the first priority must be the cessation of violence and the setting up of a round-table meeting with both sides and UN officials to establish safe conditions for the supply and distribution of urgently needed humanitarian aid?
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Government are aware that the World Food Programme has already commenced distributing food in the Tigray region to the tune of 20,000 tonnes to support around 1.3 million people. As nearly 3 million need help, will the Government support the UN in its efforts to provide extra aid to extend that supply to the other 1.7 million people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the UN World Food Programme, which has provided food assistance for 2.9 million people. He will be pleased to hear that, thanks to this being a priority issue for us, we now have an envoy, Nick Dyer, who covers humanitarian issues, conflict and famine, and who has visited Ethiopia to determine what the current priorities are. As I said to noble Lords in answer to previous questions, the situation in Tigray itself remains very fluid. A lot of the details are unknown, which is why we will continue to press, as the first priority, for unfettered humanitarian access to the region.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered and we will now move on to the next Question.
Genetically Modified Food
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential (1) health, and (2) environmental, risks associated with approving genetically modified food production in the United Kingdom.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords, our legislation includes rigorous requirements for assessing health and environmental risks associated with GM food production. Approved GM crops and GM food products must pass a robust, case-by-case safety assessment reflecting independent scientific advice.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. Although I have some questions about gene editing, I recognise the potential it has to revolutionise the agricultural sector. My concern is for farmers and any potential barriers to trade with the EU that this might introduce. Although the Commission has indicated its intent to review the current rules, this has been countered by the European Parliament, which signalled its objection. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the impact of gene editing on our ability to export agricultural products to EU markets?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the purpose of our consultation is principally to consider the issue of gene editing, which we think has a very strong future in assisting us in many respects in food production and the natural environment. Obviously, we shall consider the response to that consultation, and the right reverend Prelate’s remarks about the rest of the world, certainly including the European Union countries, are relevant. I know that the French Agriculture Minister has expressed concern about the European court’s view on gene editing.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, the Minister may recall that in the early days of devolution, Wales’s National Assembly passed, as was in its devolved powers so to do, orders prohibiting on precautionary principles the growth of certain genetically modified crops in Wales. That caused some cross-border dispute on the Wales-Cheshire border. If the Government are considering any new initiatives in England, will he undertake to discuss at an early stage with the Welsh and Scottish Governments whether their plans might cause any difficulties, and endeavour to find a mechanism to resolve them this time round, prior to them becoming issues of heated controversy?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have engaged very strongly with the devolved Administrations on the consultation, for instance in advance of its publication. As the noble Lord said, GMOs are a devolved matter and decisions on marketing are a matter for the relevant devolved Administration. We will continue to keep up a very strong dialogue.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has already referred to the fact that the French Agriculture Minister has disagreed with the EU’s stance on genetic editing. I also note that the US has approved some genetically modified seeds for use, as of last year. Studies suggest that genetic editing has the potential to improve yields while using significantly fewer resources, improving soil quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and could be worth in the region of $200 billion to $300 billion per year. Have these international developments informed Defra’s thinking at all? Does the Minister agree that this science offers promising opportunities for the UK?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, many countries have been considering their approach to GMO governance and regulation in the light of technological advances. Indeed, these international dimensions have helped to inform our approach to the consultation. We recognise that innovations through technology such as gene editing can help to create new markets, support a sustainable economy, help UK businesses globally and improve agricultural productivity in a way that enhances the natural environment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded on the register. Does the Minister accept that gene editing and genetic modification are different technologies and that the Government will be considering them separately in terms of policy? Have the Government conducted any consumer research recently into the acceptability of these technologies?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the distinction. Indeed, gene editing should not be confused with gene modification. Gene-edited organisms generally do not contain DNA from different species. They contain changes that could be made more slowly using traditional breeding methods. We think there is merit in that, which is why we have consulted. Indeed, we want responses to the consultation, which closes on 17 March, and we are very keen to hear from interested parties and members of the public.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the reality is that no one knows which gene-edited or genetically modified crop might have an adverse impact on the environment. For example, pest-resistant crops can pose threats to important insect populations. The Government’s consultation is totally silent on what environmental regulatory regime would replace the current one. Can the Minister tell the House whether there will be a new regulatory system requiring a case-by-case environmental impact assessment before release? Will Natural England be given adequate resources to oversee effect EIA or are the Government simply intending to deregulate irrespective of the biodiversity risks?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
Let me be clear: our endeavours in this matter are for better regulation, not deregulation. We think that gene editing has considerable benefits for the natural environment but clearly on a precautionary basis we will be working to ensure that, case-by-case, there is an environmental assessment. We look forward to the responses in the consultation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, organic farming has risen by 13% in the past year, but organic farms are at extreme risk of cross-contamination from genetically modified crops putting their own crops at risk. How does the Minister propose to protect organic farms from GM contamination?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, organic farmers undertake a very important role in producing great products. There are regulations about these matters and the way in which GM crops are engaged in the environment, and they will continue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in making assessments of health and environmental risks, which have a huge impact on conservation, biodiversity and land management, the risks and consequences of both action and inaction will be considered equally?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, GMO legislation is based on a precautionary principle that states that GMO environmental assessments must be risk-based. Evidence gathered during the consultation will inform risks on both action and inaction.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest in Rothamsted Research as recorded in the register. We welcome the Government’s consultation on gene editing and the distinction drawn between genetic modification and gene editing. Can the Minister assure us that any changes in the regulation of gene editing will be balanced alongside policies to minimise the use of artificial pesticides and artificial fertilisers so that there will be a net gain for the protection of public health and the environment from any changes?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, what the noble Baroness has said is why we believe there could well be environmental benefits from gene editing, whether they are reduced use of neutron additions, reduced use of chemical pesticides, increased crop yields or crops that are more resilient to climate change. These are the areas that, in an honest endeavour, we should be looking into and why the consultation is so important as part of the first phase before any change may occur.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, about three-quarters of the world’s soya and nearly one-third of the world’s maize and oilseed rape is GM. Europe, including the UK, is one of the world’s largest importers of GM soya. Does the Minister agree that no human health risks have been identified as a result of consuming these GM foods? Is he aware that the chair of the Food and Drink Federation organic committee recently said that the tide of opinion on genetic editing has changed and that the organic sector could end up isolated if it did not welcome this technology?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the whole thrust of what the noble Lord said. We think that science and our knowledge of gene editing have advanced since the GM framework nearly 30 years ago, and therefore we think that there are advantages to the environment. That is why we want to proceed.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that soil structure and quality have been diminishing for many years. He will also be aware of the excellent work being done by the GWTC and Harper Adams University into minimal till regimes, which are proving to have a beneficial effect, certainly on soil structure and the wider environment. Does he agree that, in tandem with emerging best practice based on the science, GM crops are an important component in enhancing yields and reducing the use of fertilisers and pesticides and therefore in protecting and feeding the consumer?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend has made a very important point: we have to feed the world’s increasing population. We think that, particularly in the area of gene editing crops, there are potentially very strong advantages in sustaining and improving the natural environment while improving the hugely important ingredient of soil health with reduced nutrient additions and chemical pesticides.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Support for University Students: Covid-19
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, last week a survey from the Office for National Statistics found that 63% of students have reported worsening mental health and well-being since the start of the 2020-21 academic year, compared with 57% last November. The Covid-19 pandemic has intensified the student mental health crisis, with many isolated at home, without support, unfairly paying for accommodation that they are forbidden to use, and feeling a sense of hopelessness about their futures. With placements cancelled, jobs disappearing and whole industries at risk of collapse, the only certainty is that they are faced with significant student debt. The pandemic has undoubtedly been especially hard for students with disabilities, who face additional challenges and might need more support to continue their studies and find a worthwhile job once they have left. Will the Government commit to providing further funding to support the substantial increase in demand that university well-being and support services are experiencing, as well as direct support for students with disabilities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to the mental health and well-being challenges that the pandemic places on students. The Government are very alive to these. We wrote to vice-chancellors in October, outlining that student welfare must remain a priority during the pandemic. My honourable friend the Universities Minister convened a working group of representatives from the higher education and healthcare sectors to look into what we can do. We have been working with the Office for Students to provide Student Space, which has been funded by up to £3 million to bridge any gaps in support that exist for students and their mental health needs, although I am pleased to say that universities themselves have been doing great work directly with students. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, last week we announced an additional £50 million of funding, on top of the £20 million that we provided in December, to assist students who face hardship at this difficult time.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, everyone will be pleased that the Government are making this additional financial support available for students to help with their well-being and mental health. University students will, naturally, be worried and anxious about their academic work and assessments. What is the Minister’s view of essay mills and contract-cheating companies that prey on students’ vulnerability and isolation? Will the Government finally bring in legislation to act against those companies?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, those who prey on the vulnerability of students, particularly at this time, deserve our condemnation. We were concerned about online provision from these companies even before the pandemic, and of course we will continue to monitor that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the additional help that has been given to students at this time but, given that we are still charging students an interest rate of 5.6% on student loans while they are studying, when the Government can borrow money at 0.3%, might this not be a good time to implement the Economic Affairs Committee recommendation that we cut the interest rate on student loans?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has long taken an interest in this matter through his work on your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee. The Government have already announced that the maximum fees will remain at £9,250 for a standard full-time course, and we intend to freeze the maximum tuition fee caps for 2022 and 2023—the fifth year in succession that maximum fees have been frozen—to make sure that university education is available to, and affordable for, those who want it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the additional funding announced last week, but what action are the Government planning to take on the QAA’s guidance, which says that thousands of students might have to repeat a year because of the professional nature of their qualifications and the lack of practical teaching? To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will those students have to pay an additional year’s tuition if they have to repeat a year, and, again on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will the Government at least contemplate for existing students a payment freeze on interest—if nothing else, a sort of holiday on the interest rate payments or a reduction of those payments? In piling on debt for those students, the amount charged is ridiculous.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have been prioritising a return to face-to-face teaching for courses which, as the noble Baroness says, have to be delivered in person. They include courses for students studying medical, clinical and healthcare-related subjects, including nursing, social work, dentistry and veterinary studies. Universities have been working very hard to ensure that the quality of tuition they provide is maintained at a high standard, and we have been very clear that it should be. We want to see minimum disruption to people’s study, even during the challenging circumstances of the pandemic.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, while the short-term support offered by the Government to students facing financial difficulties is most welcome, the pandemic has also generated uncertainty about graduate employment in the short, medium and long term. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have for supporting students and graduates who are or will be seeking skilled graduate employment?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right; this has been a challenge. From taking A-levels, to being at university, to graduating: as he says, these are difficult times. The Government are providing support to people going into employment as well as to students currently completing their studies. We want to make sure that we look after people at every stage of that journey.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
Additional funding is welcome, but the University of Greenwich, of which I happen to be chancellor, is experiencing what many other universities are experiencing in London: the removal of the London-weighting element of the teaching grant funding allocation. This is having a very adverse effect on our financial viability, costing us some £2.5 million per year. We put disadvantaged children and children and young people from minority ethnic backgrounds at the very forefront of our concerns in the first part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. We are finding it very difficult to do this in the face of this cut in our funding allocation. Will the Government reconsider their decisions in that regard to enable us to do that much more for these needy students?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the impact the pandemic has had on institutions as well as the students studying at them; I commend the work that they do. The Government have already provided significant support for the higher education sector, bringing forward £2 billion of tuition fee payments, providing £280 million of grant funding for research and establishing a loan scheme to cover up to 80% of a university’s income losses from international students. That, of course, is on top of the generous package of support that my right honourable friend the Chancellor provided for businesses, so we certainly are providing the assistance that institutions need.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
Have the Government given any consideration to the plight of overseas students, who are paying higher fees than home students and have the added problem of living in a land not their own?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am pleased to reassure my noble friend that the hardship funding, including the additional £50 million announced last week, can be distributed to a wide population of students, including international students studying here in the UK. We want to make sure we support people in hardship, wherever they come from.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, one or two Edinburgh students I know personally have suffered considerably. Many were shut in their rooms for a fortnight when one of them contracted the virus. Should students who can prove limited access to education at various times have to pay a full rent? Should remote learning without proper tutorials not be compensated during a pandemic? I am assuming the virus is not a devolved matter.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Many universities and accommodation providers have already offered rent refunds for students who have been asked to stay away from their term-time accommodation. We welcome that and strongly encourage others to do the same. We have been asking all providers of student accommodation to make sure that they have the students’ best interests at heart.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
Following on from the question of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, does the Minister agree that student accommodation providers that are still charging students rent when they are having to work from home are completely wrong? There is no point in just encouraging them to take action. What action are the Government taking to stop this exploitation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not run the accommodation for students, but we do applaud those universities and institutions that have taken action and encourage others to do the same. For commercial tenancies the Government have, as the noble Lord will know, made a package of financial support available to tenants, but where they can continue to pay the rent they should do so. We encourage all landlords to take a pragmatic and compassionate approach during this pandemic.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there was not time to take her question.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it is not possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press to a Division an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group 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.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 2 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-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (8 Feb 2021)
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames tabled this amendment and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, added his name, as did I.
I will not speak for long—just a few minutes—but I would like to give this amendment some context. Just over a year ago, my noble friend was approached by a concerned mother about the “treatment” of her adult daughter by a person who described themself as a psychotherapist. This treatment would not have been recognised by any professional body and did a disservice to the regulated profession of psychotherapy. Such an individual is able to walk into a stranger’s home after being contacted on the strength of an advertisement in a shop window, local newspaper, magazine or online. Counterfeit certificates, business cards and brass plaques are easily obtained to give undeserved credibility.
The phoney therapist broke no law, but the treatment was unrecognised by any regulating body and did great harm to the young woman. She was turned against her family by coercive behaviour and a catalogue of lies. She was turned inside out emotionally and her family were left distraught. I was somewhat taken aback to receive letters from other families whose adult children had been in receipt of similar coercive treatment, leaving them a shadow of their former selves.
This amendment sets out to right these wrongs and ensure that the therapist would not be able to practise in future. I thank my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who spoke in that debate, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. The amendment sets out clearly what is an offence in this context, and how to determine that the perpetrator’s behaviour had a serious effect. It also sets out what would count as a defence for the person purporting to be the therapist, and, if found guilty, what the maximum terms of imprisonment would be.
Having listened to my noble friend Lord Paddick last week at the beginning of the debate, I think it worth mentioning that, although the original case concerned a young woman, there is no reason why it should not apply to a vulnerable young man. The amendment is gender neutral and goes a long way to right the wrongs in the case that brought me to this Bill in the first place. I am delighted to support it. I say to the Minister that the coercion was carried out in the victim’s home. It was abuse in a domestic setting and should have been a crime. This amendment will stop others being controlled or coerced by bogus therapists and, if they are sentenced, the punishment will fit the crime.
I wonder whether, before Report, the Minister would be willing to meet some of those who have spoken in this debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the opportunity to talk about the role of psychotherapists. As I will be discussing regulatory issues, I declare my membership of the GMC.
I have no doubt about the value of psychotherapists and the beneficial impact of their work for so many people. But there are potential risks, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to eloquently when we last debated the amendment. Also, in a Lords debate on 2 March last year, he said:
“We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and friends.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 477.]
That was reinforced by the case the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just referred to.
Patients and clients can be vulnerable, and an insensitive, critical or sexually exploitative therapist could increase the risk of the patient having a poor—and potentially damaging—outcome from their therapy. The big problem is that the terms “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected. Any one of us could call ourselves one of those titles and advertise our services to unsuspecting and sometimes vulnerable people. I have long had worries about this, going back to when I was a Health Minister, some 20 years ago.
In 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, introduced a Private Member’s Bill to provide for the regulation of psychotherapists and make provisions to enable the registration of the profession. Since then, we have established workstreams to look into regulation, but, unfortunately, the profession found it difficult to reach a common cause, principally because there were so many different, and sometimes conflicting, schools of thought.
That, I am afraid, was the start of a long and unhappy journey. In 2007, the then Government published a White Paper which included plans to introduce statutory regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors. But, unfortunately, by 2010, this did not import into statute, even though, by then, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had done a sterling job in pulling the different psychotherapy schools together and getting agreement on the way forward. We then had the coalition Government in 2010, which announced a new approach to regulation and a belief that centralised statutory regulation was not always the most effective or efficient way of ensuring high-quality care. That, essentially, is where it stayed.
The debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, last March, induced the following response from the Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell:
“The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system … Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will and must be explored … However, more rules are not always the answer to every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated … it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 480.]
He also referred to the more than 50,000 talking service professionals on the registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority. That is welcome, but it is not statutory regulation, nor is it protection of title, which means any of us could, if we wanted to, continue to call ourselves a psychotherapist or counsellor.
The big problem here is that the Government are basing this on a risk assessment for which there is little evidence. There is a real lack of hard research in this area. I am grateful to the Library for unearthing a 2019 article, published in Frontiers in Psychology, which provided a potential explanation of why there may currently be a lack of quantitative research. It said:
“Although the broad topic of negative outcomes has been extensively discussed, empirical research on patient safety, directly examining the causes and prevention of harm, is not well established. Because harm … is relatively rare, and not amenable to experimental manipulation, such research is difficult.”
In 2017, the Brighton Therapy Partnership, a continued professional development and training organisation for counsellors and psychotherapists, said:
“There is very little research into the harm that properly executed therapy can cause. This is an unusual anomaly for a medical field, as in every other area research is abundant into both efficacy and failure of all treatment options.”
When the Government say, as I have no doubt the Minister will today, that it is not proportionate to regulate psychotherapists, there is an absence of evidence to base that on. In the meantime, in the absence of statutory regulation, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is essential. I hope he is prepared to support this all the way in the Bill. There is a dangerous gap, and some action needs to be taken.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the other noble Lords who have signed it. It seeks to create a new offence of
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services”.
First, I commend the apposite wording—in particular, “persons providing … services,” since these abusive individuals are rarely actually psychotherapists, counsellors or registered practitioners of any kind, but individuals purporting to offer such services. That these charlatans are able to operate beyond the law and act on vulnerable people should be revisited, even if it is not the specific subject of this Bill.
The Domestic Abuse Bill will update our laws to recognise the breadth, and, unfortunately, the subtlety, of the crime. It will now include, among other things, the offence of coercive control. However, while the Bill recognises that such insidious behaviour is punishable within a household, it clearly exists outside the household too. This amendment seeks to address that omission, but it also speaks to the notion of what constitutes “domestic,” namely, the definition of the “connected” person. If one reads the language of the Bill and hears the heartbreaking stories of this abusive practice, there is surely no doubt that this proposed new clause belongs in the Bill.
We are talking about situations where bogus therapists attempt to alienate their subjects from their families and breed dependence on them, the so-called counsellors. False memories are concocted and sown, with happy childhoods replaced with nightmares of abuse that never happened. The symptoms follow a familiar pattern: the self-styled development coach preys on their vulnerable clients and tears them away from their families, to the extent that they break off all contact and become estranged. There are countless such cases. The goal of such therapy is coercion and control, to debilitate and disable—abuse, if ever there was.
The Bill currently defines “connected” persons using the language of intimate personal relationships, among other things. This captures the nature of what occurs in these bogus sessions. Families, friends and loved ones are wilfully alienated by the abuser, who then offers him or herself as a replacement. A dependence is created, and contact and communication of any kind with family and friends are discouraged. This is intimate, yet clearly abusive—exactly the subject of this Bill and exactly why I hope the Government will accept this amendment.
I began by lamenting the lack of legal protection and redress for those who might be duped by unqualified counsellors and psychotherapists, and I believe that this is definitely worthy of more debate and attention from the Government. But what we are talking about now is including such controlling and coercive behaviour by those who cruelly abuse their professional trust. The consequences for the individuals concerned and their families are profound and long-lasting. What goes on in these cases is intuitively and evidentially abuse. It is clearly coercive and controlling, and it is clearly done in the context of the intimate relationships captured by “connected” persons. For all these reasons, I would argue that the new offence belongs in this Bill. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, during the Committee discussions last week, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, commented on how helpful the debate on presumed parental consent was, and I agree. I felt that I was back on “Moral Maze”; I was moving around the issue and considering it from all sides. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made concrete for us that day, lots of issues thrown up by this proposed legislation are complex and nuanced moral dilemmas. It shows what a difficult task we have here in applying public law in what is usually the terrain of private and intimate relationships.
In some ways, though, that discussion on presumed parental consent focused our minds on the domestic core at the heart of this legislation. My concern is that this amendment shifts our focus away from that domestic core—although the previous noble Baroness tried to suggest that we should now broaden our understanding of “domestic”. It shifts our focus, broadens it too widely and potentially dilutes it. Do not get me wrong; when, at the end of the last Committee day, the noble Lord, Lords Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, spoke passionately and movingly—and we have heard similar testimony since—on the devastating impact of those reaping the bitter winds of recovered memory syndrome, which has been a dogma, sadly, I was cheering them on. I have been following the bitter memory wars since the 1990s, and consequences such as the satanic ritual abuse panics and various other panics. When that was a fashionable theory among trauma therapists, sections of social work professionals and some feminist academics, I argued against it. Now that form of therapy has largely been discredited by modern memory science, and is widely ridiculed, as it has been in this discussion, as pseudoscientific quackery.
I share noble Lords’ frustrations that the practice continues unlicensed and unregulated. I have no doubt that unethically encouraging vulnerable people to interpret their present woes through the prism of abuse, and then unethically planting false memories, is coercive. But my worry is that this amendment stretches the definition of coercive control, in the context of domestic abuse, too far. There is a danger, to quote a noble Baroness from an earlier Committee day, that this legislation will be seen as a Christmas tree on which everyone can hang a different preoccupation or grievance. That makes the definition so elastic that it can be a catch-all, and unintentionally relativises our gaze from the specific and discrete brutality of domestic abuse. I am already worried that this Bill has defined abuse far too promiscuously, and that it might well backfire and not help those it is intended to.
It is not just our focus—our gaze as legislators—that it will shift. How will it affect the police and criminal justice system if we label too many incidents as domestic abuse? Part of the popular frustration with the status quo is that serious incidents, threats or credible risks are not taken seriously, sometimes with tragic consequences. People go to the police and they are sent away. Surely what we do not want is for the authorities and the police to be swamped with endless numbers of complainants citing this Bill and a loose basis of the definition of coercive control, starting to make complaints.
I am all for dealing with, and exposing, the charlatans who call themselves counsellors, who play on the therapeutic culture and wo are only too willing to use the issue of abuse to push their own agendas with the consequence of destroying families. Let them be dealt with. I hope the Minister will look at how to deal with psychotherapists exploiting those who turn to them for help, but this is not the legislation to pursue that. So I will not be supporting the amendment, even though I cheer on those who wish to expose the charlatans.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on Wednesday, both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put the detailed legal arguments for this amendment, and I have added my name to it as well. I shall not try to repeat what they said, but instead will say something that has, perhaps, been said by all bar the last speaker in this debate, which is that I strongly support this amendment.
As a nation we have been very slow to recognise the way in which the human mind can be coerced and controlled by unscrupulous people without the use of violence. I am not sure that until “The Archers” featured Rob Titchener in its storyline about marital coercive control, and gripped the nation with it, many of us would have been able to describe or recognise it on our own doorsteps. We have been even slower as a nation to recognise and enact legislation to protect those who are its victims in another category, namely those whose vulnerability, whether it is emotional or psychological, renders them a target for the bogus counsellors, the amateur psychotherapists and the self-styled life coaches, usually bent on profit, who may appear to be well intentioned but still often inflict real harm and damage on their so-called patients and their families.
This is not a new phenomenon. Unhappy people often search for explanations and cures, and the unscrupulous offer false promises of help and future happiness. They frequently obtain substantial amounts of money from them and very often, using transference, seek to replace contact with parents and families, sometimes by implanting false memories, which in turn often sever domestic relationships for life. As a pupil barrister in 1970s, I remember cases involving the Scientologists. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, remembers cases involving the Moonies. Domestic alienation was a common feature then, 50 years ago, as it is today with some of the quasi-healers operating in this country right now with impunity.
I personally am aware of one family whose adult daughter fell into the hands of just such people in London. They were paid substantial sums of money by her. Their methods involved repeated “counselling” sessions lasting six or seven hours at a stretch during which, exhausted, she was persuaded to sever all contact with her parents and her family. It took some years for them even to find her, and eventually get her back. She was one of the lucky ones. These people are untrained, unqualified, unregulated and damaging to the vulnerable on whom they prey. Yet our present law currently provides no adequate protection from their activities.
Our understanding and recognition of mental illness is, thankfully, advancing rapidly today. Yet we are only beginning to understand more about how the power of words, whether they are spoken directly or via the internet, can convince an otherwise intelligent adult to become a jihadi or embrace a coronavirus conspiracy theory and, in so doing, often damage and even destroy their closest domestic relationships. On this form of abuse, we have looked the other way for far too long. We have given protection, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, to other vulnerable categories by law—whether they are children, the mentally ill or the elderly—and it is now surely time to add those who are at the mercy of these bogus healers.
The Government argument is often, “Yes, but it’s not right in this Bill”—but I do not see a better Bill on the horizon to deal with this particular lacuna in the law. I totally understand that members of a Bill team that has produced an excellent Bill, as this team has, will always be reluctant to look at a new amendment that may, they fear, perhaps alter the architecture of the Bill on which they have worked so painstakingly. However, I do not see any other way, in the near future, of tackling something that I believe has not only been overlooked for far too long but I suspect is likely to grow, particularly in these times when so many young people are searching for an explanation of why their lives have changed so drastically from their expectations.
I hope that the Minister will agree to take this amendment away, have a look at it with his Bill team and, hopefully, come back with a solution. If he did so, I believe that he would have support across the whole House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this important amendment seeks to include controlling and coercive behaviour by a psychotherapist or counsellor in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, clearly laid out the reality of very unscrupulous practices. When working as they should, psychotherapists are generally trained to work over a long period of time with more complicated mental health issues, whereas counsellors are generally trained to work in the shorter term with life issues such as bereavement and relationships—although in practice there is huge overlap.
A problem arises for the person whose world is in tatters, who feels at sea and is desperate for some help. How do they have any idea whether the person they have been referred to or had suggested to them to see is a charismatic charlatan or an excellent counsellor who will help them to restabilise their life? In this process, they are even more vulnerable than prior to the consultation—a vulnerability that is exploited by the unscrupulous and by sects, as we have heard. They go to speak to a stranger, often paying for the privilege, and as they tell their story, they reveal their vulnerabilities and are often retraumatised by remembering the abuse as they relate events. This is psychological intimacy, and the person is certainly profoundly psychologically connected to their victim.
As we have heard, only the titles “clinical psychologist” and “counselling psychologist” are professionally restricted and must be registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. By contrast, the terms “therapist”, “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected; courses in these subjects are unregulated and vary very widely, which leaves unregistered and poorly trained people wide open to engaging in controlling and coercive behaviours.
Reputable employers providing counselling services, such as Women’s Aid, will expect an employee to have undertaken professional training. Often membership of a relevant professional body, such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the UK Council for Psychotherapy or the National Counselling Society, is required to ensure continuing professional development and ongoing supervision to enhance practice. All these bodies stipulate certain standards and ethical codes.
Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) set out what constitutes an offence and emphasise that controlling and coercive behaviour can be both physical and psychological. However, given the lack of regulation, I wonder whether this important amendment sets too high a bar, even for registered and well-trained professionals.
Proposed new subsection (4) raises a concern for me, but I am sure that it can be sorted out. It states that it is a defence to show that, when engaging in the behaviour in question, the psychotherapist or counsellor was acting in the person’s best interests. Here I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. As your Lordships know only too well, the term “best interests” is laid out in the Mental Capacity Act.
If a person has capacity to consent freely to whatever is proposed, there seems no rationale to make a best interests decision for them, and no form of controlling or coercive behaviour would be in their best interests. The person must have had the capacity to be able to consent to the counselling session. If the person lacks capacity to consent to a particular decision at a particular time, that decision should be deferred until they regain capacity for that decision. If restrictions of any sort have to be put in place in a person’s best interests because they cannot consent to the proposal, a formal best interests decision-making process, as laid out in statute, must be undertaken. A deprivation of liberty safeguard procedure or safeguarding may be required. I am worried that this defence, as written in the amendment, actually lessens the safeguards of a vulnerable person. I am sure that that is not what it aims to do.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 141, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, raises the important issue of controlling or coercive behaviour.
This proposed offence is modelled on the existing offence of coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, as set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015. I support the intent behind the amendment, but this appears to be an offence committed by a person who has a relationship with a family member; this is not about families, it is a professional client/patient relationship, so it is slightly different.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath set out the timeline of discussions over the last 20 years. It made quite sorry listening—such a long period has elapsed and so little has been achieved. That in itself should be concerning to all noble Lords.
As we have heard in this debate, it is worrying that potentially dangerous individuals can set themselves up with little or no control or regulation—no standards appear to be adhered to—and seek to offer professional services to people who are vulnerable or have issues. Quite clearly, they are only going to make the situation much worse. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu talked about what she referred to as “quasi-healers” and gave an example of the suffering and damage that these people can cause.
I support the intent behind the amendment and its aim. However, I am not sure that this is the right Bill for it, although I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that we cannot see a Bill on the horizon that it could obviously slot into, which is itself a problem for us all. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, will set out what the Government propose to do to address this issue and say not just that it does not belong in this Bill but what we are going to do about it, because, as we have heard today, there are clearly some serious problems that deserve to be addressed by Parliament and the Government. I would particularly like to hear what he intends to do between now and Report; I have no doubt at all we will discuss the issue again on Report after the Recess.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today and on Wednesday evening, when we began it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for setting out the case for this amendment, which, as he explained, seeks to extend the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour to psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was right; we have perhaps as a country been slow to appreciate the scale of coercive behaviour. I am very proud that it was my right honourable friend Theresa May who provided for the offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence applies only to those who are “personally connected”, as defined in the section. It applies to intimate partners, regardless of whether they live together, to ex-partners who live together and to family members who live together. Amendment 141 would extend the offence beyond those who are personally connected, as defined by Section 76, so that it would apply to psychotherapists and counsellors. Most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have pointed to evidence and indeed to specific harrowing cases suggesting that fraudulent psychotherapists and counsellors—or, as they understandably refer to them in many cases, charlatans—take advantage of their position to supplant friends and families in the minds and affections of their clients for the purpose of turning them against those friends and families. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested that this abuse should be caught by the controlling or coercive behaviour offence because therapists are abusing their position of trust and the dependence of their clients.
We have already had a number of debates in Committee on earlier amendments where my noble friends and I have stressed the importance of preserving the meaning of “personally connected” for the purposes of the definition of domestic abuse and, by extension, for the purposes of the Section 76 offence. The controlling or coercive behaviour offence was created in 2015 to fill a particular gap in the criminal law in relation to a pattern of abusive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. We are not persuaded that what looks like the beguilingly simple act of taking the concept of controlling or coercive behaviour in a domestic abuse setting and applying it to abuses of power by psychotherapists or counsellors should be undertaken without careful and detailed analysis. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has said, the professional/client relationship is a different one.
We have had a thoughtful but not conclusive debate on the definitions of what constitutes a domestic setting and an intimate relationship. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, these things may take place in the home, but often they will not. My noble friend Lady Finn explored what constitutes a domestic setting, but it is the personal connection that matters. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that we want to maintain a careful focus on the definition of domestic abuse as it is widely understood, and as we want the Bill to draw further attention to. That matters not only for the architecture of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, but in making sure that the police and other agencies are tightly focused on tackling the scourge of domestic abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We think, therefore, that without proper study it would not be right to transplant the concept of controlling or coercive behaviour into what is quite a separate power dynamic.
That is not, of course, to downplay the seriousness of this issue or the harrowing examples raised by noble Lords. The Government believe that we should look to other remedies, and it might be helpful to set out some of those that exist through the action that has been taken. A system of accredited voluntary registration with the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care already exists. The authority has a process for quality assuring voluntary registers of health and care professionals in the UK who are not subject to statutory regulation. It currently accredits 10 voluntary registers relating to counselling and psychotherapy, providing assurance to the public on approximately 50,000 talking therapy professionals. The registers can be used by service users to choose a practitioner to meet their needs and to be assured that those practitioners are safe, trustworthy and competent to practise.
To gain accreditation with the Professional Standards Authority, organisations have to meet 11 standards for accredited registers. These standards require organisations to have a focus on public protection, to have processes in place for handling complaints against practitioners, to set appropriate levels of education and training for entry to the register, to require registrants to undertake continuing professional development and to understand and monitor the risks associated with the practices of registrants. Any registrant who is removed from an accredited register for conduct reasons cannot join another accredited register. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said that these registers are voluntary. We would urge anyone looking to engage the services of a psychotherapist or counsellor to ensure that they are accredited by the Professional Standards Authority.
Noble Lords have raised issues which I know have been the subject of separate and indeed long-standing debates in your Lordships’ House. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, both referred to their experiences and insights from their time as Ministers and set out some of the actions which have been taken since. While there may be a need to legislate on this matter in the future, that is a question for the Department of Health and Social Care. I cannot commit the department one way or the other today, but for reasons of focus on the particular offence of domestic abuse, we do not feel that this Bill is the right place to do that. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I will call them in that order.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one salutary and useful aspect of this amendment is that it has focused our minds on false memories and false allegations. It is therefore a reminder that we must challenge what we believe to be the victim mindset that can lead to grave injustices. The amendment should remind the Government that abuse is so emotive that it becomes quite hard to challenge if it has been alleged. The reason why false memories have been so damaging over the years is that once the victims say that they have been abused while under the care, guidance, manipulation or coercive control of said “quack” counsellor, no one can challenge that because it is an accusation of abuse. This legislation bends the stick in the direction of victims far too much, in my opinion, and I urge the Minister to take great care and perhaps investigate some of the harrowing stories of false memory syndrome in order to learn lessons and not make the same mistakes here.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to say that this area needs continued and careful thought, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who referred to the complexity of the issues and the matters which have to be considered. We will indeed do that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response. He said that this issue goes wider than his own department, and I agree. In the period between Committee and Report, would it therefore be possible for him to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to discuss it? It is clearly a serious issue that demands a cross-government response and that would not necessarily be met only by an amendment to a particular Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That is a sensible suggestion from the noble Lord and I am happy to commit to speaking to my noble friend about it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I was going to make the same suggestion as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who made the point that this is an important issue that runs across departments. As he said, I am not sure that this is the right Bill in which to address it, but equally, I am concerned that there may not be a right vehicle at the moment. We have to find some way of dealing with this issue, which has been raised across the House. We have potentially dangerous people treating very vulnerable people and thus only making the situation worse. We should not allow that to happen and we must find a way of dealing with it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this important and fascinating debate about some terrible behaviour. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, explained, the principle of this amendment has a long history of parliamentary support. It would rightly criminalise quack counsellors, who, as all have said, suborn vulnerable young people and exploit their weaknesses, in a way that amounts to a classic demonstration of how clearly abusive coercive and controlling behaviour is.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 142. 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 any other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 2: Amendments relating to offences committed outside the UK
Amendment 142
Baroness Bertin
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft domestic abuse Bill, I know that the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions of the Bill are intended to fulfil the UK’s obligations under Article 44 of the Istanbul convention. I welcome the fact that these provisions will bring the UK closer to ratifying a convention that we signed in 2012 and which will protect women and girls from violence and abuse.
My amendments concern a very specific issue—marital rape—where I believe the Bill as presently drafted may leave a potential loophole. I recognise that the drafting of the amendments may itself be imperfect, and my noble friend the Minister will no doubt speak to that, but I would like to explore whether the Bill could be strengthened so that people from this country cannot exploit laxer laws elsewhere.
In this country, the common-law presumption of a marital exemption from the offence of rape was overturned by your Lordships’ House in the case of R v R in 1991. Some countries similarly do not have any exemption for marital rape, and in others marital rape is explicitly criminalised, but there is a small minority of countries in which marital rape is not illegal. As drafted, the Bill appears to require that a prosecution for rape and other sexual offences committed against adult victims outside the UK may be brought in the UK only when the offending behaviour is also an offence in the country where it happens, but that requirement could prevent us prosecuting someone for marital rape committed outside the UK, if such behaviour is not included in or is exempt from the equivalent offence in the other jurisdiction.
This may be a small gap. I certainly hope that there would not be many, if any, cases of marital rape perpetrated by a UK person in a country that does not consider such behaviour to be a crime, but I believe that, if there is potential for this to occur, we should act to prevent it. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence, in England and Wales, for a UK national or resident to commit sexual offences against children outside the UK, in an effort to clamp down on so-called sex tourism. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Bill makes it an offence, in England and Wales, for a UK national or resident to commit sexual offences, under Sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against people aged 18 or over at the time of the offence, extending extraterritoriality to serious sexual offences against adults as well as children.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has explained, the idea is to ensure that the Government comply with the Istanbul convention but, as she pointed out, for somebody to commit an offence, it has to be an offence not only in this country but in the country where the offence took place; in some of those countries, marital rape may not be criminalised. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has identified a potential loophole. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for tabling these amendments and spotting this loophole in the Bill. It is good to have this debate today. As she has said, marital rape can happen in a country where it is not illegal locally, and we would then not be able to prosecute the offence here in the UK. Nobody in this Committee wants that situation. I hope the Government will confirm that they either accept her amendments, or accept that she has identified a very serious loophole and bring in their own amendments on Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bertin has, as she has explained, tabled an amendment which seeks to ensure that UK citizens who commit marital rape in countries where such behaviour is not criminal may be prosecuted in the UK. Such countries are thankfully in the minority. We of course want to prevent any exploitation of more lax laws on marital rape elsewhere.
I hope that the Committee will allow me a moment to put these amendments into context so that we can understand the legal architecture that we are talking about. Schedule 2 contains amendments to various enactments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences under the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together with provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill currently before the Northern Ireland Assembly—it gives extraterritorial effect to the new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland—and Clauses 66 and 67, it ensures that the UK complies with the jurisdiction requirements of Article 44 of the Istanbul convention. That article requires the UK to be able to prosecute criminal conduct set out in the convention when that conduct is committed outside the UK by one of our nationals or by a person who is habitually resident here. Part 1 of the schedule covers England and Wales and deals with cases under Sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over. Parts 2 and 3 cover Scotland and Northern Ireland on a corresponding basis.
In keeping with the normal principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, there is a requirement that a prosecution for one of the relevant sexual offences—which includes rape—may be brought in the UK only where the offending behaviour is also an offence in the country where it happens. That is called dual criminality, which respects the notion that generally it is inappropriate for the criminal law of state A to be applied to conduct that occurs in state B where that conduct does not offend the law of state B. In most circumstances, the dual criminality requirement is not a barrier to prosecution because serious sexual offences against adults are likely to be criminal in most other countries. However, it could mean that, in some circumstances, UK authorities would not be able to prosecute someone for a marital rape committed outside the UK if such behaviour is not included in or exempt from the equivalent offence in the other jurisdiction. As it stands, the Bill applies a dual criminality requirement for the relevant sexual offences committed outside the UK by UK nationals and UK residents. My noble friend’s amendment would remove the dual criminality requirement for UK nationals, but not for UK residents. As explained by my noble friend, and by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the effect of this would be that the UK could prosecute UK nationals who commit marital rape against adult victims in countries where such behaviour is not criminal, but could prosecute UK residents who commit marital rape of adult victims abroad only if the behaviour is also criminal in the country where it is committed.
In principle, that is the right approach, as the link to the UK is stronger where the offending behaviour is perpetrated outside the UK by a UK national, rather than by a non-UK national ordinarily resident in the UK. Existing law already makes that distinction with regard to extraterritorial sexual offences where the victim is under 18. The amendments extend only to England and Wales and, as my noble friend identified, one would need to alter the drafting if they were to go further. However, I do not want to focus on the drafting issue. I am grateful to her for raising this important issue and possible lacuna in the Bill. Marital rape is abhorrent behaviour, and I agree that we should consider carefully the case for amending the Bill to cater for it. But—it is an important but—as the extraterritoriality jurisdiction provisions are UK-wide, we need first to consult the devolved Administrations to ensure a consistent approach across the UK. To that end, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment on the clear understanding that we will give this matter serious and sympathetic consideration ahead of Report.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, for their very thoughtful remarks, and for their support on this amendment. It is a very small gap, but I think it worth plugging none the less. I thank the Minister for his thorough and illuminating remarks, from which I learned quite a bit. I am pleased that they were very warm words as well, and I thank him for his consideration of this amendment. I look forward to further conversations and some progress, I hope. It has been a refreshingly short debate, and I will keep it so. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with the question that Clause 69 stand part of the Bill. 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 amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 69: Polygraph conditions for offenders released on licence
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, opposition to clauses standing part of a Bill usually arises out of outright opposition, and in my case I said at Second Reading that I shared the view of my noble friend Lady Burt that polygraph testing on the present state of the technology has no place in our criminal justice system. The basic response of most lawyers to polygraph testing is to oppose its use in a criminal context precisely because there is no firm evidence of its reliability. We tend to the view, which I am sure the Minister understands, that a system of evaluating evidence whose reliability is not assured and produces essentially binary results—true or false—is inherently inimical to the approach of common-law lawyers used to a carefully balanced system of gathering, testing, and evaluating evidence.
However, my perception of polygraph testing has now become somewhat more nuanced. A major contributor to a shift in my view was an excellent teach-in organised by the Ministry of Justice last Thursday, very well presented by Heather Sutton, senior policy adviser on polygraphs and sexual offending, and Professor Don Grubin, emeritus professor of forensic psychiatry at Newcastle University. They gave a number of noble Lords a comprehensive outline of the way in which polygraph testing is used in the management of offenders subject to recall from licence under existing legislation. For my part, I have no experience of the use of polygraph testing, and no expertise on the subject. Opposition to its use as part of this Bill was canvassed in another place by my honourable friend Daisy Cooper MP. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk MP, provided a detailed and helpful response to a number of questions which she raised. As a result of his answers and what we were told on Thursday, I accept that there may be some force—subject to a number of questions—to the argument that there is a legitimate place for the use of polygraph testing in necessary cases, where its purpose is to avoid serious harm.
I add one particular proviso, among others, that evidence of polygraph testing must never be relied on as part of the evidence in a criminal case until its reliability is far more conclusively established than it is now. However, as I understood it, we were assured last Thursday—I would be grateful for confirmation of this from the Dispatch Box—that no decisions on recalls from licence can be taken as a result of a test indicating deception. If the result of a test implies that an offender is lying about a breach of a licence condition or about further offences, for example, investigators will ask the police to look further to see what the truth is before taking any positive action. There is therefore no recall, as I understand it, on the basis of a failed test, which will lead only to recall if the police find other evidence establishing that a breach has occurred.
However, I have some concerns about cases where an offender makes a disclosure in a polygraph test confessing to behaviour that is a dangerous breach and might therefore be recalled. It is important in such cases that the veracity or genuineness of the disclosure and its voluntariness can be thoroughly tested before any recall can take place. Our understanding was that such a disclosure would be followed generally by a hearing before a recall was confirmed, but again I seek confirmation of that.
This is genuinely a probing amendment. It is for that reason that our stand part opposition is coupled with Amendment 191, through which I advocate regulations to prevent Clause 69 being brought into force before such a scheme is piloted. I note that the Government propose to pilot these provisions before rolling them out. However, we ask that regulations bringing Clause 69 into force are not made permanent before Parliament has had an opportunity to consider a report from the Government on that pilot and has agreed to regulations being made permanent under that clause.
I appreciate that polygraph testing is used already in the case of high-risk sexual offenders to manage compliance with licence conditions and that it is included in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill for monitoring terrorist offenders released on licence. As I understand Clause 69 of this Bill, testing will be imposed on adult high-risk offenders who are convicted of serious offences involving domestic abuse, including coercive or controlling behaviour in the domestic context, breaches of restraining orders and of a domestic abuse protection order, who have been sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment. I understand that its application will be limited to offenders released on licence and to monitoring their compliance with licence conditions. However, I understand that it is also proposed to include on a discretionary basis offenders for whom concerns about the risk of reoffending would justify mandatory testing to manage risks posed by the offender to the community.
I pose a number of questions to the Minister in connection with that and other issues. Is there a cast-iron guarantee that the results of polygraph testing carried out under the clause could not be used to secure convictions for a criminal offence? To what extent could an offender be recalled from licence on the basis of a polygraph test in which he made disclosure of a breach of condition of his licence? What would be the procedure for such a recall? What is the effect of a breach of polygraph licensing conditions to be? Could evidence of such a breach be itself based on a failed polygraph test? What are the Government’s proposals for piloting in respect of polygraph tests in connection with monitoring compliance with licensing conditions in domestic abuse cases? Will there be a report of any such pilots back to Parliament? Will Parliament have an opportunity to consider the question of polygraph testing before the regulations make it permanent?
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is not the only Bill currently in your Lordships’ House that seeks to extend the use of polygraphs. I am not surprised that lawyers and what I have learned in another Bill to call operational partners have different starting points in their attitudes and expectations of polygraphs. My position is similar to that of my noble friend.
Given that we have more than one Bill proposing to introduce polygraph conditions, is this indicative of a policy change on the part of the Government, with wider use of polygraphs—perhaps wider than just these two Bills? If so, what consultation and evaluation has there been? I appreciate that it is intended that there will be a pilot of the use under this Bill, which my noble friend seeks to be absolutely sure about in Amendment 191.
Last week, during Committee on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, I asked about consultation with the probation service with regard to the balance between periods of custody and licence—a different point. I have now received a letter from the Advocate-General for Scotland, for which I am grateful, which, inter alia, said:
“The Probation Service is not normally consulted in respect of the creation of new custodial sentences or their licence periods.”
It is, of course, the licence period in which I am interested.
I have a similar question about consultation on the use of polygraphs during the licence period. The provisions preclude evidential use. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—their purpose is to discourage reoffending. I have said before that I would prefer to put effort into training probation officers in spotting small signs of what is the truth, what is editing the facts and what are porkies.
The Home Office fact sheet published in conjunction with the Bill refers to eligibility criteria as if there are criteria beyond what is in the Offender Management Act and the Bill. Another question is whether there are additional criteria. It also refers to high-risk perpetrators. Does that mean more than the custodial sentence, as provided by the Act? Does it mean more than repeat offences? Can the Minister say something about the assessment tools in arriving at the conclusion that someone is high risk?
The Home Office factsheet refers to risk as a test. The briefing last week to which my noble friend referred was very interesting and informative, and clearly those involved with the current use of polygraphs on sex offenders are enthusiastic—one would have expected that. But we were told that, in the US, historically there has been some inappropriate or, one could say, dodgy use. I was interested that the accreditation was to standards set by the American Polygraph Association. Given that our legal systems are not identical, has the Minister any comment on that?
I had understood that it was not possible actually to fail a test, because the examinations are used to point probation officers to an offender’s possible actions and behaviours, but that term is also used in the fact sheet, where it refers to “sanctions for failing”. One step available is the imposition of additional licence conditions. My noble friend mentioned DAPOs, or domestic abuse prevention orders. Can a polygraph test be used to prompt an investigation as to whether a DAPO or, indeed, a domestic abuse prevention notice, has been complied with before custody? Can a court dealing with a DAPO require a polygraph?
I suppose that one could summarise our attitude to Clause 69 as positive but remaining to be completely convinced—so possibly somewhere between yes and no.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. We do not seem to have him, so we will go on to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and Amendment 191, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, have enabled us to debate the whole issue of mandatory polygraph tests, and the fact that such tests could be made a licence condition for domestic abuse offenders.
I certainly want to see effective action taken against offenders, and effective punishments given to them. I have some concerns about the use of the polygraph test. If we rely on it further and further, it should be piloted in the way set out in Amendment 191, and we must be convinced of its reliability. As the noble Lord set out in his amendment, a report evaluating the trials must then be laid before Parliament and debated and a positive resolution passed by both Houses. I have had no involvement in this technology and I have no understanding of it—apart from what I have seen on television—so I believe that we must be very careful to get this right.
I was concerned by the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seemed to suggest that we would not have our own standards but would import them from another country—America. I would much rather that as a country we had our own standards, in which we had confidence, than import them from elsewhere. But polygraph testing is not widely used in this country and before we go much further, we need to be confident that it is reliable, and an effective and useful tool in the management of offenders.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, shall we see if we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on the call? I do not think we do, sadly, in which case I call the Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to strike out—alone among the clauses in the Bill—Clause 69. I will endeavour to persuade him, and the rest of the Committee, that this clause, like others, can play an important part in protecting victims of domestic abuse. Right at the start, however, I join the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking those at the MoJ who provided the presentation made to them. This was a very good example of how that sort of interaction—what one might call a learning session—can help everyone when we debate these matters in Committee.
Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for offenders convicted of a relevant domestic abuse-related offence. The relevant offences have included, until now: murder, specified violent offences, and the controlling or coercive behaviour offences set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015.
Polygraph examinations are already successfully used in the management of sexual offenders supervised by the National Probation Service. The clause extends the use of testing to include—in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators: those who have been released from custody having served a sentence of 12 months or more and are on licence.
The polygraph testing is used to monitor an offender’s compliance with other licence conditions, such as those restricting contact with their victim, requiring the offender to notify the probation officer when they form new relationships, or prohibiting entry into an exclusion zone; for example, around their victim’s home. It is also used to monitor dynamic risk factors such as alcohol or substance misuse.
I will try to respond to a number of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but if I miss any out, I undertake to write to him after reviewing the Official Report.
The policy underpinning these provisions does not allow offenders to be recalled to custody for failing a test. I use the word “fail” being cognisant of the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are not talking here about failing in the normal sense of the word. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness explained her approach to polygraphs as being somewhere between a yes and a no; that might be applicable to the polygraph itself. The clause does, however, enable offenders to be recalled for making disclosures during testing which, when considered with other evidence, suggest that the risk can no longer be managed in the community.
The offender can also be recalled to custody if he or she refuses to take the test or tries to trick it in some way; for example, by controlling their breathing. However, in response to the questions put to me, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that disclosures made voluntarily by the offender during the polygraph examination may reveal that they can no longer be safely managed in the community. Those circumstances would also lead to a return to custody. The important point to bear in mind in that regard is that that is no different from a situation in which an offender makes such disclosures without the polygraph licence condition.
Polygraph testing can be required as part of the licence conditions imposed on an offender following their release from custody. It can be imposed only where it is deemed necessary and proportionate to the risk posed. Importantly, in its report on the draft Bill the Joint Committee did not object in principle to extending polygraph testing to domestic abuse offenders; it sought assurance on two issues.
First, it sought an absolute assurance that no statement or data derived from a polygraph test would be used in criminal proceedings. The Joint Committee acknowledged that this appeared to be the effect of the draft Bill. In that regard, the provision in Clause 69 must be viewed alongside the existing provisions relating to polygraph testing in the Offender Management Act 2007. Section 30 of that Act provides unequivocally that any statement or any physiological reaction made by an offender during the polygraph session may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant.
To be clear, however, this does not preclude information derived from a polygraph examination being shared with the police, who may decide to use the information to conduct further inquiries. If, as a result of those inquiries, the police obtain other evidence that suggests that an offence has been committed, charges may be brought against the offender.
The second concern raised by the Joint Committee was that polygraph testing should not become a substitute for careful risk analysis—a point that, I think, was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the use of polygraph examinations will not replace any other risk assessment tools or measures, such as the multiagency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—but will provide an additional source of information that would not otherwise be available.
The evaluation of the pilot mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders concluded that offender managers found polygraph testing very helpful. To date, 5,000 tests of that type have been carried out on 2,249 offenders, and 1,449 tests have resulted in the offenders making significant disclosures that led to either a refined risk management plan or recall to custody.
With regard to the qualifications of those carrying out the examinations, I assure the Committee that they are carried out by qualified and experienced probation officers who have completed three months’ residential training to become accredited polygraph examiners, and all polygraph examinations are quality assured by an independent external provider.
However, while the use of polygraph examinations is tried and tested, as I have said, in the context of the management of sex offenders, the Government accept that domestic abuse perpetrators represent a different cohort of offender. That is why we are committed to piloting the provisions in Clause 69. I draw the Committee’s attention to the commencement provisions in Clause 79, which expressly provides for such piloting; we will begin this as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent.
We intend to run a three-year pilot in the north of England, involving about 600 offenders. Half will be subject to testing and half—the control or comparison group—will not. The Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge, will conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot, and only if the results were positive would we roll out testing across England and Wales. In response to the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in conjunction with his Amendment 191, I am happy to commit that the Government will lay a copy of the evaluation report before both Houses prior to any decision on wider rollout, enabling noble Lords to consider the findings in full. I hope that that is helpful in response to his question.
Given the benefits that we have seen with the use of polygraph testing to help us to manage the risk posed by convicted sex offenders, I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, now sees the merit, at least in principle, of analysing the question of whether we can use the same procedure with regard to serious domestic abuse perpetrators. Indeed, last week, we heard calls for the more efficient and effective use of technology to protect victims of domestic abuse—Clause 69 does just that.
With the repetition of the point that I will go through the Official Report, because there may be one or two questions that I have not directly answered but which deserve and will get a written answer from me, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his challenge to Clause 69, which I commend to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that we have had no luck getting in contact with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for his careful response. I echo both his thanks to those in his department who organised the learning session last week and his view that it sets a good example; it would be very good to hear more often from experts in the department—particularly about the use of technology, where Members of this House perhaps have less expertise than they do in other legal areas.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked a number of questions, some of which were answered by the Minister. I am not sure that he addressed the question of what is meant by, and what the criteria are for, “high-risk” perpetrators. She also wanted to know what exactly is meant by “failing” a test; I understand, as did the Minister, the concept of evaluating a test, but there is a problem with our general understanding of results of polygraph tests as binary and with the use of the term “failed test”, which frequently figures in discussions around this issue. Given his echo of the description of answers as “somewhere between yes and no”, as expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the Minister clearly appreciated that these tests cannot provide definitive answers. Will he and others give consideration to how far they should be treated as more indicative than binary?
I am less concerned about the use of information, as described by the Minister, that is derived from polygraph testing and used to submit information to the police for further investigation, which would then come up with real evidence. I am, however, a little concerned about recall based on disclosures. I understand the point that there is some similarity between disclosures that arise as a result not of polygraph testing but of, for instance, discussions with probation officers; however, I still think that there need to be safeguards. The Minister may like to consider those and put out some guidance as to how they are to be dealt with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I regret to say that I have had a late request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I apologise: there is often a delay when the clerk sends a message to the Woolsack. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
Thank you. I apologise for throwing the proceedings. I have just received an email saying that I am about to be called.
My question concerns how the Minister dealt with the fact that information—I hesitate to use the term “evidence”—obtained during a test cannot be used as evidence in legal proceedings. It has only just occurred to me that, of course, family proceedings in particular—as well as civil proceedings—are very important in respect of domestic abuse. I am unclear as to the status of what is learned during a polygraph test for family proceedings. If the Minister cannot answer that now, could he add it to the questions that he will reply to after today?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it might be most efficient for me to do just that. I will add it to the list of questions and respond in writing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 146. 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 debate.
Clause 70: Guidance about the disclosure of information by police forces
Amendment 146
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under this section which takes account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.(2B) In preparing guidance under subsection (2A) the Secretary of State must require the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force; and(b) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, have also involved domestic abuse.(2C) In this section—“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex, or(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex;“sex” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 (sex).”
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 146 in my name, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I will explore this relatively fully because it is, I think, the first time that misogyny, per se, has reared its ugly head in this Bill, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I go into detail to explain why I think it is important to consider it.
What, then, is the issue? What is this about and why on earth would anyone want to open what some might consider the Pandora’s box of recognising the link between misogyny and domestic abuse? Indeed, is this the “woke police” on the march, or is there actually a reason behind it?
Violence against women does not occur in a vacuum. Hostility towards them generates a culture in which violence and abuse are being tolerated, excused and repeated. Changing that means challenging not only individual acts of abuse but the very roots of the culture that enables it. Gathering the evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women, and how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse, is crucial to recognising these connections.
At Second Reading I mentioned the dreadful case of Kellie Sutton, a mother of three children under 15 who killed herself in 2017 after suffering five months of psychological and physical abuse from her partner, who was subsequently jailed for four years and three months and, in addition, given a 10-year criminal behaviour order requiring him to tell the police of any sexual relationship lasting more than 14 days that he enters into. Why is this case relevant to the amendment? It is because the perpetrator had already been reported to the police in previous years by three different partners. In his regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, the senior coroner for Hertfordshire highlighted the fact that police records failed to flag up that this was a repeat domestic abuse perpetrator. The previous three complaints had been filed away as non-crime reports, which meant that the police would have found a link to the perpetrator only if they had searched for the victims, since no reports at all had been filed against the abuser. The coroner concluded in his report:
“This sort of information is clearly of value to inform officers’ decision making, when dealing with a report of potential domestic abuse and clearly of value when seeking to safeguard more widely the vulnerable parties in abusive relationships.”
The amendment seeks to do that by learning from the experience of the police forces around the country which have started to record misogyny as a hate crime. By requiring all police forces to do that and to assess how it influences incidents of domestic abuse, the amendment seeks to add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women and so the work on how to end it.
We are all aware that police forces are very stretched in their manpower resources, and that they approach domestic abuse incidents with great caution. Given the pressures that the police are under, why have some forces voluntarily taken on what some might regard as just more form-filling or box-ticking? The evidence of where misogyny has been identified as a hate crime to date by police forces in their recording of crime has been that it helps increase the understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women. It is critical that every case of domestic abuse should be taken seriously and each individual given access to the support they need.
Both men and women may experience incidents of interpersonal violence and abuse but women are considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse, including sexual violence. They are also more likely to have experienced sustained physical, psychological or emotional abuse, or violence that results in injury or death. There are important differences between male violence against women and female violence against men; namely, the amount, severity and impact. Women experience much higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of domestic abuse.
In one study of 96 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police, it was found that men are significantly more likely than women to be repeat perpetrators and to use physical violence, threats and harassment. Over a six-year tracking period, the majority—83%—of recorded male perpetrators had at least two incidents of recorded abuse, with many having a lot more and one man having no fewer than 52 repeat incidents, whereas in cases where women were recorded as the perpetrator, the majority, 62%, had only one incident of abuse recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight, compared with 52.
In 2016 Nottinghamshire Police became the first police force in the country to enable women and girls to report cases of abuse and harassment as misogyny under their misogyny hate crime policy. Misogynistic hate crimes recorded by the police since Nottinghamshire adopted that policy include stalking, groping, indecent assault and kidnapping. While they initially did not include domestic abuse in that reporting as it was already being recorded as a form of crime, those involved in the scheme now say:
“Our experience of delivering training to the police tells us that, even though domestic abuse is not included within the hate crime policy, officers are often able to recognise that misogyny is likely to be at the root of this too. Similarly, we are aware that misogyny hate crime can act as a bridge to women talking about (and recognising) other forms of violence against women. Where women may feel that domestic abuse is something that happens to other women and is not linked to inequality, they are more readily able to recognise this with misogyny hate crime.”
Following Nottinghamshire’s example, the police forces in North Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset, and Northamptonshire have also made misogyny a hate crime, and are therefore already recording these figures to enable such an approach. The amendment would require other police forces to follow suit. Women’s Aid reports that police forces that are recording misogyny have not seen an influx of reporting of wolf-whistling but instead have received a growing number of reports of serious sexual harassment and assault. Making misogyny a hate crime would mean simply that police forces logged and monitored such incidents and thereby enabled to create a fuller picture of the problem, support victims and make them aware of where incidents were recurring. Indeed, women and girls need to feel that their concerns are being taken seriously by the police and that misogyny is not normalised. Categorising and calling out misogyny wherever it occurs would send a clear message that such behaviour was not acceptable, and should prevent more serious offences in the long term.
As we all know, domestic abuse cases have risen dramatically during the pandemic crisis, with cases of domestic homicides doubling in the UK. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must give guidance on the kinds of behaviour that amount to domestic abuse. The amendment states that the guidance should further take account of
“evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.”
While there is no legal definition of “hostility”, the Crown Prosecution Service uses the everyday understanding of the word, which includes ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. The amendment seeks to build on that concept. It would ensure that all police forces in England and Wales recorded any crimes where the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated by this hostility or perceived the perpetrator to have demonstrated hostility in committing the crime. The police would then also be required to assess how that interacted with domestic abuse by making an assessment of how many of those crimes met the definition as set out in this legislation.
Proposals to recognise misogyny as a category of hate crime would therefore not make anything illegal if it was not illegal already. Instead, the amendment would help build our understanding of the forms of violence and abuse that women experience by ensuring that all were recorded. Those working in areas where this approach is being taken have reported the transformative effect that it has had on safety. As Helen Voce, CEO of the Nottingham Women’s Centre, pointed out:
“Misogyny is the soil in which violence against women grows.”
That is why we need to tackle it.
Following an amendment to the upskirting Bill, Her Majesty’s Government instructed the Law Commission to carry out a review of all hate crime and to consider incorporating misogyny as a new category of hate crime. The commission notes that there were 67,000 incidents of hate crime based on gender in 2018, 57,000 of which were targeted at women. Without recognising the role of misogyny in the experiences of women, our legal and criminal justice system masks the true extent of hostility based on gender.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my normal reaction to an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to sign an amendment on social reform is to reach for my pen, but on this occasion I confess I hesitated—not of course having heard the compelling and moving speech he has just made. This is because, while a member of the other place, I spent 30 days with the Hampshire Constabulary, and a constant complaint was about the number of forms they had to fill in, regarding it as an unwelcome diversion from the prevention and detection of crime.
Amendment 146 would require the chief officer to provide information, presumably on a form, about domestic abuse crimes where the offender demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on sex. A strong case needs to be made for this, to which I will come in a moment. In addition to the requirement to fill in a form, the amendment raises the question as to how a chief officer might judge whether a crime involving domestic abuse might have been motivated by hostility or prejudice based on sex—given that there are varying motives for domestic abuse, as we have heard during earlier debates on the Bill, and often no witnesses.
To get a better understanding of the complex issues behind domestic abuse and hate crime, I went to the Law Commission document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, called Hate Crime Laws: A Consultation Paper. This is not light reading, weighing in at 544 pages, with a glossary and a foreword but no executive summary. But it did look, as the noble Lord has just said, at broadening the range of hate crimes to other categories, of which sex was one.
The relevant chapter for this debate is chapter 12, which looks at extending existing protected characteristics to gender or sex. It is 48 pages of closely argued and sympathetic analysis, which ends with a provisional recommendation, followed by a question:
“We provisionally propose that gender and sex should be a protected characteristic for the purposes of hate crime law. Do consultees agree? We invite consultees’ views on whether gender-specific carve-outs for sexual offences, forced marriage, FGM and crimes committed in the domestic abuse context are needed, if gender or sex is protected for the purposes of hate crime law.”
I appreciate that, as the noble Lord has just said, the amendment does not propose extending hate crime to gender or sex. However, the issues raised by the amendment are similar to those in the Law Commission’s document and, as I shall argue, the amendment offers the opportunity to shed light on the provisional conclusions of the Law Commission, and indeed helps to answer their questions.
To summarise the document, the commission identified three relevant criteria before extending hate crime. The first is demonstrable need—evidence that targeting based on prejudice or hostility towards a group is prevalent. The second is additional harm—evidence that that targeting causes additional harm to the victim, members of the targeted group and society more widely. The third is suitability—whether protection of this group fits within the framework of criminal law, is workable in practice, and is an efficient use of resources.
Again, to summarise, the first two boxes were ticked. On demonstrable need, the commission concluded that there is
“overwhelming evidence that women and girls are targeted for certain crimes”
because of hostility to their gender. On additional harm, it concluded that hostility causes
“harm to the social value of equality and can prevent women’s equal participation in society”
and so causes wider harm to that society.
On suitability, the commission is frankly more cautious. It points to the risk of dividing offences into misogynistic and non-misogynistic, and creating a hierarchy of offences. It also mentions the difficulty of proof. Proof is often difficult enough in domestic abuse cases, but having to prove that the offence was aggravated by prejudice against women could provide an additional hurdle.
The commission also touched on issues relating to resources. Hate crime resources are limited, prosecutions and convictions are down and, as we have heard in earlier debates, support services are under strain. I quote from the Law Commission report:
“In this light, one argument might be that resources for tackling violence against women and girls would be more efficiently spent on increasing access to all survivors, particularly survivors who encounter additional barriers to access such as BAME survivors or migrant survivors.”
This then led the commission to discuss the possibility, if hate crimes were to be extended to gender or sex, of carving out domestic abuse and sexual crimes from gender-based aggravation, as already happens in certain states in America. It conceded that this would lead to a certain incoherence in the law and stated:
“This raises much wider questions as to whether hate crime is the right framework for the criminal justice system to deal with gender-based crimes.”
On balance, the commission proposes that gender should be a protected characteristic, but qualifies this by making it provisional and subject to consultees’ agreement.
Why is this relevant to the amendment, which I support? Because I believe that not going outright to make gender-based crime a hate crime, but suggesting this interim step, helps to answer the questions posed by the commission and provides key information on practicality and suitability. As the noble Lord has just said, the amendment would secure the evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls, how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse and the practicality of this proposed extension.
A better understanding of these issues is crucial. As we have heard, 11 out of the 43 police constabularies in England and Wales have made misogyny a hate crime, trialled the policy or are actively considering implementing it and voluntarily filling in the necessary forms—dealing with my initial reservation. The amendment would broaden the base by requiring all police forces to do this and so it would add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women and so how work to end it might be accelerated. If we go down this path, I hope the Minister will do this sensitively and cautiously, taking on board the points in the Law Commission reports. If carried, the amendment would be an important addition to this progressive piece of legislation.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his comprehensive introduction. It may be hard for some people to fully comprehend the role that misogyny and sexism play in the lives of women and the extent to which it permeates our every day: from offhand pejorative language that belittles feminine characteristics and female achievements, through lazy gender-based assumptions about preferences, capability and behaviours, to uniquely gendered insults and slurs.
At one end of the spectrum are behaviours and attitudes that might be considered by their perpetrators to be gallant or even protective of the “fairer sex”—what some researchers characterise as “benevolent sexism”. At the other end is the hostile sexism of overtly negative stereotypes and antagonism towards women; the kind of sexism that sees gender equality as attack on masculinity and the kind of sexism that is known to represent a significant danger to women.
We worry, with good reason, about social media platforms creating environments for this kind of misogyny. Indeed, research from the University of Pennsylvania on just one social media platform located more than 2.9 million tweets in one week containing instances of gendered insults. That averages 419,000 sexist slurs per day. That data is from 2019; we can only imagine that today’s figures might dwarf that number.
But perhaps we should worry more about the fact that this online aggression simply mirrors traditional stereotypes and attitudes towards women—a hostility based on sex that women experience everywhere: at school, at work, on public transport, in taxis, on the street and of course at home.
Research from Brazil and Turkey into the connection between sexism and domestic abuse shows a positive correlation between sexism and attitudes that legitimise abuse in intimate relationships. Put simply, men who hold sexist beliefs are more likely to translate them into actions through the use of coercion and force. The researchers make the point that, although benevolent sexism might be thought to promise some kind of protection for women as the perceived weaker sex, in fact this promise rings hollow. It found that benevolent and hostile sexism acted in a carrot-and-stick combination, with protective affection a reward for compliance, and abuse and violence the stick employed should the woman fail to fall into line.
Of course, the impact of sexism and misogyny within the home is doubly worrying. Not only does it have a grave impact on the abused partner; it is also likely to be witnessed and internalised by children, influencing their behaviours and expectations in their adult lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about the lack of knowledge about the experience of victims—the wisdom from their perspectives. This lack of focus is evident in the literature. There is a significant gap in our knowledge about how women experience misogynistic hate crimes. A Swedish study from September 2020 aimed to fill that gap, drawing from a sample of 1,767 female students. It showed that women with experiences of misogynistic hate crimes are more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment and repeat victimisation. They consistently report higher levels of a fear of crime and higher rates of anxiety, depression and stress.
The research supports the thesis that misogynistic hate crime is what is often called a “message crime”. Its negative effect extends far beyond the direct victim, because the offences spread fear and insecurity within entire minority communities and contribute to the marginalisation of particularly vulnerable groups.
As we have heard, this amendment would lead to the gathering of more data about the extent, nature and prevalence of sex-based hostility towards women and girls, and this would improve our understanding of how this intersects with domestic abuse. The very act of collecting this data would likely have benefits in itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said and as we have heard, 11 out of 43 police constabularies in England and Wales already identify misogyny as a hate crime or are considering doing so. The increased rate of reporting in those areas suggests overall improvements in the ability of officers to identify these crimes but also increased confidence levels among women to come forward and report them. Requiring all police forces to follow their example would allow the capture of data on a national scale, supporting the gathering and analysis of evidence, revealing the patterns and extent of women’s experiences, and, ultimately, enabling the development of strategies that would protect women and girls from being targets of crime on the basis of their sex.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his very clear introduction and explanation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her description of misogyny.
As we have heard, the amendment would require guidance to take account of the role that hostility against a particular sex plays in domestic abuse cases. It would also require the police to collect data on the number of relevant hate crimes based on sex and on how many of them are misogyny or misandry related. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, the picture is patchy to say the least.
The problem is that currently all but four police forces do not record crimes based on misogyny or misandry, although I totally accept the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about how the picture needs to be built up. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, another seven forces are thinking about recording such crimes, but there are 43 police forces in total, so we can hardly get a picture of what is happening and of the contribution that these crimes make to domestic abuse in particular. In order to be able to measure and interpret trends in hate crimes, we must have the information; otherwise, how can we know what we are dealing with and how can we build that picture?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be a signatory to this long overdue amendment, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the other co-signatories for bringing forward. It relates to a policy that I have advocated for years—that we should make misogyny a hate crime.
Part of the problem is that misogyny and sexism are deeply embedded in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about a protective kindness from men towards women. Quite honestly, we do not need that. Misogyny and sexism can be covered up by teasing and even flattery, but it is totally inappropriate and it is time that men learned that. We have enshrined our condemnation of racism and homophobia in law, but we are not treating sexism as the same kind of priority and it is time that we did.
According to statistics, 90% of British women experienced street harassment before the age of 17. Street harassment is being shouted at. We are not talking about wolf-whistling; we are talking about men shouting at women, making them embarrassed and perhaps making them feel less free to walk down a street. Eighty-five per cent of women aged 17 to 24 have been subjected to unwanted sexual advances. Can your Lordships imagine that—that 85% of women have been groped by people whom they do not want to be groped by? Therefore, it is time to make misogyny a hate crime.
The amendment is long overdue and I hope that the Minister will say that she accepts it completely. Several noble Lords have talked about Nottinghamshire Police being trailblazers on this. It has seen a 25% increase in the reporting of misogynistic crime and a very high level of satisfaction among the people—mainly women—who have reported those crimes, because finally they have been taken seriously. As noble Lords have also said, only 11 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales have made misogyny a hate crime, have trialled it or are actively considering implementing this.
Part of the problem is that, just as the police are representative of society, there will be police officers who are sexist and misogynistic. This means that they need training. I have in the past mentioned the sort of domestic abuse training that some police forces are already getting. It makes the officers aware of exactly what happens and creates more empathy for the people who are being abused. For me, domestic abuse training is part of what will help to solve this problem that we have of misogyny. I hope that standing up and talking about it here will also help.
It would be a real shame for this amendment not to be accepted on to the statute book, but will the Minister at least promise to open a debate on this issue among police forces? It is in her power to do that. I would be very pleased if she accepted this amendment but, if not, could she take it forward in any way that she can?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We cannot hear you.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
It will be immensely helpful to have a process of gathering information ahead of the Law Commission report on whether extension of hate crimes to embrace misogyny will work, and how. At present, we do not have good information. This is a really difficult area; I do not think that any of us has trouble with the concept of hate crimes, but the Scottish Parliament is currently undergoing extreme difficulty with the concept of hate speech. Many police forces in the UK are doing some very strange things with “hate incidents”, where these can be recorded just on the say-so of one person and then appear in another person’s DBS check. There are some difficult things happening around hate crimes and hate incidents generally; having good data must, surely, be at the core of reaching good conclusions.
Here, we have a difficulty in that the police have changed their recording of crimes and reports so that they record only the reported gender of a person and not their natal sex, as is the protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Recently, we have seen extraordinary rises in the reported level of sexual abuse by women. Is this real? Is there something happening to women in our country that we really ought to understand, or is this a fiction of the change in the police reporting method? Not having accurate data disables us in understanding what to do.
I very much hope that, if something comes of this—I hope it will—the police will not only record the natal sex but will record the gender of all the people concerned so that we can understand exactly what is happening. It really does not help trans people that the hate they are subject to is subsumed under misogyny if they are trans women. We need to know whether this is happening to them because they are trans. We are trying to gather data and understanding; the better the data we have, the better our response.
I support, but would like to see extended, the definition at the end of this. It is really important that we have clarity and completeness. Let us record sex as per the Equality Act definition because that is, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has confirmed to me on previous occasions, the basis on which the Government are working. Let us also record self-identified gender or whatever other formulation works best—we could perhaps adopt the one from the forthcoming census—so that we have a complete picture of misogyny and trans misogyny and can, when the time comes, craft effective laws about it.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. Members may have seen recent reports in the media covering the experience of elite female athletes being subject to harassment and intimidation when doing training runs in the street. They cannot go to their athletic tracks to train at the moment because of lockdown. As has been said, this is not about wolf-whistling; it is about violence and harassment, mainly against women. If those athletes were competing in an Olympic stadium, they would be cheered to the rafters for their success, but because they are training on the streets and are anonymous, somehow they are objectified and are easy prey.
During White Ribbon Week, I asked the Minister to accept the two year-old Law Commission’s report recommending that misogyny be made a hate crime. This is now a matter of increasing urgency. The police forces that have been adopting policies to record gender hate crimes are to be congratulated, but this needs to be adopted generally. Superintendent Andy Bennett of Avon and Somerset Police said:
“We know women are less likely to report hate crime committed by strangers in public, which could be because discrimination is normalised for many women.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, Nottinghamshire Police was the first force in England and Wales to start recording hate crimes against women and girls. Sue Fish, the former chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police, said:
“Some of the feedback we had was that women, for the first time, described themselves as ‘walking taller’ and with their ‘heads held high’.”
According to the White Ribbon Campaign, one in five British men thinks that feminism has gone “too far”. Online misogyny can also be a gateway to wider divisions in society. A HOPE not hate report shows that some young men who interact with men’s rights activists online are on the first step to more extreme racist or far-right groups and regard more rights for anyone—such as people of colour, the LGBT community and people with disabilities—as a threat to their status. The chief executive of HOPE not hate supports this amendment. He states that misogyny is a recruiting tool for hate groups and a means to radicalise, especially among the very young. These online groups radicalise young men who go on to commit acts of aggression designed to intimidate, humiliate and control women.
Having better-quality information throughout all police forces is not just another paper exercise. It helps to increase understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women and girls, and it gives women more confidence that their issue will be taken seriously. It may even go on to protect more women from violence and intimidation. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this afternoon, many noble Lords have described misogyny outside the scenario of domestic abuse—such as elite athletes training in the street, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, just said. I hope to explain that, while I agree that the recording of misogyny as a hate crime is a good thing, it may confuse things when it comes to domestic abuse.
As has been explained, Clause 70 requires the Secretary of State to
“issue guidance to chief officers of police about the disclosure of police information by police forces for the purposes of preventing domestic abuse.”
This amendment is about including in that guidance that the police should record any crimes where the offender demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on sex, or where it is perceived that the crime was motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex. This, in effect, would require police officers to record misogyny as a hate crime, although as it is worded in gender-neutral terms it would also require them to record misandry as a hate crime. I am confused about why misandry would be a hate crime, but we will move on. It then tries to bring this within the scope of Clause 70, which is about preventing domestic abuse, by mentioning taking account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and misogyny and recording misogynistic crimes that, in the opinion of the police, have also involved domestic abuse.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 146, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The noble Lord set out in detail the issue of violence against women; he seeks in his amendment to make effective use of data to secure evidence, in order to help our understanding of the offence and our ability to prevent it. That is the whole point of data; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference to that. By collecting data we can understand the issue, and that can then help us to find solutions. This is why data is so important to everything we do and what is so good about the amendment.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance that took account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and other offences involving hostility based on sex. It would require all chief police officers to collect and provide data on relevant crimes reported to police forces which they believe have also involved domestic abuse. Sadly, there are some men around who hate women for no other reason than that they are a woman. I do not know what the issue is; perhaps they feel that the woman somehow threatens their identity as a man—that she might be smarter than them or know a bit more about something. I do not know what it is, but there are men who absolutely hate women. We have to ensure we understand that more so that we can provide solutions. It is horrific when you think about it, but it is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made reference to social media, which has shone a light on this. We think of the abuse received by our colleagues in the other place—on all sides of the House—if they dare to suggest anything that some people do not like. They have been threatened with all sorts of acts of violence, called names and generally abused. Some really offensive and disgusting remarks have been made about them, which are absolutely appalling and should be highlighted, but those are just the tip of the iceberg. Social media has allowed this to be brought into the sunlight and in that sense it is good, although I am sure we will come back to social media companies and their responsibilities another time. It is a dreadful situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, it is important to note that nothing in this amendment makes anything an offence that is not already an offence. It is merely about collecting information, and understanding the issue in order to help us understand the problem. Many noble Lords have heaped praise on Nottinghamshire Police for their work. I used to work in Nottinghamshire many years ago so I have dealt with the police there on different matters. They are an excellent police force. I am looking forward to my honourable friend Vernon Coaker coming to join the House next month. In his roles as a teacher, a councillor and a Member of Parliament in the other place for 23 years, he had lots to do with Nottinghamshire Police; I am sure that we will benefit from his experience.
I agree with all the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull, Lady Burt of Solihull, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. In particular, my noble friend Lady Donaghy talked about the risk of young men caught in this horrible tide of misogyny who are being dragged into other dreadful crimes. We should be very worried about that as well—about people who get dragged into other dangerous, illegal and criminal activity. We need to understand that.
I am very lucky in that my mum, my sister and my wife are all much smarter than me; I have been lucky to have them in my life to help me out. When I came into this House, my two sponsors were my two previous bosses in the Labour Party, both women—Baroness Gould and my noble friend Lady McDonagh. Lots of women in my life have helped me out on a whole range of things, and I am very grateful for that. This is a very important amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been excellent. I can categorically attest to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is not a misogynist. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about how the behaviour of parents has almost a direct correlation with how their children might behave when they grow up. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, talked about the trans community; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, might have looked at my notes because the words I have written in response to her remarks are almost identical to what he said: that hate crime laws in England and Wales protect identity characteristics such as race, religion or sexual orientation, or groups such as trans or disabled people.
I thank noble Lords for all their comments, including the very thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the abuse of parliamentarians—it is horrific to see the comments that people have made—much of which is misogynistic. The opening gambit of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was the tragic case of Kellie Sutton, which shows two things, one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It shows the failure to include domestic abuse in the MAPPA arrangements and the need for more effective use of Clare’s Law; the Bill remedies that, as it puts the guidance on a statutory footing. Noble Lords have talked about police forces that record misogyny. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly pointed out that those which record misogyny also record misandry.
I will be quite clear about the Government’s position on hate crime. All crimes that are motivated by hatred are totally unacceptable and have no place in this society. That is why, in 2018, as part of our updating of the Government’s hate crime action plan, we asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of current hate crime legislation, including considering whether other protected characteristics such as sex, gender and age should be included. We asked it to review both the adequacy and the parity of protection offered by the law relating to hate crime and to make recommendations for reform. This review began in 2019; over the course of that year and last, the Law Commission tried to meet as many people as possible who had an interest in this area of law, organising events across England and Wales to gather views and, of course, evidence, which the noble Lord so often talks about.
The noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lucas, stressed the importance of data in our considerations. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about opening a debate with the police; I am sure that, following the Law Commission’s findings, such a debate will be opened up. However, we have specifically asked the commission to consider the current range of offences, aggravating factors and sentencing, and to make recommendations on the most appropriate models to ensure that the criminal law provides consistent and effective protection from conduct motivated by hatred towards protected groups or characteristics.
The review also took account of the existing range of protected characteristics, identifying any gaps in the scope of protection currently offered under the law and making recommendations to promote a consistent approach. The consultation to support the review closed on Christmas Eve of last year. That consultation focused on whether sex or gender should be added to hate crime laws, noting that misogyny by itself might introduce inconsistency to hate crime laws—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also pointed out.
We will respond to the review when it is completed. Given the range and depth of the work undertaken by the Law Commission, we do not think it would be appropriate to prejudice the outcome of its work, including by issuing guidance or requiring the collection of statistics along the lines proposed by the amendment. As I have said, the noble Lord rightly wants to see evidence-based policy. The work of the Law Commission will add significantly to that evidence base. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we should allow it to complete that work rather than pre-empting it. We will consider what changes need to be made once we have had the opportunity to fully consider the Law Commission’s final recommendations. On the basis of these comments, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this wide-ranging debate. I thought it was appropriate for it to be introduced by a member of the weaker sex, but I thank everybody of whatever sex for their contributions. I thank my colleague in the other place, Stella Creasy. She and I had the pleasure of spending quite a bit of time together at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where I got to know her. She has been a doughty champion of trying to get misogyny recognised as a rather pervasive element in modern society and I applaud her for her efforts, which have been supported across the Chamber in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Young—with his usual erudition and from his commanding height—laid out just how extensive the Law Commission’s interim report is. I, too, waded through 40-odd pages, and I confess that I did not look at about 500 footnotes in detail, but it is very impressive and goes very deep. What comes out of it very clearly is that the case for the prosecution is proven: misogyny is something that actually exists, is tangible and has a very unpleasant effect on a lot of people. However, finding out that it is bad is the easy bit; the difficult bit, which is what the Law Commission is trying to do now, is translating that knowledge—that truth—into legislation in a form that will have a materially beneficial effect on the very large number of victims of misogyny. That is the difficult piece to try to get right. Frankly, the more data that we have to help us try to understand how to do that effectively, the better.
My noble friend Lady Bull laid out some of the international context. This is not something that takes place only in our disunited kingdom, it is an international syndrome and a shameful one. The existence of gender-based hostility is a fact of life and it has probably always been with us from Neolithic times. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, quite rightly made the point that we must have the right information. I am to some extent agnostic on the technical issues of sex versus gender and all the rest of it. That is not a battle that I am going to fight. I do not feel qualified to do so, but I am quite sure that the Law Commission will look at that in detail as it is looking at all the other elements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the pervasiveness of misogyny, based in part, I suspect, on her own experience and that of others that she has seen. It is shameful. She also made an extremely good point about the value of really good police domestic abuse training. I do not know to what extent there is a template for best practice and what good really looks like. I suspect that, as ever, some police forces are doing it infinitely better than others. Can the Minister tell us how much knowledge the Home Office has of where best practice is in existence or being evolved and, if so, what is it doing, or what does it aspire to do, to try to make sure that that is applied everywhere, not just in those police forces that are ahead of the game?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about the importance of enhanced information, but he rightly made the point, as a lawyer, that hate crime is a difficult and very sensitive area, and data really will be king. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I saw the reports about the way in which female athletes have been tormented and abused because they cannot go to the normal stadia and places to exercise. It is absolutely deplorable that one should be trying to do what one loves and has a passion for—indeed, what one may be representing one’s country for—and is subject to abuse on the street. I cannot even imagine what that would be like. I hope that if I witnessed someone doing something like that, I would give them a piece of my mind—not that they would probably take much notice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, also pointed out that misogyny is a recruiting tool for hate groups. In doing research for this debate, I went down one particular rabbit hole that I found on the internet: a very bizarre male forum in which feminism is regarded as the root of many of modern society’s ills and as a conspiracy to belittle men and reduce their role. It was eye-closing, rather than eye-opening, to try to read it, but it exists and we cannot ignore it. We have to try to do something about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quite rightly, with his extensive experience, laid out some of the heffalump traps that exist legally and in the way in which the police might try to apply this. He knows far more about it than I do, but I would defer to the Law Commission to try to work its way through some of the complexities that he outlined. I probably agree that they do not necessarily need to be in primary legislation; that is not the object of this probing amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, again, referred to the importance of data and the role of social media. Like him, I greatly look forward to the arrival of our new colleague: his friend and mine, Vernon Coaker. When he arrives, he will be a sterling addition to your Lordships’ House. I also—since I am married to one—agree with the noble Lord on the very important role of powerful women.
The Minister quite rightly mentioned the pervasive influence of the home that one is fortunate or unfortunate enough to grow up in, and how that influences one’s views. We both have shared history in the importance of timely, accurate and informative data. I think we all agree that although we know this is here, we still do not really understand its full complexity, how to record it accurately or how to respond to it. I hope that the Law Commission will come up with some answers, but the pandemic has acted like a pressure cooker on an awful lot of what is going on. Many women and children are suffering unspeakable oppression at the moment and I am very conscious that, while it is neat and tidy to say that we will wait for the Law Commission findings to come out, there is a feeling among most of us who have spoken that it would be good to do as much as we can in the interim to acknowledge that this is a live and shameful issue, rather than just sit on our hands hoping that the Law Commission will pull a rabbit out of the hat.
On that basis, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank the Minister for listening so politely and answering as I expected she might, but I hope that she and her colleagues will consider whether more could be done, given the circumstances that so many of these women and children are in, to try to send some message to police forces about the benefits that other police forces which have trialled this are having from it, and to encourage them to look at it seriously. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 146A. 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.
Lord Young of Cookham
(ii) resides or might reasonably be expected to reside with a person who falls within sub-paragraph (i) and is not the abuser”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the applicant for homelessness assistance to be either the survivor or someone who resides with the survivor or might reasonably be expected to reside with the survivor. However, the applicant cannot be the abuser.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Naseby for their support for Amendment 146A in my name.
I welcome Clause 71, which builds on the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, piloted through the other place by Bob Blackman and through this House by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in providing a better deal for those confronted with being homeless. As the Explanatory Notes say, the clause gives those who are eligible and are homeless as a result of fleeing domestic abuse priority-need status for accommodation provided by the local authority. Crucially, it removes the need for the person who is homeless as a result of domestic abuse from having to fulfil the vulnerability test of the 1996 Housing Act.
This change is needed because of examples such as that of Danielle, who was made homeless when her relationship ended, after a neighbour called the police following a two-day beating. Despite visible bruising and a letter from her partner admitting abuse, she was told by the council that she needed to provide further evidence of her vulnerability and that she was not a priority. She ended up homeless, sofa surfing for two years. Hopefully, the clause will mean that there are no more cases like Danielle’s.
Access to suitable housing is often the critical barrier to survivors fleeing domestic abuse. Inexcusably, some victims are forced to choose between returning to live with a perpetrator—a dangerous or potentially life-endangering situation—or facing homelessness because they cannot access housing. That is why I, along with many of my parliamentary colleagues and organisations across the domestic abuse and homelessness sectors, including Crisis, Women’s Aid, Refuge, St Mungo’s and many others, supported the “A Safe Home” campaign of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ending Homelessness, which urged the Government to extend automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse through an amendment to this Bill. In May 2020, the Government listened to the expertise derived from the work of the group and amended the Bill, which I welcome.
However, the detail of that amendment as currently drafted concerns those same organisations, as the Government’s amendment on priority need fails to entirely protect survivors of domestic abuse. Critically, as it stands, the Bill does not give a legal assurance to allow anyone else in the household to apply for homelessness assistance on a victim’s behalf. This is only stated in guidance, which falls short of a legal guarantee and means that some victims are likely to fall through the gaps between the different practices of different local authorities. Although the circumstances may be rare in which this additional provision is necessary, they can occur. For example, an adult child living with the abused and the abuser may be able to help the victim by filling out the forms and formally making the application, particularly where the victim does not speak English or has difficulty with form filling. This situation could occur in a multigenerational household, perhaps in a BAME community.
It is clear from front-line services supporting survivors that it is not always safe for survivors of abuse to make the application for homelessness assistance themselves. This could be, for example, because it too dangerous for them to leave their home until they know that they have somewhere safe to flee to. It might also be the case that they are unable to attend in person because they are receiving hospital treatment as a result of the abuse that they have experienced.
Furthermore, this is not the case in other areas of homelessness legislation. For example, Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 allows for another member of a household to make the application for housing assistance, such as when a woman is pregnant or when an individual is vulnerable through old age or physical disability. The Government have argued that the requirement for survivors to personally make an application is to stop further abuse from a perpetrator. However, experts in the domestic abuse and homelessness sectors firmly disagree. In response to a possible objection, I understand that there is no known case where the individual for whom the application has been made has come forward to say that they did not support it.
I support the call of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ending Homelessness, which is also supported by Women’s Aid, for survivors in England to have the same support and legal protections as survivors throughout the rest of the UK and for the Government to address this anomaly or gap in the Bill. This change would not result in additional significant burdens on local authorities but would have a significant impact on survivors of domestic abuse, giving them an absolute, clear and guaranteed right to housing when they need it most. Given that we know that survivors are most at risk of homicide when they flee a perpetrator, it is vital that the Government look again at priority need and provide vulnerable survivors with a legal assurance of a clear, safe route out of abusive and life-threatening situations. This change will provide a vital safeguarding mechanism and a powerful lifeline for those in need. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, whose amendment I support. I will speak to my Amendment 147—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for adding his name to it. I also thank Women’s Aid for pointing out the problem that I aim to solve with this amendment.
Women and men experiencing domestic abuse face long-term and often lifelong risks from the perpetrator. Domestic abuse does not end when a relationship ends and research has consistently found that women are at significantly high risk when leaving the relationship. Often a woman can access safety only when she moves far away from the perpetrator. However, in recent years, Women’s Aid has seen a worrying trend in local authorities introducing “local connection” rules to tenders, with local refuges being capped on the number of non-local women whom they are able to accept. The very existence of refuges depends on these services’ ability to accept women from out of the area, as women will often need to flee from their local area to be safe. Data from Women’s Aid’s annual survey in 2017 shows that over two-thirds of women in a refuge on one day crossed local authority boundaries to access it. Women often cannot access a refuge in their local area due to the severe and ongoing risks faced from a perpetrator.
Women fleeing to a refuge rely on these services being able to accept them and their children from outside their local area, with no “local connection”. Government guidance makes it clear that locality caps and restrictions should not be written into tenders or contracts relating to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. However, this guidance is not consistently applied across England, leading to something of a postcode lottery of access to refuges and a major risk to the safe operation of this national network of services.
Similarly, there are real concerns about the inconsistencies between local authorities across England in meeting their obligations to house those from another area fleeing domestic abuse. I agree with Women’s Aid and many other NGOs that the ban on “local connection” rules and residency requirements must extend to wider homelessness duties and housing allocations, to ensure that all survivors can access safe housing.
Homelessness teams refusing to support women who are escaping abuse because they are not from their local area must also be included. Nearly a fifth of women supported by Women’s Aid’s No Woman Turned Away project in 2016-17 were prevented from making a valid homeless application on the grounds of domestic abuse for reasons that included having no local connection to the area, with local housing teams deprioritising survivors who do not have a local connection within their housing allocation policy.
Guidance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently encourages
“all local authorities to exempt from their residency requirements those who are living in a refuge or other form of safe temporary accommodation in their district having escaped domestic abuse in another local authority area.”
However, this is not a requirement and does not apply to women who have not escaped into a refuge or other form of temporary accommodation. Local authorities often use blanket residency tests in allocation schemes, without accounting for exceptional circumstances, such as for a woman fleeing domestic abuse.
The Government already require local authorities to make exemptions from local connection requirements or residency tests for certain groups, including for members of the Armed Forces and those seeking to move for work. My Amendment 147 would include a specific bar on local authorities from imposing local connection restrictions on survivors of domestic abuse when accessing refuges and, importantly, longer-term housing. This is needed to sit alongside the government department’s proposed statutory duty on local authorities to fund support in refuges and other forms of safe accommodation. This will ensure that all women and children fleeing domestic abuse can access safe accommodation where and when they need to.
Women’s Aid has given me a real example that highlights the urgency and importance of why this amendment is needed:
“A has experienced domestic abuse for the last 10 years from two partners as well as witnessing domestic abuse perpetrated by her father against her mother growing up. She has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD. After fleeing her abusive partner with three children, she moved into a refuge in a London borough to be near her mother, who was her main source of support. She was only able to find a refuge in a different borough to her mother, and after six months she was required to leave that refuge. She presented to the borough her mother lives in, but she was informed she was not entitled to be housed there as she did not have a local connection. The local authority stated she had a local connection to the borough she had been living in for six months. This is despite her being a survivor of domestic abuse, having no option other than to live in the first borough where a refuge space was available at the time of fleeing and the fact that she felt at risk from the perpetrator’s extended networks there.
The borough her mother lived in then housed A and her three children, who were all under 14, in one room in mixed-sex temporary accommodation. This was extremely distressing for her. She describes feeling retraumatised from the experience of being forced to live alongside men she did not know. She also felt scared for her children, who did not feel safe in the mixed-sex hostel. The room was highly unsuitable as the entire family lived in it and were required to cook in it, which is of course unsafe for a toddler. Another child had ADHD, so A struggled to provide them with any quiet time and appropriate support. This experience also exacerbated her PTSD, depression and anxiety, and she reported feeling low and stressed regularly due to feeling unsafe in the accommodation. She is now having to live there indefinitely while the boroughs have been assigned an arbiter to decide who has a duty.”
I would also like this to apply to victims of modern-day slavery who can equally fall foul of this problem, as I, as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, am only too aware. While I am aware that this Bill deals only with domestic abuse, I would ask my noble friend to look into this, whether people are the victims of domestic abuse or, indeed, of modern slavery. I ask that this should be done because housing has to be looked at seriously as a way of addressing the abuse that these victims suffer.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 146A, to which I have added my name. We know about the strong link between domestic abuse and homelessness, with access to housing often presenting as a critical barrier to survivors fleeing abuse. For example, in Wales, between 2018 and 2019, nearly 2,500 households were provided with assistance by their local authorities following homelessness caused by the breakdown of a relationship with a partner. Almost half of those relationship breakdowns were violent. In May 2020, the Government listened to the expertise of organisations across the domestic abuse and homelessness sectors, and the views of women who had experienced domestic abuse. In response, the Government amended this Bill to extend automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse in England, as was already the case in Wales. This welcome amendment will provide a vital lifeline for many survivors of domestic abuse.
In Wales in 2018-19, over 300 households were owed a duty to secure settled accommodation as they were in priority need after fleeing domestic violence or being threatened with violence. However, organisations across the domestic abuse and homeless sectors have raised concerns that the government amendments will not adequately guarantee clear access to housing for all survivors of domestic abuse. Critically, it will not enable other members of a household to apply for this assistance on the survivor’s behalf, as is the case in other areas of homelessness legislation. For example, when a woman is pregnant, a partner is allowed to make the application for them. This sounds like a small distinction, but front-line services that are supporting survivors every day know that it is not always safe for survivors of abuse to make an application for homelessness assistance themselves. Allowing other household members to be the lead applicant provides a vital safeguarding mechanism which could give a vulnerable survivor a route to safety when they need it most.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 146A and I support Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Like others, I welcome the provisions in the Bill, but this is rather typical of the pattern of responses to many aspects of the Bill: the amendment seeks to tweak the provisions to ensure that the Bill works as I believe is intended.
There is an assumption that refuges are the answer to abuse, but that they should be only temporary for reasons relating to the individuals who occupy them and because people who get stuck in them become, to use an unpleasant term, bed blockers, which is not how anyone would like to see themselves. Refuges are certainly not a permanent solution. There are not enough refuge spaces even for temporary provision, and it is very natural for victims to want the security of their own home for themselves and their children.
Like others, I am indebted to the organisations which know their way around the legislation that relates to their own services, as is the case here. Of course, domestic abuse is by no means the only cause of homelessness, which is why one has to look at priority need. But, given that the Government have addressed this, the Bill should be complete and replicate the provisions allowing applications to be made on behalf of vulnerable individuals, as other noble Lords have said. It must be safe for the survivor to access the housing.
As regards Amendment 147, there is no need to repeat the debate about why it may be essential for someone to get right away from her or his local area. No one with children would contemplate that; you only have to think about school and social connections. I have to say I am not entirely sure how one would administer “likely to become” a victim. I remember from my days as a local councillor the difficulties related to the size of a family, because you cannot take account of a child who is not yet born. But the importance of enabling someone to get away before there is too much harm is obvious, and the need to get away demonstrates how extreme the situation must be, because often you want the support of your community for yourself and your children.
The scope for more joint working between local authorities is outside this Bill, but the use of reciprocal arrangements has a very helpful, if not very big, place in this scene. But the real issue is the need for more support and, overall, more housing supply. Not for the first time, it is a matter of resources. For every housing offer to one person, someone else is not receiving an offer.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 146A, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is one I fully support. I would have signed it if there had been a space, but people got there before me. The amendment ensures that someone made homeless as a result of domestic abuse will have priority need for housing support. It cannot be right that a victim is left with the choice of staying with an abusive partner or becoming homeless. That is no choice at all. The amendment would allow the applicant for homelessness assistance to be either a survivor or someone who resides with the survivor—but, of course, not the abuser. Again, enabling somebody else in the household to make an application could be an important protection.
I was delighted to sign Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which would ensure that local connection cannot be used as a restriction when someone applies for housing, either in a refuge, in other temporary accommodation or in longer-term accommodation. This is very important to enable someone to get the help and support they want, to get them near to friends, to get them away to a place where they are not known or to get them wherever they want. It enables those in difficult, dangerous situations to get somewhere where they can rebuild their lives.
I want to thank Women’s Aid and other organisations for the help they have given all noble Lords on this Bill and for their general work. I have always been grateful to Women’s Aid for its advice on a number of issues. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, gave from Women’s Aid highlights the reason his amendment needs to be agreed—or, if the noble Baroness cannot agree the amendment, I hope she recognises the problem and will try to resolve it by bringing something back on Report.
In our discussion last week, we looked at the risks to victims, at home or at work, of being murdered. We have to ensure that, if somebody leaves a relationship, they can get somewhere they are safe and can rebuild their lives. It might be that they want to move to a completely different part of the country where no one knows them at all. Some victims have to completely cut off contact with abusers, because some abusers would do their damnedest to find somebody. We know people can choose not to be on the electoral register and that there is anonymous registration, but what shops they go to and where their families and friends are will still be known, so we have to ensure that people who want to can get away completely and start life afresh. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is so important—so that no local authority can suggest, “Oh, you can’t come here because you’ve got no connection”. “That’s exactly why I want to come here—I’ve got no connection.” That is a really important issue. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness at the end of the debate.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 146A, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Like him, I welcome the extension of automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse, but I share his regret that there is no current right for anyone who lives with the survivor, or might reasonably be expected to live with them, to apply for this assistance on their behalf. This amendment aims to address this and to ensure that survivors have access to what one has been described as the first and most important priority for anyone escaping domestic abuse—a safe roof over their head.
Domestic abuse is often about control. There is a horrible, perhaps inevitable, consequence when that control is challenged, which is that abusers are likely to become even more violent as they seek to reinstate or retain their dominance over their victim. My noble friend Lady Finlay has already said the risk of domestic homicide is at its highest during separation. Research studies show that the worst incidents of abuse are triggered by the victim having left the abuser, and the abuse is even more extreme if the victim has left for another partner. In such cases, the risk of femicide increases fivefold. Interviews with men who killed their wives in the United States pointed to separation or a threat of separation as the most common trigger for the murder. This means that the difficult decision by a victim of domestic abuse to leave their abuser and seek out support may well result not in the provision of a safe haven but in further victimisation, physical risk and even risk to life.
Front-line services in both the domestic abuse and the homelessness sectors are clear about the potential risks to survivors of abuse in making an application for homelessness assistance themselves. They know that abusers will employ the most varied and creative tactics to track their partner, from using GPS locators in their partner’s phone to calling around women’s shelters or even filing a missing persons report. Front-line workers know that in some cases a call for help may become a death sentence.
This amendment addresses this risk and provides an important safeguarding mechanism by allowing an ally to fill in the application, thus allowing victims of abuse to make plans without running the risk of those plans, or the location of their future home, being discovered by their abuser. It has the backing of Women’s Aid and of the APPG for Ending Homelessness. I urge the Government to listen carefully to their arguments and to the arguments in your Lordships’ House and to adopt this amendment so that survivors of domestic abuse have a clear legal route to that most basic of needs—a safe roof over their heads.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I agree with all she said and give my unreserved support to both these amendments.
In a long Committee stage, some amendments are, very properly, probing amendments. Others stand out as improving amendments. I really hope that this amendment, so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, will be incorporated into the Bill. Perhaps there will have to be the odd change of word, but I have referred to the Bill on a number of occasions as a landmark Bill, and a landmark Bill, in this area, has to be able to deliver as near perfect, total security as it can.
In common with many constituency Members of Parliament, I saw young women—they were mostly young women—who had been harassed, bullied, tormented and beaten, who needed somewhere to go. They needed a safe and secure refuge. In the immediate future that was often a home of refuge, where others were similarly placed. But what they needed most of all, as they came out of the trauma they had suffered, was a secure permanent home. Very often, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, that had to be some distance from where they had suffered.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 147. Both deal with being clear about what the Government have sought to do in Clause 71 to extend to survivors or victims of domestic abuse the priority need for homelessness. It is very clear that women who are leaving or seeking to leave an abusive relationship need to be seen as a priority. I am delighted that the Government acknowledge that.
I am concerned that, with both these amendments, the Government are undoing some of their good intent by not making sure that those who live in a multigenerational household are not able to ask someone else to be their advocate in front of the housing department or homelessness unit. Someone is fleeing the locality that they live and are well known in to escape their abuser, but they are not automatically seen as being in priority need when using either of those routes.
I understand that the Government are reluctant to keep opening the category of priority need, because there is not enough housing and because waiting lists for social housing are getting longer, not shorter. But I think that they need to be clear in their will to support women who have experienced domestic abuse in both Amendments 146A and 147. I know that they will want to move words and so on, but I feel that they need a general acceptance that women who experience domestic abuse should be treated by the local authority homelessness unit as being in priority need. They need to make sure that that happens in the two cases that these amendments deal with.
It is very straightforward to accept this sort of amendment. I just hope that the Government recognise what the APPG is saying and what the Welsh Government have achieved in their legislation. We need that acknowledgement in our legislation in England. The sooner they do this, the more it will reassure people that they are going to get the sort of priority need that they are looking for, if they have been abused. The trauma of being abused is one that most of us can only imagine. I have met many of these women and this issue has been raised with me, on numerous occasions. I hope that the Government find a way to meet the aspirations of these women, so that they get the independent housing that they require of their local authority.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, these are two good rounding-out amendments, well argued for by all speakers, and I fully support them both. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I would have signed Amendment 146A too, if I could have.
Clause 71(5) deals with priority need for victims, as we have heard. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, introduced Amendment 146A, which seeks to extend the application of priority need for housing for homeless victims of domestic abuse to those who live with, or might be expected to live with, the victim. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explained that this already works perfectly well in Wales. I am sure that the Government have looked at that and seen it for themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, described the lengths to which an abuser will go to find out where the victim has gone, which is why it may not be possible for the application to be made in person. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reinforced the need of so many victims to get right away. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, there is a great shortage of housing, which causes a lot of consternation. It is much better on every level for the perpetrator to move. I am just trailing my amendment that tries to achieve this, which is Amendment 163, coming on Wednesday.
Amendment 147, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, tackles the local connection issue for a victim fleeing an area. It would ensure that, even if the victim were not from that area, this would not count against them for housing priority, hence them being designated with a local connection. It stops local authorities from refusing survivors on the grounds of no legal connection. The example from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, shows exactly why this is needed. Both these amendments make a great deal of sense, and I hope that your Lordships’ House is minded to support them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I come first to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. He explained that Amendment 146A seeks to amend Clause 71 to allow those who are not experiencing domestic abuse themselves, but are in the same household as someone who is, to be given priority need status. I share his ambition to make sure that all victims of domestic abuse and their household are supported by ensuring that they have access to a suitable offer of safe and secure accommodation. I agree that it is vital that domestic abuse victims who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, are supported to find an accommodation solution that is safe, meets their needs and reflects their individual circumstances. We think that this amendment is unnecessary because, when an applicant has priority need, the Housing Act 1996 already requires local authorities to provide accommodation that is available for occupation and is suitable for the whole household.
We see several risks with this amendment. We know that victims of domestic abuse may be vulnerable and at risk of being exploited, manipulated and controlled by those in their lives, including family members, the perpetrator or a new partner who may also be abusive. Allowing someone else in the victim’s household to be in priority need would mean that that person, not the victim, would be the primary contact with the local authority. They would receive all correspondence and the offer of accommodation would be in their name. For this reason, it is important that the victim of domestic abuse alone has the priority need for accommodation, guaranteeing the victim control of the application and the rights to secure the accommodation as it will be in their name. I recognise and share my noble friend’s intention to ensure that all victims are able to access accommodation, and that the process of making an application for homelessness assistance should not be a barrier to accessing support. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I disagree with him on how best to achieve that intended outcome.
I agree that it is vital that domestic abuse victims can be supported to make a homelessness application. That is why the Government have made clear in the published draft Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities that they should be flexible in their approach to taking homelessness application from victims, by enabling victims to be supported in making that application by a family member, friend or support worker if they wish to be. The guidance also reinforces that local authorities should facilitate interviews by phone or online, where this is most appropriate for the victim, and make sure that translation services are available. Lastly, the guidance highlights that local authorities, where appropriate, should accept referrals from concerned parties, allowing someone else to make the initial approach on behalf of the victim, provided that they have the victim’s consent and the application can be safely verified with the victim. In short, we believe that there is already provision in place to achieve the outcomes sought by my noble friend in his Amendment 146A.
Amendment 147 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall seeks to amend the Housing Act 1996 to give victims of domestic abuse a local connection to all local authorities in England when seeking homelessness assistance under Part 7 of that Act. The existing legislation and guidance on this matter is clear that a housing authority cannot refer an applicant to another housing authority where they have a local connection if they or anyone who might be reasonably expected to reside them would be at risk of domestic abuse in that area. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities makes clear that a housing authority is under a positive duty to inquire where the applicant would be at risk of actual or threatened domestic violence. It stipulates that authorities should not impose a higher standard of proof of actual violence in the past when making their decision. If an applicant is at risk, they can present at another local authority.
As such, protections are already in place for victims of domestic abuse that ensure they are not housed in a local authority area where there is any risk of violence or abuse. The local connection test seeks to keep a degree of fairness to ensure that those who live locally are prioritised and that no one authority gets oversubscribed. The current provisions in place under Section 198 of the 1996 Act strike the right balance to support victims.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, talked about when women often flee to other local authorities, and the situation with social housing need. They are absolutely right that many victims of domestic abuse are forced to flee their homes to seek that safety and support in a refuge or other form of temporary accommodation. It is often in another local authority area because, of course, why would you stay where you were in danger? In November 2018, the Government issued statutory guidance for local authorities to improve access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse who are in refuges or other forms of safe temporary accommodation. The guidance here makes absolutely clear that local authorities are expected not to apply the residency test for victims who have fled to another district. I hope, with the points I have made, that my noble friend would be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity, having listened to a very interesting debate. At Second Reading I raised the issue of cross-border co-ordination within the United Kingdom—at that time, particularly in connection with European protection orders and how to ensure that an appropriate system would be in place within the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It strikes me that it is also an ongoing issue with those that flee across one of the internal borders of the United Kingdom and then seek housing. I would be grateful for any reflections that the Minister might have on what implications these amendments—or their rejection, as she is recommending—would have for women who have flown across borders, and for the internal arrangements that are in place between the local authorities of the whole United Kingdom, not just England.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Clearly, this Bill does not extend to the jurisdiction in Scotland, but I absolutely understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I will write to him with any updates on that because, of course, a woman should not be prohibited or stopped from receiving support just because she has crossed a border. I will write to him further on that and I thank him for raising the issue.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all of those who took part in this debate and particularly to the Minister for her reply, which I will come to in a moment. The initial speech was made by my noble friend Lord Randall, who made a forceful speech about the importance of flexibility on local connection. He referred to the postcode lottery due to the different local authorities interpreting the guidance in different ways. In a sense, his plea was the same as mine, namely that it is not enough to leave this to guidance; one wants a legal assurance on the face of the Bill. My noble friend, and others who supported Amendment 147, will want to reflect on the Minister’s reply to that section of the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, reminded us that in Wales the amendment is, in effect, already in place, and that there has been no abuse of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put our debate in a slightly broader context, and reminded us of the need for move-on accommodation in order to free up capacity in the refuges, and she is absolutely right. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for Front-Bench support for the amendments and I am sorry that he was not quick enough off the mark to add his name to my amendment. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who rightly pointed out that the application for housing, if it is known to come from the survivor, can be a trigger point in a relationship and provoke a violent reaction. This is why it is important that somebody, who she referred to as an ally, should be able to make the application on behalf of the victim to avoid exactly that risk. My noble friend Lord Cormack said that, unlike the previous amendment that was a probing amendment, these amendments meant business. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, was too modest to say that she spoke with the authority of a former Housing Minister, which of course adds weight to the representations that she has made. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for Front-Bench support from the Liberal Democrats. She used the opportunity to trail an important amendment later on, which puts the emphasis on the perpetrator moving out of the building rather than the victim.
The Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, is of course a former Minister at the Department for Communities and Local Government as it then was, and so she will have a first-hand knowledge of the issues that we discuss. I am sure that she remembers the passage of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, if not always with happy memories.
I was grateful to my noble friend for saying she entirely shared the objectives of those behind the amendments. She made two points in rebuttal. She referred to the Housing Act 1996, requiring that the accommodation should be suitable for the whole household; however, the whole household may not want to move—it may just be the victim. She did not quite address the point that in Wales and Scotland they have already resolved the issues she described and enabled an application to be made, as I understand it, on behalf of the primary victim.
I very much hope there can be a way through. My noble friend said the guidance says that the initial approach can already be made with consent by a third party. If the initial approach can be made with the consent of the victim, it is not absolutely clear why the substantive approach could not also be made. While I am happy to withdraw the amendment, I very much hope we can have some discussions to see whether we can give the assurance that I think the whole House wants and avoid the issues my noble friend raised in her response. In the mean time, I repeat my thanks to those who have contributed and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 148. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 148
Lord Rosser
“Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors
(1) The Immigration Acts are amended as follows.(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (exclusion from benefits) after subsection (10) insert— “(11) This section does not apply to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section (Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”(3) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after sub-paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section (Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or”.(4) In section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 (persons disqualified by immigration status or with limited right to rent) at the end of subsection (3) insert “or if P is a victim of domestic abuse”.(5) In section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State may not make or maintain a condition under subsection (1)(c)(ii) on leave granted to a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section (Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and it is not a breach of the immigration laws or rules for such a victim to have recourse to public funds.”(6) For the purposes of this section, evidence that a person is a victim of domestic abuse may consist of one or more of the following—(a) a relevant conviction, police caution or protection notice;(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, domestic abuse protection order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic abuse;(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference;(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic abuse;(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic abuse;(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she is satisfied on the basis of an examination that a person had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic abuse;(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to a person in respect of allegations of domestic abuse;(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic abuse support organisation; or(k) other evidence of domestic abuse, including from a counsellor, midwife, school, witness or the victim.(7) For the purposes of this section—“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; “victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.(8) Within 12 months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions in this section.(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts – including exclusion from public funds, certain types of support and assistance and the right to rent – do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse. There will be a review into the operation of this provision.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments is on the key issue of protections for migrant victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds, an issue which has been raised by Members across all sides in both Houses. I will speak in particular to Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for adding their names to it.
Amendment 148 provides for a new clause in the Bill which seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts, including exclusion from public funds and certain types of support and exclusion from right to rent, do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse. The amendment also provides for a review into the operation of this change to be commissioned by the Secretary of State.
There are currently no provisions in the Bill for migrant women facing domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds. This is despite their abusers being able to use the immigration status of a victim and their consequential inability to have any access to public funds as a means of control. It can be almost impossible for migrant women to escape from their abusers if they have no money to gain access, for example, to a refuge or other accommodation. They are often fearful too of any perceived or actual threat of action by their abusers, or their own actions, that would bring them to the attention of the immigration authorities and possible subsequent immigration enforcement and separation from their children.
The situation is not helped by the fact that it is the same department—the Home Office—that deals with immigration issues, including deportation, and support for victims of domestic abuse, which gives rise to our concern that a victim should always be treated as a person in need of support and not first and foremost as an immigration case.
The Commons Home Affairs Committee stated:
“Insecure immigration status must not bar victims of abuse from protection and access to justice”
and the Joint Committee on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill said:
“We recommend that Government explores ways to extend the temporary concessions available … to support migrant survivors of abuse.”
The Sun also, I believe, gave its support to protecting migrant women in this Bill when it said:
“Domestic abusers don’t discriminate, so why should the law discriminate against their victims?”
No recourse to public funds, NRPF, is a legal restriction that bars people on certain visas from claiming most benefits, tax credits or housing assistance paid for by the state. This would apply, for example, in respect of someone on a student visa. It also applies when migrant women, including their children, become a victim of domestic violence, when the restriction hinders their ability to access life-saving refuge support and other necessary welfare provisions.
Amendment 148 would remove the statutory exclusion that prevents migrant survivors accessing the support and assistance they need and would ensure that no survivor, whatever their immigration status, was treated as being in breach of immigration laws or Immigration Rules by accessing that support or assistance. Without recourse to public funds, migrant victims of domestic abuse are not eligible to welfare benefits needed to cover the cost of a stay in a refuge service. Very few refuge services do not face a funding crisis after 10 years of cuts, and they are unable to cover the cost of a woman’s stay without that funding.
Research by Women’s Aid found that only 5.8% I think it was of refuge vacancies in England in 2018-19 could accept a woman with no recourse to public funds. Three out of every five referrals to a refuge were refused because of a lack of availability and 64% of all referrals to a refuge were declined. That rises to 80% for black and minority-ethnic women. The chances of a migrant woman being able to access a refuge are slim, bordering on impossible.
The experiences of survivors with no recourse to public funds, unable to access a refuge, are grim. Only 8.2% of the women with no recourse to public funds, and supported by the No Woman Turned Away project in 2017, were able to access a refuge—about one in 12. Many had to sleep rough, sofa-surf or even return to the perpetrator while they waited for help. To escape abuse, an individual and their children need to have somewhere to go that above all is safe, providing a bed and food, and to have the resources to be able to get there and stay there. We should not be turning away victims of domestic violence from refuges because of what it does or does not say on their passport, and we should not leave survivors with the only option of sleeping on the streets, with any children, if they are desperate to leave an abusive relationship.
Migrant survivors are often too scared to report domestic abuse as they could then be investigated and even detained. They cannot access safe accommodation and their abusers use their immigration status as a tool of coercive control over them. Women without access to public funds can find it hard to support themselves and their children independently from the perpetrator. It is often the case that the perpetrator is in control of the incomes and the bank accounts.
Women without secure immigration status are prevented from renting accommodation, which also means that refuges can find it difficult to take them. A refuge will always want to provide support, but if a person cannot move forwards into rented accommodation, refuges are left knowing that the move-on options are very limited.
According to the estimates of Southall Black Sisters, we are talking about a group of individuals numbering in the low thousands a year. We are not talking about a large sum of money, but for each of these women the impact on their lives would be enormous.
At the most vulnerable point in their lives, these migrant women need to be believed and to be told that they can be helped. When the abuser tells them that they cannot leave, they have no access to public funds, there is no one to help them and they will be on the streets, they need to know that he is wrong. The trouble is, at the moment he is right. Migrant women are not migrants first and foremost; they are mothers, neighbours, and colleagues in workplaces—for example, care workers and NHS workers. Surely, the solution to the problems many migrant women who suffer domestic abuse face is to give them access to housing benefit, ensure that they can access welfare support and allow them to rent accommodation.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I am again glad to speak in this Committee and draw attention to my interests in the register. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I thank him for his excellent speech.
Amendment 151, in my name, seeks to ensure that migrant victims of abuse have access to refuge spaces and essential support services, as with other victims of abuse. I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who have added their names in support of this amendment.
The existing domestic violence rule, or DV rule, is a proven route for a limited group of survivors, including those on certain spousal or partner visas, ensuring that they are able to regularise their immigration status independent of their perpetrator, and can access public funds for a limited time while the application is considered. Since 2002, this has given migrant women a lifeline—an escape route out of abuse, removing the power from abusers who threaten detention, deportation, destitution and separation from children.
However, the current rule excludes survivors who for one reason or another are dependent on their perpetrator for their status, or who have other expectations of staying in the country, such as having settled or British children, or being unable to return to their country of origin due to risk of further harm on return. Extending the DV rule to a slightly larger category of migrant survivors of abuse offers them security in what are often highly complex and challenging situations. As we have heard, the number of additional applications likely to be made each year under an extended eligibility criterion is estimated, on the basis of data from Southall Black Sisters and Women’s Aid, to be in the low thousands. But for those highly vulnerable individuals, the impact would be immeasurable. At this point, I add my own thanks to SBS for its excellent and tireless work.
The Istanbul convention has been mentioned previously in Committee, and I draw attention to Articles 4 and 59, which, as we have heard, the Government have signed and are committed to ratifying. They require victims to be protected regardless of their immigration status. This amendment and others presented to your Lordships provide an opportunity for the Government to take steps in the right direction.
Women without secure immigration status find it virtually impossible to access refuge and other welfare support to escape abuse. As we have heard, with no recourse to public funds or housing support, they are routinely denied access to safe accommodation and welfare refuge spaces. Only about 5.8% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds. They are therefore faced with the impossible decision of becoming destitute and homeless and separated from their children or returning to their perpetrator. This traps many women in abuse that often escalates, creating greater risks and vulnerability. Perpetrators regularly weaponise women’s lack of secure immigration status and economic independence to exert absolute control and keep them in a state of fear, often providing false information, withholding essential documentation, and interfering with applications such that women become overstayers and undocumented as a direct result.
As has been repeatedly said across debates, behind every statistic is a unique individual—so just one story. Last year, Hamida—not her real name—went to Southall Black Sisters seeking safety and help regarding the return of her child, who remained with her abusive partner, and assistance in regularising her immigration status. She had no money to support herself or to seek legal advice. She had originally entered the UK from Morocco on a tourist visa, having been persuaded to do so by her British partner. Soon after arriving she was abused, and her partner began to control every aspect of her life and forbade her even to speak to anyone. He also put her to work as a carer for an elderly lady and demanded that she give him all her earnings. She was subjected to sexual violence and rape. When she discovered that she was pregnant, her visa had expired and she could not return home, as her family had made it clear that her single mother status would bring disgrace and shame on them.
Hamida stayed. She had an Islamic marriage, but continued to be subject to abuse. She had no door key and no phone; her husband told her that he would never register the baby as British, as it would give her a route to resettlement in the UK. In the final weeks of her pregnancy, she was kept locked in a store cupboard at his workplace without food. Eventually, she made a disclosure to social services after her husband took the child away from her; as a result, her child was placed on a child protection register and Hamida was referred to Southall Black Sisters.
This brief portrait illustrates the immense challenges that Hamida has faced. Due to her exclusion from the DV rule, she has endured more than nine months of anxiety and uncertainty since escaping violence. She is dependent on donations for her survival and has no security about her future. She is unable to process the trauma that she has faced and remains in ongoing child contact proceedings to reunite with her baby. No survivor deserves to face such trauma and hardship after fleeing violence.
That is just one story. Research has shown that most women on non-spousal visas require assistance for periods of three to eight months and some even longer, because they have often had long and complicated abuse and immigration histories. With this Bill, we have an opportunity to intervene and relieve these women of their suffering, and we must take it.
In response to this clear gap, the Government announced a one-year pilot scheme to assess better the level of need for this group of victims and inform spending review decisions on longer-term funding. However, the £1.4 million offered to run the pilot project is inadequate to meet the needs of all vulnerable migrant women who need crisis support. As an example, the pilot project has set a financial cap on the rent payable for each woman, based on local authority housing allowance rates, which can be as low as £70 per week. There is also a cap on the subsistence payments that can be made to each woman to meet other basic needs, which cannot exceed £37 a week. These rates are inadequate to avert destitution, not least in even being able to pay for refuge accommodation. Furthermore, as we have heard, it is estimated that the number of migrant survivors who require support is probably between 3,000 to 5,000 a year. The pilot project is likely to provide only minimal support for up to 500 women for a maximum period of 12 weeks.
My next objection is that if this pilot is aiming to collect more data, I highlight that that has already been submitted by key specialist organisations during the review process. SBS and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service published a formal and detailed response to the Home Office’s migrant victims of domestic abuse review in September 2020. As far as I am aware, there still has been no response.
The pilot project has failed to allow for the impact of Brexit, which is expected to lead to a significant increase in the numbers of women who will be excluded from protection as they will now be subject to the same immigration rules as non-EU nationals, including restrictions on recourse to public funds.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the pilot scheme does not guarantee that any lasting change will follow when the scheme is ended. Running a pilot that gives no long-term assurance of anything in the Bill at the end of it is not an option. Only legislative protection for this vulnerable cohort of women will ensure that the Bill delivers its promise as landmark legislation that can deliver protection for all survivors in the UK.
The Bill provides the Government a significant opportunity to address the gaps in protection for migrant women with insecure immigration status. As a Christian, I am called to love my neighbour and welcome the stranger. This includes showing mercy and justice towards refugees and immigrants, perhaps especially so for those whose hope has been extinguished by abusive partners. I urge the Government to support the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid we are having difficulty hearing my noble friend. I wonder whether she might give it another go; otherwise, we will have to move on and revert to her when the problem is sorted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I think we must move on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, my sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic; that is a very disconcerting situation.
I have added my name to Amendments 148 and 151. I would have added it to Amendment 160 but it is one of those amendments where the slots for adding one’s name fill up very quickly. I am particularly sorry about that because it puts the point very succinctly, and I would have liked to have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, before I spoke.
This is a matter of equality, of principle as well as a practicality. Last week we debated amendments relating to immigration status. I do not want to repeat too much of that debate but one cannot say too often that what we do must be rooted in equality and humanity. A victim may believe that she has no status. That very situation can be and is used for coercion and control. She—usually “she”, though not invariably—may in effect go underground or find herself in a very perilous situation while her abuser goes unpunished, and noble Lords will understand what all that entails, or of course she may remain with her abuser since she may have nowhere to go “back” to. As I recall, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about this last week.
I was struck by a representation made by Southall Black Sisters that was quoted in the report by the committee on the draft Bill, which I will repeat:
“Abused migrant women are at risk of the most serious and prolonged forms of abuse, slavery and harm but cannot access justice or protection if they have unsettled immigration status; they are effectively excluded from the few protective measures contained in the Bill. The Bill does nothing to remove immigration and other barriers, including providing safe reporting measures to encourage abused migrant women to access necessary protection.”
I regard protection as including access to resources. These reasons apply to all the amendments in this group, which are among the priorities of the domestic abuse commissioner designate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, it is hoped to get the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on the telephone. In the meantime, I call the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests on the register. I have put my name to Amendments 148 and 160, and I support Amendment 151, to which I would have liked to add my name. I agree with what has already been said, and I do not propose to go through it again. I would, however, like to mention the powerful speech from the right reverend Prelate, with which I strongly agree.
I have a concern for several groups of women, about whom I have spoken earlier in this debate. One such group is migrant women who have been subjected to modern slavery. Very often the woman comes over with a man who she thinks is her boyfriend but who then turns her into a slave to make money for him. She is a victim and has irregular immigration status, if any.
I am particularly concerned about a group of women who are married according to the customs of their religion but whose marriages have not been registered and are therefore not recognised in English law. If such a woman leaves—either with her children or on her own—having suffered domestic abuse, she will not be recognised as a wife, her immigration status will not give her any of the support she needs, financial or otherwise, and she will be in danger of being deported. This is a huge injustice inflicted on a small but significant group of women, many of whom have suffered as the victims of forced marriage.
I will refer briefly to Amendment 160. The support that it proposes is urgently needed by victims of both forced marriage and modern slavery.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in regretting that we have not yet heard the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, introduce Amendment 160. On the assumption that we will do so eventually, I shall contain myself to simply offering support for Amendments 151 and 160. I join others in saying that, had there been space, I would have been very happy to attach my name to them.
I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He has already provided an eloquent and powerful introduction, so I shall briefly add some further points.
I start with a reflection on the overall status of no recourse to public funds. This applies to some 1.3 million people who are part of and contribute to our society. We should ask ourselves some very tough questions about why we ask people to contribute without offering them protection.
However, today, with Amendment 148 we are specifically addressing the issue of victims of domestic abuse. I very much hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will agree with the statement that the state must not be the facilitator of domestic abuse and that it must not act in ways that trap victims in abusive relationships. It is very clear that that is currently happening, and the amendment would seek to ensure that it does not.
Over the past year, I have been doing quite a bit of work on no recourse to public funds from a number of angles. I have spoken to Green Party councillors and asked them to share with me cases that they have dealt with. Of course, at that very distressing local level, very often it is local councillors, who have very few tools and resources at their disposal, who are forced to rush around trying to help and provide support in any way they can.
I want to quote one person who has been stuck with no recourse to public funds during the Covid pandemic. She had just about cobbled together the circumstances in which to survive, but then the pandemic pulled those apart. I ask your Lordships to reflect on this woman’s words. She said, “The citizens advice bureau is a vicious cycle of being referred to the same departments that have already said no.” We should think about what that must be like and the circumstances in which that leaves people. I note from information provided by Women’s Aid what it means practically. It noted that women with no recourse to public funds who care for children are, theoretically, entitled to continued support for their children under Section 17 of the Children Act, yet under the Women’s Aid Federation of England’s No Woman Turned Away project, of 20 women with no recourse to public funds who were fleeing with children in 2017-18, social services refused outright either to fund a refuge space or to provide emergency accommodation for 14. In six of the cases, they offered to accommodate the children but not the mother.
Those findings show very clearly that women with no recourse to public funds who have children are being refused help, despite Section 17 duties, and that the state is acting in ways to break up families. So, we have a situation where victims of domestic abuse are being trapped and families are being broken up by the law. That is why I very strongly support Amendment 148, and I hope that the Government will see the need to support it, or something very like it, too.
I finish with words from a Women’s Aid briefing. It is a simple, bald statement and I ask the Government whether they agree with it:
“No survivor should be left without access to a safety net and it is essential the Bill delivers reforms to ‘no recourse to public funds’.”
Those are the words of Women’s Aid. I very profoundly agree with them and I hope that the Government will too.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I think it is now possible to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, so I call her again.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
I hope that you can hear me better now. I will speak to Amendment 160, which stands in my name. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Hussein-Ece, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their support. It is also a pleasure to follow the powerful speeches that have just been made; their arguments about the needs of migrant women are compelling and compassionate.
Amendments 148 and 151 are important and have my full support. In particular, I will focus on Amendment 160, on non-discrimination. It is not just about migrants or women; it is about making sure that all victims and survivors of domestic violence, whoever they are, get the support and justice they deserve and that we owe them. This amendment is also about international obligations and the Istanbul convention.
I started my work focusing on this Bill as someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about foreign policy, which I still care about—but I know how important it is that we meet our treaty commitments. The Government are rightly proud of their work on girls’ education, and we used to lead on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative; we have a good record on leading on these issues internationally. However, leadership requires moral authority as well: it requires us to do the right thing at home rather than just speak about it abroad.
The Government’s intention to ratify the Istanbul convention as soon as possible is very welcome, but gaps remain nine years after we signed, as the Government themselves acknowledge. The last review, in October, flagged progress on Articles 4(3) and 59 as “under review”, pending the outcome of the migrant victim pilot scheme. The Government have signalled their intention to wait, but we have an opportunity to set things right here and now.
As we have just heard, there is extensive evidence of the needs of migrant women and the precarious situation they are in. There is no need for the further delays that the pilot scheme entails and no need to wait to find new legislation to address a problem we face now. This Bill is a natural home for efforts to tackle domestic abuse; why should we knowingly leave areas out of it? If we want to get the Istanbul convention ratified, as the Government have said they do and as I believe we must, we will need to improve protection for migrant women as well. It is better to do that now than to delay it needlessly.
As such, this amendment is necessary in order to ratify the Istanbul convention. It also has an important role to play in making sure that the Bill’s provisions actually work for survivors, whoever they are and wherever they come from. There is a reason why the Istanbul convention contains an explicit list of non-discrimination grounds—it is not about giving us a warm fuzzy feeling; it is based on empirical research into whether victims of domestic violence and abuse seek help, how they do so and what help they get.
We can pass all the reforms we like to the courts, but most migrant and refugee victims never get to that stage. If we are serious about wanting to help all victims of domestic abuse, we need to ensure that we are not discriminating against some of them. By enshrining a principle of equal protection, this amendment would ensure a consistent and cohesive approach to victims, wherever they are.
Research by King’s College London and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service found that 46% of migrant women were denied support by the police when reporting abuse. The report on police and crime commissioners’ approaches to violence against women and girls found that the responses varied widely across the country, with some deemed “very inconsistent” and even “haphazard”. This adds to the well-known barriers to disclosure and reporting that all victims of domestic violence face. By making sure that equal protection is embedded in the law, the amendment will both shape the response of public authorities and give victims the confidence to come forward in the first place.
This amendment is supported by End Violence Against Women, a coalition of hundreds of specialist services, academics, activists and NGOs. It is supported by informed organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, which work with black and minority victims of domestic violence. It is supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They all say that the current local authority duty in the Bill will not tackle the barriers and challenges that BME and migrant survivors face in accessing refuge unless there is a clear legal commitment to equal support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. She has said that she normally talks about international affairs, but in speaking to her Amendment 160 she has brought great skill and knowledge about discrimination, the Istanbul convention and international law in addressing this very important domestic question. It is therefore a great pleasure to be able to support and endorse her remarks, but also those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and those who have supported his Amendment 148, as I do too. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Arise Foundation and I intervene in this debate specifically to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and her Amendment 151, to which I am a signatory.
The amendment would extend the eligibility to the domestic violence rule, DVR, and the destitution domestic violence concession, DDVC, to all migrant survivors of abuse and extend the DDVC from three to six months minimum. Undoubtedly, this amendment, like Amendment 148, would offer protections to some of the most vulnerable migrant women in our country who are currently denied support simply because they are on the wrong visa. The DDVC provides migrant women three months leave to stay in the UK, with access to benefits and the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain under the DVR.
This is a crucial path for women to escape abusive households and begin to be able to rebuild their lives, yet it is only open to a minority of migrant women—those on spousal visas or a small number of family visas. Those on all other visas suffer from no recourse to public funds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us earlier. While there are no concrete numbers of how many women are penalised by this limitation, welfare charities estimate that the number is in the low thousands.
With no recourse to public funds, many of these women are trapped in situations of horrific abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, told us in an excellent speech earlier on. I will give just one example here of a woman who came to the United Kingdom over 17 years ago from Sri Lanka. She said that for the first few years her marriage was okay, but:
“Day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, a whole dark world built up around me. It was then that I realised that I was trapped by him. I had been sexually, mentally, verbally abused by him every day. I was so scared to talk to anyone about it because of my immigration situation.”
This woman has lived in the UK for her whole adult life, yet due to her visa she could not apply for the destitution domestic violence concession or the domestic violence rule. As she said:
“If I had a chance to access public funds, definitely, I would have taken the opportunity to move out a long time ago.”
For many of these women, the lack of recourse to public funds, combined with the abuse and lack of security, means they suffer high levels of anxiety, depression and even suicidal thoughts. Believing themselves to be completely trapped, they do not think there is anywhere they can turn. Their choice is so often either to stay in an abusive house or be returned to a country they left many years before.
As we have heard throughout the debates on this very welcome and much-needed Bill, the Covid-19 lockdowns are only increasing the vulnerability of those at risk of domestic violence and reducing the opportunities they have for escaping and rebuilding. Charities providing support to those with no recourse are finding themselves not only overwhelmed with women coming to them, but also having to face massive funding cuts.
Reading the testimonies from migrant women, I cannot help but be reminded of some of the stories I hear from the small anti-slavery charity of which I am a trustee. Let us not fool ourselves: in many other contexts this crime would be considered slavery, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss told us a few minutes ago. We should be treating those condemned to this life, and suffering so grievously, with the highest level of support that we can provide, no matter what their immigration status may be.
This amendment would begin to provide them with the welfare and benefits necessary to escape their abusers and build new lives. Moreover, by extending the DDVC support from 12 weeks to six months, we would be providing these women with enough time to really establish themselves and complete legal proceedings—12 weeks is simply not long enough to tie up all the legal ends necessary when leaving an abusive household and changing your immigration status.
It is time to end the visa lottery and extend the destitution domestic violence concession and the domestic violence rule to all migrant women, no matter what their immigration status. No doubt the Government will say—I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she comes to reply—that they have instituted a pilot scheme. While this is commendable, and of course welcome, it is not a viable alternative to legislative and additional protection for these women. This pilot commits £1.5 million for one year, which charities estimate would be sufficient to support only about 500 women; it can be described as a sticking plaster at best.
This amendment is an opportunity to create a fair and compassionate system of support that can be accessed by all migrant victims without discrimination. Let us not miss this chance, but instead give a fair wind to the right reverend Prelate and her amendment, and to the other amendments before your Lordships tonight.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am really pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has spoken to Amendment 160 and that we were able to hear from her. I am very pleased to have put my name to it. I also support what I have heard about Amendments 148 and 151, which were excellently and very eloquently moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
I am speaking to Amendment 160 to support non-discrimination to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill is truly victim-centred and complies with the Istanbul convention, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I signed amendment as someone who worked for many years supporting women from BAME and migrant communities who were victims of domestic violence. I saw terrible instances of violence and abuse against women and girls and, along with the women I worked with, I often faced threats from abusers who thought that an outsider interfering should not be allowed. This was very common; this was a private matter and anyone trying to intervene, to rescue women or give advice or information, could and did receive threats, as we did.
I want to ensure that all victims and survivors of domestic abuse can properly access protection and justice equally—which, sadly, is currently not the case. I helped establish a user-led, BAME women’s centre, IMECE, which for over 25 years has helped thousands of Turkish-Kurdish, Turkish-Cypriot and other migrant women, mainly across London, to access services and be given support. While I was a local councillor in the London boroughs of Hackney and Islington, for a total of 16 years, I dealt with numerous cases of domestic abuse—in fact I still get cases referred to me as a result of my work there.
This amendment would enshrine a more consistent and cohesive approach. The principle of equal protection in the Bill would ensure that all public authorities must adopt a consistent and cohesive approach to making provision and arrangements for victim protection. We currently have a postcode lottery approach to victim protection, but this would have to change if this amendment was enshrined in the Bill. Research found that 46% of migrant women were often failing to access support by the police when reporting abuse. This is a startling figure. The new criminal justice measures introduced in the Bill are welcome, but they relying on victims self-identifying when reporting abuse or violence and the criminal justice process responding positively to the victim’s complaint. They do not address the well-known barriers to reporting faced by victims of domestic abuse which are a particular problem for migrant victims. We have already heard that that is, sadly, the case. When it comes to support for these victims, they are faced with the chronic underfunding of specialist services run by and for BAME women which have the expertise, knowledge and links.
In December, I saw a report that the police watchdog advised that police should share less information with immigration officials about abused or trafficked women. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said that women do not report abuse for fear of deportation. This advice to the police needs to be better enshrined in law. These communities and women deserve more support. The specialist organisations that I referred to, which have provided such unique advice and information and shared their experience with us in the formulation of this very welcome Bill, are uniquely placed to support migrant women to get help and rebuild their lives after abuse. For example, Imkaan reported that 43% of the requests for violence against women and girls support to BAME specialists were from women needing support in connection with immigration-related issues. We heard that 60% of women who approached Southall Black Sisters, which has been around for many decades doing excellent work, for support have insecure immigration status. The organisation I referred to, IMECE, with which I worked extensively, also reports that a significant proportion of women seeking its help were migrant women or refugees.
The fact that perpetrators use immigration status as a weapon to continue to control and abuse is well-known and a reality. This is often exploited by perpetrators and misunderstood by public authorities, so enshrining in law the right to protection from domestic abuse without discrimination would remove significant power that perpetrators exploit and would enable victims to access vital support to escape abusive situations and to hold perpetrators to account. Migrant women who have experienced domestic abuse face additional barriers and they need our support. Crucially, that includes access to safe housing, as we have heard from other speakers including the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We heard the shocking figure that just 5% of refuge spaces listed last year were accessible to women with no recourse to public funds. Where do these women go? They are often destitute or have to rely on the help of family or sympathetic friends. Their lives are made appalling and actually insufferable and their children suffer immeasurably.
We know about the limited specialist refuge provision for BAME women across England and Wales. The figure I have is approximately 30 refuges in total, which are concentrated mainly in London and are oversubscribed. The current local authority duty proposal in the Bill will do nothing to tackle the barriers that BAME and migrant survivors face in accessing refuge space unless there is a clear legal commitment to resourcing equal access by introducing a non-discrimination clause.
There has been much support for a truly non-discriminatory component to be enshrined in this important Bill. The Minister in the other place has already stated that it should ensure that,
“all victims of domestic abuse are treated first and foremost as victims, regardless of their immigration status.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/20; col. 299]
If this Bill is to be truly transformational, enshrining a non-discrimination principle is the only way to ensure that we do not have a two-tier policy where society’s most isolated and marginalised victims cannot get the support and justice they desperately need, and are left to suffer in limbo with no legal protection. Help should be available to all those who need it. There should be no hiding place for perpetrators and we cannot have a subsector of victims, a small but significant group of migrant women, who are left with little support and equality.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 151, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I want to start by commending the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and Southall Black Sisters for their work on this amendment and more generally for their work on behalf of migrants. I also want to mention a dynamic Christian group, the Black Church Domestic Abuse Forum, made up of academics, lawyers, pastors, therapists and counsellors who would, as well as representatives of Southall Black Sisters, very much like to meet the Minister to discuss these and other related issues. During the course of the Bill, we have heard a great deal from many unsung groups such as Southall Black Sisters who, by the way, have been on the front line of this work for more than 40 years.
I believe that the Government need to shift their position and ensure legislative protection for all migrant women. This amendment is a test for the Government as to whether they will turn their back on some of the most vulnerable women in our society today. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hussein-Ece, and many others have given us eloquent and passionate chapter and verse about the plight faced by these women, including intolerable coercion and the use of absolute power by abusive men. In effect, the Government are operating a two-tier discriminatory system of support for those fleeing violence, one in which migrant women and children, in the absence of state protection, are at heightened risk of escalating abuse, exploitation and harm. Their plight is summed up by Farah, a survivor being supported by Southall Black Sisters:
“I guess that No Recourse To Public Funds means that it is ok for me to be violated, physically and mentally abused by my father. I guess the Government approves of people like me being treated like I was.”
I appreciate that the Government have committed to support the migrant victims scheme pilot, but, frankly, the support is not enough. It will not reach the majority of abused migrant survivors who urgently need protection. Southall Black Sisters has estimated that the number of abused migrant women who are subject to NRPF and need support is likely to run into the low thousands—anywhere between 2,000 and 4,000 women a year. At a stretch, the pilot project is likely to provide only minimal support for up to 500 women for a maximum period of only 12 weeks. What answer should Southall Black Sisters and other groups give to the thousands of women and children who are turned away because the money has run out?
Without this change to the Domestic Abuse Bill, migrant women will continue to be turned away routinely at a time when they most need help and, worse still, are being regarded as potential immigration offenders rather than the victims of domestic abuse. This could be a matter of life and death. As the Bill makes its way through Parliament, we have borne witness not only to the Windrush scandal but to the Black Lives Matter movement as well. These are transformative events that have shed light on the deep and widening nature of structural economic and race inequality in the UK. This Bill offers the Government a real and ready opportunity to change course and provide redress for those who have been historically, and are presently, being excluded from protection and from their rights because of their background or immigration status. This would demonstrate a commitment to the promises made by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, following the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, to address institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issues of race.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendment 160 while offering my sympathy and support for the other two amendments in this group. I reflect on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that this is a landmark Bill and needs to be as near perfection as we can possibly make it. I speak also as a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Istanbul convention is one of the key cornerstones of the achievements of that council over the last several years. It grieves me that I regularly see on the material put out by the council that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that has not yet ratified the convention, although of course it added its signature in 2012.
The idea is that our legislation is not yet in line with all the requirements of the convention, and that we are working on that. Earlier today, I heard extraterritoriality mentioned in debates and that a parallel effort is being made in the Northern Ireland Assembly which, mercifully, will deal with a major part of what prevents us at this minute ratifying the convention. That leaves us with Article 4(3) and Article 59. The whole question of discrimination has been properly alluded to as a very important thing for us to accord. I believe that the Government wish to do that, but they have taken the extraordinary step, having seen the recommendation in what is the fourth report since we have had these annual reports, to refer the matter into a pilot that will sit from December last to the end of March. That pilot’s findings will help us to quantify and find sustainable responses to this particular need.
I say that it is ironic and it is because, in a sense, the two other amendments in this group, were they on the statute book, would provide exactly the guarantees being sought and would allow us to ratify the convention at once. Is the fact that we have the pilot, which goes on to the end of March, going to make it necessary or impossible for us to include any measures to deal with discrimination for migrant women within the timescale of the passage of this Bill? I cannot see that we can possibly do the Bill and include any outcome from this process, which means that we will have missed the opportunity in this landmark Bill to deal with the two outstanding obstacles to our signing the Istanbul convention.
I missed a lot of these riveting debates because I was in Strasbourg, virtually—but we were talking about the same things. It pains me that we have not ratified the convention. At this minute Turkey and Poland are on the point of withdrawing from the Istanbul convention, and our moral stance in urging them not to is greatly diminished by the fact that we ourselves have not ratified it. With all that in mind—and this point has not yet been made, although it has been alluded to many times—I wish that these amendments could be made. Some 58 people and organisations wrote to me, as I am sure they wrote to the Minister, to say that all the evidence we could possibly need has been gathered. What is to stop us going forward? Why cannot we find a way between now and Report to leapfrog any obstacle, if necessary? Is this really impossible?
At the end of the day, it will all come down to money—£1.5 million will not do what needs to be done in the next five months and certainly, it will take a lot of money to deal with this in a sustainable way in the fullness of time. The domestic abuse commissioner designate—what a welcome appointment and what a clear-sounding person she seems to be—says that, unless migrant women with no recourse to public funds are included,
“their options are brutal.”
So, there it is from the person who will be overseeing this whole area of our national life.
I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that, even though we are out of sync with the passage of the Bill, we can hope in the not too distant future to incorporate retrospectively all that we are seeking to do through these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who will be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as I and many others said at Second Reading, the biggest hole in the Bill is its failure to make any provision for migrant women—a group of domestic abuse survivors who are let down badly by current provisions. I therefore strongly support these amendments, which, in different ways, would fill that hole and ensure that abused migrant women receive the same support as other domestic abuse survivors.
It is to the Government’s credit that they listened to the criticisms from domestic abuse organisations and, in particular, those working with abused migrant women such as Southall Black Sisters and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service—to which I pay tribute—and revised the prospectus for the Support for Migrants Victims pilot scheme. However, they refused to face up to the most fundamental criticism, as cited by the right reverend Prelate in her powerful speech, that a pilot scheme of this kind is simply not necessary in order to provide the evidence that Ministers claim they need before taking longer-term action to protect abused migrant women. Southall Black Sisters, for instance, has already provided the necessary evidence and the domestic abuse commissioner designate supports its belief that the Government do not need further evidence to act.
Although much improved from its original specification, the pilot is still inadequate to meet the needs of abused women. According to SBS, and as we have heard, the £1.4 million allocated is nowhere near enough to meet the needs of all the women requiring crisis support. It calculates that this will enable it to support only 50 women for three months each over a year, which would leave many women still excluded from protection and crisis support. At the same time, the £1.09 million grant it was awarded from the tampon tax fund to support women subject to the no recourse to public funds rule is due to end in March. As the right honourable Theresa May pointed out on Report in the Commons, we have to take account of the fact that the removal of financial support from a woman in a relationship might be
“part of the abuse they are suffering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 July 2020; col. 712.]
The Government must surely do all they can not to compound that abuse through public policy. At the very least, will the Minister consider suspending the application of the NRPF rule to domestic abuse survivors during the lifetime of the pilot to minimise the hardship that is likely to result?
Whatever the merits of the pilot project there is, as we have already heard, no guarantee that it will lead to lasting change. Such an important part of the domestic abuse strategy should not be dependent on the presence of sympathetic Ministers. Domestic abuse legislation does not come along that often; indeed, how many years have we had to wait for this Bill, welcome as it is? It is therefore vital that provision be made within it to ensure equal protection for migrant domestic abuse survivors. Indeed, the EHRC warns that failure to do so might put us in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and, as we have heard, it would almost certainly breach our obligations under the Istanbul convention. Given that the Minister said in her letter to Peers following Second Reading that the Government will ratify the convention only when they are satisfied that we meet all our obligations, it is surely imperative that equal protection for migrant women be enshrined in this Bill, as argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow noble Lords in the debate on the three amendments in this group. I add my support for them. Noble Lords have already spoken very eloquently about the need for proper support for migrant women who have absolutely no recourse to public funds. I have seen so many examples of women who have come into this country, been married into households and then been treated in a terrible way simply because they do not have any status here.
As my noble friend Lady Helic said about enshrining legal support, domestic abuse cannot hide behind any discrimination. That is absolutely right. To sum it up—I have raised this issue on many occasions—I have met many women living in multigenerational households where they do not know their rights, what services are available or how to access them. It is a duty of any decent community or society to make sure that we are the voices for those people who are suffering—regardless, as noble Lords have already said, of what gender they are. If they are a victim of domestic abuse, they are a victim.
I have seen some horrific cases come before me. I remember one where a woman with three children spent many nights in her car to escape. She had nowhere to go; the car that she had been using for her work was all that she possessed. If we as a society are to demonstrate our humanity and meet the expectations of others—noble Lords have mentioned the Istanbul convention—then we have to lead by example.
I do not want to extend this debate because all noble Lords have made exceptionally eloquent and poignant points, but it is important that we as a civilised society recognise that this issue affects many people. I have my home in the city of Leicester. Southall Black Sisters has done phenomenal work, as have many organisations there, but everyone is going to have their hands tied if the facilities are not there for access and if information is not readily available because the victims cannot access it.
I hope that the law stands on the side of every single person, regardless of their immigration status. I am fully supportive of the amendments. I know that my noble friend the Minister is compassionate and passionate about making sure that we can remove as many obstacles as possible so that people can have the right access. I hope that she will take these amendments very seriously.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, I find it difficult to add to the arguments that have been made so persuasively in this debate.
I want to pick up the point made by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lady Lister. We want to make this Bill as good as it possibly can be, which leads me to the issue of evidence. Essentially, the Government are saying that there is currently a lack of robust data to demonstrate which cohorts of migrant victims are likely to be in most need of support. As my noble friend Lady Lister explained, the Government have launched a pilot scheme, which is due to run to March 2022. The Minister said at Second Reading that this
“will enable us to take well-grounded and evidence-based decisions on how best to protect these victims in the long term.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 126.]
The problem we have is that there is no guarantee that the Government will act, and 2022 is quite some way away—particularly when the evaluation would then need to take place.
One must ask how much evidence the Government need. We know that a large proportion of migrant women have no recourse to public funds, meaning that they are barred from accessing certain types of financial support, as noble Lords have already pointed out. We also know that the number of survivors of abuse with no recourse is set to increase post Brexit under the new Immigration Rules. It is quite likely that even more women will experience difficulties accessing safety and support. The Covid-19 crisis has served to demonstrate just how precarious the position of migrant survivors is and how essential it is that they can access financial support from the state. In the end, I hope that the House will have the gumption to pass amendments on Report because waiting for the pilot scheme and for the Government to review it, with no guarantee of future legislation, is simply not good enough. We have to act now.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for three outstanding speeches introducing their amendments. The clarity and passion with which they speak should influence all of us but also, I hope, influence the Government too.
My late mother was a great believer in things coming along in threes, both good and bad, so I was delighted to hear on the radio this morning a government Minister confirming that the Government had decided to make sure that the Covid-19 vaccine is available to everyone regardless of their immigration status. This establishes a very good principle, just in advance of our debate here this evening: that things should be equal. I was also delighted to hear earlier in our debate the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, agree on behalf of the Government to look at Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and discuss with the devolved Governments the potential for a UK-wide amendment to the legislation that might improve the Bill in front of us, which is primarily for England and Wales. Thus, I hope that things do come along in threes, and that this evening we might have a combination of equality regardless of immigration status on the one hand and a UK-wide measure, which would make this Bill far better, on the other.
In recent years, I have had considerable experience of the daily reality of women facing domestic abuse in some of the asylum and refugee communities in Glasgow and the surrounding area. In your Lordships’ Chamber, we regularly praise the work of the Violence Reduction Unit, which was originally in Glasgow but is now across Scotland, and its successful strategy to reduce violence in the city and now across the nation. But its work on domestic abuse is made far more difficult by the restrictions placed on the rights of many migrant women living in the city and facing daily abuse, which has escalated during the Covid-19 lockdowns of the past 12 months.
I strongly urge the Government to look positively at this measure. Surely the objective outlined so clearly in Amendment 160 of equality for all victims and survivors of domestic abuse should be at the heart of the Bill, and support for these amendments would be a critical step in that direction. We have spoken often, and I have spoken in all my contributions, not just about the legal technicalities of the Bill but of its human impact. However hard it is for a woman to leave an abusive relationship or household when she does have access to finance, housing and rights outwith that home, how much more difficult is it to make that choice when she does not have those rights? Whatever access to funding or pilot projects the Government are willing to provide is no substitute for rights. Rights are at the core of the Bill and they should be available to these migrant women too.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Rosser and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I thank Women’s Aid and Refuge for their comprehensive and helpful briefings on these amendments.
When the Bill was introduced in the other place by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, it was said that, among other things, the Bill
“aims to improve the effectiveness of the justice system in providing protection for victims of domestic abuse”.
There can be no more gaping hole in the effectiveness of the justice system than when a group with particular characteristics is deprived of its protection. These three amendments deal with one such group.
The Bill does not tackle the multiple forms of discrimination facing migrant women—at all. This was identified as an omission by the Joint Committee that preceded the first iteration of the Bill. The Government resisted attempts to change it in the other place, arguing that more evidence was needed to identify the groups of migrants most in need of support. Since then, domestic abuse campaigners, such as the Step Up Migrant Women coalition, have expressed concerns, and Pragna Patel, the director of Southall Black Sisters, was quoted in the Guardian as saying that
“to leave migrant women out of this bill sends the message that their lives are not valued, they are disposable, they are second-class people, they are invisible”.
Women’s Aid questions the Government’s proposals for a pilot scheme, as indeed have many noble Lords, arguing that evidence of need was there but was being ignored. It and other organisations are concerned that the findings of the Government’s migrant women review show
“a lack of meaningful engagement with the evidence that was submitted by key specialist organisations, resulting in inaccurate, poor and misleading analysis and conclusions”.
So the Government have a problem. They are not convinced by those organisations working most closely with migrant women and most likely to understand their problems, or that there is, as former Prime Minister Mrs May argued, a common intention between the Government’s view and those in favour of the new clause. It is clear that these organisations have difficulty believing that the Government are sincere in their stated commitment to support all migrant victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the Minister’s response convinces them otherwise.
The issue is very clear; it has been spelled out so well this afternoon. A large proportion of migrant women have no recourse to public funds. There is even an acronym for that category: NRPF. It means that they cannot seek certain types of financial support from the state, including homelessness assistance and other welfare benefits, so they do not have the means to secure a stay in a refuge. There are some exceptions, but those are on a limited number of visa types which allow access to something called the destitution domestic violence concession—DDVC. The Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated just how precarious the position of migrant survivors is without access to financial support from the state. They cannot keep themselves or their children safe.
All the organisations involved in fighting violence against women and girls are united in their view of the weight of evidence that NRPF should be abolished—or failing that, the eligibility for the DDVC should be extended to all migrant survivors. I hope that the Government will listen to these informed voices and to the powerful arguments made by noble Lords today in this debate and think again about supporting this change.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a comprehensive debate. As noble Lords have explained, Amendment 148 would insert a new clause to ensure that those whose immigration status would exclude them from benefits and the right to rent can receive support and find a place to live if they are the victim of domestic abuse in circumstances that would otherwise leave them destitute and homeless. It sets out clearly what evidence must be produced to show they are a victim of domestic abuse.
As noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained, abusers use survivors’ immigration status as a means of coercive control. As noble Lords have said, no one should be prevented from escaping domestic abuse because they cannot afford to leave or because they have nowhere to go, not least those who are additionally vulnerable because of their immigration status. Amendment 151, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, requires the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to extend the number of victims of domestic abuse who can apply for, and be granted, indefinite leave to remain. It proposes that they should be granted limited leave to remain for not less than six months to enable this, or longer if the application is awaiting a decision, including access to support and accommodation during that time. As noble Lords have said, it is likely that victims of domestic abuse could be in danger were they to be forced to return to their country of origin, as the example graphically described by the right reverend Prelate demonstrated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has said, while the current pilot is welcome, it is not necessary. We know all we need to know to take the issue forward—a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece have explained, Amendment 160 gives effect to Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—the Istanbul convention—that requires all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, to receive equal protection against domestic abuse and equally effective support and, as such, encapsulates the essence of Amendments 148 and 151. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has said, if Amendments 148 and 151 were agreed to, we could ratify the Istanbul convention. As he said, either this is a landmark Bill, or it is not. I agree with the noble Lord: this all comes down to money—money that the Government appear to be unwilling to spend.
It is concerning that the Home Office has responsibility both for providing support for domestic abuse survivors and for enforcing immigration legislation. With only 5.8% of refuge places available to survivors who have no access to public funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, something clearly needs to be done. With those affected numbering in the low thousands, it would not take much to implement these recommendations, and we support them. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, failing to take action would make it feel as though the state were complicit in these women’s suffering.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group centre on support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic for proposing the new clauses.
All Members of the Committee will share the view that anyone who has suffered abuse, regardless of their immigration status, should first and foremost be treated as a victim. Where we differ, perhaps, is on how support is best provided to meet that end. Amendments 148 and 151 seek to provide, for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, at least six months of leave to remain, a route to indefinite leave to remain and access to publicly funded support. Amendment 160 seeks equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, while also referring to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention.
If I have correctly understood noble Lords’ objectives in tabling these very thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, they are seeking to expand the existing destitute domestic violence concession and the domestic violence rule to cover all migrant victims of domestic abuse: to place the DDVC in the Immigration Rules, as well as lifting immigration restrictions, for any migrant victim of domestic abuse. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill recommended that the Government consider similar changes to the DDVC and DVILR. However, its recommendations did not include proposals to incorporate the DDVC scheme in the Immigration Rules.
As noble Lords will be aware, in response to the Joint Committee’s recommendations the Government committed to a review of the overall response to migrant victims of domestic abuse. That review has been completed and its findings were published on 3 July 2020. We were grateful to the specialist sector for the views and evidence provided during the review. However, it was unclear which groups of migrants are likely to be most in need of support, how well existing arrangements may address their needs, how long they might need support, and how they could be supported to move on from safe accommodation. It was clear, however, that a robust evidence base is needed to ensure that funding is appropriately targeted to meet the needs of migrant victims.
My issue with Amendment 151 is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the rationale for the DDVC and the domestic violence rule. Both were, and are, intended to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas. The system was designed in this way because, had their relationships not broken down as a result of domestic abuse, these victims would have had a legitimate expectation of staying in the UK permanently. Neither the DDVC nor the domestic violence rule was designed to support those without this legitimate expectation. This Government are concerned that expanding the scope of both would undermine the specific purpose that gave rise to them and introduce a route to settlement that might lead to more exploitation of our immigration system—or indeed of vulnerable migrants.
For this reason, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Safeguarding Minister announced that the Government would invite bids for grants from the £1.5 million support for migrant victims scheme. Such grants will look to cover the cost of support in a refuge or other safe accommodation for migrant victims of domestic abuse who are unable to access public funds. The Government will use the scheme to better assess the level of need for these victims and inform spending reviews about longer-term funding, which is very important. The competition for the scheme was launched on 15 December and closes on 8 February—today. The scheme will then run until 22 March, which answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
As I have indicated, our review has highlighted that a better evidence base is needed for migrant victims who are not eligible for the DDVC. Since 2017, the Government have provided over £1 million from the tampon tax fund to support migrant victims with no recourse to public funds. While clearly this fund has helped to deliver much-needed support for a number of individuals, and much has been learned, regrettably we require a more complete and reliable evidence base to enable us to make those long-term decisions. We particularly want to establish a robust dataset that we can interrogate about the circumstances in which support is most needed, the duration of support needed, what kind of support works best, and how individuals exit from support to regain their independence. We would like to do this work to ensure that the information that we need is available to inform future policy-making and that the decisions taken are sound.
I turn to Amendment 160. The support for migrant victims scheme and the associated evaluation work clearly illustrate that the Secretary of State is taking steps to ensure effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse. This scheme will be available to all migrant victims at the point of need while their eligibility for the scheme is assessed and other routes of support are explored.
The Government have been clear that migrant victims of domestic abuse should be treated first and foremost as victims, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and others, said. Data collected through the course of this scheme will provide the information that we need to assess current provisions and ensure that effective protection and support is available to migrant victims of domestic abuse. Therefore, while I am grateful to my noble friend and appreciate the sentiment and intention behind her amendment, we do not believe that this is necessary in light of the action that we are already taking. The provisions in the Bill apply equally to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, including the ability to apply for a domestic abuse protection order or the provisions in respect of special measures and the prohibition of cross-examination in person.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Health and Lord Griffiths, have talked about the Istanbul convention. It is important to recognise that legislation is not needed to comply with Articles 4 and 59 of the convention. As set out in the latest annual report on our progress towards ratification of the convention, which was published on 22 October last year, the position on whether the UK is compliant with Article 4(3) of the convention to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59, relating to residence status, is of course under review, pending the evaluation and the findings from the support for migrant victims scheme.
On the suggestion in Amendment 148 that the no recourse to public funds condition is lifted for all victims of domestic abuse, the Government believe that this is the wrong response. It is not subject to further definition in any way and would be a disproportionate and costly method of providing support for migrant victims. It is worth recognising that the principle of no recourse to public funds was established as far back as 1971, and no Government have sought to reverse that position. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly funded benefits and services should reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, become available to migrants only when they have settled here.
These restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy, operated, as I have said, by successive Governments and applicable to most migrants until they qualify for indefinite leave to remain. The policy is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK, rather than costs to the public purse. It does this by prohibiting access to public funds other than to those with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and protected persons, and those granted discretionary leave.
Nevertheless, exemptions from those restrictions are already in place for some groups of migrants. These include refugees or those here on the basis of their human rights where they would otherwise be destitute. Those on human rights routes can also apply to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted if their financial circumstances change and there is a risk of destitution, imminent destitution, risk to the welfare of a child or exceptional circumstances. Equally, as I have said, migrant victims on certain spousal visas can already apply for the destitute domestic violence concession to be granted limited leave with recourse to public funds.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister and so I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
I thank the Minister for her considered response and want to acknowledge her support and compassion for migrant victims of domestic abuse. The issue for me is still the one that has been raised throughout this debate of how we guarantee long-term protection for migrant women with insecure immigration status, given all we have heard about the mismatch in timing between the pilot scheme and this Bill. So I really welcome discussion with the Minister as we determine whether to bring this matter back at a later stage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to raise the point about sustainability, long-term solutions and what happens after the pilot scheme has taken place. It is precisely because we want to identify where the gaps lie and where long-term funding might be needed that we have done this pilot scheme. With that, as I have said throughout the course of this debate, it is our intention to review the matter when that pilot scheme has finished. But the point about funding is one that is well made, because we can have all the legislation in the world and if the funding is not in place there is no point.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I start by thanking the Minister for her very full and comprehensive reply to this debate. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, in which there has been a high degree of unanimity as far as the nature of the contributions is concerned and the objectives that we all want to achieve.
The Government have basically set out why they do not believe that the amendments we have been discussing meet the Bill as far as they are concerned. They have laid some stress on their point that a one-year pilot scheme is about to commence to better assess the level of need for this group of victims. It is, as the Minister has said, to run through until March 2022. Clearly, on that basis, as far as the Government are concerned, not a lot is going to happen to address the problems that have been identified in the near future.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester pointed out in her very effective contribution that the amount offered to run the pilot project would not meet the needs of all vulnerable migrant women who need crisis support. She also pointed out that the data the pilot scheme may collect is already available. Indeed, it has been published and submitted. I do not think that the Government, in their response, exactly made it clear what information they do not feel they have already, that has not been provided in the data that has been published and submitted. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester also pointed out that the pilot scheme did not guarantee change following its conclusion.
This Bill is surely the opportunity to provide legislative protection to all victims and survivors of domestic abuse, including migrant women who are among the most vulnerable. I had thought that was a government objective. I have no doubt the Minister would say that it is—or at least I hope that is what the Government would say. It does seem that it will be a little way ahead in the future before anything will get resolved. We have a serious issue that needs addressing now and not, maybe, at some unspecified date in the future.
I do not think we have heard, in the Government’s response, how the Government intend to address the immediate problem that exists already. I hope it might be possible, between now and Report, for there to be further discussions on this issue—which will involve a number of people, judging by the number of contributions to the debate and all the people who have added their names to the amendments that we have been discussing. But I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that it would be helpful if there could be further discussions about the issues have been raised before Report. I suspect, at the moment, that the issues we have been talking about now for one and three-quarter hours will be brought before the House again on Report, unless discussions provide a solution to the issues we have been talking about. I hope that proves to be the case and that the Minister will ensure those discussions take place. In the meantime, though, I withdraw Amendment 148.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we still have a number of amendments to get through this evening, but I think now might be an opportune moment for a short break. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn until 8.23 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the Committee will now adjourn until 8.23 pm, and we will return to deal with the group beginning with Amendment 149.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 149. 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 should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 157 or 168.
Amendment 149
“Controlling or coercive behaviour offence: post-separation abuse
(1) Section 76 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) Leave out subsection (2) and insert—“(2) “personally connected” has the meaning as set out in section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”(3) Leave out subsections (6) and (7).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that those who were previously personally connected are protected from any coercive and controlling behaviour (including economic abuse) that occurs post-separation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 149 would protect those who were previously personally connected to an abuser from any coercive or controlling behaviour—including, in particular, economic abuse—that occurs post separation. It would do so by amending the Serious Crime Act 2015 so that its provisions concerning controlling or coercive behaviour were extended to cover those not living together. It would therefore also safeguard those covered by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which focuses on another important group in need of protection. I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their names to Amendment 149. Analysis of successful prosecutions of the controlling or coercive behaviour offence found that six in 10 involved economic abuse, yet the wording of that legislation means that, post separation, the victims of such abuse have no legal redress.
Economic abuse has been a long-standing concern of mine, even if I had not then come across the term, so its inclusion in the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill is welcome indeed. But I must admit that I had not been aware of the prevalence and seriousness of post-separation economic abuse until it was brought to my attention by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse—SEA—to which I pay tribute for all its work on the issue and express my thanks for its help with the amendment.
We are talking about, for instance, spending money from a victim’s bank account or a joint account without permission, running up bills in their name, prolonging the sale of joint property unreasonably, interfering with the victim’s employment, and jeopardising their social security entitlement through malicious calls or wrongly claiming the child benefit. Post-separation abuse can also involve indirect control through use of the family courts.
Following an interview I did on “You and Yours” last Autumn, prompted by SEA’s work, I received a long email from a mother of three children who shared her experience, and I am grateful for her permission to quote from it anonymously. Currently going through a divorce, having suffered a combination of psychological, economic and some physical abuse, a common combination, she detailed the ways in which her husband was putting debts in her name and was taking steps that undermined her financial position before the divorce and any financial settlement. She described his actions as
“malevolent, wilful, controlling that are all-consuming and intent on destruction.”
She describes
“sleepless nights worrying about debts put in my name, no pension provision, my credit score, ability to borrow.”
She said she had learned that
“the drive to dominate does not end after physical separation”,
and she finished:
“I hope your colleagues take note that economic abuse that continues post separation, particularly when children are involved is disordered behaviour that goes against healthy parental and societal norms and should be legislated as unlawful.”
Since then I have received many emails covering various forms of post-separation abuse. One described it as
“a merry-go-round that just keeps turning post-separation”
that
“in many ways has been worse than the emotional abuse I was subjected to throughout the relationship.”
Many echoed this plea from one of them:
“Please give survivors protection from on-going abuse after we leave as this is the most dangerous period for the victims.”
These emails are just the tip of an iceberg of anxiety, suffering and trauma caused by economic abuse which research shows frequently continues after separation.
For instance, in a national survey last year by Refuge and the Co-operative Bank about one-quarter of all respondents said they had experienced economic abuse after separation from their partner, nearly one in 10 said their former partner damaged or stole property that had to be replaced, and 6% reported that in each case their ex-partner had spent money from a joint account without consent or discussion, had run up bills in their name or had refused to pay any child support. In all, only just over half of those who had experienced economic abuse said it had ended when they split up with the abuser, and some said it started only after they had ended the relationship. The research underlined the devastating and long-term financial and mental health effect that economic abuse can have on well-being.
More recently, nearly four-fifths of post-separation abuse victims who responded to SEA’s pandemic survey said the perpetrator had attempted to control their finances, with success in two-thirds of all cases. Nicola Sharp-Jeffs of SEA has detailed how coerced debt is a particularly effective and insidious form of economic abuse and is all too frequent post separation. One project found that three out of five domestic abuse survivors had been subject to at least one coerced debt. One woman described such debts as “invisible chains” that link you to the perpetrator post separation.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
A large number of noble Lords wish to speak on this group. We have a number of amendments to get through before the Committee rises at midnight. While of course there are no speaking limits, perhaps I may appeal for conciseness and brevity from noble Lords. That will assist us in making as much progress as possible before we rise later tonight.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 157 in this group, I want to express my strong support for my noble friend Lady Lister in her Amendment 149, which she has argued for so persuasively just now. My amendment is concerned with family abuse, particularly that suffered by elderly people and disabled victims. I am glad to have the strong support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt, Lady Mansoor and Lady Greengross. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has been an extraordinary campaigner for older people and years ago was bringing the problem of abuse being suffered by older people to national and international attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Mansoor, cannot be with us today because of a pressing engagement, but she is a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the amendment.
Our concern is that when it comes to domestic abuse, family victims are repeatedly, even continually, being forgotten. The only explanation I can think of is that elderly and disabled victims of family abuse who are dependent on their abusers are in general unable or afraid to speak out. To my mind, this should make the coverage of family abuse by Section 76 a high legislative priority. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under Section 76 covers such behaviour by a family member, including financial abuse, but only when they are living with their victim. According to research, most perpetuators of financial abuse against elderly people were family members rather than partners, and only 25% actually live with their victims. I believe that the UK criminal law must afford victims equal protection, irrespective of their place of residence. As Gary FitzGerald, the former CEO of Action on Elder Abuse for 18 years, has stated:
“Older women can have a higher level of physical, emotional and particularly financial dependence on perpetrators, and will often have experienced the abuse for a much greater period of time. It is those psychological and emotional relationships that are crucial in considering coercive control, much more so than whether or not the victim is living with the perpetrator.”
Material published by Action on Elder Abuse shows that financial abuse can involve victims’ houses being sold or taken without their consent, or victims giving their property away under pressure or without full awareness.
The outcome of financial abuse on older people can be devastating. Many lose large sums of money, lose property that they have lived in for years, do not receive benefits to which they are entitled, incur large debts, or simply do not have enough money to live on. Many of the alleged perpetrators of large-scale financial abuse do not deny having access to or spending large amounts of money belonging to a particular older person. They merely contend that the older person gave them permission to spend the money in question, but the vulnerability of the victims means that they are often unable to categorically deny that such permission was given. The likelihood of such cases being progressed through to a satisfactory outcome, full recovery of assets and a criminal prosecution of the perpetrator remains low. Caroline Abrahams, the charity director of Age UK, has urged the Government,
“to give serious consideration to any amendment that will improve outcomes for older victims and survivors.”
Becki Meakin, general manager of Shaping Our Lives, the national user-led organisation for disabled people, has said:
“The high incidence of violence and abuse among disabled people is related to being dependent on their family and informal networks for care and support. These caring relationships provide additional opportunities for perpetrators to abuse and coercively control. The perpetrator can coercively control the disabled person by withholding essential support such as food, medication or prevent them going out independently. This type of abuse can be done by a family member wherever they live and this type of coercive control would not be easily recognised by the legislation around stalking”
and harassment.
In her opening speech, my noble friend Lady Lister argued that it is wrong to say that post-separation economic abuse can be covered by stalking and harassment legislation, as the Government have done both in Committee in the Commons and at Second Reading. I agree with my noble friend that this is by no means sufficient.
We really need to take action on this now. Controlling or coercive behaviour, including financial abuse, does not become stalking or harassment simply because the victim does not live with their abuser.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 149, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for the reasons that she has set out so cogently.
Everyone, including the Government, recognises that post-separation economic abuse exists and is serious. Its full seriousness has been well documented by Surviving Economic Abuse, to whose work I also pay warm tribute. Along with others, I drew attention to this evidence at Second Reading, and it has been very ably set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
It can be summarised very briefly in two points. First, 95% of abused women experience economic abuse, as a result of which 60% of abused women are left in debt. Secondly, one in four abused women continues to experience economic abuse even after they have left their abuser. Economic abuse does not require physical proximity: it continues and/or escalates after a couple separates. It can also begin after the separation, when an abuser’s opportunity to continue other forms of controlling and coercive behaviour has been removed and when the only way left is through access to their former partner’s resources.
Vivid examples of the ways in which economic abuse can continue, escalate or even begin, as a form of coercive control, have been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and there is no need to repeat them. In short, as one abused woman put it:
“He can’t physically get me, he can’t emotionally hurt me, and yet still, economically he can cripple me.”
However, despite this overwhelming evidence, the Government have, up to now, resisted having post-separation economic abuse in the Bill, on the grounds that such abuse can be captured by a harassment or stalking order—and this is indeed theoretically possible.
However, if you told someone you happened to meet in the street that this was what was being proposed by the Government, they would find it very strange indeed. Stalking brings to mind something quite different from economic abuse. As SEA has rightly put it:
“Clear labelling is the primary function of the criminal law—clarity is essential in order for the criminal law to fulfil its preventative function.”
If people are asked to abide by the law, they need to be clear what it says. As the person in the street would say, words should mean what they say. As such, it is quite clear that, from the point of view of clarity for public order and the public good, we need to include this in the Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, it is entirely possible that judicial resistance to convicting a defendant of stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act where there is evidence of economic abuse but not of stalking would mean that it simply would not go through. Quite simply, we should call things by their proper name. I very much hope that the Government continue to reflect on this issue and that they will see that it makes total sense to include this amendment in the Bill, where it properly belongs.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for so clearly and comprehensively introducing her amendment. Amendment 149 would insert a new clause that seeks to extend the protection from any coercive and controlling behaviour that occurs post-separation. The noble Baroness concentrated on economic abuse, but that is not the only form of ongoing abuse.
I was in a relationship that became increasingly abusive over a period of five years. The first time I noticed something was happening was when a friend, a former partner, sent me a birthday card. When I explained who it was from, my then partner tore it up and threw it in the bin. His controlling and coercive behaviour continued and got worse, and he eventually resorted to physical violence. When we split up, he threatened to kill me and threatened to write to my employer to try to destroy my career. I continued to live in fear of what he might do until, 18 months after we had split up, he colluded with a Sunday tabloid newspaper to expose intimate details of our private life, including making public my HIV status, as well as making false allegations that the newspaper eventually admitted were libellous. Fighting the issue in the courts would have resulted in me losing everything if I had lost that case. His actions did not amount to harassment or stalking.
Coercive and controlling behaviour can continue long after separation, with victims of domestic abuse continuing to live in fear of what the perpetrator might do next, and the law needs to reflect this. Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 applies only if the perpetrator and victim are in an intimate relationship or if they live together. This amendment would ensure that it would apply to all those who are “personally connected” as defined by Clause 2 of this Bill, whether they live together or not. As such, it would also include the circumstances that Amendment 157 seeks to cover, where a relative is exerting controlling or coercive behaviour, whether or not they live together.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, explained, his amendment is specifically aimed at protecting older and disabled family members. I strongly support Amendment 149 and welcome the focus which Amendment 157 brings to the abuse of older and disabled family members.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in this important debate; he speaks movingly and powerfully on this issue. I support Amendment 157, for which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt set out the argument very well, but I will speak primarily in support of Amendment 149, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have also put my name. I also wish to thank her for all of her work in this area, and for eloquently speaking to this amendment, setting out in forensic detail why it is needed.
David Challen, son of Sally Challen, wrote movingly today in the Times. He said that leaving an abuser can be the most defining moment of a victim’s life. The fear of what will happen when they separate from their abuser is often overcome by an instinct of survival and the hope that they will be protected. However, as the law stands on coercive and controlling behaviour, victims who leave are not protected.
It is obvious that coercive control does not end when a relationship does and that very often the exact opposite happens, and the abuse escalates. As many noble Lords have said, this is particularly true of economic abuse, which does not require physical proximity to perpetrate, but can have a crippling effect on victims as their abuser seeks to make their life as hard and as financially unstable as possible. We also need to remember how often children are caught up in the continuation of this kind of abuse, with child maintenance very often being turned off and on like a tap. It is therefore absolutely right that the definition of domestic abuse in this Bill will include economic abuse and also recognises that the abuse can continue when the couple split up. We now need to take this opportunity, as others have said, to amend the Serious Crime Act 2015 to bring coercive control in line with the far better drafting of this Bill.
Not accounting for post-separation abuse is a serious shortcoming of the offence. Given that separation, as we have heard from other noble Lords, is a time at which women are at heightened risk of homicide, this shortcoming is dangerous, too. The Government made the point that existing legislation on stalking and harassment already addresses post-separation abuse. Like others, I absolutely do not accept that. These crimes are not the same and to suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding about all these offences. I also do not believe that the Government’s outstanding report on controlling and coercive behaviour should stand in the way of this vital opportunity before us.
If the law on coercive control stays as it is, what kind of signal do we send to victims? It is this: “Stay put and we can charge him, but if you leave, we can’t touch him.” This makes no sense at all and must change. Failing to recognise that these abusive behaviours can occur post separation creates a dangerous gap in our understanding of this crime and would leave too many victims without the proper justice they deserve.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support this group of amendments and specifically wish to speak to Amendment 157, to which I have added my name. Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 covers coercive or controlling behaviours by family members who live with their victims; this amendment would ensure that this is broadened to include those family members who reside at a different address.
As I outlined at Second Reading, many older people suffer from domestic abuse, which all too often goes unreported. Until very recently, the ONS did not collect data for those aged 75 and over in the national crime survey. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the ONS has stopped asking questions around sensitive topics including domestic abuse and sexual assault, so it will not be until sometime after the pandemic that the ONS will start publishing data on the abuse of older people.
From the information we do have, however, we know that the abuse of older people is often committed by family members and victims can be reluctant to report this. In cases where parents are abused by their children, they often feel that the abuse reflects on them as parents—and indeed it might. The Metropolitan Police and other UK police forces have said that this is a significant factor in the underreporting of abuse against older people.
The organisation Hourglass, formerly Action on Elder Abuse, which I originally set up with the help of the Department of Health and of which I am a patron, has a helpline to support older people who are victims of abuse. The most frequent perpetrators recorded by the helpline are sons and daughters, making up 30% of all calls in 2019 and 38% of calls in the first six months of the pandemic, from March to September 2020.
Abuse against older people, like abuse against people of any age, takes many forms, as we know. Hourglass reports that, in 2019, 40% of calls to its abuse helpline involved financial abuse. Very often, this form of abuse is carried out by family members who do not reside at the same address as the victim.
One way this financial abuse occurs is through the use of technology and the digital exclusion of older people. In June 2020, the International Longevity Centre UK, of which I am chief executive, published a paper entitled Straddling the Divide, which highlighted the issues that many older people face with digital exclusion during the Covid-19 pandemic. The report found that, in the UK,
“around 11.9 million people lack the digital skills they need for everyday life.”
It also found that
“only 47% of adults aged 75 years and over recently used the internet.”
At a time when older people have been told to stay home and shield, many have not been able to go to the bank as they have in the past. More than ever before, many now rely on others to manage their finances online. Very often, this is done by a close family member and sadly, as we know, this can lead to financial abuse.
Such abuse is often coupled with controlling and coercive behaviours by the perpetrator where other forms of abuse, such as physical or psychological abuse, are not used. It is crucial that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviours by family members includes those not residing with the victim, as this would strengthen the law in protecting against the abuse of older people—which, I hope all noble Lords agree, is a serious and often urgent issue that must be resolved as a matter of urgency.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I am advised that the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, was unable to get online so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I pay heartfelt and fulsome tribute to her for all her tireless work for older people. There is much to commend in Amendments 149 and 157 in this group, but I will direct my remarks to Amendment 149; I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and her co-signers for introducing it.
The mental anguish and emotional strain of this form of abuse, continuing post separation, is worthy of our attention this evening. I thank the charities such as Refuge, Surviving Economic Abuse—known as SEA—and others that have brought this issue to our attention in the context of this Bill. The figures brought forward in research undertaken by Refuge suggest that 53% of survivors of economic abuse said that it stopped after they had separated from their partner.
However, the controlling and coercive behaviour offence does not cover abuse that occurs when couples are no longer in a relationship or living together, so there are strong arguments for bringing in the type of behaviour so eloquently outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in moving this amendment. In paying tribute to the work of these charities and the many who have suffered abuse, we should look at the inconsistencies and at closing the loophole in the present laws. My starting point is that, now that economic abuse is being recognised in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill, it makes sense to bring this type of coercive behaviour within the remit of the Bill.
In responding to the powerful arguments put forward in this debate, if my noble friend the Minister cannot adopt the amendments before the House, I hope that she will look kindly on bringing forward amendments from the department and in her own words to ensure that the inconsistencies identified in this amendment are brought to an end and that this type of abuse, the forms taken and its pervasiveness—this abuse can continue long after separation—are brought to a timely end. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving this amendment. I believe that it is worthy of the attention of the House, and that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and should be brought within the remit of this Bill. If that does not happen this evening, I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on bringing forward on Report a form of words that we can all unite around.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the excellent speeches that have already been made in support of these two amendments, I can be brief in supporting Amendment 149. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Burt, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, have all made a cogent case for aligning the definition in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 of those to be protected from coercive control with the much better and wider definition in the current Bill, so that victims of coercive control are protected post separation.
As I said at Second Reading, my interest in this issue arises from my experience as patron of a domestic abuse charity in Norfolk which helps support women and men who have left abusive relationships to rebuild their lives and their confidence. The work it does has made me very aware of the destructive effect ex-partners can have, even from a distance and long after separation.
Together with that experience, as others have said, I am grateful for all the briefing we have received from various organisations and charities. My particular gratitude goes to Cassandra Wiener from the University of Sussex, for having so clearly set out the way coercive and controlling behaviour, particularly—but not exclusively—economic abuse, can continue after the abusive partner has left; indeed, how the act of leaving itself can be a trigger for increasing the abusive behaviour, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so powerfully described in his very brave and moving speech.
The argument that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is the appropriate way to deal with a problem that the Government themselves recognise is simply not acceptable. Earlier, reference was made to the need to beware of adding baubles to a legislative Christmas tree. This amendment is no bauble. It goes to the roots of this legislation: the aim that we should provide comprehensive protection for all victims of all forms of domestic abuse from all types of that abuse. I urge the Government to support it.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have heard excellent speeches this evening, so I do not want to cover what has already been so excellently spoken to in the Chamber. I support Amendment 149 and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing this to the Committee. As the Victims’ Commissioner for over seven years, I met many survivors and victims of economic abuse. To sit side by side with someone and listen to their experience of abuse or, if not an abusive relationship, the use of coercive control to persecute them financially is a heart-breaking situation when your hands are tied.
I am very grateful, as many noble Lords have said, for lots of briefing but especially to Surviving Economic Abuse. Its briefing was outstanding, and I would like to highlight just some points as I know it is going to be a long night. One in four women reports experiencing economic abuse after leaving the abuser. In fact, given that economic abuse does not require physical proximity, as we have heard, it commonly continues, escalates and in some cases may begin after separation. This creates a significant barrier to the victim rebuilding their life. This is an horrendous attitude—the way that abusers absolutely pincer their victims.
To help people fully understand, I will quote a case study from Surviving Economic Abuse in support of this amendment. It says:
“Layla was married for over 20 years and has three children. Her husband was controlling and coercive throughout the marriage both economically and emotionally, pressurising her to transfer money to his bank account and forcing her to let him use the credit card she had in her sole name. He ran up debt on her credit card and, after separation, forced her to release hundreds of thousands of pounds of equity from the mortgage. Layla continues to pay debts he has put in her name, including bank loans of £70,000.”
We are not talking pocket money here. These are huge amounts that prevent victims repairing their lives.
It is so important that this amendment is made to the Domestic Abuse Bill as other Peers have covered other sections of the Serious Crime Act. More importantly, this would send a message to other abusers in relationships where a divorce is sought and coercive control carries on and on through the financial settlement while, to the victim’s cost, the debt escalates and escalates. I know this from the personal experience of friends, victims and survivors. We have to ensure that we make this amendment to the Bill to send a message that this is taken seriously, and to empower victims by ensuring that they know that we support them, listen to them and will help protect them from the people who cause them to go into debt.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 149, as so excellently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who I warmly congratulate on all her work in this area. Amendment 149 relates to the abuse perpetrated after people have separated. I too thank Surviving Economic Abuse for its excellent work and briefing.
Economic abuse after separation can particularly affect older women, many of whom have been financially dependent on a partner who traditionally managed the family’s finances and then, after they have stopped living together, continues to try to withhold money or run up debts in the woman’s name, without her realising it in time. I also support Amendment 157, spoken to so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which relates to the problem of abuse suffered by older people generally. They can suffer many different types of abuse. Further, I add my support to Amendment 171, which looks at carers and the abuse that can be perpetrated against elderly or disabled victims; this need to be covered as well.
As my noble friend Lord Cormack has said, the Domestic Abuse Bill is a ground-breaking, landmark piece of legislation. It contains some important measures to ensure that the statutory definition of domestic abuse is really wide-ranging. Amendment 149 seeks to ensure that this legislation is clearly consistent with other legislation. The Domestic Abuse Bill is an ideal avenue to address inconsistency with the Serious Crime Act 2015, and to extend the current offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in Section 6 of that Act to ensure that it covers abuse post separation.
Currently, Section 76 limits this offence to those situations where the perpetrator and victim are either in an intimate relationship with each other or living together as either members of the same family or having previously been an intimate relationship. Under the 2015 Act, the two people have to meet the definition of being personally connected, but this would exclude two individuals who are no longer in an intimate relationship or living together.
Without the changes in these amendments, abusive behaviours such as economic abuse by one partner towards the other cannot necessarily fall within the existing offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. This is a crucial gap in the law, which Amendment 149 seeks to close by unequivocally making the 2015 Act and the definitions in this Bill consistent, so that abuse perpetrated when people are not living together can still be counted as a criminal offence. Indeed, if this amendment is accepted, my own Amendment 168, debated on the first day in Committee, will automatically be covered.
Existing legislation on stalking and harassment is not suitable to address post-separation abuse, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify to the Committee that the Government support the aims of this amendment and, if they do not accept these words, may come forward with their own wording on Report that can ensure that the coercive control offence will be brought into the criminal law in line with the statutory definition of domestic abuse to remove the current anomaly, so that victims need wait no longer for this much-needed protection. Whether this is about controlling or coercive behaviour, alienating behaviour or other forms of abuse, the criminal law will then be able to catch up with the more enlightened understanding of domestic abuse enshrined in the Bill.
Viscount Goschen (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, offer my support for Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I also heard compelling arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for their Amendment 157.
With regard to Amendment 149, we have heard some very compelling arguments this evening. Indeed, there has been unanimity thus far, and I expect that to continue. This proposal was the primary subject of my remarks at Second Reading. As we have heard, the protection afforded by Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act is limited by the residency requirement it contains. I completely agree with earlier speakers—indeed, it is self-evident—that victims can still be extremely vulnerable to abuse from their former partners even if they are not living together under the same roof. Research from bodies including the University of Sussex has reinforced the nature of this threat. They are concerned, quite rightly in my view, that this discrepancy creates a perverse disincentive for victims physically to leave their former partners.
Fortunately we have the solution to this problem staring at us from the Domestic Abuse Bill before us this evening. The enhanced definition of connected persons in Clause 2 does not have this residency requirement, as we have heard. Therefore, it seems entirely logical to harmonise the law between these two statutes. The clearer the law, the better, and there is no room for two competing definitions on the statute book. We need to choose the most effective one, and in my view that is the one contained in Clause 2. This is really extremely difficult to argue against, given that the Government have come forward with a new definition that is based on the lessons learned in the intervening five years. Why this should not be applied in these circumstances would be a difficult argument to make. So the issue is really as straightforward as that and, not surprisingly, the amendment has had a great deal of support to date both inside the House and externally, and I add my support.
The Bill has the potential to do so much good, and the Government should be warmly applauded for having brought it forward. Making the change proposed in this amendment would add further to those benefits. As I mentioned at Second Reading, we are fortunate enough to have a Minister with us this evening who is an expert in this field, and I very much look forward to my noble friend’s response after she has heard the arguments put forward this evening.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and other noble Lords who have signed it. I thank them for bringing this to the attention of the Committee and I wholeheartedly support this amendment on post-separation abuse, including economic abuse. It is tragic that so many women continue to be abused even after separation. They have done the right thing—left, escaped, moved or fled—but somehow the plague of abuse continues in other forms. It does not require physical contact, and for some victims this form of abuse only starts after they have left. It is another barrier to escape when they have surely suffered enough. It is widespread: one in four women reports experiencing economic abuse after separation. Most alarmingly, it is post-separation when women are at heightened risk of homicide.
Perhaps most tragically of all, the current law offers inadequate protection, and this amendment would begin to correct that. Currently, we are in the absurd position that many post-separation offences would be a crime only if they occurred before separation. In the words of one Crown Court judge:
“If you have had the strength to leave—we are suddenly not supporting those people? They have got the legislation wrong.”
There are a few important legislative issues to consider. The first is that the Serious Crime Act definition of coercive control does not cover post-separation abuse. Therefore, once this Bill passes, there will be an anomaly in the law, both within English statute and across the United Kingdom, since it is covered in Scotland. The amendment in the other place was withdrawn because of an ongoing government review into the offence of coercive behaviour. This would seem a compelling reason, but I do not think it reason enough to ignore this amendment. The review in question does not look specifically at economic abuse and, since it is concerned only with the current application of the law, which does not recognise economic abuse, it is unlikely to do the issue any justice. Therefore, the review should not stand as a barrier to the acceptance of this amendment.
Finally, it has been argued that victims of abuse can be protected under existing legislation concerning stalking, since statutory guidance has been updated to include economic abuse. But, practically speaking, this is unlikely to be effective. The guidance given to police officers when drawing up stalking protection orders does not include economic abuse provision. Indeed, it is not clear how it could. I therefore believe there is a clear and compelling case for accepting this amendment. The evidence that economic abuse is a crime has been accepted by all, as evidenced by the debate and continued passage of this Bill. It is now a question of offering every possible legal protection, consistently and universally, for the very brave victims of this awful crime. This amendment does that and has my unqualified support.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who is next on the list, has already spoken and inadvertently appears a second time. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very supportive of Amendment 149. I would like to put it in the context of how I see this: supporting women from BAME communities in particular, where they are separated from their families and yet the coercive behaviour continues, not just by one perpetrator but by many family members, in particular with regard to the economics of abuse or the way they poison—and I say “poison” very strongly—the minds of children against the victims and survivors. We need to have something in place that supports women. I concentrate on BAME women because I feel that they are probably those who least know how to access the services that are available and how to utilise the law as it currently stands. We need to make sure that they have as much protection as possible and are able to access it.
I know my noble friend will take away the serious implications of the amendment, particularly for the women I am trying to focus on. I feel, as other noble Lords have said very eloquently, that this is something that is critical and missing in an important piece of our legislative framework.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 149 and 157. I am very well aware of the time and shall keep this short. Victims of domestic abuse who escape the perpetrator need protection in circumstances already set out so well by other speakers—and not exclusively, I have to say, in situations of economic abuse. However, to look at economic abuse, as a family judge financial dispute cases post-divorce came before me which undoubtedly came within the framework of economic abuse. They were very difficult to resolve because those who had perpetrated this economic abuse were usually very clever in managing to prevent adequate financial relief for the spouse. However, it is absurd to suggest that the CPS would be likely to prosecute these sorts of cases as issues of harassment. Possibly it would, but I would be astonished if it did or, indeed, if the police brought them to the attention of the CPS.
As I said, I also support Amendment 157. It is broader than has been suggested and, in my view, it includes teenagers who are being forced into marriage by family members who do not necessarily live under the same roof. An example would be uncles or brothers who have already left home, but they are as abusive and dangerous to the teenager being forced into marriage as those who live under the same roof.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lords and to listen to their powerful and compelling speeches. I am pleased to speak to Amendment 149. It is vital that post-separation abuse is recognised within this Domestic Abuse Bill, as the controlling and coercive behaviour offence only recognises victims who live with an abuser or who are in an intimate relationship with them. That cannot be right. Leaving a controlling relationship is very dangerous, as many survivors know. It is too easy to assume that once a victim has left their abuser, that abuse stops. In too many cases it is just the opposite and economic abuse is rarely used in isolation, as victims still suffer from other forms of abuse, which forces them to abide by their abusers with unreasonable demands placed on them. All the while, they desperately want to keep themselves and their children safe.
As one victim said, it is like an invisible chain: it goes on and on. That is because their abuser does not even have to know where their victim is. As a result, it puts them at an even greater risk of homicide during this period. The resulting outcome is that it prevents a victim from moving on with their lives. They feel that they can never be free. This new clause would ensure that those victims who were previously personally connected are protected from any coercive or controlling behaviour occurring post separation. This is a one-step opportunity within this Domestic Abuse Bill to change the law and save lives.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 149. It took us a long time to recognise coercive control, but now that we have, we have come a long way very quickly. The term “coercive control” has entered our vernacular; as mentioned in an earlier debate, “The Archers” centred a major story line on it, as did “Coronation Street”. That might sound trivial, but it is not, because with each storyline, society’s understanding grows and what was once considered acceptable is not any longer.
The Government should be proud of the part they have played in reaching this point. When Theresa May introduced the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in 2015, England and Wales became the first countries in the world to recognise and criminalise this behaviour. With the Bill we are leading the world again by including economic abuse in the first legal definition of domestic abuse. Again, we are ahead of the curve.
When the Government launched consultation on the Bill in March 2018, LBC ran a phone-in discussing economic abuse. A woman called in. She had been suffering from emotional abuse and was also suffering from financial abuse without knowing it was a recognised behaviour. After listening to the show, the woman admitted she was now considering leaving her husband, saying: “I’ve always hidden it: ‘It’s all me; it’s all me.’ Now I realise it’s not all me. I’ve been going through this for quite some time, but I didn’t realise this was an issue”. This is just one example but it shows the very real impact of this Bill and how it is already forging that better understanding and, in so doing, providing better protection for victims—but it can provide better protection for many more victims if it accepts this amendment to include post-separation abuse in controlling and coercive behaviour rather than relying on stalking legislation in which it does not fit easily as a stand-alone offence.
I appreciate that my noble friend has said that we must wait for the outcome of the Home Office review and that this will be published by Report. I sincerely hope the findings will in fact cover this issue for, if we do not address this, we will be letting down all those victims, who we know exist and who continue to suffer even when they have summoned up the courage to leave their abusive partner. If we do that, I am afraid we will have renounced our leading role in this area.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and other noble Lords for bringing Amendment 149, and to Surviving Economic Abuse. I support both Amendments 149 and 157 and am particularly keen to support Amendment 149 on post-separation economic control.
In an earlier discussion, we had the debate about universal credit and other benefits and the need to ensure the victim can have the financial wherewithal to leave the abuser by making split payments the default position. I hope the Government will be kindlier disposed towards this amendment, which covers a whole aspect of abuse not yet covered in UK law.
As we have heard, the crime of domestic abuse as set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015 does not cover post-separation abuse. Amendment 149 rectifies this. I do not need to add further to the examples that have already been given by other noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to make the point of how serious and all-pervasive to the life of the victim this can be.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the amendment to tackle post-separation abuse that was tabled in Committee in the Commons. The Minister, Alex Chalk, acknowledged that the charity Surviving Economic Abuse had done an “important public service” in raising the issue. However, the amendment was withdrawn in Committee due to assurances regarding an ongoing government review into controlling or coercive behaviour, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We still await the review. It is now promised before Report, and I hope this Minister will not use the same reason for not allowing this amendment. Even better, we would love to see the Government bring their own amendment on Report.
We really need this. One Crown Court judge estimated that without something of this nature, the legislation would be missing 50% or 60% of the people who need to be protected. This is a great Bill, but it will still fail victims—even after they have summoned the courage to escape and even when they thought they had finally got their lives back—if we do not tackle this vitally important group.
Amendment 157 was ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I have added my name to it. It tackles coercive and controlling behaviour by a relative, whether or not they reside with the victim. As the noble Lord has said, only 25% do. The definition still applies, even if they are no longer in an intimate relationship but still reside together. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised the issue of forced marriage, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned other members of the girl’s or woman’s family who do not toe the family line and the way that their life can be poisoned as a result. This amendment therefore widens the definition of controlling and coercive behaviour to ensure that these relationships are still defined as domestic abuse and can be prosecuted as such. I hope that the Government give it favourable consideration.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I will just pick up on a point that was made by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. It concerns what was said during the debate on this or a similar amendment in the Commons, when the Government used an argument to deflect the amendment to the effect that we should await the outcome of the review of coercive control legislation due to be completed by “early autumn”. Last autumn was being referred to. It now appears that we might receive some further information—I hope, the outcome of the review—before Report. No doubt the Minister will confirm that or otherwise when she responds.
The point I want to make is that this is far from the first amendment on a key domestic abuse issue that the Government have told us at some stage that they cannot accept because they are awaiting the outcome of a review, pilot scheme or mapping exercise. That suggests that they know that there are real problems that need addressing but have not determined how in time for the Bill. The Bill has already been a long time on its still-unfinished journey to becoming an Act. I am not sure that this is a satisfactory situation. So often we are told that an amendment is unacceptable because there is a review, pilot scheme or mapping exercise outstanding.
My name is attached to Amendment 149 which, as expected, was moved so comprehensively and persuasively by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. It adds a new clause, which would ensure that those who were previously personally connected are protected from any coercive and controlling behaviour, including economic abuse, that occurs post separation. As we have heard, economic abuse makes the victim dependent on the perpetrator and limits their choices and ability to move. One in five women in the UK reports having experienced economic abuse from a current or former intimate partner, and 95% of domestic abuse victims report that they have suffered economic abuse. It is widespread.
Through economic exploitation, the perpetrator looks to benefit from the victim’s economic resources and, in so doing, sabotage their economic independence. The perpetrator may also build up debt in the victim’s name through coercion or fraud, or even steal or damage the victim’s property, which then has to be replaced. Building up debt in the victim’s name is common and leaves the victim struggling to live with it thereafter. When this happens, the impact on the victim’s economic well-being is hugely destabilising and limits their choices post separation. Economic safety underpins physical safety, and building an independent life can, for many victims of economic abuse, feel impossible. I will not continue further. I had some more points to make, but I know that time is pressing and I am sure that they have already been made.
I conclude by saying that we support Amendment 149, which addresses the deficiency that I referred to earlier: that the post-separation situation is not covered and that currently, victims of economic abuse post-separation are unable to seek justice. We also support the objectives of Amendment 157, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for setting out the case for their amendments, which seek to extend the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for tabling his amendment, which seeks to repeal the so-called carer’s defence. I join others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and all the work that she has done in this area. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lady Verma, for pointing out the very particular problems faced by some BAME ladies. My noble friend Lady Sanderson illustrated so well how society, including notable broadcasters, has, over time, got to grips with an understanding of coercive control and the terrible harm it causes.
I will address Amendments 149 and 157 before turning to Amendment 171. Amendment 149 seeks to remove the current requirement in the offence of living together in the case of former partners as well as family members. Amendment 157 seeks to remove the current requirement in the offence of living together in the case of relatives who are perpetrating abuse but who do not live with their victim.
Controlling or coercive behaviours are an insidious form of domestic abuse that have long-term debilitating effects on victims and survivors. Such behaviours, intended to harm, punish and frighten, can be perpetrated within intimate and family abusive relationships. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour applies, as it stands, to those who are personally connected. That means that it applies to intimate partners regardless of whether they live together, ex-partners who live together, or family members who live together. The offence does not currently apply to ex-partners or family members who do not live together. The rationale behind this is that there are other criminal offences—stalking and harassment—that may be used to prosecute controlling or coercive behaviours post separation, or in cases where family members do not live together. Indeed, the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was specifically introduced to close a gap in the law with regard to abuse by intimate partners or family members in the same household.
Turning to surviving economic abuse, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, along with other noble Lords and domestic abuse organisations, rightly highlight that controlling or coercive behaviour often begins, continues or intensifies when the victim and perpetrator no longer live together. They further argue that the stalking and harassment offences are not specifically designed to prosecute this sort of behaviour. Supporters of this amendment also make the point that controlling or coercive behaviour occurs between family members who do not live together, an example being adult children who inflict economic abuse on their elderly parents. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Goschen pointed out, the new statutory definition of domestic abuse includes ex-partners among those defined as personally connected and does not have a “living together” requirement. Therefore, an amendment to the controlling or coercive behaviour offence could be seen as conforming to the definition in Part 1 of the Bill.
There are convincing arguments on either side of this debate, and the case for change is not clear-cut. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour has been in force for just over five years. Consequently, there is only limited evidence on which to build a case for amending the legislation. Given its relative newness, there is also work to be done to further embed the offence throughout the criminal justice system.
Additionally, though not specifically designed to cover controlling or coercive behaviours, the stalking and harassment offence is broad enough that it may apply to post-separation abuse. This includes forms of economic abuse so rightly highlighted by Surviving Economic Abuse. It is also worth noting that the stalking and harassment offence has a maximum sentence of 10 years, whereas for controlling or coercive behaviour it is five years.
The Government are committed to ensuring that any changes to legislation are made on a sound evidential basis. To support this, in 2018 we committed to conducting a review into the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. Though the Home Office has made good progress with the review, it has been unavoidably delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has necessitated refocusing our efforts to support victims throughout this difficult time. We will be publishing the review findings ahead of Report. As the case for change here is not clear-cut, we will continue to consider the evidence for and against change, including the review into the offence, ahead of Report. In coming to a final view, we will reflect very carefully on this debate.
Amendment 171 seeks to repeal what has been labelled by some as the “carer’s defence”, under Section 76(8) to 76(10) of the 2015 Act. This allows for a limited defence where the accused believes that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. The defence is limited as it is not available in cases where the victim fears that violence will be used against them. In addition to believing that he or she was acting in the best interests of the victim, the accused would also need to demonstrate to the court that while their behaviour might have appeared controlling, it was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The defence is intended to cover cases where the accused is genuinely acting in the best interests of the victim: for example, if the accused has a caring responsibility for a disabled partner and for medical reasons must compel their partner to take medication or stay at home against their will, for their own protection or well-being. Again, it is important to note that this defence is not available in cases where the victim feared that violence would be used against them.
Supporters of this amendment have put forward three main arguments: first, that it is necessary to protect vulnerable victims who have disabilities or mental health issues from coercion or control; secondly, that the defence has the potential to prolong the abuse of disabled victims and prevent them from accessing equal justice; and, thirdly, that alternative legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act, may be used by the accused to argue that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. This would render the defence unnecessary. However, the Government consider this defence entirely necessary. There will be specific circumstances in which it is possible that the accused’s behaviour, while it might be considered controlling in a different context, is justified and reasonable given the nature of their caring responsibilities. There is a real risk that, without such a defence, a person may be wrongfully convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour when in fact they were indeed acting in a person’s best interests.
As is the case with all legal defences, it is for the courts and juries to decide merit on a case by case basis, and whether the threshold for the defence has been met or not. There are similar or equivalent defences in Scotland, in Section 6 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, and in the proposed new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland, in Clause 12 of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, which has recently completed its passage through the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In conclusion, while I cannot support Amendment 171, I undertake to consider further Amendments 149 and 157. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it has been a privilege and an honour to move this amendment which has had such great support from across the House and in particular an unusual level of support from the Minister’s own Benches.
We have heard a lot of very strong arguments. I will not go through them, given the time. At present, there is a disincentive for victims of abuse to leave. We have heard about the positions of older and disabled women, children and black and minority ethnic women. We have heard from a former Victims’ Commissioner and a judge, and we have heard the very moving personal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Almost everyone who spoke dismissed, out of hand, the idea that post-separation abuse, and in particular economic abuse, could be treated as a form of stalking.
I had hoped that, having listened to the debate, the Minister would put up the white flag and basically say that the case had been overwhelmingly put. A number of noble Lords on her own Benches said they hoped she would bring forward her own amendment on Report. But I do welcome the fact that she said she will look again at this. That is progress. But she said there are arguments on both sides. Well, I have heard argument after argument for this amendment, and not one against it. The Minister did not really put an argument, so I look forward to what I hope will be productive discussions between now and Report, and I hope she will take note of the calls that, if she will not accept this amendment, she should bring forward her own amendment on Report.
I will leave it at that. I thank noble Lords again for such strong support for this amendment. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendments 155 and 156. 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 155
Lord Ramsbotham
“Screening for acquired brain injury in domestic abuse cases
(1) A woman who has been the subject of domestic abuse shall, with her consent, be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of brain injury, including concussion.(2) For the purposes of this section a woman has been the subject of domestic abuse if—(a) she is the person for whose protection a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order has been issued, or(b) she is the person against whom it is alleged the domestic abuse has been perpetrated, when the accused is charged with an offence that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.(3) In the case of subsection (2)(a), the screening shall take place within two weeks of a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order being issued.(4) In the case of subsection (2)(b) the screening shall take place within two weeks of a charge being made for an offence, where the behaviour of the accused amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.”
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 155 and speaking to Amendment 156 standing in my name, I must declare two interests: first, I am chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group; secondly, I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Acquired Brain Injury.
The chairman of the APPG, Chris Bryant MP, unsuccessfully tabled these two amendments in Committee in the other place. Since then, he and I have had a discussion with Victoria Atkins MP, Minister for Safeguarding, during which she assured us that the Government recognised the impact of acquired brain injury on victims of domestic abuse. Since then, she has forwarded a copy of the draft guidance to be issued to the police on domestic abuse protection notices and orders. Both are mentioned in Amendment 155, which includes referral to an independent domestic violence advocate, who can advise a victim on a range of issues, including healthcare. That has been forwarded to noble Lords by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford.
These two amendments are linked in that both are to do with assessing whether a victim of domestic abuse is suffering from an acquired brain injury. I will speak first to Amendment 156, which covers prisoner victims of domestic abuse. It was the assessment of their needs conducted by the Disabilities Trust at HMP Drake Hall, a women’s prison in Staffordshire, that first alerted us to the added problems faced by victims suffering from an acquired brain injury.
The trust, which is a member of the interest group that I chair, had carried out an assessment of head injury at HMP Leeds, finding that over 40% of male prisoners were suffering from an acquired brain injury that affected their behaviour. The trust introduced a link worker scheme, in which someone who had worked with a prisoner while he was in prison supported him for six months when he was released into the community. The trust then carried out a similar assessment at HMYOI Wetherby, finding that a similar percentage of young offenders were suffering from an acquired brain injury.
Turning to women, the Ministry of Justice funded the trust to conduct a two-year specialist link worker scheme at Drake Hall. The trust found that 64% of the prisoners reported having suffered a brain injury, 98% of which were traumatic. Forty per cent of those suffering from a traumatic injury had a mental health diagnosis, and 62% of the women reported that they had received their injury during domestic abuse. For some, this was the first realisation that the injury was the cause of their behavioural symptoms.
In that connection, I have mentioned before in this House my disappointment that Theresa May, when Prime Minister, dropped the prisons part of David Cameron’s Prisons and Courts Bill. A number of us had hoped to use it to make statutory certain initial assessments on being received into prison, including an assessment of head injury. I hope that this Bill will provide the opportunity to make that good.
We have also corresponded with Alex Chalk MP at the Ministry of Justice regarding the follow-up to the Disabilities Trust report on Drake Hall. He confirmed that work was under way to improve the identification of individuals with an acquired brain injury and ensure that prison and probation staff were better informed and trained to understand and support the behavioural challenges of those with an acquired brain injury.
I shall move on, or rather backwards, to Amendment 155. In addition to the draft guidance for the police about domestic abuse protection notices and orders, I should draw attention to the inclusion of a time factor. Early assessment is of the essence in understanding the effects of an acquired brain injury no less for the victims than for those responsible for treating them. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has raised an important issue and outlined the size of the problem. Brain injury can arise from many different causes such as violent trauma, lack of oxygen to the brain or self-medication with alcohol and drugs. Sadly, brain injury is in large part irreversible, although sometimes the brain has the ability to relearn under intense rehabilitation, which is why rehabilitation services are so important.
One can see the motivation behind the amendment, but I fear that it may be difficult to have it in the Bill. In acute head injury, haemorrhage, usually a subdural haematoma, needs to be detected rapidly and the clot removed neurosurgically. If missed, the injury may become a chronic subdural as the clot acts like a wick, drawing fluid into it so that it slowly expands in the fixed box that the skull provides.
The other main category is that of repeated impact injury, sometimes associated with episodes of concussion as classically seen in boxers, which can lead to dementia. The part of the brain that is damaged determines the clinical signs exhibited. If the frontal lobes or some of the main nuclei of the brain are damaged, there can be profound personality and behavioural changes, while in others, speech and movement are affected. It can be very variable. Sadly, although supportive care can help a person to cope with deteriorating brain function and slow its effect, it is not reversible.
A possible difficulty with the amendment is that it requires a two-week timeframe for assessment, given that there are already waiting lists for MRI machine time for those with symptoms indicating brain pathology, such as cancers that need urgent treatment. Awareness of head injury is gained first and foremost from the patient history, followed by appropriate physical examination, after which further investigations may or may not be indicated. It is the history of the injury and the clinical signs that may indicate brain injury; the screening itself can establish only that the findings and type of injury described are, on the balance of probabilities, likely to be causally linked. This well-motivated amendment should raise awareness of head injury so that women are asked about the type of injury, including how it happened and when. A high index of suspicion of head injury is needed, but I fear that the amendment as worded would not be workable in practice.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which he spoke to so convincingly. Amendment 155 deals with screening for traumatic brain injury for female domestic abuse victims who choose to have it within two weeks of a domestic abuse protection notice or order, or when the abuser has been charged. This should provide valuable evidence of abuse for the court and possibly a diagnosis that could help health authorities to treat the injuries that have arisen both physically and mentally. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the harm to victims that acquired brain injury can cause; they are complex and worrying.
Amendment 156 relates to female prisoners. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, confirmed, many prisoners of the male variety have been knocked around and may well have brain injuries, although I would suggest that that does not happen very often as a result of domestic abuse.
As we have been told, the amendment is based on research by the Disabilities Trust which shows that nearly two-thirds of offenders at Drake Hall had had a brain injury, of whom 62% claimed that the injury was a result of domestic abuse. Of those diagnosed as having a brain injury, nearly all of them had suffered traumatic brain injury, potentially leading to very serious health consequences, as we have heard.
The amendment provides for all female prisoners to be screened within two weeks of starting their sentence. While they are inside, remedial treatment can be started, I hope, although I accept the very informed and concerning comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support both these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has had a long-standing interest in these matters, as he explained to the Committee, and he spoke with great authority, as he usually does. He also explained that he had had recent conversations with the Minister, Victoria Atkins, and I was pleased that he explained that she is taking this problem very seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave a very sobering medical explanation of brain damage and brain injury. In my understanding, she said it is a difficult thing to assess, but it is a very real issue. I too got the review of the Disabilities Trust report on Drake Hall from 2016-18, and we have heard a number of the statistics from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
One particular statistic that was not repeated, and which I thought was particularly revealing, was that 33% of women with a brain injury sustained their injury before committing their first offence. That shows that brain injury can, and often does, lead to life-changing behaviours, which can and do mean that, disproportion-ately, people with brain injuries end up in prison—both women and men.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, did not actually say that this was a probing amendment, but whether or not it is, I am happy to support it. I hope to hear from the Minister that the Government are taking these sources of injury and changes in behaviour very seriously within the prison estate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for setting out the case for these amendments, which, as he explained, follow similar suggestions from Chris Bryant MP when the Bill was debated in another place. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Minister for Safeguarding was able to meet Mr Bryant and the noble Lord, and that their discussions were—as the noble Lord said—helpful.
Amendment 155 seeks to introduce screening for acquired brain injury for female victims of domestic abuse within two weeks of a domestic abuse charge being made, including those victims to be protected by a domestic abuse protection order. Amendment 156 seeks to introduce screening for brain injury for all female prisoners within two weeks of starting their sentence, with a subsequent assessment to take place if an injury is found.
I say from the outset that we want to make sure that we provide healthcare and support that meets the specific needs of all victims of domestic abuse, and female offenders too, including those with acquired brain injury. We have carefully considered these amendments, and while we appreciate their overarching intent, we feel that legislating would not be the appropriate course of action. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, set out clearly the clinical difficulties that would be involved if we were to put this in the Bill.
The National Health Service is there to provide appropriate care and treatment for everyone who needs it, based on clinical need. This key principle on which the NHS operates means that anyone who needs a certain diagnostic test based on clinical need should receive it. The healthcare needs of victims of domestic abuse will vary greatly based on their individual circumstances and experiences but, if they need urgent assessment or treatment, they will receive this from the National Health Service.
Moreover, as we have heard throughout the scrutiny of the Bill so far, domestic abuse can manifest itself in many ways, including—as in the group of amendments we have just discussed—through coercive control or financial abuse, and it would be inappropriate to invite victims of these forms of domestic abuse for brain injury screening. That is why we do not consider that testing all female victims of domestic abuse, as this amendment suggests, would be an effective use of NHS resources or provide the personalised care they need.
Nevertheless, we believe that improvements can be made to existing screening processes through non-legislative measures. I will provide some background to that. All people entering prison receive an early health assessment within the first 24 hours. This initial assessment is comprehensive so that their health needs can be identified and addressed at an early stage. It includes a standard requirement to undertake a screening questionnaire for head injury and loss of consciousness, which focuses on issues with memory or concentration. As noble Lords have said, these can be important signs.
We acknowledge that more could be done during this screening process to identify and address specific circumstances where head injury or loss of consciousness has resulted from domestic abuse. I am pleased to say that NHS England and NHS Improvement have confirmed that they would be happy to add further questions to the existing screening tool to ascertain, where an acquired brain injury has been identified, whether that acquired brain injury occurred as a result of physical injury related to domestic abuse, sexual violence or another form of abuse.
The national screening tool is reviewed and updated by NHS England and NHS Improvement on an annual basis to allow for any changes in NICE guidance or any recommendations arising from a coroner’s report to prevent future deaths. To amend the existing screening tool, NHS England and NHS Improvement will need to agree the precise questions to be asked and how these will be reported. I am pleased to say that the initial screening questions on domestic violence and the coding that is required have already been agreed and will be implemented by April this year.
Alongside this, NHS England and NHS Improvement are continuing to work with the Disabilities Trust on a training package for healthcare practitioners to increase effectiveness when supporting people with impaired neurological functioning, either as a result of domestic abuse or for other reasons, and also to support them by providing practical steps to those working with patients and self-help tools for the patients themselves to reduce and overcome the impact of any brain injury.
In so far as Amendment 155 seeks to link screening to the making of a domestic abuse protection order, it is important to recognise that, like other protective orders, these are designed to impose requirements on the perpetrator. They cannot impose requirements on the person to be protected by the order, such as requiring them to undertake a screening for an acquired brain injury.
We will, however, use the statutory guidance to the police to recommend that they refer victims to an independent domestic violence adviser, or another specialist advocate, who will be able to advise victims of their options on a whole range of issues, including healthcare. In addition, we will include information on where to go to seek medical attention in the advice materials provided to victims which we will be producing ready for the pilots of the orders.
I hope that these non-legislative measures reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that we are acting to support women with acquired brain injury and that putting this in the Bill is therefore not necessary. I am glad to repeat our thanks to him and to Mr Bryant for the discussions we have had on this important issue. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that considered response and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for their support. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff for drawing on her considerable medical expertise to point out the practical medical difficulties with the timeframe proposed in Amendment 155. I majored on Amendment 156 and the assessment of victims of domestic abuse when they are received in prison, which has been proved to be so important. I will examine in detail what the Minister and my noble friend Lady Finlay said and decide what to do on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 158. 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 debate.
Amendment 158
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Guidance: child maintenance
(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to the payment of child maintenance where the person with care of the child is a victim of domestic abuse.(2) Guidance issued under this section must take account of—(a) the potential for the withholding or reducing of child maintenance to constitute economic abuse under section 1(4) of this Act;(b) the need for enforcement action to prevent non-payment; and(c) the difficulties faced by victims of domestic abuse in obtaining evidence to support an application for a variation of a child maintenance calculation.(3) The Child Maintenance Service must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function to which the guidance relates. (4) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for adding her support to this amendment, in which we return to the issue of economic coercive control, which we explored in today’s group 7, this time in respect of child support payments, which help with the cost of raising the child and can be used for everything from daily subsistence to helping to provide a home. They are vital for the security of a child who is often the victim of abuse himself.
When domestic abuse has occurred and the partners have separated, getting money out of the abuser for child maintenance and other things can, as we have already heard, be difficult and dangerous. The abuser will have the instrument of non-payment as a further tool of economic abuse, despite the fact that not only the ex-partner will suffer but so too will the children for whose benefit the payment is made. Child maintenance arrangements can be organised privately, through the government-run Child Maintenance Service or, more rarely, through a court order. When I was an MP in 2005 to 2015, in quite an affluent area, failure to pay child maintenance was a frequent issue that came up in my surgery. The Child Maintenance Service was severely criticised for failing to enforce payments to the parent with care, and for slowness to act and to process claims. Therefore, when looking at the Commons discussion on this amendment, which was raised by my honourable friend Christine Jardine, I was glad to read that the Minister, Alex Chalk, asserted that matters regarding the CMS’s performance had improved. That is great news, and I commend the Government on the work they have done with input from Women’s Aid and other charities to improve matters, and particularly on issuing a fee waiver in 2017 for survivors of domestic abuse who apply to the CMS for help. However, that fee waiver needs to be better publicised. Many victims are unaware of it.
I also welcome other improvements that the Government have introduced, including avoiding the risk of abuse as a result of having to give up new personal details, such as bank details, when setting up direct payments. However, parents often discover that banks and even CMS staff are unaware of some provisions, including non-geographic-specific bank accounts, which would avoid having to reveal the victim’s location to the perpetrator. These improvements can work only if people know about them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this, as I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, is one of those that would help to close a little gap in the whole issue. When people think about domestic abuse, they often think about physical abuse, and perhaps about emotional and mental abuse, but tackling economic abuse is just as important if we are to stamp out domestic abuse.
I have signed this amendment, as it is important that the child maintenance system is not misused as a tool of abuse. Domestic abusers must not be allowed to continue their domestic abuse by withholding or reducing their financial support for children. This amendment, like so many of those tabled to this Bill, is a reminder of how multifaceted domestic abuse is, and how abusers will exploit any opportunity they possibly can. We must deny them those opportunities and punish them for what they do.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 158 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, we have just had a debate on the issue of economic abuse post separation, and one of the examples given of such abuse was through the perpetrator failing to pay child maintenance.
Child maintenance is an essential source of income for many single parents in enabling them to meet their children’s basic needs, including food and clothing, and is of particular importance to victims and survivors of economic abuse, who often rely on such payments for economic stability after leaving a perpetrator. Perpetrators of economic abuse are only too aware of this, however, and withholding or unreliably paying child maintenance can be a way in which they continue to control victims and survivors, including post separation. This issue does seem to highlight the importance of agencies such as the Child Maintenance Service that provide front-line services carrying out training to recognise and respond to economic abuse, as a means of domestic abuse, as part of how they operate.
Economic abuse perpetrated through child maintenance is not new, of course; it has been used by perpetrators for some time. However, the coronavirus seems to have exacerbated the situation through providing perpetrators with increased opportunities to interfere with child maintenance payments. During the present pandemic, it has been reported that the Department for Work and Pensions has redeployed a number of Child Maintenance Service staff in order to deal with the spike in universal credit claims. It has been said that this included staff tasked with enforcing or following up child maintenance.
The media have additionally reported that the Child Maintenance Service was accepting verbal evidence from paying parents seeking to stop or reduce payments in relation to their income decreasing during the pandemic, when this would usually require evidencing through documents such as payslips. In their response, could the Government indicate whether there is validity in these reports and what guidance has been issued by the Government to the Child Maintenance Service on tackling the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments—not only prior to but during the pandemic?
We support the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in raising this issue and await the Government’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for outlining her amendment. I certainly agree with her and all the noble Lords who have spoken that guidance for front-line staff on tackling economic abuse through the withholding or reduction of child maintenance payments is extremely important. I assure her and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the Child Maintenance Service takes the issue of domestic abuse extremely seriously and is committed to ensuring that victims of abuse get the help and support that they need to use it safely.
The service has recently substantially strengthened its procedures to support people who are experiencing domestic abuse: in particular, a new programme of domestic abuse training is currently being delivered to all Child Maintenance Service caseworkers. However, before that, the service had already implemented training in this area, designed with input from Women’s Aid. That included: recognising that domestic abuse can take various forms, including physical, psychological, emotional and financial abuse; appropriate signposting to domestic abuse support groups; and advice on contacting the police and, if people did not feel able to do so, asking whether they were content for the Child Maintenance Service to call the police on their behalf. The service has also introduced a complex needs toolkit for its caseworkers which includes clear steps to follow in order to support people who are experiencing abuse. It is regularly reviewed and strengthened on the basis of feedback. The Child Maintenance Service will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of its guidance and training in this area.
Beyond that guidance and training, there are a number of ways in which the Child Maintenance Service responds to cases involving domestic abuse. It might be helpful to outline some of them. They include waiving the application fee for victims of domestic abuse; providing appropriate advice and support to help victims use the service safely and to ensure that there is no unwanted contact between separated parents; acting as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange of bank details and ensuring that no personal information is shared; providing advice on how to set up bank accounts with a centralised sort code, which does not allow victims of abuse to be traced; and providing advice and directing people to a number of specialist domestic abuse support organisations as well as providing advice and information on how they can stay safe.
The Child Maintenance Service also has a range of strong enforcement powers, which can be used against people who consistently refuse to meet their obligations to provide financial support to their children. First, it can make deductions directly from earnings and seize funds directly from a paying parent’s bank account, either as a lump sum or regular payments. We have extended this power to cover joint and certain business accounts, thereby removing the opportunity for paying parents to put their money out of reach. Secondly, it has the capacity to seize goods or force the sale of a non-paying parent’s property. Thirdly, it can seek to have those who wilfully refuse to recognise their obligations either committed to prison or disqualified from driving. Finally, we have also introduced the ability to disqualify non-compliant parents from holding or obtaining a UK passport, which we believe acts as a strong deterrent.
We are therefore confident that the Child Maintenance Service already has sufficient enforcement powers and that it has further strengthened its procedures for supporting people who have suffered domestic abuse. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief but important debate that we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these enforcement powers and the support that they give. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the speakers who have contributed to this short but, as the Minister says, important debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke very supportively about the importance of child maintenance to the family and how it is abused as a tool of control. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made an interesting contribution about the role of coronavirus and the redeployment of CMS. Obviously that is a concern.
The Minister talked about further strengthening procedures and training, which is what the Minister Alex Chalk said in the other place. I am reassured that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the guidance is continuing, and I hope that the success rate continues to rise so that more families have the wherewithal to survive economically. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 159. 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 159
“Anonymity of domestic abuse survivors in criminal proceedings
(1) Where an allegation has been made that a relevant offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the survivor.(2) Where a person is accused of a relevant offence, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed as the survivor shall during the survivor’s lifetime be included in any publication.(3) This section does not apply in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (1) at any time after a person has been accused of the offence.(4) The matters relating to a survivor in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) or (2) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in the relevant subsection) include—(a) the survivor’s name,(b) the survivor’s address,(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment the survivor attended,(d) the identity of any place where the survivor worked,(e) any still or moving pictures of the survivor, and(f) any other matter that might lead to the identification of the survivor.(5) At the commencement of a trial at which a person is charged with a relevant offence, the judge may issue a direction for lifting the restrictions only following an application by or on behalf of the survivor.(6) Any matter that is included in a publication in contravention of this section must be deleted from that publication and no further reference to the matter may be made in any publication.(7) If any matter is included in a publication in contravention of this section, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—(a) where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;(b) where the publication is a relevant programme—(i) any body corporate or Scottish partnership engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included; and(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;(c) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.(8) For the purposes of this section—“publication” means any material published online or in physical form as well as any speech, writing, website, online news outlet, social media posting, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;“relevant offence” means any offence where it is alleged by the survivor that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse;“survivor” means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have tabled this probing amendment because I am trying to address the woeful underprosecution of domestic abuse and domestic violence in our courts. I do not think that the courts are quite set up to secure justice for survivors. Part of the problem is the intrusive nature of court into the survivors’ lives. The nature of domestic abuse means that deep and intimate details of a survivor’s life and their abuse can be exposed to the public eye. These intimate details can be exploited by the tabloid press or be the subject of trolling on social media. The higher the profile of the abuser or survivor or the more extreme the abuse, the more likely they are to face that media circus.
This should not be happening. Intrusion into survivors’ lives has to stop; they are revictimised and exploited by this publicity, which is incredibly damaging. Other survivors see this and it makes them less likely to report crimes that have been committed against them. It forces people to maintain secrecy for fear of becoming the latest victim of a media circus.
The courts are not currently set up to help survivors avoid this media chaos. There is scope for a survivor to seek a reporting restriction, but this is limited to situations where the restriction would help improve the quality of evidence or the level of co-operation given by a witness in preparing the case. This is not necessarily a survivor-focused approach; it is actually focused on helping the court to have the best available evidence, rather than the rights and protections of survivors. I hope that the Government will work with me to improve this. There must be some way to find agreement on the need to protect survivors, while allowing them to tell their story and obtain justice. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing this amendment. The openness of judicial proceedings is a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This underpins the requirement for a prosecution witness, including the victim, to be identifiable not only to the defendant but to the open court. It supports the defendant’s ability to present his case and to test the prosecution case by cross-examination. In some cases, it can encourage other witnesses to come forward, particularly if the victim has made false allegations in the past.
However, the principle of open justice can sometimes be a bar to successful prosecutions, and we know that domestic abuse survivors are less likely to report abuse if their name is going to appear in the press as a result. I speak from personal experience again. When I was a victim of domestic abuse, I was not prepared even to report my abuser to the police out of shame and fear that it might become public knowledge.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
This amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would add a new clause to the Bill to provide lifetime press anonymity for survivors of domestic abuse. It reflects similar protections for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. It prevents identifiable details being published online or in print and creates a new offence for breaching this anonymity.
This issue has risen up the agenda because stories are published in which victims and survivors of domestic abuse, as well as family members and children, are named. When these stories then make their way on to websites, victims have no anonymity but the people who choose to make comments do have anonymity.
Apart from the protection for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the 1992 Act, I believe the Serious Crime Act 2015 grants anonymity to and protection for victims of female genital mutilation, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 grants anonymity to victims of any human trafficking offence. If I am right, that is three examples of anonymity given to three categories of victims. If the Government are not enthusiastic about this amendment—which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said is a probing amendment—no doubt they will explain in their reply why they consider that survivors of domestic abuse do not require the same protection as survivors of sexual assault, victims of female genital mutilation and victims of any human trafficking offence.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope I can be relatively brief in my reply—not because the point is not important, nor indeed out of a lack of respect for any of the contributions we have just heard, but because there is a single and critical point, fundamental to the administration of justice, which lies at the heart of this debate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, this probing amendment is designed to protect the identity of complainants in domestic abuse cases by the automatic application of reporting restrictions from the point when the allegation is made. Although the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred us to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, I dare say that the principle of open justice goes back much further than that. We are all familiar with the adage that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That statement, with which we are all familiar, I am sure, recognises that automatic reporting restrictions of this kind are an exceptional interference with open justice. Therefore, we make those reporting restrictions available only when there is a real need to do so.
The most familiar precedent is in relation to complainants who allege that a sexual offence has been committed against them. In those circumstances, there is a clear justification for preventing the reporting of the complainant’s identity, because there is an overriding need for anonymity to be guaranteed from the outset so that victims of a type of offence that still carries considerable stigma are emboldened to come forward and tell the police. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, there are a couple of other such other examples in the law, but each of those is an exception to the general rule. We must be very careful, I would suggest, to limit those exceptions to cases where it is demonstrably required. Therefore, while I listened with care to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his personal and, if I may say, moving testimony, we do not consider that, as a matter of generality, domestic abuse cases in which no sexual offence has been committed fall into the same category such that they require automatic protection in the same way.
However, as a number of noble Lords identified, that does not mean that victims of domestic abuse should be denied anonymity where they both request and need it. The courts have discretionary powers to impose, on application, reporting restrictions prohibiting the naming of a witness, where the court is satisfied that being identified would diminish the quality of that witness’s evidence. I suggest that there is sufficient discretion before the courts to meet cases where reporting restrictions are required. To go further would be an unjustifiable interference with the extremely important principle of open justice.
I hope, therefore, given that this is a probing amendment —and while of course I am always willing to discuss anything with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I realise this is a tricky subject to legislate on, but I think there is a problem and we need to fix it in some way. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, for their largely sympathetic comments. I heard the Minister say that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In that case, I would like him to go, perhaps, one of these days, to the High Court and see what is happening in the spy cops inquiry, where Judge Mitting—or rather the Met—is giving anonymity to many police officers who have committed crimes. Therefore, it does seem to me that somehow there is justice for some and not for others. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment now, but I still think this is a problem and that there has to be some way of sorting it out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 161. 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 161
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Evidence of domestic abuse for the purposes of legal aid: restriction of fees
(1) Where a healthcare professional has examined a person in the course of providing services under a general medical services contract, the healthcare professional may not impose a fee upon that person for providing a letter or report for the purposes of regulation 33(2)(h) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/3098) (supporting documents: domestic violence).(2) In this section, “general medical services contract” has the meaning given by section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to prevent GPs who have a contract with the NHS from charging victims of domestic abuse for letters confirming their injuries so that they can seek access to legal aid.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 161 in my name—and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Burt of Solihull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—seeks to add a new clause to the Bill; its purpose is to deal with an issue that I have been raising in this House since 2016. Although I have had expressions of support from both inside and outside the Chamber, we just have not been able to deal with it.
The problem is that GPs are often asked by victims of domestic abuse to provide letters to a set text, which they need to access legal aid, and a GP can charge a fee for that letter. The vast majority of GPs do not charge and would never dream of doing so, but a minority do, and the charges can be anything up to £150 for such a letter. That is just wrong. The purpose of my new clause is to stop this happening in the future by finally putting an end to this practice, because even one victim being charged is one victim too many.
As I said earlier, this is not the first time that I have raised this issue in the House; I have raised it many times before. I want to give you a flavour of the engagement that I have had with the Government. On 24 January 2018, I moved an amendment on the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, responding for the Government, told me that it was
“far from an ideal situation”,—[Official Report, 24/1/18; col 1058.]
that the matter was being discussed by the Department of Health and negotiated with the GPs, and that it would be reviewed in April 2018. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, from the Government supported me. I raised the matter again on 6 March 2018, and was told by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, that my amendment this time was too widely worded but that, in “early soundings”, the Department of Health had confirmed that it was an issue that needed “looking at”.
I raised the matter again on 22 March 2018. This time, I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that she was “shocked” to learn that some GPs would charge victims of domestic abuse for letters so that they could get access to legal aid. On 15 November 2018, I raised the matter with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, who told the House that
“the Department of Health and Social Care has put this important issue forward as part of the general practice contract negotiations for 2019-20.”
So, this was the second year running that they would be in the negotiations. He said that
“while the progress of these negotiations is not discussed publicly until agreement is reached, I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to dealing with this issue.”
He continued:
“I agree with the noble Lord. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of these letters being charged for. They have been identified by the Ministry of Justice and MHCLG as barriers to accessing support for victims of domestic violence. That cannot be right, and we are seeking to end that situation.”—[Official Report, 15/11/18; col. 1969.]
On 4 March 2019, I raised the matter again with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. He recalled that I had raised the issue before but said again that the issue was part of contract negotiations, and that he was unable to update me or the House any further. I raised the issue again via a Written Question, which was answered on 29 April by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood of North Oxford. She said that the Government
“recognise the importance of tackling domestic abuse. General practitioners (GPs) can have an important role in supporting victims, including by providing evidence to enable them to access services.”
I was told:
“GP provision of evidence was discussed as part of the 2019/20 GP contract negotiations and work is ongoing to improve the process. Charges for provision of evidence of domestic abuse are not a specific requirement of the contractual relationship between GPs and the National Health Service. The Ministry of Justice and the General Practitioners Council are currently working together to clarify and improve the process for GPs and applicants in relation to evidence of domestic violence for legal aid applications.”
On 14 May 2019, I raised the matter again with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, when he presented a Statement on domestic abuse and women’s refuges. He did not answer my questions that day but I accept that it was a wider Statement on domestic abuse.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, both for introducing this amendment, to which I have signed my name, and for his persistence, as we have heard, in raising this issue in this House and beyond.
The decision to leave an abusive relationship may be among the hardest choices a person will ever make. However cruel the relationship and however damaging its impact, breaking away cuts a bond. It may be the only type of connection that that person has ever known. Sometimes, the relationship is just one in a lifelong pattern. The person brave enough to make that break needs all the support they can get, but too often they encounter barriers, including those related to access to legal aid. Without it, many abuse survivors are unable to challenge the perpetrator through the courts, yet eligibility for such aid is based on the requirement to provide evidence of abuse. It is hard to imagine the pain of reliving the situations of abuse, the shame it can entail and the difficulty of disclosing details of that abuse to different professionals and services over and over again. It is not hard to see why this is something that many victims will never do.
As we have already heard, research from the Ministry of Justice identifies a number of barriers faced by individuals in providing the evidence of their abuse that they need to unlock support. These include difficulties in gathering evidence if the victims do not disclose the violence at the time to those organisations that are recognised as able to supply evidence. Language barriers can be an issue; data protection issues can be a problem; and, of course, as we are discussing with this amendment, the financial costs of acquiring certain pieces of evidence —and the unwillingness on occasion of organisations and health professionals in particular to provide a letter confirming that abuse has taken place—can be a barrier. Taken together, these issues can be the determining factors in a victim’s ability to access legal aid.
This Bill now includes economic abuse in the definition of domestic abuse, recognising that the ways in which one partner seeks to control and abuse the other often include the control of household and personal finances. Therefore, if there is a financial cost to securing a GP’s letter attesting to the fact that abuse has taken place—as we have heard, it is a letter that can cost up to £150—this could push this vital piece of evidence beyond the reach of survivors. Accessing the money from bank accounts that are scrutinised by the partner might alert the abuser to the fact that the victim is in the process of seeking support, which puts them at further risk.
This amendment would remove what might be a crucial block to victims accessing justice. It is supported by the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales. The British Medical Association, as we have heard, has tried to address this issue through guidance, but this has not achieved the aim. This Bill provides the opportunity to put a definitive stop to these charges and ensure that a lack of financial resources is not a hindrance to survivors who are brave enough to try to escape from the perpetrators of domestic abuse.
The Lord Bishop of London [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to this amendment simply because it should go without saying that some things need to be penned into law for there to be consistent access to justice. Amendment 161 has been tabled because it prevents GPs charging survivors of domestic abuse for letters which confirm injuries they have suffered—evidence which survivors need for their legal aid applications. The case for this amendment has been extremely well made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I agree with the statements they have made, so there is no need to add much to what has been said.
There should be no gatekeepers when we consider the path to justice, not least from those who are on the path to help facilitate it. As we have heard, the British Medical Association has recommended that patients should not be charged for medical evidence when seeking it for legal aid. I too stand by this, by virtue of calling for this amendment to be included in this Bill.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 161 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling it and for being so tenacious. It is an honour to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We cannot on the one hand spend years putting together a great Bill like this that says to victims, “We hear you; we are there for you; we want to help you escape”, and on the other hand stand by and allow those same victims to be potentially charged £150—an extortionate amount for many people—for proof of that abuse.
Domestic abuse does not discriminate. You can be a victim of abuse whether you are rich or poor. Unfortunately, while this fee remains, it does and will discriminate against poorer victims. Many of them will go without legal representation, many will return to an abuser and many will be seriously injured or worse as a result of being unable to access the legal remedies that are supposed to keep them safe. I know that the Department of Health has a fair amount on its plate right now, but it should endorse this small change to the Bill. It could have an immeasurable impact on people’s lives when they are at their most vulnerable.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising this matter—I am tempted to say “again”, but of course I should really say “again and again”. The list of engagements which he set out was impressive, and I fear I may not be able to provide satisfaction to the noble Lord where so many of my illustrious forebears have already failed. If I can put it this way: what he has said this evening has only increased my resolve to try to sort out this issue, not only because it is plainly an important matter to be addressed, as so many have said, but because it means that I will escape the horrid fate of being added to the noble Lord’s list.
The Government, as will be clear from what has been said by my forebears and what I have just said, wholeheartedly agree that vulnerable patients should not be charged by doctors for evidence to support them in accessing legal aid. That being the case, we are sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. The issue requires further consideration ahead of Report for the reasons I will briefly set out. While I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee today, I will be looking at it in detail between now and Report. I should also take the opportunity to point out a couple of technical issues with the amendment, which I hope will also be helpful.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was able to meet with the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care and representatives from the British Medical Association ahead of today’s debate to discuss the issue. I think it fair to say that everyone who attended this meeting was seized fully both of the issue and of its importance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, we do not want to do anything to prevent or discourage victims of domestic abuse coming forward, and that includes questions of cost. That said, it is fair to say that there was some anecdotal evidence at the meeting which pointed to this perhaps being a diminishing problem, particularly since, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London reminded us, the BMA issued advice to its members last year that they should not charge for this service, advice which they recently reinforced.
Following that meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, graciously undertook to provide what evidence he had of this being a continuing issue so that we could consider the matter further. We look forward to receiving that evidence and continuing our discussions. However, as matters stand this evening, we remain to be persuaded that this issue needs to be resolved through primary legislation.
The position is that GPs can provide services in addition to NHS contracted services. They are classified as private services, for which they have the discretion to charge the patient. Letters of evidence to access legal aid is one such private service. It is therefore up to an individual GP practice to decide whether a charge should be levied and, if so, what it should be. However, as I indicated, as part of the 2020-21 contract agreement, the BMA recommended to all GPs that a charge should not be levied for letters of this kind. That is a welcome recognition by the BMA that, as was said, vulnerable patients with limited means should not be expected to pay for such letters. We recognise and commend the vast majority of GPs who are following that guidance, but it is a non-binding recommendation. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, we are informed of anecdotal examples where patients can be charged up to as much as £150 for that evidence.
As I said, I should make a couple of observations about the drafting of the amendment, although I recognise that these can be readily addressed in a further iteration of it. First, as currently drafted, the amendment refers to
“providing a letter … for the purposes of regulation 33(2)(h) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations.”
That regulation was amended by later civil legal aid procedure regulations in 2017, so there is now no such regulation as presently referred to in the amendment. That is something that could be addressed in further drafting, and I respectfully suggest that it is.
Secondly, the amendment relies on the definition of a “general medical services contract” in Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which applies to England only. I assume that that is the case because, as the noble Lord is aware, the health service is a devolved matter in Wales and therefore this issue is a matter for the Welsh Government. I thought that it was worth making that point clear as well.
I return to the main point, on which, if I may respectfully say so, we have heard a number of very cogent speeches. I have not yet mentioned the contribution of my noble friend Lady Bertin, which was equally forceful. The Government remain committed to exploring options around this issue with the medical profession to ensure that vulnerable patients are not charged, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s continued help in this regard. In particular, once he has been able to provide what evidence he has of GPs continuing to charge victims of domestic abuse for these letters, we will be happy to have further meetings with him ahead of Report.
I hope that in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, but he can rest assured that I have it ringing in my ears that I will face a similar amendment on Report if we cannot satisfactorily resolve the matter before that stage. I commit to working with him and to doing all I can to reach that satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Bertin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his very careful and considered response. It was very welcome.
The noble Lord made reference to the meeting. It was a very good meeting. We actually had four Ministers from three departments on Zoom—I have never had that before—so in that sense I was very pleased. Clearly, Ministers are taking this seriously, and I appreciate that very much.
Obviously, the technical issues can be ironed out. I am not a draftsman, but I am sure that we can get that sorted out. We have been raising this issue since 2016. The negotiations have been going on for a very long time, but we do not seem to have gone beyond the fact that everybody is against it, no one wants to do it, but no one wants to do anything about it. We have not moved on much from that position today.
As I said, I hope that I will not have to push the amendment to a vote at a later stage. I hope that I can work with the noble Lord to resolve this issue but, if that does not happen, we will divide the House. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 162. 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 debate.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress
(1) Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) It is an offence for a person to threaten to disclose a private sexual photograph or film if the threat is made—(a) without the consent to the threatened disclosure of an individual who appears, or is stated to appear, in the photograph or film, and(b) with the intention of causing that individual distress.”(3) In subsection (2), for “subsection (1)(a) and (b)” substitute “subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (1A)(a) and (b)”.(4) In subsection (3), after “disclosure” insert “or threat to disclose”.(5) In subsection (4)(a), after “disclosure” insert “or threat to disclose”.(6) In subsection (5), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.(7) In subsection (8)—(a) after “disclosed” insert “or threatened to disclose”;(b) after “disclosure” insert “or threat to disclose”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause will make the threat to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress a criminal offence.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 162 is in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. I thank them, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, for their support. I am grateful to all noble Lords who indicated their support to me for this change in the law. I also thank Ministers in both Houses for their constructive engagement on this matter so far and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Justice, who was himself involved in securing the change to the law in 2015 to criminalise the sharing of intimate images, otherwise known as “revenge porn”.
As I said on Second Reading, more and more of us are using technology and living our lives online, and never more so than in the last 12 months. I want to thank the charity Refuge which, with its Naked Threat campaign, has a specific tech abuse team. It launched its campaign because one of the abuses reported to them in more and more cases was the making of threats to share intimate images. Even before the pandemic, 72% of women accessing Refuge’s services said they had been subjected to technology-facilitated abuse. Most often, these images had been taken in the course of a relationship, and the majority of women who had been threatened in this way had been threatened by a current or former partner. That is why I would argue that this Bill is the right place for this House to recognise and criminalise these threats.
At its core, this is an issue about the exercise of control by one person—the abuser, the maker of the threats—over another. Too often, the threats are followed by physical abuse. If anyone should doubt the prevalence, the research conducted by Refuge as part of its campaign found that one in 14 adults in England and Wales had experienced the threat to share. That is equivalent to around 4.4 million people, and younger women were disproportionately impacted by threats to share, with one in seven having experienced this form of abuse.
What is the impact of the making of such threats? Figures from Refuge show 83% of threatened women said the threats to share their intimate photos or videos impacted their mental health and well-being. About 78% said they changed the way they behaved as a result of the threats. But more worrying is that one in 10 women said the threats had forced them to allow the perpetrator to have contact with their children, and almost one in 10 said they were forced to continue or resume their relationship with the perpetrator and/or tell them where they now were.
I want to pay tribute to those victims who have told their stories and been prepared to come forward. The hour is late, and I do not want to detain the House, because I know there are other noble Lords who want to speak on this amendment, too. But I want to mention one victim who has come forward. Natasha was threatened by her ex-husband. He is now in prison and I am pleased to say she is happily remarried. She said:
“Knowing an abuser has intimate photos feels like you’re being violated. Those images were for his own gratification and a tool to keep me compliant. I had no way of proving my ex had shared these images but the threat of sharing them was equally distressing and compounded my isolation.”
The reason these brave victims and, sadly, millions of others, are not getting the protection they should is that they are too often told that no police action can be taken until the images are actually shared. Of course, the actual sharing of the images might take place, but just as likely, if a partner or ex-partner wants to exercise control over and play havoc with their victim’s life, they will leave the threat hanging out there, often for many years. So the police and everyone else need to know and be clear in their own minds that the making of threats is an offence and should be prosecuted, in the same way as the actual sharing of intimate images was made a crime by this Government under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. I should also point out that in Scotland, the threat to share is already an offence.
Having said all of this, and hopefully made the case for why the law should be changed, I do not think that there is too great a difference between those of us who support the amendment and my noble friend the Minister on this matter. I believe that the Government accept that there is a gap in the law which needs to be addressed. The real issue is one of timing. As I understand it, the Government would prefer to wait until the Law Commission has published its consultation on image-based abuse overall and then made its recommendations. But we were promised this consultation early this year; I suspect Ministers hoped that it would be published before we reached this stage of the Bill, but we are still waiting, and this is only a consultation. The recommendations to follow and then the change in the law could take several more years.
I do not disagree that a full review of the law on image-based abuse would be welcome, but in the meantime we have a Bill before us which, as I said at Second Reading, provides an opportunity to tackle this abuse now. Ultimately, this amendment would not make it more difficult to eventually extend the law on broader image-based abuse, but approving it now, and including it in the Bill, would protect millions of women and victims of domestic abuse sooner than some indefinite date in the future. I hope the Minister will therefore accept that the time for action against these threats is now. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment, and I beg to move it.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and to add my name to her important and transformative amendment, alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has set out with great clarity and passion the urgent need for this amendment to fill the very obvious gap in the current law on sharing intimate images.
In my many years of making the case for women’s rights, both here and internationally, I have come to the conclusion that technology is a wonderful thing—until it becomes an instrument of control and abuse, directed so often at women and girls as they are bullied, harassed and threatened online. We may hear the Government’s response to this amendment asking us—as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has said—to wait for the relevant Law Commission review. We know that that review began in 2019, following on from a scoping review in 2018, and that it is not going to report until the end of this year, 2021. There will then be a government review, and that will take us into 2022. There is no guarantee that any legislative action will take place immediately, in the medium term or in the long term—or before the next general election, for that matter. This is not good enough.
There can be horrendous consequences of so-called revenge porn: anxiety, depression, life-changing behaviour and, while suicide is not common, neither is it unheard of. Rachel lived in absolute fear of having intimate images taken without her knowledge sent to her family. It left her so hopeless and desperate that she became suicidal. The anxiety also left her unable to report the other horrendous abuse by her partner that she was suffering, because, as is so often the case, the threat to disclose intimate images is part of a pattern of abuse that is extreme. Refuge tells us that one in 10 women said that the threat to share images forced them to allow the perpetrator not only to have contact with their children but to resume the relationship because of the threat. Revenge porn crimes are undoubtedly linked to other forms of criminal behaviour. We know this because the majority of all image-based charges are brought alongside family violence offences.
This amendment specifically relates to an escalation of offending and co-offending that adds up to the domestic abuse that this Bill seeks to address. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, younger women are in the eye of this storm of abuse. Alison’s story is shocking, but not rare. Her ex-partner told her he had drugged and raped her and recorded the incidents on his phone. The police could not act before he did. However, they spoke to him, and he told them that he had deleted the images. Needless to say, he had not. He contacted Alison and told her that he still had the videos and threatened again to share them. I ask the Minister to take the temperature of the Committee tonight on this vital amendment and to work with us and the courageous women—Alison, Natasha, Rachel and all those young women who stand in ranks behind them—to ensure that this amendment forms part of the Bill. It is time to put a stop to this particularly insidious form of 21st-century patriarchal sadism.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and I am pleased to stand in support of Amendment 162, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. It aims to close the criminal loophole that the ease of smartphones and modern technology has afforded perpetrators of domestic violence.
In her introduction to the amendment, my noble friend Lady Morgan set out the sheer scale of how simple threats to share sexual images or videos without consent are being used as a tool of coercive control and domestic abuse with devastating effect. Sadly, this seems to be a growing problem. The time is late, and I do not propose to repeat the statistic that we have already heard: that 4.4 million people are affected. The impact of these threats from current or ex-partners has huge negative results on mental and emotional well-being, creating enormous fear and anxiety, and, sadly, they are very effective. Four out of five women surveyed changed the way they behaved as a result of threats. They feel ashamed, anxious, isolated, frightened and even suicidal.
On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged these concerns and highlighted that the Law Commission has launched a review of the law relating to the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images, including, but not limited to, the revenge porn offence in Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. However, as she has already said, waiting for the results of the review may take a long time, because once it is concluded it can take up to six months for the Government to provide an interim response to the findings and a full year before a final formal response. While the Government often accept Law Commission findings, as your Lordships well know, they are then subject to the Government finding a suitable piece of legislation and parliamentary time to make the legal changes enabling a recommendation to come into force. As has already been mentioned, it could be years, so why wait when this Bill provides the perfect opportunity for the change today? We do not need a review to tell us that this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, as do our concerns about the effectiveness of the law as it stands. I ask the Minister: why not accept this amendment, even if it is not perfect? This change, which we can make now, will provide victims with the support they need to fight back against such abusive, despicable behaviour as revenge porn and give the police the power they require to be able to act.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interest, in that I am a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others who have put their name to this amendment have comprehensively covered it and I commend them all on their ongoing commitment in this area. It is a privilege to add my name to this amendment. I also thank Refuge for providing an overwhelming picture of the scale and impact of this threat. The data and figures are compelling.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for unavoidably missing Second Reading. I will only add something that is based on my own experience. We are dealing with the instruments of power. The more personal they are, the more powerful they can be; the greater their use, the greater the risk of their misuse. I approach this amendment—the spirit of which I strongly support—on the basis of experience, or experiences, of the way in which all the horrors and indignities can now be heaped on victims in a non-domestic situation: it is rape by strangers, pervertedly using modern technology to add to the humiliation of their victim by taking intimate images before leaving them to all their harrowing distress.
What is the purpose of those photographs? Is it to humiliate, or to threaten? They can be circulated to others with potentially rather perverted sexual titillation in mind, who themselves will have the power to threaten the victim with yet further circulation of the images. Such threats are appalling and should be criminalised. I hear the Minister thinking, immediately, “But this is a Domestic Abuse Bill.” There is a link, however, between that sort of behaviour and the behaviour to which I now come.
I am assuming for present purposes that, far from being rape cases, the images which we are now discussing are based on participation in the taking of images at times of cherished joy by two perfectly happy, willing people. I know that is not always the case, but I am taking it at the other extreme end. They are taken consensually, on the basis of trust—that they will remain private and personal, that they will never be circulated, that the power they give to one participant over the other will never be abused, whether via circulation or threat of circulation, and trust in particular that they will never be abused as a weapon of power, pressure, or control. I emphasise that to me, a threat alone constitutes a grotesque breach of the trust which was once reposed in the other half to the relationship. It leaves the victim with an impossible choice to make: to risk circulation—how awful—or give way to what may be utterly outrageous demands by someone who was once trusted.
We criminalised the sharing of intimate pictures. Section 33 of the 2015 Act is a perfectly simple piece of legislation. We do not require the Law Commission. We do not require very much time to be able to adapt the Section 33 provision so as to make criminal the circulation and the threat to circulate or share images such as this. It is simple and obvious.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my name to those saying that this is a change we should make, and now. I would like to be sure, which I am not at the moment, that the wording will cover an image which does not actually exist but is merely asserted to exist. On some of these occasions, a recording will have been made or said to have been made without the victim’s knowledge, but she may well believe that the allegation is true because it is a believable one. Under those circumstances, it should be clear that this offence is activated. I would also like to understand better how one can consent to a threat. If it is a threat, what does consent look like? What would it take for someone to consent to a threat? How would that be phrased; how would it work? Is “publish and be damned” consent? If not, what would be?
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for putting down this amendment, which I strongly support.
One way to judge the gravity of a crime is to assess the anguish it brings to its victims. Usually, this emotional suffering comes as a by-product of, say, physical harm or financial loss. However, sometimes the creation of anguish is deliberate, the whole point of the crime, and a source of great satisfaction to the criminal. It is perhaps no surprise that our courts have reserved special condemnation for those responsible for this sort of behaviour. In 2015, amid mounting evidence of a growing problem, the Government decided to tackle the ugly phenomenon of so-called revenge porn: the sadistic online dissemination without consent of sexually explicit photos and videos, usually of young women, and usually by disgruntled former boyfriends. Ministers recognised that this behaviour is particularly nasty because it targets the most private and personal aspects of life, exploiting intimacy to create ridicule, contempt and public shame. Indeed, each of these emotions is precisely what is intended by the perpetrator, particularly the public shaming. This conduct was thus made a crime that could lead straight to prison.
However, it is now clear that the present law does not go far enough, for what about threats to share intimate images? As your Lordships have been told, at present, these attract no criminal sanction at all, although the evidence shows that significant numbers of women and girls face this menacing behaviour.
Much has been said in this debate about the survey carried out by Refuge, the country’s largest provider of domestic abuse services. That is not surprising when the results of this survey appear to show that as many as one in seven young women in England and Wales have faced these threats.
These figures portray a world of anxiety and dread. Because most of these threats come from current or former partners, they also speak of deliberate schemes of domination and control that we should acknowledge for what they are: straightforward examples of domestic abuse. Like all crimes in this category, they gift a gratifying sense of power to the abuser, who is intent on using this power to signal the victim’s utter lack of worth.
Amendment 162 provides the opportunity to change the law to criminalise this behaviour, granting thousands of women and girls access to justice and protection—the first duty of the law. At present the Government prefer to push this issue off into the future, awaiting a Law Commission review into all forms of image-based abuse. But for all the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, people subjected right now to this behaviour should not have to wait. I hope the Government will accept what is widely acknowledged: that this is a gap in the law and the Government’s duty is to plug it without delay.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in this morning’s Times there is an article in which the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead officer for child protection, Simon Bailey, said that arresting hundreds of sex offenders every month has little effect, because millions of abuse images are readily available online. Mr Bailey pointed out that the number of indecent images in circulation has risen exponentially, from 7,000 in 1990 to 17 million today. They predominantly involve girls aged between 11 and 13, because 44% of these images were or are self-generated. This is part of the ever-growing online library of intimate images, curated—in the loosest sense of the word—by technology and social media platforms, only some of which grudgingly acknowledge a limited degree of responsibility.
Consider the 11 to 13 year-old girls of today and how they may feel about these images existing and getting into the wrong hands as they navigate through adolescence and towards adulthood. Consider those women who were the 11 to 13 year-olds five, 10 or 15 years ago, who not only have their legacy images stored in the cloud but who may have continued to populate that library in the interceding years. This is the reality of the scale of the problem we are discussing tonight.
The statistics are compelling and depressing. An estimated 130,000 young people aged between 18 and 20 have experienced threats to share their intimate images, and almost 1 million people now in their 20s have experienced similar threats. Whether we like it or not, the sending and receiving of intimate images is an increasingly common part of dating and relationships. In 40% of cases in which individuals have received threats to share intimate images, they did not consent to those photos or videos being taken in the first place.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, which I wholeheartedly support, is an important and necessary part of what must be a legal and societal assault on the myriad ways in which technology can be used to abuse, control and coerce. Whether individuals consented to their images being taken is irrelevant; they should have ironclad protection under the law from those images being used without their consent. Their bodies, their self-esteem and their right to privacy and protection should be theirs and theirs alone.
On 28 December last year, as we enjoyed a later-than-usual Boxing Day bank holiday in England, and your Lordships prepared themselves for the rigours of the 30 December debate on the TCA with the EU, in Dublin, President Higgins signed the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill into law. This created two new offences. One deals with the taking, distribution or publication of, or threat to distribute, intimate images without consent and with intent to cause harm, with the penalty of an unlimited fine or up to seven years in prison.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 162, although, by this stage in the evening, the arguments have already been made. It is not necessary for me to outline the damage that is done by threats to share intimate images or how distressing it is for victims. Anyway, the Government recognise the problem, which is why they have asked the Law Commission to conduct a review.
I understand why the Government wish to wait for the outcome of that review, but we already know that these threats are carried out largely in the context of domestic abuse, which seems to make this Bill the appropriate legislative vehicle. So that leaves us with a conundrum. I appreciate the difficulty, so simply ask my noble friend the Minister how the Government intend to address this issue, in a timely way, if they cannot consider this amendment at this moment in time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Jones, have withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, absolutely it is late in the day, and so many other noble Lords have made brilliant speeches to which I cannot add a great deal. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 162 and thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for setting out the case so well.
We have heard a lot about why we are waiting for the Law Commission. I do not think that we should wait, because threats to share intimate images make up such a small part of this review. Amendment 162 is a simple, narrow yet powerful amendment to extend an existing offence. I ask the Minister how many more victims will live without the legal protection they need while we wait years for the law to change—a change that we can make right now in this Bill. I hope that the Government consider and take on board this amendment.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak only briefly on Amendment 162. I too thank those organisations that have provided a briefing for this debate, particularly Refuge, which has been excellent throughout. Like other noble Lords, I commend its report, The Naked Threat.
At the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, eloquently outlined why we need to act now. It is impossible to imagine the horror that someone might feel when their phone pings with a message from their ex-partner with photos attached, perhaps ones that they did not even know had been taken, and a threatening message saying, “How bad would it be if these were sent to your work colleagues?” By threatening to share the photographs, your ex-partner is escalating a campaign of intimidation and coercive control to make you do what they want. You can try to deal with it, but he is going to continue with those threats. He had been volatile and controlling, which is why you left him, and now he is trying to get you to go back to him or he wants to prove that he can still control you.
Over time, those threats become darker and more unsettling. You become anxious, you feel unsafe, you are not sure whether he is coming to your home or your work, following you or contacting your friends. He is now frightening you and threatening your physical well-being. Finally, you go to the police, but they decline to help on the basis that he has not done anything wrong and has not committed an offence, so there is nothing they can do. You feel deeply depressed, isolated and fearful. You stay away from friends and virtually go into hiding, not knowing where to turn for help.
As noble Lords have said, young women are disproportionately affected by these threats. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has compellingly set out the statistics. This issue is only going to grow, so any form of protection now needs to be brought in rapidly. The data is clear and illustrates why it is vital that an amendment is made to this Bill. No doubt, as other noble Lords have said, the Minister will cite the Law Commission review. However, as we know, those reviews can take years to come to a conclusion, as well as the Government deciding which recommendations they will accept. The Government then need to find parliamentary time. In replying to the debate, the Minister really does have to answer the question put by other noble Lords: if we are to wait for the outcome of the review and the Government’s decision on which recommendations they will apply, how long will that take? How long are the Government asking the survivors of this abuse to wait?
The Law Commission review covers a vast area of policy. Amendment 162 is not about pre-empting the full review. The changes it would make are small, straightforward amendments to an existing law that would not have a broader impact on the legal landscape. There really is nothing to stop the Government making this small change now, given that we have appropriate legislation before us.
This debate has clearly demonstrated that the threat to share intimate images is widespread. It is linked to domestic abuse and is having a devastating impact on the survivors of abuse. It is an issue that is going to increase and will continue to put power in the hands of the perpetrator, leaving survivors traumatised and isolated, perhaps forced to change their lives and move away from their homes, simply because the Government refuse to make this small change to the law. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will explain clearly, if the Government are unable to accept the amendment, how they propose to protect the survivors of this abuse.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for bringing this much-needed amendment to the House and recognising that the changes that have occurred in the past few decades, since the widespread introduction of mobile phone technologies and social media coverage, have irreversibly changed the way in which we communicate. The inherent dangers of the misuse of that communication have become increasingly prevalent. As the noble Baroness said, we are living our lives online, and today’s debate is into its ninth hour.
As a former teacher of media studies, I taught my students that the medium is the message—but, like many of my colleagues, I had no idea at that time how exploitative the medium would become. The key element to this amendment is that the Bill as it stands does not do enough to ensure that survivors of technology-facilitated abuse have sufficient protection in the criminal law. Threats to share intimate or sexual images and films are an increasingly common tool of coercive control that can have enormous negative impacts on survivors of abuse. While the sharing of intimate and sexual images without consent is a crime, threatening to share is not, leaving survivors of this form of abuse without the protection of the criminal law.
During my reading for this topic, I was powerfully moved by a key report, Shattering Lives and Myths, by Professor Clare McGlynn and others at Durham Law School. This was launched at the Supreme Court last year, and it sets out the appalling consequences to victims of intimate images being posted without consent on the internet. Nearly half of the victim-survivors the researchers spoke to had experienced threats to share nude or sexual images and videos without consent. While many of these threats were followed by non-consensual sharing, there must be a recognition that threats to share such images can in and of themselves have significant life-threatening impacts.
The domestic abuse commissioner designate has also supported this addition to the law, saying:
“The threat to share an intimate image … is an insidious and powerful way that perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to control their victims, and yet the law does not provide the protection that is needed. Threats to share these images play on fear and shame, and can be particularly dangerous where there might be multiple perpetrators or so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse is a factor. What’s more, the advent of new technologies enables perpetrators to make these threats even where such images do not exist, but there is no clear criminal sanction for this behaviour.”
Lack of support leaves victim-survivors isolated, often attempting to navigate alone an unfamiliar, complex and shifting terrain of legal provisions and online regulation. There needs to be a recognition in the Bill that image-based sexual abuse is a sexual offence, and an adoption of a comprehensive criminal law to cover all forms of image-based sexual abuse, including threats.
The Domestic Abuse Bill is the most appropriate vehicle to make this change: victims and survivors would benefit almost immediately, and it would help them in preventing further abuse and getting away from their perpetrator. This amendment can close that gap in the law, and I urge its support in this Committee.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will start with the point made by my noble friend Lady Bertin. It is of course late; I am conscious of that. But I have to say that it is worth staying up late to hear the debate we have just had, with the quality of the contributions to which we have all just listened. Therefore, I will take a little time—I hope not too long—to respond to the debate, because this is obviously a very important issue.
I listened with great care to the way in which the amendment was presented and explained by the four noble Baronesses who proposed it. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes explained in detail how the threat to disclose such images can lead women to give way on matters that are of the utmost importance, whether that be contact with children or telling the perpetrator where they are now living. The story of Natasha that she shared was powerful and was added to by the stories of Rachel and Alison, which we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. It is right to say, as my noble friend Lady Morgan put it, that this is an issue essentially of timing and not necessarily of principle. I will come back to that point a little later.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He certainly addressed the points raised in the debate, but I do not think he will be surprised to hear that, unfortunately, I do not think he satisfied many of them. Because the time is late, I will obviously not take a long time to go through the arguments in response, but I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken at this late hour. The fact that so many noble Lords waited to make their points in the way that they did—and I would agree with the Minister that this was an excellent debate—shows the strength of feeling on all sides of the Committee in relation to this amendment.
This is an amendment and a subject that reaches beyond the House and beyond Westminster. It is of direct interest to millions of victims, survivors and their families and friends. I want to thank all those who have campaigned, particularly Refuge—who have rightly been paid tribute. I thank the designate domestic abuse commissioner for her support too. In the course of this debate, we heard clearly why this change to the law is needed, why it needs to be included in this Bill and why the change should be made now.
I will address two very specific points. We have already heard about the length of time Law Commission recommendations take to come into force, but I would say that making threats to share such matters a crime is a relatively small and straightforward change to an existing offence which would not have more complex implications for the broader legal landscape and would offer protection sooner. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, and the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. They have spoken so compellingly this evening.
I have also seen the College of Policing guidance that has been issued. I do not think that any police force would feel that they knew more about how to bring prosecutions in the case of these threats than before they had read that guidance. While a small proportion of threats could be prosecuted at the moment, that is not happening in practice. Therefore, the law is not working as intended, which means that there is a gap.
I hope that Ministers will work with those of us who want to see a change in the law. I will, of course, beg leave to withdraw this amendment at this stage of the process, but I strongly suspect that—depending on the nature of future discussions—this amendment will be back at the next stage and it is possible that the feeling of the House will need to be tested.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have enabled us to cover all the amendments listed for today.