House of Commons
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I regularly discuss with my Cabinet colleagues opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals. This Government have already struck deals with more than 65 countries around the world worth £217 billion a year, including with Canada, Japan and Singapore, with many more to come. This will create new markets for Scotland’s exporters, including for our world-leading food and drink sector.
Tim Loughton
I congratulate the Government on the recent agreement with the US Administration on suspending tariffs on a number of key quality UK goods, in particular Scotch. May I ask the Secretary of State how much that will be worth to the Scottish economy, and will he confirm that this benefit for Scotland would not have happened if the UK were still in the EU or a customs union, as the SNP has advocated, rather than having become an independent trading nation?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is brilliant news for the Scotch whisky industry, in the same week that the Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty. The UK Government have fought incredibly hard on this issue, petitioning the highest levels of the US Administration to remove these tariffs, which were harming our Scottish exports.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
During the comprehensive economic and trade agreement talks between the EU and Canada, little Wallonia, as part of Belgium, managed to block the agreement until the concerns of its Parliament were resolved. Meanwhile, the Canadian state legislatures were in the next room to the Canadian federal delegation during those negotiations, putting their case. Will Scotland, with the most powerful Parliament in the world, as we are always told by the Secretary of State, have similar powers? If not, what will be the role of the Scottish Government in these trade talks?
Mr Jack
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to welcome the suspension of the US tariffs, in the same way that the Scottish National party has not welcomed any of our trade deals, but maybe he and his colleagues have other things on their mind at the moment. I also noticed that he did not raise separation, for the first time in my almost two years at the Dispatch Box—always separation, but not today. I think he has finally thrown that broken record away. We consult the Scottish Government on these trade deals, but they are a reserved matter and they are for the whole United Kingdom. As I stressed in my earlier answer, they will be very beneficial for the Scottish agrifoods industry.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, particularly, the Secretary of State for International Trade on their relentless efforts to remove the unjustified and penal US tariffs on whisky and cashmere, which have been so damaging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever now happens in relation to the Airbus-Boeing dispute, there can be no return to arbitrary retaliatory tariffs on unrelated industries, and that the decoupling of whisky and other products from that dispute must be permanent?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The UK Government will continue to engage with the US to agree a fair settlement to the dispute and permanently remove these punitive tariffs, and that will be a deal that works for the whole United Kingdom. This agreement just shows that the UK and the US are determined to work together, and I look forward to seeing us strengthen that partnership.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State knows how welcome the suspension of tariffs has been in Moray, with its many malt whisky distilleries and, of course, Johnstons of Elgin, which produces outstanding cashmere products. Will he outline what the Scotland Office and, indeed, the whole UK Government will do to ensure that this four-month suspension becomes a permanent removal of those damaging tariffs?
Mr Jack
I know that my hon. Friend has more distilleries in his constituency than any other Member of Parliament—47, I think—and I also know that he has been a great champion for the industry and has pressed very hard for the removal of the 25% tariff. We are very pleased to have negotiated an agreement that suspends the tariffs. We now have a space of four months to find a resolution on what has been a 16-year-long dispute. The Secretary of State for International Trade is ready to engage with the US trade representative, Katherine Tai, to agree something that is fair and balanced just as soon as the Senate confirms her appointment.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
As a proud Scot and one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, I was delighted by last week’s announcement that the Secretary of State and the Department for International Trade have secured a deal to remove export tariffs on Scotch whisky and a whole number of other products for sale to the United States. What estimate does my right hon. Friend make of the trade and investment benefits resulting from Scotland’s continued membership of the Union?
Mr Jack
This deal will be welcomed by businesses on both sides of the Atlantic because it will hopefully bring an end to harmful tit-for-tat tariffs. I agree with my hon. Friend, but to add to the point, the rest of the United Kingdom continues to be Scotland’s largest market for exports. It accounts for more than 60% of all Scotland’s trade.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
The Secretary of State has regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the opportunities COP26 offers Scotland, including through the COP26 Devolved Administrations Ministerial Group. The group brings together the COP President, territorial Secretaries of State and Ministers from the devolved Administrations to support the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 summit in Glasgow.
Sarah Atherton [V]
Over the past year, many of our national celebrations have been curtailed due to covid. Companies that have accrued decades of specialist event management skills have been severely compromised and risk collapse. However, COP26, with its opening and closing ceremonies, offers the opportunity to showcase the splendour, heritage and culture of our four nations, our one Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that events companies and charities, such as the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, have all that is required to show the world what a good Scottish hooley looks like?
David Duguid
I completely agree with that last point. Certainly, the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, if you have not seen it yourself, Mr Speaker, is a sight to behold. We are working closely in partnership with the Scottish Government and a range of partners to assess the implications of covid-19 for COP26. We want to showcase the best of the UK at COP26 and have recently concluded a process for stakeholders to express their interest in being involved in UK Government-managed spaces to support our objective of making COP26 inclusive and representative of the whole United Kingdom.
Ben Everitt
Last week’s Budget showed how we will build back greener from this pandemic, delivering a green industrial revolution that benefits every single corner of every single nation in our awesome foursome of the United Kingdom, including millions to transform Scotland into a green energy hub. Does my hon. Friend agree that COP26 is the ideal opportunity for the Government of the UK and the Government of Scotland to work together to showcase our green credentials?
David Duguid
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. COP26 will be the moment that we secure our path to global net zero emissions by 2050 and define the next decade of tackling climate change. We are working with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure an inclusive and ambitious summit for the whole of the UK. All parts of the UK will have important roles to play in ensuring the summit’s success: not just the devolved Administrations and the constituent nations, but my hon. Friend’s constituency; the town of Milton Keynes has the largest number of electric vehicle charging points, if I am not mistaken. So it is truly a UK-wide initiative.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Dear me, Mr Speaker. Scotland is already a world leader in climate change policy, be it with renewables providing over 90% of supply, home energy efficiency, take-up of electric cars and an impressive charging network, or continuous investment in electric buses and rail electrification. In fact, the RAIL magazine editor said:
“Scotland’s admirable rolling programme of electrification rolls on…well done Scotland. DfT please note this is how it’s done.”
Does the Minister not therefore agree that Scottish representatives should be given a key place at COP26 to share our experience, or are they just too embarrassed by UK policies by comparison?
David Duguid
I agree that Scottish stakeholders, Scottish businesses and a lot of the renewable energies being developed in Scotland are world-leading. I could not possibly disagree with that, but it is important to recognise as well that all parts of the United Kingdom have an important role to play in ensuring the success of the summit. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is as delighted as I am that the summit is to be held in Glasgow, representing the whole of the UK around the world.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Last week’s Budget provides continued UK-wide support and security to manage the ongoing impacts of covid-19. One in three jobs in Scotland have been supported by the UK Government’s unprecedented employment support package. Scottish businesses have benefited from more than £3.5 billion of loans and support, driven by UK Government schemes. We have also provided a much-needed boost by extending the reduction of VAT for our tourism and hospitality sectors.
Alun Cairns [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefits of the Union of four nations have really come to the fore over the last 12 months, in that the strength of the UK Government’s balance sheet has meant not only that families, businesses and individuals in all parts of the UK have been able to benefit from that strength, but that the devolved Administrations have received the resources that they need to support people in all parts of the country?
Mr Jack
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct and, more importantly, the majority of people in Scotland agree with him. Not only did they emphatically reject independence in 2014, but the most recent opinion polls show that they have realised that neither the Scottish National party nor its leader can be trusted, and that independence would make everyone in Scotland significantly worse off.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the shadow Secretary of State for the first of two questions.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to join me—I am sure he accidentally omitted it—in congratulating Anas Sarwar on becoming leader of the Scottish Labour party, the very first ethnic minority leader of any UK political party. I am sure that his positivity and optimism will transform Scotland when compared with what we have at the moment.
Business covid support in Scotland has been sporadic at best, and I hope that the Government will tell us how we will get a full transparent audit from the Scottish Government, following the Audit Scotland report last week that estimated that £2.7 billion was unspent, not including the £1.2 billion from last week’s Budget. Every penny needs to be spent now.
This Government talk a lot, as we have heard already, about a post-covid levelling-up green agenda, yet they are pursuing a policy in offshore renewables that benefits its business solely in the south-east of England. The Government’s fourth contracts for difference auction at the end of this year actively disadvantages viable Scottish offshore renewable projects, as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy includes out-of-date and expensive transmission charges in auction bids. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Government ditch this unfair renewables policy that advantages south-east England at the expense and detriment of perfectly viable offshore renewables projects off our Scottish coasts?
Mr Jack
May I begin by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in welcoming Anas Sarwar as leader of the Scottish Labour party? I also completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need more transparency on the spending of the £9.6 billion of covid support and business support that the Scottish Government have received. On the transmission issue, as he will know, by law, transmission charging is a matter for Ofgem, which is an independent regulator. However, Ofgem is currently considering some aspects of the transmission charging arrangements through its access and forward-looking charges review, and I encourage all Scottish generators to engage with that review at the earliest opportunity.
Ian Murray
I accept the Secretary of State’s answer, but it will disadvantage projects. BEIS has said that it will not change the auction requirements and, therefore, unless the wind blows in the south-east estuary of England, renewables, including in Scotland, will be significantly disadvantaged.
Given the mess that the Scottish Government are making of business and industry in Scotland, from steel to airports, to ferries, to aluminium smelters, I hope that the UK Government deliver on their promise to protect the Scottish financial services sector post-covid and post-Brexit. Financial services have done very well from Brexit, as long as they are in Amsterdam or Frankfurt. In Scotland, the sector employs 162,000 people and is nearly 10% of the Scottish economy, but despite its importance, it was not included in the Brexit deal at all. Will the Secretary of State guarantee today that the sector will get a much needed post-covid boost by ensuring that the memorandum of understanding on financial services, which is due to be signed in a matter of days with the EU, gives this critical industry the equivalence and access to EU markets that it was promised by this Government?
Mr Jack
The UK and the EU have agreed in a joint declaration to establish structured regulatory co-operation for the financial services industry. A memorandum of undertaking will be agreed in discussions between us and the EU to establish a framework. Those discussions are currently ongoing at official level, but as with the Brexit negotiations, we cannot give a running commentary.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on transport connectivity in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome Sir Peter’s interim report and I look forward to his final report in the summer.
Rob Roberts
As connectivity and transport infrastructure are of vital importance not only for business but for the UK’s tourism industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that taking steps such as electrifying the north Wales coast line and improving links with north-west England will not only enable my constituents in Delyn to enjoy the delights of Scotland more easily but allow our Scottish cousins to have greater access to the beauties and wonders of our fantastic north Wales area?
John Lamont
The Minister will know that cross-border transport routes are vital for my constituents, for educational and career opportunities as well as many other day-to-day tasks. That is why I want to see the Borders Railway extended and to see improvements to the A1; these are both vital routes for the Scottish borders. Does he share my frustration and shock that the SNP Scottish Government are failing to engage with and support the connectivity review, which could be an opportunity to accelerate these two projects?
Mr Jack
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, I really do. This review is part of our levelling-up agenda to improve the national infrastructure and create jobs and prosperity, and I think it is pathetic of the Scottish nationalist Government not to have engaged just because it is a “Union” connectivity review.
Dr Hudson [V]
As an MP for a borderlands region, I know that strengthening and enhancing our Union is of huge importance to my constituency of Penrith and The Border. Does my right hon. Friend agree that projects such as extending the Borders Railway down to Carlisle are a clear example of how the UK and Scottish Governments can work together to improve transport links in the region? Does he also agree that this would be a great boost to the economies of both the north of England and the south of Scotland, and provide a gateway to unlocking the potential of both regions?
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The Budget confirmed an additional £1.2 billion for the Scottish Government in the next financial year. Taken together with the allocation at the last spending review, it means the Scottish Government will receive an additional £3.6 billion of funding in 2021-22 through the Barnett formula, on top of the baseline of £35 billion.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
The A1, the east coast main line and the national grid all run through East Lothian, but as this virtual call shows, broadband is as vital as older forms of infrastructure. East Lothian has lower than average download speeds and less gigabyte capacity than many parts of the worst 10% of areas in the UK. Is this a Brexit bonus or the price of the Union? What is the Minister doing to ensure that adequate spending is there to provide the connectivity that East Lothian and Scotland require?
Iain Stewart
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned in his answers to previous questions, we have just published the interim report on the Union connectivity review, which emphasises the need for better connectivity across all transport modes between Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom. On the question of broadband speeds, of course the recent pandemic has underlined the importance of having good digital connectivity, and this Government are investing substantially in improving broadband speeds right across the United Kingdom.
Kirsten Oswald
Scotland is delivering a pay rise for public sector workers while the UK Government are instituting a real-terms pay cut for their public sector staff. Does the Minister not appreciate that, as well as being unjust and a real failure to recognise the hard work of the public sector, this decision also harms the Scottish Government’s ability to pay our Scottish public sector staff adequately?
Iain Stewart
I should point out that I am not responsible for public sector pay, either in Scotland or England, but I will relay the hon. Lady’s points to my colleagues who decide these matters. We will want to be as generous as we can be, while also keeping one eye on the overall state of the public finances. We have to keep that under control. As the Chancellor announced last week, if the international financial markets take fright at the state of our public finances, we will end up in a far worse financial position than we are currently in. Of course, if the Scottish Government wish to increase public sector pay more than in England, they have the fiscal powers at their disposal to do so.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 grants UK Ministers the ability to provide financial assistance, particularly from the shared prosperity fund, to any person for purposes that are outlined in the Act. However, there is still no detail as to how this will work in practice or what conditions will have to be met to qualify for such funding. Last month, a Scotland Office Minister told the Scottish Affairs Committee that further details on this matter would be provided in the now published Budget, so could the Minister outline those details for us, please?
Iain Stewart
I point the hon. Lady to the prospectuses for the first stages of the community renewal fund and the levelling-up fund, which were published alongside the Budget last week. This is about real devolution. This is about empowering local communities, local authorities and other stakeholders to come forward with the schemes that they think are best for their local areas, to help bounce back after the coronavirus pandemic and put in place the innovation and investment that will help economies grow and secure the jobs of the future.
Mhairi Black
That Scotland Office Minister also told the Scottish Affairs Committee that there will be an opportunity to engage with stakeholders on a lot of the concerns that still exist, so could the Minister tell us what those opportunities are? When will they be made available to us?
Iain Stewart
The work we are doing will build on the very strong relationships that already exist, such as through the city region and growth deal programmes. Shortly after this session, I will be speaking to the Glasgow area policy conference on these matters. When I spoke to them a few weeks ago, the SNP leader of Glasgow City Council told me that they have developed a very effective network with the local authorities in the Greater Glasgow area, with universities and with the private sector and are putting forward exciting bids for their future growth. It is those community-led, area-led projects that we want to encourage through our different funding streams.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Last week, we finally saw the Chancellor move the cliff edge for the most vulnerable by announcing that the £20 a week cut to universal credit for millions of families will be moved by just six months. Citizens Advice Scotland has shared that removing the increase will result in nearly 60% of CAB complex debt clients being unable to meet their living costs. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the least well-off in Scotland are not impacted by the Chancellor’s constant dither and delay on ensuring that universal credit is high enough to support all people across Scotland and the United Kingdom?
Iain Stewart
Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, may I, through him, extend my congratulations to Anas Sarwar on his election as leader of the Scottish Labour party? It is a significant moment, and he will be a doughty fighter in the upcoming Holyrood elections.
On universal credit and our route map, although all the indications are that the economy will be back up and running by the end of June, we have taken the prudent step of extending not just universal credit but furlough and some of the other support schemes to the end of September, just in case there is a delay in getting things up and running. The uplift to universal credit was always designed to be temporary, to help families through the pandemic, and the system has worked well. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the civil servants who have administered universal credit at a time of unprecedented demand in a very effective way.
The long-term arrangements for social security payments will be determined at the forthcoming spending review in the normal way. Of course, the Scottish Government also have the opportunity to supplement those payments with their own welfare powers.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
While the UK Government are extending rates relief for only three months in England, the Scottish Government are doing so for the whole year, helping the retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation sectors. The Scottish Government want to go further still, so will the Minister support Scottish businesses by calling for the full devolution of financial powers to Scotland?
Iain Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is not correct to say that the business rates holiday is only being extended for three months; a period beyond that is specially targeted at businesses in the tourism, hospitality and entertainment sector. In addition, for England substantial restart grants are available, the money for which is Barnettised to the Scottish Government, who are able to spend that as they see fit.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The whole House can be proud of the UK’s vaccination programme, with more than 22.5 million people now having received their first dose across the UK. We can also be proud of the support the UK has given to the international covid response, including the £548 million we have donated to COVAX. I therefore wish to correct the suggestion from the European Council President that the UK has blocked vaccine exports. Let me be clear: we have not blocked the export of a single covid-19 vaccine or vaccine components. This pandemic has put us all on the same side in the battle for global health. We oppose vaccine nationalism in all its forms. I trust that Members in all parts of the House will join me in rejecting this suggestion and in calling on all our partners to work together to tackle this pandemic.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Daisy Cooper [V]
The Government are throwing a staggering £37 billion at a test and trace system that we know has made barely any difference, yet they say they cannot afford to give more than a pitiful 1% pay rise to NHS workers. The Prime Minister has said that he owes his life to them. He stood on the steps of No. 10 and applauded them. So will the Prime Minister do more than pay lip service? Will he pay them the wage that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is indeed right that we owe a huge amount to our nurses—an incalculable debt—which is why I am proud that we have delivered a 12.8% increase in the starting salary of nurses and are asking the pay review body to look at increasing their pay, exceptionally of all the professions in the public sector. As for test and trace, it is thanks to NHS Test and Trace that we are able to send kids back to school and to begin cautiously and irreversibly to reopen our economy and restart our lives.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for his local area on flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency for the tireless, imaginative and creative work it does to find solutions, and we are investing £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Who does the Prime Minister think deserves a pay rise more: an NHS nurse or Dominic Cummings?
The Prime Minister
As I told the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) earlier on, we owe a massive debt as a society, and I do personally, to the nurses of our NHS. That is why we have asked the public sector pay review body, exceptionally, to look at their pay. I want to stress, however, that, as the House knows, starting salaries for nurses have gone up by 12.8% over the last three years, and it is thanks to the package that this Government have put in place that we now have 10,600 more nurses in our NHS than there were one year ago and 60,000 more in training.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says nurses’ pay has gone up; I know he is desperate to distance himself from the Conservatives’ record over the last decade, but as he well knows, since 2010 nurses’ pay has fallen in real terms by more than £800. And he did not answer my question—it was a very simple question. The Prime Minister has been talking about affordability; he could afford to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise. He could afford that; now, he is asking NHS nurses to take a real-terms pay cut. How on earth does he justify that?
The Prime Minister
I repeat the point that I have made: I believe that we all owe a massive debt to our nurses and, indeed, all our healthcare workers and social care workers. One of the things that they tell me when I go to hospitals, as I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman does too, is that in addition to pay one of their top concerns is to have more colleagues on the wards to help them with the undoubted stress and strains of the pandemic. That is why we have provided another £5,000 in bursaries for nurses and another £3,000 to help with the particular costs of training and with childcare. It is because of that package that this year we are seeing another 34% increase in applications for nurses. This Government of this party of the NHS are on target to deliver 50,000 more nurses in our NHS.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks about recruitment; there are currently 40,000 nursing vacancies and 7,000 doctors’ vacancies. How on earth does he think a pay cut is going to help to solve that? Frankly, I would take the Prime Minister a bit more seriously if he had not spent £2.6 million of taxpayers’ money on a Downing Street TV studio, or £200,000 on new wallpaper for his flat. They say that charity starts at home, but I think the Prime Minister is taking it a bit too literally.
Let me try something very simple: does the Prime Minister accept that NHS staff will be hundreds of pounds worse off a year because of last week’s Budget?
The Prime Minister
No. Of course, we will look at what the independent pay review body has to say, exceptionally, about the nursing profession, whom we particularly value, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman should also know, and reflect to the House, that under this Government we not only began with a record increase in NHS funding of £33.9 billion, but because of the pandemic we have put another £63 billion into supporting our NHS, on top of the £140 billion of in-year spending. It is because of this Government that in one year alone there are another 49,000 people working in our NHS. That is something that is of massive benefit not just to patients but to hard-pressed nurses as well.
Keir Starmer
My mum was a nurse; my sister was a nurse; my wife works in the NHS—I know what it means to work for the NHS. When I clapped for carers, I meant it; the Prime Minister clapped for carers, then he shut the door in their face at the first opportunity.
The more you look at the Prime Minister’s decision, the worse it gets, because it is not just a pay cut; it is a broken promise, too. Time and time again he said that the NHS would not pay the price for this pandemic. Two years ago, he made a promise to the NHS in black and white: his document commits to a minimum pay rise of 2.1%. It has been budgeted for, and now it is being taken away. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister shakes his head. His MPs voted for it, so why, after everything the NHS has done for us, is he now breaking promise after promise?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against the document in question, which just crowns the absurdity of his point. Under this Government we have massively increased funding for our amazing NHS, with the result that, as I say, there are 6,500 more doctors this year than there were last year, 18,000 more healthcare workers and 10,600 more nurses. We are going to deliver our promises—I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that—and we are going to go on and build 40 more hospitals and recruit 50,000 more nurses, and we are going to get on and deliver on our pledges to the British people. We are going to do that because of our sound management of the economy and the fastest vaccine roll-out programme of any comparable country which, frankly, if we had followed his precept and his ideas, we would certainly not have been able to achieve.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that he voted for it; he did. Now he has ripped it up—2.1% ripped up. If he will not listen to me, he should listen to what his own Conservative MPs are saying about this. This is from his own side. This is what they say—behind you, Prime Minister. “It’s inept.” “It’s unacceptable.” “It’s pathetic.” These are Conservative MPs talking about the Prime Minister’s pay cut for nurses, and that was before his answers today. Perhaps the most telling of all the comments came from another MP, sitting behind him, who said:
“The public just hear ‘1 per cent’ and think how mean we are.”
Even his own MPs know that he has got this wrong. Why is he going ahead with it?
The Prime Minister
What the public know is that we have increased starting pay for nurses by 12.8% over the past three years. They know that, in the past year, this Government have put another £5,000 bursary into the pockets of nurses, because we support them, as well as the £3,000 extra for training. It is very important that the public sector pay review body should come back with its proposals, and we will, of course, study them. As I say, it is thanks to the investment made by this Government that there are 49,000 more people in the NHS this year than last year. That means that there are 10,600 more nurses helping to relieve the burden on our hard-pressed nurses. That is what this Government are investing in.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says, “We support them. We’ll reward them.” He is cutting their pay. [Interruption.] “Not true”, he says. Prime Minister, a 1% rise versus a 1.7% inflation rise is a real-terms cut. If he does not understand that, we really are in trouble.
Mr Speaker, the Government promised honesty, but the truth is that they can afford to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise, and they cannot afford to reward the NHS properly. The mask really is slipping, and we can see what the Conservative party now stands for: cutting pay for nurses; putting taxes up on families. He has had the opportunity to change course, but he has refused to do so. If he so determined to cut NHS pay, will he at least show some courage and put it to a vote in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister
The last time that we put this to a vote, the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it, as I said before. We are increasing pay for nurses. We are massively increasing our investment in the NHS. We are steering a steady course, whereas he weaves and wobbles from one week to the next. One week he is attacking us and saying that we should be doing more testing, and the next week he is denouncing us for spending money on testing. One week he calls for a faster roll-out of PPE, and the next week he is saying that we spent too much. He has to make up his mind. One week, he calls for a faster vaccination roll-out when he actually voted—although he claims to have forgotten it—to stay in the European Medicines Agency. Perhaps he would like to confirm that he voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made that vaccine roll-out impossible. We vaccinate and get on with delivering for the people of this country. We vaccinate, he vacillates, and that is the difference.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at my diary to see whether I can actually get up to Blackpool. I have many happy memories of joyful evenings spectating at the illuminations of Blackpool. I know that Blackpool will play an important part in the tourism recovery that we hope to see this summer if we continue on our road map.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister published his plans for an Erasmus replacement, without any consultation or discussion with the devolved Governments. The replacement scheme offers lower living support, no travel support and no tuition fee support. Why are this Tory Government taking opportunities away from our young people?
The Prime Minister
That was a delightfully concise question, but the hon. Member is wrong about the difference between Erasmus and the Turing project. Unlike the Erasmus scheme, which overwhelmingly went to kids from better-off homes, the Turing project is designed to help kids across the country, of all income groups, get to fantastic universities around the world.
Kirsten Oswald
That is just not the case. We know that we cannot trust a word that the Prime Minister says on this. He told us that there was no threat to the Erasmus scheme, but he clearly will not match EU levels of support. And it is not just us saying it; his own Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), told the BBC last week that young people will not benefit from Brexit. The Government have saddled a generation with tuition fee debt, and are now closing the door on Erasmus. It is no wonder that students are choosing the SNP and independence for a prosperous future. Prime Minister, will you think again, do the right thing, engage with our EU friends and rejoin Erasmus?
The Prime Minister
I think students should choose the Turing project because it is fantastic and reaches out across the whole country. I believe, by the way, that they should reject the SNP—a Scottish nationalist party, Mr Speaker—because it is failing the people of Scotland, failing to deliver on education, failing on crime and failing on the economy. I hope very much that the people of Scotland will go for common sense. Instead of endlessly going on about constitutional issues and endlessly campaigning for a referendum, which is the last thing the people of this country need right now, I think people want a Government who focus on the issues that matter to them, including a fantastic international education scheme like Turing.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend has been a great champion of the arts and culture sectors, and he is completely right about the role that they can play for young people in the recovery. That is why we hope that the massive £2 billion recovery fund that we have given to thousands of theatres, orchestras, choirs, music venues and others will be used for the benefit and the cultural enrichment of young people up and down the country.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister’s fantasy bridge to Northern Ireland could cost £33 billion—this, while our road and rail networks have been absolutely decimated from decades of underinvestment. The Conservative party got a grand total of 2,399 votes at the last Assembly election. What mandate does he think he has to override the democratically elected people of Northern Ireland to impose a bridge that goes through miles of unexploded munitions and radioactive waste?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Member had read the article I wrote this morning in The Daily Telegraph, he would have seen that the things that we have set out in the Hendy review will be of massive benefit to Northern Ireland. That includes upgrading the A75, which is the single biggest thing that people in Northern Ireland wanted, by the way, and which the Scottish nationalists—the Scottish National party—have totally failed to do. The review also includes better connections east-west within Northern Ireland, which we should be doing, and better connections north-south within the island of Ireland. It is a fantastic Union connectivity review. The hon. Member should appreciate it; it is the way forward. I am amazed, frankly, by his negativity.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely true. It is Conservative Governments who invest in Eastleigh; it is Conservative Governments putting £640 billion into an infrastructure revolution. I congratulate Jerry Hall on what he is doing to resurface the road and to make it quieter, and I hope that he will be duly elected in May.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Throughout the pandemic we have done whatever we can to look after people throughout the country, whether those on benefits or those who have lost their jobs, sadly, because of the pandemic. I am very proud of what universal credit has been able to achieve, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps take it up with his friends in the Labour party who actually want to abolish universal credit.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
The fantastic thing about the lifetime skills guarantee is that in very, very tough circumstances, with many people having, I am afraid inevitably, to seek new jobs and to find ways of retraining, as will happen in a changing economy, it offers everybody—adults over 23—the opportunity of £3,000 for an A-level-equivalent qualification. I think it will be absolutely instrumental in helping young people of beyond school age to retrain and get the jobs they need. The lifetime skills guarantee: it is the first time it has been done.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The Prime Minister
Actually I think that the hon. Lady is making an important point about the discrepancy in the tax paid by some online businesses and some concrete businesses. That is an issue that the Chancellor is trying to address in an equitable way, working with colleagues in the G7 and around the world.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I am not the greatest chef myself, but I have made, and can make, from memory, a fish pie with haddock and prawns, which I undertake to do.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
People like my constituent, Tessa Stevens, have had to keep their salons shut despite shrinking Government support, unchanged overheads and decreased profits. I am urgently seeking the Prime Minister’s support to protect the immediate and long-term recovery of beauty businesses and the jobs they support. Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government refuse to listen to the beauty industry, which is calling for VAT to be temporarily reduced to 5% for hair and beauty businesses, similar to what has happened to businesses in other sectors such as hospitality, tourism and culture?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she says about the importance of beauty businesses. They do an amazing job, and we want them to bounce back very strongly from the pandemic. I want high-street beauty salons to be opening up in the way that they were in the past, rather than people going round and giving services and cutting hair at home. It is very important that we revive high-street salons, and that is why we are continuing with the cautious, but irreversible road map out of this, which will enable a full recovery for the entire sector. In the meantime, as she knows, the Chancellor has extended furlough and all the other provisions that are necessary.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows whereof he speaks. He is probably one of the greatest experts on railways in this House, and we are certainly determined to follow his lead and to upgrade services in the west country and in Dorset. He knows what is happening at Dawlish and elsewhere. Network Rail has identified proposals, including the improvement of the performance of the west of England line, which is currently being assessed. He is knocking at an open door.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]
Back in 2012, commissioning for alcohol and drug addiction treatment was taken out of the NHS and handed to local authorities, and those services are now overwhelmed after a decade of cuts and fragmentation. Last year, the UK recorded the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths since records began. Addiction is an illness that can be treated, so will the Prime Minister urgently investigate the rise in deaths and bring addiction treatment back into the NHS within mental health services and give it the funding it requires?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of addiction treatment and its relationship to mental health, and that is why the Government are investing record sums in mental health—£13.3 billion—and treatment for alcoholism is of course part of that.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am certainly very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend, or to make sure she gets access to the relevant ministerial authority. What we are doing, in addition to the £13.3 billion I spoke of, is supporting mental health charities throughout the pandemic, and in particular focusing on the mental health needs of children and young people. That is why I appointed Dr Alex George to be our youth mental health ambassador.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
This Government are failing young people. Before the pandemic, apprenticeship starts were down by 28% for under-19s and £330 million of unspent levy went back to the Treasury, falling short by 81% in creating the promised 100,000 new apprenticeships. This month, I will be holding my fifth apprenticeships and jobs fair in Bristol South. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging all young people to support that fair, and will he apologise to them for failing them so far?
The Prime Minister
I think that jobs fairs are an important thing, and I know that colleagues across the House do them, but I also think that the Government can be proud of our record in getting record numbers of young people into employment. We now face a very severe problem caused by the pandemic, which we are addressing not just with the lifetime skills guarantee that I mentioned earlier with but the kickstart funds and the restart funds, with £2 billion going into kickstart alone, to help young people into the jobs that they need.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I am told that the boulevard of light on Lord Street rivals the Champs-Élysées itself, and I will certainly keep my hon. Friend’s invitation in mind.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
In this House, we all know the importance of the people who have looked after our vulnerable loved ones over the past year when we have been unable to do so, so will the Prime Minister explain to me why in this country we have 375,000 care workers on zero-hours contracts?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what the Government have done to increase the wages of care workers across the country, with record increases in the living wage. This country is unlike most other countries in the world in the speed with which we have vaccinated care home workers and their elderly charges.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s initiative, and I understand that Golborne, which he represents, was the sight of the world’s first railway junction.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Anthony Jones, a ferociously bright student at Stirling University, was looking to do a master’s degree in Amsterdam. Pre- Brexit, the course fees were £2,168. Post Brexit, the fees are £14,600. The Turing scheme will not touch the sides of what is necessary. Would the Prime Minister like to apologise to Anthony and countless hundreds of thousands of students like him for limiting their life horizons against their will?
The Prime Minister
No, because I think that the Turing scheme is fairer and will enable students on lower incomes to have access to great courses around the world. I believe it is a highly beneficial reform of the way we do this, and it is truly global in its ambitions.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend; I know that he supported the bid for the reinstatement of the Stoke to Leek line. That is currently being assessed by the Department for Transport as one of the Beeching reversals, which are so popular around the country and so right, and he can expect an outcome in the summer.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
If the Prime Minister is serious about levelling up the country, does he honestly think that favouring the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency over Barnsley for financial support is the best way to do it?
The Prime Minister
We are devoted to levelling up across the entire country, and that goes for Barnsley as well as everywhere else.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to look at my right hon. Friend’s interesting suggestion for a kitemark scheme. In the meantime, this Government are leading the world in tackling deforestation, with a £3 billion investment being led across Whitehall.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Jonathan Ashworth
It is indeed, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has twice, from that Dispatch Box, said that the Labour Opposition voted against the NHS Funding Bill and the 2.1% increase for NHS staff. This is not the case. Indeed, in the debate, as Hansard will show, I was explicit that we would not divide the House. Can you, Mr Speaker, use your good offices to get the Prime Minister to return to the House to correct the record? And do you agree that if the Prime Minister wants to cut nurses’ pay, he should have the courage of his convictions and bring a vote back to the House?
Mr Speaker
May I just say that that is not a point of order? It is certainly a point of clarification, and that part has been achieved. But I am certainly not going to be drawn into a debate, as the shadow Secretary of State well knows.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Petition
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
We should celebrate and protect our country’s amazing heritage. People across the Tees Valley are incredibly proud of Captain James Cook, and 2,500 people have signed this decision.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland,
Declares that the achievements of Captain James Cook in the fields of science, exploration and cartography are of immense historic significance and are rightly commemorated by a number of much-loved statues and monuments across Middlesbrough, the Tees Valley and North Yorkshire.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that those monuments and sites which commemorate Captain James Cook are protected against harm or removal.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002651]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Adjournment debate, can I ask the Serjeant at Arms—we will not suspend—to sanitise the Government Dispatch Box to ensure that it is covid-friendly? [Interruption.] I know, if we had a potter’s wheel at this moment in time, we would be doing that, but we just want to make certain. Colonel Bob, if you could take your seat—[Interruption.] There you are, entertainment as well. Fantastic—I thank the Serjeant at Arms for doing that.
Northern Ireland Protocol
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government’s unilateral action on the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government are committed to giving effect to the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way, one that is needed. We will continue to work with colleagues in Westminster, with the Northern Ireland Executive and with businesses to support our sensible approach.
As I announced last Wednesday in this House, the Government have taken several temporary operational steps to avoid disruptive cliff edges as engagement with the EU continues through the Joint Committee. These steps recognise that appropriate time must be provided for businesses to implement new requirements, and that action was needed in the immediate term to avoid any disruption to flows of critical goods, such as food supplies, into Northern Ireland. Since that statement, further guidance has been provided, including on parcel movements.
The protocol was agreed as a unique solution to the complex challenges that are before us. Its core aims include upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, north-south and east-west, and ensuring that the implementation of the protocol can be given effect in a way that minimises the impact on the everyday lives of communities in Northern Ireland, as the protocol itself pledges. The Government remain committed to meeting our obligations, and doing so in the pragmatic and proportionate way that was always intended.
Louise Haigh
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. In recent weeks, we have seen the threat of instability return to Northern Ireland. Without responsible leadership, the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister negotiated always had the potential to unsettle the delicate balance of identities across these islands. It was only on 24 February that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that we are committed to jointly finding solutions
“to make the Protocol work”.
Just seven days later, the Secretary of State unilaterally undermined that commitment, sending a clear message that the Government’s word cannot be trusted, which raises serious questions about whether the Government have a strategy at all to deal with the complex realities facing Northern Ireland.
Provocation is not a strategy, and a stop gap is not a solution, so what precisely is the Government’s intention? Is it to push the protocol to breaking point, and undermine the cast-iron commitment to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, or is it to find the solutions that businesses are crying out for? If it is the latter, can the Secretary of State give us something tangible? What kind of agreement is being sought, for instance, on common veterinary standards that would deliver the long-term solutions needed to prevent disruption? Does he think that the Irish Government saying that we are no longer a partner that can be trusted will make such solutions more likely or less? Does he think that the behaviour of Lord Frost will make desperately needed flexibility from the EU more likely or less? Does he think that that approach will make the chances of a successful relationship with President Biden more likely or less?
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the actions taken last week breach international law for a second time? This is an extraordinary position for the Government to be in: having to break the law and trash Britain’s international reputation to remove checks that they claimed never existed. Is it not now time to show responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, be honest about the consequences of the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister negotiated, and commit to working with the EU to find the long-term solutions that we desperately need?
Brandon Lewis
I note from the hon. Lady’s comments that, from memory, she did not at any point disagree with the substance of any of the measures that we have brought forward, which are critical to protecting the flow of goods in Northern Ireland, so I assume that she inherently supports what we have done. She will be in good company, because the actions that we took last week have been backed by a range of businesses and the communities in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium itself said:
“The retail industry welcomes the extension of the grace periods…even if it is unilaterally, to allow us to continue to give Northern Ireland households the choice and affordability they need.”
That sentiment has been echoed by many others, who have said that the action was needed in relation to the immediate grace period deadlines.
I have spent a lot of time over the last few months, and certainly in the last couple of weeks, for obvious reasons, talking to businesses that were very clear that, had we not taken that action last week, we would have seen disruption to food supplies in literally the next couple of weeks. Underlying the point that the hon. Lady made in her opening comments about stability is the fact that it was important for stability for people in Northern Ireland, and for the future of the protocol, for us not to be in a situation where, because of the way things were being implemented, we would have had empty shelves again, potentially in just a couple of weeks’ time. I am sad that she was almost arguing that that could be acceptable. It simply is not.
In terms of the hon. Lady’s questions on the action that we have taken, the measures that I announced last Wednesday are lawful. They are consistent with a progressive and good faith implementation of the protocol. They are temporary operational easements, introduced where additional delivery time is needed. They do not change our legal obligations set out in the protocol, and we will continue to discuss protocol implementation in the Joint Committee. Some of the issues that she has raised are those that we are working in through the Joint Committee.
We would have liked to be able to get this agreement with the EU. Sadly, that was not possible within the timeframe in which we had to make a decision to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland did not suffer loss of trade and loss of flow of products into Northern Ireland in the next couple of weeks. That is why we took some simple, operational and pragmatic decisions last week.
I have to say I am a bit disappointed, although I probably should not be surprised, to see a Labour Front Bencher standing here and defending the EU, rather than defending the actions of the UK Government, who are standing up for the people of the United Kingdom and, in this case, making sure that we do the right thing by the people of Northern Ireland. As a Unionist, I ask the hon. Lady whether she really feels she is in the right place on this.
Mr Speaker
We go now to the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I say to my right hon. Friend that it is not the what but the how? The Government did not reluctantly inherit the protocol; they authored it jointly with the EU, with all its modus operandi. Do the Government understand the very destabilising effect on trust that such unilateral action has in both UK-EU relations and in UK-Irish relations? May I urge the Government to desist the narrative of unilateral action and debate, to get back around the Joint Committee table and to make sure that the protocol works, that everybody understands that it is here to stay, and that it can benefit very significantly the people, the economy and the communities of Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
As I said, the protocol was agreed as a unique solution to complex and unique challenges, recognising the unique situation of Northern Ireland, but we wanted to work these things through in agreement with the EU. The reality is that the EU had not come to an agreement on these matters. As we see these decisions go through, I hope it will be seen that they are pragmatic, operational and temporary. Just a few weeks ago, we saw the Irish Government implement temporary flexibilities very similar to what we are talking about, without giving an end date and without anyone criticising or challenging them.
We want to continue to work with the EU. We recognise that of course the EU’s focus is on the single market. We have to make sure our focus is always clearly on our commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, which is not just north-south but east-west as well.
Mr Speaker
We go to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the words of the Select Committee Chair: it is not the publicly stated objective of protecting the flow of goods that is at issue here; rather, it is the provocative and belligerent manner in which the Government seem to be determined to go about trying to achieve that.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said previously that he believed Northern Ireland was getting
“the best of both worlds”
through the protocol, and that any issues arising from the new arrangements could be resolved within the terms of that protocol, without needing to trigger the article 16 procedure. At a time when flexibility is needed, this action will ensure that the good will towards the UK Government that is needed to secure changes to the arrangement they took so long to negotiate is in shorter supply than ever before. The conduct of the Brexit negotiations came at the expense of the UK’s reputation for political stability and good governance. Is not this latest development one which will come at the expense of any lingering trust there may be in the UK Government as a trustworthy international partner, who can be relied upon to keep their word?
Brandon Lewis
We are a trustworthy partner and have always been clear about what we would do and the reasoning for what we are doing. Rather like the Irish Government did a few weeks ago when they took sensible flexibilities, we have taken flexibilities. We have given a timeline for them; they are temporary, operational and the right thing to do for the people of Northern Ireland.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) about stability in Northern Ireland, it is undoubtedly the case—it can be seen in any engagement in Northern Ireland across the entire community—that the action the EU took when it talked about and actually started to implement article 16 on that Friday night had a huge impact on communities across Northern Ireland, and the issue still lingers. We need to recognise and understand people’s sense of identity in Northern Ireland, the impact on it and the tension created by that action.
Our actions were about making sure that we did not have a further problem, which could well have occurred in the next couple of weeks. According to the businesses we have been dealing with, if we had not taken action urgently last week, there would have been empty shelves in Northern Ireland. That is not what the protocol is about and it is not fair to the people of Northern Ireland.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I share the Minister’s determination to protect the integrity of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in terms of both north-south and east-west. The EU’s decision in January to invoke article 16 was in complete contradiction of the spirit of the protocol. Shamefully placing the EU’s protection of its single market over the protection of the Good Friday agreement seriously undermined cross-community confidence of its operation. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now incumbent on the EU to remedy its mistake and restore trust in the protocol in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important and powerful point. He is quite right that it is important we remember that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is about the entire community: it has a north-south and an east-west dimension, and people need to understand that.
I was very pleased that the EU Vice-President agreed to meet with businesses and civic society. We hear, from across communities and across businesses, their concerns and fears about the actions that have been taken and the fixes they need to see in the protocol, some of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley asked us to get on with and do quickly just a couple of weeks ago. That is what we have done, for the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure that the protocol can work and function as it was always designed and intended to do.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We welcome and support even the limited measures that the Government have taken to protect businesses in Northern Ireland, but even an extended grace period still leaves us with a reality that, in the words of the permanent secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, 20% of all the checks taking place on all borders across the European Union are now taking place in the Irish sea. That will increase substantially beyond the grace period, so we need a permanent solution to this problem—the sooner, the better.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I send my best wishes to his colleague, Minister Poots, who is now returning to work after his recent illness, which is really good news.
The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted the practical impact of some of these things, and the importance of our getting solutions to ensure a good, flexible flow of goods, as we have always outlined was our vision, going back to our Command Paper last year. That is why it is important that we continue the conversations, and I encourage the EU to go further with those with civic society and business organisations in Northern Ireland, which it promised to do. We are keen to see the EU engage further, which I hope it will do shortly to understand the needs and the flexibilities that are practical, both for Northern Ireland and, ultimately, the wider EU as well.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend explain to the European Union that we are perhaps more committed to the Good Friday agreement and the avoidance of new infrastructure on the border between north and south than it has so far demonstrated itself to be, and that the idea that the Northern Ireland protocol is a work of such perfection that it is beyond improvement is a myth? Can he ask them also to explain why the sale of English sausages in Northern Ireland is somehow a threat to the integrity of the EU single market, or to the Good Friday agreement?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I am determined, as the Prime Minister is, to ensure that the great British banger—the great Norfolk sausage—will continue to be enjoyed by those who wish to do so across the counties of Northern Ireland in perpetuity. However, it is important—this is why the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) was absolutely right—that we use these grace periods to get long-term solutions.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that our commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is steadfast. That is why all the actions we have taken, both last year and recently, have been about ensuring that we do not have borders, and that we respect the north-south and east-west dimensions. There is another important point here, which I hope has come through in the conversations we have been able to organise with Vice-President Šefčovič recently: it is important to understand the effect on the sense of identity that people in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland have. After the actions of that Friday a few weeks ago, it is important to repair that.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
It really is a new experience to be lectured by the European Research Group about the Good Friday agreement. Last week, the Secretary of State rushed out—sneaked out—an announcement unilaterally on Budget day that his Government would once again break international law. Given that Governments across Europe and politicians on Capitol Hill and in the White House are furious about this move, is the Secretary of State at all concerned that this Government’s reputation is in tatters across the world?
Brandon Lewis
I am afraid that I have to contradict the hon. Gentleman on pretty much every point he has just made. First of all, I do not think it is sneaking out of the House to stand here and make these points at oral questions, as we did last week. I outlined at oral questions the measures that we were taking, and obviously colleagues asked questions on them. We published the written ministerial statement, as well as, obviously, publishing guidance and other matters more publicly after that. So I do not think that really qualifies for that.
In terms of lawfulness, these are lawful actions, as I outlined last week and I have outlined already this afternoon in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. They are about implementing the protocol and they fit with our obligations under the protocol. We will continue to make sure that we deliver on that in a pragmatic and flexible way to work for the people of Northern Ireland. It is indeed international, but this is a lawful action.
I would just say that, bearing in mind that the Irish Government took similar action themselves just a few weeks ago and that these are temporary, pragmatic operational things to ensure that the protocol can work and to avoid further tensions and problems for people across communities in Northern Ireland, I would hope that people across the EU and our friends in the US will see that this is an important piece of work that we have done to ensure that we can deliver on the protocol, respecting the Good Friday agreement in all its strands—not just north-south but, importantly, east-west as well.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
One of the key aims of the Northern Irish protocol was to prevent a destabilisation of the peace process, and we all remember how Monsieur Barnier took every opportunity to remind us how important that was when negotiating the agreement, yet the shortages that we are seeing in shops now, and the disruption to trade being caused by the EU’s insistence on heavy-handed inspections, is doing just that. What does my right hon. Friend think would have been the impact on the stability of the peace process if he had not taken this action?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I know that he has a huge background of experience and knowledge of issues of Northern Ireland. What I would say to him is that I understand that the EU has recognised and, to be fair, Maroš Šefčovič himself has apologised and said it was a mistake, but the action that the EU took did happen, and it had an impact. It has had an impact in terms of tensions and feelings of identity in Northern Ireland. My view, having spoken to businesses, is that if we had not taken the action that we took last week, we would have had empty shelves in supermarkets in Northern Ireland imminently. I think that would have raised tensions further and it may well have undermined the protocol fatally, in a way that is not in the best interests of the EU, the UK or the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I have to say that it is far from clear to me exactly what the Government are trying to achieve in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol at the moment, but whatever it is, I have to think that it can only have been damaged by what we saw happen and the continued insistence on unilateral action here. May we just have a pause and a reset, and focus on using this grace period to achieve the things that will be necessary for the long-term creation of sustainable procedures? Primary among those, surely, must be the agreement of an EU-UK veterinary protocol. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what is happening on that—what barriers remain to an agreement of that sort and when we can expect to hear of its successful conclusion?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do want to work with the EU on a range of issues, and part of the issue around extending these grace periods was ensuring that we did not have a cliff edge and that we had that time and space for businesses to adapt and for us to work through some issues with the EU in a mutual way that works for everybody, as we have done this year. There were examples through January, on VAT on second-hand cars and other issues, where we worked through agreements with the EU that have worked to deliver on some of the issues for people in Northern Ireland, and we want to continue that way.
The reason we made the decision last week was purely that we were at this time-critical point. Because of the way supply lines and timelines work, if we had not made the decision last week, it would have been too late, even this week or next week, to prevent issues for supply lines into Northern Ireland. Going forward, we want to continue to work with the EU, including on issues such as that which the right hon. Gentleman outlined. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with his counterparts in the EU on those very issues now.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Article SPS.5, paragraph 3(d) of the trade and co-operation agreement obliges the EU to ensure that its sanitary and phytosanitary procedures
“are proportionate to the risks identified”.
Is it not inconsistent with that provision for the EU to seek to end the grace period and impose full SPS checks, given that our food standards are every bit as good as its and some of the toughest in the whole world?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend, who has a huge wealth of experience at the Dispatch Box in this particular field, is, unsurprisingly, absolutely right. We have fantastic, very high food standards here; they are world leading. That is why I hope and, as I say, I think it is right that we will be able, ultimately, to secure a good and practical, pragmatic agreement with the EU. Again, that just outlines why it was so important for us to take that action last week in order to ensure that we have the space to do exactly that.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Previously, it was “limited” and “specific” and now it is operational and pragmatic—different words, but the net result is still the same. The Secretary of State touched on this in an earlier answer, but let me press him: can he confirm whether anything that the Government have proposed in the unilateral extension of the grace period does, or potentially might, breach international legal obligations with the arrangements that we have entered into? And given his previous record on this matter, why should any partner believe a single word that the Government say?
Brandon Lewis
I think the hon. Gentleman’s question is self-contradictory. He should know from experience of the UQ last year that I will always give him a very straight answer, even if it is a difficult one. The situation, as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, is that these measures are lawful. They are within our obligations delivering on the protocol. They are operational. They are temporary, but I also say to him that we are entirely consistent. We are consistent through all these measures that our core focus is protecting the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, the peace process and ensuring that we respect that—not just north-south, but east-west as well.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The Government have done well to postpone the bureaucratic problems of shipments into Northern Ireland and have worked hard to resolve them, but sadly, issues persist. Does the Secretary of State agree that fresh minds should be brought to bear on the conundrum? The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for example, could call on new help and advice from qualified business experts.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have been fortunate in this role to be able to engage with and have advice and recommendations from the Northern Ireland business community through the business engagement forum, which we pull together and which meets regularly. That has been invaluable. I have also welcomed the engagement via the Joint Committee structures with representatives from business and civic society in Northern Ireland, of which more has been committed to. I hope that Vice-President Šefčovič and his team will be able to engage in more of that more quickly; it has been a few weeks since the last one. I think that it is important that we continue to take those meetings forward and that it would be good to have as much business involvement and contribution to this as possible, because that is what informs a perfectly good, really solid understanding of the needs of business for those flows of supplies for the people of Northern Ireland.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister is far keener to celebrate a yet-to-be-built bridge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland than to take responsibility for the barriers that he has put there. Just five weeks ago, he said that the protocol must not
“place… barriers of any kind…down the Irish sea.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 948.]
Will the Secretary of State explain, then, why he negotiated an agreement that did just that?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady may want to have a look at the Command Paper that we published last summer around how the protocol can work. It was very clear about making sure that we had a pragmatic and flexible approach, so that goods could flow cleanly and simply for people in Northern Ireland. We have also always been very clear about building on the SPS checks, which, in one form or another, have been there since the 19th century. That is the reality of recognising the single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland—we have always been up front and clear about that. We are also clear that we want to make sure that there is not just unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to mainland Great Britain, which we have done, but this good, flexible free flow. The impact that we have seen over the last few weeks is why we had to take the decisions that we did last week to ensure that we have time for businesses to adapt and time in other areas to work with the EU to get permanent and long-term solutions.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) [V]
We in the Conservative and Unionist party value Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom. Indeed, we take the view that my home town of Belfast is as much a part of the United Kingdom as my Bournemouth constituency. While the protocol is an obvious recognition of the fact that there are two sovereign jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, one of which remains a member of the European Union, it is clear that at least so far, the protocol is not working as we had intended. As the Government look to the future, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to work with businesses in Northern Ireland, all the parties in Northern Ireland, the EU and our friends in the Irish Government to ensure that the solutions are pragmatic and practical going forward, and crucially, that those solutions must recognise and acknowledge Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom and the economic, social, political and trading position that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom demands?
Brandon Lewis
The short answer is yes, absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The economic flows around the United Kingdom are obviously important to the whole of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has the strength it has because of all the parts of the UK: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have to say—I know he agrees with me on this; it is something he rightly feels passionate about—that the United Kingdom is stronger because Northern Ireland is in it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
Last Friday, the Government announced some temporary—I stress the word temporary—operational measures, one of which lifted the ludicrous ban on bulbs and vegetables grown in British soil being sent from GB to NI if they still have soil attached. Does the Secretary of State agree that there was never any rational basis for the ban and that with or without European Commission agreement the Government will maintain the ability to move such products from GB to Northern Ireland not only now but in the future? Our businesses need and deserve a cast-iron guarantee.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. She is absolutely right: businesses want certainty. They want guarantees going forward. We took the decision last week to extend some of the grace periods. She is correct that this is temporary. It is temporary because we are committed to delivering on our obligations in a pragmatic and sensible way for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. That is why it is important we use the grace period to work with the EU to get permanent solutions to ensure that those kinds of products can continue to flow in the way that they should be able to, the way they have, and the way that the Command Paper and the protocol always envisaged they would.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I welcome these measures. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is incumbent on him and the Government to make sure that certain foods and indeed medicines reach citizens in every part of the United Kingdom, whether they be in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland and that to have not taken these measures would have been irresponsible? How on earth could they therefore be seen as any breach of international law or as putting any peace process at risk?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Picking up on his last point, I ask colleagues to pause for a moment and think about where we would be if we had not taken those actions. In the next couple of weeks, we would have had empty shelves in Northern Ireland. What would that have meant in terms of tensions in Northern Ireland? I personally think that would be an untenable situation for the protocol. I think the decisions we took were important in terms of ensuring we can deliver on the protocol and show that the protocol can work in a pragmatic and sensible way that works for businesses and people in Northern Ireland. We took the decision on the advice of businesses, and that is why businesses have roundly supported the position and the actions we took last week.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I want to see extensions to the grace periods, but on a sound legal basis. If the protocol is to be sustainable, we need to see a genuine partnership between the UK and the EU to fix problems, not Northern Ireland becoming a pawn in a war of attrition with the EU. Does the Secretary of State recognise that unilateral actions undermine the constructive voices inside the EU that were working to achieve flexibilities, and therefore make finding long-term sustainable solutions more difficult, including a veterinary agreement?
Brandon Lewis
I share with the hon. Gentleman the desire to work all these things through as partners and to get an agreement with our partners in the EU on issues like this. We would have liked to have done so with these issues. Sadly, the EU had not come to an agreement on some of these issues. Ultimately, we have to do what is right by the people of the United Kingdom and, of course, within the United Kingdom the people of Northern Ireland. Much as we would have liked to have had an agreement with the EU over the decisions last week, if we had not taken those decisions last week, businesses were clear with us, there would have been an impact. Even if we had taken the decisions this week or next week, it would already have been too late to prevent a detrimental impact for businesses and people in Northern Ireland. I just say to colleagues that we took those decisions last week because of the time urgency, the time-critical situation we were in. Going forward and at all times we would much rather always agree things with the EU. Of course, that needs both partners to want to agree them and sadly as of last week the EU did not want to. I hope we will be able to re-engage and make sure that these problems are solved more permanently in agreement with the EU.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has taken. Can he confirm that as he continues to work with the European Union to find those lasting solutions to the protocol, he will absolutely hold them to the commitment they are reported to have made in the Joint Committee to “act at pace” and continue to further engage with the people of Northern Ireland on the issues relating to the protocol?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was a commitment to act at pace. As I say, we would have liked to have come to agreement on these issues, but the pace issue got ahead of us and we had to make those urgent decisions last week to avoid further disruptions and problems for people in Northern Ireland. I hope that as we go forward we can work at pace together to make sure that there are ultimately the solutions to this that work for people across the UK. Ultimately, that is in the best interests of the EU; it is also in the interests of the protocol.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
First, what effect has there been since January on time-sensitive Northern Ireland food exports to Great Britain via the Republic of Ireland and Welsh ports? Secondly, what would the Secretary of State say to Neil Alcock, of Seiont Nurseries in Arfon, just 30 miles from Holyhead, who says that he has found a way to export his plants: they go through Wales, then through England, then on a sea crossing, then through the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and then on another sea crossing to the Republic, and thence onwards?
Brandon Lewis
I would say that we are working to ensure that he does not have to go through that kind of rigmarole and can continue to trade in his business, for the benefit of his employees and the customers he is serving in Northern Ireland. That kind of flexibility is probably why the Irish Government sensibly put in flexibilities on security and safety declarations just a few weeks ago—it is not that dissimilar. What is surprising is to have Opposition Members criticising the UK Government for taking actions similar to those they never challenged the Irish Government on just a few weeks ago.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is reassured that the EU now has no desire to block suppliers fulfilling contracts for vaccine distribution to Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? Does he agree that it is only through international collaboration that we will beat this pandemic once and for all?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a global pandemic and we need to work together globally to combat it, get on top of it and be able to move back to normal life. That is particularly the case on the island of Ireland, where that single epidemiological unit means we have people who work, live, school, shop and enjoy their lives in normal times on both sides of the border—in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—so we want to be working together on that. I hope that that will continue. The working across between the Irish Government, the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive has been very strong over the past year. I have been pleased to be able to chair the Joint Committee with my sort of opposite number, Simon Coveney, where we have been bringing together our relevant Ministers to work together on the battle with covid for the benefit of people in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
The Secretary of State has referred to the temporary nature of last week’s announcement, as well as the tensions that have resulted from the implementation of the protocol for some months now. Does he grasp fully the degree of resentment that exists in Unionism in Northern Ireland, where the consent from the Unionist community has now diminished to the point where radical action and radical steps have to be taken by his Government as a matter of urgency?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman outlines a strength of feeling that is absolutely there. The tension and palpable feeling within the Unionist community over what has happened in the past few weeks is clear, particularly following the action on that Friday night. I know he has made the case quite strongly about that. This is why it is important that we all work hard to ensure that we can find a pragmatic, flexible way to move forward to ensure that we can deliver things for the people in Northern Ireland in the way that was always intended. Ultimately, the future of the protocol will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, through the consent mechanism.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to work with the EU, and hold it to its recent commitment in the Joint Committee to act at pace in further negotiations and in so doing always act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, absolutely. From talking in the meetings we have had with Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, I absolutely believe his commitment to wanting not only to work at pace but to understand the sense and feeling across the entire community and businesses in Northern Ireland. We had the engagement we organised for him just a few weeks ago, and the EU has pledged to do more of that engagement, which is a good thing, so that it can fully understand the needs of both communities and the business community in Northern Ireland. That is an important thing to continue as we move forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his actions in the last week. Is he aware that businesses on the mainland are already losing business as Northern Ireland retailers scramble to source supplies from outside the United Kingdom? An example is a nursery retailer in my constituency which, for the first time in its 75-year history, is ordering from non-UK firms. It has had to place orders outside the UK economy for the first time, to the tune of £10,000. Will the Secretary of State outline when he will draw a line, not just short-term but long-term, and end this protocol, which financially damages all the economies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his views on the protocol more widely, and I would say to him that our work is going to be focused on working with the EU to find pragmatic, sensible, flexible solutions to ensure that the protocol can work. It is part of our obligation and commitment under the protocol to work in a way that is beneficial for the people of Northern Ireland so that they can continue to have the flow of products that they have always experienced. Ultimately, this will mean that Northern Ireland has a huge competitive advantage and a unique position in the world from which it can see its economy grow in the years ahead.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Northern Ireland protocol is an imperfect solution to a complex problem, ensuring that we continue to protect peace on the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that remains the Government’s priority, as it should be for every Member of this House?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. It is important that all of us in this House continually reinforce the point—I will always do—that the UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast-Good Friday agreement is unwavering, and our recognition of that and all of its strands is important. That does not conflict with our view that Northern is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom is better for Northern Ireland being in it.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State think the people of Northern Ireland are stupid? The Government said that there would never be a border in the Irish sea; then they signed up to one. Then they pretended it did not exist, but said that even if it did, they were sure it would have no impact anyway. Now they are saying that, actually, there is one, but we can just ignore it. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop taking people for fools and start showing the responsible leadership required to sort this out?
Brandon Lewis
I assume that the hon. Gentleman therefore supports the moves we took last week in showing leadership to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. We have been consistent in what we wanted to deliver, and we have delivered unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market. We were always clear that we recognised the single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland, which meant that those sanitary and phytosanitary checks would be built upon and put in place, as they have been. As the Command Paper outlined, we want to see a clear, flexible ability for businesses to trade, so that consumers in Northern Ireland will not see their everyday lives disrupted. In fact, the early paragraphs of the protocol highlight that that is the intention of the protocol. That is what we have to focus on, and that is what the decisions last week were about.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that the unique status of Northern Ireland means that it will not be possible for the EU to enforce its single market rules in the same way there as it can elsewhere in the EU? Does he also agree that the only way to achieve a sustainable solution is for the agencies in Ireland to work together with their UK equivalents to build trust and to work out how we can enforce the rules and tackle the key risks while leaving the border in a workable position that businesses can manage?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important and fair point. The Irish Government and their agencies work closely with the UK Government and our agencies and with the Northern Ireland Executive on a wide range of issues to the benefit of people in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and it is important that we continue to do that. He also highlights why it is important that we continue to be very clear about the needs of the people of Northern Ireland—why the protocol was put in place—recognising the unique circumstances and the complexity of the situation in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that the relationship with the Republic of Ireland can work in a smooth and effective way. As I have said before, I absolutely recognise that the EU’s core, prime focus is on the protection of the single market. We are focused not just on protecting the businesses and people of the United Kingdom but on the core determination and commitment to deliver on the Good Friday-Belfast agreement in all of its strands.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I support the aim of trying to minimise unnecessary and disruptive checks, but, on the method, can the Secretary of State tell the House under which article of the Northern Ireland protocol the Government have taken this decision, which he describes as “lawful”, to extend the grace periods? Is it article 16, which allows the UK unilaterally to take appropriate safeguard measures? If not, which other article is he citing as giving the Government the ability lawfully to take this step?
Brandon Lewis
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the article 16 implementation was effectively made by the EU just a few weeks ago, not by the UK Government; that is what has started and led to some of the issues and tensions we have seen in the communities of Northern Ireland. I am pleased that the EU has apologised for that, but we need to recognise that it has had a lasting impact. The measures that I announced last Wednesday are lawful and consistent with the progressive and good-faith implementation of the protocol. They are temporary operational easements, introduced where additional delivery time is needed. They do not change our legal obligations as set out in the protocol—under any of its articles—and we continue to discuss our protocol implementation with the Joint Committee.
These measures are of a kind that is well precedented in the context of trade practice internationally, and they are consistent with our intention to discharge the obligations under the protocol in good faith. As I have said before, the measures are in line with the kind of flexibilities that the Irish Government put in place, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Opposition Member has yet criticised or challenged the Irish Government for what they did. We think those are sensible measures; there are flexibilities that the Irish Government thought they needed in the same way that we do with these measures.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the interest that is being shown by friends and partners around the world in Northern Ireland as an essential part of the United Kingdom—friends who are so interested in our status and in the work that we are trying to do to make one area of our country prosper. I am sure that he welcomes the interest that President Biden has shown, as well as many in the Irish caucus of the United States. Today, Mr Coveney and Mr Šefčovič are meeting the Irish caucus in Washington. Will my right hon. Friend tell me who is there from Her Majesty’s Government, representing the people of Northern Ireland? Is perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), or one of the Northern Ireland Office Ministers going to be in that room, ensuring that the Irish voice that is represented by this House is also present?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend, as always, makes an important point. I welcome our friends and partners around the world taking an interest in any part of the UK. Our friends in the US have always had a very clear interest in issues and matters around Northern Ireland, and have been huge supporters of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for many years. In this role, I have had continuous engagement with colleagues in the Irish caucus who are meeting Vice-President Šefčovič and Simon Coveney today. I look forward to talking to them again in due course myself. I do not think that we are involved as a Government in that meeting today, but I hope that Vice-President Šefčovič will continue that kind of engagement, particularly with the people of Northern Ireland—in both the business community and civic society—building on the meeting that we had a few weeks ago, as he said he would, to really understand some of the issues affecting people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and therefore work with us in a positive way to remedy any issues. I welcome any interest from people around the world and their support for all strands of the Good Friday agreement.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has made very little attempt to persuade the House or anybody else that the Prime Minister knew what he was doing when he signed up to the protocol, but does he recognise that he is now going to have to do a repair job to persuade not just Dublin, Brussels and Washington, but the whole of the world with which we want to work, that the UK is a reliable trading partner—and other forms of partner—because that is not there today?
Brandon Lewis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not make similar comments about the moves that the Irish Government made in January and the flexibilities they put in place. He should support the UK Government in doing what is right for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, working with our partners in the EU, these temporary, pragmatic measures will give us the space to be able to get permanent, long-term solutions, in partnership. Ultimately, we will do what is right for the people of Northern Ireland in respecting the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I support the Government in taking necessary and proportionate action to defend Northern Irish business, but the Secretary of State will know that this House should be committed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that we cannot treat people in one part of the kingdom differently from those in the rest. Will he please redouble his efforts to build closer bilateral relations with our Irish friends? These things are best sorted out between Britain and Ireland, keeping the EU well away from the issue.
Brandon Lewis
I am keen on making sure that we have really good bilateral relationships. I have worked with members of the Irish Government over the past year and we always have very productive and positive conversations. They are good partners to work with. The Irish Government are obviously part of the EU and our negotiation is with the EU, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate. I hope we will be able to have a pragmatic and positive relationship with our partners in the EU, as together we find solutions to this issue that are in the interests of people in Northern Ireland and, yes, in the interests of the whole of the UK and, indeed, the EU as well.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned reforms to Hong Kong’s electoral system by the Chinese National People’s Congress.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The United Kingdom is deeply concerned about the situation in Hong Kong and the erosion of rights enshrined under the Sino-British joint declaration. In response to these worrying developments, the United Kingdom has already taken decisive action. This includes offering a bespoke immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. The United Kingdom has led international action to hold China to account. As recently as 22 February, the Foreign Secretary addressed the UN Human Rights Council to call out the systematic violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, making it clear that free and fair legislative elections must take place with a range of opposition voices allowed to take part.
On the question raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), this week meetings of China’s National People’s Congress are taking place behind closed doors. We understand that the agenda includes proposals for changes to Hong Kong’s election processes. Although the detail is yet to be revealed, these measures might include changes to the election of the Chief Executive, the removal of district councillors from the Chief Executive election committee and the possible introduction of vetting for those standing for public office to ensure that they are described as patriots who govern Hong Kong. Such measures, if introduced, would be a further attack on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.
Ahead of possible developments this week, the United Kingdom has raised our concerns, including with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese embassy in London, as have many of our international partners. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness of our concerns. Given recent developments, including the imposition of the national security law last year, the imposition of new rules to disqualify elected legislators in November and the mass arrests of activists in January, we are right to be deeply concerned. We are seeing concerted action to stifle democracy and the voices of those who are fighting for it.
There is still time for the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to step back from further action to restrict the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and to respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. We will continue working with our partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong and hold China to its international obligations, freely assumed under international law, including through the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration.
Layla Moran [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I would like to thank the Minister for his reply.
This Government have a duty to the people of Hong Kong to guarantee their rights and the integrity of their democratic institutions. The proposals made at the National People’s Congress spell the end of democracy and of one country, two systems in Hong Kong, and are another blatant breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. In response to my last urgent question on this, the Minister told the House that the UK
“will stand up for the people of Hong Kong”,
and
“hold China to its international obligations.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1051.]
Well, here we are again. Almost every prominent member of the democratic movement is in jail. The BBC has been banned in China. Our ambassador has been rebuked just yesterday, and now free and fair elections are being erased. Surely by now, any red line that might have existed has been well and truly crossed.
On Hong Kong, China behaves like a bully, and bullies only understand words when they are followed by concerted action. Does the Minister really believe that it is going to step back? Will the Government now impose Magnitsky sanctions and other measures on the officials responsible, such as Carrie Lam and Xia Baolong? Sanctions were applied in the cases of Belarus and Alexei Navalny. Why there and not here, when we have a direct duty of care? Will the Government take this case to the International Court of Justice? It is up to us to lead that international co-ordinated effort to hold China to account. What conversations has the Minister had with our allies to join us in any actions we take?
I hope that Members across the House will join me in putting on record how welcome all Hongkongers using the British national overseas scheme are to this country. I am distressed to hear that some are now being targeted by China for doing so. Enough is enough. I urge this Government to take immediate action to protect Hong Kong, its democracy and human rights, as they are obliged to do under international law. No more excuses—it is time for real action.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this urgent question to the House. As she rightly says, we will continue to bring together international partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations. It is worth reminding her that the National People’s Congress is currently debating electoral reform behind closed doors. We have made clear our concerns and urge the authorities to uphold their commitments to the people of Hong Kong. She mentioned this being a clear breach of the joint declaration. We declared two breaches of the joint declaration in 2020 in response to the national security law, and when the details of these proposals are published by the NPC, we will closely examine them.
The hon. Lady also referenced our new ambassador to Beijing, who was summoned by the Chinese MFA in response to an article that was posted to the embassy’s WeChat account in her name. I strongly support the work of our ambassador in Beijing and the rest of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this important issue. The United Kingdom is committed to media freedom and to championing democracy and human rights around the world.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I start by saying that Caroline Wilson enjoys the support of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, I am sure, everyone in this House in championing media freedom and the right of a free press to criticise a Government—even, perhaps, this one.
The actions that Her Majesty’s Government have taken in recent months are very welcome. Despite the list that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) set out, the welcoming of British nationals overseas—the correcting of a wrong that we all made in 1984—and of Hong Kong people to the UK is important in standing up for the values that we signed into international law when we signed the Sino-British joint declaration.
I must welcome one or two things that the hon. Lady said, one of which was about Magnitsky sanctions. We really do need to see greater action. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said in the past in championing Magnitsky sanctions and ensuring that they come into law. We now need to see names put to those charges, because this has gone on long enough. We know that the abuses of human rights in Hong Kong have continued, and we need to stand up for those who have been targeted.
Nigel Adams
I thank the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in particular for his work on this issue and his support for our excellent ambassador, Caroline Wilson. He mentions sanctions. As he will know, we do not speculate on who may be designated. They are just one tool in our arsenal. The UK has already offered a new immigration path for BNOs, which my hon. Friend raised. We have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong, and that is all in response to Beijing’s behaviour.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Beijing’s assault on Hong Kong’s electoral system is the latest breach of the Sino-British declaration and is viewed by experts as the final nail in the coffin of Hong Kong’s democracy. It follows the arrest and charging of 47 opposition politicians, 32 of whom were refused bail. As a signatory to the Sino-British declaration, the UK has not only a legal duty but a moral responsibility to stand up for the democratic rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. As parliamentarians, we will feel a sense of profound sadness as we witness this steady suffocation of democracy. For the past few months, the UK Government have just been going through the motions, so may I ask the Minister these questions?
Labour welcomes the BNO offer, but there appears to have been very little planning, and a family of four need £16,000 up front. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the scheme is accessible to all BNOs, and what steps are the Government taking to support their integration into British society?
Hong Kong Watch’s latest report describes Hong Kong as being a “canary in the coalmine” of China’s expansionism, so what assessment have the UK Government made of the threats facing Taiwan, given that Chinese fighter jets and bombers buzzed Taiwanese airspace more than 300 times last year?
China’s growing presence in the UK’s critical national infrastructure clearly has implications for our own national security. What assessment has the Minister made of the role of the China General Nuclear Power group, which owns one third of Hinkley Point, but has been blacklisted in the US for stealing nuclear secrets?
The Conservative party is deeply divided over China, but we cannot afford any more dither and delay. Will the Minister work across Government to undertake an audit of the UK’s relationship with China and come back with a clear strategy to replace their failed golden era policy? What steps has the Minister taken to deliver a co-ordinated international response to China’s assaults on democracy and human rights and, finally, where on earth are those Magnitsky sanctions?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He will have heard the response that I gave to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), on Magnitsky sanctions. With regard to CGN’s involvement in our nuclear sector, obviously, investment involving critical infrastructure is subject to thorough scrutiny and needs to satisfy our robust legal, regulatory and national security requirements, and all projects of this nature are conducted under that regulation to ensure that our interests are protected.
As with all foreign policy priorities, the FCDO recognises the importance of cross-Whitehall collaboration, particularly on Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary regularly chairs a ministerial group meeting attended by Ministers from across Whitehall and a number of Departments. We obviously take any threat to the joint declaration very seriously, but we need to wait and see what comes out of the National People’s Congress before making an assessment. We have already called a breach twice last year, but the hon. Gentleman will need to wait until we have seen what comes out of the NPC.
On BNOs and the integration of BNO passport holders, that is a really important question. We are working across Government and alongside civil society groups and others to support the integration of those thousands of people who will be taking up that route and arriving here. We encourage and look forward to welcoming applications from those who wish to make the United Kingdom their home. The Foreign Secretary has met the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss exactly this issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in contact with one of the Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of those discussions, because it is absolutely crucial that we support those individuals who are coming here from Hong Kong.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing his timely urgent question. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we have heard a lot of this already before. The problem that we have in waiting for the National People’s Congress to come to a decision is that we know what will happen. The Chinese Government have already dismissed the Foreign Secretary’s comments about their failures and essentially told him to mind his own business, despite the fact that we are co-signatories to that agreement. Furthermore, we have evidence from Xinjiang, Tibet, the Christians, the Falun Gong, the entries into the South China sea, and the abuse on the border with India.
The real problem is that we sit and wait for something really substantial to happen. Other countries have moved, but we have still not come forward with Magnitsky sanctions, which were promised again and again. When will this happen? That is the only real action we can take that tells the Chinese that we have had enough of their behaviour and that they now have to step back into line with the international order or they will be sanctioned.
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend asks about action. Well, the action that we have taken on Hong Kong is substantial. He knows the answer on Magnitsky sanctions—we do not speculate on whom, and this is a policy area that is under constant review. Let me give him an example of our action. In response to the arrests in January, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement alongside his Australian, Canadian and US counterparts underscoring our concern. He also released a further statement following the charges of conspiracy to commit subversion brought against 47 of those arrested. We have made the very generous BNO offer. We have made it clear that in our view the national security law violates the joint declaration, and its use in this way to stifle political dissent contradicts the promises made by the Chinese Government as a co-signatory.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We have a video link to Alyn Smith, the SNP spokesperson, who has one minute.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I do feel for the Minister in this discussion, and in the further ones we will have about Hong Kong. I will do my best to be constructive. We are agreed across the House that Hong Kong matters are not a domestic affair specifically and only for Beijing. They are subject to an international agreement and subject to international law. If these measures to curtail democracy come forward—let us be realistic, we are talking about how and when, not if—it will be increasingly clear that the UK Government and global Britain look increasingly toothless, powerless and, most worryingly, friendless in this discussion. I do not say that the UK has done nothing within the UN, but where is the global coalition to move beyond warm words, inaction and concern to action against the economic interests of China. There are measures that can be taken and I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on what assessment has been made of the impact of the sanctions on Chinese economic interests domestically here, however we define domestically, and in the academic community as well. There are things that can be done while we push towards the international coalition.
Nigel Adams
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot speculate on our sanctions regime. I understand why he and many hon. Members will ask the same question, but we cannot speculate on who may be designated under this regime—
Nigel Adams
No, we can’t. That would be rather foolish.
As I have said, sanctions are just one tool in our arsenal. We have already offered the immigration path for BNOs, as I said, and cancelled the extradition treaty. I have an awful lot of time for the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who is very constructive on these issues. We are working closely with our international partners, and the work we have done with the US, with Canada and with Australia, and the statements made by the Foreign Secretary have managed to bring together the international community. As a co-signatory to this joint declaration, we have a responsibility to uphold the content and a duty to speak out when we have concerns. When we do so, it is a matter of trust, and leaders of the international community, including China, also need to live up to their responsibilities.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
There seems to be no purpose in having the Magnitsky sanctions as a tool but popping them on a shelf. If the Minister or the Department feel vulnerable in applying them in a solo fashion, what work is being done with the Five Eyes countries to introduce co-ordinated Magnitsky sanctions against the Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the national security laws? My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned our allies the Americans. Just this morning, the Biden Administration reconfirmed their belief that genocide is taking place against the Uyghur at the hands of the Chinese state. What work is being done with the Minister’s counterparts in America to prevent this genocide from carrying on?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for the assiduous way in which she pursues this matter. She knows exactly what the longstanding policy of the British Government is: any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. She mentioned the United States. It has a different process for determining genocide that is not linked to a court decision. Of course, given our longstanding policy over many decades that this is a matter for a competent court, she will understand the reason behind the responses that she may have heard once or twice before. I make no apologies for having to repeat myself to her.
Chris Bryant
I find this so frustrating. We come back time and again, and we hear exactly the same old words: “We’re not allowed to speculate about using the Magnitsky sanctions.” We do not want anybody to speculate; we want them to use them. It is like they are z, the unnecessary letter. It is like they are an appendix that we are never prepared to use for any bodily function. We should be using them. To be honest, it feels as if the Government are completely two-faced on this—not individual Ministers, but the Government—because one day the Government say, “Yes, it’s terrible what’s happening in Hong Kong. Yes, it’s terrible what’s happening in Xinjiang province,” and the next day the Prime Minister says that he is “fervently Sinophile”. Frankly, we should be calling this out with a great deal of urgency, and we should be using every single tool in the box, so please Minister do not give us all the old stuff all over again. Just get on and do it.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman needs to be congratulated for the work that he has done in the first place, working cross party, to allow and help the Foreign Secretary to deliver our own sanctions regime. Again, we continue to hold China to account. We lead international efforts in that regard. We work very closely with not just the US Administration. We have a huge opportunity this year through our presidency of the G7. What I will say to him—I will try to use slightly different language from that in the answer I provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani)—is that we are carefully and closely considering further designations under our global human rights regime. They were introduced, as he knows, in July, and we will keep all evidence and potential listings under very close review.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the impact of the national security law and the further dismantling of human rights in Hong Kong on freedom of religion or belief, particularly in the light of the raid on Good Neighbour North District Church, the freezing of its bank account, and the Catholic diocese of Hong Kong’s instructions to clergy to be careful in their sermons? What implications does the proposed national security education curriculum have for FORB in faith schools there?
Nigel Adams
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as the Prime Minister’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We are deeply concerned about the issues that she has raised, and about the severity and scale of violations and the abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world, including China. Religious intolerance and persecution are often at the heart of foreign and development policy challenges. Where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other human rights are often threatened too, as she knows full well. The prosperity of Hong Kong and the way of life relies on respect for those fundamental freedoms. We are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for everyone.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, freedom of expression is under attack in Hong Kong like never before. With the introduction of national security education, new censorship guidelines encouraging students and teachers to monitor each other for thought crime, and the removal of pro-democracy academics, the chilling effect on the education sector in Hong Kong is profound. Unfortunately, the UK Government’s visa programme favours the richest in Hong Kong society because of the high costs of the BNO visa route. What steps will the UK Government take to make it easier for students, academics and intellectuals to seek refuge in our democracy?
Nigel Adams
We are actively encouraging people and their immediate family members to apply through our new bespoke immigration route. They will be able to come here to live, study and work. They will be able to choose whether to apply for 30 months’ leave in the first instance, followed by a further 30 months, or to apply straight away for five years. Of course, there is an application fee, as well as the associated immigration health surcharge. Since 23 February, applicants have been able to apply via a fully digitally accessed process. We did an impact assessment in October, and we now estimate that between 123,000 and 153,000 BNOs and their dependants could take up the route in its first year. That is a forecast as exact uptake is likely to vary, but, especially looking over five years, potentially between a quarter of a million and 300,000 people will be using this route—something the whole House will welcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, let me just say that I want to get everybody in on this urgent question, and we have two very well-subscribed debates later, so I ask for single questions, and I am sure the Minister will be succinct in his replies.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
The reported proposals in China’s National People’s Congress to change Hong Kong’s electoral system will break the promises that she has made and end democracy in Hong Kong. With almost every prominent leader in Hong Kong’s democracy movement now on trial, in exile or in jail, what steps are the Government taking in multilateral institutions to hold China to account for her actions?
Nigel Adams
One example of that was on 22 February, when the Foreign Secretary addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council calling out the systematic violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong. We have made it clear that free and fair legislative elections must take place. The impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries supporting the statements that we have led or co-ordinated at the UN: we have gone from 23 countries to 39 within a year. This sends a powerful message to China about the breadth of international concern.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister raise with the Chinese authorities the cases of Lee Cheuk-yan, the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and Carol Ng, its former chair, who have been arrested and charged with organising an illegal assembly and with subversion of the national security law for participating in the democratic primaries? What action do the Government intend to take against those UK-based companies that have expressed support for the national security law, like HSBC and Jardine Matheson, and Swire, which has victimised its workers who have expressed opposition to this law?
Nigel Adams
Through our network, we raise our concerns and have constantly raised our concerns with the Hong Kong authorities, and we will continue to do so. I will make sure that I get an update with reference to the two cases that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is clear that Conservative MPs are deeply divided over how to respond to the Chinese Government’s increasingly belligerent policies and actions, from its assault on democracy in Hong Kong, to the genocide of the Uyghurs, to its mistreatment of minorities and its aggression on the Indian border and in the South China sea. This Government are increasingly out of step with opinion in all parts of the House, so does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for a cross-departmental strategy—it is long overdue—for our engagement with China? If so, what specifically is he doing to take that forward?
Nigel Adams
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) earlier, the Foreign Secretary chairs a cross-Government ministerial group. We meet regularly cross-departmentally on all issues to do with our engagement with China, including Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) refers to the South China sea. We have made it very clear that we encourage all parties to settle their disputes peacefully through existing legal mechanisms, particularly the UN convention on the law of the sea.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only through working with like-minded allies that we will be able to convey to China the international community’s concerns about the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong? Will the Minister ensure that those concerns, along with those of the Uyghur in Xinjiang, are raised when we host the G7 later this year?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. This is a real opportunity for the United Kingdom to raise important matters, as we have the presidency of the G7. It is absolutely crucial that China understands the breadth of international concern regarding its actions not just in Xinjiang but in Hong Kong, and we are taking a leading role in that regard. I referred to the number of countries that have supported our statements at the UN General Assembly Third Committee rising from 23 to 39, and that does send a very powerful message to China.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my assessment that it is inappropriate for UK-based financial institutions, such as HSBC, to have corporate sponsorship in the UK, given their public support for the national security law and the freezing of Ted Hui’s and his family’s bank accounts? Does he agree that this support undermines the UK Government’s attempts to hold the Chinese Government to account?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady raises two important point. I met Ted Hui recently, in February, and we are in close contact with a wide range of businesses in Hong Kong, but it is important that businesses themselves make their own judgment calls. Businesses, including HSBC in Hong Kong, have to do that. They need to be able to stand by each decision they make publicly. We have made a historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong to protect their autonomy and their freedom and, importantly, so did China when it signed the Sino-British joint declaration.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Everybody who values freedom and liberty has an interest in standing together with the people of Hong Kong, but China’s behaviour is a particular threat to the stability of that region. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to strengthen relations in the Indo-Pacific to combat Chinese aggression and the flouting of international law?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a very important question. He will be aware that the Government are about to publish our integrated review, and our Indo-Pacific tilt is not just about any one country, but how we respond to the challenges and opportunities across the whole of this dynamic and important region. We will ensure that we deepen our many bilateral and multilateral partnerships in the Indo-Pacific to address together key challenges in the region and globally.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
After these latest and most troubling examples of Beijing tightening its grip on Hong Kong, how can the UK Government justify not suspending any further trade talks with China in response to its inability to live up to its international treaty obligations? With this Government’s shameful watering-down of the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and now this current situation, how can the Minister reassure the general public that the UK Government are not putting profit above human rights?
Nigel Adams
Of course, the situation is not as the hon. Lady describes. I understand why she has put it in such terms, but we must remember what the Trade Bill is intended to do. Its key measures will deliver for UK businesses and for consumers across the UK, and it provides continuity and certainty as we take action to build a country that is more outward-looking than before. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally, and we are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Under the Sino-British joint declaration, obligations exist that clearly state the UK will ensure a “high degree of autonomy” and way of life in Hong Kong. While I applaud Her Majesty’s Government for introducing the BNO scheme to defend the rules-based international system, we must ensure that China is held accountable, and that there are consequences for breaching a binding treaty. Will my hon. Friend outline how his Department intends to properly hold China to account for breaching the Sino-British joint declaration?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a good point. We are a co-signatory to the joint declaration. We have a responsibility to uphold the content, and a duty to speak out when we have concerns, which is what we have done. We did so last year: the Foreign Secretary has declared two breaches of the joint declaration in response to the national security law, and, of course, when the details that come out of the National People’s Congress are published, we will examine them and respond accordingly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
May I first reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) in extending the warmest possible welcome to Hongkongers coming to the United Kingdom under the BNO passport scheme? As part of that, we should all be calling out any increase in racially motivated abuse or violence against our own Chinese community.
The Minister is quite right when he says that we should not speculate about the list of who might be subject to Magnitsky sanctions, but can I say to him in the nicest possible way that that speculation will continue for as long as he and his colleagues in Government refuse to act? If he wants to end the speculation, the tools for that are in his own hands. Why will he not use them?
Nigel Adams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. He knows what I have to say about sanctions, and that to speculate would be unhelpful, but I will just say to him—as I have said to other hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon—that we are closely and constantly reviewing our sanctions regime. I know it is not the answer that he wants immediately, but that is the situation. We will keep any designation under extremely close review.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that China’s behaviour towards Hong Kong will have a huge effect on China’s standing in the world, and particularly in Africa, where I have seen for myself the extent to which China is involved in the economies of a whole range of countries? Does this not show that China cannot be trusted as a member of the international community?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. No doubt he refers to the belt and road initiative that China has under way on that continent and elsewhere. He is right to say that it is vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation not just in Hong Kong but elsewhere, and we have made clear the extent of our concern directly to the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi. It is precisely because we recognise China’s role in the world, as a fellow member of the G20 and a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council, that we expect it to live up to its international obligations and the responsibilities that come with that stature.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Despite a degree of paranoia on the part of some in mainland China, they should understand that nobody here disputes its sovereignty over Hong Kong. We are, however, joint guarantors of the common law system, democratic rights and freedoms continuing for 50 years after handover. We care about these provisions because our word is our bond. How do we move beyond statements and actually deliver a co-ordinated international response with the US, the EU and democracies in the Indo-Pacific region to this assault on democracy on Hong Kong?
Nigel Adams
I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. This is an assault on democracy in Hong Kong. It looks like what it says on the tin: it is an attempt to stifle that democracy. As I outlined in previous responses, we are working with international partners in this regard and we will continue to do so. We will continue to communicate directly with the Hong Kong authorities and the authorities in China. We have taken robust measures, and our presidency of the G7 this year gives us a great opportunity to step up that work.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what further discussions he is having with Five Eyes allies and other allies so that BNO status holders, who are most welcome in the United Kingdom, have similar rights of abode in those countries? More importantly, if we all act in lockstep, we are much more likely to influence China’s policy towards acting in accordance with international norms of behaviour.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are of course liaising with our international partners, including our Five Eyes colleagues. The United Kingdom is not the only country that is offering access for Hongkongers, certainly since the national security law was introduced. He will know that this is a generous offer for BNO status holders and their dependants. As I said, we are working with international partners, across Government and alongside civil society groups and others to make sure there is effective integration of BNO status holders when they arrive in the United Kingdom.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
Several international media outlets have reported gross human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. Today, 10 March, marks the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against the presence of the People’s Republic of China and the subsequent crackdown on Tibetan independence groups. Does the Minister agree that senior Chinese Government officials who are responsible for these abuses should be sanctioned through the global human rights Magnitsky sanctions legislation?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member is right to mention Tibet. He knows the answer in terms of Magnitsky sanctions. We are very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, where there are restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, assembly and association, as well as reports of forced labour. We are urging China to respect all fundamental rights across the People’s Republic of China, including in Tibet, in line both with China’s own constitution and with the international framework to which it is a party.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
China is in clear breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration, and we must stand with Hongkongers in their fight for freedom. The Minister says that China understands the breadth of international concern about these issues. If China does understand, it does not seem to respect international opinion and is not respecting human rights within China and Hong Kong. May I join the calls for Magnitsky sanctions sooner rather than later?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to push this point and, of course, we are constantly reviewing our regime, as he knows. We have raised our concerns directly and with our international partners, and it is no mean feat to have increased the number of countries signed up to our declaration in the manner in which we have over the past year.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The Chinese Government insist that they are within their rights to unilaterally propose these undemocratic changes to Hong Kong’s constitutional framework, as Hong Kong’s Basic Law was enacted by the Chinese National People’s Congress. What assessment has the Minister made of the validity of this claim and whether it contradicts the Sino-British joint declaration?
Nigel Adams
As the hon. Lady knows, we called two breaches of the joint declaration last year. We will have to wait and see what comes out of the National People’s Congress, possibly this week, but who knows when we are likely to get an accurate read out? We will closely examine what comes out of this, and we will make it clear what action will be taken once we have seen it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend talks about liaising with the United States on the actions that the Communist party of China has taken in abusing human rights in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and elsewhere. Will he also follow the example of the Biden Administration in reviewing this country’s critical infrastructure and supply chain links with the Chinese economy?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course. This is something that we have under review, and we have a responsibility to do so. I think I mentioned early in my remarks, for example, the work we do with China General Nuclear Power Group in the nuclear sector. He is right to raise it, and it is important that we continue to assess those arrangements regularly.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister tell the House which Government Department has overall responsibility for supporting the successful integration of BNO passport holders coming from Hong Kong to the UK? What support is available to Hongkongers who are travelling to the UK under the BNO visa extension? And how can he make the scheme equitable to all those who wish to come?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about the offer to BNOs. Work is happening across Government, and the scheme is devised principally by the Home Office, but in close collaboration with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has the work of ensuring there is proper support not just by Government but across civil society and other groups to ensure that those who take up this route arrive here with the correct support.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
The not-yet-confirmed accounts of proposals being considered by the National People’s Congress would, if true, contradict the commitment of the UK and China that the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong, including those of speech and assembly, will remain unchanged. Does the Minister agree that they might also run against China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong, article 45 of which states that the ultimate aim of elections in Hong Kong is the selection of a Chief Executive by universal suffrage, in accordance with democratic principles?
As chairman of the all-party China group, I will be writing to the NPC on this issue. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether he has raised this with the acting Chinese ambassador, and whether Dame Caroline Wilson has raised it with the Chinese MFA in Beijing?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all the work he does and has done in this area over many years. We have spoken directly to the chargé at the Chinese embassy, and our ambassador in Beijing, who has been there only a small number of months, is in regular contact there as well. My hon. Friend raises the issue of universal suffrage, and we certainly will not be taking any lessons on that from Beijing. We have made clear our concerns and urged the Chinese authorities to uphold their commitments to the people of Hong Kong. That includes respecting their fundamental rights and freedoms, and also Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State and every Member who has requested action, as I do. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps have been taken to co-ordinate with businesses in the financial sector so that they play their part in letting the Chinese Government understand that their continued acts of aggression, which make a mockery of any agreement at all, will have financial consequences?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman speaks regularly in this place on these issues and he has elevated me to Secretary of State. I thank him for that, but there has not been a reshuffle just yet. [Interruption.] That is kind of the Opposition spokesman, but that has certainly not occurred. I am, however, happy to be here responding to this urgent question. We are regularly in touch with businesses in the region to make sure that they are living up to their responsibilities. Whatever decisions they take they have to be responsible for publicly. That is probably the best way of putting the response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that an estimated 250 to 300 former naval and military personnel are at particular risk as Hongkongers who served the British Crown? Will he discuss with the Home Office the fact that it has said in answer to questions, both in June last year and January this year, that their situation is under review and that it is time for that review to be brought to a close and for those Hongkongers who served this country but were not awarded citizenship to have their right to come here now granted?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and I assure him that I will have those conversations on behalf of those who have served the United Kingdom in the way he describes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question and suspend the House for three minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Pig Husbandry (Farrowing)
Wednesday 10th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill 2019-21 View all Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of farrowing crates in pig farming; and for connected purposes.
I am delighted that, because we have these hybrid proceedings, a number of colleagues appear to be present. They may not all be unanimous in support for the Bill, but my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), certainly is.
Pigs happen to be my wife’s favourite animals, and she has never suggested that she married one—in case anyone was thinking that.
It gives me great pleasure to present the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill. The aim of the Bill is to prohibit the cruel and unnatural use of farrowing crates. Just over 50% of sows are placed in these crates a few days before giving birth; it is called farrowing. They are kept there until the piglets are weaned at three to four weeks of age. Sows are, therefore, often kept in these crates for nine to 10 weeks a year, and, in some cases, for longer. The crates are so narrow that the sow cannot turn around.
Almost exactly 30 years ago, on 21 January 1991, Sir Richard Body—one of my predecessors representing Basildon—introduced a private Member’s Bill that sought to ban the use of sow stalls, which were used to confine sows during their pregnancy. A few months later in April, the then Ministry of Agriculture adopted his Bill and banned sow stalls from 1999. That led to a European Union-wide partial ban that came into effect in 2013.
It is with similar intentions that I introduce this Bill. I hope the Government will confirm to me that they will either adopt the Bill or take steps to bring forward their own regulations—I have no vanity on this issue; I just want action on it—and that we will have the same end result: a ban on the use of farrowing crates in England.
In the 1990s, we led the way in developing legislation to enhance the welfare of pigs. That led to substantial improvements that were copied throughout our continent. Yet today, 30 years on, we still permit the use of farrowing crates for sows. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves falling behind nations where laws are either in place or due to come into effect to end the use of farrowing crates altogether or to limit their use to just a few days around farrowing. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Austria and, most relevant of all in the light of it being a major pig farming nation, Germany have all enacted such legislation.
As a patron of the wonderful Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, I must thank Lorraine Platt for her invaluable work on advancing animal welfare and animal rights. My goodness, my party has come a long way since I was first elected, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who takes a different view on this subject. How we have altered our views on animal welfare issues. The foundation’s report details how, despite there being over 200,000 sows confined in farrowing crates each year, the scientific evidence is being ignored and a ban on these crates will have a positive effect on sow welfare.
While confined in farrowing crates, these sensitive and—this is not always understood—intelligent animals are unable to express many of their natural behaviours. How many people realise that they actually make a nest? That is their natural instinct. A recent study found that these sentient beings are intelligent enough even to use a computer joystick to control a curser on a screen to earn a treat. The crates result in the sow being forced to give birth in a tiny space and then nurse their young through bars. The space in the crate is so restricted that all the sows can do is stand up and lie down until their piglets are weaned. Confined in these crates, sows bite and chew the bars, and scrape at the floor in frustration, only to endure painful wounds and sores.
A range of free farrowing pens which provide more space for sows has been developed, including by innovative British engineers, scientists and farmers. We often hear the industry argue that farrowing crates are needed to protect the piglets from being crushed—I am probably second-guessing my right hon. Friend’s speech against the Bill—yet scientific research shows that in well designed and well managed free farrowing pens piglet mortality can be as low or even lower than in farrowing crates. Not only that, but they have been shown to improve productivity and provide many benefits for sow welfare. Forty per cent. of the United Kingdom’s sows are reared in these systems. Calculations based on figures from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board show that piglet mortality has been lower in outdoor systems than in indoor systems in 19 of the last 20 years. This is a great opportunity to improve the welfare of British sows, enhance our country’s reputation for advancing animal welfare and support the ingenuity of British developers.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently published its agricultural transition plan, which recognises that the future farm subsidies scheme
“could relate to improving animal welfare in relation to confinement (e.g. the use of cages and crates)”.
That is very much welcome. However, it must be noted that legislation is needed to make these improvements to pig welfare mandatory. Payments to help farmers reach the required standard of animal welfare would, I am sure, speed the process up considerably.
The Bill I am presenting today foresees that the use of farrowing crates would be prohibited from 2027. This is ample time to allow farmers using these systems to phase them out and take advantage of the Government’s new agricultural support scheme for financial assistance in replacing crates with free farrowing systems.
In 2019, the wonderful organisation Compassion in World Farming led a coalition of United Kingdom animal welfare charities in securing over 107,000 signatures on petition No. 243448 calling for Britain to “End the Cage Age”. That petition was echoed by a European citizens’ initiative, which was supported by 170 animal welfare non-governmental organisations from across Europe and which secured 1.4 million signatures in support. I praise the work that Compassion in World Farming continues to do to promote animal welfare in this country, and especially in helping me to deliver this Bill.
The Prime Minister stated in this Chamber that
“there are measures we will be able to implement as a result of Brexit—such as banning sow farrowing crates”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 364-365.]
We must not waste the monumental opportunity provided by Brexit to position Britain as a global leader on animal welfare. This Bill is a significant step in delivering on that promise.
As one of the driving forces behind, and one of the first to implement, a ban on sow stalls across the European Union, the United Kingdom should not now be falling behind European Union member states in the area of pig welfare. I hope that the Government will support this Bill to ensure that it becomes law and to fully recognise the unnecessary pain and suffering that sows experience in farrowing crates. I commend the measure to the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and I have served together in the House for nearly 38 years. As well as being one of my oldest friends, he is a first-rate constituency MP and he speaks very well for all his constituents in his largely urban seat. In all fairness, however, I think that the voice of farmers should also be heard. I represent the constituency of Gainsborough—600 square miles of north Lincolnshire countryside, with very varied agriculture, including a number of pig farmers.
As my hon. Friend said, both of us have been campaigning for Brexit for many years and this is an opportunity to further animal welfare. I am wholly in favour of any measures to try to improve animal welfare. I love animals as much as he does. However, I disagree about the best way to achieve it when it comes to the issue of piglet welfare, and let me explain why.
Agriculture, at this time of Brexit, is in a state of transition. There are many challenges facing agriculture, including covid and customs difficulties, but the real reason why this Bill is not appropriate is that alternative farrowing systems simply allow too many piglets to die.
I fully understand the problems of existing farrowing crates. Nobody denies that. No one likes the idea of not allowing a mother sow to turn around. I speak having spoken to the pig industry here, and we must be entirely frank that this situation is not ideal, but, unfortunately, acceptable alternatives simply do not exist at present. Too many piglets will simply die if this Bill becomes law, and we know that solving one problem by creating another is generally not wise. That is what this Bill would do.
Of course, as my hon. Friend said, we have tried this before. In 1999, a dry sow stalls ban was introduced. The result was a greatly damaged pig industry. According to the industry, it was pretty much cut in half. The UK then imported larger and larger quantities of EU pork using the very stalls that were illegal in the UK. It was 14 years before that total ban was loosened.
Progress is constantly being made in the British pig sector and, in terms of animal welfare, it is far ahead of most other pig-producing countries in the world. It should be said that 40% of the national sow herd farrow freely outdoors in outdoor pig units. Of course the industry, aware of the problems and of public opinion, is constantly developing new systems, but it does need time to find solutions that bring down pig mortality. These crates were introduced to save piglets’ lives. They were not introduced out of cruelty. They were introduced by farmers who love their animals and are absolutely committed to animal welfare. The present system, therefore, is right for animal welfare. It avoids deaths.
I have spoken with the National Pig Association. It tells me that, if the Bill passes in its present form, it could result in up to 1 million baby piglets dying each year. This is foreseeable and preventable. Hon. Friends may disagree with that. I am not an expert and they are not experts. I am just repeating what the industry is saying and it is right that such a vital industry should be heard in this House. What is absolutely certain, though, is that we do not want unnecessarily to increase the number of deaths of piglets.
With regard to alternatives, there is, of course, a shortage of suitable free-draining land. I personally believe that the best way forward is to continue discussions with the industry. We have to think about stock person safety and the mental wellbeing of farm workers. We have to look at alternatives and possible trade deals and equivalence. All these issues are very important.
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill forward, but I am afraid that it is not ready to become law yet. Let us work together to protect pigs wisely and not rashly. I oppose this Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir David Amess, Ian Byrne, Dr Lisa Cameron, Tracey Crouch, Geraint Davies, Sir Roger Gale, Chris Loder, Kerry McCarthy, Andrew Rosindell, Dean Russell, Henry Smith and Theresa Villiers present the Bill.
Sir David Amess accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 272).
Estimates Day
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The debate will be led by Julian Knight, but I remind hon. Members that, immediately after Julian Knight, a four-minute time limit will be in effect. A countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and a clock will obviously be on the screens in the Chamber.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
This pandemic has highlighted just how widespread the responsibilities of the Department are: from our rich coastal communities that rely on tourism, to the world-renowned theatres, galleries and museums of our cities, our festivals and music events. They are all significant drivers not just of tourism spending, but of domestic spending. DCMS also has oversight of the charity sector, which has been ravaged by this pandemic.
Across the DCMS space, this has been the hardest hit of any sector in the economy. It was among the first to close and is likely to be the last to reopen. Covid is almost designed to damage the sector because it relies on the close interaction of people.
Many DCMS businesses are incredibly complex and, in the past, have not relied heavily on Government support; they have just got on making money and employing millions of people. This means, though, that the Treasury is perhaps less familiar with the intricacies of their work than with other more regulated businesses and industries such as financial services. It also means, to be frank, that there is less knowledge about how best to support them as we recover.
Before the pandemic, Britain’s DCMS sectors were some of the fastest growing, with the creative industries growing at three times the rate of the UK economy as a whole. The creative industries alone contributed over £115 billion to the UK in 2019. That is equivalent to £315 million almost every day, which is a phenomenal contribution. We have world leadership in many of the sectors, including games, music—we have 9% of global music sales—and, as I will return to shortly, festivals and live music events. Covid-19 has meant that most of those sectors have been shuttered for almost a year, with several months yet before they are able to reopen under the Government’s road map. The Prime Minister’s road map set out dates that can now be the target for entertainers, producers, technical staff and audiences alike to get their shows back on the road, so to speak.
The DCMS sectors are estimated to account for over a fifth of the UK economy. Without the growth from those sectors, the UK economy would have been in recession for three of the last four years; yet DCMS spends less than 1% of total Government spending. Although it has some very fine Ministers and officials, it is still seen as somewhat of a Cinderella Department within Westminster. That should not be the case, because those sectors are crucial to our aspirations for global Britain.
Approximately one third of our creatives have been unable to access any Government support during the pandemic, apart from universal credit. It has been difficult for them to meet the rules of the Treasury support schemes due to the fact that they may not have enough evidence of past income to prove what they need. Those excluded are still excluded, and I have to say that many of them are in a very desperate state indeed today.
The culture recovery fund, which the Minister will no doubt refer to, was incredibly welcome, with its £1.57 billion for the arts, but that money was less than half what the sector said that it needed. The second tranche of money is coming to the end of its allocation while thousands of creative businesses remain unable to operate, whereas the tranche of money announced in December still has not been fully distributed. There are question marks over the pattern of distribution, which my Committee will raise with the Arts Council on 12 April. There is a feeling that perhaps those with the sharpest elbows—those with the biggest names—have benefited the most.
I am hopeful, though, that the welcome extra £300 million of investment into the culture recovery fund that was announced in the Budget will mean, effectively, that some of the harder-to-reach community organisations that may not have benefited from the first tranche of cash will be able to benefit in the months ahead. They will help to rebuild our cultural recovery from the ground floor up. It is, however, probably still not enough to see our world-leading arts through the pandemic and post-pandemic period. It is therefore vital that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport gets the recovery right, and continues to provide sector-specific tailored support to those industries, which must be given the support and certainty to reopen as it becomes safe to do so.
There are questions to be asked about the support that those sectors are getting from DCMS, and how best it ought to be directed. For many months the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been arguing for a number of measures, be it an extension of VAT relief so that companies are in a position to sell tickets and benefit from it, to the expansion of reinsurance schemes to cover live events, live performances and the music festival season.
It was a relief to see in the Budget last week that the Chancellor listened, and that an extension of the VAT cut has been announced. Undoubtedly, that will be the push needed over the summer for many of our hospitality and tourism businesses, which have suffered so greatly, but for cultural events and exhibitions alike that may not be enough. To benefit from the reduced rate, they must be able to sell tickets and, up to this point, events have not been happening.
For live events truly to survive this season, the reassurance of a Government-backed insurance scheme is key. It is estimated that a £650 million insurance scheme for live events would allow more than £2 billion of activity to go ahead. That is thousands of jobs across the country— 975 festivals. I know that everyone thinks of them as basically a bunch of kids in a muddy field in Glastonbury, but that is an outlier; we are talking about festivals of small, medium and large scale in all our constituencies across the country. We all know people who appreciate these cultural events—the way they feed into our cultural bloodstream and their vital importance to our way of life.
While there is any possibility of events being cancelled, the industry relies on Government-backed insurance. There is market failure; no one in the private sector is covering covid. The industry cannot survive without a second summer season in a row. It must be said that the live events sector, in which we are world leaders, is near vanishing point. I was pleased to see the extension of the film and TV production restart scheme, giving producers the confidence to return to production, yet the same confidence is key for live events to be able to survive.
At this juncture, I want to flag to the House an important matter that is increasingly coming to my attention. The uncertainty surrounding the live events sector and the increasing desperation of consumers to enjoy themselves once again is leading to the potential for real consumer detriment, with the sale of tickets for events that will not take place or have no possibility of taking place at full capacity.
I am increasingly getting reports of individuals who say that they are hosting a festival but have no permission to do so yet, yet they are selling tickets on the promise of live entertainment in the future. Even if they later have to cancel that festival, there is every chance that they will still make some money, because many people may not ask for their money back as a refund. I alert the House that, without the surety of an insurance scheme and getting everything in black and white, there is an opportunity for potentially less scrupulous individuals to make money out of our hopes and ambitions for a great summer.
That is without even looking into the tremendous knock-on effects on the local economies of places that play host to live events. As I referenced earlier, Glastonbury generates over £100 million for the south-west, but more generally, in all our constituencies, for every £10 spent on a live music ticket, £17 is spent in the local economy. Essentially, without the creative industries and live events, there will be no economic recovery from the pandemic.
The UK is poised to host COP26 later this year. The world will be watching on as we host that great event. It is key that we get the pilots up and running. The National Exhibition Centre, one of the largest organisers and hosts of events in the country, tells me that without the pilots—without ways of testing covid-security, access into events and the way they are organised, and without trying to get individuals re-involved in the supply chain—there is every chance that COP26 will be like the austerity games, the Olympic games post the second world war; they will not be the jamboree that the Prime Minister hopes for, because we do not have the wherewithal. We are losing muscle from these sectors, and we need to replenish it in short order. I therefore urge the Government to get a handle on this and to ensure that the pilots go ahead as quickly as possible—a date of May is mentioned to me as essential—to ensure success at the back end of the year.
The cultural and creative sectors are one of the UK’s greatest exports, but they do vital work in our communities too. Even among those institutions that will survive the pandemic, such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, there is likely to be a reduction in outreach programmes. Similarly, with another significant underspend in the National Citizen Service, poor and minority ethnic children, already worst affected by the prolonged closure of schools, will be those worst affected by a lack of outreach programmes and access.
Social mobility stands to suffer significantly as the arts and performance struggle. In normal times, Britain’s cultural and creative sectors are world-beating, thriving growth sectors; without significant support in the recovery, the damage of covid-19 will scar these industries for years to come.
Finally, I wish to touch on EU visas. Creatives and those in all the parts of the sectors covered by DCMS, including the games industry, performance, music, theatre and cultural events, are frankly bemused at the current arrangement—or lack thereof—with our partners in the EU. In effect, the industry has had a no-deal Brexit. Many Members represent fishing constituencies and we have spent a lot of time and bandwidth talking about that; however, we did not settle the issue of access for our creative people, in respect of whom we had an economic advantage over the EU and with the EU prior to departure. That is a major oversight.
We now face the prospect of having to go to each country in turn to negotiate visa arrangements individually. As yet, we do not know precisely what our asks are, which I find quite incredible considering our huge balance of trade surplus in the creative sectors. We really must ensure that individuals are able to travel as freely as possible and to take their equipment with them through cabotage. After all, the sector is all about people. It is about some of our most creative people—people who represent Britain on the world stage and make our lives better. Although the Government have offered a lot of support over the past 12 months—I acknowledge that—we cannot take our eye off the ball now. More work needs to be done and we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight). Although we are on different political sides, those of us who serve on the Committee are in complete agreement on these issues.
Last week, when we debated the cultural and entertainment sectors, I made a few points on which I thought the Government could act in the Budget. The first related to the plight of freelance musicians, artists and others who have been excluded from the Chancellor’s criteria for support. I pointed out that in Wales some funds have been set aside for support, but that what we really needed was cross-UK action from the Chancellor. The Chancellor has done the very minimum in his Budget, by simply recognising that it has been so long for some of the excluded—that is, the newer self-employed—that they have now become eligible for the self-employment income support scheme. He has done nothing to support those excluded by his arbitrary criteria. He has decided that they are to be treated as second-class citizens. It is deliberate and unjust, and it will not be forgotten by musicians, artists and others who have been snubbed.
My second point was on the need to help to restart the live music sector with, as the Select Committee Chair said, a Government-backed insurance scheme. Our Committee wrote to the Chancellor to call for such a scheme and the response from the Government was a classic example of blinkered Treasury thinking. The insurance market cannot provide the cover needed for festivals because of covid uncertainty. The Government say that they have an irreversible plan for reopening; were they to underwrite a scheme, that would show confidence in not only live music but their own pronouncements. If their own words turned out to be true, they would never have to pay out anything.
Other countries have taken similar action, with much lower vaccine roll-out rates, and of course it is being done for film and television. For the want of a tent peg, many festivals will have to be collapsed this summer. That is the Chancellor’s second failure of policy and action. As the Select Committee Chair pointed out, there are now opportunities for the scammers and outlaw companies such as Viagogo to take advantage by once again ripping off people who want to buy tickets for events that might never happen and might never exist.
Thirdly, the Chancellor should have announced a scheme to ensure that musicians and artists could resume touring in EU countries. I note the launch of the “Carry on Touring” campaign’s website today. On social media today I saw the case of someone called Ed Lyon, a classical musician who has just spent six weeks and £945 to obtain a work permit for Belgium. Previously, in normal times, he could have just hopped on a train. The Chancellor is utterly complacent about the loss of export earnings to UK that this continuing fiasco will bring. Lord Frost is now his Cabinet colleague. Why has he not been told to do the job that he so abjectly failed to do in December when he delivered a no-deal Brexit for artists, musicians and their ancillary support industries?
This Budget, despite some investment, did not do nearly enough to save jobs and support growth in the creative industries—the sectors with the fastest growth potential. It has left freelance workers out in the cold, it has thrown a summer of music into a muddy field of uncertainty and it has closed the gate on touring for our creative artists and musicians. Far from doing “whatever it takes”, it has taken away the opportunity to create.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
The Government have provided substantial support for the cultural, sporting and creative sectors since the start of the covid pandemic. This has been welcome but also essential, as many organisations within these sectors rely on revenue from tickets and events to survive. Through no fault of their own, they have been required to close, and the cultural recovery fund, in addition to the funding to support sports and TV and film production, has helped many important bodies to keep going that otherwise might have closed for good.
However, we now need to focus on the road ahead, through to the lifting of the covid social contact restrictions on 21 June and beyond. The coronavirus has challenged the whole of our society, but it has also exposed further weaknesses in sectors that in some cases we already knew about. The point has been well made about the need for pandemic insurance for the events industry. Events and live performances have already become incredibly important to the music sector, because the remuneration that artists get from on-demand streaming services is relatively low, but these events will not take place unless an insurance scheme can be put in place.
This is not just about events that could be held this summer; it needs to be done on an ongoing basis. It could be some time before the industry has any certainty, because new variants of covid might require further restrictions on the capacity of audiences and therefore restrict the viability of the event itself. Just as, several years ago, the Government partnered with the insurance industry to create Flood Re to minimise the risk of flood insurance and reduce the costs, we need a similar scheme to help to make insuring live events viable and reduce the cost to people putting on those events.
In football, the lack of a strong national governing body for the sport that is able to ensure fair dealing in financial matters has been badly exposed. Many football clubs were in great distress before the pandemic struck. Clubs in the championship division of the English football league were routinely spending more than they earned each year on players’ salaries alone, and were running a financially unsustainable model. There has been no real recognition of the impact of the covid restrictions on professional football. The money within the game has not been enough to solve all the problems, and the support that has been given is minimal. Many clubs continue to rack up large debts. At the moment, a lot of the football league is being run on unpaid taxes. It is believed that the amount of unpaid taxes owed to HMRC by football clubs could be in the hundreds of millions of pounds. We need a proper financial regulator for football to ensure that clubs are run on a sustainable basis for the long term, but in the short term we may need to look at how some sort of financial assistance can be given to those most in distress. Clubs outside the premier league are largely community assets, and they need to be run in a sustainable way.
I want to make two other points briefly. The last 12 months have exposed just how influential disinformation and hate speech on social media can be, particularly in relation to anti-vaccine campaigns to undermine confidence in the vaccine and spread conspiracy theories about the pandemic. It makes the bringing forward of the online harms Bill this year so important for the Department, and we must also ensure that there are proper resources for Ofcom, as the regulator, to ensure that there can be proper auditing and inspection of the way social media companies respond to campaigns of disinformation and hate speech, and other speech that can cause harm through social media networks. We have been talking about this for many years and I am glad that the Bill is coming, but it is also an imperative.
Finally, the pandemic has also had a big impact on the advertising industry and broadcasting revenues from advertising, just as other media have struggled with revenue from advertising. There is no guarantee that this money will bounce back, particularly as audiences are increasingly diverting their attention to online services—social media to receive news and on-demand platforms to view content. Increasingly, many people spend time not watching broadcast material at all, but playing games and doing other things online. This potentially undermines the public service broadcasting model in this country. I welcome the fact that we have the PSB review, but we need to understand that the long-term impacts of rising production costs for television due to the impact of Netflix and Amazon Prime and of declining advertising revenues because of switching audience attention are fundamentally changing the market, and if we have media that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid we do have to move on.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, first, can I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I do not think that my continuing association with the live entertainment industry represents any conflict of interest; rather, it gives me an insight into the trauma that this industry has faced during the pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to you from the great city of Edinburgh, whose name is synonymous with cultural creativity, and has been since the days of the Scottish enlightenment. In the modern era, the city has become host to the world’s pre-eminent arts festivals, and every August more than 2 million people congregate on the streets of Scotland’s capital to celebrate, participate and perform—every August until last August. The Edinburgh festivals, and the fringe in particular, are not only the largest platform in the world for Scottish talent, but the largest platform anywhere in the world for English talent, which is a reason by itself for DCMS to be extremely concerned about its future.
As we debate this matter this week, people are meeting in Edinburgh and beyond—venues and producers are meeting with city and national Government—to see whether it will be possible for the 2021 festivals to go ahead. They are grappling with a terrible dilemma. How on the one hand do we respect, maintain and protect public health in a situation where the virus is still transmitting in the community, while at the same time trying to stage events that, by their very nature, are about bringing people together and causing human interaction? We do not yet know what is going to happen in 2021, but we do know that most of the activity will be outdoors, and it will be considerably smaller and shorter-lasting than before.
We must see this not as a return to normal, but as one step towards a recovery that will take several years. That means that we need to press for a commitment from this Government in the medium term—not just for months, but for years. It would be churlish not to recognise the great efforts that have been made by the UK and Scottish Governments towards the sector, and that is widely acknowledged, but just because it has been good, that does not mean it cannot be better, and there are three things that the DCMS really ought to consider doing as a matter of priority.
The first thing is insurance. It is almost impossible now to get insurance against the cancellation of a live event because of covid-19. The Government should step in and either provide a scheme directly or underwrite one if they do want these events to go ahead, because producers simply cannot take the risk of committing vast sums of money to pre-production and planning.
Secondly, we need to continue business support not just for one year, but through at least until 2024. That means the Government must make funds available directly through funding in England and through consequential funding to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The third thing we need DCMS to do is to be much more of a champion for this sector. We have heard already how this Department is very much the Cinderella of Government Departments. That has to stop, and we need people who will stand up for the sector and advocate for what is necessary. That applies in particular in relation to the Treasury, which is responsible for most of the direct wage support. We need to try to get through the tin ear of the Treasury and make sure that it responds to the very great gaps in support that particularly afflict this sector more than others. If we do that, then when we come back in a year’s time, we may still have a sector to be proud of. If we do not, it may be very much in jeopardy.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I want to begin by putting on record my thanks to the Department for its efforts during the pandemic. From my personal experience as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for museums, I know that the Minister for Digital and Culture, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), and, indeed, the Secretary of State have made themselves readily available to discuss issues and concerns in the sector. I know that the National Museum Directors’ Council has felt able to raise issues and has found the Department to be a listening one.
The pandemic has meant that the Department has gone from being one of the Departments with the smallest budgets in Whitehall to effectively a delivery agency to keep our wonderful and important cultural institutions afloat. Without the culture recovery fund and other funds that the Department has allocated, I fear for the sustainability of our museums and vital cultural attractions. Clearly, there are issues about when museums, in particular, can open, and I urge that they are given the earliest opportunity to do so, as they have proven that they can be covid secure. However, I welcome the extension of the culture recovery fund to September, which will be a lifeline for organisations.
Financial support does not equal instant recovery. Restrictions will continue on income-generating activities for museums, and the lack of international tourism will affect museums well into 2022 if not into 2023. That will be the case, as has been mentioned, for all cultural events. Continued support from the Department will be needed to avoid closures and job losses.
If the Department is looking for additional policy ideas to enhance its already impressive levels of support, I want to put several on record. First, a sunset clause is approaching in April 2022 for the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief, which has been a huge enabler for the sector. I urge the Department gently to persuade the Treasury to extend the relief permanently. There is also the need to address underlying issues that were already in existence before the pandemic began, particularly the need for capital investment in museums that are in need of repair so that they can maintain their estates. The backlog is substantial. I request that the Department confirm as soon as possible when museums will receive money promised in the museums maintenance, estate and development fund, and whether this vital fund will continue into the next three years, as was originally planned before the pandemic began. It is vital that it does.
It is a truism that our past points the direction to our future, and this is equally true when it comes to recovering from the pandemic. We cannot afford to lose our unique and wonderful cultural heritage, which needs our help now. In return, it will be there for us in the future, both as institutions that can help level up local communities and as something that can assist our educational recovery. These are internationally renowned cultural centres that I believe we have a duty of care to protect and preserve for future generations.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Let me thank and congratulate the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for how they have jointly championed the sector on a cross-party basis. They have raised the issues of the lack of support for freelancers, the touring threat as a result of Brexit, and insurance. I fully support them in that. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to sit down with Equity, the trade union, to discuss a number of the issues, as the union has been developing solutions to them.
I am also a member of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. PCS represents members working in museums, the royal palaces, galleries and historical sites, and is now yet again faced with large numbers of job threats.
The Government have brought forward financial support, as we have heard, with £1.5 billion and an additional £400 million in the Budget, but as the Chair of the Select Committee has said, that is less than half what is needed. It is taking too long to arrive and too long to distribute, and as a result we heard this week that six out of 10 museums are fearful for their future. Charlotte Higgins, the chief culture writer for The Guardian, summed it up exactly right:
“the government has not exactly abandoned the arts so much as behaved in a hesitant, inconsistent and basically incompetent manner easily recognisable from its approach to Covid-19 as a whole.”
What we need now is a longer-term strategy, as a number of Members have said, because I am fearful.
Let us take the example of the National Gallery. PCS represents members there, and some of the services have been privatised. Securitas, the private company that provides security and front-of-house services at the National Gallery, has announced a 20% cut in staffing. Compulsory redundancies are not being ruled out, and this is an institution that has received Government support. That comes on top of redundancies that took place in 2019, when there was a restructuring. It is proposing the temporary closure of some of the rooms and putting an emphasis on paid exhibitions rather than free access. There is a view that when these cuts are rolled out, they will put the safety of the collection and visitors at risk.
What has also angered staff is that, as a result of the privatisation, it is the lowest-paid staff who are being laid off or having their pay cut, as well as a higher proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic staff. In addition, the National Gallery spending several million pounds on extensive refurbishment of the front entrance to the building is not going down well with staff or supporters. It has to be remembered that those staff who have been privatised receive only a quarter of what they would have received in redundancy pay if they were employed by the gallery. The union will oppose those cuts and seek to negotiate them—of course it will—but this emphasises the need for a longer-term strategy.
We have all acknowledged in the debate so far that the recovery in this sector will take longer than originally expected—it will take the next few years, if not longer—so there needs to be a longer-term plan. We urge the Secretary of State to bring together all the stakeholders in this sector with the trade unions and management of the galleries, museums and sites to ensure that we discuss what is really needed, plan the investment that is needed and its roll-out and distribution, and ensure that it goes as rapidly as possible to secure this sector, which does not just bring income to this country but improves the quality of all our lives.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. To keep close to the subject matter and the departmental responsibilities, with apologies to culture, I will briefly touch on one digital issue, one media issue and one sport issue, each pertinent and potent to my constituents.
I turn first to digital and, in particular, broadband and mobile coverage. I welcome the Government’s up-front commitment to the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband across the country, not least the £5 billion pledged in the Conservative manifesto and set aside to cover at least 85% of the country by 2025. I remind the House that 1 gigabit is 1,000 megabits and—given the 12 megabits per second that me, my wife and my four children have been living with over the last year—that is a huge difference, not least for many in my rural communities, with the burgeoning economic, social and health benefits that have been amplified by covid.
For Eddisbury, which ranks 599th out of 650 constituencies for superfast broadband coverage and where 12% of residents receive downloads of less than 10 megabits per second, this is an ever more vital and significant infrastructure project and one that will be truly transformative. However, it is fair to say that there is some nervousness about the speed of delivery, borne out by looking through the spending review of 2020, the recent Budget and the supplementary estimates. Only £1.2 billion of the gigabit programme’s £5 billion budget is now allocated to subsidise its roll-out over the next four years, and there is an £83.6 million reduction for the rural gigabit connectivity in capital departmental expenditure limits. It is also the case that the rural gigabit voucher scheme is set to close on 31 March this year, although I understand that a new scheme from April is in the offing; perhaps the Minister would kindly confirm so in closing the debate.
It is clear to me from previous debates we have had in the House and discussions with the excellent Digital Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), that the absolute necessity—ratcheted up and accelerated by covid—of a complete national gigabit infrastructure capability remains a real and pressing priority for both Government and industry. Any reaffirmation of that by the Minister at the Dispatch Box today, together with a renewed commitment to work alongside the telecoms industry to help remove any barriers preventing progress at pace, would be extremely helpful.
Secondly, on media and the BBC licence fee, the BBC announced in June 2019 that free licences for all over-75s would end from 1 June 2020, but implementation was delayed to 1 August last year thanks to the pandemic. In Eddisbury, over 5,700 households are affected; and nationally one in seven elderly households —or 814 in my constituency—have yet to make the necessary arrangements, meaning that they all remain at risk of sanctions. Clearly that is an absurd state of affairs, whereby if the new system does not resolve itself, it will accidentally criminalise a significant number of elderly people for literally doing nothing. Despite a strong case made by Lord Botham and others for the decriminalisation of such circumstances, it is a step that the Government are yet to take. I am sure they will return to it sooner rather than later.
Finally, I welcome the Government’s strong support for grassroots sport set out in the £300 million sport winter survival package. That has helped keep many community clubs afloat, but it is also a chance to build back better. To that end, I know the Minister is aware and very interested in advanced plans to build and open the first ever women’s and girls’ national football centre of excellence in Winsford to rival St George’s Park and help grow our grassroots sport for the generations to come. I hope support for that laudable project will feature, perhaps not in this estimates day, but in future ones.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the outset, as chairman of the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group, may I say how grateful I am to the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for his support and help over the past weeks and months.
As others have pointed out, investing in culture will be part of the key to recovery in all other sectors. It is part of the way we live our lives in this country. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, live events were among the first to shut down because of the pandemic, and they will also sadly be the last to reopen.
Recently I have referred to the particular needs of our highland games. I and my party are calling for the Government to extend the 5% VAT cut to tickets for live events for up to three years. That is because so far live events, such as the highland games, have simply not been able to profit in any way from the VAT cut, because they have not been selling any tickets whatever. I hope that that will be looked upon with some favour and considered by the Government. That would be very helpful.
Sadly, I have learned today of the cancellation of yet another highland games. The Inverness highland games are not going to be held. It is worth pointing out that these events make a huge contribution to the Scottish economy. One of the downsides of my having become an MP is that I can no longer get away with masquerading as a French or German tourist and getting a free glass of Glenmorangie whisky in the tent at the Tain highland gathering, which is there for foreign visitors only. My face has become too well known. It does raise this point, which is that 25% of the people attending highland games all over Scotland are from countries outwith the UK. One can imagine the amount of money they bring into the UK. They make a very important contribution.
Changing tack to PAYE freelancers and the excluded, I welcome—it would be churlish not to—the culture recovery fund. That has been a good thing, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, that most freelancers have not worked at all in the cultural industry since March last year, so they have not benefited from the fund. As has been mentioned, Equity, the actors’ union, has a view on that. It says:
“40% of Equity members have not received a penny from the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme”,
and that is despite those same people being unable to claim through the job retention scheme.
As chair of the gaps in support APPG, I endorse Equity’s proposals that seek to support these people. One thing we could do is allow freelancers to make a claim based on total income—both trading and non-trading profits—to eliminate the 50:50 exclusion. Equally, I endorse the APPG’s proposal to implement an urgent stopgap grant of £7,500, or £2,500 for three months, under the self-employment income support scheme, to pay PAYE freelancers who have been excluded from Government support.
The fact is that, as has already been said, there is a question mark over the future of the Edinburgh festival, and I have long advocated some sort of Government support for insurance cover. It could be done—insurance cover for terrorism is already done—and I do hope that the Government will look favourably on that. At the end of the day, the Edinburgh festival fringe brings in £500 million in direct spending and a further £560 million in indirect spending to the Scottish economy, so what I say—I think we are all singing off the same sheet this afternoon—is that on the happy day that we get through the pandemic, let us celebrate, but let us also make sure that we have a culture industry that can help us celebrate.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
I want to concentrate my remarks on the media industry, which was in crisis well before the pandemic hit. The fallout from covid-19 will only worsen the situation, unless adequate support and funding is secured. As it stands, sector-specific support for journalists and, in particular, freelancers is seriously lacking. The enormous power of the tech giants has destroyed the long-established news business model. In response, the National Union of Journalists has put together a news recovery plan, which consists of a raft of measures and interventions to ensure a pluralistic, diverse and vibrant news ecosystem. It sets out specific proposals for a levy on the tech giants based on the huge profits of these companies, which have increased vastly during the pandemic. That would fund public interest journalism.
I strongly encourage the Minister to engage with the National Union of Journalists on the proposals in its recovery plan, to ensure a sustainable recovery from the pandemic. The failure to tax excess profits of tech giants will directly impact professional journalism and result in the loss of uniquely valuable regional current affairs programmes such as the BBC’s “Inside Out” programme, broadcast in constituencies such as mine. To make matters worse, the poor funding settlement arising from the last royal charter review of the BBC is resulting in a loss of 550 jobs from BBC News. The BBC is the heart of the creative economy, and supports employment in the wider sector. Indeed, every £1 spent by the BBC generates an additional £2 in the wider economy.
In addition, the impact of the Government’s failure to honour their manifesto commitment to protect free TV licences for the over-75s has not only had a direct impact on the lives of tens of thousands of elderly and vulnerable people, but has had serious consequences for BBC budgets. The pandemic has further exposed the precarious nature of freelance work and the relative lack of protection for freelance journalists. Once again, I draw the Minister’s attention to the NUJ’s freelance charter, which sets out 10 specific proposals to secure a fair deal for freelancers. These include trade union collective bargaining to improve terms and conditions for freelance journalists and equalising rights with full-time employees, including sick pay, maternity pay, paternity and parental leave, unemployment benefits, and full access to benefits and social securities.
In conclusion, I urge Ministers to work constructively with the National Union of Journalists to ensure that those who are currently excluded have access to the support they need. I also echo the comments of other right hon. and hon. Members by praising and thanking the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who have been extremely helpful in their listening to the concerns of Members, and proffering advice and making representations to Ministers.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
This debate is very important, because the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is going to play a crucial and central role in our recovery from the pandemic.
Historically, the core funding for DCMS is humble compared to that for many other Departments. According to my very rough calculations, for every £1 that DCMS got for core funding in 2020-21, the Department of Health and Social Care received £64, and that is quite right. The same budget for health grows by some £8 billion a year, while DCMS only gets a £100 million annual uplift, and that is also quite right. We are all acutely aware of the importance of a robust and well-funded NHS, especially at a time like this, but we must remember where that money comes from, and DCMS is one of the biggest economic contributors. A well-funded NHS would be an impossibility without those contributions.
Of course, DCMS includes the creative industries, which contributed over £115 billion to the UK’s economy in 2019. That is equivalent to £315 million every day, or over £13.1 million an hour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) told us last week, the UK would have been in recession for each of the last three years if it had not been for the creative industries, so DCMS and all its sectors are vital, and we need to ensure that the Department has all that it needs to help those important industries back on their feet after the pandemic.
A major part of the creative industries is, of course, the performing arts—in all its guises. It is not only cash that this sector brings in; it is also an extraordinarily formidable example of soft power. To put it simply, this country is a world leader in music, theatre, television, film and fashion. We promote the UK across the globe; we promote British values and sell British goods off the back of our cultural offer. We ignore it at our peril.
We are world leaders in sport. Cricket, football, yachting—all these and many more reach every corner of the world, and they need support. As I said in the recent debate on the cultural and economic sectors, the creative industries are facing total disaster during the pandemic and will need that support. That is the challenge that DCMS now faces. To elucidate this point further, last year Oxford Economics predicted a £77 billion turnover loss over the course of 2020 compared to 2019; that is minus 31%. Moreover, the industries are projecting a drop in employment of 122,000, despite the job retention scheme, and a further 287,000 job losses among self-employed workers compared to 2019 levels. This is potentially catastrophic, not only for the country as a whole, but for each and every one of those individuals losing a job. Although I have no doubt that the Department’s budget has been set in a way that reflects the challenge, I hope that the Ministers and the Chancellor will stand ready to provide further finance if it is needed.
But it is not all about finance; it is about underwriting insurance to give confidence to producers and organisers. That has been spoken about a good deal today, and it is terribly important. It is also about freedom of movement for musicians, actors and all their kit. There are easy wins here, and not necessarily with any financial strings attached. The Government should grasp this opportunity to demonstrate their serious support for the sector.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre and vice-chair of the Royal Theatrical Fund, I know how hard this particular part of our cultural offer has been hit and how many are suffering at the moment, so let us support it and put it back where it belongs: leading the world and promoting the UK. Although I am happy to support these estimates, this funding must be a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to helping the creative industries and the other DCMS sectors to recover, which will help the UK recover.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
It is time to think about how our sports and creative industries can help our post-pandemic recovery. Like other areas, the west midlands has been hammered by the pandemic. Our theatres, entertainment complexes and hospitality venues are on the verge of collapse. But Birmingham and west midlands residents are resilient people. That is why we are busy preparing for the Commonwealth games, hosting more than 70 teams from all around the Commonwealth, with a potential £1 billion boost to the local economy.
We are also developing the creative content hub at the Bond in Birmingham to enhance our film production facilities and digital games industry. But as many as 70% of the people who work in the creative industries are freelancers—the very people the Chancellor has consistently ignored throughout this crisis. The west midlands’ creative sector is braced for the loss of over 50,000 jobs in the aftermath of covid, so we will need more assistance.
It is not enough to be told that the culture recovery fund has been a success. Of course I welcome it, but there is little point in maintaining buildings if we lose the people who work in them. Ministers have to listen. They have to consider backing an insurance scheme to protect live music events, as others have said. They have to consider urgent action to address the barriers to creative workers travelling to Europe. We need opportunities for young people to break into the sector. How about apprenticeships in the creative industries and Government-supported scholarships for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are leaving care?
I welcome the funding the Arts Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund have allocated to support the wider cultural festival that will accompany the Commonwealth games. Birmingham Council is allocating £2 million to be shared across the city, so that ordinary Brummies can be part of the event. Would it not be a good idea if the Government were to build on such initiatives by establishing a sports legacy fund, to ensure that more young people are able to enjoy healthy sporting activities? With concern rising about mental health and an epidemic of knife crime, there has never been a better time to involve our youth in sport and cultural pursuits, but we are moving in the wrong direction. As the YMCA reports, budgets have suffered a cumulative cut of 60%, and 763 youth centres have closed. What has happened to the Government’s promise of a £500 million youth investment fund?
I hope we will see more support for initiatives such as community radio. Hope Radio, based in my constituency, is a not-for-profit organisation set up to help to reach the vulnerable and isolated. It gives out valuable and useful local information, and tackles some of the vaccine myths. I should point that that one in five people in the west midlands have no access to the internet, so community radio is vital. I hope the Government will continue to support FM licences for the station and perhaps give it a bit of funding.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) [V]
There are many important aspects to cover in this debate, including sport, the creative and performing arts, events, heritage and more, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), said, but in the four minutes I have available, I will talk about one: tourism.
Tourism is very important for my constituency, two thirds of which lies within the South Downs national park and which contains important heritage sites including Jane Austen’s house, the Watercress line and Gilbert White’s house, but it matters to all of us nationally, accounting for close to a tenth of the economy and jobs and being an important driver of export earnings. It is also one of the sectors that has been hit hardest by covid. I welcome all the support that has been set out by others, but now is the time to think boldly about the future and how we build back better.
We have been gifted a beautiful country, incredible cultural assets, and of course the English language, but we need to do more with them. There are multiple aspects to that work. There is a long tradition of building too much capacity at the top of the cycle and too little at the bottom. I would love to hear an update from the Government on plans for 130,000 more hotel rooms, as well as the plans for aviation capacity as markets recover. I would love to hear a national yield management plan that brings together leisure travel and travel for education purposes, business conferences and events, getting more from our cultural assets, extending the season and building shoulder periods.
Secondly, on skills and productivity, I very much welcome the focus in the sector deal on productivity and in particular the development of two T-levels—that central reform of technical and vocational education—in catering and in cultural, heritage and visitor attractions.
But today I want to talk mostly about marketing. I was so pleased to hear of the independent destination management organisation review. Many DMOs have been very hard hit by the pandemic, and those immediate problems must be addressed in this review, but I hope it goes much further. DMOs are, in the best cases, co-operating. They are also generally overlapping and sometimes actually competing with one another. We need to streamline the DMO network and the interaction of all parts of the public sector that have a role in promoting and facilitating tourism.
I very much welcome the success of the GREAT campaign, which has given a consistent message that we project across the world, but there is an issue about the volume of marketing. In a recent Select Committee meeting, we heard from VisitBritain that Australia spends more in China than we do internationally. We are outspent massively in key volume markets and we are not represented at all in some important developing markets. As we start to come out of this pandemic, source markets are going to be more competitive than ever. The term “investment” gets a bit over-used these days, but this really is about investment, with tangible, bankable and quite speedy returns to create jobs and support building back better. I therefore urge the Government to think further and think bigger about how they can invest in the growth of this powerhouse sector.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I want to talk about the festival industry. The risks to events taking place this year revolve around uncertainty, even with the road map, a lack of working capital, and the ongoing absence of—much mentioned this afternoon—the insurance solution. Why does this matter? Well, it is a massive, successful, vibrant industry. There are an estimated 975 festivals in the UK each year. The sector generates £1.75 billion for the UK economy every year and supports some 85,000 jobs. According to UK Music, over 5 million people—our constituents—attended a festival in 2019, including me: Boomtown in my own constituency. As important as all the figures are, though, festivals are just good fun—remember when that was allowed?
So the Government’s road map was very welcome to our festival sector. As soon as we nearly had a vaccine, the industry was calling for a clear timeline outlining “no earlier than” dates, and step 4 clearly gives that to us. To be clear, festivals do not work with social distancing; it is just not possible. There is also the risk that they can safely go ahead this summer but the sector is not given enough time to prepare. The planning cycle is a critical factor. Festivals need an average lead time of six to eight months. The majority will make a call on their summer events in the first three months of this year, so right now is the moment. We have seen some take the plunge, such as Reading, Leeds and Boomtown, and others such as Glastonbury—with the heaviest of hearts, and breaking mine—call theirs off for a second year.
Let me touch on lack of working capital. Festivals clearly need the working capital to stage their event. It is true that some festival businesses have been helped by the excellent culture recovery fund, with very high stabilisation figures among recipients meaning that they will have sufficient funds to stage their events this year if they are allowed, but it is equally true, as shown by surveys among members of the Association of Independent Festivals, that 100% of those who applied to the fund and were not offered a grant do not have sufficient funds to stage their events. I say to the Minister that for round 2 of the CRF—I understand that we expect grants to be announced this month—we need the eligibility of festivals to be strongly recognised again and we need to help those who missed out in round 1. For many festivals without sufficient audience loyalty and brand equity to return beyond this year, if that happens, mothballing the event companies that they rely on for another year effectively means shutting down their operations, with a very real risk that they will not return.
A Government-backed insurance scheme is essential to the festival industry. I appreciate that insurance alone is not the sole barrier to kick-starting festivals, but organisers cannot enter into the usual planning for 2021 without an insurance solution. It is the key that unlocks this process. It is unfortunate that we have not yet managed to persuade the Government of the case for this. It is almost too late now for 2021, but I would like the Minister to make reference to the issue when he winds up.
This matters for all the reasons that I have touched on, but it matters right now when events, short of insurance, short of certainty and short of cash flow, are selling tickets to young people desperate for something to look forward to. We cannot have events—sometimes without a licence in place or even having contacted the safety advisory group of the respective local authority—selling tickets, often at £100-plus, on the promise of hope alone. That will do the vast majority of the industry no favours whatever, but in many ways it is a symptom of the situation that we are in.
Let us stick to the road map. Let us focus on the data and reward vaccine success with some fun this summer. With a fair wind, we may even—I know you look forward to this, Madam Deputy Speaker—see the return of Crouchfest. To borrow a phrase, that really would be back stronger.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to take part in this debate and to highlight the importance of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport investments in Stoke-on-Trent Central, supporting local organisations as we move to the covid-19 recovery phase. As many colleagues want to speak in this debate, I will keep my comments brief.
The culture recovery fund has already provided a lifeline for many local organisations and I will mention just a few. The Sugarmill, a small grassroots music venue, benefited from a £240,000 grant to keep it afloat. Such venues are the R&D arm of the music industry, giving those at the beginning of their careers the chance to be heard. From Coldplay to Kasabian, this Stoke venue has featured future stars.
The Clay Foundation delivers the British Ceramics Biennial festival and provides supported workshops across the city in care homes and schools. During lockdown it supplied packs of clay and tools to enable the young and the elderly to engage in creative activities which helped their wellbeing.
VAST Services received funding to look after the Dudson Museum on behalf of the family trust. This gave it the opportunity to develop digital tools, including a virtual tour on its website, and look at future income generation for this valued local heritage asset.
B-arts used the funding to sustain 80 freelance artists, commissioning work to keep people’s spirits up, sharing lived experience as well as delivering kits and worksheets to families, in addition to food from its waste food café during lockdown.
The Spode Museum Trust had no income during lock-down and the £20,000 DCMS grant brought the charity time to reflect while looking after the wellbeing of staff, volunteers and trustees. It looked at its audience and user markets, and used a kickstart grant to develop its website and start digitising artefacts. Online sales have provided new income and a deal with Portmeirion saw the Spode pattern produced on bone china, in the home of bone china, for the first time in many years.
Few cities are named after what they do. The Potteries are world leaders in ceramics and ceramic manufacturing, and Stoke-on-Trent has been at the heart of research and innovation for almost 300 years. The Spode site in my constituency is significant not as an historical relic, but as the focus for many creative businesses, charities, researchers, artists and innovators. The Spode works is the physical manifestation of what Stoke-on-Trent means: celebrating where we came from, talking about now and always looking forward; a place where we can stand on the past to get a better view of the future, and where arts and science are equally valued.
The common theme of these DCMS-funded projects is future-proofing our city by encouraging innovation and supporting creativity. Future funding will help to attract private investment and encourage talent and new opportunities, hopefully backed by levelling-up funding. It will enable the rebirth of this major symbol of Stoke-on-Trent’s past as a beacon for its future.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I commence my remarks by praising the work that the BBC has done to support families and ensure that children have access to good-quality, advertising-free content during covid. All Members who are parents of young children will have appreciated the value of that, and many of us will have heard from our constituents that, at a time when access to good-quality learning, either online or through the television, radio and other forms of media, has sometimes been hard to come by, the BBC has done an absolutely fantastic job. At a time when there is often controversy about the BBC’s political news coverage, we need to recognise that benefit; a vast part of the corporation’s work is enormously valuable in supporting children and families, and it will be incredibly important not just during lockdown and covid but as we move towards education catch-up.
The second big positive is the investment that has ensured that local arts can continue to thrive. I have the privilege of representing Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, an outer London constituency, which, as well as having access to the west end—a national asset—has a number of thriving local arts centres, including Harrow Arts Centre, which benefited from direct funding, and the Compass theatre and Winston Churchill theatre and hall, which have benefited from the support of the local authority. The ability of these local arts venues not only to nurture talent, to be part of what is a great British economic success story, but to give people access to culture and the arts on their doorstep is incredibly important. The support that has been put in place by the Minister and the Department has been enormously valued by constituents. As we look towards recovery and opening up again, many artistes and organisations are delighted at the prospect of throwing their doors open again, putting on shows and exhibitions that have had to be deferred, and welcoming my constituents once more.
I will finish with a comment about youth work. The Department currently holds responsibility for the youth investment fund. Having spent many of my years as the councillor responsible for children and young people in the London borough of Hillingdon, which serves about two thirds of my constituency, I am very aware of the enrichment of young people’s lives that has been brought about by youth centres, the youth workers that local authorities employ, and those who come from organisations such as churches, charities and the uniformed sector, including the Scouts and the Guides. This creates amazing opportunities for young people that contribute to their later employability and enrich their lives and raise aspiration and opportunity. When we talk about levelling up, those things will be incredibly important.
As we look forward in this estimates day debate, I encourage the Minister to consider how we will ensure that those resources are properly applied. I ask that we give appropriate consideration to how we use the resources contained in that fund to support excellent frontline youth work, to enable local authorities to do the job that they do extremely well in supporting and engaging young people, and that we make sure that those resources are deployed in the light of local circumstances, so that those who know their communities best can ensure that they add the maximum value to the lives of young people in our areas.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
The spending of DCMS has provided vital financial support to cultural and sporting facilities throughout the pandemic, and the Chancellor’s recent Budget announcements will continue to support the sector in recovery and offer new opportunities and hope to communities such as mine in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. The Met theatre, the East Lancs railway and the Lancashire Fusiliers museum have all received Government support, allowing them to continue their fantastic work, improving the social and economic life of Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.
The announcement of a further £300 million to extend the culture recovery fund is most welcome and will allow cultural assets to be at the centre of the recovery from covid-19. This is the crucial point: sport, culture and heritage must be at the centre of our social and economic recovery. I speak as chair of the northern culture all-party group, and every city and town in my region has its own unique cultural offer. To take advantage of that, we need further national, regional and local investment.
I was therefore delighted with the Chancellor’s announcement of the £150 million community ownership fund. In Ramsbottom, the Co-op theatre has recently been listed by the Secretary of State. Built in the 1870s, it is one of only five in the country and still has its original interior fittings. That heritage asset has sat dormant for decades, but now, hopefully, through the efforts of local campaigners, a potential source of funding could safeguard the theatre for everyone. This Government investment would add a further layer to the deep cultural offer within Ramsbottom, which could help transform the town as we come out of restrictions, creating jobs, bringing visitors and investment to the area and improving life chances and opportunities. I hope that this type of national funding model in important community assets will be at the heart of DCMS funding going forward.
The DCMS should also take every opportunity to invest and harness the power of sport, both at grassroots and professional levels, so I welcome the sports recovery package announced in the Budget. The people of Bury, through no fault of their own, lost their professional football club, and its historic home Gigg Lane is currently dormant. Gigg Lane has, for more than 100 years, provided jobs, supported economic activity in the town and been central to Bury’s identity, and its sporting and cultural offer.
I am delighted that the Government have announced, through the community ownership fund, a means by which the site can be potentially bought for everyone in Bury. DCMS spending going forward must continue to support cultural assets, but be innovative in providing moneys for projects that unite communities. It should never be underestimated how central to the cultural, social and economic recovery of my town a thriving community-owned Gigg Lane would be. This would be the definition of building back better and levelling up.
DCMS has provided funding to enable the UK and Ireland to bid for the 2030 World cup. If successful, I truly hope that Gigg Lane will be in a position to host a match. What a cultural and sporting success story that would be both nationally and locally, and it would be testament to the moneys that this Government are investing now in the cultural and sporting sectors.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate, and I thank the Government for the support that they continue to give to our cultural and entertainment sector.
I am incredibly proud of Darlington’s amazing cultural sector and my constituents who work in it. From our rich railway heritage to our vibrant artistic community, we have it all. Indeed, we look forward to showing this to the team at Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Since Locomotion No. 1 first travelled across Skerne Bridge in 1825, an event commemorated on our nation’s £5 note, Darlington has been a busy, lively town that is recognised for its unique and distinctive cultural heritage. Today, we are home to a vibrant community of artistic excellence at sites such as the Forum Music Centre and the Hippodrome, which were awarded £106,000 and £1,000,000 respectively through the culture recovery fund. Darlington is also a safe home for culture, and, in 2020, was the first in the north-east to be awarded a purple flag, an international accreditation for excellence within the night-time economy—an accreditation that was renewed for 2021.
Sadly, Darlington’s cultural sector has been badly affected, with venues unable to operate for much of the past year, which is why I welcome the phenomenal support that has been provided by the DCMS to help protect Darlington’s cultural sector.
Throughout the pandemic, culture venues have been able to access unprecedented support through the coronavirus job retention scheme, self-employment income support scheme, Government-guaranteed business loans, lockdown grants and discretionary grants. These schemes have supported businesses and protected thousands of jobs. They are in addition to the Government’s tailored support package that made £1.57 billion available through the culture recovery fund—the single largest support package for the arts in our country’s history, accessed by 3,000 organisations and directly supporting 75,000 jobs.
Last week, the Chancellor increased the support available to the culture and arts, making a further £700 million available to combat the ongoing effects of coronavirus and to support our incredible arts, cultural and sporting sector as they reopen over the coming months. This means that the departmental expenditure limit for 2020-21 that we are debating today stands at a phenomenal £4.8 billion, which I and indeed the cultural sector of Darlington warmly welcome. I am proud to be supporting the Government today.
Perhaps the greatest support that we can now give the cultural sector is a clear reassurance that the recently announced road map is irreversible and that, from later this month, we can begin to unlock, I look forward to seeing Darlington’s cultural sector reopen and our theatres, museums and cinemas begin to fill up once again.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for all the hard work they have been putting in so far.
It is brilliant news that the Government have allocated £5 billion to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I am particularly pleased that we will be able to see firm action to deal with some of the many difficulties we have had with broadband connectivity in rural Britain, particularly in rural West Dorset. The average download speed in West Dorset is 42.5 megabits per second, which is a little under half of the UK average. I could quote many statistics like that, but I know full well that the Minister and his colleagues have heard from me frequently about this issue, in order that we make more progress. We are dealing with a legacy of many larger businesses in this sector taking the commercial opportunity of focusing on the highest yielding areas and therefore focusing on urban areas. In many cases, that has meant a loss to those living in not just rural areas, but very rural areas, who are often in that 1%, 2% or 3% of the population who really struggle to get decent broadband.
I am working with and supporting Dorset Council very much with its broadband fibre spine programme. We need £6.5 million to deliver that. Dorset Council works hard and saves hard, which is why we are in a position locally in Dorset to fund two thirds of that. Today, I am making a plea to the Minister and his colleagues: please help us find the remaining third. It is 0.05% of that £5 billion budget. It is £2.54 million, which we in Dorset would hugely appreciate, because that will give us the turbocharge we need to get our local businesses on track, and make sure that we in rural Dorset recover properly and fully from coronavirus, which is what we need. I very much encourage the Minister to do this. I stand ready, with my colleagues in rural Dorset, to support him in whatever way we can. A few months ago, I described his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), as the knight in shining armour that we are waiting for in Dorset. I very much hope that today’s Minister will be able to join the cavalry and make sure that we get that £2.5 million to sort out Dorset fibre broadband.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
This estimates day debate is looking at the spending of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which is often referred to as the “Ministry for Fun”. For people who make their living in these sectors, creating fun is a very serious business. Annually, the sector accounts for about £115 billion of revenue. The creative industries encompass the best and brightest of UK businesses, and these figures paint a very vibrant picture of creativity and talent in our country. This is a powerful export sector; the UK is highly regarded around the world and these businesses will play a key role in lifting the mood of the nation to aid the recovery.
Speaking from my experience as the chair of the all-party group on media, I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State, the Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is in his place, for willingly engaging and responding when I have raised issues with them over the past 12 months.
I wish to touch on digital, on media and on sport, and on how they impact my constituency. Let me start by welcoming the £16 million loan that has been provided to support rugby league, as 2021 is a particularly important year for the sport. This autumn, the UK will be hosting the rugby league world cup and towns such as Warrington will play host to international teams, giving fans a chance to back their national team. The financial benefits that the tournament will bring to the north will trickle into the wider community, helping hotels, restaurants and taxi firms in Warrington to recover. They are already starting to take bookings. I urge the Minister to continue to engage with the sport’s governing body.
There is no doubt that the Government have provided substantial support to TV production to allow the sector to restart making the TV shows that we all love to watch. The Government have also stepped in to support commercial radio and the newspaper sector with enhanced advertising campaigns, but there are other commercial sectors, particularly struggling cinemas for example. They will be some of the last businesses to reopen, and they have also lost the revenues from the pre-film ads.
In the ad creative production sector, the writers, producers and artists who appear in commercials have all been affected. I heard today from the Advertising Association that different sectors from the advertising world have had a 20% to 40% fall in their annual turnover. Local advertising revenues have been particularly badly hit, given the nature of that type of advertising and the fundamental change that is happening in the sector.
I will add a word of caution on the future impact of proposed legislation on products in the high in fat, salt and sugar sector, and the pace of implementation of legislation. I encourage Ministers to engage more with the sector, because the opportunity to use the media to change behaviour through positive campaigns is a better way of tackling obesity than just implementing a ban on advertising, which ultimately producers will seek to find a way round.
Better digital connectivity is fundamental for our economic growth and levelling up. I have been working with local residents and Openreach to develop a community fibre partnership, which will bring better broadband to around 100 homes in Higher Walton. I am keen to get new fibre cables in the ground in the coming weeks, so will the Minister confirm that the current scheme, which is due to finish at the end of March and which supports rural roll-out of fibre broadband, will be replaced so that the efforts can continue, because I have more projects to complete?
It is businesses in the digital, culture, media and sport sector that will help to drive our post-pandemic recovery. I encourage the Chancellor and the Secretary of State to continue to give the sector the serious support that it needs and deserves.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
On 26 March, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and the family, I will launch the campaign for a memorial to commemorate the wonderful Dame Vera Lynn together with Sir Paul McCartney, Katherine Jenkins and Sir Tim Rice. Funding will be by public subscription and donations, and it is planned that the memorial will be sited on the white cliffs of Dover.
There are some wonderful local charities that perform a vital service for our communities that deserve financial support, such as Age UK and the Music Man project in my constituency. I am, however, disappointed that the Chancellor’s Budget did not offer specific assistance to the sector, and I encourage the Department, which works closely with the Charity Commission, to resolve that. I thank the Minister for the support that he gave recently to the Showmen’s Guild and fairgrounds generally. I urge him to keep that up. Also, could he support our wonderful zoos and all the people involved in animal welfare and rescue generally?
I raised the issue of support for the events and creative industries only last week, but it is becoming increasingly relevant since the Chancellor’s Budget. There are still individuals, businesses, limited company directors and freelancers who are excluded and need financial support. Businesses in Southend look forward to welcoming tourists back to our town this summer. I very much welcome the decision to extend the VAT cut for the tourism and hospitality sector, and I hope that the Government will continue to support those businesses as they prepare to reopen.
Working from home has really highlighted to me how poor the internet is in my constituency. In our manifesto, we pledged for full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband for every home and business across the United Kingdom by 2025, so when will that come to Southend West? After the dreadful year that we had, the nation needs cheering up, and the best way that we can do that is to organise the city status competition and make Southend a city, so can we please get on with the announcement? I am very pleased that the Government are providing a further £300 million for the culture recovery fund. There are a number of fantastic cultural organisations in Southend, which I hope will benefit from this extension.
Oh dear. Southend United are not having a brilliant time at the moment; we languish at 23rd in the league, although—fingers crossed—I hope we beat Stevenage at the weekend. I hope that Southend West gets its fair share of the £300 million recovery package for professional sport and £25 million for grassroots football. I was one of the original pioneers of the national lottery, but we are always in the bottom 10 or 20, and last year we received only £59,000. That is ridiculous. Some £200 million was awarded; we are not getting our fair share in Southend West. The BBC continues to pay its stars—I use the term loosely—vast sums of money at a time when so many of my constituents are struggling with pay freezes or having lost their jobs. That is unacceptable. I urge the Department to bear that in mind when it comes to the next charter renewal.
Finally, Her Majesty the Queen is having a tough time at the moment. She has served her country so well for 70 years, and a statue would be a fitting tribute to our great monarch. Her grace, compassion and dedication to duty during her reign has made this country the envy of the world. Thank goodness we have a monarch rather than a president.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The work of DCMS is wide-ranging, and I am conscious of the considerable support that it has given by way of covid recovery funding—both its first tranche and the money announced in the Budget—to a wide range of sectors. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to start by talking about the theatre and performing arts sector—not for the first time, and I make no apology for that. Not only do they contribute so much to our economy, but they also, of course, enrich our lives and entertain as well as broaden and inform. The work that has been done is significant, and I pay particular tribute to the money—some £435,500—that was made available to the Churchill theatre in my constituency, which has been valuable in keeping that much-loved and long-established institution going.
I am also conscious of the need for small-scale grants, and I pay tribute as well to Bromley Little theatre, which has just received a grant from the Theatres Trust to improve its ventilation so that it is able to open, in due course, in covid-compliant fashion. It is a community theatre run by volunteers, and it is amazing the way its members have kept online content, recorded in a socially distant fashion, up on its website to keep its enthusiastic audiences engaged with live theatre and the magic and value that that brings us. They deserve not only our thanks and praise but our practical support.
But of course there are still issues that need to be addressed. I have a significant number of constituents who work in the performing arts and related sectors, be they actors in the west end, sound technicians, set designers or theatre producers. As the Minister knows, many of them are freelancers—they are overwhelmingly self-employed—and, frankly, many have fallen through gaps in the support that is available.
I will cite just one example—a constituent of mine who has been a successful freelance theatre production manager for 30 years. Because his salary was over £50,000 on a self-employed basis, he has not been getting any support, whereas if he were salaried, he would be in a very different and more advantageous position. He does not have the option of being salaried; that is not the nature of the work that people in the creative sector do. I am not convinced that the Treasury understands that. The consequence is that this dedicated and successful professional has earned some £4,000 in the last year. It is not possible to expect people to carry on with their overheads in that situation, so I hope that we will look again at the way that this is dealt with.
I hope, too, that we can look at greater transparency in the way in which grants are awarded. They are very welcome, but I have an example of a business in my constituency that was rejected on diversity and cultural significance grounds by a panel, but no reasoning was given for the panel’s decision, and there is no means of appeal. One then comes across other businesses of exactly the same kind that have been successful. If we are going to continue with the support—and I very much welcome the fact that we are—it is all the more important that there is proper transparency.
Finally, I am using my internet connection to speak from Chislehurst, but the reality is that many parts of my constituency have a remarkably poor internet connection. Only 4.7% of my constituency has gigabit availability—the London average is 21%—but it is within 10 miles of London. Rolling out broadband has to be made a reality right across the country, including the suburbs.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for securing the debate and Members across the House for their contributions so far. How we have all missed culture and sport, which are the very heartbeat of our national life and which have been put on ice by this grim pandemic. I know that other Members ache, like me, to hear the roar of a crowd at a gig, to sit lost in music at a concert, to explore again their favourite museums and galleries and, of course, to celebrate Scotland’s victory on 18 June over England in the Euros group stage.
Cheering alone will not heal the deep wounds inflicted on the sector by both covid and Brexit. The damage that has been done is deep. Research by Oxford Economics estimates that covid has led to a £74 billion revenue drop in this sector alone, and the Creative Industries Federation has warned that one fifth of the creative sector—that is more than 400,000 people—either have lost or are in immediate danger of losing their jobs. Few enter the arts because they want to be rich. They do it for love, but even for those who had solid careers before the pandemic, there have been sleepless nights wondering how the next bill will be paid.
The Department’s brief is broad, but as a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I have heard the evidence in recent months, and some key themes have emerged. Festivals—one of the UK’s most thriving sectors—are in crisis. Until the pandemic, festivals brought over £1 billion into our economy. They not only showcase domestic talent and make these islands a cultural beacon in the summer, but they employ half a million people. Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) so eloquently highlighted, plays host to the largest arts festival in the world: the Edinburgh festival.
However, when the industry begged the UK Government to underwrite the insurance needed to plan gigs, concerts and festivals, it was denied. That was a key factor in the cancellation of Glastonbury festival, among others. Some festivals are going ahead this summer, but many festivals that could have gone ahead are not doing so. They could not take the risk without insurance, and they could not get insurance because of the pandemic. They needed Government intervention, but the UK Government turned their back.
Artists and musicians do not ask for much from Government, but they do expect that the Government will not work actively against them. Many will now be forced to change career, causing irreparable damage to the sector. That applies in particular to freelancers, who have slipped through the net, unable to fit the criteria for support. Equity, the actors’ union, has found that 40% of its members have received no help of any kind from the self-employment income support scheme.
The cultural sector has suffered the harshest economic blow from this pandemic, second only to those working in the hospitality and tourism sectors. Luckily for those living in Scotland, the Scottish Government at Holyrood have been able to pledge £30 million to mitigate the financial challenges for those who are unable to access the UK Government’s self-employment income support scheme, and in the current financial year they have committed to spending £177 million on investing in a diverse culture sector in Scotland—small comfort for those living in England, I know.
For many in the industry, there lies another long-term threat. I know that my friends on the Labour Benches are hesitant when it comes to talking about Brexit these days, and I understand why—after all, they voted for the disastrous Tory Brexit deal. However, Brexit’s impact on the sector will be not a one-off blow like the pandemic; rather, it will be a slow rot of our cultural institutions. It will come in the form of reduced funding for the arts; fewer opportunities to live, travel, work and learn in Europe; and a seeping insular mentality that is the very antithesis of cultural co-operation.
“Taking back control” was the Brexiteers’ cynical catchphrase; well, we have seen how much control the UK Government offer to artists. Last spring they could tour throughout Europe visa-free, but then the UK Government’s crack negotiating team got to work, and now orchestras, groups and soloists will have to pay €600 per member per night to play in Spain, and €500 in Italy—the price of a visa. Many have written to me to tell me that they have never earned that amount for a one-night gig, so they cannot afford to fork out a fortune for a visa.
When she appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently, the Minister for Digital and Culture, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) seemed blithely unaware of any of the detail—the Marie Antoinette of Brexit—although she was able to tell us that no negotiations are going on with any of the EU countries to rescue artists from this mess. She did, however, promise that she was “straining every sinew”—doing what was not entirely clear. The DCMS seems to be the most toothless Department in Government, utterly incapable of scoring any victories against No. 10 philistinism on the European front. It is high time that those strained sinews delivered. We need urgent bilateral talks with European Governments to allow touring to resume there and artists to tour here as well. Those artists are the lifeblood of festivals.
Scotland voted to remain in Europe by a huge margin, and with independence we will rejoin, but until then we want to remain in cross-border cultural initiatives such as Creative Europe and Erasmus. Northern Ireland, protected by the Republic of Ireland, will remain in Erasmus; Scotland, undermined by Westminster, will not. Look at what we will lose. Creative Europe has been a critical funding stream for arts and culture organisations across these islands. Its media and culture programmes provided more than €100 million of direct funding to the UK over the past seven years. Erasmus has been a truly remarkable gift—what student would not want to be able to travel freely and study in 27 other countries? Now, our young people cannot access the scheme to travel throughout the EU and EU students cannot travel here—yet more Brexit insularity. Of course, mid oven-ready turkey roast, the Prime Minister promised us that there would be “no threat” to the UK’s participation in the Erasmus scheme. He guaranteed that we would remain in it. If only he had put it on the side of a bus, we would all be safe, all would have been well and the promise would have been honoured.
When she appeared before the DCMS Committee, I asked the Minister for Digital and Culture whether she would do her utmost to support Scotland’s continued participation in Erasmus and deliver for Scotland what the Dáil in Ireland has delivered for Northern Ireland. Her answer? She said, “I really cannot comment”. If we are to be dragged out of these cross-border cultural initiatives against our will, the very least that the UK Government can do is to provide adequate alternatives. Intercultural relations and student exchanges are about much more than money, and the role of the arts and culture in securing and maintaining the long peace in Europe is significant and irrefutable.
We are here today to talk about money, yet we have heard nothing from DCMS of what will replace Creative Europe’s culture programme. The Department’s screen fund is worth only half its European predecessor. It is clear that the screen industry is being short-changed by Brexit. What about the UK’s promised replacement for Erasmus, the Turing scheme? As the Member who introduced the Turing Bill—the Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc.) Bill—with promised Government backing, only to see Tory Ministers filibuster it, I am surprised that the Prime Minister has the gall to use Alan Turing’s name, but then I could say, “I am surprised that the Prime Minister has the gall” and apply it to countless situations. Let us just say that the Turing scheme would be better called the “mirage” scheme: it is scarcely visible on the horizon and I am not convinced that we will ever get there.
We all know that the work of this Department extends beyond culture and sport, with digital being an important factor in our increasingly online world. We know that the gigabit roll-out is not the only building work the Prime Minister is undertaking, but, sadly, Tory donors will not be paying for this one. The pandemic has shown how essential good broadband is for so many people across the country. The 2019 Tory manifesto managed to shave eight years from the previous gigabit commitment of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), promising the electorate the utterly undeliverable. They later reduced the target from 100% full fibre to 85% with gigabit capable broadband, adding digital infrastructure to the long list of over-promising and under-delivering by the Government.
This has been a uniquely challenging year for all sectors within the Department. The actions needed for recovery are clear, and I would urge the Minister to heed them.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate so far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). Let me praise the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight)—he is a Chester lad, of course—for his introduction, which I thought touched on so many of the issues.
We have heard from Members across the House that the creative, culture and tourist industries have been some of the worst hit by the pandemic. Tourism and the rich cultural scene that Britain has to offer will be a crucial part not only of our economic recovery, but of the recovery of our mental health and wellbeing, yet the Government have still failed to meet their promise to do “whatever it takes” to support these sectors fully. Throughout the pandemic, this Government have been the masters of self-promotion, with grand announcements that in reality fall short of the supply needed or of what was initially promised. Too often the funds allocated have not reached the businesses or people that need them the most. The Chair of the Select Committee hinted that his Committee might be looking at that in future.
There are some aspects of the Government’s support schemes that we welcomed. For example, we welcomed efforts to support the print media through Government advertising, even if the adverts themselves were too party political, often featuring pictures of the Chancellor —no surprise there—and even if not enough effort was made to get the financial support through to smaller, local and independent news outlets. Similarly, we welcomed support for the commercial radio stations during the pandemic, which also saw advertising revenues collapse. Again, more of that money might have gone to the genuine independent local stations, but we will not be too critical.
We know, for example, that the Government’s insurance support scheme has assisted film and TV production to get back under way, and we welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about insurance for live music, and he was echoed by the hon. Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), who talked about festivals. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister for Media and Data, who is not in his place today, for his work, both when he was out of government and now back in office, on journalistic freedom and the protection of journalists. It is just a shame that the Prime Minister and other Ministers have spoken so disparagingly of journalists in recent weeks.
Of course, we welcome the culture recovery fund as far as it goes, with the usual criticism that by and large it supports buildings, not people. Did you notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, how last week’s CRF announcement, preceding the Budget of course—let us face it, most of the Budget preceded the actual Budget announcement—included a whole host of endorsements from leading institutions in the cultural sector? Surely each one was entirely spontaneous! Surely they were not all co-ordinated by Tory Ministers! It was almost as if these institutions had been lined up and told to sign off and provide a supportive quote in order to get the CRF money from the Government and the Chancellor, because for him it is all in the presentation.
Talking of presentation, last week my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) remarked on the Chancellor’s commitments to the creative sector in a notable contribution reflecting on his talents for self-promotion, and who could blame the Chancellor for wanting to hide reality behind flash presentation when that reality is a miserable, below-inflation, 1% pay rise for NHS nurses? Today, we can add another artistic string to the Chancellor’s bow—acting. His Oscar-winning performance clapping for the NHS outside 11 Downing Street may have hoodwinked many at the time, but the reality is now out in the open. It was all for show, and no BAFTA-winning acting performance will cover up such a level of misdirection and misappropriation. People are seeing through it.
Of course, the extension to the culture recovery fund is welcome. However, we must remember that these sectors are not just heritage buildings and historic theatres; behind each building, there are hundreds of jobs that need saving, and some of these individuals have not seen any income since the beginning of the pandemic. I spoke recently to one BAFTA-winning filmmaker who, in her own words, was ready to “throw in the towel” and leave the sector because of a lack of income.
Almost a year on from the beginning of the first national lockdown, and even with the Government’s slight adjustment from the Budget last week, millions of self-employed people across the country remain excluded from any Government support schemes. A big number of them work within the creative sectors. That is a whole year without the work that they love; a year of uncertainty and struggles with mental health; a year of not knowing what, or when, their next job is going to be; and a year of being ignored by the Government. Hon. Members across the House have referred to this in today’s debate, including the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
I commend the freelancers’ charter and the news recovery plan, both produced by the National Union of Journalists, and ask that Ministers take on board what the NUJ has proposed; my hon. Friend the Member for Easington made reference to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about the importance of supporting freelance musicians, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the work that Equity has done on supporting actors in getting back to work.
Britain has some of the best culture and tourism that the world has to offer. We need the creative and cultural sector to recover and grow our economy. As a whole, DCMS businesses, excluding tourism, contributed £224 billion to the UK in 2018. A s the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said, we would not have an NHS without our cultural funds, which make up 12% of the economy. Creative businesses’ exports are worth £36 billion worldwide, up 7.5% on the previous year, meaning that growth is five times that of the British economy as a whole. More importantly, after we have been starved of so much of what the creative industries have to offer for over a year, the creative sector will be a big part of the recovery of the nation’s wellbeing.
There is nothing in these estimates to make up for the terrible Brexit deal that the Government have imposed on the cultural sectors. I am going to have to contradict my good friend, the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson): I am quite happy to talk about the Government’s failures on their own Brexit deal. With that disastrous deal, the Government have all but curtailed touring in the EU by UK performers and artists and their support crews, and likewise for EU artists and performers who want to come here, as the Chair of the Select Committee referred to. It reduces our artists’ opportunity to work and earn abroad, and it also reduces the chance to promote British artistic values and achievement abroad, but it seems this Government care nothing for promoting Britain and British culture abroad. As is always the case with the Government, it is hard-line, crackpot Brexit ideology first, everything else second, regardless of the human and economic cost—mislead the British public and try, as usual, to blame the EU for everything. The British public are starting to see through their failings and half-truths as the reality of the hard Brexit—or, as some hon. Members suggested, no-deal Brexit—in the creative sectors starts to bite. As the pandemic eases, that awful reality will become only more evident.
The Minister has been personally supportive when he has engaged with me on sporting matters relating to my constituency. Other hon. Members have also said that they have been able to engage with him, and I pay tribute to him for that. Of course, we are still waiting for the much-promised fan-led review of football, and we want to see the national plan for wellbeing, including participation in sport. As we come out of the pandemic, we need to fast-track measures to get people involved in grassroots sport for their physical and mental health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) has referred to.
On digital, we know that the Government are lagging behind in their efforts to roll out fibre broadband. Ofcom has reported that adults are spending an average of four hours a day online, the highest number on record, and the number of adults using video calling software has doubled—don’t we all know it, Madam Deputy Speaker? Hon. Members from across the House have talked about the lack of decent broadband in their areas: the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), whose constituency is in a rural area, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), and my next-door neighbour the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who knows rural Cheshire very well, have all mentioned this issue.
The shift online has emphasised the digital divide that exists in our country, which is not just geographic. There are 1.9 million households with no access to the internet, and tens of millions more reliant on pay-as-you-go services to make calls and access healthcare, education and benefits online. This divide has led to children having to do their homework in fast food restaurants in order to access wi-fi, and parents having to choose between buying data or food. Meanwhile, we await the Government’s online safety Bill, which still will not tackle the dominance of big tech companies. We have seen the Secretary of State being pushed around by Sir Nick Clegg and Facebook, refusing to include a firm commitment to director-level responsibility in the online safety Bill and then, like a playground weakling, only piling in against big tech when most of the hard work to challenge the power of online media had already been done by Australia. There is still no commitment to work with Governments across the world to rein in this antidemocratic transnational force, which also damages our domestic media, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington suggested.
Charities have suffered greatly during the pandemic. The charity deficit for this financial year is expected to exceed £10 billion, with the sector predicting 60,000 job losses. Despite a funding package announced last April, many in the sector are still struggling, with the second lockdown likely to hit fundraising opportunities. Charities deliver so many of our public services and they must be supported while restrictions continue, but it seems that the only interest that the Government have in our charitable sector is as a mechanism for the Prime Minister getting somebody else to pay for his new kitchen and wallpaper.
Talking of charities, let us not forget Age Concern’s advice about loneliness being exacerbated by the Government’s decision to remove the free TV licence for the over-75s. The Government are still hiding behind the BBC, too craven and dishonest to stand up and justify their own policy. But they are responsible for removing the TV licences, not the BBC. I had hoped that there would be something in the Budget and in these estimates to make good this Tory betrayal of pensioners, but sadly not.
Throughout the pandemic, there seems to be a clear pattern emerging of big announcements and promises of funding that for one reason or another does not reach the businesses or the people that need it. Making announcements is not enough to save the cultural and creative businesses, especially the many self-employed and freelance people who work in our cultural economy, as hon. Members across the House have mentioned in the debate.
Although the extensions and promises of funding are welcome, the Government must look at this again to ensure that DCMS businesses and people in those sectors are properly supported. Without them, our recovery from the pandemic will be very bleak. People want life after the pandemic, and that life is provided by the creative and cultural sector. Let us hope that it is still there to breathe life back into our society when we put the pandemic behind us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to respond on the Government’s behalf to this important debate, which comes at the end of a hugely challenging year for all the sectors mentioned today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for securing the debate, and pay tribute to him and the members of the Select Committee, from all parties, for conducting the review that forms the basis of the debate and provides such informed evidence and recommendations. I appreciate, even if I do not completely agree with, the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), with whom I spent many years on the Select Committee. I have many fond memories of that, and I absolutely understand the passion Committee members have for these sectors, which is shared across the House. We have seen that today.
The passion shown today is a demonstration of how important the digital, culture, media and sports sectors are, not just for our economy and our heritage, but for our wellbeing as a nation. At a time of incredible hardship for many, so often a book, music, a sports game or a TV programme has provided some welcome respite from the destruction and disruption caused by the pandemic. We have heard passionate speeches today from hon. Members on both sides of the House highlighting what we already know: that as well as making a huge economic contribution, DCMS sectors enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling. In many ways, they make life worth living, and we should never forget that.
Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Giles Watling) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), have highlighted the vast contribution DCMS sectors make to the economy, with £116 billion from the creative industries, £75 billion from tourism and £151 billion from digital, and the millions of jobs sustained by those sectors. Before I discuss the sector-specific support, I will touch on the pan-economic and multi-sector schemes that have illustrated the Government’s resolve to do whatever it takes to see organisations and businesses through the pandemic.
As many hon. Members have highlighted, the Chancellor, in his Budget speech last week, announced the extension of the furlough scheme until the end of September, which is hugely welcomed across our DCMS sectors and will help to not only secure jobs but enable planning and reopening. Our sectors have many self-employed people and freelancers, as many hon. Members have mentioned today. I am keenly aware of the financial need in which many have found themselves. The Chancellor extended the self-employment income support scheme, and an additional 600,000 people can now access this support, on top of the 67% of the self-employed who have already received assistance. More than 70,000 freelancers in the arts and entertainment sector have received money via this scheme. In addition, Arts Council England has awarded £51 million to thousands of individuals needing support.
Let me turn to other measures. There is obviously the new recovery loan scheme to replace the existing schemes, and the Budget included an enhanced support package for leisure and hospitality businesses that must remain closed until step 3, with restart grants worth up to £18,000 per premises. The Chancellor also announced that the business rates holiday for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England has been extended by an additional three months, and the Government have extended the temporary 5% reduced rate of VAT on hospitality and tourism. This VAT cut alone is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be worth about £4.7 billion for hospitality, tourism and visitor attractions.
Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and many others, have mentioned tourism. The tourism sector has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. It has therefore, quite rightly, particularly benefited from the pan-economy measures such as the furlough scheme and loan scheme, as well as being targeted for grant support, business rates relief, VAT reduction and so on—and justifiably so, as tourism is a major UK industry.
Inbound tourism is one of our biggest export earners, contributing over £75 billion in GVA to the economy and sustaining millions of jobs. Over the last year, we estimate that over £25 billion has been spent on supporting tourism, hospitality and leisure through a combination of grants, loans and tax breaks. This level of investment demonstrates the huge value that these sectors provide—not only to our economy, but to our quality of life.
As Tourism Minister, I am keenly aware just how much people are looking forward to taking a holiday and visiting some of our world-class and world-famous visitor attractions—including myself. By “including myself”, I mean that I look forward to visiting the attractions, rather than that I am a world-class visitor attraction, as much as I would appreciate that! In the spring, we will go further by publishing a tourism recovery plan that sets out our ambitious vision for the sector. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, and we will work with colleagues across the House.
In have spoken about the £65 billion of measures announced on top of the £353 billion announced last week. Let me now focus on some sector-specific measures. Many hon. Members have mentioned the culture recovery fund, and I appreciate that many Opposition Members have welcomed that. Over £1 billion of culture recovery fund money has already been allocated to over 3,800 arts, heritage and cultural organisations up and down the country, helping to support 75,000 jobs. That is important.
We have heard a little bit of a tone today that it is all about protecting buildings; far from it. The money is being spent to sustain jobs and to help, in many areas, quite niche skills that are otherwise in danger of disappearing. My hon. Friends the Members for Clacton, for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and others have highlighted this. For example, £170 million has been awarded to over 690 music organisations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South mentioned, more than 200 independent cinemas have received money, from Penrith to Penzance. Many museums have also received money.
Although the exact scope for the CRF extension is yet to be announced, as with the original fund, the money will go to heritage and cultural organisations that require support to transition back to operating fully. It is absolutely the intention that entities that perhaps have not received money so far should and could be eligible for further CRF money.
Many hon. Members have mentioned film and TV. As a result of Government support—most notably, the £500 million film and tv restart scheme—this sector has bounced back, with a production spend this quarter of £2.8 billion, which is the second highest on record. The Chancellor announced an extension of this scheme to 31 December 2021.
Many hon. Members also mentioned visiting a museum, watching a play, listening to live music and, indeed, going to a live event, which we are all looking forward to doing again. With regard to the events industry, including the music events industry, we are in regular dialogue with the sector and all stakeholders. We are looking to resume these events as part of step 4 of the road map. As set out in the road map, the events research programme will explore when and how music festivals and other events can return without social distancing and restrictive capacity capped. Subject to the outcome of that work, and other reviews, we hope to set out how festivals and other large events can safely go ahead with appropriate mitigations in place. I know that this is a particular passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and many others.
A related issue was then raised by many hon. Members about insurance. We are very aware of the concerns that have been raised about the challenges of securing indemnity cover for live events, and my officials have been working closely with the affected sectors to understand all barriers to reopening, including, of course, challenges around indemnity cover and insurance. The bar for considering Government intervention is extremely high, especially in the light of other support measures, including the extension of the furlough scheme and other business support. None the less, I certainly hear what hon. Members are saying today and so do others.
Sport was mentioned by many hon. Members, including, as always, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (James Daly), for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). We know that sport and physical activity are crucial to our mental and physical health. That is why we have continued to make sure that people can exercise throughout the national restrictions and that grassroots and children’s sport are absolutely at the front of the queue when easing begins later this month. As well as ensuring that restrictions allow for people to take regular exercise, central to our efforts to help sport has been the £300 million sports winter survival package, which was extended in an additional announcement just last week. That is on top of £220 million funding provided by Sport England, which, again, has been widely distributed.
Hon. Members mentioned many more topics today, but I am afraid that time does not permit me to answer all of them, much as I would love to. None the less, I really appreciate the volume and variety of comments today. Broadband was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Chris Loder), for Eddisbury and others. I can assure Members of this House that they are, indeed, doughty campaigners for their constituents who constantly lobby not only the knight in shining armour, as I think the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) was called, but many others. The Government want to become a world leader in connectivity and increase the UK’s productivity and competitiveness by doing so. We have set ambitious targets for gigabit-capable broadband, and, of course, we will continue with other measures.
Superfast broadband coverage has already reached 97%—one of the highest numbers in Europe. By the end of 2021, we expect that more than half the country will be connected to gigabit-capable networks. By 2025, the Government are targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage, but will seek to accelerate that further and get as close to 100% as possible.
Touring was mentioned by many colleagues. It is important to say that British artists can still tour and perform in the EU, but we pushed for more ambitious arrangements for artists to be able to work across Europe. Our proposals would have allowed artists to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without needing work permits, but these were developed in consultation with the UK’s creative industries and were rejected by the EU. We are now working urgently across Government and in collaboration with the creative industries, including through a new working group, to help address these issues so that touring in Europe can resume as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that I cannot wait to have our theatres, our sports, our events, our festivals—quite frankly, life as we knew it—back; as soon as possible. As the Chancellor told the House last week, the Government stand ready to do whatever it takes to help the country and our economy to recover from the disruption of coronavirus.
The Select Committee’s report was a welcome and constructive contribution to that debate. Indeed, this debate has also been extremely constructive. We will continue to use the data and information provided by stakeholders and many of us to shape our approach to providing assistance to the hugely important DCMS sectors and to help them plan for reopening as soon as it is safe to do so, which, thankfully, will be very soon.
Julian Knight [V]
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have seen, writ large, the vital role that DCMS sectors play in all our constituencies the length and breadth of the country. I thank the Minister for his warm words, and for his ongoing commitment and that of his fellow Ministers and their advisers. I wish, however, that there was Treasury representation right now on the Treasury Bench, because, as we all know, and as has been highlighted by my Committee, DCMS is the most beholden of all Departments to the Treasury.
Obviously, the cultural recovery fund is very welcome, but the time for backslapping has now stopped—we need to refocus. Insurance will allow our live events to trade, not aid. The Minister made reference to the film and TV recovery plan and the insurance there, which, for me, is an example of why this is needed. We need pilots up and running for live events in double-quick time, and we need a root-and-branch review of tourism, as outlined, but with proper investment to follow. We need to get on and negotiate with our partners across the EU on EU visa arrangements and access for our creative industries. There is really no time to lose.
Above all else today, we need to understand a very simple thing: the DCMS sectors, and those who work within them, are not mendicants, forever holding out their hands; they are entrepreneurial and they are actually what we do best.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next debate.
COP26
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021, for expenditure by the Cabinet Office:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £975,392,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1227,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £76,060,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £798,643,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
May I begin by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your increasingly iconic videos on Twitter, which, with a lower budget, provide more charm than the Chancellor’s glitzy versions on Instagram?
Five years ago, the Paris agreement committed the world to limiting global warming to at least 2° C above pre-industrial levels but called on all of us to get as close to 1.5° C as possible. The recent announcements on net zero from the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, China and others mean that we are within striking distance of reaching that Paris target. According to the Climate Action Tracker, the net zero targets that have been pledged so far could limit global warming to 2.1° C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. That builds in the announcements from China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, South Korea and others. But those welcome announcements need to be translated into updated nationally determined contributions—NDCs—that need to be submitted to the UN before COP26 and, crucially, into deliverable climate action plans.
Unfortunately, the UN’s NDC synthesis report last month raised concerns instead of hopes. As at 31 December, only 75 parties to the Paris agreement had submitted their NDCs, representing 30% of global emissions. Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that we cut global emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2010 levels in order to limit temperature growth to 1.5° C, the NDCs submitted so far only get us to 1% of that 45% recommendation. Only two of the 18 largest emitters had submitted updated NDCs at the end of 2020, including the United Kingdom and the European Union. Of the NDCs that have been submitted, the UN notes a significant gap between longer-term carbon neutrality target announcements and commitments set out in the NDCs.
The crucial and urgent task for COP26 is therefore to bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality and to bring every nation with us on the route to achieving our Paris targets. This highlights the urgent need for a full Government response, especially a diplomatic response. China, for example, has committed to achieving net zero by 2060—an important and welcome commitment—but its recent five-year plan pushed the difficult and expensive decisions into the long grass. We should not get to COP26 and just tell big emitters such as China, India or others that they are not moving away from coal quickly enough, for example, not least when we are planning our own new coalmine here in the UK. Instead, we should have British diplomats in Beijing, Delhi and other capitals asking, “What can the world do to help you move away from coal more quickly?”
Here in the United Kingdom, we have legislated for net zero by 2050. The trouble is that, increasingly, we seem to be going off track at home. Yes, we were world leaders in legislating for net zero by 2050, and we have submitted a bold and welcome NDC, but the Public Accounts Committee last week concluded that there is no credible Government plan for how we deliver on those pledges. Yes, we have the energy White Paper, but where is the net zero spending review or the net zero strategy? In the new plan for growth, which replaced the scrapped industrial strategy last week via a footnote in the Budget, the horizon scan of Government announcements on our net zero transition did not even include the net zero spending review. The Government, we understand, are planning to reduce air passenger duty on short flights within the United Kingdom. They have U-turned on the vital green homes grant initiative, withdrawing a billion pounds of funding. The Budget last week made little mention of the so-called green industrial revolution.
On heating, which we are considering on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, we have enormous challenges ahead of us. It is the second largest emitter of carbon in the UK after surface transport, yet we have not made sufficient progress in understanding how we insulate people’s homes and also heat them without burning gas in the future. As the citizens’ assembly on climate change concluded, as led by my Select Committee and five others in the House, the public expect us to be making sufficient progress and taking the difficult decisions to reach our net zero target.
The fact is—I believe we all know this—the longer we leave this, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. I do not know how long I will be in this House, but as a Member who is, dare I say, on the younger side of the bell curve, I will be quite frankly furious if Ministers around the world, let alone in my own country, delegate the difficult work to the next generation, not least because it will be too late. It is therefore vital that we make progress at home and abroad and that we get on with that important work now. That means we need more than just a letter from the Foreign Secretary and the permanent secretary asking diplomatic missions to prioritise this work. It needs dedicated climate diplomats working within each country—diplomats who can listen and report back on the concerns or obstacles faced by leaders in reaching their required contributions to limiting global temperature growth.
Only by doing that work well in advance of COP26 in November can we anticipate and respond adequately to the needs of each nation. If we fail to do so, and countries come to Glasgow in November with real concerns—whether on climate aid, the balance between wealthy and less wealthy nations or the commitments from big emitters—we risk repeating the mistakes of the Copenhagen summit, with unresolved tensions being managed during COP itself and ultimately ending in failure.
In our recent interim report on COP26 and net zero, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee expressed concerns about the lack of focus on the necessity of submitting these updated nationally determined contributions and climate action plans, and also on the potential lack of support from the machinery of government in delivering on COP26.
The CEO of the COP26 unit, Peter Hill, confirmed that there are around 160 staff within the COP26 unit, which sits in the Cabinet Office. This unit is funded to the tune of £216 million through departmental transfers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Transport and others, and that is in addition to the £180 million allocated for security, representing the fact that the COP26 conference in Glasgow will be one of the largest police operations in British history. I am sure there must be more dedicated resources, especially in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, for this important work, and I hope that the COP26 President will set that out for the House today.
Lastly, we need urgent clarity on how COP26 itself will work in practice. I support the COP26 President’s aim of having an in-person summit and agree that that is the best way of illustrating equality between all nations around the decision-making table, but COP26 is not just for Heads of State and Ministers and officials. Some countries bring very large delegations; others bring smaller delegations. Can the COP26 President update the House on what the UK delegation will be and who will be included in it? There is also a great deal of wider engagement at COP, from business leaders and parliamentarians to civil society and non-governmental organisations. That usually means a large conference-style event. Indeed, the Government have said that COP26 will be the largest summit the UK has ever hosted, with 30,000 delegates, but that statement was, I think, made before covid.
I have raised the issue in COP26 questions, but it is now urgent to get clarity for delegations and the wider group of COP26 attendees about how online engagement will work if they are unable to attend in person, and how it will be determined whether delegates or other visitors are able to attend in person. The COP26 President may wish to update the House today on how the Government intend to provide, if necessary, covid vaccinations, testing and quarantine services for those physically participating in Glasgow. Indeed, concerns have been expressed by many, including me, that many nations, especially developing nations, are further behind in the roll-out of their own covid vaccinations. What steps can either the UK or UNFCCC take to ensure that the delegates are vaccinated and able to take part physically during COP in Glasgow in November?
There is cross-party support for Britain’s leadership of COP26, because it is a crucial milestone. The world needs to step up. It needs to set up credible, costed and deliverable climate action plans that get us to the targets we all agreed in Paris five years ago. Those often difficult decisions cannot be pushed into the long grass and left for future generations of leaders to deal with. If that happens, it will be not just a failure of politics, but a failure of humanity, because our planet will be unrecognisable compared with today if we fail in this task.
Climate migration following huge swathes of land around the equator turning into desert will pose a challenge to countries in the northern hemisphere and other parts of the world like never before. Difficult issues, such as the future management of Antarctica, will become live issues as potentially habitable land becomes available, while other habitable land is lost. Shortages of food, water and energy in the face of dramatic geopolitical changes and new national security threats will make covid look like a minor problem. In that context, and with that sense of urgency, while I welcome the commitment to net zero that will get us near the Paris target, we have to see deliverable climate action plans lodged at COP26, with countries’ leaders taking the difficult decisions and bringing forward investment—including climate aid from wealthy nations—to show the world that we take this issue seriously not just in rhetoric but in reality.
We want the COP26 President and his team to be successful in delivering the required outcomes. All of us in this House, I am sure, support him in those endeavours, but we also want to be assured that the Prime Minister and his Government are fully getting behind the COP team so that, come November, we will be celebrating the success of COP26, not mourning its failure in the face of climate disaster.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate and for his extremely unexpected but very kind remarks.
It will come as a great surprise to everyone that I am about to announce a time limit that has not been heard of for some time. The time limit in this debate will not be three minutes. It will initially be eight minutes. I should explain this unusual situation: the reason is that so many colleagues, at the last minute, withdrew not from this debate but from the previous debate, thereby leaving more time for this debate. We will therefore start with eight minutes, which is likely to reduce to about seven minutes, but I do not envisage its reducing to three minutes. I call Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and let’s push those eight minutes, shall we?
It is a great pleasure to be in the Chamber today talking about COP26, because it really is the absolute key event this year. We are going to get through covid, and we are already well along in the right direction due to the brilliance of various people in Government, in science and in the NHS, and many, many thousands of volunteers around the UK. That will free us and the world to focus on the real existential threat that we face, which is, of course, climate change.
I am delighted to follow my friend the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), under whose chairmanship the BEIS Committee has begun to expose some of the questions that we need to answer in the coming months. I am also delighted that we are working together on that, because one of the things I have discovered since taking the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is how little of our international reach is exercised by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I thought that the largest and most seminal conference absorbing our diplomatic network and shaping our diplomatic output for this year would be run by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but it is not: it is run by the Cabinet Office, and run very ably by my right hon. Friend the COP26 President; I am delighted that he is supported so well by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It was a bit of a surprise to me, but then again, I suppose I should not be surprised, because our Europe policy is also run by the Cabinet Office, and not even in this House, so perhaps I should expect our Americas policy and our Africa policy to be run by the Cabinet Office. Eventually, perhaps only our Scottish policy will be run by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but that would be a great shame. Maybe that can bring us back to talking about the importance of focusing on the joined-up policy that we need to see.
While the Select Committees have come together and have been working together, it is also worth pointing out how well the Government have begun to work together. When the French started their process, it resulted in the Paris COP21 that everybody remembers. That was not only a success at the time, but with the election of President Biden, it has become a renewed success as Paris has just been signed up to again by the United States. It took them two years, hundreds of diplomats and a former Prime Minister to bring all that together. That work was really, really tough. What my right hon. Friend has picked up on is that he started later with fewer staff and in the middle of the covid pandemic, and that makes it really difficult. However, I can report from, if he will excuse me, spies in other camps that the pace at which he is producing results is already very well received. I am delighted to say that in conversations I have had with representatives from other countries—I am not going to name them, but they are people who have spoken to him in recent days and weeks—they have reported that he is certainly well on the way to delivering a result.
Of course, this is not just down to my right hon. Friend; it is also down to our partners around the world. Many people have heard me in this House condemning communism, but I have to tell the House that I have actually been working very closely with a communist in order to try to achieve some of the results that we are all trying to share. He is my opposite number and colleague in the Italian Parliament—Piero Fassino, the former communist mayor of Turin, who now chairs its foreign affairs committee, because this conference is of course being organised jointly with our Italian partners. We have all welcomed my right hon. Friend’s co-operation with them.
In the run-up to our going to that wonderful city of Glasgow—my favourite city in the north—later this year, I very much hope that we will get a chance to see some of the progress along the way. My friend, the hon. Member for Bristol North West, has set out many of the targets that we should be looking to, and I hope that he will be as co-operative in reporting back to this House and to Parliament generally to make sure that we can help to guide the process. This will be one of those moments when we can define the future—we can change policies not just in this country but around the world to make these aims possible. We need to be talking actively not just about carbon offshoring and carbon pricing but about how we transform the very nature of the societies in which we are working. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Antarctica and, indeed, other areas being made uninhabitable. We need this to be a policy that is not just led by the Cabinet Office but touches on every single aspect of Britain’s foreign policy.
Whatever happens with the aid budget—I know that many of us hope that 0.7% will be rather more respected than do others—what we decide to do in aid, in diplomacy and in how we structure our trade policy will have a direct consequence on whatever my right hon. Friend agrees with partners around the world. That is why I very much hope that his role, as he sees it, will not just be about a conference—not just about an event, a day and a moment—and not even just about a deal, although it is a hugely important deal. Actually, this will be about a change of structure, a new understanding and a new partnership that engages all of us and—yes—the Biden Administration, who have already demonstrated such interest, as well as our partners in the European Union, our partners in the Commonwealth and, indeed, those countries with whom we have often found it harder to work. If we do not get this right, we will feel the pain—it is true—but we will also see an increased salination of the rice fields of eastern China, an increased desertification of the many parts of the world that are already struggling, and an erosion of the ability of many communities to sustain.
This year, the World Food Programme was rightly awarded the Nobel peace prize— a well-earned prize. I was fortunate enough to speak to its director general, Governor David Beasley, who is an amazing individual and a great friend of our country. He pointed out what I think is well worth remembering: if we think that the migration crisis that we saw in 2015 out of Syria was something serious, just imagine the crisis that would be caused if my right hon. Friend the COP26 President and his friends and partners around the world were to fail in Glasgow. I hope he knows that he will have the support of the whole House, and he will certainly have the support of the Committees, as we try to help him to shape and achieve the results that we all need.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I echo the words of the last speaker, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), about how monumental the decisions will be that need to be taken this November, because November’s COP26 in Glasgow is a historic opportunity for Britain to provide leadership to the world on climate change.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his colleagues on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, who have produced detailed reports that should be influencing the Cabinet Office and shaping the agenda in the run-up to COP26. Scientists and climate experts are urging the Government to lead the way in adopting ambitious deadlines for achieving net zero along with shorter-term interim targets, and it is those targets that are vital. The former Prime Minister committed the UK Government to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The BEIS Committee said last week that
“no details have yet been provided on how success will be measured”
for COP 26. We cannot achieve significant carbon reductions by empty words, good PR or grandiose declarations. It takes action.
I have to say, last week’s Budget does not give us much hope of demonstrating world leadership. In fact, for some of us, it is a cause of despair and shame. The decisions by the Government to freeze fuel duty and to dig a new coalmine, and the pathetic scale of the Government’s environmental policies are a dereliction of duty to the planet and to future generations. It is a failure of Government, who could have acted to create hundreds of thousands of climate jobs in areas from wind turbines to tidal lagoons, from electric car charge points to tree planting, but there was no evidence of the scale of investment and scale of ambition that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West called for. Instead of tying corporate tax breaks and investment write-offs to clear climate criteria, the giveaways announced in the Budget could hinder, rather than help our carbon reduction strategy.
The verdict of Richard Black from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit was that this was
“a Budget that didn’t even try to get the Conservatives on track to their net zero target”.
Today, there are reports that the Government will cut air passenger duty on domestic flights. Frankly, I would struggle to find a more regressive policy, and I speak as somebody who represents a constituency with Heathrow in it. I would struggle to find something that is more regressive than encouraging domestic aviation before we have had that debate and discussion and the development of the environmental aviation strategy.
It is crystal clear to me that this Government have no co-ordinated plan and no cross-departmental agenda to drive the decarbonisation that we seek. This is not just my view, but that of the Public Accounts Committee, which has been quoted. The PAC published a report on achieving net zero with the brutal conclusion, “Government lacks a plan”. Never have four words better summed up an Administration than that.
In terms of the modest 2050 target, the Committee said, damningly:
“there is little sign that it”—
the Government—
“understands how to get there”.
I will raise just one other point from the report, which said:
“Local authorities will also play a major role in the move to net zero, and Government will need to engage more with local authorities about how they can contribute”.
The irony is that today we learned that across the country more than two dozen councils are on the brink of bankruptcy, stripped of the funding to provide the statutory services their communities need, let alone the funding they need to take on the challenge of climate change.
The autumn statement is expected to be delivered on the eve of COP26. I just say to the Government that we hope for something better then. Otherwise, unless a serious plan is brought forward and unless there are significant resources attached to that plan, what leadership can the UK Government hope to offer the rest of the world? What authority can it possibly have in those vital discussions, when we are trying to bring together others, some more recalcitrant than others, who will be brought to the table to have a serious discussion only when they see others leading by example?
I believe that without drastic action COP26 risks exposing the UK Government as a laughing stock on climate change if we are not careful. I urge Ministers to change course and show some leadership. I urge them now to look at the reports our Select Committees have produced. They provide not just an agenda of issues to be addressed, but a direction that the Government could take. Otherwise, it is a betrayal of future generations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West claimed the future for himself. Well, some of us older ones have an interest in the future as well, with our children and grandchildren. This November will ensure, hopefully, that they will have a planet that they can survive on and flourish on.
From the evidence I have seen so far—it is not just me; I think it is independent experts as well—the leadership the Government are showing is nowhere near the scale or commitment we need to demonstrate to the rest of the world what can be done, what needs to be done and what our country can contribute.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The time limit is now reduced, but it is only reduced to seven minutes.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your generosity in this debate.
Although it may have been a little hard to determine from the remarks by my immediate predecessor in this debate, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), he welcomed this debate and I join him in doing so. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on his opening remarks. He is right that there is a consensus across the House. We all want to see COP26 as a hugely successful conference, not just for the UK but for the whole world, to set us on a path to zero emissions by 2050, an ambition that was set out some time ago.
The objectives for the COP26 series of discussions, which of course were due to have taken place last year had it not been for covid, were actually set at Paris five years ago. It is worth reminding ourselves, at the outset of my remarks, of the four particular commitments that were set for the forthcoming conference. The first was to enhance Governments’ nationally determined contributions. This will be the first time since Paris that they will have been ratcheted up. The second was to invite each country to provide a long-term strategy, to give a pathway to decarbonisation by 2050. Where I agree with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is that it is beholden on the Government to set out clarity over the path to 2050, not just the target.
The third commitment was to do with finance. There was $100 billion per annum mobilised for the poorest countries to help them green their economies and adapt to the impact of climate change. We need to see how that is going to be delivered when we get to Glasgow.
Finally, there was the issue of the rulebook for a global carbon market to avoid double counting and to set the standards. Here, I think the UK has a great opportunity to show its famed global leadership. This conference will be the largest ever held in this country in terms of the number of countries participating, and I hope that most of them will be able to be here, in one form or another, in person. It is a real opportunity for the nation to lead the world and for the Prime Minister to put his stamp on the future.
As the UK is acting as host country—with Italy, as has been said—we will act as a neutral arbiter in these negotiations. We need to ensure that every country—every Paris signatory, at least—is supported in bringing forward its updated nationally determined contribution. At the beginning of the Paris conference, 186 of the 196 parties attending had presented their nationally determined contributions. I know that progress has been made, but we have a long way to go to match France’s performance when it hosted the last of this series of conferences.
The UK announced its contribution, a 68% reduction in emissions against the 1990 benchmark, last December. Several other countries have set out high-profile ambitions since, including China, Japan and South Korea looking to get to net zero by the mid-21st century, and some presenting nearer-term targets ahead of COP26. However, we still have to see progress from some major economies, including Russia, Brazil and Australia—and I know that the US will now be joining; we need to see where it gets to, too. Perhaps the COP26 President will update us on his discussions with President Biden’s special envoy, John Kerry, who was in the UK very recently.
I want to touch on two other aspects—first, how does Parliament engage in scrutinising progress? The Environmental Audit Committee—in common with other Committees, as we have heard—has undertaken various sessions in relation to COP26. The first was a year ago, when we engaged with stakeholders who were involved with previous COPs to establish what the Government’s preparations needed to focus on. We then had a session with Nigel Topping and Fiona Reynolds in May last year on the role of finance in leading the way for the upcoming COP, and we also questioned Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN convention, last year. We questioned my right hon. Friend the COP26 President, who was then President-designate, in September last year.
Nine Select Committees have locus in relation to this issue, and we have all agreed to work together in scrutinising the UK Government preparations. We, as the Environmental Audit Committee, will lead the first of those scrutiny sessions, on cross-Government arrangements and the machinery of government, tomorrow morning. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the COP26 President will be attending, with two of his senior officials.
The eyes of the world will be on us to make a credible success of COP. The challenge is across many areas. We need to use the national events that we have to demonstrate UK leadership. The UK has met the first and second carbon budgets and has already reduced emissions below the level expected in the third carbon budget, up to 2022. However, as is widely acknowledged, we are not on track to meet either the fourth or fifth carbon budgets, which were legislated for on the basis of an 80% cut in emissions using the 1990 baseline by 2050, rather than the more ambitious net zero target that we now have in legislation.
A major ramp-up is needed, as is acknowledged by the Committee on Climate Change, to achieve that, and the UK will have to make more progress. Although it has been succeeding in the power sector, emissions are either not falling or not falling fast enough across transport, agriculture, housing and industry. Bringing forward the petrol and diesel car ban is welcome, but it is not the only measure that the Government have to take—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has exceeded the time limit. I was trying to give him a little leeway, but the system will not allow me to let him finish his sentence. We therefore go to Kilmarnock, and to Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that this is the first time I have ever had the chance to get my red pen out and add to my notes, rather than having to scrub notes out frantically. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
COP26 is clearly the most important COP since Paris, and it is critical for our net zero commitments. It is a chance for the UK to be on the world stage, but we have to ask whether matters are in hand. If we look at the Cabinet Office estimates, I would suggest not. We know that the Cabinet Office COP26 budget for this financial year was revised down from £216 million to just £22 million due to the postponement, but what has been achieved to date with that expenditure? What will the future budget look like? We do not really know, which in itself shows the entire farce of the estimates process.
Has the memorandum of understanding between Police Scotland and the UK Government been signed off, underwriting the estimated £180 million policing cost? Where is the budget line for that? We can still recall that the Home Office did not stump up for the Lib Dems’ party conference in Glasgow in 2013, which left Police Scotland £800,000 out of pocket. It is critical that the Police Scotland budget is not affected.
As a member of the BEIS Committee, I was pleased to take part in an inquiry about the COP26 preparations. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has covered it admirably, but I will reiterate some key recommendations that need to be considered. First, we need to ensure that the correct resource allocation from the civil service is in place. That needs a real focus from the Cabinet Office, not its current obsession with Union units. In the last couple of years, the Cabinet Office has also been a propaganda unit—first for Brexit, now the Union. Let us get a focus on COP26, which is a real priority.
We need to put in place measurable outcomes of success. The Committee has also suggested that parliamentary engagement needs to extend to the devolved legislatures, as well as the Westminster process. That brings us to the fact that leaders and relevant Ministers of the devolved Governments should form part of the UK delegation, as well as Opposition MPs. Let us show inclusivity as part of COP26, whatever Governments elsewhere do—but that will take real leadership from the COP26 President, given that we know the Prime Minister’s view on Scottish devolution.
We need the UK Government to set the sixth carbon budget as soon as possible, incorporating the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change in full. Serious consideration needs to be given to resetting the fifth carbon budget, which currently is not aligned to net zero.
Something else that I will throw into the mix is reconsidering the cuts to the foreign aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out, a lot of finance needs to be mobilised to help developing countries. We have started to debate the damage and loss going forward. It sends completely the wrong message that the UK, as the host country, is cutting its foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world.
Clearly covid has been an overriding UK Government priority, and they have to deal with an emergency, but it feels as if the extra time gained from the postponement has not been put to full use. We need more information on the preparations. Certainly we need some kind of decision-making timeline made available that ties in with public health assessments, and plans to ensure that no countries are left out going forward. We really need more progress on the agreement over the nationally determined contributions. It is critical that all spend associated with the preparations is transparent. There can be no more lucrative contracts for friends and cronies.
Leading by example also means having proper domestic policies in place, just as the Scottish Government have. It is a terrible state of affairs that we are still awaiting the heat and building strategy and we are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. It should be noted that the Scottish Government have a 5 GW hydrogen production target, which is the same as the UK’s, so Scotland is showing much more ambition. Again, Scotland has a transport decarbonisation plan in place for a net zero target of 2035, but we are still awaiting the UK Government’s transport decarbonisation plan.
Without these key policies, there is no net zero strategy, and policies without funding commitments are effectively redundant. While there is a 10-point plan with a figure of 600,000 heat pump installations a year, this means nothing without a funded programme to back it up. That programme needs to be aligned with energy-efficient installations and should start targeting off-grid properties. There are 3,000 deaths a year in the UK related to fuel poverty, so the UK Government also need to invest far more directly in energy efficiency and demonstrate a net zero transition that will not push up energy bills and create more fuel poverty.
When it comes to transport, Scotland can demonstrate the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses. The Scottish Government have facilitated orders for electric and hydrogen buses from Alexander Dennis Ltd. Where is the UK Government’s national bus strategy? This is the type of leadership and joined-up thinking that is lacking at the moment.
I would ask the UK Government to be bold, and to abandon nuclear. This is not going to be the technology saviour they demonstrate to the rest of the world. We still cannot deal with nuclear waste, so we really do need to move away from this. Ahead of COP26, they should give sign-off for pumped-storage hydro. Floating offshore wind, green hydrogen, and wave and tidal technologies are the renewable technologies to focus on, so can we confirm ring-fenced contracts for difference pots for those? We should look at innovation in power purchase agreements for smaller marine projects to allow them to get to market.
Those are technologies that the UK and in particular Scotland, as the host country, can show to the world and be part of a coherent plan for an energy strategy. We need to be able to demonstrate it as part of the overall plan to lead other countries and make COP26 a real success. There is a lot of work to do in domestic policy and a lot of work in the negotiations that lie ahead of COP26 to make it a success.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just for everybody’s information, the wind-ups will start no later than 6.28 pm with Deidre Brock. There will then be shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook at 6.38 pm, the COP26 President at 6.48 pm, and Darren Jones at 6.58 pm.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I sense that you are probably not as familiar with Glasgow as the Chairman of Ways and Means, who preceded you in the Chair, but I, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland and, indeed, a Scottish Member of Parliament, am delighted that the United Kingdom Government have brought COP26 to Scotland—to Glasgow. As we all know, Glasgow is a great city that can handle this event, and notwithstanding the issues that people have rightly raised about what is achieved at the conference, I believe Glasgow has every ability to host an event of such scale and to do it in a memorable way.
I do hope that we will see the new President of the United States attend the event. I had the rather dubious duty of welcoming the previous President of the United States to Scotland on one of his visits to the United Kingdom. At that event, he told me that he loved Scotland, but very unfortunately he did not follow it through during his presidency by removing the punitive tariffs on whisky.
Despite some of the remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I hope that we will see the full engagement of the Scottish Government in a positive way for this event. When we face a global climate emergency, the cost of the Lib Dem Scottish conference in 2013 is not really the issue of the moment that we need to be addressing or hearing about. I want to see the Scottish Government engage positively. I was encouraged to hear the First Minister of Scotland addressing businesses in relation to COP and the opportunities that it would bring. That is the tone that we want to hear. Also, it is not a competition between policies pursued by the Scottish Government and those pursued by the UK Government: I welcome the progress that has been made on many fronts in Scotland, but that does not mean that everything is right. Likewise, there are many positive aspects within the UK, but within Scotland, we could do better.
The principal point that I want to make in my contribution is that I want to see widespread public and civic engagement flowing from this event. I think most of us in the Chamber are familiar with major events taking place where there is little or no public engagement. The circus comes to town; all the important people arrive; they are all cordoned off; they are in their cars; and there are all the events, yet the average member of the public has little engagement or connection with them. Under my analysis, COP26 will not be a complete success unless we have engaged extensively with the wider public. The clear message is that each and every one of us owns climate change. Each and every one of us makes a difference, and if we exclude members of the public—if they do not feel part of this event, and it feels distant and remote from them—we are not going to achieve that.
I am very hopeful that my constituency will benefit economically from the overflow of guests and those attending requiring accommodation. That, of course, will be positive, but I also want there to be engagement with communities and groups that are already interested, and are themselves already very active on this front. For example, on Friday I am hosting an online event with a community group called Tweed Green, in Peebles in my constituency, to which members will come with all sorts of questions and issues: some about the climate emergency and what this Parliament is doing, and some on more local issues. They want to be part of this event, and we need to provide a way of their doing so. There are also lots of great local projects, such as the hydro scheme that has been run by the Keir, Penpont, and Tynron local trust. We have lots of local examples, and I am sure every Scottish Member could stand up in this Chamber and cite those examples. We want to see that level of engagement.
Of course, there are challenges, and we have to confront those challenges. I have more onshore wind turbines either in situ or in planning in my constituency, and just because, for example, people wish to oppose such developments does not make them anti-COP or anti-dealing with climate change. My plea to the COP26 President—I will be very interested in his concluding remarks—is to engage the public of Scotland: engage civic Scotland, engage stakeholders, and engage young people. I believe Scotland wants to play its part in making this a huge success. I do not in any way diminish the challenges that have already been raised by other speakers about what is achieved within the conference arena: if we achieve nothing there, that will of course mean that the event has not succeeded. However, to conclude, I reiterate that in my view, the event will not have succeeded unless we engage with the people of Scotland.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). My immediate priority is to ensure that the Government have the wherewithal to deliver this. They have many key priorities at the moment, not least the recovery from covid, economic rebuilding, consolidating Brexit and establishing the UK’s new place in global affairs, but what could be more important to that fourth priority than COP26, which represents such a critical opportunity for the world to address the increasingly severe impacts of the climate crisis? The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, described it as a “crucial milestone”, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said:
“The eyes of the world will be on us”.
The UK has often taken the lead on climate issues, and this presidency is a chance to push for ambitious commitments from partners across the globe. I personally favour the idea of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, embodying treaty commitments to limit fossil fuels coming out of the ground or to bind states to offsetting carbon capture and storage. We already have a good record on that in our own country, and it is important that our own policies reinforce the UK’s commitment to this work. Examples include our commitments to international marine reserves, which promote carbon capture; to agricultural reform and rewilding; to our net zero target; and to insulating homes and reducing carbon emissions from transport. Incidentally, we are going to have one of the biggest hydrogen production green energy hubs in Essex, at the new freeport that was announced last week.
The key to success in the past has been the significant effort and resources expended on conferences like these, long before the conference itself. I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a little while ago that the French employed a former Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, and he had 12 months and 200 diplomats at his disposal to support the preparation for the Paris COP in 2015. I very much congratulate the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), on his appointment and on being given a Cabinet-level role for his COP presidency. He is wholly devoted to it, but it is vital that he has a team with both the resources and the clout, not just to bring our international partners together, involving many Foreign Office resources, but to ensure that the Government Departments work together to deliver on our own targets and our own work.
I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and we had to report that the net zero target was not effectively embedded in policy making on a cross-Whitehall basis, so I ask my right hon. Friend: what is the machinery of government that is going to back him up and support his work in the run-up to COP26? We have been expecting a written ministerial statement, and we still expect it. I have been invited to guest on the Environmental Audit Committee tomorrow, and I expect I will press him on this subject then if he does not want to answer that question in the debate this evening. The question is: how much real clout does the machinery of government give the him to deliver this very substantial and defining task for the Government?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow pointed out, the Select Committee system in this House is already getting well prepared. Three Chairs of Committees have commented already in this debate, and the Committees are linking their inquiries. The Transport Committee is looking at zero-emission vehicles, the Treasury Committee has been working on decarbonisation and green finance, one of the key summit issues, and the Science and Technology Committee is looking at the potential for hydrogen to meet the UK’s net zero target. The Committees are also demonstrating their flexibility and willingness to collaborate, and I am delighted that they are coming together in this way, effectively to form a kind of informal committee on COP26 to scrutinise the work of the Government in the run-up to the COP summit.
I have to say that this is also an effort to limit the demands on my right hon. Friend the COP President’s time so that there is no duplication of evidence taking by different Committees. As I say, he is coming before the Environmental Audit Committee tomorrow. I ask him what commitments he can make to the programme of other meetings that I, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, am setting out and that other Committees are setting out, in order that we have a coherent programme of scrutiny of the work of the Government up to COP26.
The big challenge here is for the Government to put themselves in the global picture on the most important global summit we are likely to see them undertake in this Parliament; there will be G7s, G8s and NATOs, but nothing is going to cap this. This is the defining COP summit that has to crown the achievement of the Paris summit. I very much hope that this will be seen as a British diplomatic success and not as something that other countries have had to sort out for us. My right hon. Friend has an enormous task. I congratulate him again on his appointment and wish him all the very best. He should come to the Select Committees, perhaps privately, if he needs us to add pressure in order to ensure that he can deliver the task that the Prime Minister has given him.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), all the more so because I think he just said he supported the proposal for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty—a new commitment to leave fossil fuels in the ground. If I heard him right, I would be delighted to work with him to help to achieve that.
COP26 is arguably the most crucial global summit in recent history, so it will be vital that the COP26 unit receives all the support and funding necessary to deliver a successful COP, even if that goes beyond the £260 million it has already been allocated. The world is watching and the stakes could not be higher. I welcome the fact that the COP26 President-designate is now full-time, able to dedicate all his efforts towards the COP, but if we are to achieve the results we so desperately need the whole of Government needs to be oriented towards a successful outcome from the negotiations. That means greater consistency and ambition across Departments if we are to show credible climate leadership, and it means having the plan that the Public Accounts Committee clearly identified as conspicuous by its absence.
It also means addressing the weakness and incoherence of our domestic climate policy: the Government’s failure to call in the recent decision to allow a new coalmine in Cumbria; the £27 billion road building programme; the freezing of fuel duty for the 10th year; the approach whereby air passenger duty is apparently to be reduced; the absence of serious climate action in the Budget; and the lack of a guarantee that measures such as the super deduction tax break will not be available for high-carbon investments. The list goes on, and with a record such as that it is no wonder we are off course to meet both our fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Not only that, but of course those budgets are based on an 80% emission reduction target by 2050, not net zero. No wonder, either, that the latest annual progress report from the Committee on Climate Change highlighted that the Government have failed on 17 of their 21 progress indicators and that just two out of 31 key policy milestones have been met.
When presented with facts such as those, Ministers like to say, “We have reduced emissions by over 40% since 1990”, but let us have some honesty here, because that is true only of territorial emissions, not imported emissions. It has been achieved only by offshoring so much of our manufacturing—in essence, outsourcing our emissions to countries such as China. As well as greater ambition at home, we must also use our presidency to redouble our diplomatic engagements to reinforce the need for strong Paris-aligned climate ambition.
On the arrangements for Glasgow itself, I appreciate that discussions are still ongoing about whether it will be physical attendance, online or a hybrid mode, but however the negotiations take place, everything must be done to ensure full and equal participation of the global south and of civil society. That, of course, means equitable access to vaccines, and on that I echo the words of the Chair of the BEIS Committee. Countries in the global south have already expressed concern in response to the call by António Guterres for preparatory negotiations to take place online. Any online negotiations must be inclusive and all countries must have the technical and financial support they need to participate on equal terms.
Moving on to outcomes, the UN is reporting that only 75 countries so far have brought forward new NDC commitments and that together they would reduce emissions by only about 1% by 2030, which is far from the 45% recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We are on course for climate catastrophe, yet a successful COP26 will not be defined by emission targets alone, crucial though those are; it will also mark the start of a process to set a specific target for climate finance beyond 2025. On this, the Government talk a good game, with the Prime Minister repeatedly boasting that the UK has doubled its commitment to £11.6 billion, up from £5.8 billion. While it is true that the UK performs well in some areas—for example, providing the majority through grants and allocating 50% to adaptation— all is not as it seems, as is so often the case with this Government.
The entirety of the UK’s climate finance commitment comes from the aid budget, which the Chancellor is cutting from 0.7% to 0.5%. That is despite the fact that, under the UN framework convention on climate change, climate finance was negotiated by all parties in good faith as new and additional finance. It was understood to be additional to the long-standing commitment to ODA, not taken from money that developing countries were set to achieve anyway. Not only is this morally wrong, it will also undermine the trust that we so desperately need as we head towards the negotiations in November.
As an immediate step, I call on the Government to reverse the cut to the aid budget and to ensure that the finance is genuinely new and additional. As COP26 host, the UK must also call on other countries to bring forward new and additional commitments to climate finance, including at least 50% allocated to adaptation; grants, not loans; and a significant increase in the finance provided to the least developed countries and small island developing states. Just 3% of climate finance reported to the OECD for 2017-18 went to small island developing states—countries that are on the frontline of the climate emergency.
Loss and damage is an overlooked area of the Paris agreement but is profoundly important for vulnerable countries—so important that failing to address this pivotal issue could lead to the collapse of the talks at COP26. Currently, no financial support has been agreed for loss and damage, despite the most vulnerable countries having to take on the debt to deal with consequences of global heating. In January this year, Mozambique was hit by Storm Eloise, which killed more than 1,000 people, destroyed 100,000 homes and flooded thousands of hectares of crops. At that point, the country had yet to recover from Cyclones Idai and Kenneth in 2019, which pushed its public debt to almost 110% of its GDP.
We cannot let vulnerable countries be pushed further into debt by the climate crisis. The UK must put its pre-existing position, which has been to block loss and damage, to one side. It must use its role as a neutral COP26 president to thoughtfully and effectively facilitate a way to progress action on loss and damage finance and to stand in solidarity with communities that are suffering the worst impacts right now. At the heart of COP26 is the issue of climate justice, and as summit hosts, we will be judged on our ability to deliver it.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). If I recall correctly, Ronald Reagan had a quote on his desk in the White House that was along the lines of, “There’s no limit to what you can achieve or how far you can go, as long as you don’t care who takes the credit.” I see the role of the COP26 President as quite unusual in politics, because what the President, his team, this Government and this country have to do is get the world to agree to a set of different things along our achieved aims, and not care who gets the credit but get the job done. I have huge confidence in the COP26 President and his ability to do that.
I will not repeat what has been said about NDCs and various issues by other Members, who have made thoughtful speeches. I will identify three key areas in which I would like to hear the Government’s and the President’s plans on where we are going and how exactly we will achieve our aims not just as a country but as a world in trying to deal with this global problem. Those three areas are carbon emissions, carbon sequestration and rare metals, mining and manufacturing.
On emissions, we have already heard from many speakers about the need for a big increase in the number of countries submitting more ambitious NDCs. We all accept that, and I am sure that the COP26 President is working for it. The key thing that I am interested in is the plan to improve it. How will we try to achieve it materially? Even if we succeed in getting lots of countries to sign up for more ambitious net zero targets, which I am confident we will be able to do, and can back that up with concrete plans, in essence, in a few years’ time we will be going around this merry-go-round again. I am therefore very interested in the COP26 President’s plans for how we will achieve that.
To follow on from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who talked at length about the need for finance and mobilising climate finance, about which she is completely right, what are our plans to mobilise the asset of the City of London? There is huge good will in the City of London, as I know through the work that I do with the all-party parliamentary group on bankers for net zero and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for renewable and sustainable energy—PRASEG—and through dealing with a great deal of liaison among APPGs, the COP26 President and the Government on COP26. There is a lot of enthusiasm, but how will the Government take that enthusiasm and positive energy and turn it into results on a global scale? Let me quote the Lord Mayor of London, William Russell, at a talk I was at recently. He said that the message should be:
“go green or go home”.
That is the message we should take to the City of London and to others.
On carbon sequestration, many experts—I notice that experts are back in fashion—have said that in order for us to achieve net zero by 2050, even if we decarbonise at the rate we all know we need to decarbonise at, it may be necessary to take something in the region of 120 gigatonnes to 160 gigatonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere. I had to look up what a gigatonne was. I knew that it sounded very big but I needed to work out how big. For information, it is 1 billion metric tonnes. Indeed, a metric tonne is 1,000 kg. That is a lot of carbon.
Getting the technology and achieving the target will require a huge amount of private sector innovation for technologies that have not yet even been invented in many respects. Government can help. In the United States, there is tax relief on carbon removals investment, for example. But we may need to do things to sponsor carbon removal markets and try to help consumers and businesses direct their spending on capital to new technology. One example is called Zero Exchange, which is led by Daniel Korski, Ryan Shea and Lichelle Wolmarans. There may be other examples, but this is one way of providing a carbon removal market. These are the sorts of innovative ideas that I would like to see championed at COP so that we can funnel capital that we know is there and harness that enthusiasm and energy into positive results to take carbon out of the atmosphere. That does not get enough attention.
Finally, on rare metals, up until the renaissance, human beings used about six or seven metals. In the industrial revolution, we used about a dozen. Now, with rare metals included, we are using in the region of 89 or 90. Why am I talking about rare metals in this debate? Rare metals such as lithium, which is key for batteries for electric cars and wind turbines; niobium, which helps us make energy-efficient vehicles and steel structures; and coltan, which is a key ingredient for mobile phones, do not come out of thin air. They come out of the ground. Most of those metals are not located in this country or even in Europe. The United States has a bit, but China has a significant amount and they are also found in sub-Saharan African and South America.
I have two questions related to rare metals and mining. This is something that none of us likes to think about, because we like to think of the green revolution as entirely clean, but, in order to make the green things, we will have to get some of those rare metals out of the ground. The first of my questions is an environmental one and concerns the standards of that mining. We must make sure that those standards are as high as possible so that we do not cause environmental damage, which, sadly, is the sometimes the case. The second is a geopolitical one. Are we content for this to happen just in other countries, or are we willing to do some of the heavy-lifting ourselves, and, indeed, to finance it as well?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). He is absolutely right: negative emission technologies have not been developed yet, and yet they are vital for us to get to net zero.
Hosting COP26 in the UK, especially as it marks the beginning of the implementation of the Paris agreement, is a great honour. We are asked significantly to increase our ambition and achieve what we promised in 2016—let us remember that we now have to get to net zero, not just to 80% of emissions.
The UK has a historic responsibility for causing the ecological and climate emergency. We must now use our power on the international stage to get to net zero, address the nature crisis, and lead by example globally. We must push for the strongest possible ambition from our international partners, but we cannot do that if our own credibility is undermined. Therefore, we need clear and ambitious domestic targets for which the Government can be held responsible immediately. Getting to net zero in 29 years’ time means little if we cannot hold the Government to account in the meantime. We are, as we have already heard, way off when it comes to hitting our own targets, so is the rest of the international community. We must do better.
COP26, as we have already heard, is not all about us. Island nations risk losing entire cultures to sea-level rises. New species risk going extinct every day that we allow illegal deforestations to continue. Every day that we delay action, we get closer to new tipping points in our national ecosystem. We must make sure that the money we put into COP26 includes adequate support for the global south, so that it has the same access and can participate as usual despite the pandemic. The UK Government must commit to offering visas to delegates and accredited civil society from the global south. Every year, hard-working, dedicated activists are turned away from contributing to international climate policy. Furthermore, let us ensure that people from across the UK, from across all backgrounds and from across all ages are involved in the preparation of this conference. COP26 is a vital historic moment for international climate action; let us not waste it.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to participate in this debate on estimates for COP26. Two years ago, as interim energy Minister, I helped to secure for the United Kingdom and Italy their joint bid to host COP26. I am delighted to see the progress that has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). I want to put on record my admiration for him personally. Having worked extremely hard to climb the ladder of ministerial office to become a Secretary of State, he has decided to relinquish that office to become solely COP26 President. That demonstrates his commitment to the necessary values and the outcome that is needed from COP—he is not merely a simple politician but has put himself in the place of a true statesman.
If this COP is to be a success, as was the COP in Paris five years ago, it is absolutely right that we need to be driven by values and outcomes. It is quite clear that net zero by 2050 will slowly—perhaps more quickly—become the goal that comes out of COP26. I was the Minister who signed the net zero target into law on 27 June 2019, having led the debate in Parliament. It is easy to say that net zero should be legislated for, but since then I have seen the demonstration of the UK’s potential to lead this debate and to enact change. We have seen France, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and, hopefully, the United States sign up to net zero by 2050, with China potentially signing up to net zero by 2060. We emit 1% of the world’s global emissions, yet this is where the UK can achieve and succeed in demonstrating that, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned, we can lead by example.
To achieve net zero, we need to ensure that COP26 is not just a high-level summit with similarly high-level lofty ambitions just from Government. If it is to deliver change, it needs to be about a whole-of-society approach, which means taking a long-term strategic position, not merely talking about what is happening in 2021. To put it into context, just 4% of the UK population even know what net zero means. That demonstrates the scale of the challenge we face in reaching net zero. We need a vision that can embrace the need for human behavioural change. This is where climate change policy 2.0 needs to be carved out. I shall come on to talk about the technological and energy supply changes that we have seen when it comes to climate change policy, but we now need to embrace the human dimension—we need not only to embrace humans’ hopes for change but understand their fears and how those fears can be tackled in future.
The UK has led on emission reductions in the G7: we have reduced emissions by 40% since 1990, despite growing our overall economy by 70%. That demonstrates that we can ensure growth regardless of the need for change. Between 2008 and 2018, we reduced emissions by 28%, yet we have now we set a target of reducing emissions by 68% by 2030. That is a huge escalation in ambition, which is welcome but still a challenge. Of the 28% reduction between 2008 and 2018, 56% of the decrease was in energy supply. Make no mistake: that was the low-hanging fruit.
We now need to reach far higher to get to far more difficult-to-reach sectors such as transport. Power and energy supply made up 66 million tonnes of the 496 million tonnes that we emitted in 2018; transport made up 115 million tonnes of that, yet its reduction between 2008 and 2018 was just 3%. To achieve the reductions that we are going to need, we will have to embrace systems-wide policy making that embraces operational research and does not rely just on announcements and speeches, which will not deliver policy change and will not allow for successful policy implementation.
First, we require a systems-wide change to Government delivery. The COP President currently sits within the Cabinet Office, which is right, but post COP we need a net zero Department that unites all Departments across Whitehall. We also need to embrace partnership working. COP26 will not be a success just through the efforts of the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West, no matter how phenomenal a job I believe he is doing. I follow his Twitter feed every morning, noon and night and it is amazing what he is achieving, but he is one man. We can do so much more by embracing other institutions, such as universities, local authorities and devolved mayoralties. We should also focus on how we can create net zero regions, as I know we are doing, to drive systems change for the future. Universities stand ready—as a former Minister for Universities and chair of the all-party group on universities, I know that there is group of universities for COP26—and they will be at the forefront of delivering on research when it comes to achieving net zero.
On research and how we reach the scale that we need to achieve for the future, we need to take a mission-based approach, in respect of not only societal adaptation and change but new science and innovation structures to deliver net zero. The Prime Minister has spoken of “moonshots”, and we can frame COP26 and net zero by using the moonshot approach. The Government’s 10-point plan has set out ambitions for what we can achieve in the next 10 years; 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 is a great target, but we need to focus on wider ambitions, including expanding hydrogen supply. We need to be setting sector-wide approaches that are ambitious, but can be realised and delivered through structures—even legislation. That would enable these ambitions to be driven in a really tough way, rather than just being policy announcements.
Finally, we need dedicated climate change research and technological funds that are internationally based for COP26. We are hosting the G7 this year, and we have huge international ambitions for the United Kingdom. Why not place our faith in science, innovation and research by creating new funds that the UK can lead to get other countries behind us and deliver on net zero for the future?
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), especially as he finished on such a key point about how advances in technology can help us to deal with the immense challenge that we face. It is also incredibly welcome that COP26 is happening in Glasgow, in our United Kingdom.
When we think of the environmental agenda and dealing with carbon dioxide emissions, we must be aware that we have to do it in a way that not only enables but enhances our ability to be a strong manufacturing country, so that we bring back manufacturing to the United Kingdom, rather than seeing it go abroad. Key to that is having affordable energy, especially for heavier industry. Manufacturing ought to be a key part of our levelling-up agenda, especially in the north of England; that would be incredibly welcome.
I have a bit of a concern about part of this debate not only here, but more broadly, and that relates to the Cumbrian coalmine. It is almost as though people are choosing wilfully to disregard the fact that this coal is metallurgical coal—coking coal. The purpose of this coal is for use in the steel industry. There are no economically viable alternatives to the use of this coal. If we do not use it, we do not have a steel industry. It is not thermal coal. We have a commitment to get rid of thermal coal from the system, but we ought to recognise the importance of metallurgical coal. The mine in Cumbria will be supporting 500 jobs directly and about 2,000 indirectly. Much of this coal will be used in the United Kingdom, so when we set our faces against the Cumbrian coalmine, we are setting our faces against a significant number of jobs, which are so welcome in the north of England.
Some people approach carbon emissions almost as though by exporting important manufacturing jobs we can reduce emissions in the United Kingdom. But when we export the emissions, the jobs and the manufacturing, the carbon does not respect national boundaries; it will still have an impact on climate change across the world. We have to recognise that the United Kingdom has high environmental standards, so having manufacturing here means less carbon is produced than if the same manufacturing were happening overseas. We ought to spend a little bit more time celebrating the fact that UK manufacturing has such high standards.
When we think about how we provide energy to deal with climate change, we often focus on wind turbines and solar energy, but we ought to think a little more about the contributions from the nuclear industry. I have always thought about the baseload supply that the nuclear industry can provide. I understand now that the proper term we should be using is “firm energy”—the energy that we can reliably use in manufacturing and other sectors, having the certainty that the supply will be there, no matter what. It is also a green energy. The carbon footprint of nuclear power stations is about the same size as for solar,
so it ought to be seen as a very long-term commitment to energy supply, and it will deal with concerns over carbon. Can my right hon. Friend, in dealing with this important issue through his presidency of COP26, provide any certainty to the nuclear industry? It is important that the United Kingdom has a tempo of building these power stations: the industry provides high-quality jobs, and there is great investment in skills, which we need to retain in the sector. After all, the nuclear industry will provide firm green energy, whatever the weather, the time of day or the day of the year.
Probably the one energy source that is better than nuclear fission is nuclear fusion, so I congratulate the Government on their ambitious plans to develop the spherical tokamak for energy production fusion prototype. This prototype is intended to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor. COP26 ought to be about not just the things we cannot do or that we must constrain but being ambitious about the technological advances that we can look forward to in future. This prototype can be part of that.
In the north-west of England, in particular, there is a wealth of talent in the nuclear sector, whether in Cheshire, Lancashire or Cumbria. We have the Institute for Materials Research at the University of Bolton. The University of Manchester has an amazing history and legacy in the nuclear, or atomic, sector going back as far as John Dalton and then Ernest Rutherford, and now there is its continuing expertise with the Dalton Nuclear Institute. We have a wealth of talent, and we ought to be focused far more on technological solutions to concerns such as climate change and carbon emissions. What could be finer to announce at the COP26 summit than that the future of green energy will deliver on our levelling-up agenda, using the talents of so many people across the north-west, building on our heritage, and making Bolton the location and the future of safe, reliable and abundant energy by siting the spherical tokamak prototype there?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and his colleagues for enabling this important debate to be held today. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. They have made some excellent points about the Government’s plans for COP26, with many focusing on the lack of clarity around the efforts made so far on the road to COP26 and to our critical net zero targets. We have heard repeated calls for the Government to outline their proposed path to net zero, not just their targets, as was suggested by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). Certainly, speaking as a representative from a Scottish constituency, the continued uncertainty over their plan for the involvement and participation of devolved Administrations in the delegation, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), seems unforgivable given the lead that Scotland is taking on climate issues.
The thing to really focus on is the Government’s planning for COP26. If that planning exists, there is, I am afraid, little evidence for it. There may be a few targets floating about, but there are no details of the strategies, no plans, and no route map to reaching all those targets. There may be a nationally determined contribution, which sounds impressively whizzy, but there is none of the real grunting heave of an effort needed to move us along towards any kind of emissions reduction. There is so little ambition, drive, vision or political capital being expended. The motions are being well rehearsed. If going through the motions was what was needed, we could all sleep soundly in our beds, but the truth is that we are facing the nightmare of a crisis worse than the pandemic—it is unimaginable, but the scenario is that terrifying. The UK has a Government playing shadow puppets with the issues. Perhaps worst of all, the UK is supposed to be leading world discussions in a few months’ time.
As COP21 showed in creating the Paris agreement, delivery on an ambitious programme and a visionary agenda requires the agenda and the programme first, but it also needs a whole of Government effort and a comprehensive and dedicated diplomatic effort to pull it off. The French Government showed themselves capable. They delivered. The evidence given to the BEIS Committee suggests that the UK Government will miss the train altogether.
The Committee was told that the diplomatic effort of the UK amounted to the Foreign Secretary and the permanent secretary in that Department sending a few letters to diplomatic staff to remind them about it. It was a note to remind them to do their homework, as if the diplomats needed that. The previous COP26 President told the Committee of the chaos and infighting in Whitehall that bedevilled her attempts to get anything done, although the CEO of the COP26 unit assured the Committee that everything was hunky-dory now and that they are working night and day to deliver.
I had a look at the COP26 team on the website, and there were a couple of folk from environmental think-tanks and pressure groups in among the career civil servants, but there was also a former deputy head of press at Tory HQ—now policy adviser to the COP26 President—and a former Tory special adviser, who is now the strategy director. Then there are a couple of bankers and a businessman bringing his experience of emerging markets, but that lack of focus on environmental and climate change expertise does not inspire confidence.
I have no doubt that these civil servants will do their jobs efficiently and well, and I have no doubt that the diplomats engaged as regional ambassadors will deliver on what they are asked, but they need political leadership and the investment of political capital, and that is missing. If I may, I point to the evidence that Lord Deben gave to the BEIS Committee in July last year, speaking as chair of the Climate Change Committee. Responding to a question about whether sufficient progress was being made towards the net zero target, he said:
“We are clearly not. In almost every sector, we are failing…The Government are not on track to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budget”.
He went on to say that measures were “not taken quickly enough” and that the Government
“have simply not done the radical things that need to be done.”
That is fairly unequivocal. He went on to say that using the pandemic as an excuse for inaction, rather than a “springboard” for action would be unforgivable. We are sliding down that slope from which there may be no return, and we are still waiting for Government action.
Even the arrangements for the summit in Glasgow are opaque. We have a bald and unconvincing headline Budget figure with no more to it. We have an agreement with Police Scotland that there will be no detriment to its budget, although some of us remember that the same was promised for the Gleneagles G8 in 2005, but Scotland still got left with that bill. There appears to be little if any consultation, engagement or interaction with the Scottish Government over this event, which will be on their patch.
While I am seeking clarity, I hope the COP26 President will see his way clear to elaborating on the arrangements with MCI over accommodation. There appears to be some exclusivity being claimed for that organisation, and the booking website appears to suggest that using any other accommodation provider in Scotland is likely to result in some loss to the customer. I am sure he will agree that that unintentional slur should be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.
Will the COP26 President elaborate on the arrangements with MCI? How will it make a profit, and will any of that profit be heading back to the Government? Will international visitors be getting surcharged for MCI’s services? Furthermore, has MCI been given what amounts to a Government monopoly with the arrangement that it entered into? Will he publish all the tendering documents and other correspondence around that arrangement?
The operation of the summit is one thing; the fight against climate chaos is another. Here we are approaching the setting of the sixth carbon budget, with COP26 following close behind, and still we do not know what the Government’s intentions are. We still do not have a really clear idea of what they hope to get out of the summit. The Chancellor’s Budget lacked any real commitment to environmental action or action to address climate chaos, and it seems like the efforts on COP26 will match that lack of ambition all too well.
The truth is that the current UK Government just do not care enough about the issue to want to address it. They are so blinkered to the probable effects of the changing climate that they will stumble blindly on, hoping that it all goes well in the end; so tone-deaf to the pleas of climate activists that they cannot see the benefit of copying the French and putting in the early effort to get results. COP26 is on course to be an opportunity wasted, and it will be wasted simply because the Government do not put in the effort.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Given the importance of the subject, I hope it is the first of many over the next eight months.
I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), as well as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for securing the debate and for their insightful contributions. I also praise the powerful speeches made by others who participated. I will single out the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who spoke powerfully about the need for participation on equal terms by all the parties at COP26; the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore); the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell, who made an interesting point about the need for citizen engagement to realise the promise of the summit taking place in the UK; and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who—much to my delight—made the case not just for reducing demand for fossil fuels but, quite rightly, on the imperative to scale down their supply as a matter of urgency if we are to address the climate crisis.
As the first real test of the landmark Paris agreement, the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November will be a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating. We all have a stake in ensuring that it is a success, and in that spirit I reiterate the Opposition’s desire to play a constructive role in the process and put on the record our support for whatever financial resources are required to effectively plan and deliver the conference. As the hosts of the summit, the Government are presented with not only an unrivalled opportunity to demonstrate climate leadership in the coming months, but a solemn responsibility to do all they can to maximise global ambition and to secure agreement on a road map for delivering on that ambition and the Paris agreement.
There is a wide range of distinct issues on which further progress is essential ahead of November, including the nature crisis and biodiversity loss, and what more must be done to green the financial system and find agreement on robust article 6 rules, but given the time available to me, I will touch on three specific issues that have been a feature of today’s debate. The first is mitigation.
As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and others remarked, in its first assessment of global climate pledges ahead of COP26, published 10 days ago, the UNFCCC made it clear that the world is currently on course only for emissions reductions of 1% by the end of this critical decade, not the 45% reduction that is required to keep alive the hope of limiting heating to 1.5°C. The COP26 President knows that we would have liked the Government to be even more ambitious, but there is no question but that the UK’s NDC, now submitted, and the 2030 target of omissions reductions of least 68% are ambitious and will be extremely challenging to deliver. As the summit’s host, the UK needs to be making the case forcefully, both publicly and privately, for a far greater level of ambition from others, so that by November the world will have decisively closed the gap between our current temperature trajectory and where we need to be to realise the Paris agreement.
I hope that the COP26 President will update the House on the efforts he is making, in particular to ensure that large emitters that have not yet done so submit ambitious NDCs in the near future, and on what the Government are doing to compel recalcitrant nations, in particular Australia, Japan, South Korea and Russia, which have merely resubmitted existing NDCs, and Brazil and Mexico, which have backtracked on their existing targets, to think again in the few months that remain until the summit.
The second issue is climate justice. As much as it increasingly defines our approach to climate here at home, COP26 is not simply about the race to net zero among advanced economies; it is also about delivering on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and making tangible progress on adaptation, loss and damage, and financial assistance.
As I know the COP26 President is aware, this agenda is a defining one for many African states, the most vulnerable developing countries and small island states. Those nations were essential to the international consensus on which the success at Paris was built, and their active consent is imperative for a successful outcome in Glasgow.
With only limited progress made in this area last year, with trust in short supply and with concerns heightened by decisions such as the cut to the UK’s overseas aid budget, this must be a diplomatic priority over the next eight months. Again, perhaps in his closing remarks the COP26 President could tell the House what more the Government intend to do in that period to demonstrate solidarity and support for those on the frontline of the climate crisis, particularly in bringing forward finance on loss and damage and in meeting. and then surpassing, the US$100 billion a year.
According to the OECD, less than $80 billion has been pledged so far, with only $12 billion taking the form of grants rather than loans. The UK’s record in that regard is a good one, but perhaps the COP26 President could remark on whether he sees loans as a legitimate means to meet the target and whether he thinks there is a need to rebalance loans towards grants to make up the $100 billion.
My third point is about domestic policy. There is an obligation on the House to engage properly with the climate diplomacy required to deliver a successful COP26. At the same time, as hosts, we cannot overlook the impact of domestic decisions on the outcome of the conference. As Opposition Members have argued time and again, the UK will not be able to play its full part in building and sustaining the requisite momentum ahead of COP26 if we are not seen to lead by example. Yet, whether it is acquiescing to the opening of a new deep coalmine in Cumbria—
Chris Green
That coal is vital for the steel industry. If we do not produce it domestically, we import it from abroad. How does that influence the hon. Gentleman’s decision? We could have 2,500 jobs in the UK, but the carbon emissions are the same either way.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is correct that we will need coking coal for UK steel for some years to come, but I am sure he will know that UK steel must go net zero by 2035 and less than 15% of the coking coal produced, if that, will be used for UK steel. What he misses is that the cumulative emissions from the mine will have a material impact on UK emissions, on our net zero target and on our credibility and reputation ahead of this crucial conference. I do not think the business case, let alone the emissions reduction case, stacks up.
The coalmine in Cumbria is just one example. By allowing UKEF to provide financial support for overseas fossil fuel projects when a consultation on ending the practice altogether is under way, or having a Budget, as many speakers have said in this debate, in which climate was, frankly, an afterthought—many other examples have been cited by hon. Members—the Government continue to fall short when it comes to domestic policy.
Our credibility as COP26 hosts requires the Government not only to bring forward, before 1 November, a comprehensive plan for achieving net zero but to take concrete steps now to get on track for that legally binding target, to ensure that decarbonisation and a green recovery are a top priority as we ease coronavirus restrictions and rebuild our economy, and to cease taking decisions such as the one cited by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) that expose our country to charges of hypocrisy on the international stage ahead of this critical summit.
In responding to this very welcome debate, I hope the COP26 President will assure hon. and right hon. Members that he understands the very real impact of domestic policy choices on the summit and that he is personally doing all he can to ensure the Government take the steps necessary to put their house in order in the months that remain.
This decade is the crucial decade for climate action. As the landmark 1.5° report published by the UN some years ago made clear:
“The next few years are probably the most important in our history.”
COP26 is the first of only two ratchet points in this crucial decade. The decisions that are made in the lead-up to it and hopefully at it, in terms of extra ambition, will set the trajectory for climate action up to 2030.
We cannot squander the opportunity for transformational change that the summit presents. As the first country to industrialise, the world’s sixth-largest economy and its host, we cannot fail in our duty to do what is necessary to deliver success at that summit. That means threading climate throughout our diplomatic efforts: our approach to the G7 and G20, the Work Bank, the International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings, the plethora of international events that will take place over the next eight months and our economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, with resources to match. I will finish on this, Mr Deputy Speaker. It means the President—I know he is committed to his agenda—and his agenda having the necessary status within Government to deliver all that he needs to do at home and abroad.
COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Climate change is the biggest challenge we face as a global community and we know that it does not take time off. Year after year, the world is experiencing the increasingly damaging effects of a rise in global temperatures. Last year was, on a par with 2016, the hottest year ever recorded. We witnessed wildfires blaze across Australia, Europe and the US west coast. We saw flooding and locusts destroying crops in east Africa. Earlier this year, Cyclone Ana hit Fiji, sending thousands fleeing to evacuation centres. Through my work on COP26, I have witnessed the devastating impacts of climate change: melting glaciers, sea level rises, crop degradation, deforestation and pollution choking some of the world’s greatest cities. I have spoken to the communities on the frontline of the fight against climate change. I have spoken to them about how their lives have been disrupted, how their livelihoods are threatened, how their homes are at risk. We cannot go on as we are.
I thank the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for opening this debate on COP26, which we all want to see as a decisive and positive moment in the battle against climate change. He spoke with great eloquence, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for their very kind words. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and other colleagues for their offers of support on the road to COP26. I also thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for offering the Opposition’s support as we go forward. What we all agree is that this is an issue that unites us. It unites us in a common mission to protect our planet and our people.
Tackling climate change is a clear priority for the Government. We were the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero by 2050, and since 2000 we have decarbonised our economy faster than any other G20 country. Last year, the Prime Minister set out his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution: a plan to cut emissions, but at the same time to create high-value green jobs and turbocharge the economy. As colleagues on both sides of the House have acknowledged, we have also set an ambitious and world-leading commitment to cut our own emissions by at least 68% by 2030 on the base year of 1990. Of course now, through our presidency of COP26, we have a unique opportunity to drive global ambition but also action.
Colleagues have raised a range of issues, and I would like to focus on three of the key topics that have come up. First, what are our aims for COP26? What are we planning to achieve? Secondly, do we have the resources to deliver? Thirdly, how are the practical planning and logistics for the event progressing?
I can tell the House that we have four key aims for COP26.We are asking nations: first, to commit to global net zero and, vitally, as colleagues have noted, to come forward with ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets that align with net zero and keep the goal of limiting average global temperature rises to 1.5° within reach; secondly, to set out plans urgently to protect communities and natural habitats and to help them to adapt to the damaging effects of climate change; thirdly, to agree funding to support these aims, making good on the $100 billion commitment in public finances that was agreed at Paris and, of course, also unleashing private finance. I agree with colleagues when they say that the $100 billion figure is totemic. It is a matter of trust for vulnerable countries, for developing nations, and donor countries must deliver on that. At the end of this month, we will be holding a climate and development event. It will be a ministerial event, attended by Ministers from donor countries and from vulnerable countries, but it will also involve civil society, and we will talk about the issues around climate finance. Fourthly, we want to work to close off the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook and accelerate delivery of the Paris goals through collaboration between Governments, businesses and civil society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) mentioned article 6. He is absolutely right; it is one of the items that we will have to close off, as well as timelines for submitting further nationally determined contributions, reporting transparency, and, of course, delivering through the energy transition, nature and transport campaigns that we are running as part of COP26.
We have made progress to date. When the UK took on the COP presidency, less than 30% of global GDP was covered by net zero commitments. That figure stands at 70% today, and it includes Japan, South Korea, the USA and China. In December last year, the UK co-hosted the Climate Ambition Summit, with 75 world leaders making concrete commitments to tackling climate change. However, as hon. Members have noted, the UNFCCC NDC synthesis report, which was published last month, demonstrates that we have much, much more to do when it comes to these near-term emissions reductions targets.
Colleagues have rightly asked if we have adequate resources dedicated to the task in hand. In summary, the answer is yes. I am supported by the full weight of the British Government in this endeavour, with the Prime Minister leading from the front. He chairs the UK Government’s climate action strategy Cabinet Committee, which sets the UK’s path to net zero, and I chair the UK Government’s climate action implementation Cabinet Committee, which sets the UK’s delivery of its climate plans. This means that there is full Cabinet oversight of policy and delivery.
With regards to the resourcing of COP26, I can tell the House that there are over 200 posts in the COP26 unit, and a number of Departments have also created dedicated COP26 teams, including Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, all heads of mission have been instructed by the Foreign Secretary to make delivery of COP26 objectives a top priority. They are supported by our overseas network of over 430 climate and energy attachés. This is the world’s first diplomatic network dedicated to this agenda.
I, of course, am now working full time on COP26. I have personally engaged with Ministers in more than 50 Governments, including recently with India’s Prime Minister Modi, US special envoy John Kerry, who was here on Monday for discussions with us, and China’s special envoy for climate change, Minister Xie Zhenhua.
Of course, we will work with like-minded colleagues around the world to deliver at Glasgow. I speak regularly with negotiating group chairs and chief negotiators, the United Nations, development banks, civil society groups and business. In recent weeks, I have also made a number of international visits, where I have always felt well supported by the UK Government network. All in all, we are well resourced for COP.
Turning to event logistics and planning, COP26, as colleagues have noted, will be the biggest international summit that the UK has ever hosted. It might be useful if I explain to the House how the event will work. It will be delivered across two sites. The Scottish events campus will be the United Nations-managed space. It will host the formal negotiations and will see delegates from 197 parties come together, alongside accredited observer organisations.
On the other side of the River Clyde, in the Glasgow Science Centre, the UK Government will host a platform for the general public and stakeholders to have their voices heard through events, exhibitions, workshops and talks that promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments in the climate change space. As part of our preparations, Glasgow City Council has launched a host city volunteer programme for COP26. I can tell the House that it has received an overwhelmingly positive response, with more than 7,000 applications to date, far exceeding the 1,000 volunteers that we need.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will be pleased to note that through the “Together for our planet” campaign, which we launched last November, we will work with partners to inspire the public across the UK to be more engaged in climate action in the run-up to COP26. I agree that we cannot have an event that is seen by the general public as one where world leaders fly in and fly out without any connection to the lives of people across our country and, indeed, across the world.
I have also established an international civil society and youth advisory council to support our COP preparations and to ensure that we deliver an inclusive COP. We are progressing planning for an in-person event, with consideration of how we can best use technology to increase inclusion and sustainability. In addition, robust contingency plans for the range of covid-19 scenarios are being prepared, so that we can rapidly adapt were it to prove necessary.
My team has regular engagement with the Scottish Government and Scottish operational delivery partners through a monthly operational delivery board. We have a joint delivery framework that has been agreed with partners, including the Scottish Government, endorsing an inclusive, all-UK approach to COP26. I have also invited Climate Change Ministers from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to participate in a devolved Administrations group to ensure effective engagement and collaboration on COP26. I can confirm that the next meeting is scheduled for later this month.
A number of colleagues raised the issue of budgets. Discussions on costs for COP26 are ongoing and final budgets are yet to be confirmed, but let me be very clear to the House that we will ensure that the right resources are made available for this summit. Of course, we also want to deliver the event in a manner that represents value for money for the taxpayer, and we are following robust procurement, assurance and peer review processes.
We have also secured sponsorship to take the cost burden off the taxpayer. Our current principal partners are SSE, ScottishPower, Sky, Sainsbury’s, NatWest Group, National Grid and Hitachi, and we are actively seeking more. We will ensure that this event is safe, secure, sustainable and inclusive, and above all that it leaves a lasting legacy in the United Kingdom, allowing Glasgow to flourish as the host city.
I very much welcome the interest from hon. Members and Select Committees, and of course from all the all-party parliamentary groups that have shown an interest in COP. I think that is right and proper, and I have said that I will engage as much as I can with parliamentarians and all-party groups and work with them so that we can bring about success at COP26.
In conclusion, I do not underestimate the challenge of delivering on all our goals for COP26. That is why we are putting the full weight of the UK Government, working with partners around the world, behind our efforts. I also want to see the green thread of climate action running deep through our G7 presidency and, indeed, through the range of international events that will happen between now and COP26. As an international community, we must deliver at Glasgow, for the sake of our generation and future generations.
Darren Jones
I thank the COP26 President for his full response, for which I am grateful in so many ways. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee for granting this important debate, and I am grateful for the contributions from so many right hon. and hon. Members this evening.
In the time allotted to me, I will reflect briefly on some of the major issues that came up. There was a clear consensus across the House on the urgency of bridging the gap between political announcements and actual delivery in countries around the world. I was encouraged to hear the COP26 President’s confirmation of dedicated climate attachés in the Foreign Office. As many have said, the concept of a climate diplomat will not go away after COP26; it will stay with us in many countries around the world as we continue to grapple with this issue in the decades ahead.
COP26 is an opportunity for the UK not just to persuade countries to do the right thing but to show them how we have done it ourselves. For all the criticisms—I will come back to some of those in a second—we have made great progress in the UK, especially in decarbonisation of power, something that we can show other countries around the world how to achieve through our companies, our innovators and our engineers.
That could be helpful, I might suggest, for countries that are perhaps dragging their feet a little on NDCs. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), mentioned Australia. I should declare an interest, since I am married to an Australian and half my family lives there. Australia needs to make more progress in its climate commitments. While we are negotiating trade deals and perhaps showing the way in which companies, British and otherwise, can make a difference, we might want to couple that climate diplomacy with—that old phrase—industrial strategy as an opportunity for both countries to take forward.
The commitment today to climate aid was also very important, and it will be important even after covid. I know that it is difficult for wealthy nations, having borrowed so much money to deal with covid, to make climate aid commitments, but there is no choice; we have to do it. Indeed, poorer nations are in more difficult situations than wealthier nations, even in the context of covid spending. They are unable just to borrow on international markets to pay, and it is therefore more important than it was pre-pandemic for wealthy nations to step up to their obligations.
Of course, a number of points were also made about the UK’s own domestic performance, which is not directly related to our delivery of COP26 but is important symbolically, to show the world that, as president of COP, we lead with our action as well as our commitments. Here I wish to comment on coalmines in the UK. I agree entirely that the coalmine proposed in Cumbria is not about heating. Indeed, we have enormous challenges on decarbonising heat in the UK, be it hydrogen, heat pumps or heat networks, since we have so much progress to make and so little finance earmarked to make that transition. The steel industry—a foundational industry that I support very much in the UK—is going through a period of transition and needs to go through the net zero transition. That would be a good example, albeit following the scrapping of the industrial strategy, of how Government action, in partnership with industry, can facilitate the net zero transition even in difficult circumstances. I am afraid that we seem to have been missing that opportunity.
There is clearly cross-party support in the House for us to achieve our ambitions at COP26, including from Select Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. I thank my fellow Committee Chairs who spoke in the debate. Our Committees have agreed to collaborate on this issue to ensure full coverage and support for the Government in the delivery of COP26. All of us look forward to supporting the President and his team and hopefully attending COP26 in Glasgow in November, then celebrating the success of that conference as we move from a commitment in Paris to delivery on the ground.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on motions 3 to 7 together.
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2020-21, HC 1126, be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1 and 3 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, a number not exceeding 36,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service.
Estimates 2021-22 (Navy) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 38,900 all ranks be maintained for Naval and Marine Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.
Estimates 2021-22 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 108,420 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.
Estimates 2021-22 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 36,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Excesses, 2018-19
[Relevant document: Sixth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2018-19, HC 243.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2019:
resources, not exceeding £312,093,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Excesses, 2019-20
[Relevant document: Forty-fourth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2019-20, HC 1205.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020:
(1) resources, not exceeding £8,280,607,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229,
(2) resources, not exceeding £32,332,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for capital purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £3,711,646,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on the use of resources authorised by Parliament as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229.—(Scott Mann.)
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £265,361,609,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1168, HC 1215, HC 1227, HC 1231 and HC 1251,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £40,953,201,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £174,422,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Vote on Account 2021-22
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022:
(1) resources, not exceeding £345,682,776,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1167, HC 1171, HC 1214, HC 1228, HC 1230, HC 1234 and HC 1254,
(2) resources, not exceeding £53,780,396,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £364,923,586,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates 2020-21, Excesses 2018-2019, Excesses 2019-20 and Vote on Account 2020-21;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch bring in the Bill.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading
Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2019, 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2019, 31 March 2020 and 31 March 2021.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 273).
Business without Debate
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Protection of monuments of Captain James Cook
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
We should celebrate and protect our country’s amazing heritage. People across the Tees Valley are incredibly proud of Captain James Cook, and 2,500 people have signed this decision.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland,
Declares that the achievements of Captain James Cook in the fields of science, exploration and cartography are of immense historic significance and are rightly commemorated by a number of much-loved statues and monuments across Middlesbrough, the Tees Valley and North Yorkshire.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that those monuments and sites which commemorate Captain James Cook are protected against harm or removal.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002651]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Adjournment debate, can I ask the Serjeant at Arms—we will not suspend—to sanitise the Government Dispatch Box to ensure that it is covid-friendly? [Interruption.] I know, if we had a potter’s wheel at this moment in time, we would be doing that, but we just want to make certain. Colonel Bob, if you could take your seat—[Interruption.] There you are, entertainment as well. Fantastic—I thank the Serjeant at Arms for doing that.
Nord Stream 2 Pipeline
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a gas pipeline being constructed on the bottom of the Baltic sea between Russia and Germany. It is bypassing all of our allies in central and eastern Europe, fellow NATO partners that have in the past been put under the most extraordinary pressure by the Russians over energy supplies. That is why I am so concerned about this project for the security of NATO and our responsibilities to our allies in central and eastern Europe.
Although it is not possible for many Members of Parliament to be in the Chamber this evening, we have written to the Prime Minister in the past. Over 35 Conservative Members of Parliament have co-signed a letter on this issue to the Prime Minister, and there are many more in other parties who also have grave concerns about this project.
I can understand why, during the Brexit negotiations and indeed when we were negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union, this Government may have expressed a certain amount of caution on this issue. Taking into consideration the extraordinary power of Germany within the European Union and the extraordinary power that Germany has over the European Commission, it may not have been wise for the United Kingdom at that juncture to follow our American partners and others in agitating on this issue.
Nevertheless, that time has now passed, and we are now an independent sovereign nation state. We are also a permanent member of the UN Security Council—a privilege peculiar to only five countries in the world—as well as the fifth largest economy in the world and arguably the strongest military power on our continent. With those extraordinary privileges and attributes for Britain come extraordinary responsibility, and that is why I believe this Government must now take a lead on our continent in having this project stopped.
The project is a threat to NATO security and cohesion. Now, with North Macedonia joining our alliance, we have 30 members of this most successful military alliance. I think it is like being a member of a special club with a gold American Express card. This is one of the most successful military alliances in the world, but we do not just have responsibility in protecting our fellow NATO members from invasion; we also have a duty of care, in the letter and the spirit of our obligations under NATO, to ensure that our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe are not blackmailed and intimidated by the Russians over energy supplies. The Americans understand this. They understand the great threat to NATO, but also to the continent of Europe, in allowing this project to come to fruition. It is very close to completion, but it still can be stopped.
I know there are many here who do not particularly respect former President Trump, but he said the wisest thing that I have heard so far when he sat at a table with the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, and said to them, “You expect us to send troops to Poland and the Baltic states, and to protect you. You expect us to spend hundreds of billions of pounds every decade in protecting your continent, yet you—the Secretary-General of NATO—are allowing one NATO partner,” namely Germany, “to, for its own reasons, create this direct link with Russia, giving the Russians an umbilical cord for the export of their gas.” We have all heard about the terrible trouble the Russian economy is in already. This is an umbilical cord from the heart of Europe to Russia, giving it the extraordinary opportunity of not only exporting to Europe, but putting our NATO allies under threat.
Several hon. Members rose—
Daniel Kawczynski
I will just make a couple of extra points, and then I will give way.
Following President Trump, we now have President Biden, who has appointed as his deputy Secretary of State —one of the most powerful positions in Washington—a lady called Wendy Sherman. In the Senate nomination hearings, when she was being assessed by the other Senators, she said that the Biden Administration would do
“whatever is lawful to stop the pipeline”.
The Americans are our closest security and military partners, and as a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council, if they are prepared to take the lead on our continent on this hugely strategically important issue, we must join them. I have written to Senator Ted Cruz from Texas this week, who is the leading proponent in the American Senate of stopping this project. He and 40 other Republican Senators have written to the President, calling for the Americans to implement sanctions against any company and any individual involved in this project. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Bob Menendez, a Democrat, has also spoken against this project.
I just want to say one thing before I take interventions. As an independent sovereign nation with an ability to influence our continent now in an unprecedented way, unfettered by the communal constraints of the European Union, if we now join the Americans as two permanent members of the UN Security Council, I think we could possibly stop this project. So many companies involved in the construction of this pipeline, whether Swiss companies or others, are so frightened of the prospect of sanctions against them that they are likely to pull out of the project, and this project will be stopped. Britain is at the forefront in this see-saw between Germany and Russia, and many of our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe and the Americans. It will be Britain that ultimately decides which side of this extraordinary debate wins out and guarantees the security of our NATO partners.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having brought this issue forward: this is the place for these decisions to be debated. The foreign policy issues surrounding Nord Stream are deep and complex, as he has referred to. I fully agree that we must be wary of reliance on unreliable states. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent reports of state-sponsored attacks on protesters in Russia are a sobering reminder, if one is needed, that there is more of a cost to be paid from being in thrall to Russia than money?
Daniel Kawczynski
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and will talk about some of the extraordinary behaviour of Russia in its own neighbourhood and domestically within its own jurisdiction, and how it is undermining and subverting democracy in its own country.
When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee I called for dialogue with the Russians. I still stand by that. I think we have to talk to these people, but we have to do so from a position of strength. Giving them this umbilical cord to the heart of Europe undermines that negotiating position. One thing we know about the Russians was taught to us by Reagan and Thatcher—Thatcher invited Gorbachev to Chequers in December 1984, the first western leader to invite him for discussions. They taught us that we can only negotiate with those people from a position of strength. Divided among us, they will eat us for breakfast.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has said in the debate and I congratulate him on securing it. It is a geostrategic mistake for Germany to encourage this, and we need to get the French on board. If we have three out of the five Security Council members, that is an even stronger position. I am anxious that the UK Government seem to be going a bit quiet on this issue, as they have on the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny, which is yet another flagrant abuse of human rights in Russia.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and agree with every word that he has said. Later in my speech, I will chide my own Government. They have been almost mute on this issue, and that position does not reflect the urgency of the situation and the responsibility that our country has.
Countries in central and eastern Europe are not just leaving this all to us to deal with. They have created the Three Seas initiative; 12 countries, all of whom are members of the European Union, and all of whom are members of NATO—apart from Austria. It is a regional, relatively homogeneous bloc. The 12 member countries are on the frontline with Russia. My office and I have spent the past few weeks interviewing all the ambassadors from these 12 countries. We have interviewed 10 out of 12 so far, and we will be writing a report for Members of Parliament about the initiative. These countries are trying to create strategic investments across the whole bloc to safeguard individual members from undue Russian pressure.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The strategic problem is this, is it not? By putting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline straight into Germany, Germany can guarantee its gas supplies from Russia. On the other hand, these countries in eastern Europe—the Three Seas, as it were—could be blackmailed by Russia and picked off from the rest of NATO. That is the strategic problem with Nord Stream 2.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend, who is such an excellent speaker with so much experience in military matters, has managed in a few words to sum up the whole situation more succinctly than I could in half an hour. I am grateful to him.
Poland and Croatia have been the instigators of the Three Seas initiative. Both countries have built liquified gas terminals on their coastlines. The whole thing about the Three Seas initiative is that the investments seek to create additional pipelines so that more of this liquified gas can be sent inland to landlocked neighbours and NATO partners. Poland is also buying a huge amount of liquified gas from America and from Norway, and has invested billions of dollars in its liquified gas terminal at Świnoujście on the Baltic coast—I would like to see Hansard deal with the spelling of that. I shall help them with the spelling of Świnoujście. Is that not an amazing example, Mr Deputy Speaker? If a country is a member of NATO, that exclusive club or organisation that has not lost a square inch of territory since its inception 70 years ago, surely the next step should be to do as Poland is doing, which is to buy gas from America or Norway, even if it costs a little bit more, so that it is not dependent on Russian gas supplies.
I would like the Minister to give me an assurance that the Foreign Office is working hand in glove with the Department for International Trade to assess what opportunities there are for British companies to participate in the construction of these pipelines within the Three Seas jurisdiction, and to assist and invest in these liquified gas terminals on the coastlines of the Adriatic sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic sea so that we have some of the greatest energy companies in the world. That is important not only for British strategic and financial interests, but in helping our fellow NATO partners in central and eastern Europe.
Daniel Kawczynski
I give way to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Dr Lewis
I wonder what reasons Germany has given, at least publicly, for its behaviour, given the overwhelming case against Nord Stream 2 outlined by my hon. Friend. I cannot help being put in mind of that famous quotation, which may or may not have correctly been attributed to Lenin, that the west and the capitalists
“will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Daniel Kawczynski
I could not have put the situation better. Germany, in a rather peculiar statement the other day, did not really explain why it is building this pipeline. Clearly, it is a stitch-up between the Russians and the Germans. They do not want to rely on the transportation of gas through Belarus, Ukraine or Poland—countries that the Russians have problems with. Russia does not want to rely on exporting its main commodity through those countries; it wants to have a direct link under the sea, so that Germany, irrespective of its obligations to NATO, can have that direct access to Russian gas.
Daniel Kawczynski
I will not give way for the moment.
It is a very selfish act on Germany’s part and inconsistent with NATO membership. The Germans have also said that it is something to do with their obligations to Russia in terms of reparations from the second world war. They need to help the Russians with the construction of this pipeline out of some sense of duty over war reparations. If that is the case, Poland is still waiting for its war reparations 80 years on.
I am very grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate, but it should not be for me, a Back-Bench Tory MP, to raise this issue. It should be the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary explaining the threat of this project to our electorate. I suspect that, if most of us went back to our constituencies and started talking about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, not many people would be cognisant of it. It should be the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary who are leading the way in explaining to our citizens the threat that this project poses to our allies and, ultimately, to us. One thing that we have learned from history is that if there is instability in central and eastern Europe—if these countries are threatened, blackmailed or invaded—which country always get sucked into it? It is the United Kingdom. We have seen too much instability on our continent to allow Britain to be sucked into that. We need a statement from the British Government that we will implement sanctions on every company and individual involved in this project and it must start with the former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, who was earning an eye-watering salary at the very pinnacle of this organisation—
Daniel Kawczynski
Yes, Gazprom, as my right hon. Friend says.
Germany is behaving in a selfish and dangerous way and in a way that is incompatible with its responsibilities to NATO. As I have also said, let us talk to the Russians, but let us do it from a position of strength.
We have all seen—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been one of the most vocal on this—the outrageous behaviour of the Russians within the neighbourhood, whether in Georgia, the butchery that took place in South Ossetia, in Ukraine, or the ongoing deliberate violation of the Baltic states’ maritime and airspace. I went to Ukraine when I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We went to Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. I have never seen anything like it in my 15 years as a Member of Parliament. It was like being on the face of the moon. Everything was destroyed. Nothing was left standing. It was a wasteland. We on the Foreign Affairs Committee saw what the Russians are capable of in Ukraine.
The two countries that this pipeline will violate most are indeed Ukraine and Belarus. The Government are trumpeting their agreement with the Ukrainians on the Government website, saying just this month,
“UK and Ukraine sign Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership”.
“A strategic partnership” with Ukraine—there is a photograph of the Prime Minister with the President of Ukraine signing the agreement, and it says:
“UK cooperation in political, security and foreign matters with Ukraine”.
How can we sign a strategic partnership with the Ukrainians while at the same time kicking the chair from underneath them, by allowing the one last power that they have over the Russians—the fact that they have to export their gas from Ukraine—not to happen? This agreement it is not going to be worth the paper it is written on, if this project is allowed to come to a conclusion.
Daniel Kawczynski
In a second.
Let me turn to Belarus. We have all seen on our television screens the brave young men and women fighting against the brutal dictator in Minsk. A few years ago, I went on a parliamentary delegation to Minsk, where I saw at first hand how this brutal authoritarian regime suppresses its own people. But one day, Lukashenko will be gone and this will be a new, independent, sovereign fledgling state. Can hon. Members imagine in two, three, four or five years’ time—whenever it is—when the democratic Government of Belarus are seeking finally to join the rest of Europe as a sovereign state, what position they will be in if this gas does not have to go through their country and just goes straight to Germany under the sea? It will be the greatest impediment to the democratisation of Belarus, and we have a duty and responsibility to that country as a fellow European partner.
I must now conclude. By allowing this pipeline, we not only betray our NATO allies; we empower Russia in an unprecedented way to manipulate Belarus and Ukraine. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my genuine fears and the fears of many colleagues from across the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate, and for his ongoing work on European energy security, including as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Poland. I am also grateful for the contributions to this debate that he and other hon. Members have made this evening. In the time I have, I will try to respond to all the points raised.
The resumption of construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline after a one-year hiatus has understandably rekindled interests in this project. As many hon. Members are aware, the UK Government have repeatedly aired our significant concerns about Nord Stream 2, its implications for European energy security, and its impact on Ukraine and other transit countries. When complete, Nord Stream 2 will double the Russian gas capacity flowing directly into Germany. Alongside the southern TurkStream route, this will largely replace the need for Russian gas to transit Ukraine.
The Government’s concerns about the pipeline are a matter of public record, and we continue to raise them publicly and in private with key allies. It is important to reiterate that Nord Stream 2 would not affect the UK’s gas supply. The UK gas market is one of the most liquid and developed in the world and our gas comes from diverse and reliable sources. Most of the gas that we use comes from our own production and reliable suppliers such as Norway. We receive a small amount of liquefied natural gas from Russia, but last year it accounted for less than 3% of our total gas supply.
Although Nord Stream 2 would not directly impact on our energy security, it could have serious implications for central and eastern European countries. Last year, around one third of European gas came via Russian gas pipelines. Some European countries are nearly wholly dependent on Russian gas. This reliance on a single source raises serious concerns about energy security. Furthermore, we do not believe that Nord Stream 2 is necessary to meet future European gas demand. There is sufficient existing pipeline infrastructure, including through Ukraine and Poland, for Russia to meet its European supply commitments.
There are also big questions about the need for Nord Stream 2 in a decarbonised future. Although the UK and European countries will continue to need natural gas for years to come, we are increasingly using energy from renewable sources, and we need to work to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the entire energy system in order to meet our net zero targets.
As I have said, the potential impact of Nord Stream 2 on Ukraine is particularly worrying. Ukraine hosts the largest existing pipeline network for Russian gas, and transit fees have historically made up a significant proportion of Ukraine’s GDP. Nord Stream 2 would divert supplies away from Ukraine, with significant consequences for its economy. It could also have significant security implications. The transit of Russian gas through Ukraine is regarded as a deterrent against further Russian aggression, so is a vital part of Ukraine’s national security.
Wendy Morton
I am going to continue as I am conscious that I do not have much time. If I have time at the end, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
It is positive that Naftogaz and Gazprom signed a gas-transit agreement at the end of 2019—it helped to avoid disruption at the time—and we welcome the role that Germany and the EU played in facilitating the negotiations. However, that agreement provides certainty only through to 2024; after that, there is greater uncertainty.
I reiterate the UK Government’s long-standing and unwavering commitment to Ukraine. We are one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters and are providing political and practical support to strengthen its sovereignty and resilience. On energy specifically, we are helping Ukraine to reform its energy market, working closely with the Ministry of Energy and the Ukrainian regulator.
I know that some ask whether the UK could be doing more to oppose Nord Stream 2, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has put forward some interesting proposals. The UK welcomes the efforts of the three seas initiative to promote co-operation and development across central and eastern Europe, and we are open to the possibility of expanding the UK’s interaction with that group. I reassure Members that we will continue to share our concerns about Nord Stream 2 with key partners. It is our strong belief that we should be working to reduce reliance on any single gas supplier, and the dependency and leverage that can come with it. To counteract the risks associated with Nord Stream 2, it is essential that European countries diversify their energy supplies.
I was glad to visit Poland in October last year to discuss the need for energy transformation and a just transition, including with a business audience at the Wrocław energy congress. Since that time, Poland has proposed an ambitious energy plan and agreed on the EU’s target of at least a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030. We will continue to work with it to achieve ambitious climate and energy goals. However, with regard to Nord Stream 2, it is also important to recognise Germany’s sovereign right to formulate its own energy policy. Nord Stream 2 is highly contentious, but we would not want the debate over it to risk undermining the co-ordinated response by allies to wider Russian malign activity.
I fully recognise the legitimate concerns that hon. Members have raised today. Nord Stream 2 poses a threat to European energy security and the interests of existing transit countries. At a time when Europe should be diversifying and decarbonising its energy supplies, Nord Stream 2 risks entrenching European dependency on Russian gas for decades to come, increasing Russia’s ability to use energy as a political tool. For these reasons, the UK remains opposed to the pipeline and we will continue to raise our concerns with key partners. We will also continue to support initiatives that strengthen and diversify the European energy market.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they can only sit in the places that are clearly marked, that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, unless, of course, you are speaking, and that Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to Hansard’s email address.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The regulations amend the Marriage Act 1949 and will reform the way in which marriages are registered in future. They can be moved thanks to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has joined the Committee today, so successfully piloted through Parliament.
The regulations enable the introduction of a schedule system for the registration of marriages in England and Wales by allowing powers to reform some quite elderly primary legislation. For background, a schedule system is already in place in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. When civil partnerships were introduced in England and Wales in 2005, the opportunity was taken to modernise the registration process and use a schedule-based system.
For clarity, couples will sign a marriage schedule at their marriage ceremony instead of a paper marriage register, and all marriages will be registered by registration officers in a single electronic marriage register. That will remove the requirement for the 84,000 paper registers currently used in registry offices and around 30,000 religious buildings across England and Wales.
The regulations provide the opportunity to modernise not only the registration process from a technical point of view, but the marriage entry itself to allow for the details of both parents of the couple to be recorded instead of just the father’s name and occupation, as is currently the case. Moving to a schedule-based system is the most cost-effective way to achieve the change and will make the system of registration more secure and efficient.
The regulations also amend the seldom used Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales. They also make a consequential amendment under section 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordinations (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 to amend the 1949 Act to specify the evidence that must be provided by an individual when giving a notice of marriage for immigration purposes.
Much of the regulations relate to the technical process of switching to a digital register, but the most talked-about aspect will be the change to what is actually placed on the register of marriage. The significance is not lost on me as a Minister or personally. When Hazel and I married in June 2017, we sadly could not be joined at the service by my mother or her father as they had both passed away a few years before. My dad and Hazel’s mum could be part of the day by sharing it with us physically. Hazel’s dad was part of it by appearing on the marriage certificate. There was, of course, one person missing. Once the regulations are in force, no one else will be missed out on their children’s wedding day.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Not for the first time in my political career, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is certainly a pleasure, following the Minister’s comments, to have a working mother in the Chair.
The Opposition welcome the modernising of the system that allows a couple’s mothers’ and fathers’ details to be documented, alongside the flexibility for changes when they are needed in future. Modernising, from a technological perspective and a value perspective—the changes mean a marked decrease in costs—is welcome, but when it comes to gender equality, we do not just welcome it; we are very happy to see it.
For me, I suppose that this means that I will appear, if my children ever get married, on their marriage certificates. I did not think that that mattered to me particularly until I was told that I would not be on them and that my husband would, especially when I think my job is better—I want it on their marriage certificates. The change is much welcomed.
On Monday, it was International Women’s Day, a day when, across the globe, we celebrate the progress made in the quest for gender equality, as well as remember how far we have to go. The delegated legislation means that both parents’ names and occupations will be recorded as part of the marriage. That omission until now reminds me of a fundamental of policy and politics—that we only make a note of, a legal record of, or count the things that we care about. I presume that the old marriage registration system did not require or make note of the name or job of the mother because, as a society, we saw it as not important, not worth acknowledging and not worth the paper it would have been written on. I am sad to say that this fundamental still rings true in other areas. There are many examples where we do not count, record or make note of the lives and experiences of women adequately. I hope that today begins progress in other areas.
I also want to flag the length of time it has taken to respond to the pressure from the public to bring forward the reform. The online petition from 2014 attracted 70,000 signatures. The delay of seven years again reminds me of the slow progress in so many areas in the fight for gender equality and justice. In December 2018, the World Economic Forum reported that it will take 202 years to close the gender pay gap, but of course we are not currently bothering to count that either.
The Opposition do not oppose this legislation. We welcome the digital modernisation and immigration alterations and of course the progress on making mothers’ lives and work matter. This Opposition mother just wishes that it did not always take so long for us working mothers to be noticed.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here on the latest stage of the journey that started with my private Member’s Bill, which reached the ballot in 2017, and I am grateful to the Minister for namechecking it. I was slightly disappointed not to be told about the Committee, let alone not to be put on it. It is only through the courtesy of one of the civil servants who dealt with my Bill that I found out it was happening today, which is odd.
I will make some general points and then specific queries about the regulations. The first question, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, is: why has this taken so long? The four main elements of the Bill came together in 2017, but there has long been a campaign to change marriage registration for the first time since 1837 in England to enable both parents to be included on a marriage register. That is not radical; most people asked, “Doesn’t that happen already?” The trouble is that most people do not find out until the parents, usually with some nice music playing in the background, are invited by the presiding vicar to go to wherever the register is being signed. Then the mother is—in some cases, physically—restrained from adding her signature to the marriage document and is told, “Sorry, you’re not allowed.” Fortunately, when I got married, we were forewarned, but there was a double insult: my father’s signature appeared twice on my marriage certificate because he was also the presiding vicar. That doubled the insult to mothers and mothers-in-law.
The position needed changing and we all agreed that it was an anachronism. However, the Bill became an Act in February 2019 and law after Royal Assent last May. The position should have changed soon after that. Indeed, the Act includes a sunset clause, which provided that if the changes were not made in just over a year, the legislation would fall and we would have to start all over again. Why, therefore, has this taken so long? The legislation is not new and has been round the houses, helped by the former Member for Meriden, our colleague Dame Caroline Spelman, the Bishop of St Albans, who had a parallel Bill in the House of Lords, and others.
There are four main sections of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019. The regulations deal with only two and put them into law.
I am delighted that the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples became a thing on 31 December 2019. Fifteen months on—I gather on 4 May—the second element of the Act will come into law. There are two outstanding elements and I wonder if the Minister can comment on that.
There is a commitment to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so that stillbirths can be investigated by a coroner. There is widespread support for that. It is a cross-departmental function, but despite our constantly badgering the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care, there is still no sign of that coming forward. Yet the case of babies dying in questionable circumstances in hospitals has become more urgent. That is why, with a lot of support, coroners will, I hope, be given that power to investigate. Perhaps we can have a progress report on that.
The fourth element of the legislation was a baby loss review, which the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned. I sat on the working party with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and many professionals. That Committee has not sat for two years and the report has never been published. We considered whether we could register children who were stillborn before the arbitrary and artificial existing 24-week threshold. Anybody who is born before 24 weeks just does not count. If the Minister can tell me about progress on that, I will be grateful.
The Minister rightly said that at last we can have mothers on the marriage certificate. Where do the regulations state that? I have been through the heavy-duty documents—and I am no expert—but which regulations actually give authority for wedding registers to contain the names of mothers and for hard copies to be signed by mothers of the happy couple?
Let me deal with the detail of the regulations. In part 3, regulation 5(3)(1) states that
“the superintendent registrar to whom notice of marriage is given must display in some conspicuous place in their office, for 28 successive days beginning with the day after the day on which the notice was recorded in the marriage register… the notice of marriage,…the particulars given in the notice, in an approved electronic form”.
I do not quite understand that. We are making the register electronic, so where does a hard-copy notice still have to be displayed? Why cannot it all be done electronically, given that we are moving into the 21st century with some of our procedures? There seems to be a paradox there.
The regulations refer to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland does not have to pass such regulations because such details have sensibly been recorded there for the last couple of centuries. For some reason, England and Wales have been out of kilter with the rest of the United Kingdom. Do the regulations bring us completely in line with the existing procedures in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is there some difference or nuance? How would it apply? There are some fairly opaque details in the regulations about how they apply to somebody from Scotland marrying somebody from England. If the couple gets married in Scotland as opposed to England, are there potential anomalies? Could we find that a Scottish mother-in-law at a wedding in York of an English son-in-law will be told, “Sorry, you’re Scottish so it doesn’t count”? I am sure that that is not the case, but after all the effort and such a long campaign, I want to make sure that no anomalies involving certain parts of the United Kingdom will crop up at a crucial moment during a wedding ceremony.
In regulation 7, new section 53B of the 1949 Act—I am sure it is at the Minister’s fingertips—states:
“Before the marriage document is signed, the clergyman by whom the marriage is to be or has been solemnized”—
Will the Minister give a definition of “clergyman”? Again, I could not find it in the regulations. Who exactly is a “clergyman”, or a clergywoman—we have many of those these days, even in the Church of England? We need a definition of exactly who is covered by that definition.
New section 53C contains the first of many references to
“according to the usages of the Jews”.
I am sure it is my inexperience, but can the Minister explain that term? Does it apply to all traditional Jewish ceremonies or only some? I assume it is regularly used for proceedings in synagogues, but can we have some clarification, because it is not clear?
New section 53D covers how the procedure now happens physically. I think that was one of the sticking points with the Church of England. According to my understanding, in a wedding service in a Church of England church, when the wedding party moves to the signing ceremony, there will still be a hard-copy register, which lots of people can now sign. That is great. A certificate will be produced and it still has to be delivered to a registrar. An electronic record is made in parallel. Loosely, I think that that is now what happens. However, there was some dispute about the document still having to be delivered to the registrar or superintendent within a short time. I think, initially, a space of eight days was contemplated.
In normal circumstances, a bride and bridegroom might have better things to do in the first eight days of their marriage. Indeed, they may well be on honeymoon elsewhere. I hope that the position has now been rectified and that a couple are not expected to delay or cut short their honeymoon to deliver a piece of paper, which is still required even though we have moved to an electronic system. I think—again, it has not been explained to me, which would have been nice—that somebody can be nominated to deliver that piece of paper. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how someone can be nominated and the timescale for completing that process. Subsection (10)(a) uses the phrase
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
but subsection (8)(b) says “within 8 days”. Again, some clarification would be helpful.
In terms of obligations on the church, place or body performing the solemnisation of the marriage, new section 53E(3) refers to the “relevant church official” on whom there are obligations to ensure that registration is made and notified. Who is the relevant church official? In most cases, people who are involved in churches other than the vicar are volunteers. Does the provision refer to a churchwarden? Does the relevant church official have to have a certain status? How are they nominated? What happens if they mess up? Who is responsible? Again, I could not find that in the explanatory memorandum.
I realise that I have given the Minister quite a few questions to cope with, so this is probably the final question. What happens to the existing hard-copy registers? We discussed the practical problems of moving to such a radical system of electronic records and mothers being able to sign a marriage certificate with clergy and others. Many churches—certainly old churches—have marriage register books that are sometimes centuries old. They are historical documents. I presume that they can still be used and will still be part of those churches’ fabric. I gather that in some cases, while we were waiting on these regulations, some vicars in the Church of England were forward looking and a nod was given from Lambeth Palace that mothers could sign the hard copy of the certificates and the register in church, even though there was no place for them. I think that practice has been going on in some cases, even though the regulations do not come into force until 4 May.
Is there any facility for this registration to be retrospective, at least going back to when the Bill itself became law, for those mothers who have signed a register, but, I presume, will not now be part of the new electronic record? That might be particularly poignant and touching—the Minister referred to his own case—where the mother is no longer with us. Can there be some sympathetic and pragmatic retrospective approach to enabling mothers to sign the register, at least to the time when the legislation went through, after which there was a good expectation that the Government would get on with producing the regulations, which are not that hard?
What will happen going forward to those registers? Churches can still use their hard-copy register, but it now has to be backed up with a specific certificate, it has to be presented to the superintendent and it goes on the electronic register in parallel.
There are many other questions I could raise, but in the interests of not detaining the Committee for too long—I am only too aware I have given the Minister quite a plateful—I will leave it there.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The Minister will be relieved to hear that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has raised a number of the issues that I wanted to raise, so he will be spared a long speech.
The Minister covers the General Register Office, which is the same role I had 11 years ago when I was Minister. I was proud then to change the birth registration so that parents who are same-sex couples could be listed as parent/mother and parent on the register. Changing marriage registration is long overdue. I hear the frustration from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and I commend him for his work on this issue, but I am aware that in the corridors of Whitehall, trying to get legislation to change marriage and birth registration is quite difficult, because nobody else sees it as a priority. It is really great that we are today finally getting mothers on the register.
I have a couple of quick questions about paper registers, which pick up on what the hon. Gentleman highlighted. The challenge of going digital is that, in terms of archiving, it can be very difficult. That recently came up when the Public Accounts Committee was looking at private finance initiatives, which are not that old. Some of the documents for those were on CD-ROMS. There are members of that Committee who do not know what a CD-ROM is. Will the Minister advise whether he has had any conversations with the National Archives about a plan to make sure that the digital register will be accessible for the long term? For those who do not have physical registers—some will not, because of where they choose to get married—there will not be a record. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue about existing paper registers. It would be helpful to have that as well.
The explanatory notes say that there has not been a formal consultation, but that the General Register Office has consulted the established churches across the UK and other religious groups. Could the Minister advise which other religious groups that applies to? Just to be clear, at the moment only certain churches—simply put, those with a hierarchy—allow their celebrants to be registrars. I assume that that has not changed; I have not been able to find that in the complex legislative documents, which amend many other Acts. Can the Minister confirm that point?
There is also an element of time to take into account. If a certificate is lost or destroyed, it looks as if there is an eight-day period for it to be replaced. If anyone has ever tried to get a copy of a registration document for birth, marriage and death, eight days is quite optimistic. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, that could be done by volunteers. We may be dealing with something from some time before. It is not often that I have to produce my marriage certificate, but that is now nearly 25 years old—unbelievably—and my birth certificate is now, I fear, more than 50 years old. Birth certificates may be easier, but it also applies to baptism certificates and so on, and trying to track those things down. Anything to do with churches can be challenging because there are changes of personnel. Records and sometimes church buildings can go; that applies similarly to registry offices. The public sector is often very good at keeping records, but there are things that can go astray. I am slightly worried about the challenge of eight days. It could be quite difficult.
I represent a constituency that has many people who have come from across the world and who have had challenges in life. Often, finding the right document to prove something is one of the biggest barriers to their getting access to the public services they need. So it is more important than it may seem in one or two lines of the regulations. I hope the Minister can pick up those points and the others that have been raised.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for such comprehensive contributions. I welcome the speech from the shadow Minister. It is pleasing to have the Opposition’s support for the regulations. Obviously, the core of what we are looking to do is not a matter of particular contention.
I start with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. We recognise that registers have two roles: one is the day-to-day need for people to prove their status or their identity, and the second is for historical records and genealogical research. I take her point about particular churches or places of worship that rely on volunteers. The quarterly returns process in the Church of England can be quite cumbersome; it is a process first started back in the 19th century.
One reason why we want to move to a digital register is to remove the need to get hold of paper documentation. That leans into wider work to allow statuses to be automatically checked by digital systems talking to each other in public services. The hon. Member will appreciate, given her previous role, that that sounds simple, but there are the challenges of making sure that appropriate data protection is in place, and that records will be accessed for legitimate purposes and with people’s consent.
The concept of a church or a religious building continuing to hold a physical register will disappear. They may well keep their historical records and parish registers, but they will no longer be getting someone to fill out a physical certificate. As we have discussed, we have had some lengthy conversations with the Church of England.
On the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, people will still sign a document on the day. It will be similar to now, in that the priest who celebrates the marriage will take responsibility for sending that document off to be placed on the electronic register.
Dunkerton parish church is in a small rural Dartmoor community, in the west of Devon. Marriages have been conducted there for about 700 years. It has no running water, no electricity and certainly no wi-fi. In order to provide a solution that means people can still get married in that ancient church with a wholly electronic register, we came to an appropriate position with the Church of England, which I understand it is happy with and which is as close to the current position as possible. It makes it clear that for those married in that church, the priest is responsible for sending back the form to the registrar, for it to be entered on to the digital record.
People will not see a particular difference on their wedding day, but they will not sign paper certificates on the day. That is where we need to be clear in our own minds. It is no longer about the paper being the record of the marriage. To be clear, this is about recording the event. The moment of marriage is not when it is entered on to the register; sometimes people can be confused and think that signing the register is the moment that they become married. It is not. The certificate is a record of a marriage that has taken place in the church.
Meg Hillier
Is it possible for people to be provided with a paper document? Some people frame their marriage certificates; they are proud of the moment. Will that be prohibited?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely not. There is nothing to stop that. As the hon. Member will know with baptism, which is not recorded in a secular sense by the GRO, certificates are issued by churches. I think the language on them usually says they are to be used “when the child is presented to the Bishop for confirmation.” That is true in the Anglican tradition and there is nothing to stop that. It will not be a legal document of the marriage, but electronic statuses and transactions are becoming increasingly common for most people, and this will be an easy-to-access digital status when needed—for example, to prove a marriage to a bank or someone else—rather than, necessarily, as the hon. Member says, something that someone might want to have on the wall as a record of their relationship.
Jess Phillips
Just to clarify and potentially answer one of the points, nowadays anything can happen, ceremonially, in a church, or even in a registry office, where I got married; churches can, if they want, still keep old books, make records and keep the history of that church. Nothing in the draft regulations bars that—is that correct?
Kevin Foster
That is correct. The only things churches should not use are the current marriage certificates issued under the Marriage Act 1949. That is the thing that changes. Parish registers, which some Church of England parishes have kept literally since medieval times, can continue to be kept. There is no reason why a church cannot give something to people to mark their marriage there. However, people who attend the wedding perhaps will not see that the form that is signed is then sent by the priest back to the registrar to be entered on to the digital record.
We discussed at some length with the Church of England how we can provide a practical solution. It has thousands of priests and marriage venues that have stood for centuries, where a computer solution cannot realistically be installed in any sense, or even a mobile one, so that details can be directly entered into a digital register. This was the solution that we came to. It seems both fair and reasonable, and to be clear, the Church is perfectly happy with it.
Tim Loughton
On a practical point, many churches have a whole supply of marriage certificates, which may be part of a marriage register book. The Minister quite rightly says that they will effectively have no status post 4 May, because there will be the electronic record, but can they not still be used in place of the voluntary thing to give to the happy couple to frame? They will not have a legal status, but it would be a waste to have to throw them all away, would it not?
Kevin Foster
Once we get beyond 4 May, the paper registers will close. Effectively, certificate books will then need to be returned to the GRO to register the final weddings that have taken place under the previous registration system. It would not be appropriate to issue documentation that once had legal status beyond the point at which it has legal status. The current certificate books that people sign will be required to be returned and to cease being used.
Meg Hillier
The Minister talked just now about proving status to a bank or someone. There is a challenge here. Who has access to the register? What are the cyber-security issues around that and who gives permission for that? I am already married, but if I were to get married after 4 May, would that mean that the Minister could look up my marriage? Who in a bank would have the power to do that? Could it be done only with my permission? What are the data protection controls around this hugely important database, which could be used for all sorts of nefarious reasons, as well as benevolent ones?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Member will know that one reason we are moving to a digital system, away from paper, is that paper is far easier to forge or produce copies of, particularly in the modern era, than in the 19th century, although it has to be said that the register is actually a public document. It is not like the census document, which is kept for 100 years. The registers are actually public and can be consulted, as she will be aware of, given her previous time being responsible for the GRO. I think that we can put that particular concern slightly to one side.
We are also looking at digitising some historical records, to make them far easier to search for those looking to do family history and research. As the hon. Member will know from her time with the GRO, family history, especially discovering dates of marriage, can be quite interesting, particularly when going back to grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ generations. When going through a family tree, someone may discover that the great-grandparents who swore blind they got married in 1919 actually got married in 1920, and then realise that grandad was on his way a couple of months later. There is a general part that we are looking to digitise
Kevin Foster
I will give way once more, and then I will make some more progress.
Meg Hillier
Forgive me, but this is an important point. There is a difference with a physical register that someone can look at. The register has people’s addresses and the names of their parents, which are security questions when signing into a bank account. Who gives permission for the register to be checked? Is it completely open to the public, or is there some brake on that to ensure that it is not used inappropriately to mine IDs and to be used for nefarious reasons? That is absolutely fundamental.
When we were looking at introducing identity cards, which of course were not introduced, there were huge debates and discussion of detailed legislation about the security of the data and who would give permission to access it. Although this data is already out there, that is not in the same way as being in a parish register, rather than actually online.
Recently, my local authority suffered a major cyber-security attack, and was very much helped by Whitehall to sort it out, but it will take a year to resolve some of the issues, and important data was stolen and put on the dark web. The issues are therefore very serious and pertinent. I hope that the Minister will address that before we pass the draft regulations.
Kevin Foster
First, one of the most common ways of creating identities at the moment is to forge outdated paper certificates, hence why we are keen to move away from paper certificates, which are easily forged and used for nefarious purposes. Clearly, therefore, we want to move to a digital register.
As the Committee may have picked up, another private Member’s Bill is before the House on Friday, relating to birth and death registration where, similarly, we want to move away from the paper certificate process towards a more secure online register as the final arbiter. That is of course out of the scope of the Committee, but it shows the general thrust of the Government’s plans to modernise a pretty outdated system of registration, emphasised not only by the fact that mothers’ details are on marriage certificates but by the process still being heavily rooted in the past.
The position on access to the register will be the same as it is today. I accept that it is slightly different when someone is checking on a computer, rather than walking down to Somerset House, although a lot of that can be done online already, via records already digitised.
To come to some of the other points, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham stated that he cannot see a mention of mothers’ names on marriage certificates. As he will be aware from our long discussions of his private Member’s Bill that is now an Act, a lot of the purpose was to remove much of the specification in primary legislation that we would not put there today. The actual content will be prescribed in regulations made by the Registrar General, with the approval of the Secretary of State. However, the draft regulations to amend primary legislation will remove the more outdated requirements and then allow the new certificate to include mothers’ names and occupations. To be clear, that is where that will be specified finally, but allowing this to go forward will be the core part.
In a couple of other questions, my hon. Friend asked why a Bill that became an Act in late 2019 is being acted upon in 2021. Originally, we were hoping to launch the new system last year. I hope that the Committee will understand why the middle of a global pandemic, when registrars were urgently having to adapt their birth and death registration systems to cope, was widely viewed as not the appropriate time to introduce a brand new system of marriage registration. We would very much have liked to move forward with it last year, but we wholly accepted the points made by the registration system, that the middle of a pandemic was not an appropriate moment. However, with a lot of weddings delayed to this summer due to the impact of the social distancing regulations last year, now is the time to take the new system forward.
Kevin Foster
I will not now, but I will cover in writing the points about the baby loss review and about coroners and stillbirth—that is perhaps a more appropriate way to update my hon. Friend.
With that, I commend the draft regulations, which will finally bring our marriage law into the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021.
Draft Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked—that will not be a problem today. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, obviously when you are not speaking. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Reporting Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The order was laid before the House on 8 April. It aims to ensure that the Financial Reporting Council, the public body that regulates auditors, accountants and actuaries, follows the same rules as other regulators on access to information, how it exercises its regulatory functions and promoting equality.
The order serves three purposes. First, it designates the Financial Reporting Council a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act in respect of specific public functions. Secondly, it ensures that all the FRC’s regulatory functions are subject to the regulators’ code, which sets good practice for regulators. Thirdly, it will add the FRC to the list of public authorities subject to the public sector equality duty.
I should stress that the FRC is already partially subject to those duties, and otherwise voluntarily adheres to those rules at the moment. However, it is more effective, more transparent and more consistent to apply those duties and rules in law comprehensively, as the draft instrument does.
Following the collapse of BHS and Carillion in particular, it has been a priority of the Government to understand and address shortcomings in the UK audit environment, including the role of the FRC as regulator. That is why, in April 2018, the Government commissioned Sir John Kingman to conduct an independent review of the FRC, which reported on 18 December 2018.
The FRC review identified the need for a new, strengthened regulator. It emphasised the need for the regulator to be held to the standards and obligations expected of all public sector bodies and to be more transparent, and recommended that it should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the regulators’ code. Those findings were supported by the Government and welcomed at the time by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
The FRC, under new leadership, has already taken significant steps to strengthen its capabilities and to begin building the additional capacity needed to deliver on the ambitious mandate set by the FRC review.
The order builds on the progress in implementing the review’s recommendations on the FRC’s internal workings, which include full compliance with the “Managing Public Money” handbook, streamlining governance structures and enhancing stakeholder engagement. Those measures represent another step forward on the path to transforming the FRC into a new, strengthened regulator.
Let me deal with the application of the FOI Act to the FRC. At the moment, only some of the FRC’s statutory functions are subject to the FOI Act. The FRC has since voluntarily adopted compliance with its provisions. The order will designate the FRC a public authority for the purposes of the FOI Act, so that all its public functions are covered by the Act. The FRC was consulted on the application of the Act to its public functions and was supportive of that. Since the FRC is a public body, it is right and proper that the order applies the FOI Act to its public functions, helping to underpin public confidence and trust in the regulator.
I turn to the regulators’ code measure. The FRC already applies the code to some of its regulatory functions. The order will now apply the regulators’ code to all the FRC’s regulatory functions, save those that it has delegated to the relevant professional bodies.
The code encourages trust, open dialogue and accountability between the regulator and those that it regulates. Application of the code by legislation will make the FRC more accountable, in line with other regulators. It will encourage greater transparency in the way regulation is delivered and enable the FRC to target its resources better.
The Government have worked closely with the FRC and the relevant professional bodies and consulted them on this matter. All the consulted parties supported the application of the code to the FRC.
The third measure is the public sector equality duty. It will add the FRC to the list of public bodies that are formally subject to the duty. Currently, the FRC is only subject to the duty with respect to its public functions.
Those subject to the equality duty must eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010. They must advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. They must also foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
The FRC sets the UK corporate governance code, which the UK’s largest companies are required to apply on a “comply or explain” basis. The code promotes diversity reporting. It is therefore only fair that the FRC itself is subject to the highest public duty with respect to equality considerations in its role.
In March 2019, in publishing an initial response to the FRC review, the Government committed to replace the FRC with a new independent statutory regulator with stronger powers. The new regulator, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority, will be a regulator with teeth, backed by legislation, funded by a mandatory levy on industry, with stronger enforcement powers.
The Government will legislate to create the new regulator when parliamentary time allows, but the measures in the draft instrument do not need to wait and should not wait. They will ensure that the FRC’s position is consistent with those of other public bodies and make it more transparent and more accountable to the businesses and professions that it regulates.
I hope that the Committee agrees that the three measures in the instrument will improve the UK’s audit, accounting and corporate reporting regulator by making it more accountable and transparent.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Charles, and to be back in Parliament with my SI buddy, the Minister. We seem to do a double act on these things.
As hon. Members know, the Financial Reporting Council is an independent regulator responsible for regulating auditors, accountants, and actuaries and setting the UK’s corporate governance and stewardship code. However, as Sir John Kingman’s review in December 2018 made clear, it was an institution that “leaked and creaked” and required fundamental reform. As the Minister said, its days are now numbered, and it is to be replaced by a new Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority, but it appears that the Government are dithering on this, given that Ministers have promised us year after year that audit reform will be introduced. We now hear that it will happen in early 2021, although that looks questionable too. Does the Minister know when we can expect audit reform for sure and the replacement of the FRC with the new authority? Will it mean more than just changing the letterhead?
The order imposes specific duties on the FRC related to freedom of information, the regulators’ code and the public sector equality duty. The role of the FRC has developed over time, and in 2017 the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy concluded that the FRC’s work should comply with all the relevant public body guidelines. In 2018, the Government commissioned an independent review, which recommended that the regulator should be subject to the FOI Act.
A couple of years ago, the FRC voluntarily adopted compliance with the codes, so this statutory instrument will not fundamentally change the FRC’s approach. Although it is welcome that compliance is to be put on a statutory footing, I wonder why it is happening now, when we are about to disband the organisation and replace it with a new one. Why could not we have passed the SI, which is fairly straightforward, two or three years ago?
We support the changes, but we wonder why they are being made now and when we can expect the proposals for the new Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority to come forward.
Paul Scully
I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments and constructive contribution to the debate. We do not want to delay the FRC’s replacement in any way, but the new regulator will require primary legislation and, as I said, the Government intend to introduce it when parliamentary time allows.
In the meantime, the Government are committed to putting in place the right degree of transparency and oversight of the regulator. The order, which applies to the current regulator, is an important step in achieving that. Yes, the FRC has voluntarily covered a lot of what is in the measures, but we want to ensure its good standing until we get to the point of setting up its replacement. Reliable audit and corporate reporting are vital to well-functioning markets, business investment and growth. An effective regulator is essential to help the UK economy realise those benefits.
The measures will help ensure that the UK maintains and advances its status as a place of the highest standards in audit and corporate reporting. The Government are committed to acting on the findings of Sir John Kingman’s independent review of the FRC. The measures are steps towards that goal.
I thank hon. Members again for their valuable time and contributions to the debate. I hope that the Committee will approve the SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Welcome to Westminster Hall from the Boothroyd Room. I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered residential leaseholders and interim fire safety costs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall and to be able to debate such an important topic today. When I became the MP for Vauxhall in 2019, two and a half years after the horrific Grenfell Tower fire, I did not expect to find so many of my constituents still living in unsafe buildings, blighted by dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects. To date, I have received correspondence from and been contacted by more than 250 individual leaseholders living in 27 different unsafe building developments in my constituency. And that is just in Vauxhall. The sheer scale of the cladding scandal is truly shocking, and it has revealed the full extent of what can only be described as a systematic failure in building safety in this country. But because of the tireless efforts of campaigners and their supporters up and down the country, we know that safety is only one part of this story. Leaseholders who bought their homes in good faith now find themselves saddled with the financial responsibility and liability for problems that they had absolutely no part in creating.
Much has been said recently about this injustice, and I am grateful to colleagues across the House who have called for urgent action to protect innocent leaseholders. Understandably, much of the debate has focused on who should pay for the cost of the remedial works to remove and replace the cladding. However, I want to draw attention to an equally urgent but much less talked about financial aspect of this crisis. That is the eye-watering charges that are being passed on to leaseholders for compulsory interim fire safety measures while they wait for the remediation work to be completed.
Interim costs have life-changing impacts. The sheer feeling of hopelessness is shared by many leaseholders I have spoken to. One constituent wrote to me and said,
“I have worked hard. I have contributed to the communities in which I have lived. I have paid over £100,000 in taxes over the past three years. And yet I now find myself facing potential bankruptcy, homelessness and the collapse of my business through no fault of my own. My future is utterly bleak, and my life feels worthless.”
As soon as a building is assessed to be unsafe, residents are told that they must immediately introduce additional fire safety protocols or face an evacuation order from the fire brigade. The requirement for those interim measures can be met in two ways. One is by appointing a waking watch, whereby trained wardens continually patrol the building in order to be able to detect a fire. The second is the installation of specialist alarm systems. Faced with homelessness, leaseholders have little choice but to assume the costs for those measures.
Interim measures have become a frequent occurrence as the fire safety crisis has unravelled over the last three and a half years. Every week, new buildings have been discovered to be unsafe. Worryingly, a fire safety assessment is generally triggered only when the leaseholder tries to remortgage or sell, which in turn triggers the external wall survey or the now-infamous EWS1 process. It means that the true scale of the problem is still unknown, and it will only grow in the months and years ahead.
There is currently nothing in law to protect leaseholders from the financial responsibilities for such interim measures, which are typically passed on through increased service charges. The data on interim costs are patchy and incomplete. Government figures show that the average estimated cost of a waking watch in England is £17,000 per block, rising to over £20,000 in London. Per household, that translates to a bill of approximately £500 a month for each affected household. Alarm systems are not much cheaper as an alternative, with estimates ranging from £50,000 to £150,000 depending on the size of the building. Those figures are eye-watering, and they will recur month after month, year after year, until the cladding is removed and the building is deemed completely safe.
In February of this year, the Minister told Parliament that
“we are clear that waking watch regimes should only ever be used in the short term”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 690-691.]
On one development in the Kennington area of my constituency, however, they have been paying for a waking watch since July of last year, at a cost of £10,000 per flat. The remediation works are not expected to be completed before the end of next year, and the alarm system is deemed insufficient to meet the danger. The total cost of the interim measures for this one development is currently estimated to reach over £1 million. What really sticks in the throat for my constituents is not just that the interim measures are expensive and mandatory, but that their effectiveness has been called into question. One constituent told me:
“These guys add little practical value and sit around watching TV on their phones, and yet we have to pay for them under the threat of being evicted if we don’t. In a fire, they are not really going to be able to make a blind bit of difference through evacuating residents.”
We have to remember that such interim measures are a daily reminder to our constituents that the buildings they live in are unsafe. The amounts are unaffordable for most people at any stage in life, but many of those affected are young, first-time buyers whose dreams of home ownership have turned into an unaffordable nightmare, with their homes literally unsellable. Industry experts estimate that it will take between five and 15 years for all affected buildings to be remediated. The truth is that the costs are anything but interim.
Ministers have known about this problem for almost four years. They have repeatedly acknowledged that fire safety defects are not the fault of leaseholders, and yet it took the Secretary of State until December last year to announce any sort of help for interim costs. The waking watch relief fund, which offers a grant to pay for the installation of fire alarm systems, was a welcome step in the right direction, but it remains the only form of Government assistance that is available for interim costs. In their current form, the fund’s provisions are partial and insufficient. Leaseholders living in blocks below 18 metres are excluded from applying. The Government claim that this is because the risk of a life-threatening fire in lower buildings is smaller, but any building that faces an evacuation order if the interim measures are not established is, by definition, clearly not safe, regardless of whether it is 18, 15 or 12 metres.
One such block in Vauxhall, which is under 18 metres, failed its EWS1 assessment in October 2020, and its leaseholders have had to find more than £170,000 to pay for interim safety measures. It is estimated that the remediation work will cost in total £1.4 million. The developer of the building has gone out of business, and leaseholders were all excluded from any Government support schemes. I simply do not know how this situation can ever be fair.
Even if we focus our attention on just the buildings over 18 metres that can apply for the fund, the £30 million that the Government have allocated is drastically short of what is needed. The Government estimate that that will pay for a maximum of 460 buildings, but there are at least 560 eligible buildings in London alone. Lord Greenhalgh told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on Monday this week:
“We recognise that the £30 million goes some way, but not all the way.”
Finally, the fund pays only for an alarm system purchased and installed after December 2020. That totally ignores the thousands of pounds that leaseholders have already spent on compulsory and expensive but ineffective waking watch systems. How can that be right or fair?
The Government, including the Minister, have repeatedly said in the House that no leaseholder should pay, so I ask the Minister whether he agrees in principle that innocent leaseholders should not be responsible for solving the problems that they did not cause. Why are we asking the same leaseholders to pay extortionate sums for interim costs?
I am grateful to the Minister for attending this debate today. I want to conclude my remarks by focusing on what can be done to fix this appalling situation. I have four questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer. Will the Government agree to the principle that no leaseholder should have to pay for interim fire safety measures to mitigate the problems that they did not cause? Will the Government commit to including provisions within the upcoming draft Building Safety Bill to protect leaseholders from such costs, and ensure that they are picked up by the people who were responsible for causing them in the first place? Will the Government immediately extend the waking watch relief fund to match the number of buildings that we know are affected, and make sure that all leaseholders facing these costs can apply regardless of building heights?
The Minister has previously said that interim measures should be used only temporarily,
“because they are an entirely inadequate substitute for remediation.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 691.]
With that in mind, will the Minister ask the Government to mandate a timetable for the completion of the remediation work in all unsafe blocks to make sure that the interim costs do not have to be paid by leaseholders for years to come?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate will last until 10.55 am. I intend to call the Opposition spokesman no later than 10.32 am and the Minister at 10.42 am. Florence Eshalomi will have two or three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are 16 Back Benchers seeking to contribute. I want to make sure that everyone gets in, so I am afraid that I will have to impose a time limit. If we aim for three minutes, everybody should have their say. All Members participating virtually should have a countdown clock on their screens. We will start with Stephen McPartland.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this very important debate. She spoke eloquently and movingly about some of the tragic stories that she has heard about in her constituency in London. Sadly, those stories are reflected in my constituency and in constituencies up and down the country.
The costs of intermediate waking watch measures and of insurance premiums going up by thousands of per cent are just heartbreaking. Even as we speak in these debates, people are going bankrupt, and the Government do not seem to be listening to the howls of pain from leaseholders up and down the country, as they beg for support and assistance.
We are almost four years on from Grenfell and we are not getting this matter right; we are not helping. Unfortunately, the Government are actually making the situation worse by not working with leaseholders and the relevant groups, such as the UK Cladding Action Group—End Our Cladding Scandal. A variety of brilliant recommendations have been made by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which is chaired by our wonderful colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is taking part in this debate. It is imperative that we help these leaseholders.
When we look at insurance premiums as a measure, which a lot of people do not recognise, we see that they may have gone up by 2,000% or even 3,000%. The Government are taking 12% in insurance premium tax on those rises, so the insurance premium tax take on those insurance premiums is currently higher than the insurance premiums themselves were a year or two ago. That is astonishing.
On waking watch, the fire services have told us that they have almost no control over it. Waking watch is not new; it was introduced years ago and was used, for example, if a hotel fire alarm did not work. At the moment, however, waking watches are being used by management companies as the first resort instead of the last resort. As a result, our local fire services do not have any ability to go in and help the leaseholders, who are being told, “Well, you need to have a waking watch”. There are no other options for them. The fire services should be given some powers to be involved in a responsible waking watch, when it is needed, or to consider what other evacuation orders or measures could be put in place. And the costs are just staggering. I have constituents in Vista Tower in Stevenage who are paying £15,000 a week and they just cannot afford it; that sum is impossible for them to afford. They are paying almost as much as some of their mortgage payments and they are now going bankrupt.
I urge the Minister—please listen to the pain of leaseholders up and down the country. Stop talking and start doing. Start helping my constituents and those in a similar situation up and down the country.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am always pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I look forward to doing so again today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate. My constituents in Edmonton who live in Prowse Court, Golden Lion Court and Brickland Court watched the Chancellor’s speech last week and were left feeling very disappointed. There was not one mention of cladding or fire safety in the Budget.
Leaseholders such as my constituent Jason and his wife moved into their flat in 2007 with their daughter. In January this year, a fire safety assessment concluded that the cladding on Jason’s building needed to be removed. Jason and his fellow tenants have no idea about how long they are going to be waiting for the removal of the cladding or who will meet the costs of that work. All they are certain of is that the interim safety measures must be put in place, including increased fire risk assessments and additional heat detectors. The freeholder of Jason’s building has already begun passing down the costs of these measures, in the form of increased insurance and service charge costs. That has left Jason in debt, unable to move and stuck in an unsafe building that is costing him more and more money. Jason goes to sleep every night knowing that his family is not safe and that there is no end in sight to his worry. To put it simply, Jason’s family are trapped.
I have raised identical cases with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ask that the Government fully fund interim fire safety costs. In their reply, the Government seemed focused only on ensuring that remediation work is completed first. It is incredibly unjust to penalise those who did not cause this cladding scandal to have to wait for remediation work to be completed first, while allowing the property developer to walk away, bearing no interim costs and seemingly no long-term costs.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what has been said in this debate and will ensure that in the future the Government will not only meet their obligations and fully fund interim fire safety costs, so that not one leaseholder is left out of pocket, but will fully acknowledge that the cladding scandal needs to be treated as the national emergency that it truly is.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in highlighting the concerns arising in the debate.
Given the circumstances, I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is cladding on tall buildings. I congratulate the Government on securing funding to help to remediate that cladding, but the problem is that the cost of removing cladding on tall buildings is often dwarfed by the cost of the fire safety measures that must also be implemented. It is quite clear, as things stand, that leaseholders will be saddled with the costs of the fire safety measures that are required, as well as the costs of the cladding. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond to the issue of what exactly is included in the remediation of cladding. At the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there was some confusion when it was suggested that external areas that are not involved in the cladding, such as different balconies, will now be included in the grant scheme.
The other problem is that we are now told that once a fire assessment takes place, the remediation grants will not be available unless leaseholders sign up to fixing the fire safety issues as well, but those involve eye-watering sums of money. The arrangements, of course, are complex. I think we all agree leaseholders should not have to pay for the remediation, but the issue then is who should. I take the view that the taxpayer should not pay for it. The developers, building owners and indeed suppliers of materials should pay for the fire safety remediation, as well as the remediation of unsafe cladding. There is no doubt that the testing regime was unfit for purpose at the time in question, but emerging evidence from the Grenfell inquiry suggests that manufacturers deliberately decided to use the position on testing to cheat on the system. If so, they should be forced to carry out the remediation at their cost.
Equally, there is the challenge of insurance, mortgages and the values of the properties that are affected. Clearly, at the moment, leaseholders cannot be expected to wait for the introduction of the building safety Bill. It will take more than two years for it to come into operation, and leaseholders cannot wait. We need clarity on the point that the fees and costs will be picked up and that the leaseholders will not have to pay them. We also know that it will take an extended period to carry out the works.
I will rest my remarks there. I hope that we will get a response from the Minister on exactly what the scheme covers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
In a moment, I will call Dame Margaret Hodge. The speaker after her has withdrawn, so then we will go to Hilary Benn.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate.
In June 2019, a devastating fire tore through the timber balconies of Samuel Garside House in Barking. Residents lost their homes and possessions, and even their pets, and now live in fear, suffering sleepless nights and constant anxiety. Those residents were the first of many constituents impacted by the cladding scandal who have sought my help.
Leaseholders in Barking and Dagenham are not wealthy. Many live hand to mouth, and most cannot even afford contents insurance. Cladding has turned their dream of buying a home into a living nightmare. They face ongoing costs for interim safety measures, and cannot afford them. There are massive bills for waking watches, building insurance and EWS surveys, and the residents cannot sell or remortgage their homes.
At Academy Central, residents have paid £3,500 per household per year for a waking watch. Many cannot afford it and have been doing 24-hour control themselves, which places huge strain on their lives. At Rivermill Lofts, leaseholders have struggled to get an EWS survey. They have been quoted hundreds of pounds per flat, and only 70% of the households have paid up. In the meantime, their flats are worthless. At the Ropeworks, building insurance shot up from £70,000 to £650,000—that is 900%—in two years. At Barking Central, bills for interim measures have reached £6,500 per home. A third of leaseholders cannot afford that, and the cladding grant that they hope to get will not cover the costs of dealing with things such as flammable insulation or faulty firebreaks.
Many leases are buy-to-let, and the landlords often just do not care—at Arboretum Place, only five people turned up to discuss a way forward. The owner-occupiers cannot even begin to sort out the mess if the landlords will not engage. Responsibilities are diffuse, ownership is often shady and stakeholders shirk their obligations. I have had freeholders refusing point blank even to consider that they have a moral duty to help, developers refusing to turn up to meetings and insurers profiteering.
The Government said that leaseholders should not have to pay, but my leaseholders need Government action, not warm words. Developers, freeholders, builders, manufacturers and regulators should all contribute, but only the Government can force them to do so. The support package still has too many gaps—insufficient funding, arbitrary height thresholds, unaffordable loans and the ignoring of all the other defects. The issue will not go away—we will not let it—until the Government act comprehensively and thoroughly so that homes are made safe and leaseholders are not forced to foot the bills.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this debate.
The Government have done a great deal—I recognise that—with the money and funding made available. Equally, however, it is not enough, because the quantum of money available is not adequate and does not cover all the consequences of the regulatory failure that has put many people, including constituents of mine, in an impossible situation. It will be necessary for the Government to look again. Let me explain why that is important.
We have already heard about the dire position that many flat owners are placed in. Many of them have done the right thing in many ways—they have sought to buy their own homes—and they have done the things that my party has urged them to do. Now, they feel cut adrift. Many are people at the lower of the income scale, and many bought these properties as their entry into the housing market. Key statistics show, for example, that some 59% of the homeowners caught in this situation have an income of less than £50,000, and 33% of less than £35,000; when they are being hit with massive bills of tens of thousands of pounds, that is not very much—on properties that are unmortgageable or unsaleable.
In Northpoint, in my constituency, residents have collectively paid more than £0.5 million on a waking watch, on top of £120,000 for the installation of a temporary fire alarm. In some cases, the evidence shows that people are paying up to £50,000 a month. Also, as has been observed, insurance premiums have shot through the roof. In one London block, for example, the premium increased from £130,000 to £690,000. That is despite the fact that, in some cases, those buildings have been approved by the Department for the ACM remediation scheme and have put alarms in place. None the less, the insurance industry has, frankly, made unreasonable and unjustified levels of profit, and it needs to put its house in order, too.
We do need to pursue those at fault in the cladding scandal—the contractors and the builders—but that will take time, and it may take years. The leaseholders need help with cash flow. That is why the Government should be making available not just grants but loans to be recouped from those who are ultimately responsible. Only the Government have the cash flow to enable these people to move on with their lives. There is not just an economic cost but a massive personal and social one, too, for the victims of the cladding scandal.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We can hear you, and now would be a really good time to hear your contribution.
Hilary Benn
I do apologise.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on talking so passionately, as others have, about the unaffordable cost to our constituents of waking watches and insurance bills. We all know that those costs are to pay for the symptom of the problem; they will never remedy the problem itself, but they will eventually end up bankrupting people.
My constituent Hayley Tillotson saved up for four years to buy her flat. She called it:
“The proudest moment of my life.”
Just before Christmas, she had to declare herself bankrupt and hand back the keys to her dream home. Why? Because the waking watch fee was the same as her mortgage, and she did not have the money to pay it. The point I want to make is simply this: despite the steps the Government have taken, without something else happening, these so-called interim costs will continue to be demanded in the months and years ahead because the buildings will not have been made completely safe. Why is that? Dangerous cladding is only part of the problem. The other part is that wooden balconies and walkways, flammable insulation and missing fire breaks have been discovered time and time again as innocent leaseholders learn that their block was not constructed even to the building standards of the time.
The Minister knows perfectly well that leaseholders do not have the money to fix those other fire safety defects. When the Secretary of State was pressed on that, he said that the taxpayer could not be expected to meet the cost of fixing any safety defect on any building of any height. That is a fair point, although successive Governments do bear some responsibility because they presided over the scandal. But the people who really should pay—the developers, the builders and the freeholders—should be asked for the money. The Government have created the means through the tax and the levy announced by the Secretary of State, so they should provide loans to fix the problem and recoup the money from those three sources.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my written question about whether works to remove dangerous cladding that are funded by the building safety fund will be delayed if insufficient funds are available to fix the other fire safety problems. A press report suggested that that could happen, but his reply implied that it would not. Could he clarify that in responding?
The fact remains that until sufficient funds are identified, the costs will continue to drain the resources and the spirits of all the leaseholders caught up in this nightmare. The question to the Minister remains a simple one: he knows that leaseholders cannot afford to fix the other problems, so what is his plan for getting them fixed?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing the debate. May I say how impressive her introduction was? It is a reflection of the immense talent she brings to the House.
I will speak briefly, because I promised my constituents who live at the Ballymore development at High Point Village in Hayes that I would take every opportunity I could to raise their concerns. Like other Members, I find it virtually impossible to describe the distress that my constituents have experienced and are going through. It started the day after Grenfell, when they were concerned about their own safety, but it then took a long time to get a thorough inspection under way.
The developer has behaved totally irresponsibly and is failing to communicate effectively with my constituents. In addition, we are only now into the application stage for Government assistance to tackle the cladding costs and removal, and we have discovered that, as others have said, large measures will not be covered by the Government’s grant. I find it intolerable that the developer is now coming back and saying that all these other defects, which it is equally responsible for, including the wooden balconies, will not be covered in those costs. Therefore, my constituents feel that they will not be made safe, or, if they are, that it will be at a high cost to themselves and not the developers.
In the meantime, like other Members’ constituents, my constituents are being hit with increases in their service charges, particularly around insurance. There is no way that they can afford the waking watch costs that are being imposed on them. Like others, they feel lost. They are trapped in their homes. They cannot sell on. They are growing families. People are trying to move around the country to get a job, as a result of the job losses in my area, but they cannot, because they just cannot sell on. Their whole lives are being put on hold.
There has to be a sense of urgency from the Government now—a clarity about what is covered by the building grant put forward by the Government, to ensure that there is comprehensive cover. Secondly, all the interim measures have to be covered. Thirdly, there needs to be action from Government on the control of service charges imposed on many of our residents by some of these developers, whom most of us have lost confidence in, even if we had any in the beginning.
I close by re-emphasising the distress that this is causing my constituents—distress to the point that it is affecting their health. I think we have a number of mental health crises now as a result not just of what has happened to constituents because of the development of buildings that were not properly regulated or inspected and that were faultily built, but because of the distress caused by the laggard way in which the Government have handled this issue. I cannot stress enough the sense of urgency that there should be at the heart of Government about addressing these issues.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Everyone has been so good that we can splash out and raise the time limit to three and a half minutes. Enjoy!
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. She has long been a passionate supporter of all those who have been so terribly affected by this issue, and I have no doubt that we are all immensely grateful for her tireless efforts. I also pay tribute to our nation’s heroic fire and rescue teams, who put their lives on the line every day to keep us all safe.
The fact that we have been forced to have this debate at all is a matter of deep regret. Nearly four years after the Grenfell fire, the Government are still to learn the lessons of that tragedy and to take the action that is so desperately needed to ensure that everyone is safe in their home. Too many people remain stuck in unsafe flats that they cannot sell, pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by the colossal costs of waking watches and cladding removal, and in fear of going to sleep each night. In Merseyside alone, there are 25 buildings with waking watches in operation, and there are 65 across the north-west.
With the Fire Safety Bill, the Government had the opportunity to draw a line in the sand, but that Bill failed to go far enough or fast enough, and will have done little to address the very real concerns of the many thousands of people stranded in unsafe buildings. Similarly, the £3.5 billion announced by the Communities Secretary simply will not address the scale of this crisis. While it may help people living in buildings over 18 metres, those stuck in smaller housing blocks still face being burdened with debts that many of them can never even hope to repay. Let us be clear: leaseholders should be not be forced to shoulder the costs of other people’s mistakes, but despite saying on no less than 17 occasions that leaseholders will not be forced to meet the costs of fire safety measures, that is exactly what the Government now expect thousands of people to do. The Government also said nothing about addressing the issue of non-cladding-related fire risks, such as wooden balconies, despite the considerable risks that these pose to tenants.
Finally, as we consider the Government’s failure to step up and ensure the safety of leaseholders, we must not forget the role that 10 years of sweeping funding cuts to frontline fire and rescue have played in the undermining of all our safety. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, 400 firefighters have been lost in Merseyside alone. Across the country, thousands more posts have been axed and hundreds of stations closed. The tragic consequence is that response times have fallen and our fire service’s ability to tackle incidents and save lives has been critically undermined.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this hugely important debate and for her fantastic contribution, and for her tireless work on these issues, including on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I serve alongside her.
Residential leaseholders are the only group involved in the cladding scandal who have no responsibility for the danger they are in every waking minute and when they are asleep. The Government, the regulators, property developers, builders—I could go on and on—all have their share of responsibility for the cost of interim fire safety measures following Grenfell, yet leaseholders still have to pay ever-increasing bills to cover these interim costs. As we have heard in heartbreaking testimonies to the HCLG Committee, many are experiencing an unimaginable toll on their mental health, from circumstances out of their control and not of their making. The lack of clarity from Government is also causing significant distress, so I hope that the Minister will today provide the further clarity that Members and campaigners are asking for. After two hours at a Select Committee on Monday, I was left with more questions than answers about who is actually responsible for this current chaos and who will pick up the tab for sorting it out.
Waking watch is one of the fastest growing service industries in England, but with no regulation and no cap on costs, there has been an increase in bankruptcies and bailiffs up and down the country. These costs are being passed on to leaseholders and come at the same time as Action for Children reports that 40% of families are struggling to feed their children. I hope that the Minister will outline exactly what support his Department is giving to those having to choose between paying for waking watch or a hot meal for their children. I also expect the Minister to clarify what further support will be provided to those leaseholders who receive universal credit and face the costs of waking watch. The uplift of £20 a week pays for less than an hour of a waking watch once a week.
It is nearly four years since the Grenfell tragedy and we are still talking about interim measures. The toxic mix of the fire safety crisis and covid is causing a public health crisis, which should be recognised by the Government. This is not only about an industry that needs reforming; it is also about a health crisis that needs addressing. Unaffordable costs heaped on top of the mental torment caused by living in dangerous buildings do not feel interim for those facing them. This has already inflicted irreversible damage on the livelihoods and wellbeing of many leaseholders across the country. I expect the Minister not only to acknowledge this injustice, but to commit to providing the urgent and immediate support needed for those leaseholders.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to contribute in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on opening it so powerfully.
I represent several blocks across central Sheffield that are affected by the cladding and fire safety scandal, with leaseholders being destroyed by the failure of the Government to come up with a solution that matches the scale of the problem. The Metis building has gained a lot of public attention, and last night there was a meeting of leaseholders there. Five weeks after applying for the waking watch fund, there is still no money. Alarms take some weeks to install, so they face substantially more waking watch costs on top of the £120,000 they have already paid. There is no plan yet for missing external cavity barriers or insulation, which they are told will not come this year because of the cost, estimated at £6.2 million, for which they have been rejected by the building safety fund, meaning that they will not get an EWS1 form, leaving their properties unsaleable and them facing bills of up to £50,000.
Replacement of ACM cladding for Metis is being funded, but I have been contacted by a commercial leaseholder with a small business operating from the building who faces a bill of £327,000 to pay the shortfall on ACM remediation because of the cash limits in the scheme. She fears that will drive her out of business, after many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall described the impact of interim costs really well. One of those interim costs is insurance, as the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) highlighted. In the Metis building, they faced a 60% increase in insurance costs. The situation is worse for residents in the Wicker Riverside complex, who were evacuated before Christmas because of multiple fire safety failings. Their building has become uninsurable, exposing them to huge risk and potential breach of mortgage agreements. They met the Building Safety Minister last week and it appears that the Government are relying on a market solution. No market solution is forthcoming. There is a precedent for the Government underwriting insurance in such situations to enable a solution. Will the Minister consider such a way forward?
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that the Government should not foot the bill for the failings of others. He is right, but only the Government can act to hold those responsible to account, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) pointed out. Only the Government can ensure that these issues are dealt with with the urgency that is needed. We should also recognise that the Government have much more responsibility than the leaseholders, because they oversaw the flawed system of building inspections that signed off so many of these unsafe buildings. These leaseholders are the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure and that is why it is the responsibility of Government to step in, own the problem and resolve it, without any costs to leaseholders, either now or in the future, through any loans scheme.
We are talking about unbearable pressure and unimaginable strain on the young people and families who are trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable. The Minister knows that this is a grave injustice. He must assure us that he will remedy it.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing it. We simply cannot raise this issue enough, as it affects so many of our constituents’ lives across the country.
I have constituents who write to me, and parents and friends who write about their loved ones; about how they feel trapped, how they have fallen into severe debt, how they are living in overcrowded situations because they cannot move home, and how they are desperately worried about their safety. Residents have been paying waking watch costs. They have seen insurance costs rocket. They have seen service charges increase. They should not have to contribute to replacing cladding, when all of this is no fault of their own. What was once their dream home has become a nightmare. I have said this before, and I am saying it again: this nightmare is their reality. This experience is something they live with daily, in real financial and emotional terms.
The Secretary of State’s long-awaited announcement last month about support for residents in dangerous buildings fell short of what is needed for the people of our country who are affected. Why was the Minister so short-sighted? Why was this whole issue absent from the Chancellor’s Budget? If residents live with unsafe cladding and fire defects, that is through no fault of their own; the height of the building should not matter either. The Government are not meeting their duty, but they are protecting developers, freeholders and insurance companies. That is what we surmise from this gross inaction.
Financial support should not be non-existent for people and their families living in housing blocks beneath six storeys. The Grenfell disaster took 72 precious lives. I have to ask: what are the Government waiting for before they are motivated to act decently? The actions recommended by both the phase 1 report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and Dame Judith Hackitt’s review are clearly not being carried out at pace. Where did the sense of urgency go?
This is not a situation where the Government can choose what to remedy and what not to remedy. In my constituency, residents of the Parkside development have been told by Peabody housing association that its remediation work will take approximately five years. In this half-decade, the residents will be made to pay for short-term solutions. I join my colleagues in saying that is entirely unacceptable. Leaseholders should not have to pay for any shortcomings that they are not responsible for, even for a short period.
I implore the Government not to allow my words and those of others to fall to the ground. This is about protecting lives, securing a home for people and families, and doing the decent thing up and down our country.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I am very grateful for the extra 30 seconds, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for organising this debate and speaking so brilliantly in opening it. In West Ham, we have the highest take-up of furlough and unemployment is up 240% since the pandemic began—it is grim. That is what people in Newham already face, and the costs and stresses of so-called interim fire safety measures come on top of that really difficult reality. Interim means that until the blocks of flats have been certified and, if necessary, remediated, people are in limbo, and that is proving to be a really long time. Because of these measures, residents are still living with the constant reminder that their building is not safe. It preys on their mind, and they are paying through their nose for the privilege.
Zain’s block was found to be unsafe, but the original developer of his building is now operating another company. It has refused to take responsibility, so the costs will inevitably fall to Zain and the other residents of his block. The Minister knows full well what I think about that. I would be grateful to him if he touches on what he can do to help Zain and other residents in similar circumstances.
Before the expensive remediation work even begins, Zain has been faced with massive bills. The insurance premium for the block has rocketed from £3,500 to £280,000. Unbelievably, Zain was asked to cover 2021’s bill with one day’s notice. Then there is the cost of the new alarm system, round after round of surveys, a new managing agency and even the dreaded waking watch. Overall, that could cost Zain £20,000—probably more. His building is not a high rise, so unless the Government change tack, the estimated £40,000 per household for the cost of remediation will not be covered fully either. Zain is terrified. He is going to have a bill of £60,000 and upwards in total.
I cannot emphasise enough what a strain this issue is putting on my constituents’ lives, their relationships, their ability to move on, and their mental health. It is so unfair. Time and again, Ministers have promised that leaseholders trapped in these situations will not have to pay to fix problems that they did not cause, but as I said before, with the interim costs, leaseholders are already paying. That is why so many people were bitterly disappointed when the Government rejected Labour’s amendments and the McPartland-Smith one-two. I really hope that today the Minister will provide us with fresh assurances that we can pass to Zain and the thousands of others that this seemingly endless awful situation will finally be resolved, and that the Government will step up.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for her powerful opening to the debate, and all colleagues from across the House, whose speeches reflect the frustrations, anger, mental health worries and financial worries experienced by my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. I have many of these buildings with a huge series of defects—not just fire safety, but the wider building defects that have been referred to. My constituents’ experiences reflect those shared by other hon. Members.
I will give some examples away from the fire safety issues: compartmentation, cladding, foam inside the walls of the buildings, and balconies have been touched on already, but there are other issues. I discovered in one of my blocks issues with the foul water system. It had not even been connected in one leaseholder’s flat, and as a result, sewage flooded into her flat. It was found later that it had been propped up on a Starbucks cup. That is what we are talking about; those are the defects in buildings that people are having to put up with. It is completely unacceptable, and residents simply should not have to put up with the cost of remediation. It is not their responsibility; it is the responsibility of the original developers who built the buildings, as I have maintained throughout this. Government must step in to act because the time it will take is clear, as many colleagues have said.
My residents have also been hit with many interim costs, such as waking watches, investigations into materials and the state of walls, or insurance costs, which have been mentioned. I have met the Association of British Insurers and the wider industry to raise concerns about that. The Government must work with insurers to ensure that we do not get to a situation where insurers pull out and residents, such as those in one of my blocks, are suddenly hit with thousands of pounds in additional insurance premiums that they simply cannot afford, not least in the current pandemic. Many of these residents are key workers and are struggling. Some have retired and do not have the money to pay these bills.
I welcome the investment that the Welsh Government have promised to deal with these issues. In their Budget, in contrast to the Chancellor’s, there was a specific section on support for leaseholders. The Welsh Government are going to make an additional £32 million available to deal with fire and building safety defects, on top of the £10.6 million that they have already promised. They are very clear about their position and have been putting pressure on developers. I am pleased to say that in recent weeks we have seen some movement from Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey, which have both announced different funds. I am due to meet Taylor Wimpey in order to understand the full details in the days to come.
I want to come to the Minister. There has been a lack of co-operation with the Welsh Government, where there is need for co-operation across the UK because this is a UK-wide scandal. I have repeatedly asked the Minister for details on the new levy, the new tax and what new money will be made available for Wales, and I have had one-line answers from him. I hope he will get around the table with his officials and the Welsh Government Housing Minister, Julie James, who wants to work in a constructive way on the Building Safety Bill, as we have done on the Fire Safety Bill, so that we can get a solution that works for the whole UK, including my leaseholders and residents in Wales, and get them the answers they need.
At the moment they are left in the dark, with additional worries because they see the Secretary of State making big announcements and then brushing away anything to do with Wales. That is not the way to handle the situation. My leaseholders want answers, they want them now, they want justice and they want to work co-operatively across the UK, to find a solution to their terrible circumstances.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on bringing this important debate.
As the cladding scandal rolls on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government are not concerned enough with the physical safety or financial security of my constituents who are living every single day in unsafe housing. The Government’s position on the waking watch measures are just one example of that. Committing to the use of waking watches, as the National Fire Chiefs Council suggests, would mean committing to temporary measures that would go on indefinitely. In its written submission to the Public Bill Committee on the Fire Safety Bill, the Fire Brigades Union stated that it was unable to support the use of waking watches in that way, for fear that it would become
“a de facto permanent state of affairs.”
Temporary measures such as those have been in place since the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017. The word “temporary” is losing its meaning and I would be grateful if the Minister would address that in his response, because constituents are now faced with bankruptcy, with the cost of waking watches placed at their door.
The other matter I would like to raise is the overwhelming financial burden being placed on leaseholders who are also legally freeholders. I draw on the example of the Limehouse West estate in my constituency, to bring the matter to the Minister’s attention. Limehouse West was owned by the Canal & River Trust until November 2019, when about 60% of the leaseholders got together to buy the freehold. They did that for a number of reasons. They wanted to take charge of their estate, as the Canal & River Trust was extremely slow to respond and do anything around the estate, and my constituents did not want to pay the ground rent.
In the context of the ongoing cladding scandal, for those constituents, being their own freeholders included some benefits. There was no risk of the Canal & River Trust choosing wildly expensive or unnecessary remedial works and then saddling leaseholders with costs, or the Canal & River Trust doing nothing for years and the flats staying almost unsellable while waiting for the EWS1 certificates.
Many of my constituents on that estate are both freeholder and leaseholder. The Government say that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny. Who pays for any cladding and remediation works at Limehouse West and similar estates in my constituency, including for interim measures? If it is the freeholders, 60% of my constituents on that estate will bear the cost of the work that will benefit all of them, without any means of recovering those costs. Many of my constituents who are freeholders-leaseholders feel that it is very unfair. If it is the original developers who should pay, there is the difficult legal problem of making this happen. In the case of the estate, the developer is the absolutely awful Bellway, which tells me that it will not pay for something that was completed over 20 years ago.
I would be grateful if the Minister could help distinguish where leaseholders are also freeholders in response to the costs of interim measures and the wider costs of remediation works. Does he believe there should be parity between the burden placed on freeholders-leaseholders and leaseholders only where the freehold has been bought out by a party that is not related to the original developer in any way? I really believe that the building industry should have to take a greater burden, but in the absence of that, it would be great to get clarification from the Minister.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on the eloquent way in which she introduced the subject. She went through the eye-watering costs, and she powerfully made the point that the costs are there week in, week out, until the defects are removed.
I state for the record my co-chairing of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which brings its expertise to the APPG and has helped to secure many of our experts, who between them have put together what I consider to be credible and fair proposals to try to deal with many of the issues that have been raised today. As things stand, what the Government are proposing is not credible or fair, and it will not deal with the plethora of building safety issues that leaseholders have been lumbered with.
When the Secretary of State made his announcement in the main Chamber, we were told that the Government’s plans would give certainty to leaseholders, but anyone who heard the Minister’s evidence before the Select Committee on Monday will have been left with the impression that certainty is one of the things that is clearly missing at the moment. We still do not know who will be the legally responsible body for the remediation, and it looks like there is still a huge risk that leaseholders will find themselves saddled with a debt that they have not consented to and should not be responsible for.
The reality is that we have moved from statements that Ministers have made in the past about the strong expectation on freeholders to put matters right, to the shameful position that we are now in, which is frankly a bit of muddle. However, it is looking more and more likely that freeholders will have their assets invested in and brought up to scratch at no cost and at no risk to themselves. I cannot put any other interpretation on Lord Greenhalgh’s statement on Monday to the Select Committee. He said:
“We are not asking any of the building owners to make any contribution to the remediation costs.”
I cannot take that to mean anything other than innocent leaseholders will end up picking up the bill. If that is where we end up, it surely means that the thousands of pounds that leaseholders are paying out to help keep themselves safe will be theirs alone to meet.
Despite two updates to the waking watch guidance and recommendations that interim alarms are installed, we have sites that have needed both a waking watch and interim alarms for years, costing the leaseholders a huge amount of money, which it seems they will never get back. After 44 months, there has been no impact assessment of the costs and benefits of such interim measures. Despite the Government producing data that they say would allow leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of the costs, there is no evidence that leaseholders have been able to do so in the tribunal.
It is also worth pointing out that, in addition to the extra costs, leaseholders have found that their insurance premiums—even in buildings with no history of fire safety issues—have skyrocketed by an average of 400%, which is financially devastating. The money has to be paid by leaseholders every week, and they currently have no prospect of recovering it. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have been left in an impossible position. They deserve our support, and they deserve a solution. At the moment, they are having to pay three times: once for the property, once for the defects that we are talking about at the moment, and also for interim measures in the meantime. When the Minister responds, I want him to tell us where else people pay three times to get the same thing.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on her continuing fight for leaseholders across her constituency. I also thank her for focusing this debate on an aspect of the building safety crisis that has received less attention in the House but is equally financially crippling, as she has argued, for leaseholders up and down the country.
In fact, I thank the 16 Members who have contributed very powerfully to the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) referred to the astronomical insurance costs piling on to leaseholders in her constituency. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) argued that manufacturers that have gamed the testing system should contribute by paying for interim measures and more. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke about the nightmare that is the EWS1 system, and debt piled on top of debt in the midst of the covid crisis.
The costs for leaseholders have dominated the headlines over the past few years. We are nearly four years on from Grenfell, where 72 people tragically lost their lives, but today’s debate demonstrates the importance of breaking the costs down to expose exactly what constitutes the unimaginable debt being imposed on leaseholders for defects that they did not cause. People are literally going bankrupt.
Across the country, leaseholders are trapped in dangerous buildings. They are unsure of when their home will be made safe or how much that will cost them, but as soon as a building is judged to be unsafe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out, the costs start piling up. Additional safety measures, often in the form of 24-hour waking watches, are put in place, and leaseholders have little choice but to foot the bill—they either do so or become homeless—which is £174 million a year. Far from being temporary, as the word “interim” would suggest, there are waking watches that have now been in place for years, and they will probably be in place for even more years to come. The cost for each leaseholder is more than £500 a month on average and, in many cases, much, much more, as we have heard throughout today’s debate.
After refusing repeatedly to help leaseholders to cover these costs, the Government have now provided some—I say “some”—funding to fit alarm systems in some buildings, those that are 18 metres and above in height. That will reduce the need for a waking watch, but once again, the Government’s actions have come far too late and fall far short of what is needed. We know that waking watches are present in about 800 buildings, but the £30 million provided by the Government will cover at most 460—a figure far lower than the number of buildings with waking watches in London alone, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Does the Minister think that, when it comes to safety, this type of funding lottery is right? I am also concerned by reports that even after fire alarms are installed, evacuation managers are required in some blocks and, again, it is leaseholders who are left paying the bill. Can the Minister say whether he has looked into how many buildings this actually impacts?
Safety costs are, of course, not the only interim costs that leaseholders are incurring. A survey from the Association of Residential Lettings Agents—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) referred to this— has found that insurance costs have risen on average by 400%. For one in 10 blocks, the cost of insurance is now 10 times or more what it was just a year ago. This is a picture that takes us from Sheffield, where a building is uninsurable, to Manchester, to Birmingham and to London. Hikes of 1,000%-plus are not uncommon.
Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister responsible for building safety, is due to meet insurers in yet another roundtable this week. Can this Minister confirm whether that roundtable will be the one that finally sorts out the problem and intervenes in the insurance market? Ultimately, the only way to stop interim costs continuing is to get buildings safe quickly. Some are still left worrying whether, when that day comes, they will be left with a bill not just for cladding, but for a host of fire safety defects not covered by the building safety fund, as pointed out by hon. Members in this debate today. Many buildings below 18 metres will now be saddled with an unwarranted and unwanted loan on top of interim costs—mortgages, service charges and much more.
We were promised details of the Government’s new funding at the Budget by the Minister himself, but yet again leaseholders were let down. The Chancellor did not even bother to mention cladding or the building safety crisis. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to do what the Chancellor did not do and provide us with details of the new arrangements, and how about updating my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on co-operation with the Welsh Government? Costs for leaseholders go far deeper than the financial cost. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, mental health and stress are taking a toll. These are all consequences of the scandal as the bills pile up.
Nearly four years on after Grenfell, the very first step that the Government should have taken, which they still have not done, despite our repeated calls, was to establish the extent of the crisis and properly prioritise buildings according to risk. They have not provided sufficient upfront funding to start getting dangerous cladding and other materials off these buildings immediately. They have not protected leaseholders from the costs, as promised over and again. It is about time the polluter genuinely does pay for the building safety scandal. I hope the Minister will answer the questions asked by me and other hon. Members today.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and all other Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents and contributed so passionately and eloquently to this debate on a matter that we all care deeply about. The consequences of the Grenfell fire were catastrophic for the people and the community involved, and have been complex and wide ranging for many people across our country as a result. That is why—then, since and now—we are taking clear and decisive action to provide an unprecedented sum of money, more than £5 billion of taxpayers’ funds, for building safety to protect those most at risk.
In the short time that I have I will speak to the issue of cladding remediation and also to the title of the debate, interim fire safety costs. I will answer as many hon. Members’ questions as I can. If I do not complete that task in the allotted time, I am happy to follow up and write to Members subsequently.
The biggest cost facing leaseholders affected by building safety is cladding remediation. It is unacceptable for leaseholders to face those unaffordable costs. That is why we committed £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to accelerate the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on the highest risk buildings—those over 18 metres in height—after the Grenfell tragedy. That was driven by the remediation of the most dangerous form of cladding, as the House will know—aluminium composite material cladding. I am pleased to say that as a result of that disbursement, 95% of those high-rise buildings with ACM have either begun or completed remediation work. It is also fair to say that the private sector has stepped up to the plate with respect to ACM, as something like 50% of the privately held buildings with ACM cladding have had the ACM removed as a result of the buildings’ owners, the developers or the warranty holders acting to replace the cladding.
However, we have not stopped there. We recognise that there are other forms of dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings and we have acted to remediate those through the building safety fund. Something like 500 registered buildings with other types of unsafe cladding are now proceeding with a full application to that fund, but we have not stopped there, either. We have allocated £3.5 billion to remediate all buildings above 18 metres that have unsafe cladding, an investment that totals over £5.1 billion. I suspect that when all of the taxpayer funds are added up, significantly more money will be spent by the taxpayer to remediate this problem.
I would also like to explain why 18 metres is the threshold trigger. It is because it is right that we prioritise those buildings that represent the greatest risk to residents in the event of a fire. Home Office analysis shows that buildings between 18 and 30 metres in height are four times more likely to suffer a fire with fatalities or serious casualties than any other apartment building. Building standards become more restrictive over 18 metres; the presumption on firefighting tactics changes over 18 metres. It is a well-established boundary used by the National Fire Chiefs Council in its operational guidance, it is used by the Building Research Establishment, and it is used in the independent expert guidance that we have received.
Why cladding? It is because we know that it acts as a fire accelerant and that is of greatest risk in high-rise blocks. That is a fact noted in the independent report by Dame Judith Hackitt and the independent advisory panel, to which Dame Judith spoke in a newspaper article, again just a few weeks ago. That is why we focus on cladding and why we focus on buildings over 18 metres in height.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members asked questions during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked for some clarification on what is covered by the remediation package that we have tabled. I can tell him that the remediation package includes works that are integral to the safe remediation and removal of cladding on buildings that are at risk, so it includes such things as fire cavity barriers. They, too, are included in the package, if they need to be remediated as part of the safe removal of the unsafe cladding.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked whether I would clarify that no leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of receiving Government funding for cladding remediation. I was pleased to answer a similar question that he had tabled in written form and I am pleased to confirm here in the Chamber that, as I said then, no leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of receiving Government funding for cladding remediation. I hope that that answer helps the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether we are engaged with the devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Yes we are, and we will continue to discuss the Building Safety Bill with them; I think we meet them on a monthly basis to do so.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) asked about leaseholders who are also freeholders, and whether they would be able to benefit from the waking watch fund. The answer is yes.
As a result of the package that we have pulled together—as a result of the £5.1 billion in public money that we are spending, the tax and levy that we will impose on the developers, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ announcing a few days ago, in addition to its announcement last November, that the scope of the EWS1 form is going to be significantly reduced so that in total nearly 1 million households will now no longer have to face an EWS1 form and are effectively de-scoped from the risks that they had previously thought they might face—we are trying, I think successfully, to persuade the risk industry and the lending sector that they need to get risk, lending and valuation back into proper proportion. They must put aside the “computer says no” approach, properly assess the risk of buildings and their fire hazard, and properly ascribe value to them again, so that people living in those properties can get on with their lives. We are confident that as a result of that package the risk and lending industry will do that, and that we can begin to move on—and the people in those homes can begin to move on.
We have also discussed interim measures in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall for addressing the point so eloquently. As I said, public safety is our first priority. We want to target funding where it is needed most, removing and replacing unsafe cladding to make the homes and the people who live in them safer more quickly. We have followed the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance to support the installation of waking watch or a common fire alarm where we need to ensure there are proper measures in place to guard against tragedy in the event of fire. However, we are also clear that those measures are a short-term strategy. They are a vital first step in ensuring that a building remains safe, but not an alternative—there is no alternative—to remediation. That is the reason we have spent so much time and are disbursing so much money to ensure that the problem is properly resolved.
As we have heard, too many waking watches have been in place for far too long. Leaseholders are being left to pick up often exorbitant bills. Data has shown that the most cost-effective means of protecting residents’ safety is through a fire alarm system. That, again, is evidence-based, and guidance is published by the National Fire Chiefs Council. That is why we are providing £30 million for the costs of installing an alarm system in high-rise buildings—again following the guidance of Dame Judith Hackitt and others—which have waking watch systems, where the costs are being passed on to residents; because those buildings have the highest risk and those residents face the highest costs. The fund opened on 31 January in all areas except for private sector buildings in Greater London. The deadline for applications is 14 March and the objective is to install those alarms as quickly as possible.
In contradiction to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, we are moving quickly to disburse those funds: £22 million has already been delivered to local or regional authorities, because they are best placed to know the buildings that most need local support. In London, subject to a mayoral decision, the Greater London Authority will administer the fund in Greater London, and the fund will open to private sector buildings in London on 18 March. We felt it was wrong to delay the implementation of the fund and wait for London, which of course has the largest number of high-rise and at-risk buildings. We did not think that other areas should have to wait. In Birmingham and the west midlands, for example, Mayor Andy Street has been quick on the case, and other authorities have done the same, so I encourage the GLA and the Mayor of London to take advantage of the funds and disburse them as quickly as possible, to ensure that the people of London who are facing exorbitant waking watch costs can take advantage of this opportunity.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall also talked about the number of eligible buildings in London. We are taking sensible, clear advice, and the National Fire Chiefs Council has identified 400 buildings across the country that are at risk of fire and in need of support for waking watch remediation, 216 of which are in London. That is why we are confident that the £30 million we have allocated will be sufficient to deal with the challenge of waking watch in those high-rise buildings where the costs are being passed on to the leaseholder.
There is a shared desire across the House to ensure that residents are safe in their homes, and that leaseholders are protected from unaffordable costs. That is why we introduced the scheme and the generous financial package to support leaseholders in buildings less than 18 metres. I suspect that the announcements made by RICS in the past several months will also support them, and that the lending industry and risk industry, getting itself back into proper proportion, will also support them.
These debates are vital as we work together to protect leaseholders, so I thank the hon. Lady again for raising the issue and for speaking so passionately and eloquently in support of her constituents. I thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for doing the same. This is a crucial issue for us. We will continue to address it and we will bring forward the building safety Bill as soon as possible.
Florence Eshalomi
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; all raised excellent points. That highlights the consensus of all Members across the House.
I thank the Minister for his comments, but respectfully, his argument about prioritising the high cost of remediation work is a sideshow, a false economy and morally bankrupt. We need to look at how we can help our constituents now. These interim costs will not go away. I look forward to writing to him to highlight some of the questions I posed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered residential leaseholders and interim fire safety costs.
Automatic Computer-based Decisions: Legal Status
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the legal status of automatic computer-based decisions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I should apologise to a number of viewers of the debate for advertising its start time as 10.30 am, as opposed to 11 am. I would like to blame Microsoft Outlook, but in fact it was entirely my own fault.
I should also declare my interests. I am the chair of the Institute of Artificial Intelligence, which brings together legislators from around the world to discuss the implications of regulation of artificial intelligence. As Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I call attention to our currently suspended but still live inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal, which I shall refer to today. Lastly, I draw attention to the fact that I used to be employed as a solicitor with a law firm now called Womble Bond Dickinson, which represented the Post Office on the Horizon issue, but confirm that I did not personally act for the Post Office on that issue. I should also thank Paul Marshall, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers, whose note to me has underpinned much of my contribution today, and Stephen Mason, a research fellow at the University of London’s Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, and his colleagues for their analysis.
The Minister knows that I come to the debate as a technology evangelist—someone who advocates harnessing the potential of technology to modernise our economy and our public services. There is, of course, a much wider debate about the need to update our laws and regulations, and indeed how we run government, due to the technological revolution, but today I will focus on the specific and important issue of how the law of evidence applies to automated computer-based decisions. That has wide-ranging implications across the public and private sector.
The case of the Post Office’s failed private prosecution of more than 1,000 sub-postmasters for accounting errors created by a computer system and not by the sub-postmasters resulted in what looks to be one of the largest miscarriages of justice in our country—a tragedy for our justice system, but also a personal tragedy for the sub-postmasters involved and their families, all stemming from a computer system. I understand that one victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal pleaded guilty to false accounting merely because she had been overwhelmed by the errors and because she could not face the prospect of a jury trial for theft, which was being threatened by the Post Office at the time. Another was wrongly imprisoned when eight weeks pregnant. I stress this point because computer-based decisions can lead not only to not getting a credit card but to untold human suffering in the face of miscarriages of justice. That is just one example.
As the Minister knows, automated computer-based decision making is more and more widespread with every passing year. The problem is that computer systems are not continuously reliable; latent errors can occur frequently. Achieving reliability in a computer system in the first place is difficult; it is even harder to assess and assure that reliability on an ongoing basis. Indeed, artificial intelligence, in its capacity as a general-purpose technology across every aspect of our economy, means that the number of decisions coming from software-based systems will increase and increase, both in the private sector and in the delivery of public services. The Minister, of course, understands that. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which is part of his Department, published a report only last year on algorithmic decision making, which concluded:
“We must ensure decisions can be scrutinised, explained and challenged so that our current laws and frameworks do not lose effectiveness, and indeed can be made more effective over time.”
However, the fact is that, as highlighted in the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in the Post Office Horizon case of Bates v. Post Office, our laws are dramatically out of date. This is evidenced by the very nature of the dates of the legislation involved for criminal issues, such as the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. We all recognise, of course, that technology has moved on a great deal since then. That Act repealed section 69(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which until its repeal meant that computer-derived documents could not be used as evidence unless it could be shown that, at all material times, the computer was operating properly. At the time, the Law Commission recommended the repeal because of concerns that it was increasingly difficult to meet that threshold—in other words, in 1999 it was increasingly difficult to show that a computer was operating properly at material times.
The change in the law left an absence of formal statutory guidance, resulting in the courts applying to computers the presumption of being properly functioning traditional machines. In practice, that means that a party can rely on the presumption that a computer was operating reliably at all material times—that is to say, that the computer was always right. It is for the objector—in the Post Office case, the sub-postmaster—to prove that the computer was not operating reliably. This is perhaps an obvious point, but in my view that results in an unacceptable imbalance of power.
The owners of computer-based decisions are usually big companies or the state. An advanced computer system is not the same as a factory-floor machine. In contrast, the objectors are employees, customers or citizens who have no real prospect of being able to prove that a computer system owned by a company or the Government was not operating reliably. That has very wide-ranging implications.
If people found it difficult to prove a computer was operating reliably in the early 1990s, we can only imagine how difficult it might be to do that today, not least when machine-learning algorithms come to conclusions for reasons even the computer programmer does not understand. If the Post Office had been required to prove that its computer system was operating reliably, it would not have been able to do so, because we now know that it was not, and sub-postmasters would not have been wrongly imprisoned. The legal presumption that a computer is always right is therefore unsafe and liable to cause significant harm and injustice.
I am not suggesting a return to the pre-1999 approach, but we need to find a new way to manage the risk and update our laws appropriately. As the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation said in its algorithmic decision-making report,
“we have a window of opportunity to get this right and ensure that these changes serve to promote equality, not to entrench existing biases.”
That is important, because if we are to harness the full potential of technology in our economy, the public need to have confidence in the way in which it is being used, and that there are appropriate rights of redress for those who fall foul of it.
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has also been engaging with this issue and has referred the matter to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, in his capacity as chair of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. The reason I asked for a debate with the Digital team is my belief that this is broader than an issue merely for the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. I am therefore calling on the Minister to use the powers of the Government Department responsible for digital and technology issues to refer this matter to the Law Commission for formal consideration. I look forward to hearing his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on securing this important debate. He is absolutely right to say that the potential of technology to enhance the decision-making process, in the public sector just as much as the private sector, is something that this Government are absolutely committed to not only getting the maximum out of, but getting right as well. He is also absolutely right to highlight that legislation from decades ago is perhaps not 100% where we would wish it to be.
First, let me say that I share the concerns raised by him and other Members about the specific example he has raised and the treatment of postmasters, who are vital members of the community, in this whole affair. I also acknowledge that it highlights essential legal issues. I will address those shortly, although I should perhaps start by saying that he has been comprehensive in his own circumnavigation of the issues at hand.
On Horizon, the Government recognise that the dispute has had a hugely damaging effect on the lives of the affected postmasters and their families. Its repercussions are still being felt today. Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in branches. At the time, the Post Office believed that those shortfalls were caused by postmasters, leading to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some cases, criminal prosecution. Many hon. Members, me included, have listened to the stories of the postmasters affected and have been deeply moved by the impact on their livelihoods, their finances and often their health.
A group of 555 of those postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2017. In the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, it is clear just how wrong the Post Office was in its relationship with postmasters and that there were clear failings in the Horizon system. As I will explain, the Government are taking steps through an independent inquiry to ensure that lessons are learned and that a full analysis takes place.
The Post Office reached a full and final settlement with the group litigation claimants in December 2019 and apologised for its failings. That settlement was an important step towards addressing the wrongs of the past, but it was only the start of a long journey for the Post Office to repair and strengthen its relationship with postmasters.
As part of the settlement, the Post Office agreed to set up the historical shortfall scheme, open to current and former postmasters who may have experienced and repaid Horizon shortfalls but did not participate in the group litigation. That is an important step in ensuring that all those who were affected have the opportunity to seek resolution.
A number of postmasters with criminal convictions have applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have their cases referred for appeal. To date, the commission has referred 51 cases either to the Court of Appeal or to the Crown court. The Government welcome the decision made by the Crown court in December 2020 to overturn six of those convictions.
However, a number of cases—42 in total—are still to be heard in the relevant Appeal Court at the end of March. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on those cases while the courts are still considering them, but I assure hon. Members that the Post Office is co-operating with the commission to the fullest extent.
More broadly, we must ensure that such a situation can never be allowed to occur again. In September 2020, therefore, the Government launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, an independent inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. Sir Wyn’s inquiry will work to understand fully what happened, gather available evidence and ensure that lessons have been learned so that this cannot occur again. The inquiry will look specifically at whether the historical shortfall scheme is being delivered properly. The Government look forward to receiving that report in the summer.
In recent years, however, a lot has changed on standards and ethics relating to the management of algorithms and data in general. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) rightly pointed out the work of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. Crucially, that centre has not only “data ethics” but “innovation” in its title—those two things go hand in hand.
The centre was established by my Department in 2017, but that is not the only area in which we have implemented change. Substantial steps have been taken to consider and address deficiencies in the application of algorithms where that lies within the remit of the DCMS and, crucially, beyond. I am confident that we are in a much stronger position than when the worst excesses of the Horizon affair took place, but there is more work to do.
If an automated decision is based on personal data, the UK general data protection regulation already applies. It provides regulatory tools to safeguard data subjects and identified or identifiable persons in automated decision making. Organisations processing personal data must also adhere to strong transparency requirements. Organisations, including public authorities, should ensure that the algorithms they deploy and procure, where based on personal data, generate sound and impartial decisions, and that that should be considered before such algorithms are used.
The UK GDPR contains provisions for protecting the interests of data subjects and their data. In particular, data protection impact assessments are mandatory for data processing that is high risk and require organisations to weigh up the impacts on privacy of data processing activities, including automated decision making.
In addition, the Government have introduced non-legislative tools that will be important as we move towards a world where not just algorithms but the ability for computers to amend algorithms—artificial intelligence—become more commonplace. Let me run through some of them. We were the first Government to publish a data ethics framework, which is a set of principles to guide the design of appropriate data use in the public sector, aimed at anyone working with data in the public sector. We published an ethics, transparency and accountability framework for automated decision making, and we have commissioned the Government Digital Service to deliver the review of artificial intelligence adoption in the public sector. We have also published an AI guide for Government.
There are also published guidelines on AI procurement in collaboration with the World Economic Forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It will inform and empower buyers in the public sector, helping them to evaluate suppliers and then confidently and responsibly procure the right AI technologies for the benefit of citizens. We have also published, along with the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Alan Turing Institute, “Explaining decisions made with AI”. This guidance gives organisations practical advice to help them explain the processes, services and decisions delivered or assisted by AI to the individuals affected by them. That is a crucial action that the hon. Member for Bristol North West mentioned.
Those various documents are updated with new thinking and insight from our public sector, civil society, industry and academic partners. We have also launched the new AI dynamic purchasing system, which is a framework that offers public sector customers a direct route to AI services in an emerging market, addressing ethical considerations when organisations buy AI services for use in the public sector.
The new and independent Regulatory Horizons Council has been appointed to scan the horizons for new technological innovations and provide the Government with impartial, expert advice on the regulatory reform required to support their rapid and safe introduction. More broadly, the Government are always monitoring how algorithms and data affect people’s lives. As they grow in importance in all our lives, we will consider what more we can do. That is why we are active in the international debates on algorithm and artificial intelligence regulations at the Council of Europe and, beyond that, at the OECD and in the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked whether the status of algorithms in the courts might be referred to the Law Commission, especially given the role played by the commission in first adjusting the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on this topic. It is a suggestion worth very serious consideration, and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and I are grateful for it. He will know that it is not in the Law Commission’s current three-year plan of work, and it will take considerable time to establish the necessary work in order to address the underlying legal issue.
While we consider that route, the Government are also investigating whether there may be faster methods that we can use to address the legal status of algorithms in a court of law—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that himself. For example, once the Court of Appeal has made a determination in respect to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the judiciary Criminal Procedure Rule Committee could consider making changes in this area. The courts are expected to make their determination shortly, after which I look forward to taking up the matter with the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chief Justice, the chair of that committee.
To close, I thank you, Mr Hollobone, and the hon. Gentleman. This is the beginning of the next phase in an ongoing debate. It is a hugely important issue, and seizing these opportunities for the benefit of citizens and everyone around the world is in all our interests. It will be a complex and involving conversation, and I look forward to having more conversations with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am afraid that the hon. Member does not have the right of reply in half-hour debates. I know it is confusing and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we enjoyed his initial contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Maternal Mental Health
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of Westminster Hall debates and are expected to remain for the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically are asked to clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered maternal mental health.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and indeed to have Members participating virtually in this afternoon’s debate. Maternal mental health should be among our principal concerns. Pregnancy and birth can be the trigger for poor mental health among those who did not previously suffer from mental health problems, and they are a major factor in the escalation of existing ones. The first two years of a child’s life are vital in their development, and the right support and guidance for families at this time can make a big difference to their long-term outcomes.
For many women, becoming a mother presents psychological challenges. They might have experienced conflict or abuse in their own childhoods, which resurface when they contemplate the reality of becoming a parent themselves. They might be used to setting high standards for themselves and derive their sense of worth from their ability to meet them, but find that their baby does not comply with their drive to meet their parenting targets. They might simply be overwhelmed by the awesome responsibility of having another human being entirely dependent upon them, and fear that they do not have what it takes to be able to be an effective parent.
Because everybody has had a mother at some point in their lives, we all, knowingly and unknowingly, have formed a picture of what a mother is and what a mother should do. These assumptions about motherhood crowd around every new mother, complicating her own feelings about her new baby and her new role. New motherhood can be extremely lonely, especially in the dark, still hours of the early-morning feeds, and that loneliness creates a fertile space for doubts and anxieties.
Lockdown has exacerbated so many of these issues. I asked for today’s debate so that we can talk about the impact of covid on the mental health of new mothers, and to urge the Government to prioritise this as we come out of lockdown. Loneliness has been a major issue for almost all of us during the past year, but the lack of contact has been particularly acute for those who have had babies during this time. I am enormously grateful to the parliamentary digital engagement team for organising a survey in advance of this debate to ask members of the public for their experiences. We had more than 11,000 responses, with some extremely moving testimony among them. I thank everybody who took the time to share their experiences, but especially those whose experiences were difficult and painful.
The overwhelming theme of the responses was how difficult isolation had made the experience of giving birth and caring for a newborn. I was particularly struck by the experience of Zilia from the south-east when she told us:
“All appointments attended alone and in sterile conditions. Childbirth alone, no visitors in hospital, no family able to meet your newborn and help you out thereafter. Just the most isolating and lonely experience I have been through.”
Reflecting on my own experiences, I overcame the early challenges of motherhood with a combination of a supportive partner present at the birth, a delighted family who rallied round with practical help, professional health support delivered through home visits, and a peer group of other new mothers in the neighbourhood. To have been denied any one of those would have made the job of adjusting to motherhood considerably harder. We now have thousands of mothers battling through the early months of motherhood without having had any of those essential forms of support, and this has taken its toll on their mental health.
This is how Emily from Scotland describes the impact on her:
“My mental health is awful. I have never felt so lonely or isolated. I shielded from March until June last year and saw nobody for my second trimester other than my husband. My husband’s family are yet to meet our baby, who is our first, and he is coming up to six months old. I have developed post-natal OCD, which is horrendous, and I am still waiting for professional help to cope with this.”
Other covid-19 factors that have worsened the experience for new mothers in lockdown are financial uncertainty, lack of access to childcare, and bereavement. The industries worst hit by the lockdown employ a large proportion of females. Some 20% of mothers have lost their jobs during the pandemic, compared with 13% of fathers. The closure of schools has left many mothers trying to juggle home schooling for older children with looking after a newborn, and many families are dealing with the trauma of losing family members to covid.
The impact of the pandemic has changed the way that we all access healthcare, as resources are prioritised towards emergency admissions and efforts are made to reduce contact. In some parts of our healthcare system, it has led to an increase in digital and telephone consultations. In many parts of the country, this has included perinatal care. Many of the respondents to the survey reported receiving follow-up care in this way, including Jennifer in the west midlands, who reported:
“Very limited midwifery care. I didn’t see a midwife at all until I was 28 weeks. No health visitor service whatsoever. Apart from one very brief phone call, I have had no contact from a health visitor. My baby has not been weighed since 10 days old, and they are now almost six months. Overall, my pregnancy experience has been unnecessarily stressful and left me feeling constantly anxious and unsupported.”
In my conversations with new mothers in my constituency, many of them brought up how difficult they found the lack of professional support. They were unable to access guidance about breastfeeding or sleeping, and unable to ask questions or seek reassurance. Many of them found that they experienced much greater anxiety about their babies as a result. I have at least one case in my constituency where the lack of a physical examination led to a major genetic condition being missed—one in which, tragically, early intervention can make a significant difference to the quality of life.
The survey we conducted found that, of those mothers who had received an online consultation, 60% said they were not affected, compared with only 3% who said they were affected. I have spoken to the Institute of Health Visiting and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and they have confirmed to me how vital such face-to-face support is for new mothers in the first weeks. The value of the home visit is that the mother does not need to identify the need for help and then go out and seek it for herself; someone comes to her and asks her how she is. A trained and experienced health visitor can observe mother and baby and identify whether additional support is needed. That kind of support cannot be replicated on Zoom or over the phone. Furthermore, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists has highlighted to me, it is much harder to identify whether there are issues of domestic violence or coercive control between a mother and her partner when contact is one-dimensional.
The impact of perinatal mental illness can have long-lasting impacts on families. Stephanie from the east midlands told our survey:
“I have previously not had any mental health issues, but I have really struggled with my mental health since having my baby. I have severe anxiety and now perinatal OCD. I have intense fear and stress about leaving my child, and I am not receiving anywhere near enough support.”
The long-term societal cost of perinatal mental ill health is estimated at £8.1 billion annually for each one-year cohort of births, and about three quarters of that is the cost of the impact on children. The financial value of early interventions to support struggling families is clear, and there is also the very human value of building loving and supportive families.
We already have the structures and mechanisms to provide support through the health visiting service. I should declare an interest here: my mother was a health visitor for many years, so I have learned at first hand from her about the times when a friendly knock on the door made all the difference to an overwhelmed new mother. However, it is a service that was already chronically underfunded and understaffed before the pandemic took hold. There has been a 31% decrease in the health visiting workforce since 2015, and many local authorities target their scarce resources at those deemed most at risk.
I believe that only a universal health visiting service can properly identify and support mothers who are suffering from poor perinatal mental health, and that the Government should allocate sufficient resources to enable this to happen. We need better mental health support for all ages and stages, and better training throughout our health service to identify and support those who are struggling, but providing support to new mothers should be a priority, because of the long-term impacts that their poor mental health can have on the development of their children and on the rest of their family.
The first step is to address the shortage of health visitors. There cannot be quality service provision when 65% of health visitors have case loads of more than 500 children each. We also need to urgently address the staffing shortage among midwives, who have a critical role to play in supporting women’s emotional wellbeing during pregnancy, childbirth and beyond. The Royal College of Midwives has found that there is currently a shortage of 3,000 midwives. Alongside that, we need to increase training and specialist mental health support for midwives, so they are well equipped to deliver the necessary support.
The pandemic has forced us to use digital tools in every area of our lives. We may find that we continue to use some of them even after face-to-face contact is possible again. If I could make one plea to the Minister, however, it would be that we should not allow digital and telephone perinatal check-ups to become the new accepted standard. The Government should fund and resource home visits by health visitors to all new mothers so that we can properly address the issue of maternal mental health.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, in this new Chamber, which is a first for us all. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing the debate. It is good that we have had a number of debates in recent months about maternal challenges during the pandemic, the impact on families and the impact on the mental health of parents and children. There is little that is more important, frankly. It is something that we will have to spend a lot of time concentrating on as we build out of the pandemic in the coming months.
Let me declare my interests. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for conception to age two: first 1001 days. Given the hon. Lady’s comments, I think we have a new recruit. If she is not already one of our members, I would be delighted to welcome her along. It is a very active group. I also chair the all-party group for children, and until recently I was the chairman of trustees of the Parent-Infant Foundation charity, which concentrates on the initial 1,001 days and the attachment between parent carers and their children.
I was impressed by the response from the digital teams in the House. It was a very good exercise. As the hon. Lady said, 11,265 responses is not to be sniffed at. Alas, the responses were all too familiar. We have heard similar anecdotes from our constituents about what has been going on during lockdown. There were responses about parents, and particularly mums, feeling lonely. They feel isolated in hospital, particularly if they have to stay in for any length of time because of complications. They have problems even getting their partners—the fathers—to be able to visit them. They feel isolated from family support networks that we normally take from granted. They feel isolated from new mum and baby groups. One of the respondents to the survey called them a safety valve where completely new mums, in particular, learn from other mums—either new mums or experienced mums—and the babies interact too. It was interesting that, for colleagues who gave birth during the lockdown, it was several months before their babies were actually able to meet another baby, and there was a bit of a shock factor there. We perhaps underestimate the impact of that social contact from the very earliest stages after a child is born.
In particular, as the hon. Lady mentioned, there is the isolation from health professionals on a face-to-face basis. I know that there have been a lot of substitute virtual visits, but they are not a substitute and they must not become the norm. We need to build back our health visitor numbers, as we did so well in the coalition Government between 2010 and 2015, when we produced 4,200 additional health visitors, who were absolutely invaluable. They are the friendly face that new parents will welcome across a threshold, where they may be more suspicious of a social worker or other care workers. They are also an early warning system for problems that may be going on with a new parent and ultimately any safeguarding issues.
A report that the First 1001 Days Movement produced last year, called “Working for babies”, said that services supporting nought to twos were highly depleted during the first spring lockdown last year. The majority of services for nought to twos did not bounce back quickly as lockdown measures were eased. We need to make sure that mistake is not made again this time.
This lockdown has been especially stressful for first-time mums, single mums, and families having to balance working remotely, new forms of working and working covid-safely, and juggling home schooling if they have other children too—thank goodness all my children are above school age and we have not had that additional challenge. Even before the covid pandemic, at least one in six mums suffered from some form of perinatal mental illness—commonly anxiety disorders and depression. We know that the pandemic and lockdown have impacted on the mental health of just about everybody, but particularly on that cohort of mums.
A survey by the excellent baby charity Bliss found that, among its members who had received neonatal care during the pandemic, 90% of parents said they felt more isolated as a result of having a baby in neonatal care during the pandemic; 70% said their mental health was negatively affected as a result of the experience; 56% said the mental health of their partner and wider family had been affected; and 47% said they were not offered support for their mental health while their baby was in neonatal care. We know that, in extremis, suicide is the biggest cause of maternal death. We must do so much more to ensure that women do not get in that position and that support is there and accessible.
The shortage of health visitors is a false economy. I have always said that; we had a debate specifically on that last year. I pay tribute in particular to Cheryll Adams, who set up and has led the Institute of Health Visiting. She is retiring at the end of the month. The service she has given to that area has been extraordinary and has informed many debates in this place. I put on the record our thanks and gratitude to her.
There is also the whole issue of increased domestic abuse during pregnancy. The figure that I always find hard to take on board is that a third of domestic abuse happens during pregnancy as well, and we know that domestic abuse has gone up during the pandemic, so all the additional pressures on women who are about to give birth or who have just given birth are extraordinary.
The cost of perinatal mental illness, as calculated by the Maternal Mental Health Alliance some years ago—it still holds true, and today it is probably an underestimate—was £8.1 billion each and every year. On top of that, the cost of child neglect is £15 billion, so we as taxpayers are paying £23 billion-plus into the health service to get it wrong. To prevent us getting it wrong, if we spent a fraction of that on the support services—the health visitors and those networks—being there in the first place, that would be money well spent and well saved.
Of course, the key is good attachment between babies and their parents or primary carers from those very earliest stages and during conception, hence the founding of the First 1001 Days Movement. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) launched the 1,001 critical days manifesto back in, I think, 2012, which was signed up to by colleagues across parties, the royal colleges, clinicians, academics and children’s charities alike. It is still relevant today.
To quote research by the First 1001 Days Movement and the Parent-Infant Foundation—I pay tribute in particular to Sally Hogg, who does so much of the good work there—it is estimated that 10% to 25% of young children experience significantly distorted relationships with their main carer or carers, and from that a range of poor social, emotional and educational outcomes in childhood and across the life course can be predicted. Maternal mental illness in pregnancy and the early years of a child’s life can have adverse effects on the child’s brain development and long-term outcomes. Maternal mental illness can affect children both directly and indirectly. For example, exposure to stress hormones in the womb is thought to affect the child’s developing stress response systems, and mental illness after birth can affect a mother’s ability to care for her baby, her parenting style and her developing relationship with her baby. Even relatively mild mental illness, if untreated, can inhibit a mother’s ability to provide her baby with the sensitive, responsive care that they need.
This, again, is a statistic that I always use. If a 15 or 16-year-old teenager is suffering from some form of depression or low-lying mental illness, there is a 99% likelihood that that child’s mother suffered some form of perinatal mental illness—the connection is that close. So why are we not doing more to support the mother before and soon after she gives birth? The implications of not doing so will be with her child and her for many years to come, and often into adulthood for the child.
It is also important to note that although perinatal mental illness increases the risk of disruptions in early relationships, they are not inevitable. Some mothers can continue to give their babies the sensitive, responsive care they need, particularly with the right support—and good, effective support can be had, if it is available. That is the problem: it is not always there, or not always there at the right time or in the right place.
Other risk factors put early relationships and infant mental health at risk, including families where fathers or other care-givers have serious mental health problems themselves. Again, we underestimate the impact of becoming a father, particularly for the first time, on the mental health of dad. In most cases this is a joint partnership, but fathers often get overlooked. They often get excluded from the whole neonatal process within hospitals, as well. They need looking after too, because if they can be looked after, they can look after their partner and there is a mutual benefit from all of that. We need to do more for fathers.
The NHS long-term plan includes a commitment to expand access to evidence-based parent-infant interventions within specialist perinatal mental health services, which is indeed welcome. It will ensure that attention is given to the parent-infant relationship alongside the mother’s own mental health when mothers have moderate or severe mental health problems. We must not just look at the child or the mum in isolation; we are looking at the bonded family.
However, access to mental health services for babies should be dependent on the risks to their mental health and not contingent on other factors, such as their mother’s mental health needs. So, the NHS long-term plan for England also committed to improving access to specialist services for all children from 0 to 25, but delivering that commitment requires specialist provision for all babies who need it, as they are children, too. Such provision would need to be delivered by parent-infant specialists. However, the NHS long-term plan says nothing explicitly about specialist mental health services for the youngest children in their own right.
The solution is that we need specialised parent-infant relationship teams providing therapeutic support where a baby’s development is most at risk due to severe, complex and/or enduring difficulties in their relationships. Such teams focus on the relationship between a baby and his or her parents or care-givers as the main way to improve infant mental health. However, there are fewer than 40 specialised parent-infant relationship teams in the whole of the UK, and most babies live in an area where these services just do not exist; vast areas of the country have no provision.
One of the aims of the Parent-Infant Foundation charity, which was set up by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, is setting up parent-infant projects around the country, where practitioners are available, to work on the attachment of parents and their children. We just need it to be mainstream across the whole of the national health service.
As the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said, the need for more perinatal psychiatrists to work in these services is crucial. These specialist services need a highly trained specialist workforce, but the workforce census in 2019 showed that 13% of consultant and perinatal psychiatrist positions remained unfilled. Without more psychiatrists, ambitious plans to transform and expand services will be put at risk.
We are soon to have the Leadsom review, if I may call it that; it does not really ring true as “the South Northamptonshire review”. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is producing the review; hopefully it will be published later this month. I have been privileged to play a part in it, and chaired a parliamentary advisory group.
Absolutely key to that review are a joined-up support service between the NHS, local government and other key professionals, to give that wraparound service to parents in those crucial early months and years; a digital record, so that all those professions are working from the same information, rather than every visit to mum being a new visit; and a national template of the quality that we need to reach, but with local implementation, so that a service in Richmond, although it may look a bit different from a service in my part of the world on the Sussex coast, is none the less required to produce quality outcomes and clear the same threshold.
We look forward to that report in the coming weeks and months, and I very much hope that the Government will take it on board and produce the goods, because little, if anything, is more important than the welfare, good health and good mental health of our children. And a child is given the very best opportunity—the best start in life—if their parents are in a safe and stable place as well.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
In order to call everyone, I wonder if I might ask all Back Benchers to stick to around five minutes in their contributions, please.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate today.
Maternal mental health problems are prevalent and are not talked about often enough. One in five women will develop some form of mental health problem during their pregnancy or in the year after giving birth, and research suggests that as many as seven in 10 mothers will underplay the severity of their feelings, due to stigma surrounding mental health.
Sadly, all of this has been exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic. As someone who has spoken in the House about prenatal depression while pregnant with my first child, this is an extremely important issue for me.
From a personal perspective, my second child was only four months old when we went into the first lockdown. My plans for baby yoga, music classes and meeting other mums for coffee to get through the sleep deprivation were suddenly out the window. Instead, the ensuing weeks were spent with him mostly in a sling while I home-schooled the eldest. With much of his little life spent in lockdown, his one-year check was done on the phone, he has not been weighed since he was six weeks old, and I cannot remember the last time he saw a health visitor.
Yet I feel lucky: lucky that he was born just before the pandemic hit, so my husband was able to be there the whole time I was in labour; lucky that he was my second child, so at least I had a vague idea about what I was doing; and lucky that we had those four months together before going into lockdown. For many of my constituents, having a baby during lockdown has been incredibly challenging. One of my constituents, Nina, wrote to me last autumn:
“I was pregnant for the entirety of the first lockdown and had to attend all scans for the twins I was carrying alone. This was bearable when I looked around and saw everyone making huge sacrifices.
When I gave birth to the twins in August, continued restrictive rules meant that my husband could not be with me on the labour ward. Add to the mix a fast-moving induction and I ended up giving birth to my babies with only midwives I’d never seen before in the room.
My husband simply wasn’t able to make it in time. If he’d been able to stay on the ward I would have had his much needed support through labour. As it was, I have had to recover mentally from a fairly traumatic experience.
And yet...I brought the twins home while everyone was still ‘eating out to help out’. How can this be right? Why do women’s and particularly mothers’ needs fall so far down the Government’s priority list?”
Nina’s story and many others show the profound impact that the pandemic has had. In September, the Government allowed families with a child under one to form a support bubble and the NHS now allows the birth partner to be present during labour and the birth, but for many families those changes came too late. The Government must be ambitious in their plans to support the babies born in lockdown and their families. That will be a huge task. For example, if health visitors are to catch up with the huge backlog in missed face-to-face appointments and provide a full service, proper funding will be needed. They provide an amazing service and invaluable support to parents, but about one in five were lost between 2015 and 2019 due to public health budget cuts.
As a result, in February, before the pandemic hit, almost a third of health visitors reported that they were responsible for between 500 and 1,000 children. The Institute of Health Visiting considers the optimal maximum for the work to be fully effective to be 250 children. Similarly, since 2010, cuts of 66% have led to the loss of over 1,000 Sure Start and children’s centres, which provide huge support to families, particularly those who are vulnerable or hard to reach. Funding needs to be restored, so that there is a one-stop shop for parents to get support for themselves and their children.
Early years and nursery providers provide huge support for parents, but according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they ran at a significant loss during the first lockdown, receiving less than £4 of income for every £5 of costs. In addition, playgroups and baby activities are often run by small businesses, and restrictions mean that their doors have largely been shut. I would like the Government to look urgently at sector-specific grant funding for early years, to maintain the viability of the sector as we come out of the pandemic.
It is clear that the added stresses of lockdown and the pandemic have exacerbated maternal mental health problems. A recent UK-wide study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research found that during the first lockdown, 43% of new mothers met the criteria for clinically relevant depression and 61% met the criteria for anxiety. Given the consistent evidence that shows that postnatal depression and anxiety are linked to a range of negative outcomes for children’s health, development and behaviour, it is imperative that the Government do everything they can to protect maternal mental wellbeing.
That begins with many of the measures that I have outlined, but also by improving and maintaining access to perinatal mental healthcare. Although NHS resources and staff are under huge strain, investment is needed to ensure that mental health interventions can be timely and effective to prevent the escalation of symptoms and the formation of a larger burden on the NHS and other public services. That is not beyond our capabilities, and we owe it to the babies born in lockdown and their families to put that at the top of the agenda.
[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate.
We have heard some of the shocking figures on maternal mental health and we have heard about the evidence that new mothers have experienced poor maternal mental health as a result of the pandemic. “Maternal mental health and coping during the COVID 19 lockdown in the UK” from the covid-19 new mum study found that more than half of new mothers reported feeling down, lonely or irritable, and that 71% reported feeling worried since the beginning of the first lockdown.
Mental health service guidance from the Royal College of Psychiatrists sets out that perinatal mental health care continues to be essential during covid-19, and that face-to-face contact will be necessary in some circumstances. The Government and the NHS have said that mental health services, including the specialist perinatal services, remain very much open for business during the pandemic, and that providers have looked to how they can maximise the use of digital and virtual channels. I agree that that is not ideal, but I acknowledge that hospital trusts in difficult circumstances have worked extremely hard to reach out to mums.
In Cornwall, the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust looks after 4,000 babies and mums every single year. I thank the midwifery team at the RCHT for looking after me and both my babies, one surviving and thriving and one whom, unfortunately, we lost. The trust has been reviewing visiting continually throughout the pandemic, and the latest arrangement of their services is that birthing partners are now available, that both parents may be in neonatal units at any time, and that partners may now attend the 12-week and 20-week scans. If other scans are required, they may also arrange that. That has come on from where we were during the first lockdown, so things are improving.
International data, from high, middle and low-income countries, suggests that perinatal illness is more prevalent among rural women. That is the second dimension that I would like to add to today’s debate, if I may. Cornwall is predominately rural, and the pandemic has absolutely exacerbated an already hidden issue, bringing it into the limelight.
For a new mum who lives rurally, it is very difficult to access baby groups and other new mums, to share stories and get peer support, mostly because of transportation issues. I agree that all new mums are suffering those difficulties in lockdown, but it is particularly an issue for rural new mums. Often, socioeconomically, rural new mums are on a lower income, so they cannot afford to get anywhere. It is also difficult for health visitors to get out and visit them.
When I was a brand-new mum, I did not get a midwife follow-up appointment; I had a phone call. My notes, I think, stated that I was well supported and absolutely fine, and yet eight months later I was diagnosed with postnatal depression. I did not know that I had postnatal depression; I thought I was tired, that I was not doing it properly and that I was not living up to being a real mum, and I did not know who to talk to. Even though I had close family support, I felt that I was not doing it right, until I broke one day. I saw my GP, and at that point I was diagnosed with postnatal depression. Luckily for me, not being in lockdown, I was able to go to group peer support and to meet other mums who were feeling exactly the same way, so I realised that I was perfectly normal and that it was something I would work through.
It is important that we recognise that that will be a growing problem because of covid. For a new mum, it is all about talking—we want to speak to other new mums, and when we cannot do that, we can get lost in our own head and everything feels a bit worse.
I have been working cross-party, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on the early years review, which I am privileged to be a part of at this late stage. It started its life, as we know, as the review into the first 1001 days. I will not repeat the words of my hon. Friend, who articulated this work wonderfully, but I look forward to the review coming, hopefully later this month.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire was quoted as saying that the fact that babies have had little social contact during the first lockdown is clearly a bad thing, and that the repercussions are not yet known. Tackling some of the awful experiences of babies during lockdown and looking at how families can benefit from some of the positive experiences will be at the heart of the review. I look forward to its findings and hope that we can improve conditions for new parents and new babies because of it.
It is my sincere hope that when the new review’s findings come forward and policies are formulated, all parties will take a long-term view of all the important issues that we are discussing today, and that will come out as part of the review. I want to ensure that policy makers cease to use something as vital as the best start in life for babies and the mental health of mothers as a political football. Hopefully we can formulate something wonderful, so that when we look back at it in 20 years’ time we can all see how successful it has been and be very proud of it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate, because the three quarters of a million women who have given birth during this pandemic have not only experienced all the challenges that every woman experiences when they give birth, but have had those problems magnified. Other Members have already set out issues around isolation, anxiety and the need for proper, professional support, as identified by the excellent piece of work done by the Digital Engagement Team for the hon. Lady, which all of us who have been new mums can really relate to. I can only imagine how much more these issues can affect people when they have no family members to call on and no mothers’ group to allow them to pick up personal experience from others who have gone through it before them.
Outside of the pandemic, around one in five women experience perinatal mental health problems, which impact not only them but their children, and as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, that can cost the economy some £8 billion every year. I will add to the debate the conditions that create a higher likelihood of mental health problems emerging in the first place, which according to research is particularly stressful life events.
We know that, during the pandemic, people have been highly anxious—far more than they might have been otherwise. Indeed, some research suggests that around three in four pregnant women have had significant anxiety, and up to 40% have experienced depression. One of the biggest anxieties for any new parent has to be money—finance, income; making sure that they can care for their new family. Most families now have two working parents, and families depend on both incomes, so the fact that more than 50,000 pregnant women a year suffer discrimination that leaves them with no option but to leave their job should sound alarm bells, not only for our economy, but for its potential to trigger mental health problems, depression or anxiety.
Work by organisations such as Maternity Action and Pregnant Then Screwed shows worrying increases in reports of pregnant women losing their jobs during the pandemic, and we know that more women have been impacted, in terms of job loss, during the pandemic than in other similar economic events. The reported figure of 50,000 pregnant women each and every year leaving their jobs is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, because as well as those reporting leaving their jobs, there will be many more who are silenced from speaking out by non-disclosure agreements.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has done so much to support new mothers, but some women are still let down in the workplace, so as part of this debate I urge her to consider employment policies too, particularly given the impact of coronavirus on women’s employment. No matter how good my right hon. Friend is at her job, in terms of putting support in place, if pregnant women are concerned about losing their jobs, even if they do not do so—and being pushed out of work is not uncommon in the workplace when women become pregnant—the job of the Department of Health and Social Care will be severely undermined if these issues are not addressed.
Other countries have looked at this closely, and I believe we can learn from their experiences. Germany, with a similar economy to ours, prohibits making pregnant women and new mums redundant, for the good of women, their children and their families. I have put into a ten-minute rule Bill the idea of adopting the German laws here in the UK, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at it to see whether she could lend it her support.
My final point is that mental health problems on the arrival of a child do not just impact women. Up to one in four fathers may experience mental health problems in the year after the birth of a child. It can be difficult for fathers to manage the transition, and we need to ensure that support is there. In other countries, shared parental leave policies, on a use-it-or-lose-it basis, have been proven to help fathers with that transition. Will the Minister look at why we are still awaiting action following the review in the UK of this policy, which would explicitly help fathers to tackle these difficult issues?
My hon. Friend the Minister has done so much, but she needs her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to do more. It is no good saying that we have good maternity protections when the Government know that probably 50,000 women a year lose their job because of how they are treated in the workplace. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at effective broader policies impacting on pregnant women at work, because one of the most effective maternal health policies that the Government could adopt is stopping women being made redundant in the first place.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Because Members have gone on beyond five minutes, I have to reduce the time limit again, otherwise not everybody will get in. The time limit is now four minutes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate, and I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing it.
Most mums look forward to having a baby, and the birth of a child to family, friends and people we know is something that we all greet with joy, pleasure and anticipation for the future of the child. We know that for some women, however, pregnancy and the time after birth can, sadly, be difficult. They may not have been able to talk to people about it when everyone imagines that they are having a happy time. This year, it may have been more difficult than ever as a result of covid-19 and the social isolation that it has brought for so many. They have not had the support of, or been able to share the joy and workload with, family and friends, and it has been difficult to get the face-to-face support that they really need. Let us not forget that many have lost out on financial support that has been offered to others, as the campaigning organisation, Pregnant Then Screwed, has evidenced.
Low mood, anxiety and depression are common mental health problems that occur during pregnancy and in the year after childbirth. The pain that these conditions cause women and their families is significant, as is the negative impact on their health and wellbeing. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that up to one in five women develop mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first year after childbirth, and around a quarter of all maternal deaths between six weeks and a year after childbirth are related to mental health problems.
Sometimes, hearing in this House the lived experience of constituents really brings home the issues that we are discussing, and the need to address them. A constituent of mine has asked me to tell her story.
“In 2017 I became a Mum for the first time, I knew that I needed to provide for my child but I felt no more attachment than for someone I had just met. I started to Google ‘how to have my child adopted’ and felt like I was a failure as a woman.
I started to have panic attacks, I’d imagine walls falling on my child, people grabbing her and running away. I would lock myself in the house and was terrified to be alone.
It was when I started to record the times that the trains went past my house that realised that I was seriously contemplating suicide. I went to the GP who made an urgent mental health referral although it was five months after my child was born that I actually got any help…and…anything was done. I was diagnosed with severe post-natal depression and have been receiving help ever since.
When my second child arrived, I realised just how traumatic my first experience has been. The shame and anguish have been replaced by joy and love, and I was finally able to have those special moments with the newborn that people romanticise.”
Since that time, the local Newcastle Gateshead clinical commissioning group has invested in a specialist perinatal mental health service. That provides support, advice and planning of care and treatment following delivery, reducing the risk of significant illness and the potential for in-patient care. However, many women are not seeking the help they need, and the pandemic has had a huge impact on loneliness, making those early days so difficult.
This is an important debate and we must do much more to support women struggling with their mental health, before and after the birth of their child, to allow parenthood to be the joyful, if challenging and tiring, experience that it should be.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for introducing this debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy
Maternal mental health has been one of the hidden impacts of the pandemic. Being a new mam is a special time for any woman. However, it can also be overwhelming and generally challenging. In normal times, many women receive support from their family and friends, who are there to offer invaluable guidance. However, for the past year, the public health restrictions needed to tackle covid-19 have meant that many women have had to make this journey on their own.
I had my first child, Maria, at 21. The advice from my mam was crucial in spotting the missed stages in her early development, which enabled her cerebral palsy diagnosis to come much sooner than it otherwise would have. I cannot put into words how valuable her support was following such heart-rending news. It was thanks to my family and friends that I felt confident enough to go on and have two more children.
It strikes me that if Maria had been born during this pandemic, the personal support I received from my mam and health visitors would have been much more limited. My heart truly goes out to those who have become mothers during the pandemic. I cannot imagine the impact that isolation is having on their mental health. I worry that sadly some may choose not to extend their families in future.
The pandemic has particularly affected those whose babies have received neonatal care, with more than 90% of parents who responded to a Bliss survey saying that they felt more isolated due to having a baby in neonatal care during the pandemic, and 70% saying that their mental health was negatively impacted as a result of their experience. The situation has not been helped by the fact that Bliss research also found that psychological support for parents experiencing neonatal care was inconsistent at best. Around half the parents said they were not offered mental health support during or after this care.
The impact of negative maternal mental health goes beyond the parent and is not limited to the short term. As we have heard, the first 18 to 24 months of a baby’s life are critical in their development, and the stress and trauma of poor maternal mental health has the potential severely to impact a child’s life chances.
In parts of the north-east, where my constituency is located, existing health inequalities mean that some children begin their lives with inferior life chances to those from less deprived regions. We simply cannot afford to place further obstacles in the way of their development and risk losing a whole generation. As a result of the pandemic, we are facing a potential mental health crisis in Britain and maternal mental health is significant.
It is unreasonable to suggest that, as a society, we could experience a collective trauma on this scale without it impacting on mental health. Inevitably, that will be challenging, especially when the existing foundations of mental health care in the country are already weak. It was therefore incredibly disappointing that health services were absent from the Chancellor’s Budget last week. He could do with learning that the damage to public health from the pandemic will not fix itself.
It seems fitting that the debate is happening in the week in which International Women’s Day falls. Not only have women consistently stepped up to the plate during the pandemic, with little to no reward, but they have shown resilience in coping with one of life’s toughest challenges—becoming a mam. We owe it to the women in our constituencies to have the best mental health support out there, for what is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful yet challenging life experiences they will face.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate.
It was during a recent Zoom call with friends that the real, current issues affecting maternal mental health struck home for me. [Inaudible.] All of us on the call with her that evening were both upset for her and inspired by her attitude. As an expectant mother, I had my family round me—mother, sisters, husband, friends—antenatal classes and the knowledge that there would be ample post-natal care and support; but in covid-19 that is simply not possible. The impact is the exacerbation of a problem that already, in the best of circumstances, will affect one in five women who give birth. Those women—it could be any of us—will experience anything from anxiety to obsessive compulsive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. I am sure that each one of us in the debate has personal experience of a close friend or relative who has experienced those problems after giving birth—perhaps we have even experienced them ourselves.
We have come a long way as a society from the time when post-natal depression was described almost dismissively as the baby blues, and talked of in hushed tones. We now acknowledge the scale and widespread nature of what many women have to cope with. We have heard many stories in the debate. However, I do not believe that we are adequately responsive, or that we provide correct and sufficient care. In the pandemic, we know that as with many other issues things are much worse. Women going into labour at the moment have not had the benefit of face-to-face antenatal classes, forming bonds with other expectant mothers for common support. They have not had the assurance that their partners can be there, or that their closest family and friends can visit within a few hours—or take part in baby groups or have post-natal visits. All of that is against the background of lockdown—perhaps a feeling of isolation, financial worries or keeping other children amused, cared for, or home-schooled.
A mother’s poor mental health can affect the future outcomes for the child, as we have heard, and that knowledge must be uppermost in our minds. We have heard stories in the debate of the disruptions to life, and the impact on the mental health of both mother and child. It is clear that we need to listen to all that, and act. Listen to the mothers now and in future, about how they are struggling; listen to those who have struggled in the past. With no support network, and delays for treatment, we need to ensure that there is support from healthcare professionals with sufficient training. We need funding. We need a system that provides robust, integrated physical and mental healthcare for new mothers. Maternal mental health must be a priority for the Government, not only for the future wellbeing of mothers, but for all our children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing forward what is an important issue, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have made valuable contributions, setting the scene very well. The matter has been a great concern of mine for many years and I have raised it in the House on several occasions. I have probably spoken alongside my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), among others who are here, on almost every occasion when it has been brought forward.
Covid has been difficult for my family, with the loss of a much-loved mother-in-law; but we have been blessed in that time with sunshine in the rain, as we have two beautiful new grandchildren, Max and Freya—both born during lockdown. It is important to have that opportunity, as a grandparent, to have grandchildren—and new grandchildren. We are up to five now, so I could have a five-a-side mixed football team of boys and girls—I look forward very much to that.
There was no joyful visit to the hospital. Indeed, the first view was through the living-room window and I have not seen the youngest one at all, even from a distance. It has always been on the wife’s video. Video calls are wonderful, but there cannot be anything sweeter than holding your grandchild. As tough as it is for grandparents, it is even more difficult for parents. That is what we have been trying to say today in the contributions that we are making. No mum or auntie is allowed to come round to help the new mum get sorted and into the routine; there are no mums or toddler groups to reassure her that she is doing a phenomenal job, that everyone struggles and that sometimes mum just needs someone to share that with; there are endless days in the house with a baby that she is too frightened to take out into this uncertain world. The impact on mums and dads has been vast and we will probably not know the full extent of it in the years to come.
My parliamentary aide, Naomi, who is a busy girl because she does all the speech writing for me, had two children in a short time. I remember them well. She told me—and she refers to it as her mummy guilt—that her eldest had little opportunity to enjoy her own time before she became the big sister, almost right away. She also talks about the mummy guilt of working full time. Although her parents are able to mind the children, who are well taken care of, the guilt remains that she is not the one picking them up from school, which is what she wants to do.
While I can look on objectively and see two lovely, well-adjusted girls, she sees only the things that she feels she did not do right and which she thinks she did wrong. I do not believe that is the case, but she feels that. All mums will be able to sympathise with the fact that lockdown babies are not able to see or interact with others—that is important. When my children were growing up—this is true of my grandchildren too, from what I have seen of them so far—I saw their interactions with their wee colleagues at school, and they made friends well; they would often hold hands with them in P1 or P2. That is what children do—they need interaction. They are more likely to be parented by the person who is at home with them. I can only imagine the feelings of isolation and guilt at what the child has missed out on and what would have been felt.
I was pleased to receive correspondence from one of my constituents, who wrote to me expressing the feeling of being robbed of her maternity leave and calling for an extension. I can do nothing but support her in that call. The experience of lockdown for new parents has been difficult; no music classes, no parenting groups, no one to reassure them face to face and see if they are truly okay. In addition, we must consider parents whose children went to a neonatal unit. The baby charity Bliss has conducted a survey of parents whose baby received neonatal care during the pandemic. I am not going to repeat the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman for East Worthing and Shoreham, but I remind everyone, including the Minister, to look at them.
Jim Shannon
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and his early-day motion. In conclusion, I am pleased to stand with parents asking for the help and support that is needed. Give them the support that has been lacking for so long, and let them know that, even when socially distanced, they are not alone.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Thank you very much. We now return to virtual for the SNP spokesperson, Dr Lisa Cameron.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I commend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on bringing this absolutely vital debate to Parliament. It is crucial and could not be more timely. Before I begin, I refer to my entry in the register as a clinical psychologist, and thank the British Psychological Society and the Maternal Mental Health Alliance for the work that they have done in this field, among the many other charities and organisations already referred to.
I thank everyone who has spoken so thoroughly today on many issues, including the first crucial 1,001 days, and the importance of digital records, which are essential in ensuring continuity of care. I understand that the Government is bringing in support for family hubs in future, so I am interested to hear from the Minister more about that and how it will support this work. Other issues that have been raised go to the core of mental health stigma and the impact of coronavirus on labour and prenatal care.
Members have spoken eloquently about their own personal experiences. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that we normalise wellbeing and mental health issues, particularly during this most crucial time in people’s lives, and also give due cognisance to the importance of ensuring that people can access services when they need to do so.
The first weeks, months and years of parenthood were absolutely some of the most difficult that I have experienced—fraught with sleepless nights, anxiety about the future and overly high expectations that I placed on myself about the responsibilities of being a new mum. Support is absolutely crucial at these times, and that has just not been available during covid-19.
Before the coronavirus pandemic, more than one in five women experienced mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first post-natal year and, as is true of so much of our lives in the past year, covid-19 has exacerbated those issues. The Baby Loss Awareness Alliance, led by the charity Sands, found that isolation increased during lockdown, with feelings of loneliness impacting 63% of new parents—compared with 38% before the pandemic—and those who had experienced extreme difficulties during birth. If symptoms are allowed to spiral, more severe perinatal mental health issues can be significant and can have long-term effects on mother, baby, father and different members of the family.
Research evidence suggests that the long-term cost of perinatal depression, anxiety and psychosis in the UK is £8.1 billion per year, equivalent to roughly £10,000 for every single birth in the UK each year. While the financial weight of the failure to help new and expectant families is stark, the reality of families having to cope with perinatal mental illness is also heartbreaking, with maternal suicide one of the leading causes of death for women during pregnancy and in the first year after birth.
In summing up, I want to highlight two areas to the Government where I think the situation can be improved. First, pharmacological interventions really have to be matched with high-quality specialist psychological therapies during the perinatal period. Significant steps have been taken towards integrated care across the UK and in the devolved Governments in the past few years, but much more needs to be done to ensure that maternal mental health needs are met in whatever context they first present. That might be in maternity services, adult mental health services, drug and alcohol services, learning disability services or child and adolescent mental health services that are supporting the whole family. Wherever families show signs of needing help, they must be able to access specialist psychological therapies as quickly and easily as possible if we are to ensure the best possible outcome.
That must also apply to specialist perinatal community teams. In many circumstances, these home visit teams are the first and sometimes the last opportunity to spot maternal mental health issues, and they must include individuals with specialist training in clinical psychology. The British Psychological Society has recommended that every specialist perinatal mental health team should include clinical psychology and that every woman identified as requiring a psychological intervention should be offered an assessment and treatment with a clinical psychologist within 28 days. I highlight that recommendation.
In 2020, the Scottish Government invested £1.4 million in specialist community perinatal mental health services, with an additional £1.5 million for infant mental health and maternal and neonatal psychological services across Scotland. I urge the UK Government to set out additional support to what has already been promised in the NHS long-term plan, in the light of the additional and compound need that we have heard about in the debate today, which has set out the impact of covid-19. The need has been exacerbated, and it is crucial that we do not fail families at this time.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and it is an honour to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this vital and incredibly moving debate. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. All contributions have been incredibly valuable and have highlighted the urgency of focusing attention on maternal health. Debates such as these can go some way towards breaking down the stigma that still persists around mental health and the often harsh reality of pregnancy, birth and motherhood. It is simply heartbreaking that suicide is the leading cause of maternal death. More people are starting to speak up publicly about their experiences, but we need action from the Government.
The coronavirus crisis has had a disastrous impact on many women. I was honoured to listen to colleagues sharing their heartbreaking experiences of baby loss in a recent debate. My heart breaks for all the women who have had to go through that alone at any time, especially during the pandemic. It is simply inhumane. Will the Minister outline what mental health support will be offered to women who have experienced baby loss without their partner by their side? Such tragedies have a long-term impact on partners and families, too. Will any support be extended to families? We heard described today, very eloquently, the importance of also considering fathers and other partners in such circumstances.
Within maternity services, there are huge inequalities. Black women are four times more likely than white women to die in pregnancy or childbirth. Pakistani women are more likely to have a premature baby or a neonatal death in the UK compared with their country of origin. Women from all ethnic minority groups in the UK receive fewer home visits from midwives and are more likely to give birth by emergency caesarean sections. What are the Government doing to address those discrepancies and to ensure that culturally appropriate mental health support is provided? Such racial inequalities are deep rooted and are further entrenched by covid-19. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be adversely impacted financially by the pandemic, and the risk of death is much greater.
The Government’s only response so far to those shocking statistics has been to commission further research, but we need action now. The evidence is already clear that there are persistent inequalities in maternity outcomes and experiences, and that discrimination bias and a lack of cultural understanding are driving that. What action are the Government taking to eradicate these gross examples of health inequality? The five-year forward view for mental health made a recommendation that by 2020-21 in England 30,000 more women each year should be able to access evidence-based specialist mental health care during the perinatal period. During Monday’s statement on women’s health, I asked the Minister if she could tell us whether that target had been met. We did not get an answer, so will she provide one today?
Furthermore, the NHS long-term plan outlined that an additional 24,000 women per year with moderate to severe perinatal mental health difficulties and a personality disorder diagnosis would benefit from evidence-based care by 2023-24. Will the Minister please outline how many women are now benefiting from that? We also know that Health Education England was provided with £1.2 million of funding to increase skills and awareness around perinatal mental health. Will the Minister outline the progress on that and tell us where training initiatives might have been hampered by the pandemic?
The pandemic has had a profound effect on people’s mental health. We know how difficult and stressful pregnancy and birth can be at the best of times. Even outside of covid-19 it is vital that perinatal mental health services should promote prevention, early detection and diagnosis of mental health problems. Many women have been struggling to access the services they need during pregnancy, leaving them having to go through A&E. That is hugely distressing and can cause a great deal of anxiety for expectant mothers and their partners. It is therefore vital that those most at risk get the support they need now. Will the Minister outline what delays there have been during the pandemic in accessing perinatal services?
Working in a hospital, I have seen the fear that so many people present with: fear of contracting the virus, fear of taking the virus home and fear of wasting NHS time. Preventive measures around mental illness are crucial, especially now, for those most at risk. With more than half of new mothers having reported feeling down, lonely or irritable, and 71% reporting feeling worried since the beginning of the first lockdown, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new mothers know where to go to seek help?
A University College London report found that, during the pandemic, there was a redeployment of up to 80% of health visitors in some areas. That prevents the much-needed visits that we heard about earlier. Face-to-face visits are crucial in recognising issues early and in providing assistance. Will the Minister tell me what delays families have faced at this time and whether any additional resources will be offered to those who missed out on face-to-face visits?
As a mother of two under two at one point, I know how desperately stressful it can feel to have one baby already and have a new one arrive. I know what it is like to feel as though you are failing at motherhood and at being a working mother. I know just how challenging it can be, but I cannot imagine for a moment what it would have felt like to do that through the pandemic. We rely so much on being in playgroups, having other mothers and fathers telling us we are doing okay, and phoning the breastfeeding helpline at 2 am worried that you cannot make enough milk for your baby and having someone say, “Don’t worry. We can get a health visitor to come and see you tomorrow.” These are normal things, but for so many mothers they have been lacking throughout the pandemic. I fear for the effect that that will have on them, their families and their children in the long term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked last year about the additional counselling and support being provided for those who gave birth during lockdown. I noted that there was no clear answer on the proactive work that the Government have done to provide support to new parents. I ask the Minister whether that was because no additional resources have been provided. Does she recognise that maternal mental health has been overlooked in this crisis?
Pregnancy and childbirth can be such a beautiful time in people’s lives, but I know what it can feel like when it goes wrong. I know the fear of stepping into a hospital afterwards—the memories come flooding back. Your heart rate goes up, and you cannot even imagine what it would be like to be pregnant and to go through childbirth again. These things can be overcome, but not without the specialist help that people really rely on. I cannot imagine what it must be like for women going through this during covid, and yet it is another barrier in the way of getting the help that they and their families desperately need.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing forward this important debate. We have had a number of debates about maternal health over the past year, but this is particularly important, given the timing.
Pregnancy and motherhood are a period of great change for everyone. It has been particularly difficult for new mothers during the past year, while they have been in the middle of lockdown. I want to pick up a couple of points that the hon. Lady made. She cited a case study, which I cannot respond to because it is from Scotland, and, as she knows, health is a devolved matter. She asked about the number of midwives that we have, and that was mentioned by a number of Members. There has been an increase of 14.6% in full-time equivalent midwives in trusts and clinical commissioning groups over the past 10 years.
Let me answer a few quick questions that came up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) brought up workplaces. We need a call for evidence to gather the data that we need about what is happening to women in the workplace, both when they are pregnant and to do with their health. On Monday, I mentioned issues such as endometriosis, menopause and the musculoskeletal issues that women suffer from more than men. We need data about all that, which is why we made the call for evidence, and I do so again. It is very easy to click on the link and for women to let us know what is happening to them in terms of their health, both in the workplace and in healthcare settings. The number of respondents was in the thousands within a few hours of it going live, and we hope that it will give us the data we need to develop policies for the workplace.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whom I spoke to last week. We await with great excitement the early years review. It started at the first 1,001 days. This has been my right hon. Friend’s life’s work. I have known her since she first came here as an MP and before, and this is something that she is absolutely passionate about and committed to. The cross-party review will be illuminating, and we are excited to see it launched, which I think will be later this year.
Although the perinatal period can be a time of celebration and joy, for some it can be a time of considerable anxiety and worry. Indeed, like the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), when I became a mother for the first time I was actually alone, because when my baby was 14 days old my husband had to go and work abroad for six months. So I was completely alone, and I absolutely remember waking up in the middle of the night, having nobody with me and being entirely alone trying to breastfeed a baby, totally struggling and not being able to do it. So I remember how hard it is.
Actually, I think I am allowed to say that I am about to become a grandmother for the first time, and I really hope that I can be there for my daughter. I hope that we are over this pandemic and out of it by the time that my daughter gives birth, so that I can be there for her, to help her through what will be difficult times, because every new mother feels that difficulty.
I would like every new mother to know that support is there. Increasingly—indeed, at a rate of knots—we are expanding services, and there is no shame in seeking help, including through the pandemic. Specialist and in-patient perinatal mental health services have remained open during lockdown. There have been restrictions, but services have been providing digital and remote support. For those with severe needs or those who are in crisis, perinatal or otherwise, all mental health trusts have set up new 24/7 crisis helplines—I remember the call on 4 April last year when we decided that we would do this, and those helplines rolled out and were open. I have spoken to the chief executive officers of mental health trusts, and one told me yesterday that the volume of people using those 24/7 helplines has been tremendous. They have been set up and they have been used, including by new mothers.
In the 2020 spending review we also announced up to an additional £500 million for mental health services. That was on top of the £2.3 billion a year that we are investing to address waiting times for mental health services and to give more people the support that they need.
We have also taken action to ensure that mothers can continue to have broader support throughout the perinatal period, both from statutory services and from family support. Health visitors, who are ideally placed to support families, and the health visiting service continue to provide an opportunity to identify families who may need support. The health visiting service has remained in contact with families throughout the pandemic and it will continue to do so and to prioritise very young babies and vulnerable families.
Recognising the support that a father or the mother’s partner can bring, we published guidance in September to reintroduce access for partners, visitors and other supporters of pregnant women in English maternity services. We also launched a campaign to ensure that people continue to access services and get support early.
We have continued to deliver on the ambitions for maternity and mental health services that we had before the pandemic, to ensure that mothers get help earlier. From April 2020, we have invested an additional £12 million per year for every mother to be offered a six to eight-week post-natal check by her GP. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham campaigned on this for some considerable time. Through the post-natal health check, every mother can now expect to have the opportunity and the time to discuss any concerns that she may have about her physical or mental health and wellbeing.
We remain committed to making perinatal mental health services a priority through the NHS long-term plan. There is now—this point is very important—a specialist community perinatal mental health service in every area of England, and we are further increasing access to perinatal services, so that at least 66,000 women will be able to access perinatal mental health services in 2023-24.
I went to see one of these perinatal services at the beginning of my time in post, 18 months ago; they had just begun to roll out. I have been to see one of these perinatal mental health teams working, and it was just tremendous. The nurses had only been in place and operating for a matter of weeks, but they had already had something like 120 referrals and mums they had seen. That demonstrated the need for such a service and almost endorsed the reasons why they were there, as well as highlighting the services that they were providing to those young mums.
Importantly, we are extending the length of time for which specialist perinatal mental health community services will be available, so those services, which currently run from preconception to 12 months after birth, will be available from preconception to 24 months after birth. We are also developing and implementing maternal mental health services or maternity outreach clinics, which bring together maternity and reproductive health and psychological therapy for women experiencing mental health difficulties directly arising from or related to the maternity experience.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park can see, we have put a huge amount of work into maternal mental health. She is quite right. I cannot remember who highlighted the fact—it may have been the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan)—that suicide is still the biggest cause of death in the period from, I think, eight weeks post delivery to 12 months. It is still the biggest cause of maternal death. That is why this issue is so important to us. To reduce the figures and ensure that suicide is not the biggest cause of maternal death, we have to put the services in earlier. We need to ensure that both at an antenatal stage and at the time of the check with a qualified GP at six to eight weeks, those perinatal mental health services, which are now available in every area of the country, are in place. We have done that through the funding that there has been from the £2.3 billion that has been allocated to the long-term plan.
Many mothers who experience mental health problems in the perinatal period are treated in the community, but a very small number will need hospital admission for their mental health, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know. It is right that, where possible, we keep mother and child together. That is why—this is also an announcement; a fact that I am proud of—NHS England has expanded the capacity of mother and baby units in England, with additional four to eight-bed units now providing specialist care and support to mothers who are experiencing severe mental health problems during and after pregnancy. I checked just before I came into the room for this debate, and we are now up to 152 beds across England, which represents a tremendous increase in the number of those units. It is so important in those first days to keep mother and baby together as much as possible.
The units support women with serious mental health issues by keeping them together with their babies and with specialist staff who nurture and support the mother-infant relationship on the ward at the same time as the mother is treated for her mental illness. That is a huge step forward from how things used to be not so long ago. Mothers who are at that severe stage of mental illness post delivery can have that treatment in those beds; they can be treated by those specialists. Mother and baby are together, and there are psychiatric services at the same time. That is a huge leap forward.
We recognise that maternal ill health can also have an effect on the child’s father or the partner of the mother. We are therefore also offering partners of women accessing specialist perinatal mental health services and maternal mental health services evidence-based assessments for their mental health and signposting to support as required. In the future, partners of expectant and new mothers who are seriously unwell will be offered a range of help, such as peer support, behavioural couples therapy sessions and other family and parenting interventions.
We are also taking forward work to ensure that all babies and young children in England receive the best start in life. I will come on to the early years review. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Prime Minister jointly commissioned in the summer of 2020 the early years healthy development review. It is important, so I will say this again. The review looks across the first 1,001 critical days. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), also spoke about the importance of the first 1,001 days, from conception to the age of two. This is about ensuring that babies and young children in England can be given the best start in life. Phase 1 of the review is in its final stages, and the vision for brilliance, setting out policy actions for the Government, will be published shortly.
I hope that my response goes some way to assuring all hon. Members that this Government remain committed to supporting mothers throughout the perinatal stages and up to 24 months after giving birth and ensuring that we can reach out to mothers who may need help coming forward about their mental health.
I would like to end by talking about women’s health more broadly. Pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are just some of the stages of life that many women can experience. Throughout the course of our lives, the physical milestones, the changes to our bodies and our experience of the world have an impact on our health. I reiterate that we are having our International Women’s Day debate tomorrow, and I hope that the call for evidence will be mentioned, so that we can better understand women’s experiences of the health and care system but also, as I said at the beginning, their experiences of health, including motherhood and maternity, in the workplace. Without that evidence from women, we do not have the data and the information that is necessary in order to adapt and develop policies moving forward.
I will finish by urging all women to share their experiences through the call for evidence. It will form the basis of a new women’s health strategy—the first of its kind. This is the first time any Government have called on women for evidence, so that we can set an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve health and wellbeing and to ensure that health services are meeting the needs of women everywhere, especially in perinatal mental health.
Sarah Olney
This has been a really fantastic debate, and I am so grateful for the contributions from Members, both in the room and on Zoom. I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and all the work that he has done, particularly as the chair of the APPG for the first 1,001 days. He has highlighted the work of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), and I am very much looking forward to reading her review, which will be really interesting. He also highlighted the importance of fathers, and I am really grateful to him for raising that important aspect of the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for mentioning grandparents. Some of the most distressing correspondence I have had during this pandemic has been from grandparents who have been unable to see and hold their new grandchildren, so I thank him for raising that issue. I congratulate the Minister on her impending grandmotherhood and hope that all goes well.
I am particularly grateful to Members who have shared their own experiences throughout the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), whose experience highlights what I was saying about the inadequacy of telephone and digital follow-up appointments. She spoke of her experience of post-natal depression, and I am really grateful to her for sharing that. If I could stretch out a virtual hand, I would like to say to her that we share the experience of baby loss, and I know what that is like.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for highlighting another really important aspect: babies who are born with additional needs, the particular needs of their families and how they have been affected during this pandemic. I really hope that their needs can be prioritised going forward. I also want to mention the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). It feels as if a mother’s financial experience is almost an additional thing, but she is absolutely right in saying it is central to mothers’ mental health to know that they have economic stability. I thank her for raising that.
I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments. I am really pleased to hear about the call for evidence. As I say, I am looking forward to the early years review. I want to push her on the point about not allowing digital and telephone consultations to become the norm in perinatal mental health, because those face-to-face visits are so important to mothers everywhere, and I really hope that can be embedded. I thank everyone for their time this afternoon, and thank you, Sir Edward, for your chairing.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Speaking as a grandfather, it has been a very interesting debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered maternal mental health.
Noise Pollution and Military Aviation
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered noise pollution and military aviation.
Thank you, Sir Edward, for the opportunity to raise a matter of long standing in north and west Wales but which is particularly difficult at present. There is a long history of training pilots locally at RAF Valley, and I want to say right at the start that this is not about pilot training as such. Some of my constituents argue that the purpose of that training is unacceptable, but, given the narrow scope of the debate, that is something for another day. The debate is about the current level of noise and the future prospects for peace and quiet for my constituents and others across our extraordinary natural environments in north and west Wales, as well as for the future of our outdoor tourism industry, which so depends on the tranquillity of the national park and the areas beyond. I note the huge pressure on the outdoors industry with this lockdown. The last thing we need is for outdoor centres to reopen but find a drop in their historical level of business because visitors are put off by aircraft noise.
I thank the senior officer at RAF Valley for meeting me at Westminster some time ago to discuss the matter. I also thank the Minister and his staff for answering my many written questions over the last few months. However, I assure him that my pen is poised should the debate not elicit full and satisfactory answers.
It is well over a year since I raised this matter with the Ministry of Defence and senior personnel at RAF Valley, but constituents continue to report frequent and unacceptable noise levels from the Texan T1 despite assurances that steps were being taken to equip the aircraft with what was necessary to allow them to fly over the sea, which would reduce the impact on populated areas.
I will proceed with my understanding of the genesis of the issue—of course, I stand to be corrected if I have got something wrong. The Texan, as I understand it, is a sophisticated new training aeroplane able to mimic the characteristics of a range of other aircraft in service and is therefore very valuable to the RAF in training. The Texans are now based at RAF Valley on Ynys Môn. “Ynys” in English is “island”, a point to which I will turn immediately. For safety reasons, the new aircraft cannot be flown over the sea without special precautions. Of course, Ynys Môn is surrounded by the sea on three sides. I have been told many times that the necessary safety equipment—a particular harness, a lifejacket and a life raft—is being developed, that the restrictions are temporary and, of course, that this is a priority for the MOD. I quite understand that, given how it now has these new and very useful aircraft available. However, in the meantime, the Texan is being flown over a restricted area of north and west Wales—restricted because of other flying activity. I understand it is also being flown over the Isle of Man and the English Lake district. Both of those places are, of course, over the sea from Ynys Môn and, as I said, precautions have to be taken before flights over the sea.
In a letter of 7 December, the Minister wanted to stress that although my constituents might perceive that the restrictions on Texan flights result in a disproportionate concentration of overflight in their areas, that was not the case. He then referred to flights over the Isle of Man and the Lake district. These are my first questions to the Minister. What proportion of Texan flights take place respectively over the three areas? Is that proportion as planned, even if the number of flights are greater? That is, of course, if they are greater; I am not sure. I contacted a colleague from the Lake district and asked about flights over his area. He said he was unaware of any flights by the Texans.
I understand that the Texan is noisier in some respects than the jet aircraft that usually overfly our area, even those that have flown over what is notoriously called the Mach loop near Machynlleth, which generates a large number of complaints. The reason the Texan is noisier, as I understand it, is that it is a turboprop plane.
My next three questions to the Minister are these. First, is there some further way of lessening the noise in the short term, for example by varying the height at which the aircraft are flown? I was told by RAF personnel, and I think by the station commander at RAF Valley, that they fly at around 5,000 feet, which means the noise generated is distributed very widely. Has that been considered? I am sure it has.
Secondly, what are the possibilities of halting, varying or even reducing the manoeuvres performed in training, noticeably what I believe is the dive and climb? That manoeuvre produces the characteristic, rather chilling howl that the aircraft make. There might be a fairly loud background hum a lot of the time, but that is interspersed with this howl, which disturbs many people.
Thirdly, and importantly, whatever changes are made to the operation of the Texan aircraft, can the Minister assure me that any such changed procedures would not lead to a reduction in work for ground staff at the Valley? The Valley is a significant and valued local employer, whatever one might think about the activities there. As I said, my constituents’ views of the training at the Valley are mixed, to say the least.
As I said earlier, the Minister has assured me that the safety work is being undertaken. I know nothing of the technical aspects of that safety work and I am sure the work is extremely complex. Of course, I would not want the safety of our air personnel to be compromised in any way by a rushed job, but it does seem to my constituents to be taking a very long time. I picked up this issue about a year ago and have been given repeated assurances that the work is being done and that it is a temporary measure. What progress has been achieved so far? Can the Minister give me an idea of an end date?
I now come to a broader set of questions that have sometimes got lost in concentrating on the noise problem. First, what was the process of approval for the purchase of this aircraft? They seem to have been bought and then later had their use restricted because of safety concerns. It seems strange that new aircraft were bought but were then deemed not to be suitable for use where they are located.
Why was the safety problem not foreseen before the aircraft were acquired? I hope that the safety problem was not foreseen but disregarded. Would the Minister throw some light on that matter? Were those who assessed the safety of the operation over the sea not part of the process? My understanding is that there was a sequence whereby the aircraft were acquired and then the people responsible for safety stepped in and said they cannot fly over the sea. Now, perhaps I am wrong in my understanding, but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain.
I come next to a question that I have already referred to: the aircraft were located at the Valley on Ynys Môn, surrounded on three sides by the sea—it is an island, after all. I know that locating them at Valley is very useful for the RAF. Certainly, for my constituents in Arfon, and more so for people in Ynys Môn, Valley is a vital economic interest, not least because the prospects for large-scale employment locally, such as Wylfa B, have subsequently disappeared. Some explanation of the decision to locate them at Valley would be helpful, if that is possible. I can appreciate that there might be some security or confidentiality considerations.
I come on to the cost of change and modification. Has that been budgeted for? Was that budgeted for in the initial costings of the Texan? Or is that an additional cost? If it is an additional cost, who is paying it?
The Minister might be relieved that I am coming to the end of this long series of questions, but I have a few more, which are about assessments before the new machines were purchased. I think the arrival of the Texans was something of a surprise for my constituents and for the local population throughout north and west Wales—I understand they are flown over the Ceredigion constituency as well. What assessment was made at the start of the acquisition process of the health and wellbeing effects on local populations that would be overflown? I cannot say that I recall being informed or contacted or asked my opinion about this as a local MP. Is there a standard procedure or does the RAF and the MOD act off their own bat? Given that this area is a national park, what assessment was made of the possible effects on wildlife?
There is also the economic impact on tourism in general, but particularly the effect on outdoor tourism. This is an area that depends on tourism. People come here because of the peace and quiet. That is particularly so for outdoor tourism. The area sells itself, very successfully, on the basis of peace and quiet, on the extraordinary natural environment and the beauty of the area, of course, and in some ways on the remoteness of the area, although of course we are not remote from the large conurbations of north-west England. The remoteness is disturbed by aircraft flying over—there is a paradox there. There is a question around whether that was assessed at all. I do not know what the procedure is in the MOD or in general, but if such assessments were made, were they public documents, so that people in north and west Wales could see for themselves that proper care was being taken of their interests?
When and if these aircraft are modified so that they can fly over the sea, should we assume that they will continue to be flown over the land? I take it that they will be, from the letter I received from the Minister, dated 7 December. If so, can he indicate the proportion of overland and oversea flights, or even their number? Are we going to have more or fewer of them? Will many be over the sea, or just a few? Will there be changed safety procedures for oversea flights? Will that lead to increased flights over other areas, such as the Isle of Man and the English Lake district? In other words, will the distribution be different?
In the very last of my long list of questions, I understand that there is an intention to bring in night flying. I have not heard those aircraft at night myself—it is possible that they have not flown over my part of the constituency —but I would like to know the MOD’s intention in respect of night flights. I understand that, at present, the intention is that 5% of all flights will be at night. I worry that those flights might be more intrusive, just because of the absence of other noise at night. Again, any information that the Minister can give to me or my constituents would be greatly appreciated.
I realise that I have posed many questions. I accept, of course, that the Minister might only be able to respond to some of them at this point, but I would hope for oral or written answers to them all. The people whom I and my right hon. and hon. Friends represent deserve no less.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to see him, albeit virtually. He is a constant advocate on this point for his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman was not wrong in saying that his speech contained many questions. He has already put many to me, to which I have responded with written answers, as he generously made clear. I have written to him in some detail on a couple of occasions, and will do so again. Try as I might to cover as many of his questions as possible, I may need to come back to him on some of the points of detail that he referenced. This is an important debate and I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to it.
For more than a century, the Royal Air Force has defended the skies above the United Kingdom and projected Britain’s power and influence around the world. Today, the RAF remains at the heart of the Government’s approach to conflict and crisis management and remains heavily committed to operations at home and abroad. Of course, our aviation branch is not just the RAF; our Royal Navy and Army aviators play a vital role, too, in ensuring our security at home and around the globe.
The fact is that our aircraft may be required to scramble at a moment’s notice to defend our airspace, in defence of our allies or to participate in operations, as they have done so often over the past 20 years. That is what makes the importance of their training so acute. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman absolutely said that in his remarks and that he does not wish to compromise safety. I know that he appreciates the importance of that.
Since 2012, we tragically have lost seven aircrew in accidents, at home and overseas. Our thoughts remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who have died in service. Sadly, we will never prevent all deaths, but our duty is to ensure that our pilots are as well trained as possible, to reduce such fatalities. The ability to train effectively in the benign and friendly environment of the homeland they protect keeps them safe for the dangers they confront on operations.
Flying skills, in particular for low-level flying, are highly perishable and the risk of skill fade cannot be underestimated. Those skills can be achieved and maintained only through practice in a range of environments. I understand what the hon. Gentleman would say, and I was going to make a bad pun involving “Hywel” and the howling that can be a factor of those aircraft. I do not know the straightforward answer to his questions, but I know he will appreciate that we need to be able to have that tactical manoeuvring agility, to test the pilots and to make certain that they are competent in all areas of manoeuvrability. However, I will take up his question with the RAF.
The planes are new, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and they were cleared as perfectly safe by American and European regulators. When those planes come into service, we want to ensure that they are absolutely right for our requirements of them, because we place such a high premium on the safety and security of our crews. Particular problems were identified, for which we wished to enhance security, and I will come on to those later in my speech.
The point that I want to make is that, in terms of decibel levels, this plane is quieter than the plane that preceded it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in the beautiful part of the country that he represents have noted that there is a low hum, which can perhaps be heard over a longer distance, even though the decibel level may be lower. I recognise that problem.
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s other points. Even with vital live training, we take measures to ensure that disturbance is as limited as is practicable. The amount of low-flying training carried out, to which he referred, is strictly limited to that which is essential to achieve and maintain operational effectiveness. Military aircraft are subject to stringent restrictions on heights and speeds, and their operating procedures are designed to minimise disturbance. We ensure that most low-flying training takes place during daylight hours on weekdays, and wherever possible flying units will publish details of upcoming activity online, in local newspapers and on social media platforms. I should add that we sometimes have to do things differently, owing to the vagaries of the British weather, with which we are all familiar, but that is our intent.
I am saddened by the fact that there was a significant increase—by about 50%—in complaints about low flying in 2020 compared with 2019. The only small silver lining I take from that is that it is perhaps indicative of the amount of flying done on weekdays and during working hours, and that, given the amount of home working over the course of the past year, it is only now that this has become more apparent to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others. It is indicative of our attempts to schedule flying in such a way as cause minimum inconvenience, avoiding evenings, night-time and weekends where possible. However, we need to train at night, as the hon Gentleman referred to. I believe he is right in saying that 95% to 5% is the approximate differentiation between the two; if that is not the case, I will write to him to correct myself. It is critical, as he will accept, that we have proper training in night-flying skills. Where we do that, we try to ensure that night training is completed as early in the evening as possible, to minimise noise and inconvenience at night.
The hon. Gentleman is clearly particularly focused on training and noise pollution around RAF Valley. He knows, and generously remarked on, the fact that night-flying training has brought with it to Ynys Môn a sizeable part of the £3.5 billion of investment currently set aside for military flying training, and that the base is the second largest employer on the island. However, just as the RAF is important to the area, so the local community is important to us. We always wish to act as good neighbours.
I have three specific points on RAF Valley. First, where possible, we use synthetic training, which has a valuable role to play. It is environmentally positive and clearly eliminates noise pollution entirely. We cannot go wholly synthetic, because we cannot divorce flying training from real cockpits, but we use it where we can. That is a growing trend in our training programmes.
Secondly, while those living in the vicinity of flying units will inevitably see more military aircraft activity than other areas of the country, we make efforts, as the hon. Gentleman knows from my letters, to spread that activity as widely and as equitably as possible. He is right that pilots from RAF Valley also fly elsewhere in Wales, over the Isle of Man and into Cumbria. I do not know the exact proportions, but that is something I can look up. I will see what I can do and come back to the hon. Gentleman. There are occasions when pilots will fly elsewhere, refuel, engage in further operations and then return to RAF Valley. I will look into that. He will appreciate that, even if we have a perfect scenario, in terms of programmes, that will always be affected by weather conditions and the practicalities on the day, but I will see what I can do to give more comfort to the hon. Gentlemen’s constituents about how we look to share the inevitable noise around the country.
Thirdly, I know that the new Texan aircraft and training has been of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman. I responded to his parliamentary questions and, more recently, to a letter about safety equipment. There are three aspects to that safety. The first is to ensure that it can operate safely over water. To be absolutely clear, the Texan can operate over water, and does. As the hon. Gentleman rightly observed, it would not get far away from Ynys Môn if it could not go over water, and it does indeed go over the sea. The issue we have is the kinds of sea states that it can operate over to our satisfaction. We are doing our utmost to protect the crews should an accident occur.
There are three issues. On the life preserver and making certain that a light comes on automatically if it hits the water, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that that has now been sorted. My understanding is that the harness has now been sorted. The remaining issue is to ensure that an automatic life raft deploys in the event of it coming into contact with the water. That has not yet been fixed. Technically, it is difficult. It is a simple bit of kit, but the slot that it has to be placed into is smaller than on most of our other aircraft, so that needs to be addressed. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the timescale for that at the moment, but it is actively being looked into.
What does that prevent? It does not prevent the aircraft from flying over water, but it does mean that we do not fly over water when we have very rough seas—we are talking about the highest level of sea states. The changes we have already made have already significantly increased the amount of flying that has been conducted over water, so the problem has already diminished, and I hope to see it diminish further over time. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that there will always be a certain proportion of training that has to be conducted over land, for obvious reasons to do with the efficacy of the training programme. In any event, the areas immediately to the north of the base, over the Irish sea, contain some of the biggest civil airways, with stringent civil air traffic control procedures that limit our ability to fly in that environment.
We are doing what we can to address the safety concerns about flying over water, and progress has been made. We try to spread the flights further beyond that beautiful part of north Wales that the hon. Gentleman represents, and I will write to him further on that. I recognise that some people find the sound of military aircraft disturbing, and we are always keen to hear from the public about their concerns. That is why we have the MOD’s low flying complaints and enquiries unit, which is the first port of call for members of the public who wish to complain about low-flying military aircraft. Every complaint and enquiry is examined. Nothing is ignored; we investigate properly. Where members of the public allege that military flying regulations have not been followed, a full military police investigation will be conducted into the incident by the defence flying complaints investigation team. Disregard of military flying regulations is not tolerated, and the punishment for those found to have done so is severe.
The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about the process of acquisition. It is very hard to draw widespread conclusions, but if anything, the decibels emitted from aircraft are falling over time. I think I am right in saying that the old VC10 would, amazingly, have to be 34 miles away from the listener before the noise would finally go. For the Voyager, which replaced it, it is 3.4 miles. That is one example. I hope that, by and large, military aircraft are getting quieter over time, but there are swings and roundabouts in that. As I say, in decibel terms, the Texan is quieter than the aircraft it replaced. I do not know whether there are technical means to quieten the engines beyond what has been proposed. I doubt it, but it is a fair question from the hon. Gentleman. It is a fair challenge, and I will certainly ask that question.
The Texan went through a normal acquisition process, as would be expected in the Ministry of Defence, going through the assets that we need to train our pilots to replace a 30-year-old aircraft and to ensure that it provides value for money. That would all have been undertaken. In parallel with that, we look at the more exacting requirements that we need to place on our aircraft, and again that would have been undertaken on this aircraft, hence the requirement for additional safety measures.
I have probably not heard the last from the hon. Gentleman on this subject. I look forward to further engagements. On the points that he raised that I have not been able to reply to in this debate, I will endeavour to write to him with answers. I recognise the sincerity of his concern on this issue. I trust that he and his constituents recognise the value that is placed on having incredibly good, highly trained, highly experienced pilots, who do the work they do in support of our country and to keep us safe. I thank him for the debate, and I look forward to writing to him and hearing from him again in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Household Overcrowding: Covid-19
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered household overcrowding and the covid-19 outbreak.
Eleven years ago, I was contacted by a family who were very overcrowded. The father, mother, and four daughters aged from one to 10 were living in a one-bedroom council flat. In the four years that they had been applying to move, Newham Council had been unable to provide anything larger. Nine years after that, in 2019, I received a letter from the youngest of the four children, who was by then aged 11 and had a younger sister. There were now five daughters, all still living in the same one-bedroom flat. The letter from the 11-year-old said:
“Since I was born, I have not even had a good day, because all this flat does is bring back bad memories. I sleep on the floor with my two older sisters. Every night when my dad gets up to go to work, he always has to turn on the light so he doesn’t step on us. Due to this, I don’t get enough sleep. I can’t concentrate. I’m so scared, because I want to pass my SATs, but I’ve got no place to revise. I’m falling behind in class, and it is because nobody cares about me. Nobody wants to see me happy. I feel like you don’t care, because if you did, you’d help me. All of my friends invite me to birthday parties. However, I am unable to come, because I feel that if I come, they should be invited to my birthday, but I can’t, because I have no place in my house. I have never got to celebrate anything. Every day, I see my mum cry and it makes me cry.”
The family is still in that flat today. With 27,000 people on Newham Council’s housing waiting list, it is not unusual for families to wait 15 years to be housed, as that one has.
Until the 1990s, the average number of people per household in London had fallen steadily since the end of the 19th century. Now, the number is going up. Nationally, the English housing survey showed overcrowding at the highest rate ever in the social rented sector—it was 9% in 2019-20, just before the pandemic. In both the social and private sectors, the rate has roughly doubled in 20 years. I am sorry to report that in my constituency, the overall rate of overcrowding is the highest in the country, at 27%, according to the 2011 census. It will be a good deal higher than that when the data comes in from the census that is under way at the moment.
Some 34% of all Bangladeshi households are overcrowded. The figure for Pakistani households is 18%, black African 16%, Arab 15% and mixed white and black African 14%. All face high levels of overcrowding, compared with 2% for white British households. Dr Haque, who was the then interim director of the Runnymede Trust, told the Women and Equalities Committee last summer that
“there will always be multigenerational homes where people decide to live with multiple generations—maybe their mothers as well as their grandparents—but they do not ever choose to live in overcrowded housing.”
Recognising those different impacts, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended that, by the end of this summer, the Government produce a strategy to reduce overcrowding. If the Government are serious about addressing racial inequalities in public health, they must tackle overcrowding. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the strategy that the Committee has called for will be produced by the end of this summer.
We know from studies such as the Marmot review that housing is a social determinant of health. Poor housing can lead to lifelong poor physical and mental health. There is a higher risk of accidents in overcrowded homes, and there is more condensation and mould. Research has established a link between overcrowding and poor child health due to infections and respiratory and gastrointestinal problems. There is consistent evidence of poorer mental health for people in crowded homes—depression, anxiety and stress as a result of living in cramped conditions. Poor quality of sleep is one of the reasons for that. Lack of space to play or study holds back children’s development and education.
Overcrowding is associated with interrupted schooling and behavioural problems at school. It can harm family relationships and lead to fighting and arguments between children. All of that was true before the pandemic, but covid has shone a bright light on all of these problems, and overcrowding has made coping with covid much harder. Transmission within households has spread the virus. In overcrowded households, infection has spread faster. Social distancing and self-isolation can be impossible. The stress of overcrowding—long-term and familiar—has been transformed by the pandemic into a catastrophe.
Last May, Inside Housing magazine published a graph plotting local authorities’ rates of overcrowding against their covid death rates. The correlation is remarkable. Overcrowding might well partly explain the disproportionate mortality rate among ethnic minority groups. Public Health England’s review into why black and ethnic minority groups have been so badly hit by the pandemic identified poor housing and household composition as key factors.
Severe damp and mould, much more common in overcrowded homes, cause chronic respiratory problems, making people more vulnerable if they contract coronavirus. For children, the onset and worsening of asthma in overcrowded conditions is well documented. For those who have to live, learn and work in one room, the psychological impact of lockdown has been extraordinary. On a video call last month with a family in my constituency —mum, dad and another family with five daughters, this time in a two-bedroom flat—the girls pointed out to me how infeasible it was for them all to study at the same time. That family was clearly teetering on the edge. More people in overcrowded households have reported psychological distress in the lockdown.
Sometimes in Parliament when we talk about the housing crisis, we are referring to young people not being able to buy homes until they are a bit older, and that is a problem. The Government have taken various steps to try to address it by subsidising first-time buyers with starter homes, Help to Buy ISAs and the 95% mortgage announced in the Budget last week, but there was nothing at all to tackle the real housing crisis—people trapped at the bottom end of the rental market with unaffordable rents in overcrowded, poor quality homes. The heart of the problem has been the failure to replenish the social housing stock, so families in social housing are twice as likely to be overcrowded now than they would have been decades ago.
I welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission report last month, with its ambition and vision. It states:
“A good home is a place…where we feel safe, it enables us to put down roots and belong to a community, it is a place we enjoy living in and which is a delight to come home to.”
That should be what we aim for. The report calls for Government action on a
“coherent, long-term housing strategy, focused on those in greatest need.”
It calls for a long-term housing affordability policy with new housing, greater public subsidy, reinstating capital grants, reducing land prices, a new housing affordability definition in terms of household incomes rather than market rents, and a review of social security to strengthen housing support.
I am old enough—just—to remember the furore in the 1960s over the housing crisis around the television play, “Cathy Come Home”, which was about a family destroyed by inadequate housing. That furore led to the foundation of Shelter and a wave of council house building. We are there again now. Families are being destroyed and lives blighted. The impact during the pandemic in the part of London that I represent was well documented in Anjli Raval’s powerful article, “Inside the ‘Covid Triangle’” in the Financial Times magazine last weekend. We need that moral outrage again and a new wave of investment in council house building. We need an alternative to private renting—a decent home where people can live and plan for their future. We have done it before; we can do it again. Councils are finding creative ways to build, such as the Red Door Ventures initiative in Newham, but we need them on a much bigger scale. The Government need to step up, and after the pandemic we need a new programme to build affordable and secure social homes.
Social security needs to tackle overcrowding. Welfare cuts over the past decade have mostly hit tenants. Freezing local housing allowance means that support is not tied to real rents and families cannot afford homes suitable to their needs. This year, thankfully, local housing allowance has been relinked to the 30th percentile of rents. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the Work and Pensions Committee, which I chair, that that change was permanent. She was unfortunately mistaken. The Chancellor has frozen rates again from next month, and the gap will start to widen all over again. The benefit cap also makes it impossible for families in London to afford the housing they need. Many households have had no benefit at all from higher housing support over the past year, because it has been immediately capped.
The Work and Pensions Committee has recommended maintaining the increases in support provided in the pandemic, including keeping local housing allowance at the 30th percentile, and conducting an annual review of rates to keep them appropriate for each area. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community recommended that it be tied to 50% rather than 30%, and that the Government should urgently review the operation of the local housing allowance.
Having seen the impact of household overcrowding during the pandemic, I want to ask the Minister what prospect there is of a new wave of investment in social house building on the scale that we need—or are we going to have to wait again for a Labour Government, for the overcrowding crisis to be addressed? Will he prioritise building affordable family homes with three bedrooms and more? Why have we started down the road of freezing local housing allowance again, after that policy has done so much damage over the past decade, and what response, if any, do the Government plan to make to the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission?
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The voice of those in cramped, uninhabitable or overcrowded housing is louder in this place thanks in no small part to his tireless campaigning. The pandemic has impacted us all—every family and house, and everyone in society. However, the impact has not been equal. The stark inequalities of our society have been laid bare by a virus that thrives on that very inequality. Those in the worst health are the most likely to fall ill. Those in the lowest-paid jobs are the most likely to be unable to work from home. Those children furthest behind in school are the most likely to be without the internet connection that is required for remote learning.
Perhaps the starkest examples of what I have been describing are in housing—the constituents who contact me every single day, who are without the outside space that makes lockdown more bearable; the children living on the top floors of tower blocks, who are unable to open windows for ventilation, because of the danger of living on the skyline; the families trapped in temporary accommodation, who do not register with a GP for the vaccination because they have no idea how long they will call that hostel or B&B their home; or, as my right hon. Friend so powerfully explained, overcrowded households, or houses in multiple occupation, where there is a family living in every room.
How can a person possibly self-isolate when they live in one room with four children, like Mrs B in my constituency? The simple answer is that they cannot. Families like hers live across our capital in houses in multiple occupation that have a single bathroom and a household in every room. Sanitation is a pipedream for these families, who share facilities with people in the next room, many of whom disproportionately head out to the frontline each morning. And those in the most insecure work simply cannot afford to self-isolate without the support that the Government seem so reluctant to provide. It is the pandemic paradox—the impossibility of ensuring the safety of those on our frontline when they are the least likely to be able to self-isolate. It is a problem baked in by a decade of austerity, housing crisis and low pay, and the Government’s shambolic treatment of our nurses shows that the lessons are simply not being learned.
I invite the Minister to my Friday advice surgery, where we will hear from Mrs C, who has two bedrooms on the second floor of a property that she shares with her three young children. For the last few months she has been joined by her disabled mother, who unfortunately has cancer and who she wishes to nurse to her end. Her mum is unable to leave the flat and quite frankly—given the impossibility of social distancing in that situation—neither are the rest of her family, if they are to ensure her mother’s safety.
So when the Government huff and puff about isolation payments or celebrate another Budget bereft of social housing policy, I say to the Minister that they simply do not know how the poorest and most vulnerable are living—like Mr F and his twins, who live in one small room in a shared house, or Mr D, who is in a single room with his son, following the sad passing of his wife. Try telling them that the pandemic is the great leveller.
The reality is that coronavirus has shone the strongest spotlight on the importance of having a safe and suitable place to call home. With 1.15 million households on social housing waiting lists across the country, the housing crisis cannot be solved by tinkering around the edges. It needs political will, it needs to be at the heart of Government decision making and it needs a bit more than the 6,556 new social homes that were delivered last year.
Perhaps the £20 billion that has just been announced to look at building a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland could be better spent on building the social housing that our country so desperately needs. Maybe then I could finally offer some hope to the families at my advice surgeries that they may one day get a place to call home.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for setting the scene. Obviously, I will give the Minister a Northern Ireland perspective. I know that he personally does not have ministerial responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I just want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, and to add my support to the right hon. Gentleman for what he does, and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) as well.
The hon. Lady mentioned the bridge. I understand what the Prime Minister is talking about, by the way; it is about connectivity and it is about the Union. But yes, I agree with her 100% that the money could be spent on better things. I say that very respectfully. The bridge is not what this debate is about, but if I had been asked to make any comment on it, that is what I would have said. I would have taken the Prime Minister down to the roads in Strangford and told him to spend a whole lot of money on them, to address the issues that I referred to. However, that is not taking away from what the Prime Minister is saying. But the bridge is not the subject of this debate; it is the subject for another debate.
I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings, so I have a particular interest in this issue. One of our interests in the APPG—indeed, it comes up all the time, and I suppose the clue is in the title of our group—is how we can have healthy homes and buildings. It is about homes that are suitable for today’s modern lifestyle, and how we can move towards ensuring that any new homes built are built in a style that would satisfy the needs of a modern family, but it is also about addressing the issue of homes that perhaps are not built in that style. In the past, we have had an inquiry and we have brought out the results, so it is quite an active APPG, I am pleased to say.
May I also say how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place? I was saying to him beforehand—you probably heard me saying it, Sir Edward—that he has shone in the main Chamber and now is his chance to shine in Westminster Hall.
The Minister and I have been good friends ever since he came to this House and I value his friendship; I hope that he values mine. His kindness to us all in this House is beyond doubt. Every Christmas, he is the man who brings the Quality Streets into the Members’ Tea Room; every Easter, I look forward to a creme egg, because of him. So let us put on the record our thanks to him. By the way, I am a diabetic, so I should not eat any of the Quality Streets or any creme eggs, but temptation sometimes gets the better of me.
My own constituency has a huge waiting list. What I will say will replicate what the right hon. Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden referred to; their constituencies have not cornered the market in housing problems—we have them as well.
Indeed, we have multiple daily problems in our office back home in Newtownards with the waiting list for appropriate social housing, largely made up of people in overcrowded accommodation who cannot afford private rent, or to pay the difference between housing benefit and rent in the real world. They have no alternative whatever but to move themselves and their children into their mum’s spare room—or worse, the living room, which takes away from where everybody lives. We often come to the problem of multiple families living in houses that may have been built for a two-person family but which have maybe six or eight people living in them, which becomes difficult. To have what should naturally be two separate households living together in such circumstances makes covid difficulties clear on so many levels.
The title of the debate is “Household Overcrowding: Covid-19”. We have learned about many things from the coronavirus situation and how we have responded to it, and one is certainly overcrowding, with people living almost on top of each other. I will give an example in a short minute. If just one person in a house gets covid, everybody has to self-isolate, which has implications, including whether an employer will actually furlough them. By the way, I understand that there is some choice in whether the employer may do that.
This is not the Minister’s responsibility, and I am not asking him to answer on it, but one of the biggest issues in my constituency is securing houses big enough for families. A single family may get a four-bed house. They probably have three or four children. One of those children is autistic, and they have maybe one girl and three boys, so right away an ordinary three-bed house will not be sufficient for them because of their physical circumstances and the disabilities of their children.
Sometimes a family has more than one child who is autistic, or they might have one with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well, which means they need a single bedroom for each one. The right hon. Member for East Ham referred to some issues. Some issues that I face every day in my constituency relate to those who are disabled and how the implications of that then multiply the housing issues.
I was not surprised to learn from the Health Foundation that, going into the covid-19 pandemic, one in three households—32%, or 7.6 million; what a figure—in England had at least one major housing problem relating to overcrowding, affordability or poor-quality housing. Poor-quality housing is one issue that we are trying to address in the APPG. I see that replicated, to scale, in Northern Ireland and in my constituency.
It is clear that housing problems such as these can affect health outcomes—I believe that, and I see it when talking to people—including physical health, directly from poor-quality homes, and mental health, from affordability or insecure housing issues. I understand that the Governments both back home and here are trying to address poor-quality homes, I am pretty sure the Minister will give us some positive answers on the quality of homes and what the Government are doing, and also—I am not putting words in the Minister’s mouth—some idea of what the Government are doing on new building to address demand.
While fewer homes are classed as non-decent compared with 10 years ago, overcrowding and affordability problems have increased in recent years. The pandemic has highlighted the health implications of housing. Poor housing conditions such as overcrowding and high density are associated with a greater spread of covid-19. We have learned that, when one person gets it, we all have to self-isolate. I had to self-isolate from this House because of contact with an hon. Member, and I had to self-isolate a second time because I had contact with somebody on a Sunday, which I notified the House about. So I have had to self-isolate on two occasions.
People have had to spend more time in homes that are overcrowded, damp or unsafe. The economic fall-out of the pandemic may lead to an increase in evictions. The Government have helped a wee bit with that. The implications for people potentially facing evictions from poor-quality homes with rents that are just too expensive, and with their jobs on furlough—or perhaps even lost—are massive. We should all be worried and concerned about that.
These housing problems can be focused on in multiple ways, including the increase of supply to the detriment of other objectives and sustained reductions in housing benefits. There is not a day when we do not do a housing case for someone back home and deal with their housing benefit as well. We deal with other things, but more often than not the housing benefit comes off the back of that.
I could give examples of issues for an entire day, but I will give just one: people in low-income care jobs going to work in a nursing home and coming home to a house with two families because they could no longer afford the £750-a-month rent on their low income. It is the issue of low incomes and very high rents that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady referred to. People had no other option but to move in with someone else but it meant that two nursing homes were affected by a diagnosis of coronavirus. I know that happened back home. A number of people were working in a nursing home, but when one person came in with coronavirus, everyone in that home had to self-isolate as a result. Coronavirus therefore has effects far beyond people’s living locations. It is definitely a disease that is seeking them out.
I finish with this. Covid has merely put a lens on the problem of affordable housing that has existed for some time. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said in setting the scene that it was a problem beforehand, and it has been exacerbated by where we are. We need to take steps to address it. Mental health, family relationships and now physical health are at stake.
Mental health comes up in every debate we have because it is real and everyone deals with people affected every day. The hon. Lady asked whether the Minister was available to come down to her surgery and meet some of those people. I am sure the Minister is meeting those people in his surgery, just as we are. I do believe we must act, and I look to the Minister to see his plan of action to provide more social housing, more support for private rental and greater ability for people to be removed from unhealthy living conditions throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to participate in this important debate on household overcrowding and the covid-19 outbreak. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for bringing the debate forward. As we have heard, there is no doubt that housing and health outcomes are inextricably linked and that those living in poor housing are more likely to suffer from poor mental and/or physical health.
Covid-19 has indeed thrown into stark relief the existing and ongoing housing challenges that need to be addressed. It seems self-evident that household overcrowding is associated with greater risk of transmission of the virus because self-isolation, as we have heard, becomes much more difficult, as does shielding. That may well have contributed to a higher death rate.
Analysis carried out by Inside Housing shows a clear correlation between overcrowding and covid death rates. In addition, lockdown forces us to spend much more time at home, and doing so is much more challenging for those living in those overcrowded conditions. One study shows that nearly 20% of those in overcrowded conditions during lockdown have experienced mental or physical health problems due to a lack of space.
To return to the overcrowding example given by the right hon. Member for East Ham in his constituency, I know all too well what that is like in normal times: I grew up in a small three-apartment flat with my seven older siblings, my mother and my stepfather as my mother waited an astonishing 28 years for the council to allocate her suitable accommodation. It finally did in 1982, on my 14th birthday.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents do not have to wait quite as long as my family did for suitable accommodation, because I know the damage caused by living one on top of the other with no space and no privacy in such overcrowded conditions. However, even I cannot imagine how people can possibly cope well with such overcrowding during lockdown and how much more challenging lockdown makes such terrible living conditions.
We cannot change the past, but the focus now must be to ensure that more affordable homes are built. In Scotland, the SNP Government have built 97,000 affordable homes since 2007. In the four years to 2020, the SNP Government in Scotland have delivered over 75% more affordable homes per head of population than in both England and Wales. The Scottish Government have recognised the positive social and economic impact that investment in social housing brings, and remain committed to expanding the social housing stock.
In Scotland, the £30 million rural and islands housing funds support the delivery of affordable homes and are to be continued beyond March 2021, with the affordable housing supply programme having already delivered 5,000 affordable homes in rural and island areas in its first four years. There is still more to do.
In its “Building more social housing” report, the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government recommended that
“A social housebuilding programme should be top of the Government’s agenda to rebuild the country from the impact of Covid-19.”
The report went on to say:
“The crisis has exposed our broken housing system. Families in overcrowded homes have faced worse health outcomes.”
In the first instance, the Government need to help those living in overcrowded accommodation. Investing in more social housing is an obvious way to do that. It is also vital to reverse effective cuts in local housing rates and scrap poverty-inducing policies, such as the hated bedroom tax, which the Scottish Government have completely mitigated in Scotland.
The decision to maintain local authority housing rates in cash terms in 2021-22 represents a freeze for private renters and puts at risk all the work done by the Scottish Government to support homeless people, and it potentially makes private sector tenancies unsustainable for some. Indeed, there are examples where the temporary restoration of local housing rates has facilitated moves out of temporary accommodation. The freeze on local housing rates for a Government who want to be taken seriously on tackling homelessness was not considered in last week’s Budget.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government have an estimated spend on the discretionary housing payment for 2021-22 of £82 million—an important tool used by councils to safeguard tenancies and prevent homelessness—with £71 million of that used to mitigate the bedroom tax for more than 70,000 households in Scotland, to help them sustain their tenancies, with another £11 million spent on mitigating other cruel welfare cuts, such as changes to local housing allowance rates.
Long before the pandemic hit, the policy of no recourse to public funds was pushing working families into abject poverty, forcing them into unsustainable debt and into homelessness, or unsafe, overcrowded and insecure housing. The Children’s Society highlighted last year that families with no recourse to public funds, without access to housing benefit or social housing, find it immensely difficult to shelter their children properly. That matters because covid-19 is no respecter of immigration status and everyone needs help to get through and survive this crisis.
The Scottish Government cannot change those policies because 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to Westminster. All the Scottish Government can do is try to mitigate the worst impact of those policies, bearing in mind that they are required to present a balanced budget every single year, so that the huge sums of money spent trying to protect Scots from the regressive policies of this Government mean that less money can be spent on other areas. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
We know that there are real housing challenges across the UK. The Scottish Government have a demonstrable record of trying to tackle them; the UK Government, not so much. Covid has thrown those challenges into stark relief. The Minister knows that the solutions here are not brain surgery. We know what needs to be done to tackle overcrowding, which, there is little doubt, is directly linked to people catching and dying of covid in this pandemic.
I urge the Minister to be more ambitious about plans for building social housing—not just through announcements, but through actual building. The Government also need to abandon the effective freeze on local housing allowance, to facilitate more secure tenancies, and help more people move from temporary to more settled and suitable accommodation, which we have seen can be done.
In addition, the UK Government need to abandon their bedroom tax, which in effect prices people out of their homes. They also need to look afresh at the inhumane policy of no recourse to public funds and at the real damage that that has done and continues to inflict on families. That has not been the case just during the pandemic, but it has certainly shown a clear vision of what that policy means.
We have suffered a global health pandemic, and it is not over, but we can already start to learn the lessons of how we can do better in order to tackle deep-rooted and long-standing housing challenges such as overcrowding and poor living conditions, which have a genuine impact on the mental and physical health of too many people. The word “home” should indeed conjure up images of safety and warmth—a place you want to be. For too many families, poor and overcrowded conditions mean that that is simply not the case. We know what the challenges are and what measures are needed to tackle and mitigate those challenges. I hope that the Minister today will tell us how he and the Government intend to just get on and get down to that important work.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for this debate, Sir Edward, and to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), the SNP spokesperson. First, I send heartfelt congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on initiating this vital debate. He set out eloquently and in clear and moving terms just what is wrong, why it is so relevant to the impact of covid and what we need to do to solve it. He also gave the truly human consequences by reading out a very upsetting letter from one of his young constituents, who is spending years in overcrowded conditions.
I also welcome the characteristically well informed and passionately expressed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is such an inspiring campaigning MP, and the speech from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who does such excellent work with the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings.
The English housing survey found that 4% of households in England are overcrowded. That is about 829,000 households—just think how many children that comes to. Overcrowding is more common for renters than owner-occupiers: it affects 1% of owner-occupiers, compared with 9% of social renters and 7% of private renting households. Overcrowding is at the highest rate in both the social rented and the private rented sectors since records began.
From my own constituency, I can give numerous examples of the real hardship—the reality—of overcrowded homes. People have been waiting for years and struggling for so long, and this last year has been truly awful. Covid has exposed the consequences when people do not have decent housing. Living in overcrowded homes hampers people’s ability to self-isolate when they have covid-19, but even before this time, overcrowded housing had been associated with respiratory illness in children. Now, it is so much worse.
The National Housing Federation found that 85% of overcrowded families have seen their mental health negatively affected by the overcrowding. Adults in 81% of overcrowded families—four out of five—have seen their personal relationships negatively affected. And it is no surprise, if we try to imagine that.
The former Children’s Commissioner found that poor housing conditions disrupt children’s education, affect health and wellbeing, and leave children with no safe space to play. That compounds the existing inequality between children who are in overcrowded housing with parents struggling to make ends meet and those who have had plenty of space throughout the crisis and good facilities and whose parents have been able to manage well financially. There has been suffering on all sides, but that inequality and the inability to make up that gap have been devastating for so many families.
The Resolution Foundation reported last July on the impact of housing circumstances on people during this crisis and identified how the risk increases for lower-income and ethnic minority families—often, the working poor. I am sure that the Minister will have read that report, but if he has not, I hope he will.
Increased covid risks for black, Asian and other ethnic minority people are compounded by poor housing. As Baroness Lawrence said in her recent review for Labour, not only are black, Asian and minority ethnic people dying at a disproportionate rate; they are also over-exposed to the virus and more likely to suffer the economic consequences, and that is multiplied, as others have said, by poor housing.
The Government response has been inadequate. The Women and Equalities Committee found a lack of clear guidance for those trying to self-isolate in overcrowded accommodation. That has been remedied just today, but the focus has been entirely on the individual rather than any sort of Government support. High rents in insecure housing, with poor living conditions, put millions of people in debt just when their income fell. Local authorities did all they could to support people in challenging living situations throughout the pandemic. The Government promised to do whatever was necessary—whatever it takes. How often did we hear that phrase? They said they would support councils during the pandemic. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister has not kept to that promise. His council tax hike is an example of that.
We need a vision for our country. We need a vision that is better than what we had when we went into 2020. It is unacceptable that we came into the pandemic with so many people exposed through overcrowded housing. It would be unforgivable if the Government did not learn from this and rebuild better, but the only references to housing in the Budget speech were about a stamp duty holiday and 95% mortgage schemes. These short-sighted interventions do nothing to build the kind of good quality, truly affordable homes that we need to tackle overcrowding, and also to boost jobs and growth. There was no mention of the massive increases in council housing that we need now to deal with overcrowding. There was nothing about dealing with the crisis in the private rented sector, with so many people struggling with drops in income as a result of the crisis, and nothing to create more truly affordable homes. Proposed changes to permitted development will only make it worse. A Government-sponsored review of permitted development found that it leads to a higher risk of overcrowding—a Government-sponsored review.
As we all know, overcrowding causes both physical and mental health problems. That situation has been getting worse rapidly over the last few years and now we are in a health crisis, so there is also a cost to the NHS—a significant cost. As the Government have failed to deal with the gaps in financial support or the impact of a flawed universal credit system, too many families have been forced into arrears this year. The fear of losing their home and increased debt has pushed many into overcrowded conditions.
Decent, affordable, warm, healthy, net zero carbon homes should not be too much to ask for everyone in this country at any time. Covid has shown up starkly not only that that does not happen, but what happens as a consequence when such homes are treated as optional by the Government.
The then Children’s Commissioner wrote to the Secretary of State one year ago:
“The government needs to provide local authorities with the resources to source these homes and combined with a clear expectation that homes need to be sourced quickly. I would like to see this combined with clear messaging to landlords: co-operate or the government will act. It would be a particular disgrace to have closed down apartments – many run by businesses which will be receiving government funds in the next few months – while close by families are homeless. I would urge you to commit that any hotel or property business receiving government support, or wage subsidies, in the next few months will have to commit to housing families at cost. If local authorities are supported by the government with both resourcing and clear messaging I believe we can get these families a decent home to call their own – at least for the next four months.”
Those were the words of Anne Longfield a year ago.
In December, the Woman and Equalities Committee said:
“The guidance that the Government has produced for those in overcrowded housing is substandard. There was no clear guidance in one place from the Government on how to overcome the practical challenges of living in overcrowded, and in some cases multigenerational, accommodation. This continues to be the case nine months after the country first entered lockdown. We recommend that the Government should, within the next four weeks”—
bear in mind, this was in December—
“publish clear, culturally competent guidance with practical recommendations on how to self-isolate for people living in overcrowded, and/or multi-generational, accommodation…We further recommend that the Government by the end of summer 2021 produce a strategy to reduce overcrowding due to its poor health impacts.”
Just today, the Minister has produced guidance on overcrowding and covid. I am not surprised, but I am saddened, to see that the Government’s emphasis is solely on what individuals need to do—individuals forced to live in overcrowded accommodation. That reflects the answers to other parliamentary questions. There is no sign of any Government strategy.
The Confederation of British Industry, the Local Government Association, trade unions, the Church of England, housing and homelessness charities, numerous think-tanks and other specialists all agree that we need massive increases in publicly owned, truly affordable housing. Why do the Government not believe in that? Where was that in the Budget last week? It would boost the economy and give us jobs that we really need—good, secure jobs—as well as dramatically improving living conditions, education and the health of hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
I ask the Minister: why have the Government not taken a public health response to overcrowding in housing? How and when are they going to do so? Does he acknowledge that allowing a large number of people, including children, to live in overcrowded and unhealthy accommodation is detrimental to their health, education and socialisation? Does he agree with the former Children’s Commissioner when she challenged the Secretary of State at the start of the crisis or not? If not, why? If he does, what plans does he have to meet some or all of her recommendations now? It is not too late.
Has the Minister read the briefings from the Resolution Foundation that were published last July? What lessons does he intend to take from them? Has he met the foundation? Has he read the report by the Women and Equalities Committee? Has he discussed it with the Chair? How will he implement the recommendations, and on what timescale? Will he commit to the timescale recommended by the Committee—the end of summer this year—for a clear strategy? Will he consider asking the Office for National Statistics to collect data on overcrowding, because we do not have the data that we really need?
Will the Minister acknowledge that if the Government want to solve that problem, they have to ensure that there is a massive increase in truly affordable and secure council and housing association homes? Will he address directly the young person whom my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham quoted at the start of his speech? Will the Minister explain directly to that young person why the Government have not acted for her so far? My right hon. Friend is correct: now is the time for a moral imperative to ensure that there is decent housing. Everyone should have a decent home. The covid crisis has reinforced that, and the Government must commit to end overcrowding and do it today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, not least because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, this is my first debate as Minister. It will possibly be more memorable for me than for you. I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing the debate and other hon. Members for their important contributions to it.
Covid-19 has brought unprecedented changes in how we live and work, with people’s experience of their housing conditions brought into strong focus as never before. Since the start of the pandemic, we have provided unprecedented economic support for households and businesses up and down the country. In the Budget, the Chancellor set out a £65 billion three-point plan to support jobs and businesses as we emerge from the pandemic and forge our recovery. Housing is a key part of that picture, from protecting tenants and landlords to ensuring that our house building sector remains open and active.
For many people, the pandemic has been made tolerable, at least, by a good home and garden shared with the people they care about, but for too many people—examples were movingly set out by the right hon. Member for East Ham—in cramped and substandard accommodation, or unable to walk to shops, green spaces or services, their experience of the pandemic was exacerbated by their housing conditions. Spacious, well-equipped homes that offer green space and access to vital amenities must be the standard if we are to recover from the social as well as the economic effects of covid.
As the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the evidence suggests that housing conditions can play a role in the transmission of the virus and in people’s ability to self-isolate safely, including those living in overcrowded conditions and multi-generational households. We know that black and minority ethnic groups are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions and are disproportionately impacted by the transmission of the virus. The Government are hugely grateful for all the research that has been undertaken—by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, Public Health England and the Women and Equalities Committee—which demonstrates that. The Government are absolutely steadfast in our determination to make the housing system work for everyone, including by tackling overcrowding and supporting vulnerable people to live in safe and decent homes.
Members have rightly spoken today about the prevalence of overcrowding. Between 2019 and 2020, as the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, the recorded state of overcrowding across all tenures in England was 4%, and that rate requires action. In many parts of the country, including in the constituency of the right hon. Member for East Ham, the situation is far worse. Newham has the highest level of household overcrowding in England, with 28,000 households on the waiting list in the overcrowding “reasonable preference” category, as of 31 March last year. We know that for some of those people in substandard housing conditions—especially in built-up areas with high deprivation, such as Newham—the pandemic has been particularly difficult.
The Government have responded at pace since the onset of the pandemic to provide a range of guidance to support and advise people who live in poor housing conditions, including overcrowded housing. We have kept our guidance under continual review in response to the latest available evidence, stressing the importance of ventilation and cleaning. We have made information available on people’s rights as tenants, and on how to work with landlords and local authorities to address hazardous issues.
I believe that our measures are the right ones. Where vulnerable tenants are living in overcrowded accommodation, local authorities can use their enforcement powers to require a landlord to remedy a serious overcrowding hazard. For shared houses and flats occupied by people who are not related—homes in multiple occupation—the Government have clarified the minimum room sizes in shared accommodation, making it illegal for landlords to let out a bedroom that is smaller than 6.51 square metres to one person.
HMOs are at increased risk of overcrowding, and the occupiers are likely to be vulnerable. That is why we require that all larger HMOs—those with five or more tenants—must be licensed with their local council. Under the HMO licensing scheme, a local authority can set conditions that landlords must follow to improve the quality of the accommodation, and the local authority has the power to inspect properties without notice and order improvements to conditions and any health hazards, including gas and electrical safety.
We are determined to crack down on the smaller number of unscrupulous landlords who neglect their properties and exploit their tenants. We want such landlords either to improve the service that they offer, or to leave the business. This is why we have strengthened local authority enforcement powers, introducing financial penalties of up to £30,000 and extended rent repayment orders for landlords and agents who break the rules, with banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders.
Local authorities also have a duty to take enforcement action if they find seriously hazardous conditions. That is why we are overhauling and simplifying the housing health safety rating system, which is the tool used to assess hazardous conditions in rented homes. If a HHSRS assessment identifies a serious hazard, which includes overcrowding, the local council must take enforcement action against the landlord. That includes banning orders for the worst offenders, and it applies to all privately rented properties. We also brought forward legislation on letting homes fit for human habitation, empowering tenants to take their own action against landlords who let unfit properties.
Siobhain McDonagh
Chair, am I allowed to intervene, if the Minister is willing to give way?
Siobhain McDonagh
I am sure that the Minister would not wish to take credit for a piece of legislation that was introduced by our great colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).
Eddie Hughes
Under no circumstances was I attempting to take credit for that Bill, and I was delighted to be in the House when it became law. I completely endorse it, and I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
Stephen Timms
I thank the Minister for the points that he is making. Can he tell us whether the Government will accept the recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee and bring forward a strategy to tackle overcrowding by the end of the summer?
Eddie Hughes
The Government are already doing things to tackle overcrowding, not least with our substantial investment in new house building. The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points in his speech, and I will cover some of them. He asked if we expect a new wave of investment in social house building. We need house building of all tenures, and the Government have demonstrated their commitment to increasing the affordable housing supply. We are investing more than £12 billion in affordable housing over five years—the largest investment for a decade. That includes the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which will provide up to 180,000 homes across the country; and a further £9 billion for the shared ownership and affordable homes programme, running to 2023, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable homes. The affordable homes programme will deliver more than double the social rent of the current programme, with around 32,000 social rented properties due to be delivered
Jim Shannon
Are the Government committed to co-ownership—to helping those who want co-ownership homes, and supporting the building projects? The co-ownership scheme enables people who have maybe 50% of the value, or a small portion of it, to get a home earlier. Are the Government committed to that?
Eddie Hughes
I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific scheme that he is talking about. The Government are certainly aiming to do things to help people. For example, we have 95% mortgages to make sure more people have the opportunity to buy their own home. I will come back to him on the scheme that he mentioned.
The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about prioritising the building of three-bed properties and above. When the national planning policy framework was revised in July 2018, it set an expectation that local planning authorities must put in place planning policies that identify the size, type and tenure of homes required for different groups in the community. We have not changed that, and we would therefore expect it to be a key consideration when planning housing at a local level.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about local housing allowance. During the pandemic, the Government increased the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile, which meant that 1.5 million people were able to access that additional payment, which averaged £600 annually.
Siobhain McDonagh
I appreciate that we are unrelentingly miserable in our stories about our constituents’ terrible housing circumstances, but will the Minister join me in thanking Channel 4 and journalist Jackie Long for helping one of my families? Jackie Long visited my constituent, who was going out to be a carer, to see the circumstances in which she was living during the lockdown—in one room with her son. Jackie Long and the viewers were so moved by my constituent’s story that they collected a deposit, and that woman is now in a flat of her own with her son.
Eddie Hughes
That sounds like a particularly moving case. During the pandemic, we have seen society pulling together in incredible ways, and that is a great example.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. You have three minutes left, Minister.
Eddie Hughes
I will move quickly.
We welcome the report from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission, and we will continue to work with all organisations, such as the Church of England, to develop affordable housing programmes. The Government are reviewing our own land ownership to ensure that it is put to good use.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned people in temporary accommodation who have not registered with their GP for a vaccine. I urge them to do so urgently. We are doing great work to ensure homeless people have access to the vaccine across the country, and I want to ensure that those in temporary accommodation have access. Regarding the invitation to her advice surgery, I have good examples in my own constituency of cases such as the ones she raised.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his kind comments at the start. I was lucky enough to attend a number of meetings of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, and I value the great work it does.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned a social house building programme. As I said earlier, I feel that the Government are already committed to a strong investment in building houses of all types and tenures.
The hon. Member for Bristol West mentioned the idea of the Government doing whatever it takes. I feel that councils up and down the country will be incredibly grateful for the investment that this Government have made—we have provided un-ring-fenced money for councils to use at their own discretion. Finally, we have the £50 million social housing decarbonisation fund through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which will be looking at ways of not just decarbonising social housing, but reducing the cost of fuel and therefore fuel poverty.
Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a characteristically powerful contribution, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am grateful to them both, and to the Front Benchers.
The real housing crisis is about people trapped at the bottom end of the rental market, paying unaffordable rents in overcrowded, inadequate homes. As we have been reminded, there was absolutely nothing in the Budget to help. It may well be, as it was in the 1960s, that we have to wait for a Labour Government, and for my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) to become the housing Secretary, for us to get the programme of investment that we need.
I would just say to the Minister, as he takes up his role—I know that he is very enthusiastic—
Written Statement
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Union Connectivity Report and Aviation Tax Consultation
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government are committed to the deepest possible integration of the four nations of the United Kingdom, so that businesses and individuals have the infrastructure they need to trade, travel and do business across the whole country. To that end, in June, Sir Peter Hendy CBE was tasked by the Prime Minister with exploring ways in which transport can better connect the four nations of the United Kingdom, levelling up all parts of the country and helping us build back better from the pandemic. The Government are also announcing that the consultation on aviation tax reform, announced at Budget 2020, will be published in spring 2021.
The consultation will include options to change the APD treatment for domestic flights, such as reintroducing a return leg exemption or creation of a new lower domestic rate. In addition to looking at the case for increasing the number of international distance bands, we will continue to decarbonise domestic aviation as part of our ambition to reach net zero, including through mandating the use of sustainable aviation fuels. All domestic aviation emissions are captured in carbon budgets.
The Government welcome the “Union Connectivity Review Interim Report” published today by Sir Peter. The report marks a key step in looking at whether and how connectivity across the UK can be improved in order to support this Government’s aim to build a stronger and fairer economy for the future. To support this, we are making £20 million development funding available to begin assessing options on road and rail schemes which have been identified by the review as crucial for cross-border connectivity. To achieve the aim of better connecting the UK, the report has considered the creation of a new UK strategic transport network that will allow people and commerce to move freely by road, rail, sea and air, spreading ideas and investment to all corners of this country.
This network of improved routes, which will now form the main focus of Sir Peter’s continuing investigations, would form the transport spine of the country, facilitating quicker and easier travel and trade between all corners of this country, levelling up communities and maximising national potential.
I am placing a copy of Sir Peter Hendy’s report in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-03-10/HCWS838
[HCWS838]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Services Bill
Wednesday 10th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 162-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (8 Mar 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. 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 face coverings except when seated at their desks, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desks, chairs 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.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content” an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” the clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on a group.
Amendment 99
“Standard Variable Rates: cap on charges for mortgage prisoners
In section 137A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the FCA’s general rules), at end insert—“(7) The FCA must make rules by virtue of subsection (1) in relation to introducing a cap on the interest rates charged to mortgage prisoners in relation to regulated mortgage contracts, with a view to securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.(8) In subsection (7) “mortgage prisoner” means a consumer who cannot switch to a different lender because of their characteristics and has a regulated mortgage contract with one of the following type of firms—(a) inactive lenders, or firms authorised for mortgage lending that are no longer lending; and(b) unregulated entities, or firms not authorised for mortgage lending.(9) The rules made by the FCA under subsection (7) must set the level of the cap on the Standard Variable Rate at a level no more than 2 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate. (10) In subsection (9) “Standard Variable Rate” means the variable rate of interest charged under the regulated mortgage contract after the end of any initial introductory deal.(11) The FCA must ensure any rules that it is required to make as a result of the amendment made by subsection (7) are made not later than 31 July 2021.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the FCA to introduce a cap on the Standard Variable Rates charged to consumers who cannot switch to a different lender because of their characteristics and who have a regulated mortgage contract with either an inactive lender or an unregulated entity.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, financial regulation has to ensure that consumers are well protected. It is with this principle in mind that I move the amendment in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their support. We have also had an aperitif, in the sense that Amendment 127 in the name of the noble Lord has already been debated in an earlier group, although its main focus is aligned with the amendments in this group and I look forward to his comments.
The recent report of the UK Mortgage Prisoners group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, when he spoke on the earlier group of amendments, is graphic and shocking. It makes the case that the Government need to come forward promptly with a fair deal for the 250,000 or so mortgage prisoners who have been stuck for some 10 years paying higher interest rates than they needed to. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mortgage Prisoners has kept this issue alive, having been contacted by hundreds of mortgage prisoners who describe the worry and stress that comes from being trapped as they are. This is a shameful episode.
I am grateful to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for meeting my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, myself and others last month. The Economic Secretary told us that he has a keen interest in settling this matter. He explained that there are difficulties including moral hazard, which means that it is not easy to sort. However, while the issue continues, considerable injustice is occurring. The Government may well be right to say that the SVRs currently paid by mortgage prisoners are only a little higher on average than the SVRs of other lenders but, particularly during the pandemic, small differences matter. In any case, the assertion that the Government make that the differences are rather minor does not ring true in the light of the report from the all-party group. Its case studies, which include nurses, teachers, members of the Armed Forces and small business people, suggest that, for all those who are trapped and struggling with the consequences of the Government’s decisions when money is tight and margins matter, these things need to be sorted.
Surely the true comparison is that if mortgage prisoners were with an active lender and of course up to date with their payments, they would have access to a range of products to transfer to, which would give them a lower fixed rate for their mortgages. In the other place when this issue was discussed, the savings available were said to be in the order of £5,000 a year. That is not an inconsiderable sum. Why are these people being singled out for this penalty?
The problem also seems to be the inability to access the best market-matching deals, compounded by the fact that the prison effect is reinforced by the inability to prevent mortgages being sold off to so-called vulture funds, which are often unregulated. This matter has been left unresolved for far too long. The inability to seek out new deals and to limit costs is causing stress, and in some cases has caused families to lose their homes. As the Government have been involved throughout this process, is it too much to ask them to explain what the plan is, and what the timetable for resolving the incarceration of these prisoners will be?
In its recent report, UK Mortgage Prisoners says that it has put the record straight on what it calls a “Government made scandal”. It is for the Government to defend themselves on that charge. UK Mortgage Prisoners complains that the Government have “effectively ignored the issue” and that, where the FCA has intervened, it has done so in a limited and ineffective manner. Its asks seem very simple: an immediate cap on SVRs for closed mortgages; introducing a tailored mortgage product for those affected; giving credit to prisoners who have for a decade or more made overpayments; stopping penalty charges for any excess arrears; and adjusting credit ratings going forward. Those are five simple steps for 250,000 people whose lives have quite simply been blighted.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners. Mortgage prisoners exist almost entirely because the Treasury made a terrible mistake when it sold the first tranche of former Northern Rock and B&B mortgages to an unregulated American vulture fund called Cerberus. Cerberus is the name of the multi-headed dog that in Greek mythology sits at the entrance to the gates of hell. That is not an inappropriate name, in view of what happened next.
Three things are needed to rescue mortgage prisoners. The first is to reduce immediately to comparable market rates the SVRs that they pay. The second is to make sure that transfers to much less expensive fixed-rate deals are properly available to them. The third is to make sure that new classes of mortgage prisoners cannot be created in the future.
Amendment 99, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to which I have added my name, deals with the first of those things. My Amendments 116 and 117 deal with the second and third. Amendment 99, as he has so clearly and forcefully explained, would protect the thousands of mortgage prisoners stuck paying high standard variable rates. It would introduce a cap on the standard variable rates paid by customers of inactive lenders and unregulated entities. That would provide immediate relief for thousands of mortgage prisoners, and could give space for longer-term solutions to be found. It would help mortgage prisoners who took out loans with a fully FCA-regulated high-street bank which were then sold on to vulture funds.
Money-saving expert and consumer champion Martin Lewis supports this proposal, and on Monday he released a statement saying:
“While the government chose to bail out the banks in the financial crisis, it has never bailed out the banks’ customers who were victims of that collapse. Mortgage prisoners have been left paying obscene interest rates for over a decade through no fault of their own. They have been completely trapped in their mortgages and unable to escape the financial misery it causes … Coupled with the devastating impact of the pandemic on people’s finances, urgent action is needed to prevent the situation from becoming catastrophic. The independent LSE report I funded has a cogent argument as to why an SVR cap isn’t a balanced long-term solution. Yet in lieu of anything else, I believe for those on closed-book mortgages it is a good stopgap while other detailed solutions are worked up, and I’m very happy the All-Party Parliamentary Group on mortgage prisoners is pushing it. This would provide immediate emergency relief for those most at risk of financial ruin. No one should underestimate the threat to wellbeing and even lives if this doesn’t happen, and happen soon.”
The Government will no doubt say that some mortgage prisoners are already paying rates lower than 3.5%, so rates do not need to be capped. But those sold on by the Government to vulture funds like Cerberus are paying high rates. In the package sold by the Government containing more than 66,000 mortgage loans, 52% were paying rates between 4.5% and 5%, and 37% were paying rates of over 5%, when the mortgages were securitised.
The Government could have set strict conditions when selling the mortgages on the interest rates which could be charged. But when they sold £16 billion of mortgages to Tulip and Cerberus, they imposed only a 12-month restriction on increases to the standard variable rate. These have long since expired and the chief executive of Tulip Mortgages told the Treasury Select Committee that the firm now had
“complete discretion to set the interest rate policy.”
On the sale to Heliodor, the Government claimed that the organisation which bought the loans would be required to set their standard variable rates by reference to the SVR charged by a
“basket of 15 active lenders”.
But when you read the details of the securitisation agreements for the mortgage loans sold, you will find that, actually, the Government have required the SVR to be set only at the level of the third highest of the 15 active lenders. This is absolutely critical, as the third highest SVR is actually 4.49%. The lowest SVR among those 15 active lenders is 3.35%, and the average SVR weighted by market share is 3.72%.
The latest and final sale of the Treasury-held mortgages was announced in February. The book was sold to Davidson Kempner Partners and Citibank, with funding by PIMCO. The Government said that the SVR was going to be charged by reference, again, to a basket of 15 active lenders, but there are no details about how this will work in practice. If it reflects the practice in earlier sales, it will not actually provide any protection to customers. The Government will also say that the FCA has changed the affordability test to enable mortgage prisoners to switch to a different lender. But the progress has been very slow, with only a very small number of lenders willing to use these new flexibilities.
The cap on the SVR proposed by this amendment would provide immediate relief to mortgage prisoners who have been overpaying for the past 13 years. It would protect all mortgage prisoners, including those who are unable to switch. It would give time for other solutions to help mortgage prisoners to be developed. The SVR cap would apply only to mortgages owned by inactive lenders and unregulated entities. It would have no impact on active lenders competing to attract customers.
The cap is supported by the campaign group UK Mortgage Prisoners, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said. Members of the group have stated that this amendment is the difference between feeding their children and themselves or continuing to rely on food banks. The Government created the problem of mortgage prisoners and it is their moral responsibility to rescue them from the significant detriment that many still face. I urge the Government to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
I now turn to Amendment 116, which would extend access to fixed interest rates to all mortgage prisoners, enabling them to gain control and certainty over their monthly mortgage payments. When the time came for the nationalised Northern Rock and B&B mortgages to be sold by the Government back to the private sector, they could have pursued an approach which ensured that these customers were in fact protected. They could have sold them to active lenders or secured a commitment from purchasers to offer these new customers new deals.
The risk to these customers was identified. In January 2016, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, wrote to the Treasury, UK Asset Resolution and the FCA to say that the customers affected by these sales should be protected, offered a fair deal and given access to fixed rates. UKAR responded that, by returning these mortgages to the private sector,
“the option to be offered new deals, extra lending and fixed rates should become available”.
But this requirement was not written into the contract when mortgages were sold to funds such as Cerberus, with the BBC reporting that UKAR is now claiming to have been “misled” by Cerberus.
A UKAR spokesman told BBC “Panorama” that Cerberus had the ability to lend to the former Northern Rock customers and that UKAR believed that it intended to do so. They said:
“The reply to Lord McFall sent on behalf of the UKAR board of directors was based on information presented to UKAR and the board had no reason to disbelieve this at that time.”
At the very best, this is evidence of catastrophic incompetence. At worst, it is evidence that UKAR heartlessly pursued profit over care for mortgage customers.
Consumer champion Martin Lewis lays responsibility for the treatment of mortgage prisoners squarely with the Government. He said that the Government
“have sold these loans to professional debt buyers who do not offer mortgages and left these people in these types of mortgages, which have been too expensive, crippled their finances and destroyed their wellbeing.”
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 99 and 116 deal with the difficult area of mortgage prisoners. Both amendments seek to go beyond what has already been achieved for mortgage prisoners by the relaxation of affordability rules by the FCA.
I have much sympathy for mortgage prisoners, but we should not lose sight of the fact that these borrowers do not have sufficient financial credentials to qualify for new mortgage lending under current regulatory rules and hence cannot remortgage. They are a hangover from the period when lending criteria were much less strict than they are now and include interest-only borrowers who lack a credible way of repaying capital.
We should be wary of going beyond what the FCA has already done. In particular, making the FCA specify maximum interest rates is an unwarranted market intervention. The FCA is best placed to judge whether any further solutions can be found for these problem borrowers. We should not try to solve the problems of a relatively small number of people with blunderbuss legislation.
My main reason for speaking on this group is Amendment 117, which is fundamentally misconceived. My noble friend Lord True, when he spoke to the large group of amendments headed by Amendment 79 on our previous Committee day, talked about the importance of the securitisation market for mortgage providers. Securitisation ensures that lenders can carry on originating new debt by freeing up capital and liquidity. This is especially important in the mortgage market.
Amendment 117, which requires written consent for every mortgage sold, is not practical. It is likely to mean that lenders will be shut out of the securitisation market. Mortgages are not sold individually: they are parcelled up into books. Requiring consent will make this very much harder to do and will significantly add to the costs of the procedure. Anyone who has tried to get responses from individual account holders where there is no incentive for the account holder to respond will tell you that this is mission impossible.
Mortgage securitisation is a normal balance sheet financing strategy for both retail and commercial lenders. Making it more difficult or expensive for mortgages will have consequences for consumers, whether by restricting the availability of credit or increasing its cost, or both. I cannot support any of the amendments in this group.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee long. I would not normally be seen near a finance Bill, largely because I do not have and do not ever expect to have any finance to bother me. Nor would I presume to discuss mortgage payments, since I do not have and never will have a mortgage to worry about. However, what I do have is some experience of people in all kinds of situations, good and bad, from the cradle to the grave.
It was a conversation with someone whom I knew well that made me aware of the truly dreadful situation that we are debating and that they found themselves in. Here was someone who was in a bad—a very bad —situation: they and 250,000 others. My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, have done us a great service in highlighting the plight of these people and have worked out a reasonable way to help them. I am happy to leave the heavy lifting on the matter to them and, no doubt, other Members of the Committee who will chip in on the same side of the argument. They have made a compelling case in detail and with passion, all of which will help to disguise the extent of my own ignorance.
I simply must express my bewilderment at the way, when this subject was debated in the House of Commons, no less a person than the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave voice to some rather misleading statements. He said, for example, that “mortgage prisoners” were paying a mere 0.4% higher than average mortgages. That figure has been mentioned more than once and is simply not true, according to the picture that I have seen painted in reliable reports from various quarters. He also suggested that when the mortgages in question were sold to “vulture funds” and other non-regulated bodies, the borrowers retained all the same conditions stipulated in their original agreements. From the conversation that I had and other cases that I have subsequently read about, that just is not the case.
The Government seem to have treated mortgage prisoners as cash cows, a means of paying down Treasury debt, after the decision to rescue the banks after the crisis of 2008. On the day that conversation arose, I thought that it would be a friendly interchange on the streets of my home town, with perhaps a mention of the unexpected good fortune of the Welsh rugby team—but it actually opened a can of worms. The person I was speaking to is considered to be a “problem borrower”, one of the people referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. But my friend is a problem borrower largely because of the depredation of resources due to the fact that she has been paying mortgages over the odds for 10 years now. Even someone whose only qualification for speaking in this debate is an O-level in economics found himself smelling a rat as he spotted an egregious injustice being done to mortgage prisoners.
The amendments seek to correct this situation. They are balanced and sensible. Martin Lewis, who was quoted more than once by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and is a true expert in this field, writes this:
“Mortgage prisoners are the forgotten victims of the 2008 financial crash. The Government at the time chose to bail out the banks, but unfairly—immorally—hundreds of thousands of their victims were left without adequate help, trapped in their mortgages and the financial misery caused by it.”
No wonder they are problem borrowers. He continued:
“And they have been forgotten ever since.”
The Bill and the amendments give us an opportunity to unforget them, to make good on past failures, and to bring justice to a situation yearning for it. The Minister is a decent and fair man but will of course be bound by the usual conventions in a debate of this kind. It would be good to hear him promise to go back to his department to try to find a way of bringing a little hope and cheer to those who suffer in this way.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this first group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the manner in which he introduced the amendment. I also thank him for giving a wave to my Amendment 127 on this subject, which found itself a prisoner in a different group of amendments but was very much to the purpose of this group. Simply put, it would prohibit any more individuals becoming mortgage prisoners in this way.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have taken a vow to try to be brief in all my responses today, recognising the time pressures of the day. I also listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I am not sure that the case could be better made.
However, I must follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, in picking up an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who described mortgage prisoners essentially as problem debtors. These are people the overwhelming majority of whom would not have any problem with their debt if they had been allowed to take advantage of the changes in interest rates and mortgage terms that have been available much more widely. The case to act for their protection is simply overwhelming. If we had not had the financial crash and they had remained with regulated lenders, the vast majority of them would not be facing any issue. They would have had their mortgages restructured to lower rates and they would not be facing stresses and strains today.
I have been sent information from a significant number of people who find themselves to be mortgage prisoners and, frankly, the stories are often heart-breaking. I heard this morning from someone who is desperately ill in hospital, but the stress of the financial challenges that he faces makes every day far worse and far more difficult to deal with. To me, it is inhuman that action is not taken. The Government recognise that action must be taken, given the circumstances and the stress that so many people face and the corners that they have been pinned into. Surely such action should be taken now and not be kicked down the road yet again.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the case for reform in this area has been overwhelmingly made by my noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lord Griffiths, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I wish not to delay the Committee any longer, but simply to advise that the Labour Front Bench supports my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s amendment and the generality of those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government have a great deal of sympathy for borrowers who are unable to switch their mortgage, and we are committed to finding practical ways to help them. That is why we have been working closely with the FCA, and I will set out the action that it has taken.
In 2019, the FCA introduced a modified affordability assessment, which allows active mortgage lenders to waive the normal affordability checks for borrowers with inactive lenders who meet certain criteria—for example, not being in arrears and not wishing to borrow more. As a result of this, inactive lenders have been contacting borrowers who have had difficulty with switching, setting out new options that may be available for them on the active market. I am pleased that a number of lenders, including Halifax, NatWest and Santander, have already come forward with options specifically for these borrowers.
More widely, we have taken steps to support those unable to make mortgage payments during the pandemic. Payment holidays have provided vital support for consumers, including those with inactive lenders, with over 2.75 million mortgage holidays granted since March 2020.
However, policy should be based on clear evidence. The FCA’s analysis found that customers with inactive lenders paid, on average, just 0.4% more than customers in the active market with similar characteristics. There has been comment in Committee on that figure. The FCA’s analysis also found that, of the 250,000 borrowers with inactive lenders, half were in a position to switch to a new mortgage even before any action from the Government. That illustrates one aspect of the diversity of this group.
On the 0.4%, I am aware that there are other estimates out there, including in a recent report, which has been referred to, published by the UK Mortgage Prisoners action group on 8 March, just a few days ago. Treasury officials have reviewed this analysis and noted that these figures seem to be based on surveys with small sample sizes. The comparisons are often inappropriate—for example, contrasting rates that many borrowers with active lenders would not even be offered. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that this is a complex topic. We are, as I have said, committed to finding practical ways to help.
Amendment 99 seeks to cap standard variable rate mortgages for some customers. Data from the FCA suggest that the majority of borrowers with inactive lenders pay less than 3.5% interest. As I have already said, compared to those with similar lending characteristics, consumers with inactive lenders pay on average only 0.4% more than those with an active lender. This was also backed by the London School of Economics recent report on mortgage prisoners, noting that it does not recommend capping standard variable rates at a low rate. Capping mortgages with inactive lenders could have an impact on their financial stability, as it would restrict lenders’ ability to vary rates in line with market conditions. That would also be unfair to borrowers in the active lending sector, particularly those in arrears, who are paying a higher standard variable rate.
Amendment 116 seeks to provide new fixed interest rate deals for certain mortgage customers with inactive lenders. I have already set out the FCA’s work in introducing a modified affordability assessment and that a number of active lenders—household names—have come forward with offers. The FCA estimates that up to 55,000 borrowers could be eligible to benefit from the new modified affordability assessments. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and hope to see even more options available over the coming months. Enabling people to switch into the active market is the best way to help consumers secure new deals, and that is what we have been doing.
Amendment 117 would require active lenders to seek a borrower’s permission before transferring their regulated mortgage contract to an inactive lender. There are already a number of protections in place for borrowers, meaning that their mortgage cannot be sold on to an unregulated servicer and their terms and conditions cannot change as a result of the sale, so the benefit of explicitly seeking permission from the borrower is unlikely to help them any further.
It is required that all loans within the UK must be administered by a regulated entity, meaning that all customers will be able to benefit from consumer protections —for example, access to the FOS. The terms and conditions of a loan do not change upon sale, meaning that consumers will be treated in line with their original agreement even if their loan was sold to an unregulated entity.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, the amendment would also risk disrupting the residential mortgage-backed securities market as it may prevent the effective securitisation of mortgages, where beneficial ownership of a portfolio of mortgages is transferred to a special purpose vehicle. Securitisation is a common way for active lenders to fund themselves, and disrupting the securitisation market would likely have a negative impact on the availability and cost of mortgage credit in the United Kingdom. For those reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this debate for the various points they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has it right: this is a complex and detailed issue and it delves down way beyond most people’s experience of how markets of this type operate. In those circumstances, we have a difficult choice as a Committee on how one might want to take this forward.
On the one hand, my noble friend Lord Griffiths is right that the end of the story is what is happening on the ground to people who have ended up in this situation through no fault of their own but as a result of government action. The Government therefore have to explain to the people of this country why, having created this problem, they do not feel that they have more than just a moral responsibility to see it resolved. On the other hand, I take absolutely the Minister’s point that, it being a complex issue and the Government having seen some action already happening, they remain committed to what he called finding a practical plan forward; I hold on to that. However, the complexity and the fact that this affects a relatively small number of people—although 250,000 people is not a small number in my terms—do not mean that we should simply allow the market to find the right balance between the commercial pressures of offering loans and the ability to service those loans and make a profit out of them from those who have limited resource. There is no doubt at all that, having said all that, there is obviously a pandemic issue as well.
Where does that leave us? I take hope from the fact that the Minister said that there is work on the way to try to take this forward. I recognise that it is a complex issue—indeed, I said so in my opening remarks. However, he must accept that the arguments made by myself but made in much more detail and with a much wider range of evidence by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, suggest that this is more than just a complicated problem which needs to be bottomed out by working with the market. We need convincing that there is work going on that will result in a workable solution of benefit to those affected by this within a reasonable timescale, otherwise we will come back on Report with a better-drafted amendment—perhaps covering some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but not all of them—in a way that makes it clear that the Government cannot continue to let this settle itself. It has to be taken forward in policy terms otherwise too much damage will be caused. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Impact assessments
(1) Regulations made under this Act, and under any regulation-making powers inserted by this Act into any other Act, may not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid an impact assessment of each regulation before each House of Parliament.(2) Rules made by the FCA or the PRA under rule-making powers given to the FCA or the PRA by this Act, and under any rule-making powers inserted by this Act into any other Act, must be published on the website of the FCA or PRA (as appropriate) at least 30 days before they are due to take effect, together with an impact assessment of the rules.(3) In this section, “impact assessment” means an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed change, compared to the existing position and other options considered, including the expected impact on UK businesses and the UK economy.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 103 on impact assessments and 104 on reporting. I have been like a long-playing record on the importance of cost-benefit analysis of legislation, regulations and new rules in the form of an impact assessment. I return to the charge today with renewed vigour, as we are transferring very substantial powers from Brussels to Britain. I know that the process of preparing a cost benefit and the sunlight of transparency help enormously in avoiding difficulties and disasters. By the way, I thank my noble friend the Minister for producing an impact assessment on this Bill—always one of the most useful Bill documents, even if in this case it is shortish on numbers.
Amendment 103 is in two parts. First, it requires the Secretary of State—in this case, usually Treasury Ministers—to lay an impact assessment of each SI or regulation that they make before it comes into force. I know from my time as a Minister that having to put my own name to such an impact assessment made me look much more effectively at any instrument I was signing and thus avoid cock-ups—which do unfortunately happen from time to time, even in the Treasury! Secondly, as so much of EU power is being transferred to the FCA and PRA, it requires them to publish their proposed new rules on their respective websites for public scrutiny and to add an impact assessment of the rules. By impact assessment I mean an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed change, compared with the existing position and other policy options, including the expected impact on UK businesses and the economy. All I seek is a simple way of ensuring that the authors of new rules always consider the economic impact of their proposals in the interests of good government.
So far, so good. But—and I accept it is a big but —in part these provisions seem to be required already by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as subsequently amended. I have been through the relevant explanations and websites and am still not completely sure whether that is the case. Perhaps the Minister can kindly explain the position and give us some encouraging words as to the present and future position on this important matter. If my proposed provision is genuinely unnecessary, I am of course happy to withdraw it.
Amendment 104 follows on from Amendment 103. However, it is distinct and could be adopted alone. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of measures taken by the FCA, the PRA or the Government to regulate financial services with a particular focus on small business, innovation and competitiveness. While there has been a great deal of excellent discussion in this Committee on holding financial service operators to account and improving enforcement, we can lose sight of the value of smaller operators, including those based outside London. Moreover, innovation can bring huge value to consumers—online banking, easy money transfer overseas and share trading on mobile phones are good examples—and our strained economy will benefit from the competitiveness and attractiveness of the UK’s financial sector.
I know from my experience in the intellectual property area, which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, will remember as well, how valuable an annual report of this type can be in focusing staff attention. Writing the report is a complement to the usual in-tray—the focus on risk and the avoidance of banana skins that exercises public servants, sometimes to the detriment of more strategic thinking. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on how we might best take some of these matters forward. I believe that they could encourage the intelligent scrutiny of new rules and their early dissemination and publication, and that a strategic look once a year will help the sector to stay ahead in the new world. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, for the purposes of today’s debates I again remind Grand Committee of my financial services interests as in the register.
I have signed Amendments 103 and 104 and agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, so I will not repeat what has already been said. It is a subject that the noble Baroness pursues with diligence, and it is right to do so, even if at times—at least as far as I am concerned—the scope and content of impact assessments are a little disappointing. The amendment relates to the final impact assessments as rules are coming into effect, although, of course, to be useful, impact assessments are needed at each stage. Indeed, if proportionality is to be properly taken into account, that is surely a prerequisite for the regulator.
But returning again to the FiSMA theme, where much of the proportionality, flexibility—call it what you will—will be done on an institution-by-institution basis, so the rules will enable that but not demonstrate how it is to be carried out, I am not sure how that will be properly assessed in an impact assessment based only on the rules. Therefore, it will also be important to be able to capture what actually happens after the rules have come into operation. That might be by way of a retrospective impact assessment after a period of time, and would seem to be another matter that Parliament will need to investigate.
Included in that, it should be relevant to capture the effects of frequency of rule change, which is presently greatly emphasised by regulators and the Government as part of the reasoning behind the Bill, yet somehow I doubt that rule churning was what industry felt it was signing up for by supporting FiSMA. It will be important to understand the scale and nature of that rule tweaking. Amendment 104 gets in part to that with the Government producing a report, but perhaps it should be part of the annual report or an annual impact assessment from the regulators, so that it can be further queried and those regulated can be interviewed by the relevant parliamentary committee. So perhaps the Minister can confirm how this frequency of tweaking will be tracked, what is the Government’s planned part in it and would they support Amendment 104 in particular as part of the way to do that?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare again my interests as stated in the register in respect of financial services companies. I am delighted to support Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. My noble friend is a champion of impact assessments and she speaks from experience. The impact of many financial services regulations on smaller firms has been very damaging. I mention just two examples. The unbundling provisions contained within the MiFID II directive, requiring asset management companies to pay separately for research, have been disastrous in their effect on smaller companies with interesting strategies, which have either been forced out of business or forced into mergers where their innovative strategies have not been taken forward. The effects have been less choice for customers and less coverage as a result of the significant reduction in the number of securities analysts, particularly those covering smaller and growth companies.
The effects were predictable, but ESMA ploughed ahead and the FCA acquiesced. It is small comfort now that ESMA itself realises that the unbundling provisions were a mistake, and may move to make changes, but much damage has been done. An impact assessment, such as recommended by my noble friend, would have avoided this.
I also mention the alternative investment fund managers directive. When I worked in Brussels as director-general of the European Fund and Asset Management Association —EFAMA—my French and German colleagues said that they did not think that the EU should move to regulate alternative funds; that was London’s market, and largely London’s alone. Furthermore, it was of interest only to professional investors, who did not need protection from investment risks. They thought that it would be wrong for the EU to try to regulate it. However, three years later, Michel Barnier, as Commissioner for the Internal Market, moved to introduce the AIFMD. Again we were overruled and reluctantly went along with it. An impact assessment might have encouraged the FSA to fight harder against it than it did.
For the reasons so well explained by my noble friend, I support her amendments and look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be part of this debate, which is narrow in some senses but has the capacity to reach quite widely. It is narrow in the sense that it has been framed through Amendments 103 and 104, which I broadly support, about the need to try and get more of an impact assessment model into the way in which we review the changes that may come through as a result of the return to the UK of powers previously exercised at EU level. It also raises much wider issues, which I will come to before I end my short contribution to this debate.
I am sure that the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is about good government. Better regulation was always part of the argument she used when she was a Minister. I well remember the discussions we had across the Dispatch Box about intellectual property, in both primary and subsequently secondary legislation. The material on this was much enhanced by the good work done by her civil servants in bringing forward some of the issues raised and trying to give them a quantitative—not just qualitative—feel when the debates were organised. A lot of the work that they do on better regulation does not get properly recognised, and this is a good opportunity to pay tribute to it. As an example, I particularly enjoyed the annual work that I was often asked to do in relation to the setting of the national minimum wage, now the national living wage. It was always accompanied by a formidable document, created mainly I think by the Low Pay Commission but endorsed by civil servants. It went into every conceivable aspect of the way in which the setting of a minimum threshold for wages would, or could, affect the labour market, with particular reference to women and other low-paid groups in society. It was always a red-letter day in my diary when I saw that coming up; I knew that I was going to be given a very meaty topic to research, read up on and debate. I enjoyed the debates that we had on that.
While I say yes to the thrust of what is being said here, and recognise the benefits that will come from good impact assessments, properly debated, particularly in relation to the regulatory framework in the Bill, I wonder whether there is a slight irony here. The substance of what the noble Baroness is saying in her amendment is that better scrutiny of proposals brought forward for legislation—and, of course, for secondary legislation —would happen if there were better impact assessments. I say in passing, and in reverse order, that a secondary instrument is very much a creature of the primary legislation that has preceded it. It is not uncommon to find in SI impact assessments binary choices, usually not very helpful in detailed essence. The proposition set up in the impact assessment is often, “What would happen if this legislation did not go through?” and then “What will happen when it does go through?” In other words, if there is a change in regulations, you impact; no change and you impact the change. You do not get a range of options.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, as many Members of the Committee have already noted, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is well known in your Lordships’ House for her pursuit of impact assessments and is a stern critic of government departments that hide behind the exact wording of Cabinet Office guidance. Recently, many of us have joined her in being appalled by the complete lack of impact statements published to support the Government’s coronavirus policies, involving—I remind the Committee—the greatest ever peacetime infringement of civil liberties. The Department of Health and Social Care used the flimsy excuse that the Cabinet Office does not require impact assessments for policies intended to have a temporary effect.
I am particularly interested in my noble friend’s Amendment 104, which requires an annual report to Parliament. I am not wholly in favour of annual reports, because they can degenerate into boiler plate and have a very short-term horizon; I prefer the concept of periodic reports that can look at impacts over a longer time span. However, whether such reviews are annual or less frequent, I suggest to my noble friend that the report could also usefully concentrate on the quality of consultation carried out by the regulators, and that would include the quality of impact statements.
Consultations by the PRA and the FCA often feel like not much more than going through the motions. They are not alone in the public sector in seeming to exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the costs. HMRC, for example, is a particular case in point, having been criticised more than once by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House for the use of cost assumptions that seem to bear little relationship to reality. Similarly, the PRA’s consultation on ring-fencing rules was widely regarded as a massive underestimate of the cost of compliance, as was borne out by subsequent cost experience. A superficial impact assessment, or one that overstates the benefits or systematically underestimates the costs, is worse than useless and can lead to poor policy-making. It would be wise to ensure that the regulator’s performance in this regard is kept under review.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in many of the groups of amendments to the Bill we have discussed the issue of accountability, and it has been a very important discussion. However, we have also discussed the necessity to have proper evidence and information to make that accountability worthwhile, valid and effective. These amendments follow exactly that direction.
One of the pleas that I will put in is that an impact assessment should be studied and then reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is not speaking in this group of amendments but I can think of numerous occasions when he has spoken on a financial services Bill and pointed out that the information in the assessment did not seem to answer any of the obvious questions that a sensible person would ask in order to understand the regulations involved. I would join him in that. We seem to have narrow definitions of what an impact assessment is, and it seems to me that it should do what it says on the tin. It ought actually to assess the impact in a way that is meaningful to the regulation or piece of legislation in front of us.
This push for evidence and information, and quality in both, is an important thrust of the conversations and debates that we have had around the Bill. I very much hope that Ministers take that on board, because this is starting a pressure that will not go away. In fact, for the Government, if they want to produce the highest-quality legislation possible, the discussion created by developing a high-quality impact assessment will lead in the end to far better legislation.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, my initial reaction to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was to puzzle over exactly what sort of impact assessment she had in mind. Was she perhaps thinking of the famous remark by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, that the banking sector in the UK does much that is not socially useful? After all, the ultimate rationale for regulatory activity is the enhancement of the common good—the goal of good government.
However, this debate has clarified the issue before us, which is that an effective impact assessment requires not just thorough analysis but a definition of an objective or, perhaps, objectives. The lack of clear objectives is the key weakness of Amendment 103. Amendment 104, therefore, is much stronger in that it lays out a number of objectives against which an impact assessment might be calibrated. The key to resolving the dilemma—I apologise for sounding a bit like a broken record—is to take the parliamentary role referred to in Amendment 103 and combine it with the sense of Amendment 104. An effective parliamentary process and, dare I say, a parliamentary committee, could define the objectives to be addressed in any impact assessment of the type referred to in Amendment 103—“We want to know the impact of this regulation on problem x, y or z”—and then seek annual reviews focusing on matters that are deemed to be important at any given time, thereby avoiding the template issue referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
That is what is missing from the amendment—a means of making the impact assessment an effective means of acquiring information and an insight into the thinking of regulators, which can then be scrutinised in a coherent and consistent manner.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has explained, these amendments bring us to the question of how we report on the impact that regulation has on firms. Every noble Lord who has spoken today has referred to the value of impact assessments for Parliament and the Government in particular, and I do not dissent from that general proposition. My noble friend Lord Trenchard in particular spoke about the value of measuring the burden imposed by certain EU rules when we were an EU member. I hope that it is of comfort to him if I remind him that the Chancellor has said that decisions about financial services regulation after the end of the transition period—we have of course now passed through it—would be based on what was right for the UK, taking account of what is necessary to ensure financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection.
Amendment 103 would require the Government to lay impact assessments for each of the regulations made under the Bill. It would also require the PRA and the FCA to publish any rules made using the powers in the Bill in draft, alongside an impact assessment. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, as the Government and the regulators are already committed to identifying and publishing the expected impacts of subsequent rules and regulations made under the Bill.
The Government have of course published an impact assessment alongside the Bill. In line with the guidance set out in the Government’s Better Regulation Framework, the impact assessment sets out HM Treasury’s current understanding of the costs and benefits of the measures. Where appropriate, further details will be set out in the impact assessments that will accompany the secondary legislation made under the Bill. I remind my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the regulators are required by FSMA 2000, with some very limited exceptions, to undertake a cost-benefit analysis for proposed new rules, and to publish those alongside their draft rules as part of their consultation. The PRA and FCA have already published their first consultations on the draft rules that they intend to make in relation to the prudential measures in the Bill, and they include comprehensive cost-benefit analyses.
Amendment 104 would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact on business that measures taken by the regulators and the Government to regulate financial services may have, and particularly to report on the impact on small businesses, innovation and competitiveness. We have spoken at length in this Committee about competitiveness, and I hope that I have demonstrated how importantly the Government take this issue. Additionally, my noble friend Lady Penn recently wrote to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about how the Government support smaller financial services firms.
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe does not need to hear me say that the Government are committed to ensuring that the financial services sector supports competition and innovation, allowing new firms to compete and grow. Of course, both the FCA and the PRA have a statutory objective to promote effective competition.
In earlier debates, we have talked about the new accountability frameworks that the Bill puts in place for the prudential measures. Those require the PRA and the FCA to have regard to UK competitiveness, among other things, when making rules to implement Basel or the investment firms prudential regime. They are required to report on how having regard to that has affected their proposed rules. The FCA and PRA are of course already required to prepare annual reports, which are laid before Parliament for scrutiny. These reports cover the extent to which the regulators’ objectives, which include promoting effective competition, have been advanced, and how they have considered existing regulatory principles in discharging their objectives.
On this basis, I hope that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe agrees that I have said enough to make her feel comfortable in withdrawing her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received one request so far to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
I am sorry to intervene again, but I feel I must correct what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said—or at least remind him that the unbundling of the analysts’ report was an invention of the FSA that the UK then sold to the EU, and now the EU is blamed for what the UK did through the EU. There are many other examples of that, although I can confirm that AIFMD was definitely not one of those. It would be nice if sometimes the Minister could intervene to at least have the record straight.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for her thoughts and for raising the ante to talk about a slightly more dynamic form of impact assessment.
I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for the very example that is now the subject of debate. I think the point that he was making, which I would support, is that impact assessments can reduce the perverse effects of such measures. We know—it is a matter of record, I think—that the number of analysts, especially small analysts, has gone down as a result of the MiFID legislation. An impact assessment on how it was enforced, whether its origin was in the brain of the UK or of the EU, could have been helpful. Of course, that is what my amendment is all about.
I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for working up a decent impact assessment model. I share his tribute to public servants, having been one a long time ago, and the work of bodies that produce evidence for things, such as the Low Pay Commission and social trends, and the MPC in our own sector of financial services. Better scrutiny would take place with better impact assessment. It is why, regarding proposed new subsection (3) which Amendment 103 would insert, I talked about both the existing position and other options, because I agree with the noble Lord that it is much better if you can look at several options when developing difficult policies. I agree that pre-legislative scrutiny can sometimes be very useful.
My noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us, rightly, of the lack of impact assessment on the various Covid measures. I thank her particularly for the suggestion that the quality of consultation by the FCA, the PRA or the Government and of impact assessment should be added to any review.
I was glad to hear noble Lords build on what an impact assessment system should look like, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—I echo her concerns about accountability—and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. There is a feeling that it is important to have a decent system.
My noble friend the Deputy Leader explained, as I had already anticipated in my own remarks, that a system does exist: both for government regulation and regulation by the two regulators, and for cost-benefit analysis to be produced. What I am not clear about is whether that is fit for purpose. It is very difficult to find out what the requirements are and to read all the various bits of paper. This is why I tabled the amendment, so that we could have an intelligent debate. Even if noble Lords do not want to go along with Amendment 103, we should make an effort, with the dissemination of the Bill, to ensure that the requirements are better understood.
That means that Amendment 104 is perhaps more important, because it asks that we review regularly what is being done in the way of cost-benefit and impact assessment, and how the objectives set out are achieved. I suggested some objectives in Amendment 104; others will no doubt be concerned about other objectives of the regulators. As we have said on earlier amendments, competition is not really the same as competitiveness. I was also keen to throw in small business—for reasons that my noble friend knows very well—and innovation, because of their value.
With this Bill, we need to satisfy ourselves that the new framework satisfactorily replaces, indeed, improves on, what went before. I take the point—the Chancellor is right—that we now have the chance to do the right thing in the UK, and to do it better than was done under the auspices of the EU. I may come back to this on Report, because a simple well-understood system of impact assessment, and of annual review in some form, would boost scrutiny and transparency, which has been a key theme of the Bill, as well as the governance of our largest and most important economic sector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sikka
“FCA duty to make a statement about ministerial directions on investigations
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 1T (right to obtain documents and information) insert—“1U Duty to make a statement about ministerial directions on investigationsWhere a Minister directs, comments on, or intervenes with an FCA investigation into wrongdoing or malpractice by a company, the FCA must make a public statement about the nature of any such intervention.””
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 107 seeks transparency about ministerial interventions in regulatory investigations, by requiring the FCA to make a statement. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support. Currently, ministerial interventions are made in secret, and neither Parliament nor the people are able to call Ministers to account. Ministers intervene to stymie investigations, and the trail is often carefully concealed. Some years later, a few interventions do become visible.
Consider the case of HSBC, a bank supervised by UK regulators, implicated in global money laundering and protected by UK Ministers and regulators. In July 2012, the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations published a report entitled U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History, which documented the fact that, despite evidence, HSBC staff knowingly laundered money for criminals and engaged in sanctions-busting.
In December 2012, HSBC was fined $1.9 billion by the US authorities—the biggest fine at that time. The US Department of Justice said that HSBC permitted
“narcotics traffickers and others to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through HSBC subsidiaries, and to facilitate hundreds of millions more in transactions with sanctioned countries”.
It added that HSBC had
“accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct and that of its employees.”
However, HSBC was not prosecuted, and instead entered into a deferred prosecution agreement until 2017. The levying of the largest ever fine on a UK bank and admission of “criminal conduct” did not prompt an investigation of HSBC’s practices in the UK. Did the bank engage in similar practices here?
In March 2013, the US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services began a review of the US Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute HSBC or any of its employees or executives for criminal activities. The committee’s July 2016 report, Too Big to Jail, showed that the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief executive of the Financial Services Authority and Chancellor George Osborne intervened to protect HSBC. The report contained a two-page letter, dated 10 September 2012, from the Chancellor to Ben Bernanke, chairman of the US Federal Reserve. It urged the US to go easy on HSBC, as it was too big to fail. The US report reproduced some correspondence showing the determination of the UK Government and regulators to protect a bank that had, by its own admission, engaged in “criminal conduct”.
The FSA, Bank of England and Chancellor also urged the US to go easy on Standard Chartered Bank, which was fined $670 million for money laundering, sanctions busting and falsification of records. Its deception was aided by Deloitte. The US Treasury court documents referred to the bank as a “rogue institution”. No statement was made at that time to the UK Parliament to explain regulatory silence or the Chancellor’s interventions. How do we improve banking regulation or hold anyone to account for nefarious practices when Ministers and regulators collude to protect wrongdoers?
I shall return to some questions after my next illustration. It relates to the July 1991 closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. It was the site of the biggest banking fraud of the 20th century. BCCI was supervised by the Bank of England and was closed only after investigations in the US. The UK closure was followed by a few prosecutions and some parliamentary committee hearings. However, unlike previous bank collapses in the 1970s and 1980s, or even subsequent ones such as Barings in the 1990s, there has been no independent forensic investigation and key documents continue to be suppressed to this day.
On 19 July 1991, the Government appointed Lord Justice Bingham to examine some aspects of the Bank of England’s supervision of BCCI. The Prime Minister John Major told Parliament:
“The conclusions of the inquiry will be made public.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/1991; col. 755.]
The Bingham report was published on 22 October 1992 and was highly critical of the Bank of England’s failures. However, it was published without the supporting appendices containing extracts from a document codenamed the “Sandstorm report”, which provided information about some of the frauds and named some of the parties involved in them.
Meanwhile, the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee investigated BCCI frauds and, in December 1992, published a report titled The BCCI Affair, which said that
“BCCI’s British auditors, Abu Dhabi owners, and British regulators, had now become BCCI’s partners, not in crime, but in cover-up.”
The US Senate committee secured a censored version of the Sandstorm report from the Federal Reserve, which had obtained it from the Bank of England. The committee also secured an uncensored version and said that it
“revealed criminality on an even wider scale than that set forth in the censored version.”
The committee also had access to CIA files on BCCI, which have been made public. Despite this, the Sandstorm report remains suppressed in the UK.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the amendment suggests, I think it is necessary to know when there have been interventions and why. I do not say that from a wish to create political opportunity to complain—in fact, rather the opposite. When matters are transparent, there is generally less to complain about and more understanding. If there is a wish to keep everything private, that in itself is a problem. The amendment does not ask for chapter and verse on everything, just the nature of the intervention.
I recall the instances of HSBC and Standard Chartered. I was aware of them at the time, not from any information from the Government but because the size of US fines and the impact that it had on European banks were spoken about in Brussels. It is fair to say that there were concerns from other European countries. I do not think that the UK was the first to write. The financial stability point on fines for things that we also thought were pretty shocking was openly discussed in Brussels, including in my committee. Indeed, I recall having conversations around financial stability implications with the president of the ECB and with the Fed and US Treasury, although I do not think that one needs to advise people like Ben Bernanke about the relative sizes of UK banks and the UK economy and the problems that that will create; you would get pretty short shrift in return.
It is actually quite humiliating either to make or know about such interventions or to sit there while people say to you, “I’ve had a letter from your Minister.” I certainly felt humiliated about the need for such information by my country and humiliated by the behaviour of important financial institutions from my country. A normal response would be to try to make sure that it does not happen again, and I fear that progress has not been as good as it should have been. Maybe one reason for that, I now realise, was that there was no such discussion about these occurrences in the UK in the same way as there was in Brussels, which I find quite shocking. But too big to fail should not mean too big to jail. We have been around that debate already, in the sense of needing fairly to prevent offences, the construction of large companies, which create organised irresponsibility, and the FCA failing us at a critical moment in the SMCR, so it has been undermined.
To get back to the point about disclosure—yes, it should be shared, and any humiliation should be shared, so that those responsible at the time get more heat and there is greater resolve to make corrections. Everything is all so much more diluted and dismissible when it is looked at only as history.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for tabling the amendment, to which I was delighted to attach my name. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and I welcome her support.
I do not think I need to add to the noble Lord’s detailed, forensic presentation of the clear, obvious and systemic problem: that Ministers intervene to end or direct investigations into fraud, corruption and malpractice. As he clearly documented, they do that on what appears to be a semi-regular basis. This amendment seeks to stop that, or at least make it illegal. Noble Lords might argue that it should not be; I certainly look forward to examining any contributions that seek to do that.
We have an institutional culture of cover-up, as the noble Lord said. We cannot be sure that every case has been exposed—indeed, it would be very surprising if they had been—despite the often extraordinary efforts of investigative journalists and academics such as the noble Lord. We are most likely seeing the tip of an iceberg. That what has been done emerges only later, dragged into the light of day despite considerable resistance, is of considerable detriment to public and international trust in both the financial sector and the British Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, just highlighted.
The most useful contribution that I can make to this debate is to the politics and the sociology—and I mean politics with a small “p” for, as the noble Lord demonstrated, this behaviour is not contained to Governments of any particular political hue. He said that ministerial coverups had emboldened banks. Behaviour that tolerates, supports and enables dishonest and corrupt practices encourages the spread of those practices. If there are indeed only a few rotten apples, which I am sure many from the financial sector will claim, the rot will spread if they remain in the barrel. Those people will still be in place in institutions—in many cases, in very senior places within those institutions —and be sharing, passing down and directing others to continue their practices, approaches and morals. I have an agricultural sciences degree; I can promise you that the rot will spread through the barrel.
We are now without the protective umbrella of EU regulation and what was once seen as a force independent of one particular financial centre that enforced some degree of cleanliness among all of them—albeit that the UK had an inordinate, often baleful influence on attempts to tighten regulation and prevent fraud and corruption. With the UK making its own rules, the behaviour of both the UK Government and the UK financial sector will come under greater scrutiny.
The EU is—not coincidentally after the UK’s departure—looking in the coming years to significantly tighten regulations on tackling fraud and corruption, on stopping tax dodging, on preventing greenwashing and on reining in the inordinate economic power of the internet giants. What happens in the UK will be weighed against that, which is why tightening up this Bill with this measure and others is crucial. What we need is not a more “competitive” financial sector but an upgraded one, one that is honest, straightforward and trustworthy.
There is also the politics in the broadest sense: the issue of how the Government are regarded, which is a long-running, serious issue for the UK. The place of politicians at the bottom of trustworthiness rankings is a source of jokes and bitterness but a serious and significant problem for our body politic. It has to be tackled. This amendment, a legal commitment to honesty and transparency, would be a significant step.
We are seen, from many sides of politics, to have a Government of the few, a Government for the money, a Government for the City of London, to the detriment of the country. This has to change if we are as a country to go forward.
I shall finish with a quote. The
“trend toward globalized corruption has been enabled in crucial part by regulatory asymmetries among key international economic actors and a lack of resources and political will in law enforcement.”
That comes not from the Tax Justice Network or Transparency International. It comes from a foreword to a report from the Center for American Progress entitled Turning the Tide on Dirty Money, signed by Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tom Tugendhat MP, chairman of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee and David McAllister MEP, chairman of the EU Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs. The authors say that corruption
“threatens the resilience and cohesion of democratic governments around the globe and undermines the relationship between the state and its citizens.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the Lord Bishop of St Albans, but I cannot hear anything. I wonder whether he might be on mute.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I apologise; I am so sorry.
I am glad to speak in support of Amendment 107 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Throughout the course of this debate, there have been a number of comments on the current functioning of the FCA, the scope of its remit and whether it is properly undertaking its duties.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out, there have been occasions when financial misconduct has not been fully disclosed, and it is worrying that this may have been due to interventions from those within government. As we establish our new position in the world following Brexit and seek to build on our financial services sector, it is vital that we are known for our honesty and transparency throughout the world. Our future will depend on this. So surely the amendment is entirely uncontroversial. The FCA is meant to be an independent regulator, not a direct arm of the Government. Hence, if Ministers have sought to intervene in any sort of FCA work or investigation, it should be a matter of transparency and disclosed.
Recently, the FCA dropped its investigation into Lookers, arguing it had instead made its concerns clear relating to the
“historic culture, systems and controls”
of the group. Why the investigation was not carried out to the full remains unclear—certainly to me, despite trying to find out. I imagine that many, including me, find the FCA’s answer unsatisfactory. It does not give us the assurances that we would hope an independent regulator would give.
Some commentators have noted that the dropping of this investigation seemed to coincide rather conveniently with the FCA’s new rules relating to car finance, brought in at the end of January 2021. Yet even these changes fell short of a mis-sell, which would undoubtedly have cost the providers of finance billions—strongly hinted at by the FCA’s 2019 report into car finance.
How the FCA came to its decision was in-house, even if it was sometimes perplexing to those of us outside. Nevertheless, in this instance, for example—and in many others—what we do not know is whether there has been any direct ministerial intervention to steer the FCA into any specific course of action. Many people would like reassurances that any intervention should be made in the interests of all and for the common good, particularly in customers’ best interests.
The amendment, in shining a light on what happens behind the FCA’s closed doors, would be a valuable addition to the Financial Services Bill. It would help in a mission that I know many in this House share to create a more transparent, robust and, dare I even say, moral financial system that in the long run will benefit all of us. I hope that the Government will look closely at either the amendment or something similar as we return to the matter later during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I need to spend more time, frankly, trying to understand the amendment. I would be genuinely shocked if Ministers interfered with an investigation of any of the regulators—certainly the FCA, the body at the centre of the amendment. I am not sufficiently familiar, I confess, with the Ministerial Code, but if the code does not make that clear, it would seem absolutely necessary that it does.
I perfectly understand concerns about the effectiveness of the FCA as a regulator in dealing with wrongful behaviour. It needs to be much more aggressive and transparent. We have talked earlier in Grand Committee about the HBOS Reading fraud scandal. The FCA was finally pressured into commissioning a report from Promontory, then did not publish it—only a summary that did not reflect in any significant way the actual conclusions of the report. That was extremely disturbing. We have also talked about the FCA’s actions under the senior managers and certification regime against Jes Staley, chief executive of Barclays—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division, so we shall adjourn for five minutes and reconvene thereafter.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I was in the middle of saying that we need the FCA to be much more aggressive and transparent in its pursuit of wrongdoing within the financial services industry. I gave the example of what I considered to be real weakness in the way that it handled the HBOS Reading fraud and in its treatment of Jes Staley, chief executive of Barclays. As we discussed earlier, he was fined by the PRA and FCA, under the senior managers and certification regime, something in excess of £600,000 for, among other things, hiring private detectives to try to hunt down the identity of an internal whistleblower.
I note that it was the US authorities—one of the New York regulators, I think—that fined Barclays $15 million for the same behaviour, not the UK authorities. Some Members of your Lordships’ House may be aware that the US regulators visit the UK—I have certainly met with the CFTC when they have been doing this—in order to get the message over to bankers here that, if they come across any wrongdoing that potentially has an impact on the United States, as well as informing the UK regulators they should also make immediate contact with US regulators, who start from a position that they will be far more aggressive in hunting down wrongdoing.
I am afraid that the reputation of the UK for hunting down wrongdoers is not good. I wish we did not see ourselves in that position. That is one of the reasons why I am hopeful for an office of the whistle- blower. If there is any suspicion that a Minister had intervened inappropriately, it is through a whistleblower that that information would be exposed. We need an absolute safe haven for such a whistleblower to make contact, in order for that exposure to happen. Again, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Ministerial Code impacts on a situation such as this. If it does not, or is ineffective, the answer seems to me to be: strengthen the Ministerial Code.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sikka has made a powerful case for greater transparency in regulatory matters. I think it is clear to everybody that nothing undermines confidence in the regulatory system so much as the sort of cases to which my noble friend referred. What is often evident is that these matters eventually come out, and so the traditional rule that the cover-up is worse than the original transgression exerts itself once again.
The Government have made a virtue of transparency and openness in several aspects of the regulatory system. Not least, for example, we have discussed in this Committee the case of beneficial ownership, and we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, make the argument for transparency of the beneficial ownership record of Companies House as a great virtue at an earlier stage of our considerations. Surely that commitment to transparency should be quite general, covering all regulatory matters, and not limited just to selected parts of the regulatory system.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 107 would require the FCA to make a public statement on the nature of any intervention a Minister may make into an FCA investigation into an individual firm.
The current legislative framework established the FCA as an independent, non-governmental body responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services industry. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka but, with respect to him, and without belittling the value of lessons from history, the examples of investigations that he cited are ones that are unrelated to investigations carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority. That is a key point because, although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it has strictly limited powers in relation to the FCA.
The Treasury is the FCA’s sponsor in government but, in view of the regulator’s independence, it is not appropriate for the Treasury or Ministers to seek to intervene in individual cases. In particular, the Treasury has no general power of direction over the FCA. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the content of the Ministerial Code, but I am not aware of any loopholes in the code that would permit the kind of conduct that has been talked about.
We are talking here about an independent organisation. The independence of the FCA is vital to its role. Its credibility, authority and value to consumers would be undermined if it were possible for the Government to intervene in its decision-making. I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has some mistrust of Government Ministers, but I hope that that fact is of at least some reassurance to her.
That is not to say that the FCA is not accountable for its actions when investigating potential wrongdoing or malpractice by firms because, equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, should be reassured that the FCA is governed by the framework of duties set out in legislation by Parliament. It would be unlawful for it to act outside this framework in order to further vested interests. The decisions of the FCA can be subject to judicial review and, under legislation, the FCA must maintain arrangements for the investigation of complaints.
In the event of a significant failure to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, where those events might not have occurred but for a serious failure in the regulatory system, Section 73 of the Financial Services Act 2012 imposes a duty on the FCA to investigate. Situations can arise in which the Government determine that it is appropriate to intervene. In such situations, the relevant legislation—Section 77 of FSMA —provides a mechanism for the Treasury to direct the FCA to conduct an investigation where it suspects that there may have been regulatory failure.
Under Section 77, the Treasury can require the regulators to conduct an investigation into relevant events where the Treasury considers there to be a public interest. In addition, Section 77 investigations can consider aspects outside the regulatory system as established by FSMA, allowing a comprehensive review to be undertaken in the public interest. However, it is important to note that a Minister cannot use a Section 77 direction to do anything else at all, or to stop the FCA doing anything else.
The most recent example of Section 77 in action was in relation to the regulation of London Capital & Finance, when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury laid a direction before Parliament on 23 May 2019, and formally directed the FCA to launch an independent investigation. The direction was public and transparent, as we would always expect to be the case. The report was laid before Parliament on 17 December 2020.
I hope that this has clarified the legal underpinning of the FCA’s independence, and the very limited powers that Ministers and the Treasury have in this area. I hope that what I have said has reassured the noble Lord that appropriate legislation is in place, and that he is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, but somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response. The examples I gave—if I had time, I could add another dozen—all inevitably relate to the past, when, despite government efforts, things have come to public attention. At no point have Ministers ever volunteered information or made statements that they have stymied investigations.
In the parliamentary debate on the Banking Act 1987, which formally made the Bank of England the supervisor of banks, Ministers claimed that the Bank would be an independent regulator. Then we discovered that there was a whole process of cover-up—the BCCI case, for example. When the Bank of England ceased to be an independent regulator, the next one, the Financial Services Authority, came in. Again, it was claimed that that was independent. Well, under ministerial pressure, it did not intervene. It did not investigate HSBC’s misdemeanours in the UK, and indeed it was a party to cover-up in the US. The US House of Representatives committee report contains some correspondence showing how the Bank of England, the FSA and the Chancellor were pressuring the officials there to go easy on HSBC. The idea that somehow the FCA is some brand new version of independence which we ought to believe simply neglects what has happened in the past, and that is not really very helpful. Of course, Ministers can allay all public fears by simply saying, “Yes, we will embrace independence.” What is wrong with that?
I have visited the US on many occasions. I have met many academics, regulators and businesspeople, and I always ask them two questions when I deliver a seminar or after a meeting. The first question I ask is, “If you could commit financial crime, where would you like to commit it?” The response is always, “The US, because there is a lot of money to be made.” The next question I ask is, “If you are caught, where would you like to be prosecuted?” At that point, laughter sets in and they all say, “The UK.” Indeed, this country has become kind of a standing joke in regulatory circles. If I were referring to any other country and explaining how Ministers and regulators have colluded to protect organisations which, by their own admission, engage in criminal conduct, many Members of the House would say, “Well, that country is corrupt” or “It is a banana republic”. But I find it surprising that the ministerial response is basically “Well, we are good, and we don’t really need to take account of any of these events.” That is really the tip of a corrosive iceberg, because this corruption goes very deep.
I have asked Ministers a number of times to comment on the public statement of Anthony Stansfeld—the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner—that there is a “cover-up” at Cabinet level of the HBOS and RBS frauds. It is interesting that no Minister has denied it, and no Minister has confirmed it. I have quoted a statement from a very senior law enforcement officer—what could be a greater indictment of the UK’s regulation?
Finally, could the Minister please tell us why the Sandstorm report, which is sitting in 1,300 US libraries, is still a state secret in this country after 30 years? I do not know if it is appropriate for him to reply but I would not be opposed to that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Does the Minister wish to respond?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage over me, because I am not personally privy to the case history that he cited, which is now 30 years or so old. However, I will consult my officials and write to him with an answer to his question.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Can I confirm with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that he does not wish to press his amendment?
“Duty to take account of impacts on sustainable good work
(1) When undertaking duties and using powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the FCA must take into account—(a) the impacts or potential impacts on sustainable good work in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the provision of financial services with particular regard to the evaluation of—(i) net gains in total employment;(ii) quality of work available;(iii) terms and conditions of work available;(iv) opportunities for training and reskilling;(b) the desirability of providing financial services and investment supporting the creation of sustainable good work across the United Kingdom; and(c) the desirability of advancing the international reputation of the United Kingdom for promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all pursuant to the United Nationals Sustainable Development Goals.(2) The FCA must publish guidance to organisations providing financial services about fulfilment of the requirements specified in subsection (1)(a)(i) to (iv).(3) In this Act, “good work” means work which provides and promotes—(a) fair pay;(b) fair conditions;(c) equality and freedom from discrimination;(d) dignity;(e) autonomy of workers;(f) physical and mental wellbeing; (g) access to institutions and people who can represent workers’ interests;(h) participation of workers in determining and improving working conditions;(i) access to facilities for career guidance and training.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I move Amendment 108 and speak to Amendments 109, 110 and 122, which, collectively, take us into a fresh policy area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for their support. Support is always welcome and cross-party support is doubly so when, as I say, we enter a new policy area.
I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am the chairman of the Founder Circle of the Institute for the Future of Work. It is the research that I have seen undertaken by the IFOW that provides much of the background to and reasons for my tabling these amendments.
It is widely argued that there is a high and perhaps growing level of dissatisfaction with how our system of government operates—or perhaps some would say how it fails to deliver a fair distribution of economic and other advances. The result has been a series of what one might call “uprisings” against what is seen by many as the conventional establishment view; the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of President Trump in the US are but two examples. Although both those events are behind us, there will surely be aftershocks that will shape our society over the next decade or so.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to put my name to and support Amendments 108 to 110. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing the amendments.
From President Biden, to the OECD, to the UK Government, everyone around the world wants to “build back better”. The amendment is squarely in that vein. As we all start to see a path out of this pandemic, the economic consequences loom ever larger. The same people most likely to have lost their lives due to Covid are now losing their livelihoods. In this country, our challenge of rebuilding also must address our new life outside the European Union. We must account for the threats and opportunities of new trading arrangements and a new regulatory environment, and the Bill is a part of that. I see opportunities here to move to more intelligent regulation of the financial sector as we move into this new reality.
The financial sector is a strategically important part of the UK economy, as the Committee knows, employing up to 2.2 million people. The sector will play a critical role in financing the country’s recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. There is therefore an opportunity for the Government to deploy strategic regulation to steer the sector towards a greater consideration of the importance of good work.
As has been said, these amendments would ensure that financial regulators understand and give due weight to the importance of creating sustainable good work across the United Kingdom. The amendments have been designed to build on the great work of the Institute for the Future of Work, which was established following the Future of Work Commission, of which I was a member. We found that good work builds resilience, prosperity and well-being. I commend the institute’s Good Work Charter and Good Work Monitor to the Committee; as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, it found that the availability of good work is an important determinant of health and social outcomes. This is reinforced by the findings of the Carnegie Trust. Conversely, when good work is not available it places a strain on government finances through the higher cost of health and welfare services, and depleted tax revenues.
On Budget day last week, those of us on the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, whose meeting I am missing at the moment and to which I send my apologies, were lucky enough to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, Grant Robertson. He is currently the Finance Minister and the Sports and Recreation Minister for his country. I was struck by what he said when he launched New Zealand’s first “well-being Budget” in 2019:
“In the election that led to the formation of this Government, New Zealanders were asking a core question: If we have declared success because we have a relatively high rate of GDP growth, why are the things that we value going backwards like child wellbeing, a warm, dry home for all, mental health services or rivers and lakes that we can swim in?”
He went on to say that the Treasury should be responsible for,
“measuring and focussing on what New Zealanders value—the health of our people and our environment, the strengths of our communities and the prosperity of our nation.”
I argue to the Committee that we need a similar mindset shift. We need to start by accepting that not all that we value can be measured by EBITDA, a balance sheet or shareholder value. Then we need to think about what we value and how to incentivise and regulate for that.
I have worked in the public, voluntary and private sectors. I run my own business, have started co-ops and charities, and worked at chief officer level for private equity-owned businesses. My current commercial clients include a US B corp, and one heavily financed by US venture capital. In my range of work, I too often see an increasing values imbalance the more that the enterprise is engaged with financial services businesses. Good business balances shareholder value with customer value, staff value and societal value. Too often, values are sacrificed for shareholder value. If one thinks only of the value of financial services in financial measures such as share price, one is missing the rounded value of the sector. This is like thinking that all the value of a school is in test scores, or all the value of a job candidate is in their qualifications. A growing number of investors do not see business in that way. Between 2016 and 2018, the proportion of UK investors integrating environmental, social and governance guidelines into their investment decisions grew by 76%. Up to $2 trillion of UK assets are now managed according to those ESG principles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have signed these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I agree with what he and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, have said. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has a long record of engagement in these matters, because from time to time I discover that I am following in his footsteps. The “good work” amendments recognise that we need structural changes in how companies operate to ensure that they provide good work in the face of technological and societal changes. With the financial services sector both supporting all businesses and being our largest industry, it has a special, strategic leadership role to play, and ways that this can be brought about are contained in Amendments 108, 109 and 110. This would be in line with the principles of Section 3B(1)(c) of FSMA, which states that there is role for ensuring
“the desirability of sustainable growth in the economy of the United Kingdom in the medium or long term”.
In my book, sustainable growth must encompass technological and societal changes as well as the environment, but I fear there is a long way to go to live up to that.
In the interests of time, I shall concentrate on Amendment 122. There has been all-party support for employee share ownership in all its forms for a long time. Such schemes provide rewards and motivations in ways that wages cannot. At its best, an employee share plan will also give employees a say in how a business is run and can help to achieve many of the aims of the Good Work Charter, such as dignity, fair rewards, participation and learning.
Employee share ownership and employee ownership have many positive effects, and I want to highlight research on how well employee-owned companies deal with financial adversity.
Research published by the Cass Business School after the 2008 financial crisis established that employee-owned companies create jobs faster than non-employee-owned counterparts and withstood the recession better as it deepened. They recruited when non-employee-owned companies were laying off staff, and had motivation where others found it hard to motivate staff.
More recently, I chaired an inquiry into the effects of employee ownership and the report, entitled Ownership Dividend, found evidence that showed that employee-owned businesses performed better, were more resilient and more rooted in local economies—hence why the term “ownership dividend” was coined. Therefore, as has been said, such companies have a strong part to play in the UK’s plans to build back better and restart the economy.
Amendment 122 suggests an emphasis on analysing impact of sustainable growth provided by employees share schemes. As I mentioned previously, it should already be covered in the principles, but the urgency around “sustainable” in all its forms does not seem to be present. Therefore, I commend Amendment 122, as well as the good work amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 108, 109 and 110 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson Ashley Abbotts and Lord Knight of Weymouth. I broadly agree with everything they said.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in his introduction, referred to the level of dissatisfaction in our society: the threats from poverty, inequality and insecurity. I would say that these amendments are digging here into some of the depth of the problems that I referred to in my speech on a previous group and seek to provide some remedies. As he was speaking, I thought of meeting an USDAW representative in Sheffield referring to one of her members who had just come to her to seek a voucher for a food bank. The member was not, as you would expect as an USDAW member, unemployed; in fact, that member had seven jobs, but they were all zero-hours contract jobs and that particular week they had not delivered enough money for that person to feed themselves and their family.
However, it is important that we do not just focus—the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, did not—on those who are in desperate poverty and inequality, as awful as that is. As he was speaking, I could not help but think of what the late, great David Graeber called—here I may be about to use what is unparliamentary language here, but it is a direct quote—“bullshit jobs”. The noble Lord referred to people’s desire to get meaning, to feel that what they are doing, how they are using their time and talents, is worthwhile and contributing to society. Indeed, a failure to acknowledge and understand that—a focus purely on the pounds, shillings and pence—is at the root of a lot of our problems: the financialisation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred, of our entire economy—not just the financial parts but the real economy, the care economy, the public service economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to managing things in a different way. I point again to New Zealand’s living standards framework, that guides its Treasury—based on a system not that dissimilar to our own—where they judge the quality of work, people’s security, the quality of the environment and the economy all together and seek to manage them to a stable, secure, decent whole.
These are important amendments and crucial principles, so I wanted to speak briefly in favour of them.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak particularly to Amendment 122. It is evident that employee share ownership is a positive force within our economy, and speaks so much to the current Covid environment and what kind of economic sector, work and business basis we can have to our economy as we built out of Covid.
It is no surprise that Sir Nicholas Goodisson, after taking the London Stock Exchange through the big bang and seeing some of the early privatisations, then moved on to a role heading up the Wider Share Ownership Council. He saw the benefits and the positive impact that it had for people to have a stake in something, and there could be no better example of that than employees having a stake—a share—in the company for which they work on a daily basis.
I believe we will see more innovative models of employee ownership coming through. The EOT, for example, is still very much in its embryonic phase but it is a very positive concept and construct. There will be further developments in this area and I believe Amendment 122 sets out the case very well that when employees have a share, a stake and a say in the business for which they work, it benefits all concerned.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, first, I have to correct an error I made in the last group of amendments. I referred to the HBOS Reading scandal when I was talking about the Promontory report, and of course I should have been talking about the RBS GRG scandal; I am afraid I got my scandals wrong. My apologies for that—there really are too many to choose from. I hope that one day I find there are no choices; that would be a very good situation to be in.
I find this group of amendments wonderfully refreshing and a very important change of direction. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, build on the concepts that we already have in the UK Stewardship Code but take that further. In many ways, one can see a relationship with the duty of care amendments that we talked about earlier in this debate. That duty of care was focused on customers but in many ways that is now extending that perspective to employees. I find that exciting and worthwhile.
I and my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats have long talked about the need for a very different social contract between employers and the workforce. Very often that workforce may not be an official workforce in the formal sense; it may be people who are self-employed and working freelance but who in effect are working very closely with an organisation. The whole of that workforce needs a very different social contract as we go forward into a different era.
I think we both have different standards about how we treat each other and different expectations. However, we are also about to go into a period of transition to the digital age. That will be disruptive. It creates real issues for a large swathe of people and we cannot passively step back and look at a group of people just as collateral damage as we make that transition. The obligations to the workforce have become far more significant than they might have been in a fairly steady and static era when everything was expected and was not changing very significantly.
I have long been a fan of what is loosely called triple bottom line accounting—and have probably talked about it too often in this House—whereby issues such as the environment and the social impact along with the financial impact are measured when we look at both individual accounts and when we look globally at a nation’s accounts. We had earlier amendments around the issue of well-being, which are well related to all that.
I was excited to hear the example of New Zealand that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, detailed to a fairly significant degree. Nearly 20 years ago I spoke to a conference in Auckland around these issues as New Zealand was making its decision to revisit the way in which it managed its national accounts and looked at corporate accounts. I notice that very often, when we look at an English-speaking country with close ties to the UK, we find it much easier to absorb the examples and to treat them in a sense as a pilot from which we can learn. I therefore hope very much that the principles in these amendments will be enhanced.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lady Bowles, I am a great believer in employee share schemes. There is always a downside to be aware of. If something goes wrong in a company, you want to make sure that employees have also built other pension resources, have diversification and all those kinds of opportunities. A principle that is held as very important for senior management ought to be extended down throughout the employee base. Where you have ownership, you have a voice, and having a voice is important both in empowering people in their everyday life as a workforce and in making sure that they drive the direction of the company they are working for. We all know that the old-fashioned view that all that matters is the shareholder is essentially part of the past, and I very much welcome all these amendments as part of the future.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has tabled a number of interesting amendments relating to the quality of work, as well as on the topic of employee share schemes. As I am sure the Minister will mention, the latter topic is the subject of a call for evidence issued alongside last week’s Budget. However, as that exercise only covers the operation of one specific scheme, I do hope that we will hear about the Government’s wider plans to promote employee ownership and employee share ownership. With an eye to the next group, I suspect that many fintech start-ups would be interested in taking up such options to help attract the talent they need.
In studying the first three amendments in this group, I was reminded of a remark I made at Second Reading, where I praised the financial services sector for the many well-paid and relatively secure jobs it provides, not just in the City of London but across the whole of the United Kingdom. While I stand by that generalisation, I must acknowledge that, as in any other sector, exceptions do exist. For example, as tranche after tranche of local bank branches reduce their opening hours or close their doors for good, we cannot possibly pretend that the job security of those workers is as high as it was, say, two decades ago. While working practices are rapidly changing across the financial services sector, certain strands of it retain a reputation for featuring long, unsociable hours or a cut-throat working environment that many would struggle with.
The proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, are intriguing. The amendments raise several questions about access to talent and the treatment of it. As we have said on a number of occasions, we very much hope that the sector will go from strength to strength, bringing a steady stream of quality new jobs. The noble Lord is right to probe the Government on how they will create the ecosystem that makes this hope a reality. However, these considerations are not unique to financial services. As the economy recovers from Covid-19, we will want to see gains in employment across the board. If we are to build back better, as the Government claim they want to do, we will need to ensure that workers have good terms and conditions, as well as opportunities to undertake training or reskilling.
Therefore, for me the real question raised by these amendments is when we can expect to see the long-awaited employment Bill. The 2019 Conservative manifesto made a range of commitments on employment rights, and the last Queen’s Speech promised legislation to enact them. Regrettably, despite a longer than normal parliamentary Session, we have yet to see any concrete proposals. So, while the Minister may not be responsible for the forthcoming legislation, I hope that, during his response to these amendments, we will get a firm commitment that the employment Bill will appear soon.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for directing the Committee’s attention to a set of issues that lie at the heart of the agenda for workers’ rights and social justice in the workplace. Let me begin by saying to him that the Government are committed to making the UK the best place in the world to work, and I found myself in considerable sympathy with a great deal of what he said about the connection between employee well-being, high-quality work and national prosperity.
The Government certainly have a role in furthering those ends, and I hope that my noble friend will agree that we have already made good progress in bringing forward measures that support our flexible labour market, while also ensuring the protection of workers’ rights, such as: banning the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts; extending the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers; closing a loophole whereby agency workers are employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers; introducing a right for agency workers to receive a key facts page when signing to a company; and quadrupling the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly.
The Government are committed to bringing forward measures to establish an employment framework that is fit for purpose and keeps pace with the needs of modern work practices, in due course. We are also committed to building back better from Covid-19. Alongside the Budget, we published our wider economic plan for significant investment in skills, infrastructure and innovation, in Build Back Better: Our Plan for Growth.
During the pandemic we have taken unprecedented action to protect jobs, most notably through the coronavirus job retention scheme—one of the most generous such schemes in the world. And from April 2021, the national living wage will increase by 2.2%, from £8.72 to £8.91, and will be extended to 23 and 24 year-olds for the first time. Taken together, these increases are likely to benefit around 2 million workers.
I fully appreciate that if we are to build back better, progress should be measured by more than just dry economic trends. However, most people would agree that a large part of human and civic well-being lies in people’s livelihoods, and I remind the Committee that in last week’s Budget the Chancellor set out his plan to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people.
Amendments 108, 109, and 110 would essentially require the FCA to have regard to “sustainable good work” when conducting their functions, and to embed this principle in the financial system as a whole. Financial services firms would then be required to apply the principle in all their activities, including investment decisions.
The FCA is responsible for a large number of firms and has been given three operational objectives: to protect consumers; to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system; and to promote competition. So I am afraid I do not believe that the FCA is the right body for this function, given its current role, particularly as the issues go far beyond the subject of financial services.
Amendment 122 would require the FCA and the PRA to consider the impact of employee share schemes on sustainable economic growth. The Government want to support hard-working people to share in the success of the businesses for which they work. To encourage this, we offer several tax-advantaged employee share schemes. These provide a range of tax benefits to participating employees and businesses. We keep all employee share schemes under review, to ensure that they remain effective in these ways.
However, once again I do not believe that the UK’s financial services regulators are best placed to carry any changes forward. It is important that they remain focused on their core objectives. Giving them a diffuse set of objectives could undermine focus on consumer protection, financial stability and the sound functioning of financial markets. The body best placed to keep employee share schemes under review is the Government, and we see no need to impose this additional condition on the FCA and the PRA. So, while I am the first to acknowledge the importance of the matters that my noble friend has raised in this debate, I hope he will understand why I do not think it appropriate to amend the Bill in the way that he proposes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, who was the first to raise the concept of building back better, which was later picked up by everybody, including my noble friend the Minister.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who always brings a degree of detailed and forensic expertise to these areas. Of course, I am well aware of her work with the employee share ownership association, as I am of the work of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on employee ownership trusts, which are critical. I share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in finding out the results of the consultation that is under way in this general area. It is not often that I find myself supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I am glad to have her along for the ride. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was certainly right to remind us all how fast everything is changing and that we need to make sure that we are not trying to tackle yesterday’s problems and failing to tackle tomorrow’s.
I am not surprised that my noble friend the Minister could not accept these amendments. He rightly emphasised the work that the Government have done both in employment generally and as a result of the pandemic. If he had accepted the amendments, I probably would have fainted with surprise and been unable to reply to the debate. However, this issue is not going to go away. The weakness of our present regulatory system is that it merely catches and tries to prosecute the bad. In this part of the century, given all the challenges we face, the system should be doing more than that; it should be encouraging the good. This is an area where good could be encouraged, and that would have a huge trickle- down effect on our society as a whole.
Perhaps I may leave noble Lords with a quote from Robert Kennedy, who said that GDP measures
“everything … except that which makes life worthwhile”.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 112.
Amendment 112
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Designated artificial intelligence officer
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that companies operating in the financial services sector who use artificial intelligence (“AI”) must have a designated AI officer.(2) The AI officer under subsection (1) has responsibility for ensuring the—(a) safe,(b) fair,(c) unbiased, and(d) non-discriminatory,use of AI.(3) The AI officer under subsection (1) also has responsibility to ensure that data used in any AI technology is unbiased.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 112 I shall speak also to the following 10 amendments in the group, through to Amendment 136E, which is also in my name. I declare my interests as set out in the register and thank other noble Lords who have signed up to speak.
There are 11 amendments in the group and I should like to begin by making some broad comments about the overall theme. The group’s headline is fintech, financial technology, which covers a number of areas in and around that subject and demonstrates the connectivity between all the elements of 4IR, the fourth industrial revolution, including new technologies, and how they interact with one another in the context of financial services. They include AI—artificial intelligence —DLT or distributed ledger technology and blockchain, just to mention some that I will be coming on to discuss as we reach the amendments.
The Government have had a good story to tell on fintech since 2010—and indeed before: the Blair Administration were very positive around the UK’s opportunity and the potential that we have in this area of fintech. Perhaps the best example to date is the FCA’s sandbox, the measure of its success being its replication in more than 50 jurisdictions around the world. It was ground-breaking in its time; certainly, we find ourselves now, if not at a crossroads, certainly at a point where we need to consider everything across the fintech landscape and truly reflect on whether we are doing enough, or anywhere near enough, to ensure that the benefits are maximised for individuals, companies, all corporate entities and the UK as a whole.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. He is, without a doubt, the House’s expert, and indeed enthusiast, on all these issues. In this large group of amendments, he has covered a broad range of issues of what is a huge area of the future of finance. He and I might differ somewhat in our balance between enthusiasm and concern about the risks, but it is really important that we are able to debate this. It is disappointing, however, to see the very small number of participants on this group, which brings up an issue that I will raise later, about the capacity of this Committee of your Lordships’ House to fulfil the role laid on us to scrutinise such large, complex, new and fast-moving areas.
Given the pressure of time, I will restrict myself to commenting on three amendments in this group. I start with Amendment 112, to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has also added her name. It calls for an artificial intelligence officer in companies—someone such as, I should imagine, a chief financial officer. I did a master’s thesis partly on artificial intelligence 20 years ago; I was then and remain an AI sceptic. After 20 years, we seem to be at the same point that we were then, which is “We are about to get to AI really soon, now, yes, it’s going to work”. In those 20 years, however, there has been massive progress in what is known in shorthand as “big data”, or the ability to crunch truly astonishing quantities of data and to manipulate and use it. So I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that perhaps what is needed is some kind of title or combination of roles that takes in both data and AI together.
On Amendment 118, the ethical use of artificial intelligence, the noble Lord has already covered this quite well, but it is important to stress that, in recent years, we have seen huge exposure of the difficulties of a sector that is profoundly unrepresentative of people whose lives it increasingly impacts. The noble Lord gave the example of soap dispensers which, in these days of Covid-19, is a potential matter of life and death; but we also need to think about access to your finances and being able to manage your finances, and even simply being able to manage them without having to take vastly more time and effort than some other person just because the AI mechanisms are discriminatory. These are all issues that need to be engaged with. I note, for example, that some of the events that have been happening recently at Google do not fill one with confidence about the ways in which the culture of the entire artificial intelligence community is moving—certainly in some areas.
I will comment finally on Amendment 119, about digital resilience. This is one of the most important factors of all. We increasingly hear talk of the internet of things, and of tying together the internet of things and fintech. I think particularly of the recent opening of a store in which there are no checkout people and no scanning and where lots of cameras watch and monitor everything that happens in that store and then a bill appears in your email later. This relates to an earlier group and our discussion on the nature of work and good work, but it also relates very much to the issues of discrimination and resilience.
I was in Lancaster a few years ago, after it had suffered an enormous flood. For several days, the city was without power and it was clear that things very nearly fell apart, due in large part to our reliance already on technology and fintech—that was how people paid for things. We need to think hard about issues of resilience in our age of shocks and how we build systems that will not be at risk of profoundly falling apart—not just the cash machines falling apart, but an inability to even obtain food.
I also need to mention the issues around bitcoin and other digital currencies. There are huge and growing concerns about their environmental impacts and indeed the sustainability of those impacts. Bitcoin and other such currencies are extremely energy-hungry by design. A single bitcoin transaction uses 707 kilowatt hours of electricity, which is the equivalent of 24 days of use by a single average US household. On an annual basis, were bitcoin alone to be a country, it would be 39th in the world in its energy consumption. These are massive changes that need to be considered in the round—the kind of triple accounting that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about before. They are issues that deserve far more time and focus than we can give them today, but they really do need to be tackled.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and find myself in agreement with much of what she said, especially on finding a balance between regulations and introducing more fintech into financial services. I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments and must apologise from dropping out of the previous group, which goes to the question that the noble Baroness raised about the number of participants. I was participating in the Domestic Abuse Bill in the Chamber; I am sure many will be in that position, because we cannot be in two places at once, unfortunately.
I say at the outset that I yield to no one in my admiration for my noble friend Lord Holmes’s knowledge, expertise, passion and commitment in the area of artificial intelligence and fintech. I pay tribute to the work he has done in bringing forward this wide-ranging group of amendments. I am delighted to have co-signed and to support Amendments 112 and 115 and, rather than go through all the points that my noble friend raised, I shall just put a question to the Minister, when she comes to wind up this small debate. If we accept that there is a role for fintech and artificial intelligence in financial services, and accepting the competitive market, the nature of which my noble friend Lord Holmes explained, will the Minister support the amendments, or will she be able to set out today in what regard she accepts that we would like to promote the wider use of technology and artificial intelligence in the financial services sector? Given that, as my noble friend said, we have a good story to tell and do not wish to fall behind, does the Minister accept that, given the increasing number of graduates in the field of artificial intelligence, we owe it to them and to the universities that set them on this path to ensure that they have opportunities in this country to put their academic knowledge to good use? Are we not missing a trick in this regard by not ensuring that we enhance those opportunities? With those few comments, I shall be delighted to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments when she sums up.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was inadvertently left off the list of speakers, and I call her now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments and I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Holmes on the scale of the transformation that will be driven by fintech. It is more important to the sector, in my view, than Brexit, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question is therefore a good one.
I rise to speak on Amendment 115 on digital identification. I have taken a substantial interest in facilitating the provision of digital ID for several years. It is the sort of thing where the UK, with its early digital adoption and its skill in matters of security, should be ahead of the curve. Some good systems exist and have been rolled out in other European countries, but not here. This is probably because we have been waiting for the banking sector to make a decisive move.
I tabled amendments on digital identification during the passage of the Covid legislation, with support from some noble Lords here today. I did not press the matter because I was promised progress, and I had good meetings with my noble friend Lady Williams and the Digital Minister, Matt Warman MP, who published proposals for the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework on 11 February, with comments on it due from us all by tomorrow.
I thought that I would get another chance to press my case when our Covid laws were renewed but there is no sign of any such opportunity. I noted, however, that on 4 March my noble friend Lord Bethell, the Health Minister, told us that digital certificates, not physical ones, are being used for vaccines to avoid fraud, underlining the need to make progress in the financial area. The fraudulent attempt to trick my noble friend Lord Holmes in relation to his driving licence underlines exactly the scale of fraud in everyday life, an issue that is calling for digital ID.
I am disappointed about the pace of change on digital ID and although I support Amendment 115, it needs to be stronger. Waiting yet another six months for a plan is too slow. Why can we not get a grip of this important area, as we have done in the much greater challenge of vaccines? Give the job to Matt Warman with a remit to bring in digital ID for those who need it by 1 September. That would be novel provision but we need to accelerate this change.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, after all those excellent speeches, I shall try to be brief but I need to declare my interests in the register because they apply to this group of amendments.
Fintech is an extraordinary success story in the UK. In 2011, shortly after having the privilege of being appointed to this House, I sought out and invited the chief executive of every fintech in the UK that I could find to come to a meeting. We needed only a small conference room over in Millbank House. Today, the QEII Centre would not be adequate. That alone speaks to the extraordinary success of the industry, much helped by an enlightened view from the Financial Conduct Authority, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into looking benevolently upon the industry and understanding that it required appropriate regulation to grow. However, once it got there, the FCA has been incredibly positive and powerful.
I want to plead against complacency, which is a rather British weakness. In the days before Brexit, many of our fintechs chose to expand into continental Europe, using passporting and the e-commerce directive. They also attempted to go into the United States but few have been successful, partly because of the competition there and the difference in structure. The European market is incredibly important for expansion. We also know that it has been important for recruitment, which raises many issues around visas. A single person is perhaps not so hard to attract but someone whose wife or husband is unable to work may not be so cheered in taking up a visa to come to the UK. That is an underlying problem that we face for entrepreneurs and skills.
Many issues have been raised in this debate, including AI and fintech: the two merge over some significant territory. The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are important and will, I hope, be a prod to make sure that we continue to deal with them at pace and to understand that there is no easy time. Berlin has, frankly, become a centre for tech within Europe and it would not be so very difficult to swivel that around and begin to absorb fintech. We do not want to put ourselves into that situation.
I wanted quickly to make two other points, picking up on points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Digital fiat currency is now the issue of the moment. We have a relatively small window in which to decide whether we want to play in that area in such a way as to make us a significant player. One could say that sterling is not a natural global currency and we therefore need to be first mover. Picking up on the noble Lord’s point, I hope that we will look more at that area.
AI obviously brings with it extraordinary complexities and question marks but they are issues that can all be worked through if we focus on them. They will not become easier over time; they are just as difficult now as in the future, so one might as well deal with them as is. The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, deserve a proper debate on the Floor of the House and I am sure will draw in many more people than those who focus on financial services issues alone. I very much look forward to that opportunity as well as listening to the Minister’s response.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling this group of amendments, which deal with various aspects of fintech. His contributions on this Bill have been thoughtful, and nobody should be surprised by him pushing this agenda today, given his role as co-chair of the relevant APPG. As other noble Lords have mentioned, this debate is a topical one, following the publication of the Kalifa review on fintech last month. We welcome that review and hope that the Government will support our world-leading fintech sector to continue innovating and do so in a way that spreads opportunity to all parts of the country.
When we refer to things being life changing, we often do so in a hyperbolic manner. However, it is no exaggeration to say that technological innovation in the financial services sector has fundamentally altered our understanding of and everyday experiences with money. The pace and scope of change has been incredible; the journey from cheques to mobile phone payments, for example, has been a swift one. Many young people conduct virtually all their banking activity online through the apps of high-street banks or using entirely digital services such as Monzo. Elsewhere, terms such as crowdfunding and crypto currency have become common parlance, with the emergence and increasing use of new technologies, including artificial intelligence and blockchain. The possibilities are almost beyond comprehension.
Taken collectively, the noble Lord’s amendments point to the crux of the issue: how can we maximise the opportunities that undoubtedly exist in the sector while guarding against the risk inherent in the use of new technologies and working practices? Artificial intelligence is an interesting case in point. AI tools, which are regularly deployed in a number of sectors, have the potential to assist with a variety of issues which we have covered in previous debates, such as identifying fraudulent or otherwise suspicious transactions. However, Amendments 112 and 118 refer to some of the ethical considerations that arise from automated decision-making.
In a recent piece for the House magazine, and again in his opening remarks, the noble Lord issued a challenge to the Government that they should take steps now to foster the potential for our fintech sector or risk losing talent to our competitors, falling behind in the global tech arms race and, ultimately, having to play catch-up. I am not necessarily convinced of the case for legislative requirements for reports and reviews on these issues. The noble Lord is right to seek more information on the Government’s intentions. If London is to be the world-leading financial centre that the Chancellor and many others would like it to be, how do the Government plan to strike the balance that I spoke of previously? In striking that balance, how do Ministers plan to ensure that consumers and citizens are placed at the heart of a digital finance package? With technology touching all our lives, it is only right that we should all reap the benefits of change. However, as I mentioned previously, we must also take steps to identify and mitigate the risks.
There is probably far more that could be said than time allows. I look forward to seeing how much ground the Minister is able to cover.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the important issue of the use of technology in financial services and how technological developments will continue to impact the sector. The UK has been independently ranked as one of the best places in the world to start and grow a financial technology, or fintech, firm. I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that, as the Chancellor set out in his November speech on the future of financial services, we are not complacent. We want to build on this strength and use technology to deliver better outcomes for consumers and businesses and make the most of the job opportunities that this sector presents.
Many of the questions raised by the adoption of cutting-edge technology apply across the whole economy, not just to financial services, so although I am sympathetic to the purpose behind a number of the amendments—ensuring that the UK embraces the opportunities that new technology can bring—I am not convinced that they are the best route forward at this time.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that her point on bitcoin was well made but, for the record, it is probably worth clarifying that that is a construction only of that particular cryptocurrency rather than an inevitability of a blockchain-based system.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her comments and for signing two of the amendments in the group. Similarly, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for her comments on digital ID. I very much take her putting some more lead in my pencil to underscore the urgency of the issue; I am in complete lockstep with her on that point. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their constructive and positive comments, and indeed the Minister for her response. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 112.
Lord Sikka
“Supervisory Board
(1) There is to be a Supervisory Board to perform the function of monitoring the FCA and PRA.(2) The Supervisory Board must consist entirely of stakeholders.(3) Recruitment for the membership of the Supervisory Board is to be conducted through open competition and the appointments are to be confirmed by the House of Commons Treasury Committee, or another relevant House of Commons Select Committee. (4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may nominate individuals to the Supervisory Board.(5) The following are ineligible for appointment to the Supervisory Board—(a) current and past employees of the FCA and the PRA, and(b) current employees of organisations supervised by the FCA and the PRA.(6) A member’s membership of the Supervisory Board cannot exceed a period of five years beginning with the day the member’s appointment is confirmed under subsection (3).(7) The Supervisory Board has no responsibility for—(a) the day-to-day operations of the FCA or the PRA, and(b) investigations and enforcement of the rules devised by the FCA and the PRA.(8) The Supervisory Board’s functions are to—(a) provide strategic oversight of the Executive Boards of the FCA and PRA responsible for day-to-day operations;(b) inquire into the adequacy of resources used and available to the FCA and the PRA;(c) seek explanations from the Executive Board for reasons for the delay in launching and completing investigations; and(d) seek explanations from the Executive Board in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of the FCA and the PRA in discharging their statutory duties.(9) The Supervisory Board shall have powers to—(a) demand explanations from the Executive Board on any matter affecting the protection of consumers from harmful practices;(b) secure information from the Executive Board about their transparency and accountability to the public; and(c) liaise with whistle-blowers and examine FCA and PRA policies for protecting and rewarding whistle-blowers.(10) The Supervisory Board must hold open meetings with the Executive Boards of the FCA and the PRA at least once every three months.(11) The working and background papers of the Supervisory Board must be made publicly available.(12) The Supervisory Board must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report highlighting matters of concern relating to the operation of the FCA and PRA which it has discovered in exercising its powers and functions.(13) The Supervisory Board must be consulted on appointment and reappointment of the Chief Executives of the FCA and the PRA.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create a Supervisory Board to monitor the Executive Boards of the FCA and PRA and provide a diversity of views on the conduct of the FCA and the PRA.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 120 seeks to strengthen regulation by empowering stakeholders to watch over the conduct of the executive boards of the FCA and the PRA, so that stakeholder interests do not continue to be marginalised.
Throughout the passage of the Bill in this House and the other place, considerable concern has been expressed about regulatory failures. In particular, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, drew attention to the well-known problem of regulatory capture.
Regulatory bodies such as the FCA and the PRA are too close to the interests of the finance industry, often at the expense of broader social interests. The revolving doors swing both ways as regulators come from the industry and, after a stint, they return to the industry. The regulatory capture has inflicted misery on millions, as shown by numerous scandals. There is no resolution of the HBOS and RBS frauds, there is dithering on mini-bonds, the London Capital & Finance and Connaught scandals testify to regulatory failures, the FCA was absent in the Carillion scandal, puny sanctions for mis-selling numerous financial products have not really changed corporate culture, and there has been little success in curbing tax avoidance, money laundering, and interest rate and exchange rate rigging. Indeed, there is a long history of regulators doing the bidding of the industry; my earlier interventions referred to the regulatory sympathies for HSBC, Standard Chartered bank and BCCI even though they were involved in anti-social and criminal activities.
Regulatory capture is built into the system as individuals close to the industry occupy senior decision-making positions as executive and non-executive directors. Ministers and others often argue that individuals of particular experience are needed. The focus on technical expertise inevitably privileges industry insiders and marginalises the experience of the people who are actually practised upon, who remain relatively invisible. These experienced people rarely blow the whistle on corrupt practices or check the groupthink that has become all too prevalent in regulatory bodies.
In theory, non-executive directors are expected to provide some oversight of executives of regulatory bodies, but they, too, have little independence from the industry. The non-questioning of the regulatory practices inside the regulatory boards only deepens the crisis. Even when whistleblowers give executive and non-executive directors hard evidence, their concerns are often ignored. Who can forget the heroic efforts of the late Paul Moore, who alerted regulators of problems at HBOS before the financial crash? But he was ignored. Corporate grandees at regulatory bodies all too often see the issues through the industry’s lenses. Regulatory bodies have become echo chambers of the vested interests. We are talking here not just about simple regulatory capture but cognitive capture, which standardises subjectivities and has naturalised the interests of the finance industry within the regulatory bodies.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. A Division is taking place in the House. We will return in five minutes and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, will be able to finish then. I do apologise to him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I think all of us who were going to vote have now done so, so I invite the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to finish his speech and move his amendment.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wanted to provide some examples of the kind of questions which the supervisory board might raise. For example, it could ask the FCA/PRA executive board to explain the delay in securing compensation for the victims of the HBOS and RBS frauds—that could be one question; I shall give a few more examples. It could ask why no one at the board level of HBOS and RBS has so far been prosecuted or why HSBC took 20 hours to respond to calls on its fraud helpline—which is of concern to many people. It could ask whether it was appropriate for the FCA to commission Section 166 reports from organisations involved in antisocial practices, or what progress the FCA had made in dealing with the issues relating to banks forging customers’ signatures. It could ask what policies were being developed to deal with global warming—which, again, is of interest to many people. It could ask what the regulators were doing to protect people from predatory lending practices—payday lending problems have not gone away, as we all know—or to protect businesses, especially small businesses, from excessive charges by credit card companies. It could ask what the PRA was doing to address the shortcomings of the Basel III recommendations. Lastly, as we all know that a remit of the FCA is to promote competition in respect of financial services, the supervisory board could ask how the FCA would do that given that many towns now lack bank branches.
These kinds of probing questions do not interfere with the day-to-day running, but they provide oversight and they push back against regulatory silence and capture. A supervisory board will erode the space for regulators to sweep things under their dusty carpets. It can transform our country and ensure that regulators work to protect the people and address their concerns.
Ministers often say that regulators are there to serve the people, so what objections can there be to empowering people to sit on the supervisory boards and democratise the regulatory structures and our society? Empowering people has a much lower cost than that associated with scandals and financial crisis.
I beg to move the amendment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I understand that Amendment 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, seeks to establish a supervisory board for the two regulators. My first thought was that the noble Lord intended that this board should function in the same way as a joint co-ordination committee, as proposed in Amendment 86 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blackwell, which we debated on Monday. The explanatory statement, however, does not suggest that the board would co-ordinate the activities of the two regulators; rather, it would simply monitor the executive boards of the regulators and provide a diversity of views on their conduct.
From his opening remarks, I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is very different. While there have inevitably been some mistakes, I do not recognise the picture that he paints. The regulators have always been willing to learn from what has not gone as well as it might have. As long as the PRA and FCA remain separate organisations with different functions and objectives, it seems to me that this supervisory board would, in effect, have two separate personae or incarnations. It would have to function separately as a supervisory board of the FCA and as one of the PRA. I think it cannot be a part of the legal structure of either regulator or of both regulators. It would seem to duplicate the arrangements for parliamentary oversight which we have discussed and on which I would ask my noble friend the Minister to tell the Committee how his thinking is developing.
The amendment refers to the executive board of the PRA, although the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, should be aware that the board of the PRA was replaced by the Prudential Regulation Committee of the Bank of England in 2017. I do not think that such a supervisory board would replace the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the regulators, which will in itself provide appropriate transparency and accountability, rather than the completely crushing, destructive oversight that I believe the noble Lord’s new board would cause. It would be a cumbersome, expensive and bureaucratic body that would have a negative effect on the future attractiveness and competitiveness of the City of London as a global financial centre, so I cannot support his amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for introducing this amendment. I will be brief, because it concerns accountability, which has already been much discussed; and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I have really only just found out the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, regarding the amendment—I was a little blindsided about the formal structure. The accountability debate, as we have progressed through this Bill, has shown more appetite to enhance Parliament’s oversight than to create other bodies. My personal view is well known, that ultimately I think more than Parliament will be needed, but if the route of just Parliament is followed, at least to start, then it is true that some of the functions—or challenges—listed in this amendment for the supervisory board could be pursued that way.
However, the other intention of this amendment is to find a way to prevent regulatory capture from within, which I understand. The mechanism to ensure that the supervisory board itself is not captured includes having public meetings and public documents—bringing in the sunshine, as the noble Lord said. This has some merit as a way to reflect the public interest that supervisors seemingly could not define and to democratise in some way—although I am not sure whether it has been correctly formulated yet. I also share the noble Lord’s concern that press releases, annual reports and even appearances before Select Committees do not give penetration beyond the regulators making assertions. That has to be so, because there is a mismatch between reports and assertions and then what we discover further down the track about what was actually going on at the same time as we received those assertions. We have obtained penetration only through reports such as the Gloucester review.
Some stronger powers would be needed to compel better information than is currently provided by regulators and made public. That will apply to all the ideas about oversight that we have been probing. I am not sure that we have found a perfect solution or combination of solutions yet, and I suspect that we will need more than one stage to do that. However, having a mechanism to prevent regulatory capture and groupthink is necessary—never mind the revolving door between the regulators and industry and the representation of industries within the regulators’ structure. The obligation to consult the public about rules is predominantly served through responses from industry. One thing that we know about consultations is that, broadly, they run on the weighing of the responses. At least that is certainly the way when it comes to government. When you have the weight of responses from industry, the relatively few that go in from public interest bodies do not necessarily hold the weight that they should.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has brought forward some issues that we have to recognise and address. We need to put them into the pot of the matters that we think about as we move forward on accountability. I maintain my view that we probably will not achieve what we want simply by saying “enhance Parliament”. We will find over time that we need something else as well.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that regulatory capture is a real risk. We certainly saw that prior to the 2008-09 crash, and many people would say that the soft hand of the regulator has ever since reflected an ongoing degree of regulatory capture. I am less focused on the revolving door issue but am much more concerned that the regulator says, “Wait a minute. If we go hard after whichever institution has done wrong, particularly if it is a major one and would involve going after senior people, we will disrupt financial stability. For that greater good, we must go softly and gently”. That approach has not served the industry or the country well.
We have talked extensively about accountability. I see this matter as an extension of that conversation. We have talked about the importance of accountability being extremely well informed in a way in which it is not today, and about the importance of transparency. Numerous ideas have come forward during the process of this Grand Committee. This is another, different approach that essentially tries to get to the same place —a regulator that has to be transparent and which provides genuine, sufficient and high-quality information that can be assessed by people of a relevant skills base, and that is accountable to Parliament. It should not be a regulator that just meets with Parliament and gives it an explanation once or twice a year but one that is actually accountable.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the interesting amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka is another demonstration of the considerable unease felt on all sides of the Grand Committee about the governance of the FCA and the PRA, and their relationship with one another. The amendments moved on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, addressed similar concerns. The question still to be answered is: what would be the composition and terms of reference of such a supervisory board? Is the Treasury not deemed to be performing that role? How can we be confident that the supervisory board would have the authority and expertise to perform a task that my noble friend Lord Sikka rightly identified as being necessary?
I am sorry to sound like a broken record. Are not my noble friend Lord Sikka’s concerns another example of the lack of an effective mechanism of parliamentary scrutiny? Whether an effective parliamentary mechanism can be created is a question that we do not hear or have the ability to address but it must be addressed. I am sure that the Minister will agree.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree that effective oversight of the FCA and PRA is a crucial component of our regulatory framework. Indeed, noble Lords will remember that in earlier debates we discussed the existing mechanisms to ensure effective independent oversight of the regulators by a diverse range of stakeholders. For example, both the FCA and PRA are required under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to consult independent panels on the impact of their work.
I should say that in general I do not recognise the picture of regulatory capture that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, painted in relation to our two financial regulators, although I shall of course read his comments in Hansard and make sure that I understand all that he said.
For the PRA, this involves consulting an independent practitioner panel of industry representatives, while the FCA must consult four different statutory panels, representing consumers as well as the financial services industry. Furthermore, the regulators are already under a statutory obligation to publish the results of their public consultations, including on proposed new rules.
The amendment proposes that the FCA and PRA should attend hearings in front of a supervisory board. I simply observe that both bodies must already attend such hearings before parliamentary committees, and those committees may also hear evidence from stakeholders about the performance of the regulators. The FCA, for example, must attend general accountability hearings before the Treasury Select Committee twice a year, while the PRA must appear before that committee after the publication of its annual report. Parliamentary committees of both Houses are also able to summon the regulators to give evidence whenever they may choose. For example, the CEO and chairman of the FCA appeared before the Treasury Select Committee on 1 March to answer questions on their regulation of London Capital & Finance.
The amendment proposes that a supervisory board should have the power to inquire into the adequacy of resources used and available to the FCA and the PRA. However, as we have discussed in previous debates, the Treasury already has the capacity to order independent reviews into the regulators’ economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, all told, the amendment would result in a duplication of existing opportunities for scrutiny and oversight of the regulators’ resourcing.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has a close interest in the issue of supervision, but I hope I have convinced him that the PRA and FCA are already accountable in meaningful and tangible ways, and that a diverse range of stakeholders has opportunities to participate in scrutiny of their actions.
Finally, let me say that the Government are not closing down debate on these issues. As I have set out during other debates, the future regulatory framework review is already exploring how our framework needs to adapt to reflect our new position outside the EU. It would be premature to make changes to these arrangements before we consider stakeholder responses to the ongoing consultation. However, I have noted the contributions from the Committee on what form that may take. Against that background, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and it would be helpful if I could respond to a few points. First, under my amendment both the FCA and the PRA would need a supervisory board. Indeed, if I were redesigning the entire regulatory architecture in the UK, every regulatory body would have a supervisory board, because that is the only way of putting ordinary people, who are practised upon, inside the organisation, to check the conduct of executive boards and reshape the organisational culture, which has given us such problems.
The amendment does not duplicate in any way whatever what any parliamentary committee or review board might do. The supervisory board would simply be engaged in day-to-day strategic oversight. Those people would be in the organisation on a permanent basis, observing, requiring reports, making recommendations and in many ways hoping to prevent the major scandals that we read about later—often some years later. It has been suggested that such regulatory architecture would be cumbersome and expensive. My response, as always, is, “What do you think the cost of the status quo is?” How many more banking crashes can we afford? How many more London Capital & Finances, how many more Connaughts, and other scandals, can we afford? We simply cannot afford them.
“Country-by-country reporting requirements
(1) The PRA must include country-by-country reporting requirements in reporting requirements for banks.(2) The FCA must include country-by-country reporting requirements in reporting requirements for investment firms.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment was not intended newly to introduce country-by-country reporting but to maintain the country-by-country reporting requirements that exist through CRD IV and retained EU law. In retrospect, looking at my amendment now, perhaps that is not quite clear.
Once again, as the statutory instrument layer is removed, it is within the purview of our financial regulators to decide that some things are inconvenient or not part of their main remit and to dispense with them. Article 89 of CRD IV requires institutions to report annually, specifying by country in which they have an establishment, information on a consolidated basis including: name, nature of activity and geographical location; turnover; number of employees on a full-time basis; profit or loss before tax; tax on profit or loss; and public subsidies received. Since then, there has been a little more general progress in country-by-country reporting, but I wanted to ensure there were no backward steps as the PRA and FCA start to write the rules.
There was much coverage at the time about the late insertion by the European Parliament of country-by-country reporting that nobody expected, but I can tell the story—which can actually be seen if we look at whole article in the directive. As was the way in trialogues that I chaired in the European Parliament, we shared out speaking. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will be pleased to hear that the Greens were leading on country-by-country reporting, but all that had been conceded to the Parliament in the trialogue was an assessment, maybe followed by legislation if appropriate.
I got a note from the Greens’ adviser saying that they were out of arguments and asking whether I could help. Maybe I should have framed that, because a Green being out of arguments is quite an astonishing thing. They knew that at that stage we had nothing to trade in return to get country-by-country reporting in. So I asked the Council and Commission to confirm that the only reason why they objected was that industry was saying that economic damage would be caused by country-by-country reporting. They both swore that that was the only reason why they were objecting to the insertion of such a clause: that they were afraid of what might happen if these really rather mild provisions were introduced.
I then proposed that the information be submitted in confidence to the Commission and that, in consultation with the regulators, there be then a general assessment of potential negative economic consequences of public disclosure, including the impact on competitiveness, investment, credit availability and the stability of the financial system. It sounds incredible, but those were the scare stories that the other institutions had bought into.
In the event that the report, including analysis based on actual data, identified significant effects, then the provision of public disclosures could be deferred or removed, but otherwise the provision would come into force in 2015. Having sworn that the only nervousness was about all these effects, they then had to concede that proposal. All that explains the content that you can clearly see in article 89 and the report in its paragraph 3. Of course, no damage was found, and the article is in force and transposed into UK law. I quote from a 2014 PWC document on compliance:
“HMT sought to adopt a pragmatic approach to provide rules that are practical and which provide some options designed to ease the compliance burden faced by businesses. This optionality has allowed HMT to implement rules that comply with CRD IV, but which, in line with broader Government policy, do not mandate reporting beyond the requirements of CRD IV.”
There are some activities that would trigger investment firms falling within scope, so it therefore seems relevant to raise this matter in the Bill, as the investment firm provisions are about to be rewritten. Of course, small and UK-only investment firms may not fall within the definitions, because I am proposing carry-over of the existing ones, but where they are larger organisations then they should continue to comply. Against that background, I hope that the Government will not say that they want to allow closing down of transparency and that the Minister will understand why I do not believe any of the scare stories about damage. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, not just because she highlighted the role of the Greens in pushing country-by-country reporting at the European level, and the value of having a Green in the room. A great way of bringing people on board and into the debate is to ask them for help. I will briefly quote the chair of European Parliament’s sub-committee on taxation, MEP Paul Tang:
“I think transparency is a powerful tool for change because many of the current tax policies can’t stand the light of day. Just shine the light on it.”
That was from an interview with Forbes, showing how so many of the defenders of the status quo are increasingly isolated and clearly out of touch, not just with the public but with much of the establishment who realise that things cannot go on as they are.
I have been asked at public meetings over many years how we get multinationals, rich individuals and the financial sector to pay their taxes. My first answer is simple: you need a Government who want to make them pay their taxes. My second, more detailed and technical, answer is, simply, country-by-country reporting. This is something that the UK can impose without needing international agreements. I back the noble Baroness’s amendment to the hilt.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be very brief again on this issue, because I cannot pretend that it is my area of expertise. I remember the period when George Osborne was very proud of saying that not only would he make country-by-country a requirement but that it would be published. My understanding is that that was reversed in 2016. Perhaps the Minister will correct me, but that information is no longer published at a national level and the UK has been fairly instrumental in blocking the OECD from publishing the data at an international level. I apologise if I have got that wrong: I am reading from a Tax Justice Network report. Its calculation is that, as a consequence of not publishing, and therefore not having the cleansing impact of transparency, the UK misses out on collecting something in the range of £2.5 billion in corporate taxes a year.
Again, this is not my area of expertise, but I shall wish to hear from the Minister. We as a country have always said the answer is transparency. We have insisted that publication is the mechanism for cleaning up abuse. I would be extremely troubled if the regulators felt they were now in a position to weaken in any way country-by-country reporting requirements.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the provision of country-by-country data by banks and investment firms will be an important step forward both in combating financial crime and in addressing the vexed question of the fair taxation of international entities. These problems will be solved only by international negotiation and agreement. It is important that we are seen as an exemplar, and satisfactory country-by-country reporting is surely part of that.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 121 aims to ensure that banks and investment firms engage in country-by-country reporting related to the provision of tax information. I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that there is no need for this amendment, because such requirements already exist for these firms in legislation.
Banks and most investment firms are already subject to country-by-country reporting requirements as a result of the fourth capital requirements directive, or CRD IV, which we implemented in the UK while we were an EU member state. This was done through a statutory instrument in 2013, and it requires firms to report relevant information on tax and revenue in each country where they have operations. This statutory instrument remains in place today. In order to implement the investment firms prudential regime, this Bill removes investment firms from the prudential requirements for banks in the capital requirements regulation—in order to allow the FCA to implement the new regime. But Schedule 1 to the Bill ensures that country-by-country reporting requirements will continue to apply to FCA investment firms.
There is an exception for small and non-interconnected investment firms. This is because this new regime aims to ensure proportional requirements for investment firms consistent with their size and activities. These firms are, by definition, small and non-interconnected with the wider financial system, and it would be disproportionate for these requirements to apply to them. This is the same approach that the EU took in the investment firms directive.
Amendment 121 would have the effect of preventing small and non-interconnected firms from being carved out in this way. For the reasons just mentioned, I do not think that this is appropriate. Therefore, when it comes to banks and investment firms, I am confident that the existing country-by-country reporting requirements for these firms are appropriate, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
I thank everybody who has spoken. The Minister has answered the question and I do not need to make any comments so, in the interests of time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the final group, beginning with Amendment 123.
Amendment 123
“Regular impact assessments on the UK financial services sector
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and every subsequent five years, the responsible Treasury Minister, Chairs and Chief Executive Officers of the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority must each separately provide reports to relevant Committees of the House of Commons and House of Lords.(2) The reports under subsection (1) must include an assessment and critical analysis of the following—(a) the costs and benefits of the financial services sector in the United Kingdom;(b) the impact of the financial services sector on inequality and economic development;(c) the impact of capital allocation decisions on real economic activity;(d) net gains or losses to the real economy caused by mergers and acquisitions;(e) risks to the real economy of write downs in the value of financial assets;(f) risks inherent in “shadow banking”;(g) the impacts of money and financial activities being moved to offshore jurisdictions.(3) In preparing the reports under subsection (1), the responsible person must consult with, and publish any submissions from, the Financial Scrutiny and Oversight Network.(4) In this section—“shadow banking” means financial services which are not subject to regulatory oversight, including but not limited to unregulated activities by regulated entities;“real economy” means the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment 123 and speak also to Amendment 124. They are quite large amendments, and I would say significant proposals, and I have cut down what I shall say given the time. This is based in large part on the work of the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, known as SPERI, and particularly Professor Andrew Baker there, and the Tax Justice Network, particularly Nicholas Shaxson.
I begin with Amendment 123, as it flows on from an earlier exchange between the noble Earl and me, which he kindly continued by letter, confirming my assumption that the source of his claim for the annual tax revenue for the financial sector of £76 billion came from a PricewaterhouseCoopers report. That is, of course, a gross figure, one that reflects income but not costs. It is in no way an impact assessment. It is a pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is not with us now.
This amendment proposes that within 12 months of the passing of this Bill and every subsequent five years the responsible bodies must separately provide reports to the relevant committee of the Commons and Lords and consult the financial scrutiny and oversight network, which I shall get to shortly. Behind this is the fact that there is now a large body of academic literature, known as the “too much finance” literature, which supports the idea that some countries, including most certainly the United Kingdom, suffer from the finance curse: too much finance makes us poorer. It seems that the City of London passed the point of optimal finance sometime in the 1980s and has grown massively since then, harming the UK economy. The only study of which I am aware that has attempted to quantify the damage, from SPERI, estimated in 2019 that excess finance reduced economic growth by a cumulative £4.5 trillion from 1995 to 2015. That is the finance curse.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I think I understand where the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is coming from. I am not sure that I personally would want to let the Treasury get its hands on an assessment of the UK financial services sector, because it seems that so much depends on the lens through which you look. But what I would like to be sure of is that the relevant information and statistics—those kinds of metrics that would enable you to assess impacts on the real economy—would be available, because we have quite a number of institutions, including think tanks and academic institutions, that could do really good work on all these areas which would then inform Parliament. I would very much like that to happen.
Perhaps this all feeds back into the issue that we have looked at over and over again, which is that, absent some significant change, the necessary information is just not available, whether one is trying to look at the macro level or the micro level. That information has to be available, or else accountability in any proper sense just cannot exist.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think the whole subject of supervision and the presentation of information for decision-making is very important. I do not think that it could be shoehorned into this Bill. I hope that the Government will note the concerns about this and meet it where we can in parts of the Bill, but perhaps there has to be an ongoing debate, which will hopefully come to some consensus about how we improve the supervision and accountability of the financial services sector.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her clear introduction to these amendments, and I thank her for the background briefing papers that she kindly sent me this morning. Having said that, I hope she will forgive me if I do not turn the end of these Committee proceedings into an off-the-cuff economics seminar. Indeed, she will not be surprised if, on behalf of the Government, I adopt an orthodox stance on the role of our financial services sector.
It is the Government’s firm contention that the financial services sector is a vital part of our economy. It employs more than a million people, and two-thirds of the people employed in financial and professional services work outside London. It has been a critical source of tax revenue, whatever the exact figure, especially in these difficult times.
The IMF has described the UK’s financial system as a global public good, so the Treasury is not persuaded by the arguments of the Tax Justice Network around “too much finance” or that finance is inherently a bad thing for the real economy. The financial services sector supports British businesses to expand, manage cash flow, invest in themselves and create jobs. The sector is also one of our leading industries in its own right, driven by a concentration of international, and therefore internationally mobile, firms.
Amendment 123 would require regular reports on the impact of the financial services sector on a range of topics including growth, inequality and risk. Amendment 124 would establish a new oversight body which would consider the impact of this sector on the “real economy”.
I have already set out some of the positive impacts that the sector has in its own right on growth, jobs and tax revenue in the UK. But let us not forget that it is also a sector on which all other parts of our economy rely. This means that the sector is a vital source of funding and services for other sectors of the economy. But, of course, it can also mean that if there are problems in the financial services sector, they can affect other parts of our economy. That is why the sector is so vital, and it is why I am able to assure noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to transparency around financial risks and welcome independent scrutiny of risk exposure.
The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee also has a responsibility to identify, monitor and take action to remove or reduce systemic risks. The committee was established under the Financial Services Act 2012 and must publish and lay before Parliament a financial stability report twice a year. As part of its assessment of financial stability risks, the Financial Policy Committee already considers and reports on risks arising from shadow banking, also referred to as “non-banks”. Given the rapid growth of non-banks, the Treasury has asked the Financial Policy Committee to publish a detailed assessment of the risk oversight and mitigation systems in place for non-banks. That is expected in the first half of this year.
The Office for Budget Responsibility produces and presents a fiscal risks report to Parliament every two years, and it has previously explored risks posed by and to the financial sector. More generally, the FCA and PRA are required to prepare and lay annual reports before Parliament, assessing how effectively their objectives have been advanced. These objectives are set by Parliament, as noble Lords are well aware.
Of course, as I said, one key role of the financial services sector is to provide funding to the so-called real economy. The Government have recognised that, in this Bill, the provisions on the implementation of Basel require the PRA to have regard to the likely effect of its rules on the ability of the firms affected to continue to provide finance to businesses and consumers in the UK, on a sustainable basis in the medium and long term.
The amendment refers to inequality. On that issue, I can reassure the Committee that the Treasury, the FCA and the PRA are all bound by the public sector equality duty. As part of that duty, all three are required by the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity in carrying out their policies, services and functions. The FCA publishes a diversity annual report to set specific measurable equality objectives and publish relevant, proportionate information demonstrating its compliance with the public sector equality duty.
Amendment 124 mentions the impact of the financial services sector on climate change and biodiversity. The Committee will I hope forgive me if I do not repeat what I said in earlier debates on that topic, as I have already set out the actions that the regulators are taking in that space.
I turn briefly to the composition of the oversight network that the noble Baroness proposes. I am completely with her in believing that the regulators should take on board a variety of different views; it is important that they do so. In fact, the FCA already has a statutory requirement to consult independent panels representing consumers and practitioners, and the Bank of England has strong links with many academics. Of course, all the groups mentioned are able to respond to consultations, which the regulators are required to undertake, and where their responses must be considered.
As a general comment, I just say that the topics raised by the noble Baroness are those which the Treasury and the regulators consider every day when making financial services policy. I assure her that the Government are committed to ensuring that the sector has a positive impact for consumers and for the economy as a whole. No Government could do otherwise.
Given all that I have said, which I hope has provided some useful perspectives on this topic, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel comfortable in withdrawing her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I point out to him that we are almost out of time for this Committee tonight, and I ask him please to be as brief as possible.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we are pressed for time, I withdraw my intervention. I hope that I will make it another day.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We are grateful to you, Lord Sikka.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. He focused on the positive impacts of the financial sector and, when he came to addressing negative impacts, he talked a lot about risk. There is of course a lot of focus on risk at the moment with what is happening with Greensill and the shadow banking sector, but I do not believe that he really addressed the other negative impacts such as the diversion of human resources and capital. Indeed, when he was talking about the tax revenue, I thought that my PhD graduate from Newcastle would surely be working in some sector contributing in different ways.
The Minister perhaps misunderstood the issue of equality, so maybe I need to look at redrafting that. I referred to regional inequality and looked at socioeconomic and other areas of inequality.
I will speak briefly on the responses from others. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pretty well said that she thought we should have exactly what I was proposing. She said that there were a great deal of resources in think tanks, academics and NGOs and that we needed to bring them together. That is exactly what is proposed in FSON—a network, not reinventing the wheel, not creating a whole new institution, but just making sure that those things are joined up and have a structure to work together to identify the crucial points.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that there were consultations on the way so we would have to wait but, with the risks—as the Minister acknowledged—and the costs of the financial sector, we really cannot wait. We have to act now. I have cited some very traditional, mainstream sources expressing great concern about the problems that the financial sector presents. We cannot have business as usual. As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said earlier, the cost of doing nothing is enormous. However, given where we are and the time of the evening—I have cut short my planned remarks significantly—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, though I suspect I will bring this back on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Modern Foreign Languages: Teachers
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the supply chain of teachers of modern foreign languages.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we continue to monitor closely the modern foreign language—MFL—teacher supply and offer bursaries worth up to £10,000 tax free to encourage talented trainees into MFL. In 2020-21, there were 1,687 postgraduate trainees in MFL, an increase of 300 on the previous year and accounting for 72% of the annual target that we set for recruiting postgraduate trainee teachers. In 2019-20, 93% of MFL trainees gained qualified teacher status and 74% of them started teaching in state schools.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, against that backdrop of a 28% shortfall and a drop of more than one-third in students doing MFL degrees since 2011, I congratulate the Government on their change of heart in deciding last week to add all MFL teachers to the shortage occupations list. This year’s small increase of 300 is by all accounts going to be temporary, so will the Government now also quickly reverse the dramatic cut in MFL training bursaries from £26,000 to only £10,000, as mentioned by the Minister? MFL is the only shortage subject to suffer such a cut.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we hope that the increase in trainees will be permanent, but unfortunately we have had to make some difficult financial decisions in relation to the ITT bursary offer. As a result, we are offering the highest bursaries for those subjects where it is hardest to attract people, which are STEM subjects, because those graduates can command higher wages in jobs outside teaching.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we are to have any hope of fulfilling the role that our Prime Minister sees for us as a leading nation in the world, we cannot give too much investment, support and encouragement to the teaching of foreign languages? For commerce and trade, they are vital. Also important—and, in my experience, indispensable—is the terrific record built up in international institutions by those from Great Britain participating as translators and interpreters. It is a wonderful way of having friendships—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but will he please ask his question?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
We agree with the noble Lord. As part of global Britain, we are encouraging the take-up of modern foreign languages. That is why they are included in the EBacc. We want schools to offer this to all students.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, instead of dealing with different subject areas or areas of the curriculum in isolation or piecemeal, do we not need a serious, in-depth, cross-party inquiry that includes the teaching profession, business, educational experts and so on to work out what young people need to be taught and how they should learn it, to equip them for the modern economy, to open up opportunity, to promote social mobility and to enable our country to compete internationally?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we have looked at the curriculum over the past 10 years and we responded to the 2015 Ofsted review into the teaching and learning of modern foreign languages with a £4.8 million pedagogy hub to try to increase the standard of teaching of modern foreign languages.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, given that Spanish is a world language—as trade envoy to three countries in Latin America, I am aware of the focus on the education sector—does my noble friend agree that in developing institutional links with schools and universities in Latin America we should encourage the reciprocal exchange of teachers in order not only to teach English in Latin America but to boost the teaching of Spanish in our schools?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, due to the recent changes in our immigration law, teachers from Latin America will apply on a points-based system with the short-of-supply criterion on the same basis as everybody else. Through the Turing scheme, institutions, including schools, will be able to apply for funds to do that, but there is currently no arrangement for reciprocal teaching exchanges.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, the volume of foreign language graduates has been on a declining trend for some time, thus reducing the supply chain of foreign language teachers. I believe that this trend is likely to continue and, as a result, the provision of modern foreign language degree courses will end up being confined to a limited number of universities specialising in this territory. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I outlined in the figures, we are seeing increasing numbers of those applying to teach in our schools. That is important for the supply chain and to make sure that there is good-quality teaching, as it is a requirement of the EBacc to take a modern foreign language. In addition to initial teacher training, there is now the early career framework —professional development support—for two years, so that this is seen as comparable to professions such as law and accountancy in those terms.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
The Erasmus programme has been a major driver in sustaining the recruitment of MFL trainee teachers. Will the Turing scheme match Erasmus by facilitating incoming students from the EU, as well as funding outward mobility?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Turing scheme is backed by £110 million and we hope to reach 35,000 students. The funding is for those at UK institutions to travel abroad and we expect other countries to fund their students to do the same.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, the British Council’s 2018 annual learning trends survey showed that more than two-thirds of schools in the state sector and over 75% of private schools employed foreign language teachers who were citizens of EU countries and that the schools were fearful for the future supply and retention of such teachers. Will the Minister comment on what has been done since then and what the Government plan to do going forward to retain and encourage foreign language teachers to teach in the UK?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to retention, I have outlined the early career framework, but there are now national professional qualifications. On average, teachers were awarded a 2.7% pay rise last year. As I have outlined, teachers from across the world can now apply on a points-based system to come here. We recognise that there is considerable uncertainty due to current restrictions on international travel.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister stated in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that the slashing of bursaries for language trainees from £26,000 to £10,000 was the result of what she called “difficult financial decisions”. That cut makes no sense. The bursaries should have been retained as the result of an educational decision. There is a pattern here: the latest figures for the recruitment of language teachers showed that only 72% of the target was met, yet the DfE is ending its system of early career payments of up to £3,000, which were aimed at aiding teacher retention. As our distance from the EU grows, how can the Government justify making a career as a language teacher less attractive?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the applicants we have seen this year, modern foreign language teaching is an attractive option in our country. We had to make some difficult choices. STEM graduates command higher salaries outside the teaching sector, which was the justification for retaining a similar level of bursary for STEM as opposed to MFL. Other initial financial incentives, such as student loan reimbursements, are retained for those who are already part of the scheme, but they were ended for all—including STEM—graduates. There were difficult decisions to be made across the board.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, whole cohorts of children have been denied the rich cultural experience of learning another language since modern foreign languages were discontinued from the national curriculum. What opportunities are the Government offering in further and higher education for adults who lost out on the opportunity to learn another modern foreign language?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to further and higher education, I believe—I will double-check this—that there will be entitlement to some courses to get a first level 3 qualification. In relation to employer-led standards, such as for apprenticeships, if employers view that, for instance, there is a need for having Polish in a particular sector, they can include that in their requirements for the qualifications, working with the FE colleges. That will then be part of that qualification.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Women
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that (1) women, and (2) groups which represent women, are included in the development of their policies responding to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we continue to listen to the experiences of women as we respond to the Covid-19 crisis. Ministers and their officials carefully consider evidence on how different people have been affected by the pandemic. That includes meeting many women and the groups representing them. I recently met with women from Leicester and Leeds at virtual round tables to discuss home-schooling, childcare, flexible working and parents’ and children’s mental health.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
The Commons report, Unequal Impact? Coronavirus and the Gendered Economic Impact, found that
“the Government’s priorities for recovery are heavily gendered in nature.”
A report published just this morning by the ONS on the differential impact of the coronavirus pandemic on men and women said:
“While more men died from Covid-19, women’s well-being was more negatively affected than men’s during the first year of the pandemic.”
Does the Minister agree that the Government must work harder at addressing this imbalance and that women, and the views of women, must be included in current policy development?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the effects of the pandemic are indeed differential across a number of factors. We have invested half a billion pounds in mental health services and recognise that women have taken on more responsibility in the home in terms of childcare and home-schooling, but, thankfully, schools are back as of Monday. We are looking closely at the data, to then analyse it. That will inform our policy development, as will, as I have outlined, meeting with women’s groups.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in one of the reports to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred, the Women and Equalities Committee in the other place recommends
“a Gender Beneficiary Assessment of investments from the industrial strategy”,
which are currently going into areas that are well known to be male-dominated, and
“an economic growth assessment of the Women’s Budget Group’s care-led recovery proposals.”
Surely the Government must take these steps to understand the impacts of their policies.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government are looking at the data and have now got an equality data assessment based in the Cabinet Office. We have brought together the GEO with the disability and race units so that we have all the data to look at. The massive economic package and support that has been in place has benefited millions of women, and women are slightly less likely to be made redundant and slightly more likely to be furloughed.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, there is a sharp segregation in subjects chosen by both boys and girls at secondary and university level, with girls shunning STEM and technical subjects. What policies might the Government put in place so that we can look forward to an equitable outcome in the workplace?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is a key focus of the recovery from the pandemic that we see high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage jobs. We recognise that girls are less likely to take STEM subjects, so there has been a focus that has driven up the number of girls taking STEM A-levels in particular. I am happy to say that the specialist sixth form maths schools, as part of that outreach, must reach out to girls to ensure that there are more girls taking maths at A-level, and further maths, leading to higher-paid jobs.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
The Unequal Impact? report by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, which has already been mentioned, highlights the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women and states that the schemes which have been put in place in response to the pandemic did not take account of the specific needs of women. It recommends an equality impact assessment of schemes and active analysis of equality impact for every future policy. What steps are the Government taking to implement these recommendations and the other 20 recommendations of this report?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there was an equality impact assessment of the Coronavirus Act and each government department, in relation to its legislative action, conducts an equality impact assessment of what they propose to enact. The various schemes, such as the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, have benefited millions of women. Although fewer women have benefited from that scheme, it is not out of proportion with the number of women in that sector. We are watching the data carefully.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, high-quality data is crucial for understanding the impact of the pandemic on women and to develop a robust, evidence-led response. What steps have the Government taken to collect data consistently, disaggregated by sex, race, disability and other characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is correct. We look at this data in terms of those protected characteristics, but we are looking beyond those as well, to look at, for instance, geographical disparities of effect. This collection of data, now centrally in the Cabinet Office, has led to certain reports, such as the second update, just over a week ago, on the effect of Covid on the health of black and minority ethnic populations in the UK.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, the gender-blind Covid policy-making that we have seen from the Government has not considered the needs of women and has resulted in disproportionate numbers losing their jobs—particularly in the retail sector—suffering domestic abuse, and their mental health and well-being suffering. What plans are in place for when furlough ends, when it will more likely be women who lose their jobs? With reports that many nurseries will not reopen, it will be even harder to get those mothers back into the workplace. If this is being addressed, what plans are being put in place to mitigate this?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there has been a dynamic response, particularly to the childcare requirements, which is why early years settings were still open during the third national lockdown. We have supported various charities that offer support to women, with investment grants of up to £10 million, and regarding the end of furlough, at the moment men are slightly more likely to be made redundant and women more likely to be furloughed, but we do not know what will happen when that transition ends.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, what specific meetings has my noble friend the Minister had with women and women representatives to discuss the economic impact of the pandemic? Does she share my concern that the thousands of jobs lost in retail have affected largely women, particularly young women, and the fact that older women are having to work for longer, possibly in part-time positions which does not make them eligible for holiday pay, sick pay or auto-enrolment in a pension, greatly disadvantages them?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I outlined in my original Answer two of the round tables that I have held. Additionally, I held a wonderful virtual meeting for National Apprenticeship Week with some women apprentices who were mainly in STEM roles. I have also met with the women’s youth council. We are looking at the impact, and in those sectors that my noble friend outlines, there has been significant economic support.
Lord Bird (CB)
The received wisdom increasingly is that you must be nearer to the problem to come up with something that makes it work better. With the SAGE committee being only 22% women, while we know that women will be hit harder and harder because of Covid-19, that women were caring for the children during home-schooling, and that it will hit women in the years to come, is it not possible to move forward the whole argument about women being involved in the decision-making and not leave it almost exclusively to a male world?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the increasing need for women to be represented at all levels of decision-making is taken as read by the Government. It has been pleasing to see that at the forefront of fighting the pandemic it has often been women, when you look at the NHS workforce and the education workforce. I can only pay tribute to those now household names, Sarah Gilbert and Kate Bingham, who have been at the forefront of developing the vaccine that we are so grateful for.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, older women are among the groups that have suffered most from this pandemic. Many live alone and have had to endure months of isolation as well as receiving very negative messages from the media. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether the Government have communicated and consulted with this group of women, and if so, how have this group of women been helped, especially with mental health issues?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have outlined the increased funding that we have given to the NHS in relation to those budgets. The Government are aware that if those women were shielding then they will have been particularly affected. That is why one of the first things introduced during the first national lockdown, as we will remember, were bubbles, so that people such as the ladies that the noble Baroness has outlined were able to get some support. Then there was the development of the childcare bubbles, because we recognise that that cohort of women provides a lot of informal childcare.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Global Navigation Satellite System
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the design and development research for the United Kingdom Global Navigation Satellite System has been completed; and if not, what is the timeline for (1) the development of the requirements, and (2) the procurement, of that system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the space-based positioning, navigation and timing programme is one of the key programmes in the Government’s major projects portfolio. This underscores the importance of strengthening resilience for critical national infrastructure, given the wide use of PNT services. The UK’s requirements for trusted services will be confirmed in March as part of a national PNT strategy. In response to the strategy, the programme will identify in November a preferred space-based solution to improve our PNT resilience as part of a mix of technologies.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the outrageous behaviour of our European friends over the use of the Galileo system necessitates our going our own way, or in league with the Five Eyes community, our real friends, over the provision of additional GPS. Such a system is critical, as the Minister says, not just for defence and security but for a broad swathe of things in this country. There are real concerns over resilience. There is a great deal of confusion, misinformation and fake news swirling around about OneWeb. It is time to get clarity and a sense of urgency. Have we decided on the use of low-earth-orbit capabilities for a sovereign-based PNT system, also providing secure satellite communications, not least 5G connectivity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have always been clear that the possible provision of PNT services was not the rationale for our investment in OneWeb. The programme is analysing a number of ideas for concepts in low earth orbit, and OneWeb is of course one of the many companies that are contributing to that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, could my noble friend help me and explain why an independent space-based positioning, navigation and timing system is necessary, whether it is affordable and whether the investment in OneWeb is a practical and cost-effective means of delivering it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I answered the point about OneWeb in the previous answer. That is not the rationale for our purchase of OneWeb. PNT services from space underpin all 13 critical national infrastructure sectors, including national security, defence and transport. They are an important component of future technologies such as autonomous vehicles, smart cities and so on, so it is essential that we have our own autonomous capability.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, there is increasing concern from the scientific community about the impact of large satellite constellations upon astronomical observations. What work is being done to address this aspect of the OneWeb constellation? Specifically, what measures are being considered in the satellite design and operation to reduce its albedo?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. OneWeb has met the Royal Astronomical Society to discuss the potential impact of its operations on astronomy. We will continue to support that dialogue and wider engagement with the scientific community.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said that he was clear that OneWeb was not going to play a significant part in the PNT strategy—while at the same time saying how important that was —but he did not say what exactly it would be doing. Could he elaborate a little more on where he sees the focus of that £1 billion investment?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord West, we have been clear that the possible provision of PNT services was not the rationale for our investment in OneWeb. OneWeb is primarily a telecommunications operation and that is what its primary focus will be. However, we are not ruling out that it may play a role in future services to come.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the cost of OneWeb does not stop with the Government’s share of $1 billion. In order to complete the array, the chairman of Bharti Enterprises says that a further $2.5 billion will be required, for which the Government are on the hook for $600 million. Given that that has to happen soon, where in the Budget is that line for the Government’s investment, and what value are UK taxpayers going to get from that huge amount of money?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will be setting out a strategy for OneWeb in the future. We have made an investment in OneWeb and we are looking for alternative sources of finance to come.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
Following on from the questions from my noble friends Lord West and Lord Stevenson, does OneWeb have a proven PNT capability? How is the Cabinet Office-led review progressing, who is being consulted and when will its findings be published?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is the third time that this question has been asked. Government investment in OneWeb was for cutting-edge telecommunications capability based on market analysis. We have always been clear that PNT services were not the rationale for this particular investment.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, this is an ambitious project, but I cannot help but feel that, on a cost basis alone, it is one that is best pursued with our allies, perhaps the Five Eyes community. There is no doubt that we have an enormous amount to offer, not just the skills that we hold here in the United Kingdom, but does my noble friend agree that the strategic location of some of our overseas territories in the southern hemisphere will make us very attractive partners?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed. I know that my noble friend has great experience in these matters. Collaboration with partners and industry will be vital for success in this field. A new UK capability could offer opportunities to deliver more on global Britain through strengthening our international relationships. We would most likely seek to use our overseas territories for ground-based stations.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is highly regrettable that our Brexit negotiations failed to secure a deal over Galileo. Are there any plans to try to revisit that and negotiate a deal, rather than ploughing our own course? Could the Minister also tell us about the National Space Council, which was announced in June 2019? How often has it met? Was it consulted over the purchase, which others have mentioned, of OneWeb, which was done against the advice of the Civil Service?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The answer to the noble Baroness’s first question is no. The UK National Space Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, will continue to play an important role in future government affairs.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. The Blackett review into critical dependency on the GNSS was published in January 2018. What progress has been made on the review’s first recommendation that operators of this critical national infrastructure should report on how vulnerable their systems are to a failure or interruption of the GNSS network? The Cabinet Office was tasked with assessing our overall dependency on these systems. When will this be published, along with an action plan to remedy any weaknesses and the proposals for back-up systems called for by Oliver Dowden, then the Cabinet Office Minister?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The UK PNT strategy group is developing the UK’s first national PNT strategy, which includes a review of critical dependencies and actions. Decisions on the publication of the strategy and leadership for implementation are subject to a wider review of PNT governance being led by the Cabinet Office.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Government paid £400 million for a minority interest in a failing company whose satellites, as we have heard, are for communication, not navigation. What kind of investment was that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I outlined in answer to three other questions the rationale for our investment in OneWeb.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
Further to what a number of speakers today have said, could the Minister clarify whether the Government are pursuing a formal partnership with our Five Eyes allies? Would that not be a good idea for our long-term security?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is indeed one of the points that are being considered in the review, which will be reporting at the end of March. We will then outline a business case and, if there can be collaboration with our Five Eyes partners, I am sure we would want to go down that route.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Myanmar: Protesters
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of force by the Myanmar military against protesters in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the ongoing use of force against peaceful protesters. The situation in Myanmar has deteriorated significantly over the last few weeks and we have been clear, including through the G7 and the UN Security Council, that the violent crackdown must end. I am sure I speak for all in your Lordships’ House when I say that our thoughts go to all those families and people who have lost their lives—and their wives—protesting against this coup.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I greatly appreciate the Minister’s condemnation of the military’s reign of terror, which includes the imprisonment of democratically elected political leaders and the shooting of civilian protesters. Does he agree with Burma’s newly appointed special envoy to the United Nations, Dr Sasa, that the crisis is now so severe that it requires a much more robust response from the UK? Will Her Majesty’s Government therefore urge the UN Secretary-General to initiate an immediate Security Council visit to Burma, and to galvanise international pressure on the military leaders to reinstate the democratically elected Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that at the UN, during both our presidency and the current US presidency, we have already convened meetings. A statement has yet to be agreed, but the focus of the Security Council is very much on the situation on the ground. The noble Baroness mentioned Dr Sasa, who is well known in this country; he will always be an important voice. A mission to Myanmar would be a decision for the SG, but of course we are working closely with his office.
Baroness Nye (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Burma Campaign UK, in which I declare an interest as a board member, is receiving increasingly desperate calls from the brave activists in Burma who do not understand why there is not more concerted international action. Does the Minister agree that if the UK Government formally supported the Gambia in its ICJ case against Myanmar, it would be a strong signal that we are not ignoring the awful events unfolding in Burma and that there is no impunity for the crimes of the Tatmadaw?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s substantive point about the ICJ, we are reviewing the situation. We are supportive of the action of the Gambia and looking at interventions where they will best serve the purpose of the people of Myanmar. On international action, we have secured two G7 statements and are working through the UN Security Council and with partners such as the US and Canada, as well as those in the region, to ensure that there is international condemnation and that the focus continues.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking with our allies, especially the EU and the Five Eyes, to place effective sanctions on those running military companies that are still doing business with the military in Myanmar?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with our allies. She will have noticed the nine individuals who have been sanctioned recently, in addition to the 16 who already were. She makes a very valid point about the companies, particularly those linked to the military. We are focused on that and future sanctions policy will be part of that consideration.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, several diplomats from Myanmar are now making the brave choice to speak out against the violence. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what status and protection is awarded to these diplomats, and what the Government’s position is on CDC’s investments in the country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s second point, we are currently reviewing all our trade because of the situation on the ground in Myanmar, and certainly not continuing it until such time as we see democracy restored. On the point about the ambassadors and others, at the UN and here in the UK, I stand for their courage and bravery—I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House in that. They continue to represent the people of Myanmar in this country and elsewhere.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy in Burma. Can I return the Minister for a moment to the question from my noble friend Lady Cox, specifically calling for a high-level United Nations Secretary-General-led visit to the region and ask whether he will press that? On the question by the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, will the Minister look particularly at the nonrecognition of the credentials of the junta’s appointees to the United Nations and to the Court of St James in the United Kingdom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, I have already said that the current ambassador to the UN and the ambassador to the Court of St James continue to be the representatives of Myanmar in this country and at the UN. On the high-level visit, as I have said before, we are working through the Security Council and I will update noble Lords accordingly.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased that the United Kingdom promoted a draft Security Council resolution this week, but disappointed that no consensus has yet been reached. What steps will the United Kingdom now take, within the Security Council and with allies, and will they include building a coalition of countries to impose a global arms embargo? Can the Minister provide an assurance that United Kingdom businesses are no longer trading with military-owned companies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, I have already spoken of the sanctions that we have taken against military individuals. We are looking at companies specifically to target those with military links within Myanmar itself, and advising British business appropriately. On building international coalitions, I believe I have already answered that question, but we are also strengthening our alliances, including at the Human Rights Council.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, while the whole world’s attention is drawn to the clashes between the military junta and the pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar, what is our Government’s latest assessment of the safety and security of the ethnic Rohingya community, which has suffered genocide and forced migration during the previous military rule in Myanmar?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right to draw the House’s attention to the situation and the continuing challenges, including the discrimination towards and persecution of the Rohingya community within Myanmar and the suffering that continues, including for those who have managed to escape to Bangladesh. The support we offer them is a key priority for us and we continue to work with international authorities for their safe and voluntary return. However, the situation in Myanmar is dire at the moment, not just for them but for everyone.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
Is the Minister aware that in addition to the military’s crackdown on protesters, military offensives are taking place in northern Shan, Kachin and Karen states, causing the mass displacement of civilians? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure the protection of these civilians and to allow for urgent humanitarian assistance to reach them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate again brings the focus on to the humanitarian assistance. I assure your Lordships’ House that we are working—not through government agencies but through international NGOs—to ensure that those corridors of humanitarian assistance can be kept open. But we have seen an uptick in violence being perpetrated against protesters in Myanmar. Particularly worrying are the recent actions taken by the military and security forces during the night.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, did HMG note the piece in the 13 November issue of China Daily, welcoming the renewed mandate of Aung San Suu Kyi and her success in the election, and quoting President Xi Jinping as having said:
“China supports Myanmar following the development path of its own choice and is ready to consolidate and deepen the friendship between the two countries”?
Do my noble friend and Her Majesty’s Government believe that China could have a role in the ending of military rule and restoring Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy to government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend: China has an important role. The statement that he quoted is of course welcome. Equally, referring to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, China’s intervention in resolving the situation for the Rohingya is also an important part of finding a lasting solution for all in Myanmar and in the region.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister consider that recent events in Myanmar go some way to explaining the otherwise rather inexplicable behaviour of Aung San Suu Kyi in terms of the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, during Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership of Myanmar, we continued to raise the issue of the Rohingya community and will continue to do so. It is important that lessons are learned from the past, and we hope that democracy will return so that we can look specifically at the plight of the Rohingya community as well as others.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Government say clearly that the real difficulty is the attitude of China, notwithstanding the quotation from the China Daily that we just heard, and that if the Chinese Government were adamant that they were going to shift the military dictatorship, then it would happen? Is not the truth that they are holding up progress at the UN Security Council?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the role of China in the context of the region and, as the noble Lord rightly points out, on the UN Security Council, is an important one. I assure the noble Lord, as well as your Lordships’ House, that we will continue to engage with China to find a resolution to the restoration of democracy in Myanmar and a long-term solution for the safe, voluntary and dignified return of the Rohingya community.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Grace Period
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the response of the European Union to the United Kingdom’s decision to extend until October the grace period for checks on certain goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, we have noted the position set out by Vice-President Šefčovič in his statement on 3 March about the limited and temporary operational measures the Government announced last week. These measures are lawful and consistent with the progressive and good faith interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol. We will carefully consider any further steps the Commission decides it needs to take.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. I strongly support the actions taken by the Government in recent days as a necessary, proportionate and lawful response to the situation in which we currently find ourselves. Does my noble friend agree that the somewhat hysterical reaction of the EU yet again demonstrates its one-sided inability to recognise legitimate unionist concerns and to see the Belfast agreement through all of its strands—an agreement that its intransigence now threatens to undermine? In addition, can my noble friend assure me that this unionist Government will robustly defend any legal actions brought by the EU and that they will take whatever measures are necessary to guarantee Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the UK internal market?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his words of support for the decisions taken by the Government last week. Our overriding aim is to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—all the strands, north-south and east-west. The protocol was designed to achieve this. All sides need to be sensitive to the social and political realities, and the fact that the operation of the protocol rests on the confidence of both communities in Northern Ireland. I reassure my noble friend that we will consider any legal process launched by the EU very carefully; we will defend our position vigorously. The protocol is explicit in respecting the territorial integrity of the UK and we will ensure that is sustained.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I join in very warmly welcoming the noble Lord to the House. Does he accept that behind this trade crisis in Northern Ireland is his own hostility to the European Union? He has taken Britain out of the customs union and single market and therefore necessitated these trade controls. Is he aware that Margaret Thatcher, who largely created the single market, said:
“How we meet the challenge of the Single Market will be a major factor, possibly the major factor, in our competitive position in European and world markets into the twenty-first century. Getting it right needs a partnership between government and business”?
Does the noble Lord agree with Lady Thatcher?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We developed a model of Brexit and implemented it on the back of the election victory in December 2019, which is about leaving the customs union and single market. We believe that the United Kingdom will benefit from control of its own laws, trade policy and money. That situation will give us benefits. We would like a constructive relationship with the European Union and I will be working to ensure that happens.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box. We knew that businesses which export out of the UK to the EU required an HMRC EORI number, but now businesses need a Northern Ireland EORI number to trade internally in the UK with Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, stated in a letter to me on 11 February that, of the 770,000 trading businesses in the UK, only 58,000 have a Northern Ireland XI EORI number. Why would businesses in the UK require export registrations to trade with other parts of the UK? If there is unfettered trade within the UK, why do only 12% of UK businesses currently have the capability to trade with Northern Ireland?
Lord Frost (Con)
This Government are working extremely hard to ensure the fair and free flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have provided more than £200 million to support businesses through the trader support service and processed declarations for over 200,000 consignments. Some 34,000 businesses are registered and 98% of declarations are handled within 15 minutes. An EORI number is part of the requirement to trade now that we have left the customs union, but we are doing our utmost to ensure the free flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the protocol requires.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was heavily exposed to the Troubles across the whole span of my broadcasting career, so I am particularly alert to the delicacy of the current situation in Northern Ireland. The Governments of John Major and Tony Blair invested enormous political capital in resolving the tensions there. Will this Government?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Our overriding aim is to protect the peace process in Northern Ireland and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is an avowed and primary purpose of the Northern Ireland protocol. As we implement the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way, we do so very mindful of the considerations he has in mind and protecting all aspects of the peace process.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, temporary derogations, waivers or exemptions are by definition not a long-term solution to the problems intrinsic in the protocol. Will my noble friend the Minister address the asymmetry—the absurdity—at the heart of the protocol: its contention that checks on goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland undermine the Good Friday agreement and may even jeopardise peace, but checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain have no such consequences?
Lord Frost (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The protocol was designed to deal with the very complex reality to which he alludes. It needs to be implemented in a way that takes account of all the strands of the Good Friday agreement—east-west as well as north-south—and enables cross-community consent for those arrangements to be sustained. That means that the smooth flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland needs to be preserved, as well as an open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
I also congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and thank him for engaging afresh with the EU Committee in his new capacity. How was the joint committee apparatus, including the joint consultative working group on the withdrawal agreement, used to discuss and disseminate the Government’s decision on grace periods before its announcement? Further, given the furore, if they had their time again, would they have played things differently?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for his question, and I look forward to appearing before his committee again in the near future. We have been working through the joint committee mechanisms since the beginning of the year and before. The measures taken last week were operational, technical and temporary. We informed the Commission of those through the appropriate channels and at the appropriate level before the decision was made public.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think we all welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is now able to answer Questions from the Dispatch Box and we look forward to an ongoing dialogue with him about his Cabinet responsibilities. His role in the negotiations has been credited with getting the agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol over the line. He would have been aware then of all the implications. Given that he supported the creation of, and now co-chairs, the Joint Committees he has referred to, which are designed to resolve such disputes, would not the most mature and pragmatic way to deal with this issue be to continue with that process? Does he understand that the unilateral action he is championing is a double threat? It jeopardises the European Parliament’s ratification of his own agreement and damages our international reputation if we cannot be trusted to keep our word.
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the Baroness and I look forward to answering many more Questions from this Dispatch Box about our approach to the relationship with the European Union. We would like to see a constructive relationship with the European Union in future. The difficulty we are faced with this year is that the EU’s decision to invoke Article 16 in Northern Ireland has created a new and very difficult situation that has undermined cross-community confidence and we have been trying to deal with that. We would like to do so in a constructive and consensual way but we also have to have to regard to the situation and the need to maintain confidence and consent across both communities in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Can he confirm exactly how and when the Irish Government were informed about the decision unilaterally to extend the grace period?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We do not go into the detail of diplomatic communications at the highest level but I can confirm that the Irish Government were informed of this decision before it was made public by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 3 March.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, likewise, I welcome the noble Lord to his position at the Dispatch Box. As one living near the border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and as a former MEP, I am very conscious that border issues can destabilise Northern Ireland. I am disappointed that the European Union does not recognise that. I am even more disappointed that the House of Lords European Union Committee did not recognise the tensions and trading problems that the protocol would create. Today the Vice-President of the European Commission, Šefčovič, is addressing the friends of the Republic of Ireland in the Congress in Washington. I hope he will ensure that he gets a report from our embassy in America on what is said. In so far as the future is concerned—
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My question is this. In so far as the future is concerned, there must be agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Will the Government ensure that the common travel area will be secured, that all three strands of the Belfast agreement will be supported and that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom will extend throughout Northern Ireland?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I agree very much that all sides must be sensitive to the social and political realities in Northern Ireland and to the need for the consent of both communities if it is to work effectively. Our actions have been aimed at restoring that confidence. Indeed, I can reassure the noble Lord that we will protect the common travel area—which is specifically protected in the protocol—but our overriding aim is to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the territorial integrity of the UK. Northern Ireland’s place in the customs union and single market will be protected.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend and wish him well in the task that lies ahead. Following on from the questions of my noble friends Lord Caine and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, can he tell me—I fear I may be a little simple and he will have to be patient with me —what evidence has been put forward by those who insist that checks on goods crossing the land mass of Ireland undermine the prospects of peace while, by contrast, checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea do not? Can he explain why Brussels can simply stop trade in vital goods such as vaccines to Northern Ireland, but threatens us for doing business with our own people? Am I simple or is it all a rotten case of double standards?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very acute observation about the situation. As I have noted, the protocol must be implemented in a way that takes account of all strands of the Good Friday agreement—that is, east-west as well as north-south. The EU’s decision to activate Article 16 in January, however briefly, has compounded the difficulties and severely shaken confidence. We would obviously prefer it if the EU would reckon with the situation it has created and work with us to ensure that trade can flow in all directions, including to Northern Ireland, in a free and fair manner.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Smith, does the Minister not now regret taking unilateral action against an agreement which he was party to? Does he not worry that no one will accept or trust his word ever again?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, there were already challenges in the operation of the protocol in early January this year and they were already having a direct and disproportionate impact on citizens in Northern Ireland. The EU’s decision to invoke Article 16 compounded the difficulties and undermined cross-community confidence. Our actions have been aimed at restoring confidence and minimising disruption to the everyday life of people in Northern Ireland. That is what this Government will work to ensure.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. My apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
I am going to take a moment or two to allow the Chamber to clear a bit before we move on to the next business. There is a moment or two for you to shuffle out.
I think everyone has now shuffled. We now come to the Motion in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the House of Lords Commission Access and use of facilities by retired members be agreed to (2nd Report, HL Paper 233).
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, this report addresses an anomaly in the treatment of Members who retire before they are suspended or expelled from the House. The issue is simple. When a Member retires from the House, the House has agreed that they should enjoy certain privileges. These include a parliamentary pass, access to the Chamber and the ability to use, and bring guests to, certain catering facilities. When a Member is suspended or expelled their pass is revoked and they cannot access the estate or the services of the House.
In recent times, some Members facing suspension or expulsion have retired before the House approved such a sanction. The default position is that Members in this position enjoy all the usual privileges of a retired Member. The House of Lords Commission has, on a case-by-case basis, agreed to remove these rights. However, this ad-hoc approach can lead to delay and uncertainty for the House and its staff about the rights available for such Members.
To address this, it is proposed that the removal of retired Members’ rights in these circumstances should be automatic upon the House agreeing the Conduct Committee’s report. In the case of a recommendation to suspend, the removal of rights would last for the duration of the proposed suspension but the commission may agree a longer period in exceptional circumstances. If the recommendation was to expel the Member, the removal of rights would be permanent. This would ensure a consistent approach and provide certainty to Members, staff and others on the estate. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
One individual has requested to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, whom I now call.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I will put one or two questions to the Senior Deputy Speaker. I realise that it would be foolish to try to divide the House because it is a unanimous report by everyone who counts in the place. However, paragraph 5, on Members who are “suspended or expelled”, begins:
“Members who lose their membership as a result of non-attendance”.
Non-attendance is being neither suspended nor expelled. What attempts, if any, are made to discover why people are not attending? In particular, I have in mind a situation where someone is ill and it falls off the horizon. For instance, if someone had a stroke and was in hospital, does anyone try to check why non-attendance happens, and is the Member given any warning that his or her non- attendance is about to lead to the suspension of rights?
Even if they are, if you lose your seat as result of non-attendance, surely it is a little different from “a sentence of imprisonment” or being “expelled or suspended”, as paragraph 5 continues. I see no reason, other than an exceptional one, why people who lose their seat because of non-attendance should be effectively banished from the estate.
Secondly, on the “practical consequences” of expulsion or suspension, paragraph 6(b) says that
“the Member may not enter the House of Lords Estate as the guest of another Member or otherwise”.
This is surely a bit over the top. We recently suspended the membership of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. He and I agree on virtually nothing, in our social views of the world, but I respect his work in Northern Cyprus, particularly in standing up for the many soldiers in British uniform killed during the troubles in Cyprus. As such, I regard him as a friend whom I totally disagree with on a lot of things, but I am really quite shocked that I cannot even bring him into the place for a cup of tea; this seems over the top and an infringement on individual Members’ rights.
However, it is not only that. Has it been legally checked that we can stop a member of the public—that is what they are—coming to the Gallery to watch a debate? Do we have the right to single out citizens of the United Kingdom to be barred from Parliament? I would like an assurance that legal efforts will be put into dealing with that.
I repeat my concern that the way in which this disciplinary procedure is working is unsatisfactory. There is no opportunity for any sort of public input: things are just put to the vote, and, of course, the vote is carried. I would like a review of the whole process to see whether natural justice is fulfilled. I suspect that, if anyone ever went to judicial review, they would probably win, due to the way in which this is structured. I look again at the case of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis: the parliamentary commissioner suggested a sanction that the committee, without giving any reasons, promptly doubled. This is not transparent and not the way to run the place, in my view.
As such, I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker to look at these things. I will not press this to a vote because, apart from anything else, I would lose—but it needs looking at. We need to consider very carefully how we deal with these issues. In particular, mixing up non-attendance with a term of imprisonment shows that whoever wrote the report is not filled with kindness, whatever else they may have.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, whom I now call.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have a question. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will be able to deal with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but I wonder whether the latter was slightly confused in his comments. What is before us today, as I understand it—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McFall, could confirm this—is not the issues raised around Members who have been suspended or expelled in the past but whether it is appropriate that those Members who seek to retire early should be treated in the same way as other Members who have been expelled or suspended from your Lordships’ House.
As such, it is not that the points he raised were wrong, but they are not relevant to the decision before us today, which looks only at whether Members who retire because they are facing investigation or sanction from the Conduct Committee should not be treated differently but should be subject to the same sanctions.
I will raise one point about those Members who lose their membership as a result of non-attendance. Obviously, this has been a difficult Session for some Members, but my understanding is that the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the individual groups have contacted several times any Members who may have been affected by that—and that they have co-operated with them in terms of their membership of the House. No one wants to see someone leave, or be automatically suspended from, the House just because of the current Covid situation. My understanding, which the Senior Deputy Speaker can confirm, is that this has been addressed by both the Clerk of the Parliaments and individual group leaders and Whips.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
There being no one else present in the Chamber who wishes to speak, I now call the Senior Deputy Speaker.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their questions. On the issue of the commission removing rights from Members, we had two cases when I chaired the Procedure and Privileges Committee: first, that of Lord Lester of Herne Hill and, secondly, that of Lord Ahmed in December 2020. The cases were recorded in the public minutes of the commission, but there was a sanction pending and the Members retired, and it was with that in mind that we addressed that particular position. As such, the noble Baroness is correct on that point.
On the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, about the House authorities notifying Members who may be at risk of losing their membership through non-attendance, yes, the House authorities work with the usual channels to do this. Information is given at that time, so he need not worry that an arbitrary decision may be made with no one knowing about it. Indeed, this would come to my office at some stage, and I engage regularly—at least every month—with all the usual channels, be it the Leader’s Office or the Chief Whips. This issue would come up if that was pending.
The answer to his second point—whether Members covered by the provisions in the report can still attend the Palace as guests of another Member—is no: the House Committee decided that Members who are suspended or expelled should not attend the House as the guest of another Member. I am sure that the legality of that has been checked but, just to reassure the noble Lord, I will take that back and write to him on that point.
Lastly, on the point about whether the provisions in the report capture those Members whose membership is ended by virtue of non-attendance over the full course of a Session, my answer is no: this applies only to Members sanctioned by the Conduct Committee. However, the noble Lord will be aware that Members who cease to be so because they do not attend the House during the Session do not have the privileges of a retired Member.
I hope that answers the questions, but if any issues have been left hanging, I will certainly respond in writing to the noble Lords.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Wednesday 10th March 2021
(3 years, 8 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 171-III Third marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2021)
16:21 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 237 - Amendment 21 agreed.
18:32 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 44 - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 252 - Amendment 44 agreed.
21:55 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 50 - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 241 - Amendment 50 agreed.
22:08 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 245 - Amendment 51 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. Participants who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice 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 to the group.
Amendment 17
“Duty to report on domestic abuse services in England
(1) The Commissioner must, before the end of the relevant period, prepare and publish a report under section 8 on—(a) the need for domestic abuse services in England, and(b) the provision of such services. (2) But subsection (1) does not require the Commissioner to report on the need for, or provision of, services provided to people who reside in relevant accommodation (within the meaning of section 55(2)).(3) In subsection (1)—“domestic abuse services” means any advice, advocacy or counselling services provided, in relation to domestic abuse, to victims of domestic abuse or their children;“the relevant period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force (but see subsection (4)).(4) The Secretary of State, with the agreement of the Commissioner, may by regulations extend the relevant period for a further period of up to 6 months.(5) The power conferred by subsection (4) may be exercised only once.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to prepare and publish a report on the need for certain domestic abuse services in England and the provision of such services. The report must be published no later than 12 months after this new Clause comes into force.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments brings us back to the provision of community-based support for victims of domestic abuse and their children. I share the ambition of my noble friend Lord Polak, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Rosser, and all noble Lords to ensure that domestic abuse victims receive the support that they need, regardless of where they reside. The provisions in Part 4 of the Bill, which relate to the provision of support within safe accommodation, are a major step towards meeting that goal.
The issue before us is whether we can and should now be legislating for a parallel duty in respect of community-based support, whether by extending the provisions in Part 4, as Amendment 31 seeks to do, or by making freestanding provision, as in Amendment 85. The Government remain firmly of the view that the necessary groundwork for such legislation has yet to be undertaken and, accordingly, that it would be premature to legislate in this Bill by either method.
I can see the attraction of Amendment 31, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It seemingly accepts the government argument that we do not yet know how we should frame the duty in respect of community-based support, so a regulation-making power affords a mechanism to come back to this once the domestic abuse commissioner has completed her mapping work and the Government have consulted.
Let me make a couple of observations about Amendment 31. First, your Lordships’ House and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee are regularly critical of the Government for coming forward with skeletal delegated powers such as in the amendment. The framework for the provision of safe accommodation support is on the face of the Bill and it is right that any parallel duty in respect of community-based support should also be set out in primary legislation. Secondly, even if the route of delegated legislation was, in principle, an acceptable way forward, until we have developed and consulted on a scheme for that provision of community-based support, we simply do not know how properly to frame a regulation-making power to ensure that we have the necessary vires to give effect to a set of proposals post-consultation. The landscape for the provision of community-based support is more complex than that in respect of safe accommodation- based support, as Amendment 85 recognises, so a power simply to extend the provisions of Part 4 is not, in our view, the right approach.
Amendment 85, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and in Committee by my noble friend, seeks to navigate the complexities of the current provision of community-based support by placing a new duty on local authorities in England, local policing bodies in England and Wales and clinical commissioning groups in England. This may or may not be the right approach, but I do not think that we are in a position to make that judgement yet. If the duty is to be split three ways, we need to know how the discharge of the duty is to be co-ordinated between the three agencies to ensure that there is not overlapping provision or that support for some victims does not slip through the cracks. In applying the duty across three agencies, Amendment 85 risks creating an environment in which accountability is unclear, presenting challenges for all bodies in ensuring that the necessary services are provided to those who need them.
It is the Government’s clear view that there are no ready-made solutions such that we would be in a position to legislate here and now. We need to better understand the existing landscape and the gap in provision, which is why the domestic abuse commissioner’s mapping work is so vital. We need to draw on the evidence provided by that work and other sources, consult widely and then come forward with proposals that command widespread support and, most importantly, deliver the necessary support in the most effective and efficient way possible.
As part of this work, we need properly to understand the resource implications of any new duty. The £125 million of new money that we have provided to fund the duty in Part 4 shows both the level of our commitment and the significant cost of any parallel new duty in relation to community-based support. Women’s Aid has suggested that some £220 million is needed. I make no comment on that or the accuracy of that estimate, but it at least demonstrates that Amendments 31 or 85, were either to be passed, would have significant financial implications, which this House should be alive to.
Recognising that the House is reluctant to let this Bill pass without it containing some provision that recognises the problem and provides a pathway to the solution, the Government have brought forward Amendments 17, 20, 22, 24 to 29 and 99. Amendment 17 places a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to prepare and publish a report under Clause 8 of the Bill on the need for community-based domestic abuse services in England and the provision of such services. As with the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill, we have limited this duty to the provision of community-based services in England in recognition of the fact that we are generally dealing here with devolved matters in Wales. The commissioner will be required to deliver a Clause 8 report on this issue within 12 months of commencement and then, by virtue of the provisions in Clause 16, Ministers will be required to respond to any recommendations directed at them within 56 days. This amendment will therefore set out a clear roadmap for the Government to set out definitive proposals for addressing the gap in the provision of community-based support.
Amendments 20, 22 and 24 to 29 address the concerns raised in Committee that the new duty in Part 4 of the Bill may have unintended consequences regarding community-based support that is currently provided or funded by local authorities. I know that my noble friend Lord Polak was particularly concerned about this. As a result of the £125 million funding that we are providing to tier-1 local authorities to support the delivery of Part 4, we think that such concerns are unfounded. However, we recognise that there would be merit in making provision in Part 4 to monitor any unintended impact. These amendments do just that.
The amendments will also ensure that the domestic abuse local partnership boards, provided for in Clause 56, play an active part in such monitoring and that the results are recorded in tier-1 local authorities’ annual reports under Clause 57. These annual reports will feed into the work of the ministerially led national expert steering group, of which the domestic abuse commissioner will be a member, so that the impact, if there is any, of the Part 4 duty on the provision of domestic abuse support to people in the community by local authorities can also be monitored.
The Government are ready to take one further step. I can say that the Government are now committed to consulting on the provision of community-based domestic abuse services in the upcoming victims law consultation. I recognise the concerns about missing the legislative bus and the suspicion—it is unfounded—that the Government will kick this into the long grass. The government amendments that I have outlined will ensure that that does not happen, as will our commitment to consult on a victims law later this summer.
As to the concerns that this is all too far off and victims need support now, there is already significant provision. Since 2014, Ministry of Justice funding has helped police and crime commissioners to support victims of crime within their local areas, addressing the specific local needs identified within their communities. This core grant will be around £69 million in 2021-22, which includes an uplift for child sexual abuse services. Additionally, the Government have committed a further £40 million, which includes £9.7 million for domestic abuse community-based services commissioned by PCCs for the coming year, as well as £8 million for independent domestic violence advisers, the support of which will be felt mostly in the community. This does not take account of support provided by local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and others. It may not be enough, but these sums demonstrate the significant levels of community-based support that are already available for domestic abuse victims and their children, and for other victims of crime.
I am very much looking forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate on these amendments. I reiterate my thanks to my noble friends Lord Polak and Lady Sanderson, who are in the Chamber now, and to other noble Lords who have engaged so constructively on this. I hope that what I have said today is evidence of our intent and that the House will support this approach. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments, but I am not yet convinced they go far enough. As the Minister explained, Part 4 places a duty on local authorities in England to deliver support to victims, including children, in accommodation-based services such as refuges. There is a risk though that, as the duty applies only to accommodation-based services, it could have the unintended consequence of diverting funding from community-based services to ensure the duty is met. It would indeed be a perverse incentive, resulting in victims having only one option left if they need support in accommodation-based services. Most victims— around 70%—currently remain at home or in the wider community, accessing community-based support. This can be through independent domestic violence advisers, outreach support and child specialist workers, helplines and perpetrator programmes, as well as specialist local agencies offering drop-in services for children.
As SafeLives commented:
“We have very serious concerns that, while well intended, the Government’s duty will push Local Authorities into reducing, rather than sustaining, vital services, leaving more vulnerable people in abusive situations … We know the financial pressure that Local Authorities are under, and a number have said that they can now only provide minimum requirements … and nothing further.”
The domestic abuse commissioner has similar fears.
The amendments that the Government have laid are clearly welcome in requiring the commissioner to prepare and publish a report under Clause 8 on the need for community-based domestic abuse services in England and the provision of such services. It is also good to see that local authorities will be required to publish a strategy under Clause 55 to keep under review any effect of that strategy on community-based support in their area. However, welcome as they are, these amendments do not guarantee the maintenance or enhancement of community services, nor is there any guarantee that, following the commissioner’s review of the landscape of provision, action would then be taken by the Government.
I thought it was telling that the submission we received from the Local Government Association seemed rather lukewarm about these amendments. It said that nothing in the amendments provides long-term or sustained investment in these services.
This morning, the National Audit Office report on local government finance spelled out the financial challenge local authorities face. They will be under significant pressure in the next financial year and are likely to be operating with reduced tax bases and increased service demand as their local communities and businesses recover from the pandemic, and this is likely to go on for a number of years to come.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to table my amendment in Committee. I welcomed the debate and the overwhelming support from around the House. In particular, I acknowledge the support of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Rosser, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.
I am, perhaps, even more pleased that I have not tabled it again on Report. I am grateful to my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues for giving so much of their time to meet and discuss this; for the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend; and for confirming the Government’s commitment to address issues around community-based services in a letter to me last Thursday.
We all agree that community-based services are vital in supporting the majority of domestic abuse victims who remain at home. Government amendments to ensure that local authorities monitor and report on the impact of their duties under Part 4 on other service provision, are most welcome, as is the Government’s commitment to consult on the provision of community-based domestic abuse services in the upcoming victims law consultation this summer. These have been welcomed not just by me but in a press release, published under the leadership of Barnardo’s, by the domestic abuse commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, domestic abuse campaigner Charlie Webster, Imran Hussain at Action for Children, the End Violence Against Women coalition, the NSPCC and SafeLives. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on uniting these groups and organisations in welcoming the Government’s commitments. This is an incredibly important step forward in understanding and addressing the provision of community-based domestic abuse services, so that all victims, especially children, will be able to access support, regardless of where they live.
I hope the consultation will take a holistic approach to tackling domestic abuse, carefully considering what is needed to support children and adults, as well as programmes to tackle the behaviour of perpetrators and break the cycle of domestic abuse. I am certain that my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues, working with the professional and deeply impressive domestic abuse commissioner—who I thank for her advice—will place community-based services on the same statutory footing as accommodation-based services. I appeal for her office to be properly and adequately funded.
Again, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her time and for the helpful letter she sent me. I am pleased to support the amendments in her name. I look forward to continuing to work with her and with all noble Lords as this important Bill becomes law.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief, not least because of the happy coincidence that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Polak, have largely said what I was going to say. I thank them. I can now go and have a late lunch.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Polak, I was impressed by the Barnardo’s press release last Thursday, with all the different voices speaking in unison. My own experience of dealing with voluntary organisations over many years is that hell hath no fury like different voluntary organisations in pursuit of similar goals and, in particular, similar pools of funding. Peace seems rather dangerously to have broken out in this case. I hope it will continue.
I thank the Government for listening. It was a bit of a no-brainer with a Bill in which 25% of the accommodation-based services for domestic abuse victims were dealt with but 75% were not. That was an open goal waiting to be filled. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged this and acted on it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I took note of the National Audit Office investigation and report into the state of local authority funding. I have observed a variety of individuals in this House—some of whom I have worked in co-operation with—who, for the best of reasons, ceaselessly plead with the Government to put more and more statutory duties on local authorities in a whole variety of different areas. In a sense, this is dangerous because, in a situation where local authorities are under the strains and stresses that they are, piling even more statutory duties or guidance on them runs the risk of mission failure and initiative fatigue. I am very conscious of this. It requires a joined-up approach from the different parts of Her Majesty’s Government.
The Home Office is doing its bit. The Ministry of Justice is going to do what may not come easily to it and talk more openly with the communities department —and vice versa. It was not terribly helpful that the Secretary of State, while acknowledging the councils’ problems, could not resist the political dig of accusing them of poor management. This is a bit rich coming from a national Administration who have spent the amount of money they have on initiatives such as test and trace, or who have presided over the highest number of deaths per million in the world during the current pandemic. Before one starts throwing political missiles at one’s opponents, it does one a lot of good to look in the mirror and have a degree of humility. None of us gets it right all the time.
When the domestic abuse commissioner comes back with her recommendations, I would plead with the various parts of national government and the local authorities to talk to one another, agree, buy into whatever is recommended, and put in place properly thought-through, long-term plans to deliver on this strategy and to fund it properly.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, government Amendment 17 requires the domestic abuse commissioner to prepare and publish a report on
“the need for domestic abuse services in England, and … the provision of such services.”
The report must be published no later than 12 months after this new clause comes into force.
Other government amendments require local authorities to keep under review the impact of the duty to provide accommodation-based services on their provision of other domestic abuse services in the community.
Amendment 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, makes it clear that the public authority may not prioritise accommodation-based support services for persons with a protected characteristic over other support services for the same person, except in so far as those persons have a greater need for accommodation-based services than for other support services.
Amendment 31 would give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the duty in Part 4 to include community services, instead of just accommodation-based services. I agree with the points made and the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in his powerful contribution.
Amendments 85 and 86 in my name are the community service amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, re-tabled. We tabled them pending sight of the Government’s specific commitments and amendments. I will not move them. Like others in the House and outside, we welcome the Government’s amendments and commitment to consult on community-based services as part of the consultation on the victims law. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and to other noble Lords, as well as to all the organisations which have worked on this issue. I also pay tribute to the shadow Minister in the Commons, Jess Phillips, who pursued the proper provision for community-based services with some vigour and determination during the Bill’s passage through the other House.
We now need to see the Government’s words and commitments translated into real progress and meaningful action. The key to achieving this is for services, victims and perpetrators to be looked at holistically; to see what needs to be done in the round to prevent abuse, and to support victims who experience it. This also means providing services for children who are victims, for older victims and for perpetrators, as well as ensuring that there are specialist services for black and ethnic minority victims. Healthcare services are also vital.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I am greatly relieved that he said what he said—he made some powerful points—but it is right that we back the government amendments. I will speak to that today.
The Bill’s commitment to giving refuges statutory status is vital, but we knew that giving no statutory recognition anywhere in the Bill to community-based services posed a clear risk to inadvertently downgrading their status, which we absolutely had to prevent. I believe that these amendments do that, but I agree that we will all keep a close eye on their execution to check that they genuinely safeguard the status of community services.
I thank the designate domestic abuse commissioner, as well charities such as Barnardo’s and SafeLives and my noble friend Lord Polak, for being so determined and tenacious. I am greatly relieved that these charities have welcomed these amendments. I know that they are satisfied and greatly relieved, but of course we will have to keep a close eye on whether they do the job. I also extend my thanks to my noble friend the Minister. She has given us a lot of time on this issue and genuinely cares about it. I know that she was integral to getting these amendments over the line.
I back other Peers’ calls to make sure that the domestic abuse commissioner’s office has the proper resourcing to carry out these additional responsibilities. Throughout this Bill’s passage, we have been sending her more and more work, so reasonable adjustments should be made. Helping victims to stay in their homes, stemming the abuse before it damages families beyond repair and prevention must be at the heart of our strategy over the coming years. These amendments point to that. I fully support them and urge noble Lords to do the same.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31 and 85. I underline that domestic abuse services, which I very much support, should include victims being forced into marriage. I particularly have in mind the special needs of those being forced into marriage who are under the age of 18. I know that the Minister is well aware of the points that I am making. I am sorry to keep pressing them, but I want them on the record.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, having listened to other speeches from noble Lords, I realise that the comments that I have prepared are far too mild. I was just going to congratulate everyone who has campaigned and fought for proper provision and thank the Government for working constructively. It is not often that I find myself on the mild end of things. I think that there is now a clear understanding of the need for community services, including supporting survivors of domestic abuse in their own homes. I feel strongly that the abusers should have to leave and not the survivors. The Green group is very supportive of Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I am sure that we will come back to it at another time in another place. In the meantime, well done everyone.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness and her mild comments. I will speak to and welcome Amendments 17, 24 and 28. As we have said many times before, this was already a very good Bill. I thank the Government and particularly my noble friend Lady Williams for the lengths to which she has gone to improve it further. She has been unstinting in her determination to address many of the outstanding issues, always putting the victims’ needs first. With these amendments, I believe that the Government have addressed the potential unintended consequences of a two-tier system.
The Government are wary of specifying what the independent commissioner should and should not report on, and I agree with them. The Minister has also made the point that the commissioner is already undertaking the relevant mapping exercise. None the less, Amendment 17 sends a signal about the importance of community-based services. Together with the requirement for local authorities to assess the impact of the duty under Part 4 and the further requirement, via Amendment 28, for local partnership boards to advise on other local authority support, I believe that this provides a robust and, importantly, ongoing mechanism and structure for ensuring that community-based services are not adversely affected by the duty.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on the provision of community-based services and congratulate my noble friend Lord Polak on all the work that he has done in this area. I also welcome the amazing number of charities and stakeholders that have welcomed these amendments. As I have said before, I understand why the Government cannot extend the duty in this Bill. On this issue and so many others, they have come forward with significant changes. They have moved where they can and altered their position in areas where we thought that they would not.
I realise that I am still relatively new to this House. I also realise that no Bill will ever be perfect and that noble Lords will fight for the changes that they think are right, but this Bill has cross-party support, and for very good reason. It will create a genuine step change in the way we tackle domestic abuse. It has already raised so much awareness. Someone who works on the front line said to me on seeing the raft of government amendments:
“You should see the amazing survivor messages I’m seeing this morning. I’m quite emotional seeing their excitement. We feel the tide is turning.”
The tide is turning but, as we all know, we have only a limited period to get this Bill through. I believe it is now up to us to bid it safe passage.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock. No? Perhaps we should hear from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, since she is with us.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend the Minister and congratulate her on bringing forward this group of amendments. It shows that a serious issue has been raised and the Government have risen to the challenge and addressed it. It is extremely important, for the reasons that others have set out. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Polak and others on the work that they have done in bringing us to this place.
I will raise one concern with my noble friend the Minister, which was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and which I think we are all aware of. We are yet to assess the implications of the pandemic and the recent Budget on local government finances. I seek assurance from my noble friend because there is a genuine concern out there. I know that many authorities, such as North Yorkshire and many others in rural areas, prioritise the most vulnerable in society—young people, children and the elderly—but there is concern that their budget and resources are severely stretched. While I welcome the amendments, particularly government Amendment 17 and the others set out by my noble friend, we are entirely dependent on local authorities having the provision to make this happen. Is she entirely convinced that they will have the resources to enable them to do so?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should make it clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, has withdrawn from the debate, so we shall not be hearing from her on this occasion. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I should declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I added my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Hollins. It is very welcome that the Bill will, for the first time, give local authorities a formal role in the provision of domestic abuse support. The voluntary sector has done a heroic job in protecting survivors, victims and their families, but this vital task should not be left to the voluntary sector alone.
The words of the Minister were welcome, reflecting her deep and sincere commitment to tackling domestic abuse. The government amendments recognise the need to ensure that regulation will meet need and are certainly to be supported. If I heard correctly, some of the additional finance will apply only to England. How will parallel community services be financially supported in Wales? Without that additional funding also coming to Wales, there will be a serious risk that women fleeing abuse will also have to flee Wales to get the support they need.
We must not ignore those outside refuges, some of whom are turned away due to their alcohol and substance-use needs, which makes them ineligible for support from their local authority. However, they still need support. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is needed in addition to the Government’s amendments. It would ensure that the necessary support is available and would support the whole scoping exercise without any discrimination. I really urge the Government to support it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the new statutory duty on local authorities to provide safe accommodation-based services for victims of domestic abuse and their children is widely welcomed, but I am still sympathetic to the ongoing fears that this might mean local authorities simply redistributing funding away from community services in order to meet that statutory need. I welcome these thoughtful amendments and the discussion that focuses on protecting specialist community service provision. While I am still not sure whether this issue should be dealt with through legislation, it is very important that it has come up. I am minded to consider seriously Amendments 30 and 31 in particular.
However, there is one category of specialist services that I am worried the Bill has inadvertently not focused on: women’s domestic abuse services, whether community or accommodation-based, which are under threat. Ironically, council funding does not help. The Bill’s increase in funding and the new legal duty on councils will not resolve this issue. There seems to be some muddled thinking about how councils should deliver specialist services more broadly. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take that into account in this set of amendments or in guidance notes.
I declare a minor interest, in that I am a long-standing columnist for the MJ – for the uninitiated, the Municipal Journal. It has been eye-opening watching councils in recent years trying to negotiate equalities legislation in the context of new political trends such as gender-neutral policies. The Equality Act 2010 clearly protects single-sex exemptions that allow women to have legitimate access to women-only services and spaces: gyms, hospitals, changing rooms and, of course, crucial services such as Rape Crisis, women’s refuges and women’s advice services. The newly launched organisation Sex Matters notes that rules and explanations are now confused and controversies around gender identity mean that organisations can be reluctant to communicate their women-only services clearly, and, when they do, councils can use this against them. This needs to be clarified as we go forward; otherwise, all the good will will be undermined.
One example of the unintended consequence of fudging championing women’s refuges is how councils are interpreting equalities impact assessments. In the drive for more inclusive, non-gendered service provision that caters for the needs of all protected characteristics, women’s refuges are in danger of losing funding for not being inclusive enough.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who regrets that she cannot be here today, was pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Polak, when his amendment on specialist and community-based services was discussed in Committee. We really warmly welcome the government amendments, which represent significant improvements on the Bill. All that being said, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, introduced Amendment 85 so that we might just press a little further. I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said, so I will make just a few brief comments.
We have heard repeatedly in debates in this House of the value of specialist and community-based services which allow survivors to remain in their homes and retain their community, their faith links and their workplaces and to keep children in their schools. Finding a long-term solution, as others have said, to supporting these services is essential. With colleagues on the Bishops’ Bench, I look forward to engaging with the victims’ law consultation and to reviewing the promised Clause 8 report from the domestic abuse commissioner to Parliament on the provision of, and need for, community-based support services.
I look forward to the excellent intentions being translated into provision of what is much needed.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will refer to Amendments 20, 22, 24 and 29.
I understand that the Minister has committed to consulting on community-based domestic abuse services as part of the victim’s law consultation this summer; that is extremely welcome. I thank the Government for this, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for his commitment to this issue. I also thank the Minister, who rightly responded to concerns raised by Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as the vice-president of that charity—and many other charities and organisations representing adult and child victims. As we know, children are often the hidden victims of domestic abuse. Can the Minister confirm that a statutory duty to deliver community-based services is a possible outcome to ensure that the majority of victims are supported in future?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the other speakers this afternoon, I welcome the Government’s amendments. However, I remain concerned about two matters, to which I will speak briefly; I will also ask the Minister to try to assure the House on them.
Many speakers have mentioned my first concern. Although having a statutory duty on local authorities to provide accommodation is welcome, if we do not deal with the question of community-based services, there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—a huge danger of money being transferred into the provision of the accommodation and away from such services. The Minister, who has done an excellent job on this Bill, has not explained clearly to the House why Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord cannot be accepted so as to protect these services in the interim while the commissioner undertakes her mapping exercise. If she is not prepared to accept that amendment, will she explain to the House what steps the Government will take to protect community-based services in the period when the mapping will be undertaken?
The second area that I want to refer to briefly is that of joint commissioning and the work being done in localities to provide these valuable services. The Minister touched on the lack of clarity over what this meant. I made inquiries of these services in Gloucestershire, a large county where localities have been undertaking community-based commissioning since 2013; this involves working across local authorities, health authorities, the police and crime commissioner and other services. The joint commissioning model has enabled them to offer far more women help than would be possible under an accommodation-based offer only. The service, they tell me, has taken referrals for 6,000 women in the past year, whereas an accommodation-based model would not have been able to deal with more than around 100 a year.
When we understand this perspective of the importance of community-based services and how they support victims and their families, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why she is not prepared to take the route of Amendment 85. In Gloucestershire, the emphasis is on safely keeping victims in their homes, allowing them to maintain family and community networks and avoid isolation, and enabling their children to stay connected to their school friends. These are clear objectives that can be distilled in demonstrating what a community-based model looks like. The services also offer places of safety through a scheme in which they provide safe accommodation in the form of individual properties for victims and their families, who can access this accommodation alongside outreach support.
We are talking about specialist services that are there to support victims of domestic abuse aged 16 and over. They provide help desks, phone lines, specialist group work and independent domestic violence advisers to support victims in the courts. They provide independent advisers to support young people and encourage them to confront the perpetrators and the type of behaviour that is developing. They also work with the health services and GPs to identify domestic abuse and respond to it rapidly.
This model is not unique to Gloucestershire. The Government have enough to make provisions in Amendments 30 and 85 to move us forward. This does not mean that the services will be available tomorrow, but it does mean that we understand what types of services are necessary. Even at this late stage, with the excellent work that has been undertaken by many noble Lords in this area, I sincerely hope that the Government will think again, give a much clearer lead on the pathway to deliver jointly commissioned community-based services and make the provision of such services a statutory duty.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, in Committee, the need to consider help for victims in the wider community as well as in refuges was raised again and again. These amendments put other local authority services for domestic abuse victims and their children front and centre, giving them the recognition and attention they deserve. However, it must be said that concerns have been expressed across the House about funding because we cannot enforce the provisions in the Bill and in these amendments without it.
We already know that most help and services are accessed in the community; the noble Lord, Lord Russell, described it as a no-brainer. I am therefore absolutely delighted by the Government’s response. I want to give the Minister full credit for the way in which she has listened and acted.
I support government Amendment 99, which would, for the first year only, give six months’ leeway for the Government’s new clause duty to report on domestic abuse services in England. That seems entirely reasonable to me. Who knows what challenges and obstacles the first report will encounter?
This has been an extremely useful and succinct debate. When I looked at the number of speakers, I thought “Oh my goodness, we’re going to be here a while”, but we have not. I hope that noble Lords, both those in the Chamber and those listening from home, will appreciate that we have a lot to get on with; their succinct comments are very welcome.
I will take a leaf out of their book and conclude by saying that peace has broken out. This debate is an example of the Lords working at its best. I congratulate noble Lords, the Minister and all the charities and organisations that have worked together in the best way possible to ensure that we have got to this situation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, is absolutely right to say that peace has broken out, but I do not think that your Lordships were ever at war. We have all been seeking the same ends. This has been a good and succinct debate—long may that last—and from what several noble Lords have said I know that they will keep a close eye on developments over the next few months.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Primarolo, made specific points about perpetrators being brought to book and that victims should be able to stay in their own home. The importance of community-based services for the victims of domestic abuse and their children is unquestionable. We share noble Lords’ ambitions to see all the victims of this terrible crime being supported.
It might assist the House if I briefly recap the Government’s reasoning on why now is not the appropriate time to legislate on this issue. I shall return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The current landscape is complex. Unlike accommodation-based services, those in the community are funded and commissioned not only by PCCs but by local authorities and clinical commissioning groups. Further, as another noble Lord said, the third sector is prominently involved in this. Introducing an undeveloped statutory duty in the Bill would run the risk of cementing in legislation a complex landscape that we are working hard to simplify. Equally, placing the duty on only one of these public bodies would be to risk legislating for responsibility in the wrong place. This is far too important an issue on which to legislate in a rush.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Russell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Primarolo and Lady Burt of Solihull, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh talked about the funding behind this, which is crucial. In fact, it has gone to the heart of the position taken by the Government. We must understand fully the cost of such a duty before we can implement it. The MHCLG duty has been funded at a cost of £125 million, so any action around community-based services must be funded appropriately. As I have said, significant government funding is already provided for these services, with an additional £17.7 million for them having been announced only last month. The results of this funding will be a further crucial piece of information to help us understand further need. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others that funding for the commissioner also has to be in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about the position in Wales and Amendment 17 placing a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to prepare and publish a report under Clause 8 on the provision of domestic abuse services in England. As with the provision made in Part 4, we have limited the duty to the provision of these community-based services in England in recognition that generally we are dealing here with devolved matters in Wales. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to ask the question. We recognise the concerns raised by noble Lords, which is why we have tabled amendments to demonstrate our commitments in this space.
The statutory duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to publish and lay before Parliament the Clause 8 report on the provision of and need for community-based support services, and the statutory duty on tier 1 local authorities to monitor and report on the safe accommodation duty on the provision of community-based support in their area, will together ensure that the Government have all the information they need to protect and support safe accommodation and services in the community. In addition, I have committed today to consulting this summer on a statutory duty around community-based services in the upcoming victims’ law consultation. This is a commitment to explore precisely the issues that noble Lords have highlighted in this debate. It will give us the time to do them justice. To rush legislation now would, as I have said, risk solidifying into statute the wrong framework and accountability mechanisms, as well as the wrong arrangements for ensuring that responsible public authorities collaborate to ensure that victims receive the services that they need.
We also cannot take a shortcut with a regulation-making power, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As I said in my opening speech, your Lordships’ House does not like the kind of skeletal powers that would be provided for in Amendment 31. Any new duties in respect of community-based support should be set out in primary legislation, as we have done for accommodation-based support in Part 4. This issue must be given thorough and thoughtful consideration. We will use the consultation to interrogate fully the current landscape of community-based services and to develop effective proposals on how we might ensure that it remains robust and effective in order to give all victims access to these vital services.
My noble friend Lord Polak pointed to the fact that Amendment 85 also seeks to make provision for perpetrator programmes. I agree entirely that more is needed here. The noble Baronesses, Lady Primarolo and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, also talked about the issue. I will set out our plans in this area when we come to debate other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. The needs of victims and perpetrators are clearly of a different order, but we recognise that both issues need to be addressed. However, we are not persuaded that they should be conflated in a single provision such as that provided for in Amendment 85.
I turn finally to Amendment 30. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that for the reasons I have explained, we would not expect local authorities to give priority to accommodation-based support services over community- based services, so the circumstances addressed in the amendment should not arise. In response to his question, once the new duty under Part 4 becomes law the public sector equality duty will apply to local authorities in delivering their functions under it.
In assessing needs, local authorities will consider the differing requirements of all victims. This goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because that will include those with relevant protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, as well as victims who might come in from outside the specific local authority area. As set out in the draft statutory guidance, tier 1 local authorities should make it clear in their strategies how they plan to make support services available that will meet the needs of all victims. The strategy should set out the support needs that have been identified as part of the local needs assessment, along with a clear breakdown of the differing needs of victims’ groups such as, but not limited to, those from BAME backgrounds or who identify as LGBT, and how they will address the barriers faced by victims with relevant protected characteristics and/or multiple or complex needs. I hope that that will answer the point put by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
We want the same outcomes here. I think and hope that the road map that I have set out, underpinned by our amendments, has reassured noble Lords that the Government are committed to taking this issue forward at pace. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, not to move his amendment. I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been an incredibly constructive debate and I hope that these government amendments will be universally supported.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have received a request to ask the Minister a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a couple of quick questions. The first relates to the additional money she mentioned today and in Committee that is going to local authorities to help to implement the legislation. Given what the NAO has said this morning, is she confident that local authorities will actually spend the money in the areas in which the Government wish them to? Secondly, on the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about the jeopardy that women-only spaces in refuges are coming under because of local authority commissioning policies, will the Minister remind those authorities of the need to implement fully the Equality Act 2010 and not try to reinterpret it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will answer the last question first. The Equality Act 2010 is of the utmost importance here. Whether or not I actually remind every local authority of its obligations under that Act, they have statutory duties, and under- pinning the work of every single local state body is the Equality Act.
Will local authorities necessarily spend the additional money on what they have been tasked with spending it on? It is being given to them in conjunction with a duty. I know, because of what she has said, that both the domestic abuse commissioner and the local boards will be scrutinising the spending and commissioning of those services locally.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come now to the group consisting of Amendment 18. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 37: Breach of order
Amendment 18
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the criminal standard of proof to a breach of a domestic abuse protection order.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment raises the relationship between the civil order and the criminal conviction that can result from a breach of it. I hope that this debate is as constructive as the last one, because my intention is not to divide the House but to get on record the explanation of how a DAPO—a domestic abuse protection order—and the breach of it will work.
The order may be made if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof, that an individual has been abusive to someone with whom he or she has a personal connection— I find it difficult to use “they” of the singular. It is also a condition that the order is
“necessary and proportionate to protect that person from domestic abuse, or the risk of domestic abuse”.
The civil court can impose requirements and the Bill gives examples, such as non-contact, not going to specified premises and electronic monitoring. If the subject of the order fails to comply with a requirement, without reasonable excuse, it is an offence of which he or she may be convicted. If found guilty, he or she is liable to a fine or imprisonment up to five years.
We debated protection notices and orders in Committee. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in a long and helpful reply, said that he agreed with the aims of our amendments and he summarised them correctly as:
“to ensure procedural fairness so that criminal liability and punishment for breach of a DAPO will occur only where the breach is proved to the criminal standard of proof”.
He also said:
“One of the strongest elements of a DAPO is that it is a civil order, made on the civil standard of proof. That means that if a victim is not able to, or chooses not to, seek remedy through the criminal justice system, they can still access protection from the court.”—[Official Report, 1/2/21; cols. 1950-51.]
I wonder whether the Minister can unpack that “not able”—why not? And “chooses not to”—why would we not require that course to be pursued? I understand, as much as someone who has not been in this situation can, the difficulties facing someone going through everything in a court, which is an issue that we will come to later. It is important to enable a victim to pursue both justice and protection, but it is also important to have regard to the rights of an alleged perpetrator, which is about the standard of proof to be attained.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for such clarity in raising some of my concerns. My enthusiasm for the Domestic Abuse Bill is somewhat muted by the worrying trend from the Government more broadly to use civil protection notices and orders to expand the coercive powers of the state, criminalising a greater range of behaviours without the bother of reaching the burden of proof of criminal law.
To be honest, I was surprised that those who usually speak up on civil liberties in this place seemed rather quiet on this, which is why I was glad to see this amendment. I know that the issue of domestic abuse is emotive and sensitive, and that we all want to do what we can to oppose it, but due process is important too, so I warmly welcome this amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for raising it.
It is a crucial amendment, because it aims to ensure that a criminal standard of proof is applied to a breach of a domestic abuse order. That is just not clear as the legislation is written. It seems an important protection for justice and the rule of law. The danger of any hybridisation of civil and criminal instruments is that criminal penalties can be given out without satisfying the criminal burden of proof, which means that someone can effectively be found guilty of a crime and labelled as a proven abuser without a legal test or representation. That feels far too subjective in the Bill, as it stands.
Of course, I understand that breaches of orders must have consequences. They are not just a piece of paper; they are not just there for show. The amendment seeks to clarify how the judgment of a “reasonable excuse” for a breach in the legislation, or that it was “beyond reasonable doubt”, is arrived at. It must be the role of the courts, but it is just not clear.
Dispensing with the criminal burden of proof can have some unintended consequences that are not in the interests of the victim either. Some campaigners fear that the police may choose to use breaches of an order as an easier alternative to proving charges for more serious criminal offences, such as assault or criminal damage. A lower threshold may imply that something has been done by the authorities—as it were, ticking a box—but perhaps more should be done. If the police go about choosing an easier tick-box solution, without the nuisance of gathering evidence that can be tested, that is a bad outcome, so we must ensure that order breaches are not used as an alternative to pursing criminal charges where appropriate.
It is also nerve-racking that some breaches of an order may be relatively minor and very far from criminally threatening to anyone, least of all the person the order is protecting. Some fear that alleged victims may be deterred from reporting breaches if that automatically criminalises their partner or their ex-partner, who might perhaps be the parent of their children.
The worry is that those who the Bill seeks to protect are being sidelined in the process and potentially disempowered. Their agency is potentially undermined by decisions taken by the police or third parties who can use breaches of an order to criminalise alleged perpetrators, regardless of what the victim wants or of however minor the breach. If that were to happen, the main loser would ultimately be due process. I therefore support this amendment wholeheartedly and look forward to the Minister clarifying this or reassuring us that this is not a way of avoiding a criminal burden of proof.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to go one step back and start with domestic abuse prevention notices. These can be given by a relatively junior police officer, despite what the legislation describes as a “senior police officer”—I was a police inspector at the age of 23—on the basis that he has reasonable grounds to believe that P has been abusive towards another person aged 16 or over to whom P is personally connected and reasonably believes that the notice is necessary to protect the person from abuse by P. If P breaches the notice, P can be arrested and must be held in custody before they can be brought before the court. That is a lot of power invested in a relatively junior and potentially inexperienced police officer, with serious consequences for P. A practical alternative might be to seek the authority of a magistrate, in a similar way that the police might seek a search warrant, which can be done at short notice, on a 24/7 basis. Did the Government consider such an alternative?
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, domestic abuse prevention orders can be made by a court on application, and must be applied for if P is already subject to a domestic abuse protection notice. The orders are made on the basis that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the civil standard of proof, that P has been abusive towards a person aged 16 or over to whom P is personally connected and the order is necessary and proportionate to protect that person from domestic abuse, or the risk of domestic abuse, carried out by P.
The order can be made in the absence of P, and it can impose a range of prohibitions and requirements. If P fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the order, he commits a criminal offence and can be imprisoned for up to five years. Normally an accused person is convicted of a criminal offence only if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and while I accept that a breach of the order might be so proved, the basis upon which the order is given is on the balance of probabilities.
When this House debated knife crime prevention orders, we discussed whether the breach of what is effectively a civil order, granted on the balance of probabilities, should result in a criminal offence, rather than a fine or a term of imprisonment for contempt of court without a criminal conviction being recorded against the perpetrator. In that case, the Government claimed that it was the police who said that a criminal sanction was necessary, rather than a civil penalty, in order for perpetrators to take them seriously. What is the Government’s reason this time?
As we discussed then, Parliament changed a similar regime introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, whereby breach of the civil order resulted in the criminalisation of many young people with no previous convictions for breach of an anti-social behaviour order or ASBO. Parliament replaced ASBOs with anti-social behaviour injunctions and community protection notices—a purely civil process—by means of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
On the basis of hearsay, potentially a malicious allegation, someone could be given a domestic abuse protection order, breach of which may result in a criminal conviction and a term of imprisonment. Can the Minister please explain why it is necessary for a criminal record to be created when there is a breach of the civil domestic abuse prevention order when it is not necessary in relation to anti-social behaviour injunctions and community protection notices?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to this amendment on the basis that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she will not be moving it to a vote, and that what she is seeking is, essentially, for the Minister to read into the record the contents of the letter the noble Baroness received, in which the Minister explained the nature of the process when people breach the DAPO.
I thought I would address a couple of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she opened her contribution, in her typically provocative way, by saying she feared that the state was expanding its coercive powers. In some ways, the situation is more extreme than she or the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said.
I remind the House that I sit as a magistrate in family and criminal cases; in particular, I sit on domestic abuse-related criminal cases. In domestic abuse criminal cases, if we find a perpetrator not guilty, we still occasionally give them what is now called a restraining order. We do that because although the necessary standard of proof has not been met, the alleged victim is clearly vulnerable, so we put a restraining order in place in any event. In the family court, we use non-molestation orders.
The purpose of the DAPO is to supersede restraining orders and non-molestation orders, but we very frequently put non-molestation orders in place without the alleged perpetrator present. The alleged perpetrator will be told of it and given an opportunity to come to court and argue against the imposition of a non-molestation order, but the reason the process is as I have described is to protect the woman, as it is usually. I understand that the purpose of the DAPN and the DAPO is to supersede the arrangements we have in place.
I understand the points the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made about the appropriateness of these sorts of orders when compared to ASBOs and community protection notices. They are points he has made before and they are interesting. Nevertheless, as I said in my opening, I see that the purpose of this short debate is for the Minister to put on the record the contents of the letter he has written to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to make crystal clear the standard of proof that would be necessary to get a conviction for breaching these orders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, I agree with the general aim of the amendment, which is to ensure that criminal liability and punishment for a breach of a DAPO should occur only if the breach is proved to the criminal standard of proof. I heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and a number of other contributors to this short debate that the essential purpose of the amendment is for me to repeat from the Dispatch Box what I set out in a letter. I will aim to do just that.
I therefore make two main points. First, a breach of a DAPO is a criminal offence. As with all criminal offences, this will require the police to investigate the case and refer it to prosecutors, who will decide whether to pursue a prosecution. Secondly, the fact that a breach of a DAPO is a criminal offence means that, as with all criminal offences, the criminal standard of proof will apply automatically when the court is dealing with the case. A criminal conviction cannot be entered, or criminal sanctions imposed, unless and until the criminal standard of proof has been met.
The criminal standard of proof applies, therefore, when we are dealing with a breach of a DAPO. It does not apply when we are dealing with the making a DAPO. When we look at whether a DAPO should be made, the civil standard of proof applies—that is, the balance of probabilities. But in order to impose criminal sanctions for its breach, the criminal standard of proof will apply—that is, beyond reasonable doubt. I hope that has set out the position clearly and unambiguously.
Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, “beyond reasonable doubt” is the standard of proof; “without reasonable excuse” is an element of the offence, which would have to be proved to that standard. That is the difference between the two phrases.
We have taken this approach to the DAPO because we want to send a clear message to perpetrators that breach of an order is a serious matter and will be acted on. As I stated in Committee and during my engagement with the noble Baroness and others since, this approach is similar to other civil protective orders that carry criminal liability for breach, such as the non-molestation order, stalking protection order and knife crime prevention order. The approach is therefore consistent with our existing legal framework.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why some victims may not want to go for criminal sanctions. That might not be their preference for a number of reasons. First, they may be concerned about the possible consequences for their partner or ex-partner and would not want them criminalised for a breach or, indeed, if the point of the question was, “Why isn’t the original order criminal?”
Fundamentally, the proposed orders are intended to be preventive and not punitive. They will enable courts to impose positive requirements which can help to achieve long-term sustainable behaviour change and challenge perpetrators to address their abusive behaviour. For example, the perpetrator might be required to attend a behaviour change programme or an alcohol or substance misuse programme, or undergo a mental health assessment. That may help those victims who wish to maintain a relationship with their partner or family member but want the abuse to stop. It is a strength of the DAPO that it is such a flexible remedy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised contempt of court. If a victim wanted a breach of an order other than one made in a magistrates’ court to be dealt with as a civil contempt of court, they could make a committal application to the court, including for an arrest warrant, if necessary. In those circumstances, the court has the power to remand the perpetrator on bail or in custody. We would expect that victims’ views would be considered, together with other questions of public interest, when deciding which sanction for breach is appropriate.
On her point about the guidance, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will recall that in Clause 48 there is a provision for guidance to the police, and in Clause 73 there is provision for guidance to others, including victims.
This is one of the strengths of the DAPO when compared to other existing orders used in these cases, such as the domestic violence protection order. The responses to our consultation highlighted that the absence of a criminal sanction following breach of the DVPO limits the effectiveness of that order. We have therefore ensured that non-compliance with a DAPO is met with the appropriate consequences. In that regard, I reiterate a point I made in Committee: in its report, the Joint Committee did not raise issues with using the civil standard of proof for making a DAPO when examining the draft Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, noted, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised on a number of occasions that we are making a move from civil standard to criminal standard when breached. With respect, I have set out the Government’s position in response to that on a number of occasions. We are satisfied that the system we have in the Bill is appropriate. There is nothing in the point, I would respectfully say, that there is something wrong with criminal sanctions on breach for an order made on the balance of probabilities. They are two conceptually distinct questions First, what is the standard for the order to be made? Secondly, what do you have to prove for criminal sanctions when there is a breach of that order?
As for the question on going to the magistrates’ court, one of the strengths of this order is that it can be issued quickly in response to a crisis incident, as with the existing domestic violence protection order. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said, ultimately, we are dealing with the question of protection for victims.
I hope that my explanations on the standard of proof in this short debate, alongside the explanations I provided in Committee and my subsequent discussions with noble Lords, have been helpful. I hope that what I have said today has been clear and unambiguous. I therefore respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Paddick’s question about the underlying architecture, if that is the right phrase, still stands, but I will not pursue it now. I am grateful to the Minister for all he said about the application of the provisions. I did not make myself as clear as I should have done about what he explained as someone not wanting to go for criminal prosecution. That was not quite my point, which was about inability and due process, which is a term we would do well to keep in mind—due process for both parties.
The Minister has been very clear in his explanation of the standard. I am conscious of how much business the House has to get through today, so I will not prolong this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. I point out to the House that Amendment 98 should also be considered in this group. It was left out inadvertently.
Amendment 19
Baroness Newlove
“SCHEDULE STRANGULATION OR SUFFOCATION: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTSPolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
1_ In section 65A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (qualifying offences for the purposes of Part 5 of that Act), in subsection (2), after paragraph (r) insert—“(ra) an offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Housing Act 1985
2_ In Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1985 (absolute ground for possession for anti-social behaviour: serious offences), after paragraph 14 insert—“14A_ An offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
3_ In Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (offences in England and Wales for which cross-border powers of arrest available), for paragraph 24 substitute—“24_ An offence under either of the following provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2015— (a) section 45 (participating in activities of organised crime group);(b) section 75A (strangulation or suffocation).”Crime and Disorder Act 1998
4_(1) Section 29 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated assaults) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) (but before the “or” following it) insert—“(ba) an offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation);”.(3) In subsection (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b) or (ba)”.Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
5_(1) Schedule 1A to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (proceedings in which witnesses are automatically eligible for assistance on grounds of fear or distress about testifying) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 29 insert—“Serious Crime Act 201529A_ An offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation) in a case where it is alleged that—(a) the accused was carrying a firearm or knife at any time during the commission of the offence, and(b) a person other than the accused knew or believed at any time during the commission of the offence that the accused was carrying a firearm or knife.”(3) In paragraph 30, after “paragraphs 1 to 8” insert “or 29A”.Sexual Offences Act 2003
6_ In Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (cases where sexual harm prevention orders may be made), after paragraph 63B insert—“63C_ An offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Criminal Justice Act 2003
7_ In Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (violent offences specified for purposes of certain custodial sentences), before paragraph 63G insert—“63FA_ An offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
8_ In section 6A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (evidence and procedure in cases of serious physical harm: England and Wales), in subsection (2), at the end insert—“(c) an offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Children Act 2004
9_ In section 58 of the Children Act 2004 (reasonable punishment: England), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) an offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
10_ In section 98 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (violent offender orders), in subsection (3), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) an offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation);”.Modern Slavery Act 2015
11_ In Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence for slavery or trafficking victims under section 45 of that Act does not apply), after paragraph 35 insert—“Serious Crime Act 2015 35A_ An offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).”Sentencing Act 2020
12_(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) In section 67 (assaults on emergency workers), in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) an offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation);”.(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 18 (violent offences for which extended sentence of imprisonment available), after paragraph 25 insert—“Serious Crime Act 201525A_ An offence under section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (strangulation or suffocation).””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Schedule amends other legislation in consequence of the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Newlove that provides for an offence of strangulation or suffocation.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group are government amendments tabled in my name. The principal amendment in this group is Amendment 49, which is also in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Meacher. Amendments 19, 89, 95, 98, 100, 101 and 106 are consequential amendments. Amendment 49 establishes a specific offence of strangulation or suffocation. My noble friend the Minister has added his name to this group of amendments and has indicated to me the Government’s support for them. I thank my noble friend and welcome his support.
I am grateful to the Government for listening to this House and to the many organisations which have worked tirelessly for this vital change. I thank especially the women who have shared with me and other organisations their horrific experiences of strangulation and suffocation; this has helped make the case for this change in the law. One such woman is Rachel Williams. Rachel was strangled and then later shot by her partner. She was severely injured. I put on record my thanks to her for her tireless work in getting this offence recognised, as well as in supporting other victims through the organisation she has set up, Stand Up to Domestic Abuse. This year, 2021, is the year when we can be so proud to say to the thousands of victims and survivors who have suffered from this brutal act, and to their families, that your Lordships’ House is making this change.
I also pay tribute to all those who have worked side by side with me since Committee to ensure that a suitable amendment came together, as we have in front of us today. They include my successor as Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Vera Baird; the domestic abuse commissioner designate, Nicole Jacobs; the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Anderson, Lord Blunkett and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Last but not least, I give a huge thank you to Professor David Ormerod. I am most grateful to all noble Lords around the House who have indicated to me their full support during the debates that we have had.
I know that I would not have got here without the incredible work of Nogah Ofer and the Centre for Women’s Justice, and Dr Cath White, the clinical director of SAFE Place Merseyside, whose detailed research and understanding of these cases has produced a strong case for reform. I am very conscious that they have done much of this work in their own time and my thanks go to them personally as well as to their organisations. Moreover, the work of the charity Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse has been pivotal in getting us here today. I have huge respect for the chief executive Frank Mullane, who works tirelessly to help support traumatised families and ensures that professional training is given towards understanding domestic homicide reviews.
It is now accepted that our existing laws on assault are a very poor fit for strangulation and suffocation. Current laws focus on visible injuries, but with strangulation and suffocation there can be a high level of violence but few or no visible marks. Having a stand-alone offence will make assessing cases much more straightforward for the police as well as prosecutors. Implementation will be crucial. There will need to be appropriate training for police officers, the CPS, medical staff and domestic abuse workers. This will, of course, need financial resourcing. However, such investment into stopping domestic abuse at the very first opportunity will save countless lives of misery and the far greater costs of addressing further horrific crimes, including homicides, as well as suicides where domestic abuse is a factor. Implementation needs to be thorough and consistent across England and Wales.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I warmly commend the sterling efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to see the introduction of new offences of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation. The noble Baroness generously mentioned a number of organisations and people who have helped her but she deserves huge credit for the way in which she has championed this action, which I am delighted to see in today’s amendments.
The noble Baroness’s speech was very powerful. The statistics that she shared with us about the relationship between strangulation and sex were shocking but, as she said, it goes much further beyond that as well. Indeed, she has explained at previous stages of the Bill that non-fatal strangulation and suffocation have the unique characteristic of being extremely harmful physically and psychologically but often with no external physical signs. Because of the lack of observable injuries and the lack of understanding of the seriousness of the offence, strangulation when charged is generally pursued as a summary offence of common assault in the magistrates’ court. Undercharging limits sentencing options, and a summary offence also deprives the victim and the defendant of the greater resources and attention devoted to a Crown Court prosecution. Without the establishment of a separate offence, those unique characteristics mean that more victims would suffer and be killed in future.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, creates a new criminal offence of strangulation or suffocation. The offence will apply where a person intentionally strangles another person, but it will also cover a range of behaviours, including suffocation and other acts that affect the person’s ability to breathe and which amount to battery. Alongside the new offence must go training and strong guidance to police forces and other statutory agencies about how it is to be implemented, but today is a very significant step forward. I am grateful to the Government for responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and I warmly welcome the amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the amendments. I welcome the new offence of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in saying that this is a very significant achievement for the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. As she generously said in opening the debate, many have helped to bring this new offence to the statute book, but she has been the driver throughout. This has not been for herself; her motivation has been to relieve the suffering of victims.
We on these Benches have given the noble Baroness our wholehearted support throughout. It was always an extraordinary anomaly that non-fatal strangulation was not a specific offence. As discussed in Committee, cases of strangulation were generally charged, and therefore sentenced, as assault occasioning actual bodily harm at most—for the reason, which she explained, that they often left little or no mark. The result was that strangulation and suffocation were undercharged and underpunished, and indeed often not punished at all. That was all despite the appalling truth that strangulation was so much the marker of more generalised domestic abuse, and despite the tragic fact that so often it turned out be a predictor of future killing.
I am very grateful to Ministers for engaging with so many of those concerned with the promotion of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and I had the opportunity to discuss the legal aspects of the new proposed offence with Ministers, and the Government quickly saw the strength of the argument for a specific offence. It is a credit to Ministers that, after initial hesitation, they decided to include the new offence in the Bill and resisted the temptation to put it off to a future date. Because of the strong connection with domestic abuse, it is an offence that sits clearly within the Bill, but it was the right decision to work on this with the speed that we have. That decision must have saved many victims from further serious harm and has almost certainly saved lives.
It is right that the new offence is of general application, not just limited to domestic abuse. It would not have been appropriate to confine it to cases within the statutory definition of “domestic abuse” contained in the Bill, despite the overwhelming majority of cases falling within that category. That is because all cases of strangulation or suffocation are required to be treated as specific offences, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier.
I am grateful for the advice of Professor David Ormerod, the former criminal law commissioner at the Law Commission, for his help with the drafting. He changed my view on the consent issue; I had originally been of the view that consent should be no defence, but it is right that there is a defence of consent—to cover, for example, cases of sporting contests that lead to injury—provided that serious harm was unintended. That proviso is elegantly drafted in the amendments before us. I know the Government are also grateful for the generosity with which he gave his advice, and for the advice of the Law Commission.
In my view, the broad definition of “serious harm” in proposed new subsection (6) to include actual bodily harm is right. It will be less difficult to prove, in cases of both physical and psychiatric injury, than if the only harm that met the required criteria were those for grievous bodily harm or wounding offences under Sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act. It is also right that the new offence has extraterritorial application under the new Section 75B, and we welcome that.
I commend the Government on behalf of these Benches for their comprehensive and well-modulated response to this new offence, and to the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I congratulate her once again. It is a victory for her but also for the many victims of this horrible crime. It is to be hoped that this provision will ensure that many others are spared both strangulation offences and the possible escalation to fatal violence thereafter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks short, in view of the amount of work to get through today. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who has shown the most incredible tenacity to get to this point. It is absolutely amazing, and an example to us all. Also, if I can say this without sounding anodyne or even boring, I congratulate the Government on picking this up. It was the right thing to do, and I am delighted. It opens the way for survivors of domestic abuse to seek justice and have a legal pathway to see their abusers punished. In later amendments, I will pick up on other areas where women are legally discriminated against very seriously, but for the time being, this is a fantastic move by the Government.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in view of the pressure of time, I shall be brief, but I could not allow this amendment to pass without congratulating all those who have played such a significant part. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has shown enormous tenacity. There are times in all our parliamentary, public and political lives when we suddenly realise that we can make a real difference to the well-being, and in this case the lives, of others. I congratulate her from the bottom of my heart. I pay tribute to those whom she generously paid tribute in her speech, and also to her co-signatories, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who have stuck with this all along.
Unusually for these Benches, I congratulate, as my noble friend Lord Hunt did, the two Ministers, who have been assiduous in their preparedness to listen, respond and be flexible. This is the House of Lords at its best. Parliament is at its best when people listen to each other, where divides are narrowed and overcome, and where people of good will are prepared to find a way forward in the interests of the people whom we seek to serve in the country as a whole.
I have played a very small part in this, but I like to think that the Minister, as I said to him on another occasion, would not wish to put his parliamentary colleagues in the House of Commons in the invidious position of voting down such an important and critical measure. He certainly listened, as have the Government. Will we be able to do so on other issues?
Today there will be many votes. It should not diminish the importance of the Bill that we have continuing issues to raise, because this is a really important piece of legislation. I have one thing to put on the record on the statistics that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, gave us this afternoon. This is about power and domination, never about love. It is about people who are prepared to use their manhood for ill, not for good. It is about inadequates who then inflict their inadequacy on the people they claim to love. If we can put that message out to young men in particular, we will have done a very proud job of work this afternoon.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for what she has done. Many people will have cause to thank her in years to come.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill will be remembered in years to come for the many important changes and reforms that will be introduced through it, but without doubt one of the most welcome changes will be the recognition of non-fatal strangulation in law and, we hope, the effective response by the criminal justice system. I say “welcome”; this particular amendment will be most welcomed by the most severely abused women who suffer this particularly horrible crime. As others have said, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has done a superb job, supported by some pretty superb people, in steering the amendment to this point. She has said pretty well all that I would have said, and therefore I will be extremely brief.
The only point that has not been mentioned is that if we really want the amendment to achieve what it should achieve, which is the appropriate response by the police, the courts and so on, then training police officers so that they are aware of this stand-alone offence will be very important, and maybe a little training for doctors, although they should certainly be aware of what a strangulation looks like. Can the Minister say anything about that?
Like others, I say a tremendously sincere thank you to our Ministers, who have really listened. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been a marvellous Minister in this House for a long time now, and we now have the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. We are very lucky to have those Ministers in this House and I pay credit to them.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, like others who have spoken, I am absolutely delighted at this outcome and grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the two Ministers for addressing this gap in the legislation by giving this cruel and dangerous offence its rightful place as a crime in its own right. I congratulate all outside and inside this place who have campaigned for years to bring non-fatal strangulation on to the statue book. This will make a huge difference, as others have said, to the police, who will be given the confidence to arrest perpetrators. Judges will be able to bring the full force of the law on these sadistic, controlling criminals, who threaten, hurt, maim and kill their terrified victims.
Nothing that I can say can add to the cogent, clear contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. As my noble friend Lord Marks said, this is a victory not only for her, but for all those victims from the past and the future who will now get justice, as well as greater awareness that this is not okay, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, says, is nothing about love.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the important issue of non-fatal strangulation has been powerfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, throughout the passage of this Bill, and she deserves every plaudit available to her for taking this through. I add my thanks to the Ministers engaged in this matter and echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, which emanate from his huge experience in the Commons. This is indeed the House of Lords at its best, and I am delighted that the Government have listened and introduced Amendment 49.
Having the separate offence of non-fatal strangulation on the statute book will help the police to stop domestic abuse and coercive control. One of the UK’s leading domestic abuse campaigners is Rachel Williams, whom I got to know very well during my time as leader of Newport City Council. She lobbied me at every opportunity on these matters. She currently has a petition running on change.org to ask the Prime Minister to amend the law on non-fatal strangulation. She says in her petition:
“Strangulation is a very symbolic act of control which leaves its victim in no doubt that there is a real and visceral threat to their life. If you put your hands on someone’s throat and squeeze the message and terror for the victim is clear.”
As a survivor of domestic violence, Rachel really knows what impact that has.
Strangulation is a very particular form of assault for three reasons: it is likely to cause serious injury or death, it is perceived by the victim as a direct threat to their life, and it is highly predictive of future homicide. A separate offence on the statue book will give the power to the police and the justice system to treat these offences with the seriousness that they deserve. I am delighted to tell Rachel, and the 108,609 people who had signed her petition when I last checked, that this amendment will ensure that the law is indeed changed, and that non-fatal strangulation will become a stand-alone offence on the face of this landmark Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Newlove on bringing forward these amendments, which, as she said, will create a new criminal offence of strangulation and suffocation. A number of tributes have been paid to my noble friend; they are all well deserved and I associate myself and the Government with them. If I may pick up one phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, she has made a real difference and, moreover, in a really important area. I assure him and the House that we listen. I will listen to noble Peers on this and on other matters. We will not always agree but I will always listen.
There have been a number of powerful and brief contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was kind enough to thank the Government, which is very welcome. I will seek to make it a more regular occurrence but it is warmly accepted. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned, and as my noble friend Lady Newlove identified, a number of organisations have worked hard in this area. Their names are on the record and they deserve the credit as well.
I am also personally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for the discussions which he and I have had on this matter, together with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. They have been extremely useful to me. Perhaps I may also pick out some good discussions I have had with somebody who did not contribute to this debate but has worked hard in this area: the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. She certainly improved my knowledge of and focus on this matter.
My noble friend Lady Newlove has highlighted to the Government why this new offence was necessary. She has engaged with me and my officials, to whom I should also pay tribute for working at significant speed, together with Professor David Ormerod—I think I can now say Professor David Ormerod CBE. This is not the first time, and will not be the last, that he has contributed significantly to the criminal law of this country. I will take a few moments to explain the architecture of the offence, because it is a new offence.
The key amendment in the group is Amendment 49, which provides for the substantive new offence. Strangulation and suffocation are always dangerous and, subject to the issue of consent, which was raised by a number of noble Lords and which I will come back to, they are wholly unacceptable. Strangulation can not only injure but be used by perpetrators to cause fear or exert control over their victim, as part of an abusive relationship.
Amendment 49, as I have stated, seeks to create a new offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in England and Wales. It applies to behaviour which is currently criminal, so the aim is to improve the ability to prosecute such offences effectively—a point made by a number of noble Lords. The offence is designed to deal with assaults on any person where this affects their ability to breathe, whether by application of force to the neck—that is, strangulation—or by any other act; for example, by suffocation or constriction. The offence applies to all cases where strangulation or suffocation takes place, including those that occur in a domestic abuse situation. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, this offence is not restricted to domestic abuse situations but it is quite right that it is in this Bill, because it is often found in those situations.
Although such criminal behaviour can currently be captured under the offence of battery or, where more serious harm is caused, via the offence of causing actual bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Government have been persuaded of the need to distinguish such crimes through a stand-alone offence. Serious offences against the person currently require actual bodily harm, which can make cases of strangulation or suffocation potentially difficult to prosecute. That is because the victim may have no, or limited, signs of injury. The problem can be compounded by the fact that the existing charge of battery, which carries a penalty of six months’ imprisonment, does not enable the seriousness of the offence as experienced by the victim—the terror caused during the assault or the often long-lasting psychological effect of it—to be suitably punished.
Unlike the summary-only offence of battery, the new offence of strangulation or suffocation will not be time-limited if a prosecution does not commence within six months of the offence. But perhaps of greater importance here, as my noble friend Lady Newlove identified, the new offence will expose the defendant to a more serious sentence than the current six months’ imprisonment for battery. That is because the nature of the harm required to qualify for the maximum five-year penalty has been reduced.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank everybody in the Chamber and speaking virtually for their very kind words. This is the first Bill I have been completely involved with and I have been blown away by the experience, knowledge and huge support I have received from each and every noble Lord.
I thank my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Williams because they have truly listened and taken everything that has been discussed on board. I am not a lawyer or barrister so I thank those I call my “legal eagles”— I mean them no disrespect by that —who have the brains to narrow this down and support the victims of this horrific and violent offence.
I have goosebumps about what has been said. I think the best words were from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he said that this shows the House at its best. When we listen, we learn, and we can resolve to get what is needed for the victims on the ground. I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who has been by my side throughout this passage of the Bill. I appreciate her expertise and, more importantly, her support. I also thank the back-room staff and the government lawyers, who have worked really quickly for us to get to this point today.
To all the victims and survivors who have challenged for change to get this support for many years, I say: this is your day, you are the heroines of what we are discussing. All of us across the Chamber, no matter our political party, have achieved the very best we can for you on strangulation and suffocation. It is for you, the victims of these horrific offences, that I urge all noble Lords to support these amendments.
The one thing I would like to ask—and the best thing I have always said throughout my journey—is that we treat victims and survivors with dignity and respect. One of the sincerest forms of respect is listening to what another has to say, to hear them and help them, so that they will no longer struggle on a daily basis as we progress this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the Minister’s amendment at page 35, line 30, would change the current label of “domestic abuse support” in Clause 55 to “accommodation-based support” and are consequential on the Minister’s other amendments to Clauses 55 and 56 relating to “other local authority support”.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 21. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 21
“( ) ensure all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services are accredited in accordance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for meeting me and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Burt of Solihull, over this vexed issue of child contact centres.
A little history is important here. In 2007 the Department for Education commissioned the National Association of Child Contact Centres, the NACCC, to develop national standards for child contact, but no regulatory framework was created. The NACCC and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Cafcass, agreed a memorandum of understanding on service delivery accreditation standards and safe- guarding protections to keep children safe. This cross-party amendment builds on the work of both. They, along with Women’s Aid, Family Action and Barnardo’s, all support this amendment.
The amendment aims to ensure that these standards protect children wherever they have facilitated contact. The NACCC, Cafcass and key sector providers, including the Salvation Army, Barnardo’s, Family Action, Relate, Action for Children and Core Assets, all do an outstanding job and these third sector organisations agreed by consensus in 2019 that regulation is required by the sector.
Accredited child contact centres and services have clear procedures and staff training and support staff in decision-making where risk may be present, including in safeguarding children and preventing domestic abuse. Sadly, it is not uncommon for one or both parents to have deep-seated problems, including risks of problems with alcohol and/or drug abuse, and the risk of ongoing abusive behaviours.
However, many centres and services currently fall outside the oversight of local authorities, NACCC or Cafcass because the current regulatory framework is only voluntary and patchy. Such unregulated provision of centres and voluntary child contact services unfortunately leaves this field open to those of malintent, including paedophiles and those from extremist factions.
I ask noble Lords to ask themselves why anyone who really cares about children would not want to be fully trained in child development and safeguarding. Is it acceptable to leave children already traumatised by being victims of or watching abuse in situations of increased risk? The amendment closes the loophole by providing the Secretary of State with powers to specify regulations and delivery.
As the Minister requested in Committee, we provided an initial review of evidence to the Minister. I am most grateful to the Minister for meeting us. In the list of over 50 centres advertising on the internet, we found some operating without oversight. Local authorities have a duty when commissioning under Section 34 of the Children Act 2004, but financial stringencies and the lack of universal standards contribute to variability. Importantly, not all services are local authority-commissioned.
For example, one child contact centre had NACCC accreditation withdrawn due to safeguarding and health and safety concerns, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks that were not up to date and poor storage security of personal information and records. After the removal of accreditation, the centre accepted a high-risk supervised referral where the father was on the sex offenders register, but the centre could not provide adequately supervised services. It continues to advertise as NACCC-accredited and take referrals from solicitors.
There are also a significant number of child contact centres with no website presence. In the time available, the NACCC could do only a desktop study and so could not ascertain how many are still operating. For example, I have been informed by the NACCC of at least two that are operational, but their details cannot be found anywhere online.
Without oversight and clear standards, there is no way of verifying how these child contact centres and services are operating, and no levers to close them down. Compounding this, the courts’ awareness of the judicial protocol on child contact is patchy, so inappropriate referrals continue to be made.
The motivation behind this amendment is to ensure the safest environment in child contact cases, to allow regular contact between absent parents and children, and to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. All this amendment does is provide the Secretary of State with powers to specify regulations and delivery standards. We cannot let a Bill on domestic abuse proceed without ensuring the safeguarding of those children, already victims in family breakdown, in situations where abuse may be ongoing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-president of NACCC and the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Child Contact Centres. I am delighted to join the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in this amendment. I thank her for bringing forward Amendment 21 at this stage. I refer to my previous attempt to plug this legislative loophole in the Private Member’s Bill that I brought forward in 2016-17.
Life is full of choices, and, regrettably, children do not choose when their families will split and break down and their parents separate. What is important for children’s well-being, and in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, is that children continue to have contact with both parents following a family breakdown. Often at that time, the absent parent in particular may suffer severe stress from the family breakdown and encounter substance or alcohol abuse. It is extremely important in those circumstances where a child cannot see the absent parent in their own home that they have a safe haven of a secure contact centre, or related services are provided, where contact can safely take place. That is why the terms of this amendment are so important. It is a very simple, straightforward amendment to ensure that all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services are accredited in accordance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse, as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
I too am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the two meetings he has held with us and for sharing the text of the letters he proposed to send, which I will come on to in a moment. At present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has explained, while the National Association of Child Contact Centres has been asked to set standards, the regulations required have not yet been put in place. This remains one area of family law which is unregulated. It is essential that the memorandum of understanding between Cafcass and NACCC, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred, be respected by all referrals, and that the judicial protocol also to be followed by family courts is adhered to in all referrals.
I am concerned that my noble friend the Minister appears not to appreciate that child contact centres are the only group that do not have requirements in law, whereas all others—for instance, childminders and nurseries—do. At the moment, anyone can set up a child contact centre. The amendment seeks to ensure that the standards for public and private law provision are the same.
There is evidence that court referrals are, at times, to centres that are not accredited by NACCC or overseen by local authorities, as is required by the judicial protocol. It is also true that awareness by courts of the judicial protocol on child contact is, at times, patchy.
The motivation behind the amendment is to ensure the safest environment in child contact cases, to allow regular contact between absent parents and children, and to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, including in instances where a parent may have alcohol or substance abuse issues, as I set out earlier.
While I welcome the proposal of my noble friend the Minister to write to the President of the Family Division and the chief executive of Cafcass, I believe that this is not going far enough. We have a one-off opportunity here to plug the legislative gap, and letters alone will not implement the provisions and put in place the legal framework that we seek to achieve.
I end with a plea to my noble friend the Minister, and all noble Lords, to ensure two things: first, that the same standards will apply for both public and private provision for all child contact centres and services; and, secondly, to accept Amendment 21, providing the legal basis to bring forward the regulations required to achieve this. I believe that this is the only way that we are actually going to do justice to providing a safe environment for the innocent children in a family breakdown, by providing them with a safe haven in which to meet the absent parent. If there is anything short of a full commitment from the Minister in these circumstances, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other supporters of this amendment, including me. There is no agenda here: we just need children to be safely supervised during contact by properly trained people who can spot the signs of stress and distress in children.
On the first day of Report, I spoke to Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, about the need for training for all who come into contact with victims. Child contact centres are a very strong and sensitive example of the need for training. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay said in Committee, the quiet child is not necessarily the happy child. Trained professionals know how to spot the difference and what to do. There are many examples like this, where a trained professional could, and should, intervene to help, to signpost and to stop potential harm being done.
The main issue here revolves around whether unaccredited centres are operating and in what circumstances. We know that court referrals should be made only to accredited centres, but does every member of the judiciary know? The Minister has attempted to reassure us about that. What about non-court referrals? I discussed this with Barnardo’s. Anyone can make a referral to a child contact centre—a social worker or other professional working with the family, a parent, the child who wants contact with their parent, and Barnardo’s itself. Who is making them pick an approved centre, especially when they are likely to be more costly?
Anyone can start up a contact centre. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his remarks in Committee, asked for proof that unapproved child contact centres were operating. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said earlier, this has proved difficult to obtain, because there is no obligation on them to register.
In January, the Government launched an independent review into children’s social care. Will the Minister commit to including child contact centres in this review? As it stands, this is not good enough. If the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, decides to put this to a vote, we on these Benches will support her.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the Minister has been generous with his time and has spoken with the group twice. The purpose of this amendment is well understood by the contributors to this short debate and by the Minister. The purpose is simple: it is to close a loophole, to make sure that all child contact centres reach the necessary standard, that there is some form of overview and accreditation and that there are consequences if that standard is not reached.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, succinctly put it, we know that, as far as the courts are concerned, only accredited child contact centres should ever be used. However, what about other referrals to child contact centres? What about private referrals or referrals by local councils or other organisations such as Barnardo’s?
In the discussions that we have had with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, he has asked for proof that there is a problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, it is difficult to provide proof, because you are looking for organisations and child contact centres that do not necessarily advertise their services. If they run into problems, they can easily withdraw the advertising and re-emerge in another form, but with the same people running them. At the moment, there are no consequences for people playing fast and loose with the system, if I may put it like that. There needs to be some consistency across the range of services and regulated services that children use. This anomaly needs to be addressed and I can see no better place to do it than in this Bill with this amendment right now. I and my party will support the amendment if it is moved to a vote.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, I fully recognise that the provision of child contact centres is extremely important to supporting families and enabling parents to have contact with their children, while at the same time providing a safe environment that protects children and adults from potential harm. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, put it, there is no agenda here, in the sense that we all have the same aim. The question is the best means of achieving it.
It is essential that all children experience the same high level of care and safeguarding where circumstances have necessitated their involvement with the family justice system and child contact centres or services. I thank noble Lords and the National Association of Child Contact Centres for their engagement with me and my officials since Committee. I have met, on a number of occasions, several noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. I have found those discussions extremely helpful and I am grateful to them for the time that they gave to discussing the issue with me in more detail.
This amendment differs from the amendment debated in Committee, because it provides that the child contact centres should be accredited in accordance with national standards to be specified in regulations laid by the Secretary of State. The amendment in Committee did not specify who would set the accreditation standards. I continue to question whether the statutory accreditation proposed in this amendment is required or would provide a more effective form of regulation than that which currently exists through the NACCC accreditation framework and the statutory regulations governing local authorities.
I extend my sincere thanks to the NACCC for the useful overview of the current landscape of unaccredited child contact centres and services in England and Wales that it produced following Committee. That review was conducted at some pace and has been used to inform further discussions on this matter. While I accept and take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that it is hard to identify evidence in this area, it is fair to say that the work that was done was at a somewhat high level.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have a request to ask the Minister a short question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, may I address head on two points that the Minister has raised? First, the case has been made of how difficult it is to access the evidence and whether it is in the public interest to put this in the public domain. This is an extremely sensitive area and we have done our best to provide the evidence on the two occasions when my noble friend has requested it. Secondly, there is a legislative loophole. The Government undertook to come forward with regulations to establish the regulatory framework to set the standards in place and they have failed to do so. For what reason have the Government not brought forward these regulations and why are they not prepared to bring them forward at this time? I am at a loss to understand why that is the case.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will be brief. On the first point that my noble friend raised about evidence, I accept that people have done their best in the short time available. However, with respect, the points that I made about the high-level nature of that evidence stand. At the moment, we are not persuaded that there is a need to legislate in this area. On the second point about the loophole, I would be repeating what I said earlier. For the reasons that I set out, the position at the moment is that the use of unaccredited child services is rare. In circumstances where they are used by local authorities, that would be covered by their statutory duty under the Children Act. In those circumstances, we are not persuaded that the amendment is required or would even necessarily be effective.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
I am most grateful to the Minister for his fulsome reply and for trying to get to grips with this issue, but I point out that it has been 14 years since the need for standards was originally raised. I did not mention some cases in my speech today because I have not been able to check them out in detail—we could not track down the details of the services—but I have names of services that I would be prepared to share in confidence with the Minister. I believe that there is evidence that this area is unregulated, that there is a gap and that children are at risk now, today. If we are dealing with domestic abuse, we must not leave children vulnerable. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the Minister’s amendment at page 35, line 25.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 23. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 23
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. The commission received evidence from many who had first-hand experience of the relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse. As many noble Lords pointed out in Committee, there is a strong, if complex, relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse. The figure often quoted is that up to half of perpetrators have been drinking when an assault takes place. Alcohol also tends to make violence more serious, doubling the risk of severe violence and rape. Tragically, substance use is a factor in over half of intimate-partner homicides.
It is not only perpetrators who drink. Women who have experienced extensive physical and sexual violence are more likely to use alcohol or drugs harmfully than women who have not. They might do so in an attempt to self-medicate and cope with their experiences, or drink with their partner as a form of bonding. Substances may be part of the abuse itself, and perpetrators may use alcohol to control victims. ONS figures show that around 10% of those accessing domestic violence support services have an alcohol use need, many times higher than the rate for the general population. Around 6% have a drug use need and around 40% a mental health problem. Given the difficulties people with additional needs have in accessing domestic violence support, these figures may well underestimate the scale of the problem.
Indeed, survivors may have been forced to choose which of their needs they are able to get help with. Alcohol treatment is desperately underfunded, and there simply are not enough alcohol treatment services set up to help domestic abuse survivors. For example, female survivors of male violence may not feel able to receive treatment in a mixed space; yet less than half of local authorities in England and Wales have provision for women-only substance use services. Women may also find that their drinking can prevent them accessing a safe space, with some turned away from refuges due to drinking or drug use. Only about one-quarter of refuges in London, when asked the question, stated that they “always” or “often” accept women who use alcohol or other drugs.
Following a very constructive and productive meeting with the Minister last week, she has written reassuring me that this is a priority for the Government. She has agreed to address the issue of alcohol and domestic abuse in statutory guidance and in the domestic abuse strategy, which will set out a comprehensive framework for responding to and supporting victims. I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the seriousness of the problem and her attempts to resolve it. In her letter, she also set out the opportunities created by the new integrated care systems to allow for greater joined-up working between services to better support victims with the alcohol treatment they so often need urgently.
This urgency has increased during the Covid-19 pandemic, making it more important than ever for us to act now. During the first lockdown, visits to the UK’s national domestic abuse website surged by 950% by the end of May. NSPCC Wales reported average referrals for parental substance use to police and agencies were 72% higher in the 10 months to February 2021 than in the first three months of 2020. These figures are frightening, but they go only a small way to illustrate to your Lordships the scale of what people are experiencing right now. I am grateful to the Minister for her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, where she recognised the need for much better sobriety schemes, which we greatly appreciate, but I remind the House of the size of the problems.
I shall finish by sharing the words of a 15 year-old boy who contacted Childline. Speaking of his own experience, he said:
“I’m really scared of my dad, especially when he’s been drinking. Sometimes he gets really angry and throws things at my mum. It’s been getting worse since the coronavirus and I worry a lot. I have no idea what to do as I can’t escape because of the lockdown.”
I hope, therefore, that I will get an even warmer reception for this amendment than I received in the letter from the Minister, and I reserve my ability to divide the House on this very important issue pending the response I get. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to take a moment to support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her Amendment 23. I pay tribute to all her work in this field and to the other signatories to the amendment. I want to single out the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, with whom I had the privilege of serving on the ad hoc committee on the Licensing Act 2003.
Without any shadow of a doubt, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out, domestic abuse is, unfortunately, aggravated and fuelled by alcohol and drug abuse. It behoves all of us to try to limit the damage done in these circumstances. I therefore hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the modest change to the wording of the Bill that is proposed here.
I know that Scotland has taken a lead, particularly on the unit pricing of alcohol. I initially had reservations about that until I heard the evidence we took on the ad hoc committee. It was always understood, and we concluded that we would press them, that the Government would come forward with unit pricing in Scotland. I think my noble friend the Minister would agree that it has led to a significant reduction in alcohol abuse.
With those few words, I lend Amendment 23 my support, and ask my noble friend to look favourably on the modest additional wording it proposes.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
I should have declared earlier an interest as chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage.
I thank the Minister very much for listening and for what she said in response to the debate on an earlier amendment on forced marriage. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said. I would just add that mental health issues should include people who are forced into marriage, most of whom are very young and some of whom are under 18.
Lord Ribeiro (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who supports this amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I acknowledge the helpful letter on this amendment that we received today from my noble friend the Minister.
Accommodation-based support, as proposed in government Amendment 22, is highly relevant because domestic abuse can take place in settings other than the home. Alcohol intoxication increases vulnerability because it makes victims less physically able to get away from an aggressor and more likely to make poor decisions. Likewise, alcohol increases the chances of the aggressor assaulting someone in the home or other accommodation-based settings. We know that the more intoxicated someone is, the greater their chance of sustaining serious injuries.
We should also be concerned about the effects of domestic abuse on children—the hidden victims of domestic abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, noted in the debate on the first group of amendments. Witnessing domestic violence and alcohol abuse are major events in childhood and may lead to an anti-social lifestyle of offending, truancy and violent behaviour in the years ahead.
As a surgeon, I treated many patients with injuries sustained following domestic disputes, nearly all of them fuelled by alcohol. Some were horrific injuries to the chest and abdomen; others were less serious but, none the less, led to long-term complications—particularly injuries to the face from the assailant’s fists or a blunt weapon. The consequences lead to long-term disfigurement, and the sight every day in the mirror of a broken nose or missing teeth is a constant reminder of the abuse suffered. Children, too, may suffer injuries as part of the collateral damage. Many choose not to admit to the assault outside the home.
I am grateful to Professor Jonathan Shepherd, a surgeon and professor at Cardiff University’s Crime and Security Research Institute, for providing me with his publications in the journals of both the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Psychiatrists and his position statements on the management of alcohol abuse and the mental health impacts of violence. My noble friend the Minister may wish to consider these in the formal consultation after Royal Assent.
In conclusion, where alcohol is concerned, it is important not to view physical injuries in isolation. All too often, the two are inextricably linked. I would welcome the opportunity to share these Royal College policies with my noble friend the Minister, in the hope that they may influence national policy in providing alcohol abuse and mental health support, as this amendment proposes.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we had an extensive and informed debate on this issue in Committee, so there is no need for me to detain the House by repeating what I said before.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has confined herself to just one amendment this time, to which I have added my name in support. It encapsulates the importance of the issue and uses the modest vehicle of including alcohol and addiction support in the definition of domestic abuse support when local authorities assess the need and prepare their strategies to meet it.
I hope the Minister will agree that the close and complex relationship between what I called in my remarks in Committee
“the unholy triumvirate of substance abuse, domestic abuse and mental ill-health”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1621.]
is intrinsic and deserves to be included somewhere in the Bill. However, I fear that that will not be the case today. The Minister has written to the mover of the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I am grateful for the copy she sent me. In the letter, the Minister says that the Government will reflect on the importance of this unholy triumvirate in statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 73 of the Bill. I am not convinced that this will be good enough to get the concerted result we need, so if the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, decides to call a vote, my party and I will support her.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is important to recognise that domestic abuse does not happen in a neat silo. It is inherently bound up with the wider issues of mental health and substance abuse.
We cannot ignore the impact of devastating cuts to our public services through a decade of austerity. The Royal College of Psychiatrists called for the Government to reverse the cuts and enable local authorities to invest at least £374 million in adult services to cope with the increased need. Indeed, report after report highlights the poor preparedness of our public realm to cope with this dreadful pandemic. It is as a consequence of the austerity decade that council funding has been cut to the bone.
Mental health services have been particularly impacted by austerity, leading to a lack of services and long waiting times. Victims and survivors with mental health problems also face barriers in accessing many other vital services due to strict eligibility criteria and not being able to engage in the way that the services require. Such barriers often lead to people being bounced between different services and having to constantly retell their story. There is awareness of the complex and interrelated needs of those with mental ill-health, but many services are unequipped to support them and few services exist that can care for people with both mental health and substance misuse issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, spoke expertly and knowledgably about the close link between domestic abuse and alcohol, with a perpetrator drinking heavily. Of course, there are instances where the victim’s drinking leads to uninhibited behaviours that can trigger abuse. Similarly, the victim may use alcohol and drugs to self-medicate. We know that the level of alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic, thus exacerbating an already known problem.
This should be part of the Government’s work on community services. They have made a commitment to consult on the provision of community services for victims and perpetrators. Will the Minister give a commitment that the consultation will explicitly include the provision of alcohol and substance misuse services? All this work will be effective only if we look at tackling domestic violence in the round.
In conclusion, the importance of multiagency and holistic working in this area cannot be overemphasised. It is important to recognise that mental health and addiction problems can create additional vulnerabilities which people perpetrating abuse may seek to exploit. If the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, decides to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition Benches will strongly support her.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for tabling this amendment. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with them at length. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, observed, domestic abuse does not happen in a neat silo. That is a very good way of putting it in the context of this amendment.
In Committee we debated the complex relationship and obvious correlation between domestic abuse, mental health problems and the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Some of us have witnessed the way in which someone who abuses a substance such as alcohol seems to have a switch flicked within their brain and suddenly becomes potentially very aggressive. That is not an excuse for domestic abuse. It is important that both victims and perpetrators have the opportunity to address these issues, and that they get the support they need. To this end, the statutory guidance issued under Clause 73 will reflect the importance of joining up domestic abuse, mental health and substance misuse services.
As I informed the Committee, local authority spending through the public health grant will be maintained in the next financial year. This means that local authorities can continue to invest in prevention and essential front-line health services, including drug and alcohol treatment and recovery services. We want to ensure that people who need support for alcohol and substance misuse issues can access the right services commissioned by local authorities. The Government are working on increasing access, and we have appointed Professor Dame Carol Black to undertake an independent review of drugs to inform the Government’s work on what more can be done.
The overarching aim will be to ensure that vulnerable people with substance misuse problems get the support they need. The review will consider how treatment services can enable people with a drug dependency to achieve and sustain their recovery. These will span a wide range of services with which they might interact across mental health, housing, employment and the criminal justice system. The review is currently focusing on treatment, recovery and prevention. The Government look forward to receiving Dame Carol’s recommendations shortly.
I reassure noble Lords that we intend to reflect the importance of joining up domestic abuse, mental health and substance misuse services. The joint strategic needs assessment produced by local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and other partners should include consideration of the needs of victims and survivors. This assessment informs the commissioning process for the local area. In addition, joint working through local health and well-being boards helps support people who may have co-occurring substance misuse, mental health and domestic abuse issues with more effectively commissioned services in order to improve outcomes and the use of local resources. We want to ensure that, no matter where someone turns, there is no wrong door for individuals with co-occurring conditions, and that compassionate and non-judgmental care centred on the person’s needs is offered and accessible from every access point; for example, people can access via a referral from their GP, or by self-referral. I hope this reassures noble Lords that assessing and meeting the needs of the local population are already integral to the commissioning and provision of healthcare services.
In addition, the Government have announced a total of £25 million in funding for domestic abuse perpetrator programmes. This more than doubles the £10 million funding for such programmes last year. Through them, we funded a number of interventions that sought to address issues such as substance misuse and mental health problems as part of a wider programme of intervention.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is pleased that the Bill introduces domestic abuse prevention orders—DAPOs—which enable positive requirements such as attendance at a drug or alcohol programme or a behavioural change programme. The courts will also be able to require the subject of such an order to wear a sobriety tag.
The Government recognise the harm that alcohol can cause and have already committed to rolling out sobriety tags as part of a wider programme to tackle alcohol-fuelled crime. Following two pilots and a successful judicial engagement programme, the alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement was launched in Wales on 21 October last year. This has proved a popular option for sentencers in Wales and we will be rolling out the new requirement in England later in the spring.
We are also committed to our ambitions in the NHS long-term plan for expanding and transforming mental health services in England, and to investing an additional £2.3 billion a year in mental health services by 2023-24. This includes a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, ensuring that an additional 380,000 adults can access psychological therapies by 2023-24.
I would add that the domestic abuse commissioner’s role requires her to adopt a specific focus on the needs of victims from groups with particular needs. She also has the power to make recommendations where she sees gaps in provision. I believe her role will offer independent oversight and the assurance that all issues relating to domestic abuse will be monitored closely.
Finally, it is worth briefly touching on the drafting of the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, referred to this. It seeks to add to the definition of domestic abuse support in Clause 55. This relates to a new duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children within safe accommodation. As such, the amendment does not touch on the issue of support for perpetrators to help them address problems with alcohol misuse; nor does it deal with the provision of alcohol and mental health community-based support. This is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was making.
That said, I can assure the noble Baroness that, as part of the new duty in Part 4, tier 1 local authorities will be expected to assess the accommodation- based support needs of all domestic abuse victims and their children. Within the statutory guidance that will accompany Part 4, we describe the support within “relevant” safe accommodation as including support designed specifically for victims with unique and/or complex needs, such as mental health advice and support, and drug and alcohol advice and support.
Again, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and other noble Lords for drawing attention to this important issue, and I thank all noble Lords who have raised it during this debate. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness in relation to the existing provisions and our ongoing ambitions to address the links between substance misuse, mental health and domestic abuse. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the detail she has provided in her full reply. I understand from a previous conversation that the guidance to the Bill will be statutory, as will, therefore, the implementation of the many factors to be included in it that she listed in her response. I am also glad to hear that the review of my long-standing friend and colleague, Professor Dame Carol Black, will report soon. I have always held her in the highest regard and I am sure that her report will be very sound.
I recommend that all noble Lords recall that we need early intervention; otherwise the next generation to experience alcohol abuse will become alcohol abusers themselves. The link is horribly real and certainly well documented, and I appreciate the Minister saying that there will be no wrong door. The £25 million for programmes for perpetrators is welcome, but there is a lot of evidence to show that every £1 invested in local treatment services saves £3 in wider social costs. This is indeed a sound investment by the Government.
In the light of the full response I have received, I will withdraw my amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their strong support, both now and behind the scenes, for the amendment and the work being done. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Treasury the need to recognise the financial cost to the nation of alcohol-fuelled domestic violence. Measures such as minimum unit pricing, a differential duty on off-sales to decrease drinking at home—which would support pubs and restaurants—and stopping the promotion of alcohol close to checkouts in supermarkets are all needed to make her strategy to decrease alcohol-fuelled domestic violence as effective as she and I would hope. These issues do not come directly into the Bill, but they are of wider concern. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(aa) must keep under review any effect of the strategy on the provision of other local authority support in its area,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a relevant local authority that publishes a strategy under Clause 55 to keep under review the effect of that strategy on the provision by the local authority of domestic abuse support to people in the community as opposed to those residing in relevant accommodation.
“( ) In this section “other local authority support”, in relation to a local authority, means support, in relation to domestic abuse, that—(a) is provided to victims of domestic abuse or their children, and(b) is provided or funded by the local authority,other than accommodation-based support (within the meaning of subsection (2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “other local authority support” for the purposes of Clause 55.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that regulations under Clause 55(8) can make provision about the frequency with which a relevant local authority must review the effect of its strategy on the provision of other local authority support in its area.
(a) ”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement accompanying the Minister’s amendment at page 36, line 32.
(b) the provision of other local authority support in the authority’s area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for a domestic abuse local partnership board to also advise a relevant local authority about the provision of other local authority support in the authority’s area.
““other local authority support” has the same meaning as in section 55.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “other local authority support” for the purposes of Clause 56 (by reference to the definition that would be inserted into Clause 55 by the Minister’s amendment at page 36, line 4).
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 32. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 62: Special measures in civil proceedings: victims of specified offences
Amendment 32
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
(a) is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse;(b) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that rules of court made by virtue of subsection (1) of Clause 62 must make provision which enables the court to make a special measures direction in respect of a party or witness in civil proceedings who is a victim, or is at risk of becoming a victim, of domestic abuse.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the short intermission while we changed places. The government amendments in this group relate to special measures and the ban on cross-examination in person as they operate in civil proceedings. The Government have taken careful note of the debate in Committee on Clauses 62 and 64, particularly the argument that there should be equivalent protections for the victims of domestic abuse in the civil courts as in family courts. I am personally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for our discussions about these issues. As I explained in Committee, while we want to ensure that there is parity between each of the jurisdictions, we also need to build in allowances for the differences. That is why the provisions in respect of cross-examination and special measures in civil proceedings differ from those in family proceedings.
I shall speak first to Amendment 32 in respect of Clause 62. It is worth noting that the original provision in the Bill was based on recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council in its report published last year entitled Vulnerable Witnesses and Parties within Civil Proceedings. However, having reflected on the representations we have received and the cogent arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, Amendment 32 would extend eligibility for special measures to those at risk of domestic abuse in addition to the existing provisions which provide eligibility for special measures for the victims of specified offences. We see the force of the argument to include this measure so that there will be an equivalent level of protection for domestic abuse victims across the jurisdictions. The Civil Procedure Rules will lay out how this is to work in practice, but the instruction in the Bill is a clear indication that those victims who have not reported their perpetrator to the police will have an opportunity to let the court know where they are at risk of domestic abuse.
As the existing clause provides, judges will still need to consider whether the quality of a person’s evidence or the person’s participation in proceedings is likely to be diminished by reason of vulnerability and, if so, whether it is necessary to make one or more special measures directions. However, we believe that including provision for those at risk of domestic abuse will mean that these victims will be covered and given the ability to avail themselves of special measures.
I shall say a further word on that, which I mentioned in Committee as well. By their nature, civil cases have the potential to cover a much broader range of circumstances where there is no prior connection between the parties; for example, where a victim is suing an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse, an action against an employer where abuse is alleged, or in a boundary dispute. This amendment is therefore an appropriate step. The breadth of cases in the civil courts means that it may not be appropriate in all cases to grant special measures, although our amendment makes it likely that they will be granted where there is a genuine need.
I turn now to Amendments 33 to 40 to Clause 64. These introduce an automatic ban on cross-examination in person by a litigant in person if the party to proceedings has been convicted or cautioned in relation to a specified offence against a party to the proceedings or where there is a protective injunction between the parties. The witness may also introduce additional evidence to prove that they are a victim of domestic abuse, and this too can give rise to an automatic ban. The evidence would be based on legal aid evidentiary standards and may include a letter from a GP or an employer. This is provided for in family courts through Clause 63. These amendments would therefore move the position in civil courts substantially closer to the provision in family courts on a ban on cross-examination. However, as with the point I made in regard to Clause 62, we have to be mindful of the differences between the two jurisdictions.
The clause, in so far as it relates to banning the cross-examination of vulnerable parties or witnesses, again stems from the report by the Civil Justice Council. The council recommended that the prohibition of cross-examination by a self-represented party should be extended to cover civil proceedings, thereby ensuring some parity with the criminal and family jurisdictions. The council did caution, however, that the ban or prohibition should not be automatic and absolute, bearing in mind the broad range of cases that come before the civil courts.
As I have said previously in our debates on the Bill, we have concerns in relation to the civil jurisdiction that there should be an automatic ban on cross-examination where the position is only that someone is charged with an offence against an individual; that is, where the facts of the case have yet to be proven. In the circumstances where someone is charged with an offence, we believe that it should be left to the discretion of the court to determine whether a ban is appropriate on the facts of a particular case. That is because, as I have said, civil and family jurisdictions are different in type of case they deal with, the civil jurisdiction having a much wider range.
I believe that these amendments will give better protection to victims of domestic abuse and bring closer parity between the civil and family jurisdictions. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I explained in Committee the reasons for my amendments, which were directed at ensuring that special measures and the prohibition of direct cross-examination should be applied in civil cases on the same or a very similar basis as they are to be in family cases. Our debates highlighted the difficulties, fear and trauma for parties and witnesses in giving evidence and taking part in proceedings where they were victims or at risk of being victims of domestic abuse at the hands of other parties or witnesses. We spoke of the effect of reliving the trauma of abuse in subsequent court proceedings and the fear of the consequences of giving or challenging evidence given by or in the presence of perpetrators.
I argued that in many civil proceedings the risks and effects were the same. I mentioned disputes over property and goods, landlord and tenant disputes, employment disputes, inheritance disputes and business disputes—particularly when partners break up and the separation of their joint business interests gives rise to litigation. It is a truism for litigation lawyers that the disputes giving rise to the most bitterness and unpleasantness are precisely those where the litigants have a close personal connection. However, of course I take the Minister’s point that the range of disputes in civil cases is very much broader than it is in family cases.
The Government have listened to those concerns. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the time that he and officials in his department made available to consider these issues and for the very useful discussions we had, which have led us to the position that special measures are now to be extended to persons who are or who are at risk of being a victim of domestic abuse, where the original unamended clause required that the person had to be the victim of a specified offence for which the perpetrator would have had to have been convicted, cautioned or charged.
I am delighted that the Government have agreed, no doubt because so many cases of domestic abuse never reach that stage—largely because so much abuse goes unreported or is never the subject of criminal investigation—that victims and those at risk of being victims should be protected in civil proceedings, as they are to be in family proceedings.
Although the amendments on direct cross-examination are complex, as the Minister has explained, they effectively offer broadly equivalent protection to victims of abuse in civil proceedings to that offered in family proceedings, which was the aim of my amendments. In addition to the discretionary protection which the court is to be able to give as a result of new Section 85F of the Courts Act 2003, to be introduced by Clause 64, there is now to be a clear bar on direct cross-examination in cases where the victim is a victim of an offence or protected by an injunction or where there is evidence of domestic abuse against the victim by a party or witness. The nature of the evidence to be required to trigger the mandatory bar will be specified in regulations. It is to be hoped that no undue formality will be required, but I am confident that will be the case.
These amendments achieve what I set out to achieve: to protect witnesses and parties in civil proceedings who have been subject to domestic abuse. I am therefore very pleased to have been able to add my name to the amendments and say—it is not the first time it has been said today—that this process has shown the House at its best. It has been a model of co-operation between some of us on the Opposition Benches and the Government of the day.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for pursuing this issue. It is not something I had focused on. The concessions he has got from the Government are welcome. There will be a ban on cross-examination in family courts and a broadly equivalent set of rules in the civil courts, although, as far as I understand it, there will still be some judicial discretion on these matters because of the wider nature of the types of cases heard in the civil courts. As the noble Lord just said, while the nature of the cases may be wider, the risks may be the same, particularly if the parties are personally connected in any way. I welcome these government amendments and congratulate the noble Lord on pursuing this matter.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if I am brief, because I am conscious there is a lot of business still to get through. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames—my co-sponsor of these amendments—for his kind words and engagement. As he said, we have reached the position where there are broadly equivalent provisions in place across the jurisdictions.
I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. The point he raised about remote working and the courts having to work in real time in dealing with the pandemic and its effects is very important. To say any more at this stage would take me both outside the confines of this Bill and well off my brief. However, I have no doubt we will discuss it in this and other contexts in future.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“85EA Prohibition of cross-examination in person: victims of offences(1) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings who has been convicted of, or given a caution for, a specified offence may cross-examine in person a witness who is the victim of that offence.(2) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings who is the victim of a specified offence may cross-examine in person a witness who has been convicted of, or given a caution for, that offence.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a conviction or caution that is spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, unless evidence in relation to the conviction or caution is admissible in, or may be required in, the proceedings by virtue of section 7(2), (3) or (4) of that Act.(4) Cross-examination in breach of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity of a decision of the court in the proceedings if the court was not aware of the conviction or caution when the cross-examination took place.(5) In this section—“caution” means—(a) in the case of England and Wales—(i) a conditional caution given under section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,(ii) a youth conditional caution given under section 66A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, or (iii) any other caution given to a person in England and Wales in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;(b) in the case of Scotland, anything corresponding to a caution falling within paragraph (a) (however described) which is given to a person in respect of an offence under the law of Scotland;(c) in the case of Northern Ireland—(i) a conditional caution given under section 71 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, or(ii) any other caution given to a person in Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;“conviction” means—(a) a conviction by or before a court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland;(b) a conviction in service disciplinary proceedings (in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere), including—(i) in the case of proceedings in respect of a service offence, anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (which relates to summary hearings and the Summary Appeal Court) is to be treated as a conviction for the purposes of that Act, and(ii) in the case of any other service disciplinary proceedings, a finding of guilt in those proceedings;(c) a finding in any criminal proceedings (including a finding linked with a finding of insanity) that the person concerned has committed an offence or done the act or made the omission charged;and “convicted” is to be read accordingly;“service disciplinary proceedings” means—(a) any proceedings (whether or not before a court) in respect of a service offence (except proceedings before a civilian court within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006);(b) any proceedings under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (whether before a court-martial or before any other court or person authorised under any of those Acts to award a punishment in respect of an offence);(c) any proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court established under the Armed Forces Act 1976;“service offence” means—(a) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or(b) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1059);“specified offence” means an offence which is specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.(6) The following provisions (which deem a conviction of a person discharged not to be a conviction) do not apply for the purposes of this section to a conviction of a person for an offence in respect of which an order has been made discharging the person absolutely or conditionally—(a) section 14 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000;(b) section 82 of the Sentencing Code;(c) section 187 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 or any corresponding earlier enactment.(7) For the purposes of this section “offence” includes an offence under a law that is no longer in force.85EB Prohibition of cross-examination in person: persons protected by injunctions etc (1) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings against whom an on-notice protective injunction is in force may cross-examine in person a witness who is protected by the injunction.(2) In civil proceedings, no party to the proceedings who is protected by an on-notice protective injunction may cross-examine in person a witness against whom the injunction is in force.(3) Cross-examination in breach of subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity of a decision of the court in the proceedings if the court was not aware of the protective injunction when the cross-examination took place.(4) In this section “protective injunction” means an order, injunction or interdict specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.(5) For the purposes of this section, a protective injunction is an “on-notice” protective injunction if—(a) the court is satisfied that there has been a hearing at which the person against whom the protective injunction is in force asked, or could have asked, for the injunction to be set aside or varied, or(b) the protective injunction was made at a hearing of which the court is satisfied that both the person who applied for it and the person against whom it is in force had notice.85EC Prohibition of cross-examination in person: evidence of domestic abuse(1) In civil proceedings, where specified evidence is adduced that a person who is a witness has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by a party to the proceedings, that party to the proceedings may not cross-examine the witness in person.(2) In civil proceedings, where specified evidence is adduced that a person who is a party to the proceedings has been the victim of domestic abuse carried out by a witness, that party may not cross-examine the witness in person.(3) In this section—“domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified evidence” means evidence specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may provide that any evidence which satisfies the court that domestic abuse, or domestic abuse of a specified description, has occurred is specified evidence for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for an automatic prohibition in civil proceedings on the cross-examination of witnesses in person in certain cases, similar to the provisions in Clause 63. For example, it prohibits a party who has been convicted of a specified offence from cross-examining in person a witness who is the victim of that offence. “Specified” here means specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
(a) none of sections 85EA to 85EC operates to prevent the party from cross-examining the witness, and(b) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 47, line 21.
“(ca) any charge of which the court is aware in respect of a specified offence alleged to have been committed by the party in relation to the witness; (cb) any charge of which the court is aware in respect of a specified offence alleged to have been committed by the witness in relation to the party;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the Minister’s amendment at page 48, line 25, provide that, in deciding whether to make a direction under new section 85F of the Courts Act 2003 prohibiting a party from cross-examining a witness in person, the court must have regard to the fact that the party has been charged with a specified offence alleged to have been committed in relation to the witness (or vice versa).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 47, line 21.
“( ) In subsection (5)(ca) and (cb) “specified offence” means an offence that is a specified offence for the purposes of section 85EA.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 48, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 47, line 21.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 50, line 30.
“85K Regulations under Part 7ARegulations under this Part may make different provision for different purposes.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 47, line 21.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 41. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 41
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989Orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989
(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.(2) In section 91 (effect and duration of orders etc.), at the end of subsection (14) insert—“For further provision about orders under this subsection, see section 91A (section 91(14) orders: further provision).”(3) After section 91 insert—“91A Section 91(14) orders: further provision(1) This section makes further provision about orders under section 91(14) (referred to in this section as “section 91(14) orders”).(2) The circumstances in which the court may make a section 91(14) order include, among others, where the court is satisfied that the making of an application for an order under this Act of a specified kind by any person who is to be named in the section 91(14) order would put—(a) the child concerned, or(b) another individual (“the relevant individual”),at risk of harm.(3) In the case of a child or other individual who has reached the age of eighteen, the reference in subsection (2) to “harm” is to be read as a reference to ill-treatment or the impairment of physical or mental health.(4) Where a person who is named in a section 91(14) order applies for leave to make an application of a specified kind, the court must, in determining whether to grant leave, consider whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the order was made.(5) A section 91(14) order may be made by the court—(a) on an application made—(i) by the relevant individual;(ii) by or on behalf of the child concerned;(iii) by any other person who is a party to the application being disposed of by the court;(b) of its own motion.(6) In this section, “the child concerned” means the child referred to in section 91(14).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new section 91A into the Children Act 1989 which makes further provision about the circumstances in which the court may make an order under section 91(14) of that Act (also known as a barring order), including where the court is satisfied that the making of a further application for an order under that Act, by any person to be named in the order, would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 41 and 104 relate to Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989. Last year we committed to exploring whether an amendment to the Bill was needed to clarify that Section. As noble Lords will be aware, it deals with barring orders, as they are often called, which allow courts to bar individuals from making further applications without permission of the court. Importantly, therefore, the order does not prevent access to the court; it prevents making an application without first obtaining the permission of the court to do so.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Newlove asked for an update on the progress of the work. On responding to an amendment on barring orders put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I said that I would consider the issue of Section 91(14) carefully ahead of this next stage. I can assure noble Lords that I have done precisely that.
The sad fact is that perpetrators sometimes use the family court as a way to continue their abuse, often bringing their victims back to court repeatedly, which can in itself be a traumatising process. It is an abuse of the victims and also, therefore, an inappropriate use of the court process.
As it is currently formulated, Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 does not include any detail as to the circumstances in which such barring orders should be used. Courts have therefore elaborated the principles for when such barring orders may, and should, be made. Last year we heard compelling evidence from the expert panel in its report Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases that, while they can be an effective measure, Section 91(14) barring orders are not being used sufficiently to prevent perpetrators continuing their abuse through the use of court applications under the Children Act 1989.
Before I go further, I want to pay respectful tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who delivered the seminal re P judgment in this area of law back in 1999. For over two decades the guidelines included in that leading judgment have been regarded as the main reference point for judges when they are making the often difficult decision on the use of Section 91(14). It is fair to acknowledge that it is clear from those guidelines that specific cases and types of harm, including harm from domestic abuse, are not excluded from consideration for a barring order. None the less, now is the right time for us to act on the evidence presented by the harm panel about how Section 91(14) is being understood and applied, particularly in domestic abuse circumstances.
As is evident from the many debates we have had on the Bill, we now know far more about the prevalence of domestic abuse and the different forms that it can take than we did in 1999. It is therefore right that as the Bill approaches the end of its parliamentary journey, we use the opportunity to clarify the ambit and application of Section 91(14) to ensure that we are providing greater protection to victims, survivors and their children.
The Government are clear that barring orders are available to protect parents and children where further proceedings would risk causing them harm, and particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. To that end, Amendment 41 introduces a new provision into the Children Act 1989: new Section 91A. The new section clarifies that the circumstances in which a court may make a barring order include where the court is satisfied that a further application made by the named person would put the child or another individual—for example, the parent victim—at risk of harm. It is a non-exhaustive example; the discretion is preserved, but an additional statutory indication is provided. As I have mentioned, this amendment responds to recommendations made by the harm panel.
The aim of Amendment 41 is therefore to make it clearer to courts and practitioners that Section 91(14) barring orders are indeed available where a further application would pose a risk of harm to a child or a parent victim, and in particular where that application could constitute further domestic abuse. In that context, I should highlight to noble Lords that while this amendment does not expressly mention domestic abuse, it refers to the concept of “harm” that is already found in the Children Act 1989. This is because the definition in Section 31(9) of the Children Act is already very broad. It already includes coercive control and other forms of domestic abuse, along with many other forms of harm.
We touched on that point in the government response to the Joint Committee’s recommendation to amend the definition of harm. As we said there, we believe that singling out a specific form of harm in any part of the 1989 Act could have unintended negative consequences and risk appearing to give greater weight to one form of harm than another. We do not want to create a hierarchy of harm. We have therefore opted for the wider concept of harm, consistent with the approach in the Children Act.
We have also responded to the harm panel’s report in a further way. The new Section 91A makes it clear that in determining whether to grant permission to make an application to a person who is subject to a barring order under Section 91(14), the court must consider whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the barring order was made. Our intention is to require that courts consider carefully whether the circumstances that gave rise to the barring order have materially changed, such that permission to apply should be granted. The amendment does not draw a red line such that permission can be granted only if there has been a material change of circumstances, but we believe that the inclusion of this provision, which requires the court to consider this question, will offer further protection to domestic abuse victims.
The amendment also makes it clear that courts can make these orders on their own initiative—of their own motion, as it used to be said—for example, without an application being made by the victim for an order to be made. This, too, is a response to the harm panel’s recommendations. We want to put beyond doubt that there need not be an application for a barring order in order for the court to consider making one. Of course, the court will still need to give due consideration to the making of such an order, but the amendment clarifies that the court can make an order on its own initiative.
The Government are therefore confident that the amendment will mean that barring orders are used more often by courts to protect victims of domestic abuse where further applications put them at risk of harm. It will also make sure that permission to apply will be granted only where the court has considered whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the order was made, and also clarify that courts can make these orders on their own initiative. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we support this government amendment and the amendment of the Title of the Bill that goes with it. As the Minister has explained, Section 91 of the Children Act permits the court to make a barring order—that is, an order forbidding someone, usually an applicant who has failed to persuade a court to make an order in his or her favour, from making an application for an order of a particular kind; this is usually but not always a repeat application—with respect to a child, importantly, without the leave of the court.
An order under this section still permits a further application for an order to be made if the court decides to permit it, which the court may in its discretion decide to do. This amendment, as the Minister has explained, extends the discretion to make a barring order if a further application would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm. That is the real purpose and merit of this amendment: it is for the protection from repeated litigation of those who might be victims of domestic abuse, when that repeated litigation often amounts to a particularly unpleasant form of harassment by legal proceedings.
The jurisdiction is similar to the court’s jurisdiction to make civil restraint orders and civil proceedings orders against vexatious and unmeritorious repeat litigants in civil cases. Under this government amendment, a person subject to a barring order may of course seek permission to apply further to the court. That application for permission will be considered, but the court considering whether permission should be given to make a fresh application must consider whether there has been a change of circumstances since the making of the original order. That, I suggest, seems entirely sensible. The amendment therefore strikes a careful and judicious balance between protecting potential applicants and providing a safeguard against people being harassed by unmeritorious repeat litigation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which we support. As he explained, they put in additional strengthening factors for barring orders; of course, there are barring orders in place in the family courts in any event. The purpose, as he explained, is to make it crystal clear, and to set out clearly, what the court must consider where there is any risk for the children or the other parties through repeated litigation. However, there is discretion for the court, if there is a material change in circumstances, to decide to accept and hear the case. So I accept the amendment as presented.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, again, I hope that the House and the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will forgive me for being brief. I am conscious of the amount of the work that we have to get through. I am grateful for their comments and support for the purpose and effect of these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, put it, we are striking a careful and judicious balance here between access to courts and preventing the court process being used as a vehicle for abuse. As we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, it is not only in cases of domestic abuse that Section 91(14) is available, although that is the purpose of the amendments before the House.
Again, with apologies for being brief, because there appears to be broad agreement, I beg to move Amendment 41.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to Amendment 42. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 42
“Proceedings under the Children Act 1989
(1) Part I of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (welfare of the child) after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) Subsection (2A) shall not apply in relation to a parent where there has been domestic abuse which has affected the child or other parent.(2D) Evidence of domestic abuse may be provided in one or more of the forms accepted as evidence for legal aid, as per guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice.”(3) Part II of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.(4) In section 9 (restrictions on making section 8 orders) after subsection (7) insert—“(8) No court shall make a section 8 order for a child to spend unsupervised time with or have unsupervised contact with a parent who is—(a) awaiting trial, or on bail for, a domestic abuse offence;(b) involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence;(c) is pending a fact finding hearing or has been found to have committed domestic abuse in a previous fact-finding hearing; or(d) has a criminal conviction for a domestic abuse offence.(8A) In subsection (8)—“unsupervised” means where a court approved third party is not present at all times during contact with the parent to ensure the physical safety and emotional wellbeing of a child;“domestic abuse offence” means an offence which the Crown Prosecution Service alleges to have involved domestic abuse.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent domestic abusers from being granted unsupervised contact with children in family law proceedings.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I had to bring this amendment back on Report, because I did not think that the Minister accepted the issues in Committee. They are important: domestic abusers are being granted unsupervised contact with children as a result of an ingrained pro-contact culture. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm review concluded that “the dominance of contact” is seen
“as excluding other welfare considerations, including the child’s need for protection from abuse, or the child’s wishes and feelings.”
Rather than seeing contact as a means to an end and weighing it up against all the harm and damage that an abusive parent has caused, it is seen as the end in itself, almost no matter what the cost. That is deeply harmful.
The debate on parental alienation on Monday showed just how embedded some of these ideas have become. Wanting to exclude an abusive parent can itself be labelled as abusive. Abusive men, in particular, falsely claim that abuse is mutual and reciprocal, and try to label the victim as a fellow perpetrator. As the Minister said on a previous group, an abuser will pursue their victim through the family courts to try to force contact with their child, not because they care, but because it is an extension of their coercive and controlling behaviour and their fury that their victim has managed to escape them. So, the abuse continues through the courts and then into unsupervised contact. More than a dozen children have been murdered by their fathers during unsupervised contact. Can the Minister please tell me what the Government are going to do to stop it?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
In my short time in this House, I have been hugely impressed by the fairness, clarity and reasonableness of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—that might be bad for her reputation—even when we have not agreed. However, in this instance, I am sad to say that I cannot find anything reasonable in this amendment, but it raises some broader issues about the Bill that worry me, so I will make those points.
This amendment effectively argues for denying the right to be a parent to anyone accused of the offence of abuse. In listing those who will be denied unsupervised access to their own children, we have those “awaiting trial”, “on bail” or
“involved in ongoing criminal proceedings”,
all of which—as anyone who knows anything about the criminal justice system knows—can involve months or years of one’s life. That would mean that innocent people, accused, are already treated as guilty.
Of course, we all want to protect children from any risk and, as the noble Baroness has illustrated, those horrifying stories of children being hurt or even killed, sometimes as revenge, are at the forefront of our minds, but I have two points. The amendment refers to ensuring the
“physical safety and emotional wellbeing of a child”.
Those are two distinct threats. The latter, at least, is difficult to pin down. I argue that being deprived of time with one’s parent, free from a court-approved third party, could also be the cause of considerable emotional distress for any child. It could be a recipe for the parental alienation that she mentioned.
Secondly, even the prospect or fear of a threat to physical safety cannot distort our sense of justice or lead to disproportionate or punitive measures in a risk-averse “what if?” scenario. It could too easily lead to the state unjustly alienating children from a parent who is accused but not found guilty. Surely, evidence and facts are key to establishing the level of threat. I note that the amendment would deny unsupervised contact
“pending a fact finding hearing”,
which makes a mockery of establishing facts and tears up any commitment to factual evidence as an important part of judging whether an accused parent can be trusted to care for or parent their children without third-party supervision.
I am even worried that this amendment argues that unsupervised contact would not be allowed for anyone with a “criminal conviction” for abuse. Granted, in this instance the evidence has been weighed and facts established, but consider the implications of this. This amendment would mean that someone found guilty of abuse perhaps when as young as 18 could find themselves, at the age of 38—by now, we hope, a reformed character in a different set of circumstances, maybe no longer drinking, on drugs or mentally ill, as we have heard today, or just shame-faced about their younger self’s abusive behaviour—still denied unsupervised access to their children. To be honest, that seems ungenerous, even barbaric and vengeful. It suggests that we are branding people found guilty as perpetrators with the letter “A” for abuser, for ever.
We also heard earlier that one can gain a criminal conviction for abuse by breaching a domestic abuse order. That breach might be for a relatively minor offence. I worry that aspects of this amendment encourage a lack of perspective and a disavowal from making judgments of different threats. The Government continue to stress that they do not want a hierarchy of abuse or harm—we have just heard the Minister discuss that—but this can lead to a muddle when it comes to parental contact. I want to discourage a lazy, one-size-fits-all approach. When considering risks to children, there is a distinction between, for example, the perpetrator of regular, systematic violence or coercive control and the particular emotional or psychological abuse that one partner might inflict on another in a toxic relationship. The latter may be worse than horrible if you are at the receiving end of it, but it may never be aimed at or even witnessed by children.
To conclude, I urge the Government to maintain the presumption of parental contact. It should be curtailed or removed only with great care. That does not mean putting children at risk, but it means holding justice dear.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I recognise the good intentions of the amendment, but I am concerned that it is too rigid. As I know from my judicial experience, not all situations are black and white. As I said at some length on a previous occasion on Report, judges and magistrates will get specific training on the Domestic Abuse Act, but the effect of this amendment would deny them important judicial discretion.
I am particularly concerned about that because proposed subsection (2D) in the amendment says:
“Evidence of domestic abuse may be provided in one or more of the forms accepted as evidence for legal aid, as per guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice.”
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, that means that a decision is taken that generally a father, but sometimes a mother, would be forbidden unsupervised contact based on the information provided by one party and before the fact-finding decision had been made by the judge. Although I understand why the amendment has been put forward, I am not prepared to support it.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the presumption of contact cannot be the first indicated assurance by the family court process. As a front-line social worker supporting supervised contact, my experience was that there is an underlying assumption of statutory services that all parents are entitled to access to children, regardless of any fears that the primary carer or parent may have about violence or abuse. Of course, there are exceptional social workers and other professionals who will pay heed to the whole range of issues of safeguarding, particularly where there is a previous history of violence and abuse.
I commend here the long-standing and excellent work of Barnardo’s and the Thomas Coram Foundation contact centre. In my experience, they have always taken these grave matters into consideration, but their services are for the lucky few. This is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. As has been detailed, the harm review found a pattern of sexism, racism and class bias against mothers and children in the family court and confirmed the presumption of contact, which has resulted in the minimisation and disbelief of allegations of domestic abuse and child sexual abuse.
The presumption is often based on one parent lying to deprive the other of access to children and somehow persuading their children to turn against the other parent. Such legal presumption often disadvantages women, including those from minority heritage backgrounds and those for whom our legal system is frequently alienating due to a lack of adequate English or knowledge about their rights.
Even in these most serious cases against mothers and children, the presumption of contact has triumphed, dismissing evidence of domestic abuse and negating mothers’ fears of extensive coercive and controlling behaviour or sexual abuse. Some women who have written to me suggest that fathers have been able to recognise the argument of being alienated to argue their entitlement to access, even where there has been evidence of violence or sexual abuse.
As has been suggested by noble and learned Lords and other noble Lords, the court system does not always function as it should. It is not beyond the wit of our courts to make a proper assessment of the impact on children when they have witnessed countless occasions of violent incidents experienced by their mother or why children would be afraid to see their violent father in any unsupervised contact.
Children who do not want to see their fathers are sometimes forced into foster care, separated from siblings, or given to other family members, to force them into contact. The London Victims’ Commissioner has called this “state-sanctioned abuse”. I am not saying that; someone who has a wide range of experience is saying it. We have to respect that view and take it on board.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I expressed my concern in Committee at the proposal to abandon the presumption in subsection (2A) of the Children Act 1989 where there has been domestic abuse that has affected the child or the other parent. My concern was then, as it is now, that under the Children Act the welfare of the child must be the court’s paramount consideration.
The presumption requires courts, when making orders about arrangements for children, including their living arrangements and arrangements for contacts, to ensure that
“unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare”.
That presumption is supported by a great deal of evidence that for children to maintain a relationship with both their parents following a breakdown of the parents’ relationship is generally in their best interests. The presumption has stood the test of time. It serves to remind custodial and non-custodial parents in entirely non-abusive relationships that have nevertheless broken down that their responsibility is to try to help their children to maintain relationships with the other, non-residential parent.
But the presumption is rebuttable, hence the words
“unless the contrary is shown”.
In many cases involving domestic abuse, judges will not order contact, because the best interests of the child will not be met by their making an order for contact. That covers the cases that I suspect the noble Baronesses, Lady Uddin and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are worried about.
However, as I attempted to demonstrate in Committee, there may be cases where acts of abuse should not lead to the conclusion that contact should be cut. In some cases, the child will have not witnessed, known about or been put at risk by an act of abuse, which may have been a completely isolated act, committed against its parent. I am reluctant to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I so rarely do, but I do on this occasion. I understand her concern and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to ensure that children are protected from the harm of unsuitable and often dangerous contacts, but to provide that protection is the job of judges. It is not the task of Parliament to make absolutist rules that treat all cases where allegations of abuse are made in the same way. Judicial discretion in these cases should be left as it is, exactly for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I also do not accept that the proposed new subsection (4) should pass into law. It would provide that no court should make an order for unsupervised contact with a parent who is, broadly, facing proceedings for a domestic abuse offence, is involved in a fact-finding hearing for a domestic abuse offence or who has a criminal conviction for such an offence. There are two points that are conclusive against such a clause. First, in the circumstances of paragraphs (a) to (c) in the proposed new subsection (8) of Section 9 of the Children Act, there would have been no finding of guilt of domestic abuse. The presumption of innocence has to apply, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. A judge hearing a contact application should not be barred by a statutory prohibition from making a finding of fact and an order after hearing evidence if they take the view that the welfare of the child would be best served by making such an order for contact, just because there is a statutory prohibition that operates without a finding of fact.
Secondly, this suggested prohibition would not be limited to cases where the alleged offending party is said to have been involved in domestic abuse against either the child or its other parent, so it would forbid a contact order between the prohibited parent and a child from an entirely different relationship. A court would be forbidden from making an order for contact with a child from a father’s relationship with a former partner, with whom a good relationship had been maintained by him and by the child, because of an allegation of domestic abuse lodged by a subsequent partner. Such an absolute prohibition would be wrong, and I cannot support it.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the proposed new clause in this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would disapply the presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare in cases where there has been domestic abuse. It would also prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse or where the parent has a criminal offence for domestic abuse. I moved a similar amendment in Committee which did not receive the backing of a number of speakers in the debate or of the Minister.
In his response in Committee, the Minister said:
“I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of these amendments, and I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the courts take proper account of the impact that domestic abuse can have on children’s well-being and safety.”
He went on to say that
“following the recommendations from the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, the Government launched a review on the presumption of parental involvement”
which
“will focus on the presumption … and the impact on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of these provisions.”
He argued that it would
“be premature to amend the legislation relating to the presumption … before gaining the in-depth evidence from the review.”—[Official Report, 3/2/21; col. 2222.]
However, we should not forget that Women’s Aid’s Nineteen Child Homicides documents the cases of 19 children in 12 families who were killed in circumstances relating to child contact by a father who was the perpetrator of domestic abuse. The Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts said that it had
“received sufficient evidence to conclude that in the cohort of cases described in submissions the presumption further reinforces the procontact culture and detracts from the court’s focus on the child’s individual welfare and safety.”
The report also states:
“The panel is clear, however, that the presumption should not remain in its present form.”
There is thus some clear and, indeed, tragic evidence that the present arrangements relating to the presumption of parental involvement as opposed to solely what is in the best interests of the child, including its welfare and safety, are just not delivering the protections they should. However, in the light of the concerns expressed by some noble Lords in Committee, which have been repeated today, and the current review of the presumption of parental involvement, we did not put down the amendment for Report. Instead, we will continue to pursue this issue outside the discussions and debates on the Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained, Amendment 42 seeks to disapply the presumption found in the Children Act—that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare—when there has been domestic abuse that has affected the child or the other parent.
The amendment also seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact by a parent in a number of different circumstances: when they are on bail awaiting trial; when there are ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence; when a fact-finding hearing concerning domestic abuse allegations is pending; and when domestic abuse is proven in such a fact-finding hearing or as a result of a criminal conviction for a domestic abuse offence.
In Committee, many noble Lords spoke passionately about the presumption of parental involvement and gave a number of examples of unsupervised contact leading to tragic results in cases which involved domestic abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reminded us of some of them this evening. As I said in Committee, I have significant sympathy for the aims of this amendment and agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the courts are taking proper account of the impact domestic abuse can have on children’s well-being and safety. That is why this Government, in November 2020, following the recommendations from the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, launched a review of the presumption of parental involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, referred to the harm panel’s report, but it is important to acknowledge that the panel did not call for immediate legislative change, despite hearing evidence from more than 1,200 parties. Instead, the panel recommended that a full review be undertaken by the Government, and that is precisely what we are doing.
In my respectful view, the panel was right to do so because, as the debate in Committee demonstrated, this is a complex and nuanced issue, with a significant real-world impact for the thousands of families who go through the family courts every year. That review will focus on the application of the provision and its exceptions, and the impact on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of those provisions. Through the review, we will develop a strong evidence base and ensure that any changes brought about as a result of it are rooted in a solid understanding of the effect of the presumption and the associated evidence on child welfare. I remain of the view that it would be premature to amend the Children Act in the way proposed by the amendment before gaining the in-depth evidence and response from the review.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I listened very carefully but did not hear anyone offer any other solution. Children are dying. Noble Lords said again and again that the current situation was not working, but still no one has come up with a solution. I take the Minister’s comments about waiting for the review, but during my political career, which has only been 20 years long, I have found that repetition works extremely well, so I repeat to him that we have to find a solution because people—children—are dying.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, gave us a “what if” situation; obviously I could also do that, but I will not. Again, I am trying to save children’s lives; I did not hear any other solutions. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that the amendment is too rigid, which I accept, but judges and magistrates are getting it wrong and children are dying. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, very much for her support from her experience. She described unsafe decisions and she put my case better than I could.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, was very kind in his comments. Of course the welfare of children is paramount, but they are not always listened to. We have to listen to them when they say that they are not happy. That is not necessarily happening at the moment. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, tried to do this and is pursuing it in other ways. I am grateful for that and glad. I am very happy to work with him on it.
The Minister said that more needs to be done. He talked about the review and said that the amendment is premature and that we need in-depth evidence, but this situation has been happening for decades and children are still dying. I mentioned a figure because it is easy to count deaths—every death is tragic and we can count them easily. However, we cannot count the damage or the mental and sometimes physical anguish that happens to children. That is absolutely uncountable.
I have listened and I accept some of the limitations of my amendment, but I have heard nothing about a solution to stop children dying. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 43. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 43
Baroness Bertin
“Confidentiality of refuge addresses
(1) In family proceedings, where a person (“P”) is—(a) witness or party to the proceedings; and(b) has been subject to domestic abuse as defined under section 1 of this Act; and(c) is residing at a refuge;the provisions in this section apply.(2) The court must not share the residential address of the refuge with any individual or third party.(3) A court order must not be served on P at the residential address of the refuge.(4) A court order may be served on P at the refuge’s office address or by an alternative method or at an alternative place, in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.(5) The residential address of the refuge must be redacted from any court documentation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent the residential address of a refuge being shared as part of court proceedings.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I laid this amendment in Committee because I was genuinely shocked that a refuge address could ever be revealed to a perpetrator. Victims are not moving to refuges because they fancy a change of scene; they are fleeing for their lives. Since laying that amendment I have heard many more anecdotes from those on the front line, suggesting that disclosure of a refuge address to a perpetrator is not a particularly rare occurrence. I am hugely troubled by this, and it is the reason why I have laid the amendment again.
I am also hugely troubled that we have absolutely no solid data on how frequently this happens. We should not have to rely on anecdotal evidence, important though it is. Surely there should be more formality in central record-keeping to document such serious disclosures.
To reach a refuge, a victim must leave behind their home, job and possessions, and in many cases they must uproot their children. To have reached the conclusion that that is the only way forward is to experience a level of trauma and abuse, and have reached a crisis point, that most of us simply cannot comprehend. We owe it to them to have a cast-iron guarantee that this course of action is not for nothing and that the law will protect them. I believe the amendment would do that.
As I said in Committee, the amendment seeks to provide a legal safety net for the secrecy of refuge addresses. The refuge model, as we know, is predicated on the secrecy and protection of safe addresses. The responsibility for protecting those addresses falls not only on the staff but on each and every resident at a refuge. Many of us in this House will have visited a refuge. I was not even allowed to talk about which part of London I had been in when discussing my visit at a later date.
By way of background, refuges can find themselves the subject of orders from the family court, particularly location orders, generally from fathers trying to locate mothers and children. Refuge providers are forced to disclose their addresses to facilitate the service of a court order on mothers, and although some protections are in place, it is clear that there are serious loopholes. As it stands, the court has discretion as to what information is provided and always has the option not to order refuges to disclose their addresses and locations. It is therefore deeply concerning that some judges either turn a blind eye or do not take enough care or proactive steps to ensure that maximum levels of confidentiality are maintained.
In the interests of time I will not repeat the two examples that I gave in Committee, but I know noble Lords will have enormous empathy for the fear and chaos that ensues when a perpetrator discovers the location of a refuge. This is not just about the safety of the residents; it also concerns the welfare of staff. They too are taking a risk in the job that they do, and should not have to put up with violent and threatening behaviour.
My amendment remains the same as in Committee and it is a simple one: the court order should never be served at the refuge itself, and the refuge address should remain confidential. It provides that the order should be served at the refuge’s office address or by an alternative method or at an alternative place. As such, the amendment would not make any significant change to the protections that already exist; it would strengthen and clarify the cases in which they should be used, so that all judges were crystal clear. In my opinion, any disclosure of the refuge address demonstrates that the existing safeguards are not adequate, and we cannot confidently say that refuge addresses will always be appropriately protected. I believe that the practice on the ground is not necessarily consistent with what is intended by the Family Procedure Rules, and they therefore require strengthening and updating.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister raised the issue of child safety—as I am sure he will again in his response today—stating that there was some concern that an alternative route to service, such as using the office address of a refuge, would present a delay in proceedings and could have the unintended consequence of endangering the child. I reiterate once again that I respectfully disagree. I suggest that the current situation, where refuges are pressured into revealing their most fiercely guarded information, causes more delay and can of course result in significant harm. I add that refuges are not unregulated hideaways, and safeguarding standards around children will always be paramount. I stress that the amendment is absolutely not about denying contact. Indeed, if the refuge’s office address were formalised as the alternative route to service, providers would understand that they have a duty to locate the mother as soon as possible and would not be faced with a serious conflict in doing so.
In Committee, some noble Lords questioned whether it was reasonable to expect refuges to have an office address. Women’s Aid has reassured me on this point: if they do not have a separate office address, they have a PO box address that the refuge uses to ensure that GPs, police and other agencies are able to contact the women who live there.
I sincerely hope the Minister can find a way to accept the amendment, but, at the very least, I believe the guidance must be strengthened beyond doubt. I also feel strongly that the Ministry of Justice needs to find a way to keep track of the number of cases involving the service of court orders on refuge addresses and the disclosure of those addresses. If it is indeed rare then the amendment should not be too onerous, and it could ensure another check and balance on these proceedings. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in the family courts is surely something that needs looking at. I accept that that is not something for this Bill, but it has come up time and again, and it appears to present a barrier to reform.
I thank the Minister for his time on this issue. We are lucky to have his experience on these Benches, and I am sure he will bring an urgency to issues such as the one being addressed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for bringing this amendment back. She has explained the position very clearly. I have added my name, because the disclosure of a refuge address is something that should be avoided, can be avoided and usually is avoided—because it can be—but, if not avoided, can have very serious consequences. We spent some time on that at the previous stage of the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister said that he did “not dissent” from confidentiality being described as “of critical importance” and “essential”. If I may say so, that is very much counsel’s phraseology, and I am not sure where on the scale of strength of agreement as expressed by a member of the Bar all this comes, but it certainly means agreement. He also took on board my point about the safety of other occupants of the refuge if a determined abuser tracks down the address—a problem I have come up against.
Sometimes it is enough to say that such and such hardly ever happens and there are ways to ensure that it does not and, anyway, there are rules to cover the point. I do not put this issue in that category with any sense of ease or confidence. I join the noble Baroness in acknowledging that there are relevant rules but asking that their importance is emphasised in guidance, if the Bill is not amended.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment, eloquently and powerfully detailed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Hamwee. I agree that confidentiality must be inherent in safe- guarding women survivors, many of whom may have endured prolonged periods of violence prior to reaching the safety of a refuge.
I have worked with refuges and inside a refuge. I know how hard it is to ensure the safety of not just one individual but of a number of women and their families. There may be instances where refuge addresses are revealed by residents being followed by a perpetrator, or, in fact, survivors may reveal the address if they return to perpetrators for the countless, complex reason debated on many occasions in this Chamber. Regardless, our statutory institutions, including the courts, must uphold the essential principle of safeguarding, not just for the sake of one survivor but for all those who reside in refuges and for the staff responsible for protecting all survivors in such refuges.
It is critical that we acknowledge this, and I look forward to the Minister being persuaded, much more eloquently than I could ever do, by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I thank the noble Baroness for moving this amendment and I wholeheartedly support her.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I supported this amendment in principle in Committee. I expressed one or two drafting reservations, one of which was about the point that not all refuges may have office addresses, but that has been amply answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. This amendment is extremely difficult to resist with any sense of logic or safeguarding at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has argued the case for it and I shall be extremely brief.
The point is that everybody has stressed the importance and value of confidentiality for refuge addresses. That flows from the very nature of a refuge: it is where women go—it is generally women—to avoid the consequences and a repetition of domestic abuse. Breach of that confidence leads to perpetrators discovering where their victims have gone. Discovering the whereabouts of their victims offers them a chance of harassing those victims further—of committing further abuse—so revealing a refuge address destroys the very concept that it is a refuge. It raises the risk of changing a refuge into a target. That is what this amendment is designed to avoid and I support it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, powerfully moved this amendment and went into the detail of the problems that arise when refuge addresses are revealed. I fail to understand why judges, in her words, are turning a blind eye to the requirement to keep the secrecy of a refuge; I fail to imagine why that might be the case. Nevertheless, either mistakes happen or some judges—very few—have an alternative view. What I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, is that she wants the Minister to put on record that guidance will be updated and to make it absolutely clear that this should not happen again. I do not know whether she is going to move her amendment or what will happen, but I would have thought that, at the very least, the Minister should be able to do that and say that guidance will be updated.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Uddin, both have experience of working in refuges and they know the importance of keeping these addresses secret. I hope we will hear from the Minister something that sufficiently reassures his noble friend Lady Bertin that this issue can be properly addressed once and for all.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Bertin for her continued engagement on the issue of the confidentiality of refuge addresses. I take this opportunity to thank refuge providers and others in the sector who took time out of their very busy diaries to meet me on this issue: we had a very useful discussion.
As with many issues with the Bill, it seems to me that we all agree on the issues of principle. Refuges are places of safety. They play a vital role in effectively responding to domestic abuse, and in supporting victims and their children. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the principle underlying my noble friend’s amendment, that those in refuges must be protected. As such, it is right that the Government and those involved in family proceedings carefully consider both whether existing measures offer enough protection and whether there are further steps that could be taken better to protect domestic abuse victims living in refuge accommodation.
In Committee, I outlined that those engaged in family proceedings are not required to disclose their address, or that of their children, unless specifically directed to do so by the court. Where such a disclosure direction is made, addresses are disclosed to the court only, and it is for the court to determine whether information it holds should be disclosed further. Where there are known allegations of domestic abuse, the court should hold this information as confidential. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the formulation I used in Committee was certainly intended to indicate agreement.
Turning to the service of orders at refuge addresses, I again thank those from the refuge sector with whom I discussed this issue and their experience of it. They gave some valuable evidence, and we heard some more this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. As I indicated in Committee, existing measures, particularly Part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules, enable the court to direct bespoke service arrangements, and orders can be served at alternative addresses, such as the refuge office address. This approach should be taken wherever possible.
I noted the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it: service on a refuge should be avoided. However, as I said on the last group, the real question is the welfare of the child, which is of paramount consideration in family proceedings. I remain of the view that there can be limited circumstances where the court may need to serve an order on a party at the refuge they are staying in because not doing so would pose risks to the safety of children involved in family proceedings.
One can envisage such cases, and I would not wish to limit the court’s ability to act quickly in those circumstances to safeguard a child, which might occur were we to place a blanket or inflexible restriction on addresses at which an order can be served. However, I would expect family proceedings where an order needs to be served at a residential refuge address to be very few and far between. Although the question must ultimately be a matter for the judiciary and not for the Government Front Bench, one would expect that a refuge address would be used only when there is no other viable alternative in the circumstances.
I have indicated that existing measures enable protection for victims in refuges. However, I am persuaded that there is a legitimate question of whether those measures could be strengthened to ensure that victims are better protected, that addresses are not disclosed to perpetrators, and that service of orders at refuge addresses is directed only when absolutely necessary. While I am clear that primary legislation, and therefore this amendment, is not the appropriate response here, there are other routes to explore, as I have discussed with my noble friend since Committee.
This issue has been discussed between Ministers and the President of the Family Division in recent bilateral meetings. I assure my noble friend that the judiciary is taking seriously the concerns raised. I appreciate, in this context, that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, wanted some reassurance from the Government; I hope I am giving it to him. The Whips may not agree, but one of the benefits of making slightly slower progress on Monday than we intended is that I can now say that this matter was discussed at the meeting of the Family Procedure Rule Committee on Monday, which was a couple of days ago. The committee agreed to work on this issue and will be giving it detailed consideration in the coming weeks and months.
The Government are committed to protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse from further harm by their abuser. I am confident that this issue is being properly and carefully considered by members of the senior judiciary and by the Family Procedure Rule Committee. I have full sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment. I understand why my noble friend has maintained this, and why the noble Lord, Lord Marks, had considerable sympathy with it on the confidentiality point, although I note that he did not engage with the lack of any exception to the proposition set out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause—that is, service on a refuge address.
I have used my response to set out what the Government are doing and the steps being taken. I hope that, having provided that assurance to my noble friend, she will now be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this short but very important debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support and for putting her name to the amendment, and likewise to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for her kind words. It was powerful to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with all his deep knowledge of the law on these issues, and the noble Lord Ponsonby, agreed with the amendment. I felt it was important to hear them say that, and I thank them for it.
I am of course disappointed that my noble friend the Minister does not see that there is a need to put this into the Bill. I will never accept that there is justification for revealing the location of a refuge, but I have really appreciated the time that he has given to this issue. I can tell that he cares; he obviously has a concern about this issue and is committed to trying to deal with it. I absolutely accept that his response has gone further than that in Committee, so I will bank that progress and am grateful for it. We have indeed spoken at length about other routes to explore, and I will certainly be keeping in touch with him on this. I also want to pursue greater transparency.
I was very reassured—as my noble friend said, the timing has been fortunate—that the issue has already been discussed with the President of the Family Division on the back of the amendment. I do not doubt the judiciary’s willingness to tackle this and to take these accounts seriously. We will certainly keep a close eye on this and the progress that it makes. With that in mind, I will withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Amendment 44 was previously debated on Monday. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, wish to move Amendment 44?
Amendment 44
Baroness Helic
“Training
(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the passing of this Act publish—(a) a strategy for providing specialist training for all magistrates and judges hearing cases in family proceedings in the Family Courts concerning rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control; and(b) a timetable for the delivery of the training mentioned in subsection (1)(a),to include the training of all judges and magistrates, who are already hearing or who are to be appointed to hear Family cases and to include continuing professional development training for all such judges and magistrates.(2) The training mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must include but is not limited to training concerning—(a) the impact upon victims and witnesses, both adults and children, of the trauma of rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control;(b) the risks and difficulties for victims and witnesses in giving evidence and taking part in proceedings concerning rape, sexual, domestic abuse and coercive control; and(c) the risks and difficulties for victims and witnesses of being involved in proceedings where one or more other parties may be the perpetrators of rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control or persons connected to such perpetrators.(3) Before publishing the strategy and timetable mentioned in subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Chairman of the Board of the Judicial College;(b) the President of the Family Division;(c) the Chief Executive of the Magistrates Association; and(d) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.(4) After commencement of this subsection, which shall not be more than two years after the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State shall ensure that no Family cases are heard by judges or magistrates who have not successfully completed the training mentioned in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, in consultation with training bodies, to publish a strategy for providing specialist training on matters relating to domestic abuse for magistrates and judges hearing cases in family proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now put the question. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, taking part remotely, that she wishes to divide the House in support of this amendment and I will take that into account. The question is that Amendment 44 be agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 45. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 45
“Controlling or coercive behaviourControlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship
(1) Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(b), after “personally connected” insert “(see subsection (6))”.(3) Omit subsection (2).(4) For subsection (6) substitute—“(6) A and B are “personally connected” if any of the following applies—(a) they are, or have been, married to each other;(b) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other;(c) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated);(d) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated);(e) they are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship with each other;(f) they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child (see subsection (6A));(g) they are relatives.(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6)(f) a person has a parental relationship in relation to a child if—(a) the person is a parent of the child, or(b) the person has parental responsibility for the child.”(5) In subsection (7), for “subsection (6)” substitute “subsections (6) and (6A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would align the definition of “personally connected” in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 with that in Clause 2 of the Bill. The result is that the offence under that section of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour would apply in relation to members of the same family, or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they live together.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Amendment 45 and consequential amendments, with the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford—it is not often I say that—Lady Bertin and Lady Sanderson of Welton. Aligning the definition of “personally connected” in the Serious Crime Act 2015 with that in the Bill would mean that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour would apply whether or not the abuser and abused actually live together. It would therefore cover situations of non-domiciliary family abuse, which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath raised in Committee, and post-separation abuse, which was the focus of my own original amendment.
Noble Lords will recall that, in Committee, there was unanimous support for that amendment. The situations we heard about were described using words such as “heart-breaking”, “tragic” and “unacceptable”, and the particular implications for older and black and minority ethnic women were brought out. Victims of post-separation abuse, and in particular economic abuse, told us of its “crippling” effects and of the “invisible chain” that it forges with an abuser they thought they had escaped. A number of noble Lords called on the Government to bring forward their own amendment if they had problems with the one I tabled. I am happy to say that that is exactly what they have done, to the credit of the Minister, who also generously suggested that the government amendment should be tabled in my name.
During the Bill’s earlier stages, Ministers said that they had to await the findings of the delayed research report that reviewed the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. In fact, this report rather sat on the fence when it came to recommending legislative change, which suggests that the Government genuinely listened to the strength of opinion expressed by your Lordships in coming to a decision. I am therefore really grateful to all the noble Lords who supported my amendment in Committee. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, whom I have thought of as a noble friend because of the support that she has given me and whose commitment on these issues is second to none.
Together with a number of other noble Lords, we attended a round table the other week hosted by the domestic abuse commissioner designate, whose support has also been a significant factor, I am sure. At it, a number of participants raised the important issue of training, which we discussed more generally in relation to earlier amendments and, of course, on which we have just voted. This was one of the key findings of the official review:
“When attending domestic abuse incidents, it is vital that the police (including domestic abuse specialists) have the training and specialist resources needed to establish whether there are patterns of controlling or coercive behaviours underlying the incident that led to a police callout.”
This reflected the view across stakeholder groups that, despite improvements in the understanding and awareness of CCB, there is a need for better training of prosecutors and judges, as well as of front-line police officers in particular.
Surviving Economic Abuse—of which more in a moment—states:
“Currently, just under half of police forces in England and Wales have not received training in coercive and controlling or coercive behaviour. Government must provide funding to correct this deficit”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what plans there are to improve training and raise awareness generally of CCB and of how economic abuse fits into this pattern of behaviour, particularly in light of the amendment we just voted for. SEA also states that, at present,
“the majority of coercive controlling behaviour is not reported to the police, and many victims do not immediately recognise what is happening to them.”
Can the Minister tell us the Government’s response to the review’s recommendation that the operation of this legislative change
“should be monitored and reviewed to assess the impact”?
Before concluding, I want to voice my support for Amendments 46 and 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. She made a powerful case on Monday and, following the vote on Amendment 4, it would be good if the Government were willing to concede on these related amendments and treat them as consequential.
The Government’s decision to accept an amendment on post-separation abuse has been widely welcomed by organisations on the ground, and by survivors themselves. I pay special tribute to Surviving Economic Abuse, which has campaigned on the issue of post-separation economic abuse with such determination and skill, in response to concerns raised by victims and survivors. It has shared with me, anonymised, some of the responses that it has received from these women. They are truly heartwarming. I will quote just two: “Thank you for sharing this amazing piece of news. I am crying with happiness.” “I woke up this morning and saw the news and I was practically jumping up and down with joy. Yes, joy. These milestones that SEA achieves or helps achieve ... are like magic healing for my soul, this one in particular.”
Many of these women have shown such courage in speaking out and have undergone such an ordeal just at the point at which they believed that they had broken free of their abusers. I dedicate this new clause to them. I beg to move.
Amendment 46 (to Amendment 45)
“(h) A is a carer for B who is a disabled person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton to Amendment 45 would amend the new Clause in the name of Baroness Lister of Burtersett to ensure that the definition of “personally connected” in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 includes the relationship between a disabled person and their carer in line with the amendments to the definition in Clause 2 of this Bill in the name of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 46, I will speak also to my Amendment 47 and to Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which my amendments are attached and which I strongly support.
My amendments bring controlling or coercive behaviour within the scope of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Amendment 46 mirrors Amendment 4, which was considered and overwhelmingly agreed to by the House on Monday.
I had intended to divide the House on Amendment 46 if the Minister could not accept it. I will not do so for one reason, and one reason alone. Just this morning, I learned that it could jeopardise Amendment 45, which is supported by the Government. I have no wish to risk another important amendment and potentially lose both it and my amendment. I have great admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and support her amendment overwhelmingly. Noble Lords will undoubtedly understand my reasons. I had not expected that kind of unwelcome surprise today.
Controlling or coercive behaviour, which is part of the definition of domestic abuse under Clause 1 of the Bill, is an offence under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act. Such behaviour is unfortunately a common form of abuse by carers. Amendment 45 amends the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 to align it with Clause 2. The importance of including disabled people applies equally to the offence under Section 76. I set this out extensively on Monday and will not rehearse those arguments. It is worth noting that the draft guidance on Clause 2 relies on the guidance on Section 76 to explain controlling or coercive behaviour. They are complementary.
The two sets of provisions are totally interrelated. These amendments would ensure they remain consistent and ensure the coherence of the statutory abuse regime. It is very disappointing to not be able to follow that through for the protection and safety of disabled people if these amendments do not go through today. I await the response of the Minister in the sincere hope that she will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 46 and 47, which are in the name of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton and to which my name is also added. Because Amendments 46 and 47 are an amendment to 45—and I do not wish to quote sections of the Companion to the Standing Orders to your Lordships’ House—I would like to make clear that those listed as signatories have been put in the unenviable position of making the heartbreaking decision of whether to divide the House and risk preventing the valuable amendment put by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, from being passed.
In speaking after my noble friend, I do not wish to reiterate what has already been well articulated. I would like to thank the staff of your Lordships’ House, the disabled peoples’ organisations and many disabled women for the considerable amount of work they have put into this Bill. If there is one thing I ask of the Minister and the Bill team, it is that, when legislation that has such an impact on disabled people is being considered, disabled peoples’ organisations are expressly and extensively consulted. The added issues disabled people face should always be included.
On Monday it felt that, while we might not have convinced Her Majesty’s Government of the need to include disabled people in this Bill, the Chamber strongly supported my noble friend’s amendments. I would like to thank the 318 Peers who voted to support and include disabled people this week. I am expecting that there will be much support as we debate this group, but there will be push-back from Her Majesty’s Government.
Having re-read Hansard several times this week, I fear that we still have to convince Her Majesty’s Government of the need to protect disabled people. It is important and welcome that controlling or coercive behaviour is more widely understood across society, but that same protection does not appear to be afforded to disabled people. For that, I am extremely disappointed.
I wholly, but with a sad heart, support my noble friend’s decision tonight. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, my noble friend has been put in the unenviable position of having to explain to disabled people who experience abuse in a domestic setting—whom she has spent a considerable part of her working life supporting and protecting—that the politics and procedures we are operating under have excluded their place in the Bill.
I know from extensive discussions with those involved in these amendments that, in accepting and supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I absolutely do, if the House were divided we might put Amendment 45 at risk. There is always a price to pay by some in bringing legislation. Tonight, and in this instance, the price is being heavily paid by disabled people.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 45, but I do want to reference the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson. Their words have been very powerful, and we should never forget about the rights of disabled people. We should always try and give them a voice and make sure they are heard, because they are not heard enough in my view.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 46 and 47, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would amend the new clause in Amendment 45, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to ensure that the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 includes the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, in line with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, to the definition in Clause 2 of the Bill.
Amendments 45, 46 and 47 sit together, and I hope that the Minister can be persuaded to add her name to Amendments 46 and 47. The new clause proposed in Amendment 45 would align the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 with that in Clause 2 of the Bill. The result is that the offence under that section of engaging in “controlling or coercive behaviour” would apply in relation to members of the same family or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they live together.
Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that the relationship between a disabled person and their carer is included. This amendment and Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would amend the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in Amendment 45 to ensure that the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crimes Act 2015 includes the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, in line with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, to the definition in Clause 2.
I also highlight that the term “disability” includes learning disabilities, which is important in this context. Many parents choose to look after their children with a learning disability rather than entrust their care to an organisation. When the child becomes an adult and the parents are older and frail, what had been a loving relationship often becomes tense and fraught, and can lead to violence and abuse. This can apply equally when a person with a learning disability has a carer rather than parents. What started as a positive relationship can turn sour, and the abuse of one party by the other and violence are often the outcome. In this case, with no parents, it is the local authority that has the responsibility to sort the problem out.
This is a good suite of amendments and I am happy to support them.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 45, but before I do so, perhaps I may record my concern at the situation described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Jolly, in relation to people with disabilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort from the Front Bench on what is obviously a very unsatisfactory situation.
On Amendment 45, I want simply to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the supporters of her amendment, both inside the House and those who have campaigned outside it, for this change to the provisions regarding post-separation coercive control. I also express my gratitude to the Minister for listening and, more than that, acting by adding her name to the amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I have had a tremendously positive response to the news that the change was to be made. I can do no better than to quote from a note I have received from the director of the Daisy Programme in Norfolk, of which I am a patron. She has said, “We continue to witness at first hand the insidious nature of continued domestic abuse post separation and the controlling nature of perpetrators. Retraumatising of survivors is common as they continue to tell, retell and tell once again their stories, leaving little time to begin the process of rebuilding their lives.”
These amendments will support survivors and children who have been deeply impacted. As others have said, these are important amendments that will change people’s lives, and I welcome them.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. Before I speak to Amendment 45, I want to echo other noble Lords’ sentiments and say how heroic my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, has been in her undeniable and outstanding leadership. I am delighted to call her a friend. Another incredible champion of people with disabilities is the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who is also a friend. Her words are etched and lie heavily on my heart as someone who has cared for a disabled adult for 42 years. I hope that we can get to a place where we can find some solutions.
I thank and salute my noble friend Lady Lister and her long list of supporters and welcome Amendment 45, which seeks to strengthen the legislation on post-separation controlling or coercive behaviour, making it no longer a requirement that abusers and victims must live together for it to apply. This is an important amendment that will lead to post-separation abuse becoming a criminal offence. I am grateful to the Minister for her personal persistence and advocacy. Many survivors will today express small relief and quiet prayers for the protections to come.
There are many ways in which perpetrators can control the lives of survivors, to devastating effect, whether they live together or not. These include using financial dependency, and the survivor’s desire to protect their children from poverty; societal and cultural pressures; and a lack of belief on a survivor’s part that it is not her fault, that she has not contributed to her partner’s, husband’s, lover’s or family member’s violence or coercive behaviour. Ex-partners may also use cultural references, faith or social norms to continue to torment survivors, whose self-belief and confidence may have been substantially depleted with questions: why did she not leave? Was the decision to divorce or separate right? Was it in the best interests of the children?
I speak from considerable experience, having for years supported women who suffer from controlling behaviour, even after separation and divorce. I wish to single out one incident I witnessed earlier today outside my door of an ex-partner turning up at the survivor’s parents’ home, demanding to see her and her child. They have been divorced for nearly four years. The woman in question was so traumatised and frightened that I had to grab her, get her inside the house and calm her down. Her ex-partner was so obsessed with having the children and seeing the woman that he left only when I threatened him with reporting the matter to the police. Anyway, I do not want to go into any further details.
All survivors will understand the intense fear of the extents to which an angry perpetrator may go, in addition to external means of control: intimidation, threats of violence, and denigration of the mind through the instrument of internalised fear. The perpetrators do not even have to be present; survivors can easily be reached by modern methods. Constant voice, text and video messages can create psychological and emotional havoc by inducing imminent and ever-present danger while the survivor is silenced. This is often destructive to their long-term well-being.
As Surviving Economic Abuse outlines, economic abuse does not require physical proximity. It can escalate, or even start, after separation, creating significant barriers for victims seeking to rebuild their lives. This amendment is needed because abusers often continue to use coercive control after separation, and victims are at a heightened risk of homicide in this period. We all know that lack of access to economic resources can result in a victim staying with an abusive partner for longer and experiencing more harm as a result. Noble Lords will be familiar with the experiences of survivors who face additional forms of discrimination, including black and other minority women, women with disabilities, migrant women and women from LGBT communities, who continue to face serious barriers to protection, safety and support.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for housing associations.
I do not need to repeat the statistics so vividly described by my noble friend Lady Lister and others on the use of coercive control after separation. Suffice it to say that they are clear and troubling enough for the Government to acknowledge both that economic abuse is linked to physical safety and that something must be done swiftly to protect these women. I support all the points raised by my noble friend so powerfully in introducing this amendment; I also pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson, whom I would have supported. I hope the Minister can respond positively to the dilemma in which they have so troublingly found themselves.
In my brief contribution I will highlight just three things, focusing on what further action is needed once the amendment is incorporated into the Bill and implemented. First, there has been in the past a missed opportunity to see patterns of behaviour which should have led to greater awareness of coercive control behaviours, so it is vital to create greater awareness and understanding of these patterns of behaviour and how economic abuse fits into them. That can be done only through training of professionals right across the police and criminal justice system. This has come up on other parts of the Bill, including very recently, and I hope the Minister will address it in her response.
Secondly, when legal aid is sought, survivors could be unfairly assessed as failing the means test due to money or assets they appear to own but which they are unable to access or control due to economic abuse. Will the Minister acknowledge this and undertake to refer it to her MoJ colleagues to ensure it is taken into account in the legal aid inquiry? In that context, I very much support Amendment 71 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy.
Thirdly, the SEA charity, whose briefings on this—as every contributor to this debate has said—have been invaluable, highlights the inadequacy of data collection on controlling or coercive behaviours in both the Crime Survey of England and Wales and ONS reports. Can the Minister, in taking forward this legislation, undertake to ensure that this is brought to the attention of the relevant government department so as not to undermine the effectiveness of this excellent piece of legislation, which she has so ably steered through this House?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 45 is crucial and unreservedly welcome. It is awful to see someone subject to coercive control; to see how the woman—I have seen only women subject to it—is made mentally and physically ill by such passive-aggressive behaviour. Sometimes it is more active than passive. By adding her name to this amendment, the Minister has shown her understanding of this.
Amendments 46 and 47 are similarly essential. Coercive control can be very difficult to pick up under safeguarding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, stated, disability applies to those with profound learning difficulties as well as serious physical difficulties, but their communication difficulties can make it very hard to detect what is going on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, described, the terrible fear induced in the victim is something that feeds the controlling coercive behaviour from the abuser.
None of us wants to delay the Bill. I hope the Minister will take to heart and address the difficulties that my noble friends Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson have been put in, and will seek to ensure that the statutory guidance relating to the Bill recognises that there is true domestic violence occurring from personally connected intimate care providers.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak. I was delighted to see the Minister’s name on Amendment 45 and the consequential Amendments 88, 89 and 96. That is three times that I have been delighted today so I do not quite know what is going on. I welcome the extension of “personally connected” in the context of coercive control to family members or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether living together or not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about how important training for police and professionals is in the implementation phase. As several noble Lords have said, a lot of individuals who are being coercively controlled do not know or appreciate that fact. It is a bit like the story of the frog in the beaker where the water gets heated more and more, very gently, and the frog does not realise that it is trapped until it is too late. It really makes a difference if other people can recognise what is going on, perhaps even before the victim themselves.
Post-separation abuse is a terrible thing. Having thought that you had escaped the abuse but then realising that you are being dragged back and dragged down financially and emotionally takes a toll. We have heard a number of examples of just how awful that is, so I cannot say just how happy I am.
We have been pushing the boundaries somewhat regarding the definition of “personally connected” in several contexts. I will talk about disabled people in a second but, with regard to family members or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they are living together, I am glad that the Minister has listened. I am sure that is right, and the Bill will be stronger for it.
Amendments 46 and 47 extend the definition to the relationship between a disabled person and their carer. We had this discussion on Monday, so I will not repeat the arguments that were used then, but I was disappointed by the Minister’s response. The House showed its concerns and feelings, and I hope that the Minister takes them into account in her remarks, but also takes the opportunity to have another think before Third Reading and the Bill goes back to the House of Commons.
We strongly need disabled people to be heard. We heard strong arguments for this on Monday and tonight, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I hope that the Minister listens to them. I very much welcome Amendment 45.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 45 ensures that the existing offence of coercive or controlling behaviour applies to abuse that happens post-separation by extending the offence to cover those who no longer live together. It aligns the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 with Clause 2 of the Bill, and the result is that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour will apply to members of the same family or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they live together.
Amendments 46 and 47 amend Amendment 45 to include the relationship between a disabled person and their carer in the definition of “personally connected” in the Serious Crime Act 2015 to reflect the changes made to the Bill when the earlier amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, were agreed on Monday. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for the determination that she has shown in pursuing Amendment 45 and the strength of the case that she has marshalled in support. This is a key amendment for us and, most importantly, a key change for survivors living with abuse after separation. I hope that, after today, they feel that their voices have been heard. We also appreciate the Government’s willingness to support the amendment and the role that the Minister has played. We trust that the House now does likewise.
I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We strongly support Amendments 46 and 47 in her name, but understand why she now feels that she cannot divide the House, in the light of the Government’s apparent stance on those amendments and the impact that could have on Amendment 45 if they were carried.
The House has already shown its support for the inclusion of carers in the definition of “personally connected”, through the vote on Monday in support of earlier amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We regard Amendments 46 and 47 as consequential parts of the package. As I have already stated, part of what Amendment 45, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, achieves is to align the definition of “personally connected” in the Bill with the Serious Crime Act 2015. On Monday, this House added carers to the definition of “personally connected” in the Bill. That is why we believe that the Government should recognise the outcome of the vote on Monday and accept Amendments 46 and 47 as effectively consequential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, asked. They should give a clear assurance that they accept them, as government support for Amendment 45 means that they will make sure that that amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, is still enshrined in the Bill when it becomes an Act.
I hope that the Government think hard about their response to these amendments, particularly to Amendments 46 and 47. If they do not feel that they can give a positive response tonight, along the lines asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, perhaps they could reflect further and come back on Third Reading.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have pointed out, Amendment 45 removes the cohabitation requirement contained within the controlling or coercive behaviour offence in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. This would extend the reach of the offence, meaning that it may apply to post-separation abuse, or to any family member regardless of whether they lived with the victim.
As noble Lords will be aware, the current offence applies only to those who are “personally connected” as defined in Section 76 of the 2015 Act. This definition applies to those in an intimate personal relationship—whether or not they live together—or to those who live together and have either been in an intimate relationship or are members of the same family. The definition in the 2015 Act is therefore out of sync with the definition in Clause 2 of this Bill.
The Government have listened carefully to the debate in Committee, where the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and many others argued for the controlling or coercive behaviour offence to be extended to cover post-separation abuse between intimate partners and interfamilial abuse regardless of whether the family members were living together. In Committee, I asked noble Lords to await the outcome of the review into the controlling or coercive behaviour offence—I really meant it—and I am pleased to say that this review has now been published.
The review found that police-recorded controlling or coercive behaviour offences, as well as prosecutions, have increased year on year since the introduction of the offence. However, the review also found there is still room for improvement in responding to this abhorrent crime. The review considered views from a number of stakeholders, who expressed concern that the cohabitation requirement in the offence is preventing some victims of this abuse from seeking justice, and that it poses challenges for police and prosecutors in evidencing and charging abusive behaviours under other applicable legislation.
Calls from domestic abuse services echo concerns around the cohabitation requirement of the offence, given that we know that victims who leave their perpetrators are often subjected to sustained or increased coercive or controlling behaviour after separation, and are statistically at the highest risk of homicide within the period immediately after they have left.
Controlling or coercive behaviour is an insidious form of domestic abuse and this Government are committed to ensuring that all victims are protected. We have heard the experts and considered the evidence on this issue and I am very pleased to support the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She has campaigned on it. She owns it. I am very happy that she is the sponsor. I commend the resolute campaigning on this issue by Surviving Economic Abuse and other organisations. I acknowledge the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and I will draw her comments to the attention of my colleagues in the MoJ.
Amendment 45 will bring the definition of “personally connected” as used in the controlling or coercive behaviour offence into line with that in Clause 2 of the Bill and send a clear message to both victims and perpetrators that controlling or coercive behaviours, irrespective of the living arrangements, are forms of domestic abuse.
This Government are committed to doing all we can support victims and to tackle offenders. I am delighted that, in removing the cohabitation requirement in the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, we can take another step towards ensuring that every victim has access to the protection they need.
Amendments 46 and 47 seek to expand the definition of “personally connected” within the revised offence of controlling or coercive behaviour to include both paid and unpaid carers. I made it very clear during the debate on Monday on earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, that the Government absolutely recognise that abuse can be perpetrated by carers. The other point that I made on Monday was that many carers will be captured by the “personally connected” definition, being family members or partners. However, I reiterate that extending that definition in the context of what is a domestic abuse offence would have detrimental effects on the overall understanding of domestic abuse and the complexities of the familial and intimate partner relationships that domestic abuse is understood to encompass, where the affectionate emotional bond between the victim and the perpetrator plays an important role in the power dynamics. By extending the definition to include carers we would be broadening the definition of “personally connected” to include a much wider range of connections within health and social care settings, which are of course covered by other legislation, and would confuse the meaning of “domestic abuse”.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Burt, talked about the important issue of ongoing training. I acknowledge that there is more to do to ensure that the offence is understood, and we will update the statutory guidance, in consultation with police and others.
In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about what next, we will be strengthening the legislation around controlling or coercive behaviour to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse are able to receive protection, regardless of their living arrangements with their abusers. This summer we will be publishing a domestic abuse strategy, which will build on the work to date to help to transform the response to domestic abuse and to tackle perpetrators. We will consider the wider policy and data recommendations made in the review throughout the development and implementation of the strategy, and we will of course continue to engage with domestic abuse organisations throughout the process.
The noble Baroness mentioned monitoring. At the moment, all legislation is subject to ongoing review and monitoring, and we have the very important benefit of the domestic abuse commissioner, who I know will be keeping a very careful eye on how the legislation is working in practice.
I will not repeat the other points that I made on Monday, but I hope that, in the light of the debate then and my response today, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, will be content not to move her amendment. To be clear, the Government’s position on Amendment 45, should Amendments 46 and 47 be moved, is that we will not support Amendments 46 and 47. There is cross-party support for Amendment 45 as currently drafted, and I urge the House not to detract from that should it come to a vote on Amendment 46. The House must of course first reach a decision on that amendment.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported my amendments. I am grateful for the very kind words about my own personal commitment to these issues and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, who has wheeled with me through this amendment rollercoaster today. Disabled people, who face so many barriers in their fight for equal dignity and safety from those who may abuse their vulnerability, need this support; it gives them all strength to carry on.
I am of course deeply saddened by the Minister’s response. As I said earlier, I am not able now to divide the House; my hands are tied. I have no alternative than, very sadly, to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before the Question is put on Amendment 45, I first pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is my noble friend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. They have made a tremendous sacrifice, and we should acknowledge that. It saddens me, because this is a time when I feel so happy that Amendment 45 is going to go through. I am just really sorry that it has been at the expense of what they have been campaigning for. I ask the Minister to reflect on the number of noble Lords who have asked her to think again about this before Third Reading.
On a happier note, I thank the Minister for her response on Amendment 45, of which she is of course a co-sponsor; I am particularly grateful that she has taken on board and answered in detail the question of “Where now?” This is really just the first step. There is a lot that needs to be done with the development of the domestic abuse strategy to make sure that we raise awareness and implement training, monitoring and so forth.
I want to take this opportunity to thank again all those who have made Amendment 45 possible. Those who have survived economic abuse must take such pride in what has been achieved this evening. I thank colleagues across the House, both those who have spoken this evening and those who spoke in Committee. I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who has, I am sure, been pivotal to the Government listening and then agreeing that this particular formulation of the amendment be put forward. I also thank the many women who have spoken out in recent years.
It seems fitting to give the last word to one of these women who has been in touch with me. This is what she said—I have reduced it down, because it was a longer email:
“The Government’s announcement … is such positive news. I just wanted to stay a huge thank you and let you know how grateful I am … and also to your colleagues for all their tremendous care and commitment. Thank goodness the Government has listened.”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we have completed scrutiny of 10 groups of amendments and have a further seven to cover today, so I suggest that this might be a sensible moment for a short break.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 48. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 48
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Disclosure of private sexual photographs and filmsThreats to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress
(1) Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) is amended as follows. (2) In the heading, after “Disclosing” insert “, or threatening to disclose,”.(3) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person discloses, or threatens to disclose, a private sexual photograph or film in which another individual (“the relevant individual”) appears,(b) by so doing, the person intends to cause distress to that individual, and(c) the disclosure is, or would be, made without the consent of that individual.”(4) In subsection (2)—(a) after “disclose” insert “, or threaten to disclose,”;(b) for “the individual mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b)” substitute “the relevant individual”.(5) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section of threatening to disclose a private sexual photograph or film, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove—(a) that the photograph or film referred to in the threat exists, or(b) if it does exist, that it is in fact a private sexual photograph or film.”(6) In subsection (4)(a), after “disclosure” insert “, or threat to disclose,”.(7) In subsection (5)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “the individual mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b)” substitute “the relevant individual”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “the individual mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b)” substitute “the relevant individual”.(8) For subsection (8) substitute—“(8) A person charged with an offence under this section is not to be taken to have intended to cause distress by disclosing, or threatening to disclose, a photograph or film merely because that was a natural and probable consequence of the disclosure or threat.”(9) In section 35 of that Act (meaning of “private” and “sexual”), in subsection (5)(c), for “the person mentioned in section 33(1)(a) and (b)” substitute “the relevant individual (within the meaning of section 33)”.(10) In Schedule 8 to that Act (disclosing private sexual photographs or films: providers of information society services)—(a) in the heading, after “Disclosing” insert “, or threatening to disclose,”;(b) in paragraph 5 (exception for hosting)—(i) in sub-paragraph (1), after “sub-paragraph (2)” insert “, (2A)”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), in the words before paragraph (a), after “if” insert “, in the case of information which consists of or includes a private sexual photograph or film,”;(iii) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) This sub-paragraph is satisfied if, in the case of information which consists of or includes a threat to disclose a private sexual photograph or film, the service provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided—(a) that it consisted of or included a threat to disclose a private sexual photograph or film in which another individual appears, (b) that the threat was made with the intention of causing distress to that individual, or(c) that the disclosure would be made without the consent of that individual.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would amend the offence under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, of disclosing a private sexual photograph or film with intent to cause distress to an individual who appears in the photograph or film, so as to include threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the later stage of debates on this important Bill, and to move Amendment 48. I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for their support, and particularly my noble friend the Minister for adding his name to this amendment. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson, who supported the amendment that I tabled in Committee, and I thank all the Ministers involved in the Bill, in this House and in the House of Commons, for their engagement on the issue of criminalising the threat of sharing intimate images.
I pay tribute to Refuge, particularly its tech abuse team, who first identified this as an issue, and to those brave survivors who have spoken out about the toll that the sharing of images and the threat of sharing images has taken on them. They have been very clear about the devastating long-term impact on their lives. If any noble Lord or anyone watching this debate has any doubt about that, I recommend that they watch the very powerful film that the survivor Zara McDermott has made about this, which was released within the last month.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief, but as my name was on the original amendment I wanted to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her passion and persistence in ensuring that the Bill will now be the vehicle for finally making threats to share intimate images a criminal offence. Thanks also must go to the Government and to the Minister for really listening—not only to the campaigners and those of us who spoke in Committee but, far more importantly, to those many millions of women who have been subjected, and continue to be subjected, to this invidious behaviour.
We have heard today of how an entire town has been sent intimate images of young women from that town. This is a growing crime, as online sites grow and more young people are betrayed and humiliated. As the chair of Refuge put it, changing the law to criminalise threats to share could not come soon enough for those one in seven young women who experience this form of abuse in the UK. This will finally provide them with the recourse to justice that they deserve.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too acknowledge with enthusiasm and, if I may say so, admiration the dedicated energy of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to resolving this issue and achieving this reform. This is a simple amendment, or will be a series of simple amendments. The clause in question addresses what everybody who has spoken in the past, whether in Committee or at Second Reading, knows is pernicious and malevolent behaviour. It should be criminalised and now it will be; good.
Importantly, if I may just digress, the achievement of this objective by recasting Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 means that every potential victim will fall within the new protected ambit of the offence, whether or not she—it is, of course, nearly always she but sometimes may be he—forms part of any domestic arrangement or personal relationship, or none. They may be a total stranger. Behaviour like this causes distress, anxiety and offence by whomsoever and in whatever circumstances it occurs.
In the context of the debate we have just had on Amendments 46 and 47, it would apply to someone in the position of a carer. I wonder why that is strange in the context of the debate that has just happened; for the purposes of this amendment, it is not strange at all. I thank the Minister for reflecting, for accepting that there is no time to waste and for an approach which will be welcomed on all sides of the House.
I will add a footnote: like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I shall hope to continue to examine the ingredients of this offence, and in particular the state of mind currently required on the basis of the new clause inserted by Amendment 48—old Section 33 of the 2015 Act—just to make sure that it satisfactorily addresses how strong an intent is required. I feel that having a positive, specific intent to cause distress is not appropriate. It certainly would not be appropriate for someone who had acquired the intimate photographs, perhaps without paying for them if they were sent through modern technology, and just decided to publish them. I think “intent to cause distress” is too strong, but that is a detail for today. We will come back to it and trouble the Minister about it, no doubt, in discussions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was rather surprised to discover that the Government have accepted this amendment. The disclosure of sexual photographs and films is egregious and abusive, but I am not convinced that primary legislation is the place to criminalise threats to disclose in this way. I seek clarification and reassurance from the Minister.
I am concerned about the elision between speech and action. Angry words exchanged in the height of relationship break-ups, for example, might now be taken as literal and on a par with action. Domestic abuse is not the same as domestic arguments. These arguments can be verbally vicious and intemperate on both sides. When intimate interpersonal relationships turn sour, there can be a huge amount of bitterness. Things are said and threats made in the heat of the moment. I do not understand why primary legislation should be used to criminalise these things.
Of course I understand that a threat, or a continued threat, to expose intimate images of the most personal nature can be abusive—it may not be, but it can be. However, if it is abusive, I do not understand why it is not covered by the ever-broadening definition of abuse in this Bill. If the threat was used as part of coercive control—for example, “I will publish these photos unless you do whatever”—would that not be captured by the coercive control provisions of the Bill?
The amendment notes that, for a person to be,
“charged with an offence...of threatening to disclose a private sexual photograph or film, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove … that the photograph or film referred to in the threat exists, or … if it does exist, that it is in fact a private sexual photograph or film.”
This feels like a dystopian, post-modern removal of actual abuse into the absurd world of virtual threats, relating to non-existent artefacts and images. I do not understand why this specific form of threat needs to be in the legislation.
I will give a couple of examples of similar threats, even though they are not of images, which were definitely intended to cause distress. One person I know years ago threatened her partner that she would reveal details of some of his more dodgy tax goings-on about which she, as his wife, knew. If she had done as she had promised, and posted them on Facebook, it would have been very embarrassing. It would undoubtedly have been an incredibly distressing breach of privacy. It was being used as leverage in an alimony and custody battle, but it was just a threat.
In another instance, a husband threatened that he would show his estranged wife’s mother and her friends private letters to her then lover, and expose her secret affair. Those threats were horrible, but should they be illegal? I am just worried that such grim threats can sadly be used but then never acted on and, as such, should surely have no place in the law courts. In both examples, the threats were never acted on. One couple separated amicably in the end. The other couple reconciled and are happy to this day.
I understand the modern world, online tech issues and the images we have been discussing. But I am worried about the threats point. Should threats be elided with action in this way, or will we potentially criminalise speech? This is a dangerous, slippery slope.
Finally, I am concerned that this could give a green light to more and more offences being considered in need of official intervention, investigation and prosecution. The police could potentially become overly preoccupied and drowned out with complaints of threats, rather than focusing on pursuing the properly egregious examples of abusive actions, such as publishing the said images.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 48 is in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Morgan and Lord Wolfson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan on moving Amendment 48 so ably.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like everybody else who has spoken, I say that this is extremely welcome. We thank the Minister for listening to so many voices. It is great that the Government have listened, although, if I were being uncharitable, I would say they have listened somewhat belatedly. I am very pleased that the Law Commission review is now under way. I reflect that it took the influence of a very influential and effective recent Cabinet Minister to persuade her own party to listen, when so many voices have been trying to get the Government to listen over quite a long period. However, thanks are due, and thanks are given.
I am concerned that we often seem to be behind the curve when it comes to so many aspects of online harm and harassment-type behaviour in general. In today’s newspaper there was mention of a YouGov survey which has just been done. Of 1,000 women, 96% of them do not and would not report incidents of harassment to the authorities. One of them pointed out that the police can act if somebody drops litter on the street but are unable to act if somebody is harassed on the street, and that does seem wrong. I think 46% of the 1,000 ladies said, when asked why they did not report harassment, that it was because they had no belief whatever that it would change anything. That is a reflection on the various authorities and organisations that are meant to help victims of harassment. If they feel like that, there is clearly something wrong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, mentioned the extraordinary small market town somewhere in the United Kingdom where no fewer than 70 women have had intimate images shared on an online forum where somebody commented that they are “traded like Pokémon cards”. What must it feel like, as a woman or a man— as a human being—to have intimate images of yourself traded like Pokémon cards? On this online forum if you have an interest in a particular town you can message people on the forum who circulate these images and ask: “Do you have anybody from this particular town or who went to this particular school?” That is really shameful; the fact it is going on shames us all.
I am pleased that we are, belatedly, in catch-up mode. But I find it excruciatingly embarrassing and unacceptable that victims are suffering in many different ways, while Her Majesty’s Government and Parliament occasionally appear to be dithering over regulation and legislating. In doing that we are letting ourselves down, but far more importantly, we are letting the victims down.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords who have spoken, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and, of course, the Government, for accepting these necessary amendments.
At the outset, I also record my thanks to Dr Ann Olivarius of McAllister Olivarius, a very eminent lawyer who, about a decade ago, began her campaign against so-called revenge porn. Her outstanding work, both here and in the US, has definitely made a very significant contribution to the fact that we have had legislation for the last five years and it is a criminal offence to share sexual images without consent.
I welcome this amendment to extend the offence of disclosing
“private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress”
to an individual who appears in the photograph or film— known as a “revenge porn” offence—so as to include “threats to disclose”. One in 14 adults has experienced threats to share intimate images or films of themselves. Young women aged 18-34 are disproportionately impacted by this form of abuse, with one in seven reporting that she has experienced such threats.
Like other noble Lords, I commend Refuge’s The Naked Threat research, which found that the vast majority—72%—of threats experienced by women were made by partners or ex-partners, making it a clear domestic abuse or domestic violence issue. Therefore, the Domestic Abuse Bill is not only the right legislative vehicle for what is clearly a crime related to domestic violence or abuse but a piece of legislation that would allow the Government to make these required changes imminently. As such, I am very grateful for that.
Some 83% of women threatened by their current or former partners experience other forms of abuse alongside these threats. One in 10 women threatened by a current or former partner felt suicidal as a result of the threats, and 83% said that the threats damaged their mental health or emotional well-being. More than one in seven of these women felt a continuous risk of physical violence because of these threats. Only one in three women felt empowered to report this behaviour to the police, and, of those women, less than 14% said that they had received a good response. I am also deeply concerned about the lack of reports coming from black and other minority women.
As I have said previously in this Chamber, perpetrators of domestic abuse are increasingly using technology and the internet to control and abuse their partners and ex-partners. Threats to share images are used to control, coerce and abuse when they are in a relationship, and, after they have separated, this form of abuse is disproportionately perpetrated against younger women. Survivors of this form of abuse lack the vital legal protection that they need, with the police often telling survivors—or making them believe—that they cannot take any action until the abuser has shared the images, leaving survivors in fear and enabling perpetrators to use these threats to control them.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I thank Refuge, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Barnardo’s, among others, which recommend making threats to share intimate images a crime, and extending the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate family relationship to remove the cohabitation requirement. This is most welcome; it would therefore cover post-separation abuse, which would protect 4.4 million adults who have experienced this form of abuse.
Young people are the group most likely to be in an abusive relationship. A survey of 13 to 17 year-olds found that 25% of girls and 18% of boys reported having experienced some form of physical violence from an intimate partner. However, the Children’s Society found that 77%—a majority—of local authorities that responded to its FoI request do not have a policy or protocol in place for responding to under-16s who experience teenage relationship abuse, with just 39% of local authorities providing specialist support services for under-16s and 26% of local authorities providing no specialist support for this age group. Tragically, 500 children—mostly teenagers, but some as young as eight years old—were victims of image-based abuse.
The UK Safer Internet Centre is a partnership of three leading charities, including the Internet Watch Foundation. It reported an increase in the number of young people trying to view sexual abuse materials online, and that in just one month of lockdown its analysts blocked 8.8 million attempts by UK users to access such images and videos. We continue to see a rise in the number of children being groomed online into producing self-generated indecent images. I shudder to think of the underreporting, particularly among young people from black and minority-ethnic communities.
Can the noble Lord say what action the Government are considering to influence, inform and educate children and, more widely, the general population? What research, if any, have the Government undertaken into the impact of online abuse of women and intersectional online abuse of women from black and minority communities?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is such a sensible addition to Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It is excellent news that the Government have now accepted it.
I was interested to hear the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about whether threats of any sort should be criminalised. That may be an argument for another time, looking at other threats, but I have no doubt that threats in the context of Section 33 are entirely appropriate and should be criminalised.
However, I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about the phrase “with intent to cause distress”. Before this particular clause becomes law, it would be helpful to look at whether that should, in fact, be adjusted.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will be brief. I would like to congratulate everybody who brought us to this successful outcome, including the Government. It is staggering to count how many times we have all congratulated the Government this evening. It is a rare event and one to be enjoyed while it lasts.
I would just like to say that the law alone is never enough to protect victims and achieve justice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, pointed out, we need training for everybody, but in particular for police officers, and to some extent lawyers, to make sure they are able to sensitively and effectively bring perpetrators to justice. I have argued strongly for anti-domestic violence training for police officers, and this is part of it. Threatening to leak nude photos can be a crime, and I am happy that this amendment will be put into the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by addressing directly the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I have spoken before about the abusive relationship that I was in 20 years ago. What I have not talked about is the intimate video that my then partner recorded and subsequently kept in his father’s safe in France. People may question why anyone would allow such a video to be recorded, but in a coercive and controlling relationship, compliance is rewarded and defiance is punished. When what you most want is the love of your partner, and you know that not doing what he wants could result in alienation, abuse or physical violence, you acquiesce to things that you would not normally participate in.
I lost count of the number of times he threatened that, if he I left him, he would make the video public. It was not until I went on a residential training course beyond his immediate control and started talking to a female colleague that I realised how unhealthy the relationship was and how unacceptable his behaviour was. I resolved to end it. When I told him the relationship was over, after the initial fear from his threats to kill me, followed by the relief I felt when he finally removed his belongings from my home, the dread that he would deliver on his promise to release the intimate video became even more intense. That is why this amendment is needed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, have said, revenge may also be a motivation and further reform may be necessary. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for raising the issue of threatening to disclose private sexual photographs and films with an intent to cause distress, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for accepting her amendments. Threatening to disclose such material can be used as a means of coercive control both during a relationship and after it has ended, so we on these Benches support these important changes.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I must begin by applauding the frankness and honesty of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his speech. It is truly humbling to hear him speak so bravely about his own former coercive partner.
In bringing this much-needed amendment to the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has recognised the changes that have occurred in society since the widespread introduction of mobile phone technologies and social media coverage. It has changed irreversibly the way in which we communicate, and the inherent dangers of the misuse of that communication have become increasingly prevalent. I warmly support her tenacity in getting the amendment through the process. Clearly, her colleagues and former colleagues in Government have listened and acted on her arguments. It will make a difference.
As a former teacher of media studies, I had no idea, just five years ago, when I was last in the classroom, how exploitative or dangerous the medium would become. The threat to share intimate or sexual images and films is an increasingly common tool of coercive control, which can have enormous negative impacts on survivors of abuse. While the sharing of intimate and sexual images without consent is a crime, threats to share are 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, written by Professor Clare McGlynn and others at Durham Law School, which was launched in 2019 at the Supreme Court. It sets out the appalling consequences for victims of intimate images being posted on the internet without consent.
Threats to share these images play on fear and shame and can be particularly dangerous where there may be multiple perpetrators or where so-called honour-based abuse is a factor. 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 victims and survivors isolated, often attempting to navigate alone an unfamiliar, complex and shifting terrain of legal provisions and online regulation. 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 prevent further abuse and get away from their perpetrator. This amendment will close that gap in the law.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Morgan is to be congratulated on bringing forward these amendments. As she has explained, the amendments seek to extend the scope of the offence at Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, commonly known as the revenge porn offence, additionally to criminalise threats to disclose such images. Importantly, in any prosecution there is no need to prove the images exist at the time of the threat.
I reiterate that the Government consider that the revenge porn offence has worked well to date. There have been over 900 convictions for the offence since its commencement in April 2015. I am pleased to see that the creation of this offence has offered victims protection under the criminal law from the deeply distressing behaviour of sharing private intimate images.
I am very grateful for the discussions that I have had with the sponsors of the amendment in addition to my friend Lady Morgan: my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I have been happy to add my name on behalf of the Government to the amendment.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must be alert, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, to changes in technology, including the misuse of social media and the opportunities to abuse and distress others that such developments can bring. While we have a range of criminal offences that in many instances can deal with those who threaten to share intimate material with others, it is vital that we ensure that the criminal law remains fully equipped to deal with any new problems in this constantly developing area.
It was with this in mind that the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law in this area. That review has considered the existing offences relating to the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images to identify whether there are any gaps in the scope of protection already offered to victims. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that on 27 February the Law Commission published the consultation paper on the review. The consultation ends on 27 May and I encourage noble Lords to consider contributing to that public engagement, as my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes said.
The consultation paper puts forward a number of proposals for public discussion, including the need to address those who threaten to disclose intimate images. I look forward to the Law Commission’s full proposals in this area once its final recommendations are published later this year. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that the law must keep pace with technological developments. I would not say that we are behind the curve but I think that it is fair to say that the curve itself is constantly moving. While it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the consultation and the Law Commission’s eventual findings, I think the fact that the commission has acknowledged that threats to disclose intimate images should be further considered adds strength to the calls to extend the revenge porn offence, as provided for in Amendment 48.
We have listened to the passionate calls for change from victims. They have bravely shared their distressing, and sometimes life-changing, experiences of suffering at the hands of those who would manipulate and torment them with threats to share their most personal and intimate images. That point was made during this short debate by the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Uddin, and in particularly moving terms by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Since I have just mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, I remind her that sex and relationship education is part of the national curriculum.
We have also taken note of the views of campaigners and fellow parliamentarians. I remember the strength of feeling in this House in Committee, when my noble friend and others proposed a similar amendment to the one now before us. We have reflected on those calls and that debate and we are happy to support these amendments, which will extend the parameters of the Section 33 offence to capture the threat of disclosure.
As was noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, Amendment 48 stays as close as possible to the provisions and drafting of the existing Section 33 offence, rather than making any broader changes to the law in this area. I suggest that that is the right approach given the Law Commission’s ongoing work. I assure the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Baroness that the Law Commission is specifically considering the intent issue as part of its work. I am grateful that the amendment also has the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Wilcox of Newport.
I should say something in response to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. This is nothing to do with criminalising speech and we are not dealing with just domestic abuse here. This is a broad offence that applies throughout criminal law; it does not apply just in the context of domestic abuse. While I agree that other criminal law offences, such as blackmail and harassment, can be applicable in this area—a point I made in Committee—the Government have been persuaded that it is right and appropriate to have this specific offence in this area of the law.
For those reasons, I believe that this reform will create a clear and consistent enforcement regime for both threats and actual disclosures, thereby providing greater protection to those who may have had to endure such intrusive and distressing behaviour. It has been a pleasure to be able to add my name to these amendments, and I join my noble friend in commending them to the House.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate on these amendments. As we heard the noble Lord, Lord Russell, put so eloquently, victims are suffering. I am pleased that the Government have decided that they do not have to wait until the conclusion of the Law Commission process.
Like other noble Lords, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for being so brave and clear about his own personal experiences of these issues, which will be outlawed by my amendment. I thank him for sharing his experiences with the House.
Like the Minister, I took careful note of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. They pointed out that this is not the end of the matter, of course, and that the use of “intent” will be looked at during the course of the Law Commission consultation.
For those who remain in any doubt, I want to share just one of the stories that I heard about. It relates to Rachel, a lady who was physically abused by her partner. After her partner had been arrested and released by the police because of the physical abuse, he threatened to disclose the many images he held on his phone to Rachel’s family and friends unless she went back to the police to change her evidence about the level of physical abuse that she had suffered. She did so and he thought that he had gotten away with it until, sadly, the abuse continued to escalate; at that point, Rachel decided that she had to get out of the family home with her children. I am pleased to say that she is now in a much more positive and better place, but the fact that victims are changing their behaviour and evidence, allowing perpetrators access to their families and returning to them, shows, in addition to the mental suffering, the very real toll that the threat of showing these images has on their lives. It just shows the very real effect that these victims suffer.
I thank the Minister for adding his name to my amendment and I thank his officials in the Bill team, who worked so hard on drafting this amendment and the consequential ones. I am grateful to them and to him for allowing me to move this amendment, and I take great pleasure in moving Amendment 48.
Baroness Newlove
“Strangulation or suffocation
(1) In Part 5 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (protection of children and others), after section 75 insert—“Strangulation or suffocation75A Strangulation or suffocation(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally strangles another person (“B”), or(b) A does any other act to B that—(i) affects B’s ability to breathe, and(ii) constitutes battery of B.(2) It is a defence to an offence under this section for A to show that B consented to the strangulation or other act.(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) B suffers serious harm as a result of the strangulation or other act, and(b) A either—(i) intended to cause B serious harm, or(ii) was reckless as to whether B would suffer serious harm.(4) A is to be taken to have shown the fact mentioned in subsection (2) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020), or(ii) to a fine,or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine, or both. (6) In this section “serious harm” means—(a) grievous bodily harm, within the meaning of section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861,(b) wounding, within the meaning of that section, or(c) actual bodily harm, within the meaning of section 47 of that Act.75B Offences under section 75A committed outside the United Kingdom(1) If—(a) a person does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,(b) the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute an offence under section 75A, and(c) the person is a United Kingdom national or is habitually resident in England and Wales,the person is guilty in England and Wales of that offence.(2) In this section—“country” includes territory;“United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.”(2) Schedule (Strangulation or suffocation: consequential amendments) contains consequential amendments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that it is an offence for a person to strangle another person, or to commit any other kind of battery against a person that affects the person’s ability to breathe (such as covering the person’s mouth or nose or sitting on the person’s chest). The maximum penalty for the offence is 5 years’ imprisonment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 50. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 50
“Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases
(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5A) after “In a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.(3) In subsection (6) after “In a case other than a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.(4) After subsection (8F) insert—“(8G) For the purposes of this section “a domestic abuse case” is a case where—(a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence,(b) D is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse, and(c) the force concerned is force used by D against the person who has perpetrated the abusive behaviour referred to in paragraph (b). (8H) Subsection (8G)(b) will only be established if the behaviour concerned is, or is part of, a history of conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).”(5) In subsection (9) after “householder cases” insert “and domestic abuse cases”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to clarify the degree of force which is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse alleged to have used force against their abuser.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
It is a great privilege to take part in this debate and to hear the voices of so many people with expertise in this field —sometimes direct experience—speaking with wisdom and compassion about why the law had to change.
I remind noble Lords that not so very long ago there used to be a way of referring to domestic abuse as “a domestic”, as though it were lesser than ordinary crime. It has been a long and hard struggle to have the law shift and change, for the agenda and context to change and for our political and legal classes to understand the full import of domestic violence and the toll it takes on our lives and the whole of society. That is why it has been so uplifting to listen to this debate over the last few weeks. I will move for two new statutory defences to be included in the Bill and give notice that I intend to divide the House.
In 2017, the Home Office Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability said there needed to be a root and branch review of how women are treated in the criminal justice system when they themselves are victims of abuse. Unfortunately, criminal law still fails to protect those whose experience of abuse drives them to offend. I strongly urge this House that there cannot be two classes of victim: those who somehow win our compassion and for whom we are desirous of a much fairer system and those who somehow fall outside that kind of protection.
We know that the law has failed women in many different areas for many years, and that one of the reasons why has been the absence of women in lawmaking—in the senior judiciary and in Parliaments. Happily, we have seen that changing in our society over recent decades, but there is still work to be done. I am attempting in these amendments, supported by colleagues around the House, to fill a really important gap—for those who perhaps have least voice because they end up in prison.
These amendments are supported by virtually every organisation involved—I do not know any organisation involved in domestic abuse that is not supporting this change. Once you really know about abuse and its ultimate potential consequences, which can often be the death of a woman or a victim of abuse, you know that sometimes the person on the receiving end can take no more and, out of despair and desperation, inflicts violence. We have to understand the context, and what has often been missing in the courts was a full understanding of domestic violence and the context. I know that, even in this House, we learn from each other and from each other’s experience, directly and indirectly, about what is involved and what the long-term impact of domestic abuse can be. It has been in only recent times, for example, that forms of abuse other than violence have been shown to have long-term consequences that can be so damaging to someone’s mental health. That learning has, in turn, to be fed into the law.
The organisations supporting these amendments include Women’s Aid, Rights of Women, Refuge, the Criminal Bar Association and the Centre for Women’s Justice, which has been a very important part of the research-gathering for these amendments. One of the pieces of work has come out of a report recently published by the Centre for Women’s Justice, Women Who Kill: How the State Criminalises Women We Might Otherwise Be Burying. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes. The domestic abuse commissioner- designate supports these amendments. Unfortunately, at the moment, the Government do not. Is this about not wanting to be seen in any way to support persons who might be accused of crime, rather than seeing that you are really supporting victims?
The first of the amendments, Amendment 50, has a new statutory defence relating to self-defence and the reasonableness test that applies to it. This amendment would afford justice to women who, after long-term abuse, are unable to avail themselves of self-defence when they are accused of harming their abuser, using force against their abuser or, indeed, killing their abuser. Why does self-defence not work in these circumstances? The reason is that the force used in self-defence must be reasonable, but because of their experience of relentless abuse and their physical disadvantage, women often reach for a weapon. As a result, their action is often deemed disproportionate because, in examining whether something is reasonable, which is an objective test, the question is asked, “Is it proportionate to what was happening to her at the time?”
Of course, it might not seem proportionate if a woman runs to the kitchen drawer, or reaches to the kitchen counter, and picks up a knife, or, as Sally Challen did, reaches for a hammer and causes a fatal blow to her controlling, abusive husband. I even represented a woman who took a rolling pin and hit her husband, causing an injury to his skull that ended in his loss of life. But he had abused her over years and years, and she could not take any more. So, we have to look at the ways in which we can contextualise this form of abuse, and look at why self-defence does not work for women. The research conducted in the report by the Centre for Women’s Justice really lays it out very clearly.
I just raise the comparison that I put before the House originally, when I spoke at Second Reading and then in Committee. I pointed out that there had already been a departure from the normal rules when dealing with a householder. The Government’s response then was to distinguish a householder’s fear if someone trespassed on to their property—an Englishman’s home is his castle—as, not knowing who they may be, they may take a weapon from a drawer and use it fatally, from the position of a victim of domestic violence taking a weapon in her hand.
I suggest that the point was ill made, because no one is suggesting a parallel. A departure has been made from the normal rules, which were made with a different perception in mind, by men of law who had not imagined the circumstances of domestic violence, the long-term abuse, the toll that it takes and the psychological impact it has on someone—the rising fear, the reading of a situation, the complexity referred to by the Minister and the dynamic that is created in these relationships. The point that I was making was that a departure has been made for the circumstances of the householder. If we are prepared to make it there, why are we so reluctant to make it here, particularly when it is going to be made use of by women—rare as these cases are—defending themselves against someone?
We heard today of the Government’s change of heart in their concession that non-fatal strangulation should become a crime, properly recognised by the courts at the right level. I have not worked on a single homicide where such a strangulation has not put people in fear that, one day, it will extinguish their life. That has been part of the histories that they have given to the court about the way in which they have been treated over the years.
The concern here is that self-defence is not working in these cases. The amendment seeks to introduce the test that was introduced for the householder, which is that, instead of being reasonable and proportionate, it would have to be grossly disproportionate to lose the right to draw down self-defence as a rationale or defence for conduct and for seeking an acquittal. For most of these women, because they face a conviction of murder if they fail, those acting for them persuade them to plead guilty of manslaughter. They are driven down another road that will lead to a conviction, but that is not the justice of the situation. They plead guilty to manslaughter, are convicted and end up in prison. That conviction will have consequences for their lives—employment and so much else—when they have been at the receiving end of abuse. That is quite wrong. It is in the hands of the Government to make a difference and I call upon them to reconsider their position.
I turn now to an interesting piece of academic work that was written under the names of Sheehy, Stubbs and Tolmie in 2012. It is about defences against homicide from battered women, as a comparative analysis of laws in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This House can be persuaded by research from elsewhere, if changes have been made in other common law jurisdictions. It would be good for us to take a lead. When Theresa May introduced this legislation, she spoke of the United Kingdom leading the world in making changes to law that would bring proper justice to anybody facing domestic abuse, particularly women. Seeing whether others have made those changes first is not necessary, but it is helpful to look at research.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I appreciate that she has three amendments to introduce—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
She has taken 20 minutes to do so already and the House is keen to debate the amendments she is putting forward. If she could do so briefly, it will give noble Lords the opportunity to do just that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I feel that that was unnecessary, but I was coming to my conclusion anyway. There must be a causal link between the threat and the decision of the defendant to break the law, and that is a high bar. I strongly urge the House to support this new statutory defence for women who are compelled to commit crimes so that they can put it before the court where it can be tested and measured evidentially. If it passes the test, she can be acquitted.
Amendment 66 is a list of the offences to which this would not apply because of their gravity. I hope that the Crown does not think that there are two kinds of victims: those who are somehow deserving and those who are undeserving. The end of the road is when women are forced to do things that take them into the criminal ambit because of a history of abuse. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have heard a passionate and erudite speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I have attached my name to her Amendment 51 principally because I was struck by the similarity, which is mentioned in the explanatory statement, to what is set out in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, where someone cannot be found guilty of committing a criminal act if they have been subjected to the coercion of modern slavery. I can see the same parallel between that and the domestic abuse situation which has been put so well by the noble Baroness. I therefore say, in the interests of brevity, that the noble Baroness has said it all and I shall support her, certainly on Amendment 51, if she puts it to a vote.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness is intent on pursuing these two amendments, to which I have added my name. She mentioned a report published recently by the Centre for Women’s Justice. The report mentioned that a defendant must be prepared, which I think means in both senses of the term, to disclose in court in the presence of the deceased’s family, how he—it is usually he—had treated her; it is usually her. I would add to that the further difficulty of disclosing the behaviour in the relationship in front of one’s own family. Shame is another component of what we have been discussing, however misplaced it is.
I mention this because I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister about the MoJ’s review of the issues raised in this debate. I heard the Secretary of State for Justice being interviewed yesterday about the sentencing Bill which has just been introduced in the Commons. He talked about the views of a victim’s family. He referred to the victims’ commissioner, having talked to her about the disproportionately high sentences imposed because the weaker partner, as has been referred to, had to arm herself because she could not defend herself with her bare hands against a stronger person. Can the Minister tell us more? There is clearly a relationship between this and what we are discussing in the context of these amendments. Amendment 50 is not about sentencing but about culpability, and if there should be a review, we should not delay.
During the Bill’s passage, I have been struck by how fast our understanding of domestic abuse has been developing. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to this. In Committee, the right reverend Prelate said that she is a passionate defender of trauma-informed interventions. I am with her there. Would we have heard that 10 years ago? Perhaps 10 years ago, because that was post Corston, but it would have been quite rare in the sort of debate that we are having now, not in specialised circles and among professionals, but in this sort of debate.
Reading the report that I have just referred to, I was struck by the observation that often abuse is disclosed very late, sometimes after conviction, especially when abuse has taken the form of coercive control. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, explained in Committee that this was the form of abuse in all the cases that she had been involved in. So much of our debate has touched on, if not centred on, training. I refer to this here because it is a shorthand way of referring to a thorough understanding of the subject, or as thorough as it can be, while understanding of the whole issue continues to develop.
In Committee, the Minister, when arguing for the status quo, said that it is important to ensure that wherever possible, people do not resort to criminal behaviour—well, indeed. The amendment proposed is quite limited. To quote from the 2008 Act as amended for the householder cases,
“the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances.”
He also argued, as, he said, an “enthusiastic” fan of the common law, that
“the courts are quicker, more nuanced and more flexible in developing the common law”.—[Official Report, 3/2/21; col. 2285.]
They are not quick, nuanced, and flexible enough, or we would not be having this debate. I do not know the genesis of the 2008 Act but clearly it was thought then that it was necessary to produce legislation on reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence, and then of course we had the householder defence. I hope that as an equally enthusiastic parliamentarian—the enthusiasms are not mutually exclusive—the Minister takes the view that there are occasions when Parliament should lead the way.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I spoke in support of Amendments 50 and 66 in Committee and have added my name to them again. I remind noble Lords of my interests as listed in the register. As ever, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for setting out the amendments so clearly and with such expertise. It is also a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I echo all that she has said.
I speak not as a lawyer but as the Anglican Bishop for prisons and a long-time advocate for women in the criminal justice system. There is still a great need for reform. In recent years, it has been recognised that we need to rethink how women in the criminal justice system are treated and their paths straightened. With the Female Offender Strategy, the Government seem to have conceded to a more nuanced approach but we are still waiting for it to be fully implemented.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to recognise that far too many women in prison or under supervision in the community are survivors of domestic abuse and that that unimaginable experience has driven them to offend. If we are convinced of the need to protect all survivors of domestic abuse then we have a moral obligation to dig deeper and extend that protection to all those, mainly women, who have offended while being coerced or controlled by an abusive partner, as we have heard. The experiences of those who retaliate against abusive partners in self-defence or after years of horrific abuse must be taken into account. Protection must be afforded to those who are compelled to offend as part of, or as a direct result of, their experience of abuse.
There are many outstanding organisations that support vulnerable women in the criminal justice system, not least women’s centres such as the one run by Nelson Trust in Gloucester or Anawim in Birmingham. They, along with others, have numerous stories to tell of how domestic abuse has driven someone to use force against their abuser. I am a big advocate of community-based support, which, as we have heard, offers a holistic, trauma-informed response to these women. I am glad about the development of much-needed, police-led diversion work, and that judges and magistrates have been given the resources and information to sentence women appropriately.
However, this legislation is also required here. As I said in Committee, we are not talking in the abstract. The decisions we make have a real and lasting impact on people’s lives. The most vulnerable, with limited life choices, deserve our attention and voice. However, if the compassionate argument is not strong enough and finance is your only focus, it makes no sense to spend nearly £50,000 a year to lock someone in prison when about £5,000 a year would enable a women’s centre, with professional expertise, to support, holistically in the community, someone who has been diverted from the criminal justice process, in recognition that their alleged offending was the direct result of their experience of abuse—and where their prosecution would not be in the public interest. This legislation will enable that to happen.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I agree with every word that we have heard so far, and I have signed all three of these amendments—I think that they are superb and have been carefully and expertly drafted. It is deeply unfortunate that the Government have not adopted them as part of their unusually co-operative approach in this Bill.
The need is very clear: the deeply sad Sally Challen case was only one proof point of the lack of legal protection available for survivors of domestic abuse. Women get a terrible deal in the criminal justice system. Most are there for non-violent offences, and many are there for really minor things like not paying their TV licence. However, sometimes, violence does happen, and, where that is related to domestic abuse, there needs to be a sufficient legal defence to recognise the reduced culpability.
It is obvious that judges and, sometimes, lawyers do not understand coercive control and other abuses. The excellent report from the Centre for Women’s Justice, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to, is called Women Who Kill—I will give a copy of the executive summary to the Minister afterwards to make sure that he reads it. It lays out the response of the criminal justice system to women who kill abusive partners and the way the law itself, and the way it is applied, prevent women from accessing justice.
Women who have been abused by the man they kill are unlikely to be acquitted on the basis of self-defence. Of the 92 cases included in the research for the report, 40—that is 43%—were convicted of murder. Some 42—that is 46%—were convicted of manslaughter, and just six, which is only 7%, were acquitted. The use of weapons is an aggravating factor in determining the sentence, and the report found that, in 73 cases—that is 79%—the women used a weapon to kill their partner. This is fairly unsurprising, given women’s relative size and physical strength and their knowledge of their partner’s capacity to be violent.
However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, this contrasts with the legal leeway given to householders if they kill or injure a burglar. Therefore, we need legislative reform to extend provisions of householder defence to women who use force against their abuser. It is discriminatory to have a defence available to householders defending themselves but not to women in abusive relationships defending themselves against someone who they know can be dangerous and violent towards them.
In the week that Sarah Everard was abducted and, we suppose, killed—because remains have been found in a woodland in Kent—I argue that, at the next opportunity for any Bill that is appropriate, I might put in an amendment to create a curfew for men on the streets after 6 pm. I feel this would make women a lot safer, and discrimination of all kinds would be lessened.
However, once convicted, women’s chances of successful appeal are extremely slim. Society’s understanding of domestic abuse has come such a long way, even in the last few years, yet a jury is forced to apply outdated ideas of self-defence, such as responding to a threat of imminent harm, which have no relation to the realities of domestic abuse.
The Government have said that they are persuaded on the issue but will
“monitor the use of the existing defences and keep under review the need for any statutory changes.”
I simply do not believe that that is true. It is not appropriate for the sort of crimes that we are talking about. As such, can the Minister please tell me which Minister is charged with this review, how many civil servants are involved and when will they report?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has already set out our support for all three of these amendments but I want to address the Minister’s remarks in Committee on Amendment 50.
I have seen misogyny described as the hatred of women who fail to accept the subordinate role ascribed to them by a patriarchal society, who fail to conform to the misogynist’s belief that women should be no more than compliant and decorative, whose role is to serve the needs of men. Out of such a false and outdated narrative comes the idea that physically stronger men should stand and fight while physically weaker women should run away. I am very sad to say that this appeared to be the Government’s position when we discussed these amendments in Committee.
In Committee, the Minister said correctly that what is sought is an extension to the current provisions to enable victims of domestic abuse to have the same level of protection as those acting in response to an intruder in their home. That is, the degree of force used in self-defence by the defendant would have to be grossly disproportionate rather than simply disproportionate.
The Minister suggested that judges have developed common law defences and that we should trust them to apply these to domestic abuse cases. However, the Government did not trust the judges when it came to someone acting in response to an intruder in their home, passing primary legislation to change the acceptable degree of force to include disproportionate force in such circumstances by means of Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
The Minister took up the challenge I put to him to demonstrate the difference between this amendment and Section 76. He said that in the case of an intruder, the householder is put in a position where they are acting
“on instinct or in circumstances which subject them to intense stress.”—[Official Report, 3/2/21; col. 2285.]
He also noted that the amendment did not appear to deal with the defendant’s option to retreat. Section 76 makes it clear there is no duty for a householder to retreat. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I suggest that it would appear from the Government’s response that neither he nor those advising him have been the victim of domestic violence. I have, and I can tell the Minister that when you are cornered in your own home—the one place where you should feel safe—by an abusive partner who is using physical violence against you, you are subjected to intense stress and there is a distinct possibility that you will react instinctively.
As I said in Committee, in my experience, having been physically threatened by an intruder and having been physically assaulted by my then partner, the intense stress is far worse and sustained when the person you rely on for love and affection snaps and attacks you or subjects you to abuse over a prolonged time. My own experience of domestic violence is that retreat just encourages further violence. Why should a victim of domestic violence retreat but the victim of a burglary stand and fight?
As noble Lords will have gathered by now, I am not a believer in domestic abuse being defined as a gendered crime—that it is overwhelmingly male violence against women. In my case, it was the fact that my abusive partner was far stronger than me that meant he felt able to attack me. However, two-thirds of victims are women and the overwhelming majority of them will be victims of male violence. Men are, on average, physically stronger than women and abusive men may even seek out weaker women to facilitate their abuse. Women are therefore far more likely to have to resort to the use of a weapon in what would otherwise be an unequal physical contest when they are attacked by a male partner. Their use of force is therefore more likely to be considered disproportionate, albeit understandable.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 50 is proposed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, along with Amendments 51 and 66. These amendments were debated in Committee and when my noble friend tests the opinion of the House at the end of this debate, the Labour Benches will support her. Today and during Committee my noble friend, and other noble Lords who have spoken, have highlighted how domestic abuse can lead to death. We all know of the terrible figures about women who die at the hands of a partner or former partner.
My noble friend’s amendment draws attention to the tragic situation where some women—the victims of the abuse—find themselves in the dock when they have in the end killed their abuser, often after years of horrific abuse and in situations where they feared they were going to be killed. The Sally Challen case is an example of where coercive control had not been fully understood by the courts; further, pleading self-defence has not been working for women. My noble friend, who has many years of experience in the criminal justice system, has told the House of truly tragic situations where women have not been treated fairly, or where the horror of the situation that they and their children found themselves in has not been properly appreciated.
These amendments seek to correct this imbalance and would, in my opinion, put the law in the right place by protecting those victims who have had to defend themselves in situations where they have feared for their life. The law should provide them with the ability to mount a defence, along with an understanding by the court of the horrors of domestic abuse and the need, when your life is in danger from an abusive partner or ex-partner, to take actions which are not grossly disproportionate to defend oneself.
As my noble friend said, a situation often plays out where a woman is taken along a route where she has to plead guilty to manslaughter and is convicted. On release from prison, such women have problems for the rest of their lives, for example with employment; they may also find that they have lost their home, or their children may be taken into care.
My noble friend also carefully explained the intent behind Amendment 51; the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, drew attention to his support for it. It mirrors the coercive control provisions of the Modern Slavery Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked a powerful question: why is it that victims of domestic abuse are meant to retreat while someone under attack from intruders in their home has greater protection? That cannot be right.
This has been a very good debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response. As I said, we on these Benches will certainly support the noble Baroness when she divides the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for providing a full and detailed explanation of the reasons she believes that these amendments should be included in this Bill. In addition to the noble Lords who have spoken today, I am aware of the support that these proposals received last Thursday evening at the parliamentary event hosted by the noble Baroness and Jess Phillips MP on this subject. So that noble Lords do not think that only Kennedys can support other Kennedys, I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in acknowledging and paying tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in, and experience of, this area.
The noble Baroness has put two amendments before the House; they are conceptually distinct, so I will address them in turn. Amendment 50 deals with the defence of the reasonable use of force by victims of domestic abuse who, in self-defence, react to violence from an abusive partner. Amendment 51 would create a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit a criminal offence. The third amendment, Amendment 66, is intimately linked to and logically consequent on Amendment 51.
I turn first to the reasonable use of force and Amendment 50. Although the Government are wholly sympathetic to the plight of victims of domestic abuse, we are unpersuaded that there is a gap in the law here that needs to be filled. Nor do we feel that the circumstances of a victim of domestic abuse, who has often experienced that abuse over a prolonged period, are necessarily comparable to that of a householder who suddenly finds an intruder in their home and acts instinctively.
Let me expand on that point. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 covers a specific circumstance. Its focus is on those occasions where an intruder, who is unlikely to be known to the householder, puts the householder in a position where they react instinctively as a result of intense stress. By comparison, in domestic abuse cases, the response may not be a sudden instinctual one but may follow years of physical and/or emotional abuse.
Furthermore—and this is an important point—the current law on self-defence and loss of control allows that any previous and extended history of domestic abuse be taken into account. I respectfully disagree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the law on self-defence is, to use her word, outdated. It is not. As a result, it does not seem necessary to extend Section 76 of the 2008 Act to a wider set of circumstances as proposed by this amendment, given the defences that already exist in law.
I note too that no mention has been given in this new clause to a defendant’s option to retreat from the abuse, and I make that point with due care. I acknowledge, and am well aware, that an abused woman or man may not have that option. However, although Section 76 of the 2008 Act makes clear that there is no duty to retreat, the option to retreat remains a factor, and, where that is established on the facts of the particular case, it is a matter that will always be taken into account.
Therefore, although I warmly reciprocate the kind words that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about me, and while I respect and acknowledge his personal history and experience, about which he has spoken extremely movingly on a number of occasions, I know that he will not like what I am going to say. I stand by the points that I have just made about the comparison or lack thereof between the householder situation and the situation of a victim of domestic abuse. I think at one point he came close to an implied charge of misogyny. I respectfully say that that does not easily sit with my approach to many amendments to the Bill or indeed the way in which I have dealt with the Bill itself. The issue between us is one of principle.
I am aware too that the noble Baroness who proposed the amendments has stated that there are difficulties with establishing the common-law defence of self-defence in cases of reactive violence by a survivor of domestic abuse against their abusive partner or former partner. As I stated in Committee, the ethos of the Bill is to improve and provide better support for victims of domestic abuse and to recognise and indeed highlight the wide-ranging impacts and implications of such behaviour. In raising the profile of domestic abuse, the Government hope to strengthen not only statutory agency support for victims and survivors but to improve the effectiveness of the justice system in better protecting those who suffer such abuse while bringing perpetrators to justice.
To that extent, I share the aims of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I assure her that this is not a question of finance; it is a question of the proper approach that the law should take in this area. That is because it is important for the Government to ensure that there is fair and equal access to justice for all. The law has to balance both the recognition of the abuse that has been suffered and the impact that it has had on a victim against the need to ensure that people, wherever possible, do not revert to criminal behaviour. I was pleased to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, agreed with me, at least on the latter proposition. The Government believe that that balance is currently reflected in the law—a law that continues to evolve but nevertheless strikes the right balance between those factors.
In making that last point, I referred in Committee to the fact that courts can often be quicker, more nuanced and more flexible in developing the common law than can Parliament in introducing a statutory provision that can be too rigid and narrowly drawn and may become more problematic than useful. I expressed myself as a fan of the common law, and I confirm again this evening that my enthusiasm for it is undimmed. Of course I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that sometimes Parliament can lead the way—but not here.
Before I conclude my remarks on this amendment, I shall reply to one other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She said that the Government have moved on several parts of the Bill, so why not this one? The reason is that, for the reasons I have set out, there is a principled argument that we make and which we stand by. I suggest that that argument is rooted properly in the way that the law is now applied and in the distinction between the domestic abuse case and the householder case. Towards the end of her remarks, the noble Baroness asked me a couple of quickfire questions. I am not sure that I have picked them all up, so if, on reading the Official Report, I find that they are relevant to this amendment, I will respond to them.
Although the Government are sympathetic to the aim behind Amendment 50, we remain entirely unpersuaded that it is needed, given the current defences that exist in law and the increased help, support and advice that will be available to victims of domestic abuse throughout the rest of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister; accordingly, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am of course disappointed but not surprised by the response, as it was indicated that I would not receive the response that some other amendments have. It is regrettable, because all the evidence points towards problems in both these areas. There are women being convicted of crimes where they have clearly been coerced and their abusive partners are forcing them to commit crime. In relation to homicide and, indeed, lesser crimes, self-defence is not available to women because of the “disproportionate” issue. The measure should be just the same as in the intruder case. The distinction that the noble Lord seeks to make between that and the householder is really without merit and not convincing. I am sure he is having to read from a brief and he will know himself.
Anyone who really knows about domestic abuse knows that this is instinctive: when someone snaps, in the end, it is because they cannot take any more. That is why they reach for a weapon; they know that they cannot take on the sort of force that they have experienced in the past. This is a failure of understanding. It is being unable to stand in the shoes of someone in these circumstances.
I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in any way. It is just that there is a process of learning here, which we have all been on. It may be easier to understand someone nearly being strangled, but harder to understand the moment when, instinctively and in terror, a person who has been abused over a long period suddenly reaches for a weapon in their defence. Not to understand that is regrettable, so I will move both these amendments and test the opinion of the House.
“Defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence
(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,(b) the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it,(c) the compulsion is attributable to their being a victim of domestic abuse, and(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.(2) A person may be compelled to do something by another person or by the person’s circumstances.(3) Compulsion is attributable to domestic abuse only if—(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of this Act, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship), or(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of such abuse.(4) A person is not guilty of an offence if—(a) the person is under the age of 18 when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,(b) the person does that act as a direct consequence of the person being, or having been, a victim of domestic abuse as defined at subsection (3)(a) above, and(c) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would do that act.(5) For the purposes of this section “relevant characteristics” means age, sex, any physical or mental illness or disability and any experience of domestic abuse.(6) In this section references to an act include an omission.(7) Subsections (1) and (4) do not apply to an offence listed in Schedule (Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply).(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply).(9) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for monitoring of the types of offence for which victims of domestic abuse are prosecuted and use this evidence to inform an annual review of the offences listed in Schedule (Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply) and any amendment to Schedule (Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would provide a statutory defence for survivors of domestic abuse, in some circumstances, who commit an offence. It is closely modelled on section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 52. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 52
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services
(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—(a) A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person (“B”),(b) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards B that is controlling or coercive,(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will or may have a serious effect on B. (2) A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or(b) it causes B psychological harm which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A “ought to know” that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that—(a) in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B’s best interests, and(b) the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.(5) A is to be taken to have shown the facts mentioned in subsection (4) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the facts is adduced to raise an issue with respect to them, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(6) The defence in subsection (4) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we had an extensive debate on our amendment in this form in Committee. We have brought it back on Report because we are determined to make progress on criminalising the fraudulent behaviour of the charlatan psychotherapists and counsellors this amendment is directed at. I believe we have made some progress since Committee and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, from the Department of Health and Social Care for their time, attention and sympathetic response at the meeting they arranged for a number of us who support this amendment.
I certainly think the meeting increased government understanding of the truly shocking wrongs these charlatans perpetrate towards the young people they prey on, the prevalence of this behaviour and the perniciousness of its effects—with the lives of many young and vulnerable people ruined, often permanently. Our debate and the meeting also reminded the Government of a long history of attempts to secure legislation curbing this behaviour and of the strength of feeling and determination of those who strive for change on this issue —an issue which is certainly not going to go away.
As we discussed in Committee, these totally unqualified charlatans ply their trade by offering what they call counselling or psychotherapy services, mostly to young adults, to whom they often charge very substantial fees. They then build up in their patients or clients—in reality, their victims—a misplaced trust in them and engineer a false dependence by a process of transference. This exploitation is often assisted by the perpetrators implanting entirely false memories in their victims of imagined but illusory abuse during their childhood, usually by their parents.
The process is aimed at alienating these young people from their parents and other family members—often permanently—inflicting profound and long-lasting psychological damage upon them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with all her extensive experience, tellingly described this unscrupulous exploitation of vulnerability, which is what this amendment aims to stop.
My understanding is that the Government maintain their position that the new offence we advocate should not be part of the Bill because, they say, there is a concern to confine the Bill to the domestic context, and these so-called counsellors and psychotherapists provide their services outside their victims’ homes. I disagree with that position for two reasons. The first is that this abuse is in fact domestic abuse, because its perpetrators, although not operating from within their victims’ family homes, are usurping the position of their victims’ parents and family members. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, put it in Committee,
“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.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 23.]
Secondly, I do not believe we should be too precious about the ambit of a particular piece of legislation, including this Bill. The Domestic Abuse Bill before us amends other legislation in a large number of its provisions. Our amendment would add a new clause modelled on Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Other amendments have been made to that Act in this Bill, notably the non-fatal strangulation offence incorporated in the Bill this afternoon, which inserts a clause of general application after Section 75—a clause which is not restricted to domestic abuse.
I suggest that if new legislation is necessary and within scope of the Bill—as the Public Bill Office decided our amendment was when it accepted it—we should legislate. The way to legislate on this issue is by adapting Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act, as we advocate.
It is high time for legislation. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, explained the history of his involvement with seeking legislation on this issue when he was Solicitor-General. He raised the question of why, if they can legislate to outlaw this behaviour in France, Belgium and Luxembourg, we cannot legislate here. We have received no answer to that question.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, also made the point that we have been trying fruitlessly to make progress for more than 20 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out that this type of alienation is nothing new; domestic alienation has been happening for 50 years, with the quasi-healers operating with immunity. So have the other forms of domestic abuse we are tackling in this Bill—but we are now trying to tackle them. The Bill involves an enlightened process on which we are embarked, but we should take care that in seeking enlightened progress, we do not make it exclusive.
Both before and since the debate in Committee, I have received a number of letters—some long, all well argued, clearly emotional and universally tragic—from parents and other family members who have, through no fault of their own, lost the relationships they once enjoyed with children and relatives, leaving them heartbroken and bereft, on the basis of falsehoods peddled by exploitative quacks. My noble friend Lady Jolly pointed out the degree to which this so-called therapy is entirely unregulated, and she powerfully demonstrated how relevant that was.
At our meeting, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, raised the possibility of regulating psychotherapists by statutory instrument, and that is something we would be keen to follow up. However, it will certainly continue to be insufficient, as it has been to date, to rely on voluntary registration with the Professional Standards Authority, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, in Committee.
Strong and effective regulation will help and should be introduced, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Alderdice in his Private Member’s Bill as long ago as 2001. However, the thrust of our amendment is to criminalise this predatory abuse, and we need legislation to do that on the statute book. The Government seem to sympathise with that aim and the direction of our amendment, their unhappiness being at the prospect of including it in this Bill. But the one thing I have not heard from the Government is any suggestion that a coercive control offence modelled on Section 76, as this amendment is, is not a suitable way to achieve our aim. We therefore encourage the Government, even at this late stage, to accept this amendment or commit to legislation in this area.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I co-signed and spoke in favour of this amendment when it was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and supported by the overwhelming majority of contributors to that debate. His arguments are as powerful today as they were in February. I join him in thanking my noble friends Lord Parkinson and Lady Penn for discussing the issue with us on Zoom since Committee. It was a helpful and useful meeting.
I explained in Committee—reasonably cogently, I hope—why this amendment would work both theoretically and practically as an addition to the criminal law and that, although not an exact replica, it is similar to laws in force in at least three other countries that adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights, namely Belgium, France and Luxembourg.
The Government raised two substantive arguments against the amendment in Committee. First, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitely Bay said in his courteous response that a new offence criminalising controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services would alter the “dynamic” of a Bill specifically about domestic abuse and, further, would upset the Bill’s “architecture”. Secondly, my noble friend said that there were other remedies more suited to dealing with the issue such as registration with, or accreditation by, existing and respected professional bodies. Quacks and charlatans do not bother with accreditation; they do not bother with qualifications gained after years of study. But if accreditation is to have value, it needs to be underpinned by the force of the criminal law to deter the quacks and charlatans.
No doubt, requiring psychotherapists to be professionally qualified and accredited members of a professional body would enable well-motivated counsellors to gain standing and proper recognition. It already assists members of the medical and legal professions—such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Alderdice, and me—to be members of the royal societies, colleges or other bodies regulating our respective professions. It also, of course, assists our patients and clients.
More pertinently, however, it is a criminal offence under Section 49 of the Medical Act 1983—not just a breach of a regulation or professional etiquette—for someone wilfully and falsely to pretend to be, take or use the name or title of
“physician, doctor of medicine, licentiate in medicine and surgery, bachelor of medicine, surgeon, general practitioner or apothecary, or any name, title, addition or description implying that he is registered under any provision of this Act, or that he is recognised by law as a physician or surgeon or licentiate in medicine and surgery or a practitioner in medicine or an apothecary.”
A similar criminal offence is set out in Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974, and a man was recently jailed for over four years for a string of deception-related offences that included pretending to be a barrister by unlawfully carrying out what is known as a reserved legal activity.
My noble friend the Minister accepted the argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that as a country we have been slow to appreciate the scale of coercive behaviour. He further acknowledged that most noble Lords who supported this amendment in Committee had pointed to evidence and indeed to specific cases suggesting that fraudulent psychotherapists and counsellors were taking 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.
So far as worries about the Bill’s “dynamic” or “architecture” are concerned, one can accept or reject them depending on how urgently one thinks the problem needs to be addressed. I suggest that this is no more than a variation of the oft-repeated line that this or that amendment, while commendable in almost every respect, is being attached to the wrong Bill. The Minister told us in Committee that he did not want to be seen to be downplaying the seriousness of the issue, and of course I accept his word without question. It may well be that this amendment does not fit into the precise definition of domestic abuse within the particular relationships specified in the Bill, but as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has just said, it is in order and it complies with its Long Title.
Like other amendments which have been accepted by the Government today, in my submission this amendment does not upset the Bill’s architecture. Looking at just two relatively recent Acts of Parliament, one is entitled to ask if the Government’s architectural analogy is a good one. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 deals with subjects as varied as search warrants, bail, cautions, disclosure, mode of trial, appeals, bad character evidence, sentencing and release on licence. The Policing and Crime Act 2009 covers subjects as diverse as the appointment of senior police officers, prostitution, selling alcohol to children, gang-related violence, confiscation of property and airport policing, among others. The architectural combination of the Baroque, the Romanesque and the Gothic in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela has a more cohesive theme than many Acts of Parliament. If that building has stood for many centuries, I suspect that this Bill can accommodate this amendment.
Many of our criminal law statutes are Christmas trees on to which people hang the latest fad, but this amendment has been carefully thought about. It is necessary and it is timely. I would not want it to be thought that the Government’s desire to get this right through further cautious study was simply an excuse for delay and the cultivation of long grass.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, we discussed in Committee that there are no laws against anyone operating as a therapist, psychotherapist or counsellor. Cheap online courses allow people to cheat to complete them, leading to qualifications that are often meaningless. The Health and Care Professions Council is a statutory regulator for practitioner psychologists in the UK. “Registered psychologist” and “practitioner psychologist” are protected titles, as are the specialist titles “clinical psychologist”, “counselling psychologist”, “health psychologist” and others. The title “chartered psychologist” is also protected by statutory regulation, meaning that a psychologist is a chartered member of the British Psychological Society, but not necessarily registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. However, the title of “psychologist” by itself is not protected, meaning that if psychologists do not use one of the protected titles, they can offer their psychological services without any regulation. The public have no idea that these people are not regulated in any way; even if serious concerns are expressed or complaints raised about them, they remain immune from investigation because they are not registered.
These people can wreak huge harm and havoc in other people’s lives. They can drain them of all their finances, create false assertions, produce false evidence and exploit them, driving them away from family members who love them and would support them, and trapping them in a cycle of ever more dangerous psychological dependency. Yet, the victims of such charlatan practitioners have no redress. That is why this amendment is needed and I strongly support it.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
My Lords, in addition to the powerful arguments that have already been brought by noble friends, I have a few more. The first question is whether the amendment is appropriate to a Bill about domestic abuse. Few would argue that the victims of domestic abuse are not entitled to seek emotional and psychological help and support. The problem is that, either when they are undergoing the abuse or when they are trying to put their lives back together after a period as a victim of abuse, they are likely to seek psychological help.
If they can access psychotherapists, psychologists or others through the health service, there is a degree of protection. Even in a context where there is no statutory registration of psychotherapists working within the health service, as is the case, there is a degree of protection for the patient or client. But the majority of psychotherapists do not work in the health service; they work in private practice, community facilities or voluntary organisations, but not in the health service.
This produces two kinds of vulnerability. First, as we have already discussed, the victims themselves are open to be abused by those who claim to be psychotherapists, but who have a malign influence. I do not think I would have to go terribly far in your Lordships’ House to find uncertainty or confusion about what is a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychotherapist or similar title. One could hardly expect vulnerable victims to be more able to parse and find an appropriately trained person.
There is a further complexity, which has been made worse by Covid. Many perfectly reasonable and helpful people who are not registered psychotherapists and, in some cases, are not registered with any organisation never mind statutorily are working in quite isolated situations themselves now. I have talked to some psychotherapist colleagues, who are working from morning until night, every day of the week, on Zoom, with very vulnerable people. They are isolated themselves, socially and professionally, so their relationships with their patients and clients begin to have a degree of dependency. These people are not even professionally protected so, apart from the malign individual who consciously exploits the victim of domestic abuse, either currently or after their victimhood, it is not hard to see how a person who is not particularly malign may find themselves behaving in that way, for a series of psychological reasons.
What is troubling is that the knowledge of this has been around for a long time. In 1971, the Government commissioned and received a report from Sir John Foster. It was stimulated by concern about the Church of Scientology, but it looked at people who used coercive or controlling behaviour when providing psychotherapy or counselling services under that institution. The recommendation was that there needed to be registration —50 years ago. In 1978, Paul Sieghart produced a report with the same recommendations and, in 1981, Graham Bright produced a Private Member’s Bill in the other place based on Paul Sieghart’s report to register psychotherapy.
When I was appointed as the first consultant psychiatrist in psychotherapy in Ireland, north or south, I started training in psychotherapy through the medical faculty at Queen’s University Belfast, not just for those who were medically qualified but for others who were not, to enable them to become properly qualified. However, I quickly discovered that there was lots of what I call “wild psychotherapy”, so I talked to the Department of Health and Social Services, which agreed and provided some funds. We appointed one of my staff, Gillian Rodgers, to do a report, and she presented it to the department in May 1995—nothing was done.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the arguments about the Bill being suitable for this measure that have been advanced again today by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Alderdice, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, were powerfully deployed in Committee. They cut no ice with the Minister, and I have seen nothing to indicate since then that there is likely to be any change of heart. This will mean that this is yet another missed opportunity to deal with a very real problem.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, accepted that there is a need to find a remedy for this damaging and often criminal preying on the vulnerable who seek help for mental distress from unregulated and often totally unqualified self-styled talking therapists. There is ample evidence of the harm that has been caused: the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just given us some. Victims have been alienated from their families, and, as I remember from my years in practice at the criminal Bar, on occasion this led to criminal trials based on what later appeared to be false memories implanted by self-styled talking therapists.
However, I believe that there has been a degree of progress since Committee, and I was very grateful to be included in the meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, arranged with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the Minister and others; I thank the Minister for that. It became clear from that meeting that there are at least two ways in which a solution could be achieved if this Bill is not allowed to be the vehicle to deal with this.
Apparently, under the Health Act, regular reviews take place to decide whether specific occupations should require compulsory registration. This means that a successful applicant must meet proper standards and checks, and faces sanctions if the rules are broken. The change from voluntary to compulsory registration can be made by regulation, so no primary legislation is required.
The bogus practitioners of talking therapies, at whom this amendment is directed, currently do not have to register; as a start, they should be required to do so. These people use a variety of names for what they do and might well try to change their descriptions to avoid mandatory registration of a particular category. However, a generic name can surely be found and such a relatively minor difficulty overcome. After all, they are all talking therapists.
It became clear from our meeting that members of the public but also, surprisingly, some of those who direct them to these services, such as GPs, need to be better informed of the importance of using only registered practitioners. The public surely deserve to be better protected and compulsory registration would help to do just that. However, more is required, too: having to register might make it difficult for those who do not meet the required standards, but not impossible for the unscrupulous to continue to operate. There are criminal elements to the way in which some of these so-called therapists operate, which this amendment addresses. They will still need to be addressed in addition to compulsory registration. If that cannot be done in the Bill, as the Government contended in Committee—I still hope that they will change their mind—it can and should be met by a provision, possibly in a forthcoming health Bill or, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, in other legislation to be brought forward as soon as possible.
These are not isolated cases. When the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raised this matter in the House last year, she received an astonishingly large response from victims and their families. This type of abuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, just said, has gone on unchecked for many years. It continues to sever children from their families, causes mental harm and misery to victims and their relations, and in some cases leads to serious false allegations being made. All sides agree that a remedy is needed yet every time an attempt is made to find one, successive Ministers have said, “Not this Bill—not my department, guv”.
Two common defects in our present system of government are stopping abuses being prevented in future. The first, I fear, is a culture of siloed departments: “We can’t deal with this or that because it’s someone else’s brief, someone else’s department”. Too often, there is a reluctance or failure to collaborate across departments to pass on and follow-up a problem which arises, or there is a change of Minister so that the problem falls—as this one has done over and over again down the years—into a black hole of inaction between them. It was therefore encouraging that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also attended the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. The second is the shortage—not an absence but certainly a shortage—of Ministers who, when those in their department say “We can’t do it” say to them: “This is a real problem. I want to find a solution. Please go away and come back with a way in which we can do it.”
The Minister was very helpful in our meeting, which enabled us to focus on the direction of some possible solutions. What we now need from him, if he cannot change his mind about the admissibility of the amendment in this legislation, is a commitment that the issue will at least receive urgent attention across departments and, after so long be treated as a priority. In this of all weeks, it is worth perhaps saying that people in mental turmoil who need help will, we hope, go searching for it. Failure to guide them to genuine help from properly registered practitioners is allowing some to fall into unscrupulous and dangerous hands. I do hope that the Minister will give us the assurance we need tonight.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too speak this evening in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I apologise that I was unable to speak in Committee but I have read that debate, including the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I agree with all that they said.
I developed an interest in this subject because I personally knew two families where young adult, female family members were, might I say, captured by what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has called a charlatan counsellor—with prolonged, distressing and tragic consequences for the families and individuals in question. But as he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have reminded us this evening, this issue is much more widespread: so much so that, as the House has heard, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have legislated against this behaviour.
At this late hour, I do not propose to repeat the arguments compellingly put both this evening and in Committee in favour of similar legislation being enacted here. My understanding is that the Government, as they have said before, may be sympathetic in general but, as several speakers this evening have intimated, too often one gets the timeworn mantra from the Government that this is not the right time and not the right Bill. I remember this particularly being said several years ago in relation to the Leveson Section 40 point.
My question to the Minister this evening is the same as that put by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and other noble Lords. If that is the Government’s position, when will be the right time to legislate against these reprehensible practices by charlatan counsellors who cause so much distress to so many families? In closing, I respectfully suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, government inaction on this issue has already dragged on unacceptably long.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank all Members who have taken part. The proposed new clause in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, both of whom have spoken very forcefully, would create an offence of:
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services”
in a person’s home.
We have heard that my noble friend Lord Alderdice, himself a psychiatrist, has long taken an interest in this issue, even tabling a Private Member’s Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—another doctor—the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, have made excellent cases for outlawing these charlatans. I thank them all for their robust and informed support.
Some time ago, I was approached by someone whose child in their 20s had their life ruined by an unregistered and untrained counsellor. Both the behaviour of and treatment by this charlatan were coercive and turned the child completely against their family. This is not something that many families talk about at length, but after hearing the dinner hour debate in the House some time ago, when my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, both spoke, a significant number of people approached me and provided the evidence that convinced us that this is an issue that deserves attention from government.
What is done by these bogus counsellors is lawful but also amoral, unethical and without shame. I ask the Minister to support the proposed new clause. Without it, charlatans posing as professionals will be able to ruin yet more families and more young, vulnerable lives.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 52 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. This issue was debated in Committee and I was clear then that I supported the intention of the proposed new clause but was not convinced that this was the right Bill. There is always a problem with finding ways to address issues, whether through primary or secondary legislation, or finding a Bill that is in scope or the regulation or order that can be used to make the necessary changes.
On the issue itself, both in Committee and on Report, a powerful case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. This is a serious matter where people can be victims of some very dubious, unscrupulous and frankly criminal practices.
As we have heard, a traumatised person seeking help from a counsellor, therapist or psychotherapist has absolutely no idea whether that person is properly trained and able to give them professional help—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said, a charlatan preying on young people or vulnerable clients to debilitate and exert control. The risk is that the counsellor is untrained and unqualified and will do lasting damage to their client.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and all other noble Lords who have supported this amendment, for again setting out the case for it. The amendment seeks to create an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour for psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients.
Amendment 52 seeks, in effect, to replicate the coercive or controlling behaviour offence under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. This offence was created to close a gap in legislation regarding patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour in a domestic abuse context; that is, during a relationship between intimate partners, former partners or family members. As such, the offence applies only to those who are “personally connected” as defined within Section 76 of the 2015 Act. The amendment would extend the offence beyond those who are personally connected as defined by that Act so that it applied to psychotherapists and counsellors.
In Committee, and again today, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others have strongly made the point that unregulated and fraudulent psychotherapists are able to take advantage of their clients’ vulnerability by supplanting parents and families in the affections and minds of their clients, with the purpose of turning them against their friends and families through a process called transference. The noble Lord has 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.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier noted, we have had a number of debates on this issue and on the importance—in the Government’s submission—of preserving the meaning of “personally connected” in relation to domestic abuse, both in this Bill and, by extension, for the purposes of the Section 76 offence. The Government recognise that noble Lords have raised an important issue and have made some spirited and cogent arguments in favour of doing something now. However, we still feel it is important to acknowledge that domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour, is a unique type of abuse underpinned by an emotional and affectionate bond between the victim and the perpetrator, as well as a complex power dynamic. The paid-for or commercial nature of the psychotherapist-client relationship represents a fundamentally different power dynamic from that of domestic abuse. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and others, that is why we do not believe that it is appropriate to replicate the Section 76 offence in other contexts such as this. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for recognising that this might not be the right Bill in which to do it.
As I mentioned in Committee, this is a matter for consideration by the Department of Health and Social Care. I am pleased that a number of noble Lords who have spoken in Committee and again tonight had the opportunity to discuss it in more detail with my noble friend Lady Penn, on behalf of that department, and with me. I am glad they found the discussion productive, as we did. I am grateful to those noble Lords for their time and engagement with us and with officials from both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care.
As noble Lords noted, there is at present a system of accredited voluntary registration by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. 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 in relation to around 50,000 talking therapy professionals. These registers should be used by service users to choose a practitioner to meet their needs and to be assured that they are safe, trustworthy and competent to practise. To gain accreditation from the authority, organisations must meet 11 standards for accredited registers. I set those out in Committee so will not do that again now, but any registrant who is removed from an accredited register for conduct reasons cannot join another accredited register.
I recognise that these registers are voluntary, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, but they provide assurance that practitioners who are on the registers are safe, trustworthy and competent. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is right that more can be done in this area, and the Department of Health and Social Care is working with the Professional Standards Authority to improve awareness of the accredited registers programme and to encourage service users and providers—people such as GPs, as she says—to seek out the services of practitioners on an accredited register rather than unregistered individuals.
The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system, and from time to time we bring new professions into regulation. It is important that decisions to regulate a profession are evidence-based and consider the risks posed by the profession in the round, not just the risks posed by unscrupulous practitioners. The Professional Standards Authority has developed its “right-touch assurance” tool with the aim of providing advice on how best to regulate different groups in health and care. Where the Government are satisfied that the conditions for regulation of a profession are met, that can be taken forward through secondary legislation using powers in the Health Act 1999, a point that, as noble Lords mentioned today, we have explored in our helpful discussions since Committee.
The Department of Health and Social Care is currently conducting a programme of work to reform the professional regulation framework for healthcare professionals. That will provide an opportunity to consider whether the professions protected in law are the right ones and to ensure that the level of regulatory oversight is proportionate to the risks to the public.
I am conscious, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, set out in his contribution, that this is an issue that has been around for a very long time—since 1971, in some form—and he has been working on it for many years. I hope that reassurance and the points that have been raised, both in these debates and in our meeting since Committee, will be fed into that work. Perhaps this will provide further reassurance: as a couple of noble Lords have alluded to, one person who spoke in Committee but is not speaking today is my noble friend Lady Finn. If nothing else, I hope noble Lords will note that they have another person on the government side who is fully sighted on these issues.
The noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment have once again underlined this important issue, but I hope they will accept why we believe this is not the appropriate Bill in which to pursue the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. I have no doubt that they will take the further opportunity to debate this issue soon in the context of Department of Health-led legislation and, moreover, as I have indicated, the issue of regulation can be considered afresh in the context of the forthcoming review of the regulation of healthcare professionals.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, spoke of a pathway. It may not have as many paving stones as noble Lords might wish but I hope that they can discern one, and that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, it is late in the evening and I shall be brief. We have heard a detailed argument from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Alderdice as to why this amendment fits so clearly within the ambit of the Bill. From my noble friend Lord Alderdice we also heard how close is the link between therapy and domestic abuse, and from all around the House we have heard how overdue this measure is and that it is not a recent problem that we are seeking to address.
It is also significant that this amendment attracts support from doctors and lawyers and Members of your Lordships’ House who are neither. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said how common and how wrong it is that bogus therapists can take advantage of their clients, causing them real harm. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, was one of many Peers who know families who have been victims of this abuse, and he also powerfully argued for an end to inaction on the part of government. My noble friend Lady Jolly was another, who described graphically the behaviour of these charlatans as unethical and without shame. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, described our case on the amendment as a powerful case for change and called for action. So let us, please, not miss yet another opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, put it. As the noble Baroness said, compulsory registration must sit alongside criminal sanctions, in just the way as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, pointed out. An offence of coercive control modelled on the Serious Crime Act may not be the only way to achieve it, but it is a good one.
Whatever form an amendment of the criminal law takes, the House and the Government know clearly what it is that we are trying to achieve. They really ought now to be implementing change, rather than closing the road to change. The Government need to get over the temptation to insist on drawing the distinction between what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, described as the emotional and affectionate bond that characterises domestic abuse and the type of abuse that these charlatans and quacks perpetrate on their victims. It will be interesting to see whether the Government can move away from insisting on that distinction. I described it earlier as a precious distinction, but it is purist at best.
“Not this Bill, not now” is no answer to the suffering of victims. We need the Government to be prepared to say, “Yes, this Bill and now”. At the very least, if they cannot say that, “The very next Bill, and soon”. We will take such opportunities as we can to bring about change. I accept that there will be opportunities to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, indicated, and they may well be in health-driven legislation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment tonight, but we will be back seeking change in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 53. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 53
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 66, line 21.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, these amendments fulfil an undertaking I gave in Committee in response to amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin that sought to ensure that UK citizens who commit marital rape in countries where such behaviour is not criminal may none the less be prosecuted in the UK.
I said then that we would consider this matter ahead of Report and, bearing in mind that the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions are UK-wide, that we would also consult the devolved Administrations to ensure a consistent approach across the UK. We have done both —we have considered and we have consulted. I am pleased to say that, with the agreement of Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland, government Amendments 53 to 55, 58 to 61 and 63 to 65 achieve what my noble friend intended, and will apply to relevant legislation throughout the UK. I shall remind the House briefly, given the hour, of the provisions.
Schedule 2 to the Bill contains amendments to various enactments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences under the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that, as required by the Istanbul convention, the UK will be able to prosecute these offences when they are committed outside the UK by one of our nationals or habitual residents. The scheme is this: part 1 of the schedule covers England and Wales, part 2 covers Scotland, and part 3 covers Northern Ireland.
In keeping with the normal principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the terms of the convention, there is a requirement that a prosecution for one of the relevant sexual offences—these include rape where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over—may be brought in the UK only when the offending behaviour is also an offence in the country where it happens. This is known as dual criminality.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the hour I will be very brief. I thank the Government and my noble friend the Minister for listening and laying their own amendments to close the loophole I raised in Committee. It is a very small gap, but one it is right to fill. Doing so sends the right signal domestically and internationally. The UN said in a recent report that the home is still one of the most dangerous places for women. In many countries, sex is still seen as an automatic part of the marriage contract. No data on marital rape is collected in many countries, where not only is it not a crime but social pressure means that it is rarely reported or discussed. We have been pioneers in this area of law; it is right that this country be able to uphold the high standards of our legislation at all times.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for identifying this gap whereby marital rape is not an offence in some countries and therefore British nationals would not have been convicted had they committed marital rape in them. I am very grateful to the Minister for responding to the identification of that gap and closing it effectively.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses marital rape, whereby rape could be committed by a UK citizen in a country that does not consider it a crime and, presently, no prosecution could be brought. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, brought the matter to the attention of the House in Committee and has been successful in persuading the Government of the merits of her case and the importance of closing this loophole.
I offer her my sincere congratulations on her success. Her actions will protect women and girls from the horrific crime of rape and ensure that no rapist or perpetrator of these vile crimes can evade justice through making use of this loophole in the law and hide behind the fact that marital rape is not a crime in a small number of countries. This is a good example of the House of Lords doing its job well. An important issue was raised, well argued and supported across the House; the Government considered it carefully and responded positively, bringing forward their own amendments to address the issue.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me again if my reply is very brief, not because the issue is not important but because there is obvious agreement across the House. I again thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention and for the discussions we have had. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his kind words on this matter this evening, which I appreciate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark; I am very pleased to have his and his Benches’ support on this matter. I will not say any more given the time, but I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 66, line 21.
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that, for a UK national to be guilty in England and Wales of rape or sexual assault as a result of an act in a country outside the UK where the victim was 18 or over, it is not necessary for the act also to be an offence in that country.
“(2AA) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(a), an act punishable under the law in force in the country is an offence under that law however it is described in that law.(2AB) The condition specified in subsection (2A)(a) is to be taken as satisfied unless, not later than such time as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, the accused serves on the prosecutor a notice—(a) stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act in question, the condition is not in the accused’s opinion satisfied,(b) setting out the grounds for the accused’s opinion, and(c) requiring the prosecutor to prove that the condition is satisfied.(2AC) But the court, if it thinks fit, may permit the accused to require the prosecutor to prove that the condition is satisfied without the prior service of a notice under subsection (2AB).(2AD) In proceedings on indictment, the question whether the condition is satisfied is to be determined by the judge alone.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides, in section 11 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, for a rebuttable presumption that an act committed in a country outside the UK, which would be an assault if committed in Scotland, is an offence in that country.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 67, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit section 54D(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (being inserted by this Bill) to UK nationals only (and not also those habitually resident in Scotland) and is linked with the Minister’s amendments at page 67, lines 38 and 42.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the condition in section 54D(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 that, for a UK national to commit an offence in Scotland in relation to an act in a country outside the UK, the act must also be an offence in that country.
“(1A) If—(a) a person who is habitually resident in Scotland does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,(b) the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and(c) the act, if done in Scotland, would constitute an offence to which this subsection applies,then the person commits that offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that, for a person habitually resident in Scotland to commit an offence in Scotland in respect of an act in a country outside the UK, it remains a condition under section 54D of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 that the act is an offence in that country.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 67, line 42.
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1A)(b), an act punishable under the law in force in the country is an offence under that law however it is described in that law.(2B) The condition specified in subsection (1A)(b) is to be taken as satisfied unless, not later than such time as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, the accused serves on the prosecutor a notice—(a) stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act in question, the condition is not in the accused’s opinion satisfied,(b) setting out the grounds for the accused’s opinion, and(c) requiring the prosecutor to prove that the condition is satisfied.(2C) But the court, if it thinks fit, may permit the accused to require the prosecutor to prove that the condition is satisfied without the prior service of a notice under subsection (2B).(2D) In proceedings on indictment, the question whether the condition is satisfied is to be determined by the judge alone.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides, in section 54D of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, for a rebuttable presumption that an act committed in a country outside the UK, which would be an offence if committed in Scotland, is an offence in that country.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 70, line 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 70, line 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that, for a UK national to be guilty in Northern Ireland of rape or sexual assault as a result of an act in a country outside the UK where the victim was 18 or over, it is not necessary for the act also to be an offence in that country.
“OFFENCES TO WHICH THE DEFENCE FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE WHO COMMIT AN OFFENCE DOES NOT APPLYCommon law offences
1 False imprisonment.2 Kidnapping.3 Manslaughter.4 Murder.5 Perverting the course of justice.6 Piracy.Offences against the Person Act 1861
7 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—(a) section 4 (soliciting murder);(b) section 16 (threats to kill);(c) section 18 (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm);(d) section 20 (malicious wounding);(e) section 21 (attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle in order to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence);(f) section 22 (using drugs etc to commit or assist in the committing of an indictable offence);(g) section 23 (maliciously administering poison etc so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm);(h) section 27 (abandoning children);(i) section 28 (causing bodily injury by explosives);(j) section 29 (using explosives with intent to do grievous bodily harm);(k) section 30 (placing explosives with intent to do bodily injury);(l) section 31 (setting spring guns etc with intent to do grievous bodily harm);(m) section 32 (endangering safety of railway passengers);(n) section 35 (injuring persons by furious driving);(o) section 37 (assaulting officer preserving wreck);(p) section 38 (assault with intent to resist arrest).Explosive Substances Act 1883
8 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Explosive Substances Act 1883—(a) section 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property);(b) section 3 (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property);(c) section 4 (making or possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances).Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929
9 An offence under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (child destruction).Children and Young Persons Act 1933
10 An offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (cruelty to children).Public Order Act 1936
11 An offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1936 (control etc of quasi-military organisation).Infanticide Act 1938
12 An offence under section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 (infanticide). Firearms Act 1968
13 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Firearms Act 1968—(a) section 5 (possession of prohibited firearms);(b) section 16 (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life);(c) section 16A (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence);(d) section 17(1) (use of firearm to resist arrest);(e) section 17(2) (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for specified offence);(f) section 18 (carrying firearm with criminal intent).Theft Act 1968
14 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968—(a) section 8 (robbery or assault with intent to rob);(b) section 9 (burglary), where the offence is committed with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, or to do unlawful damage to a building or anything in it;(c) section 10 (aggravated burglary);(d) section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking), where the offence involves an accident which causes the death of any person;(e) section 21 (blackmail).Criminal Damage Act 1971
15 The following offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971—(a) an offence of arson under section 1;(b) an offence under section 1(2) (destroying or damaging property) other than an offence of arson.Immigration Act 1971
16 An offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 (assisting unlawful immigration to member state).Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
17 An offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (indecent or obscene articles).Taking of Hostages Act 1982
18 An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (hostage-taking).Aviation Security Act 1982
19 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982—(a) section 1 (hijacking);(b) section 2 (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft);(c) section 3 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft);(d) section 4 (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles).Mental Health Act 1983
20 An offence under section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (ill-treatment of patients).Child Abduction Act 1984
21 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Child Abduction Act 1984—(a) section 1 (abduction of child by parent etc);(b) section 2 (abduction of child by other persons).Public Order Act 1986
22 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Public Order Act 1986— (a) section 1 (riot);(b) section 2 (violent disorder).Criminal Justice Act 1988
23 An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).Road Traffic Act 1988
24 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988—(a) section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving);(b) section 3A (causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs).Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990
25 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990—(a) section 1 (endangering safety at aerodromes);(b) section 9 (hijacking of ships);(c) section 10 (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms);(d) section 11 (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety);(e) section 12 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation);(f) section 13 (offences involving threats).Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570)
26 An offence under Part 2 of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (SI 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system).Protection from Harassment Act 1997
27 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—(a) section 4 (putting people in fear of violence);(b) section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress).Crime and Disorder Act 1998
28 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 —(a) section 29 (racially or religiously aggravated assaults);(b) section 31(1)(a) or (b) (racially or religiously aggravated offences under section 4 or 4A of the Public Order Act 1986).Terrorism Act 2000
29 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000—(a) section 54 (weapons training);(b) section 56 (directing terrorist organisation);(c) section 57 (possession of article for terrorist purposes);(d) section 59 (inciting terrorism overseas).International Criminal Court Act 2001
30 An offence under any of the following provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001—(a) section 51 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes);(b) section 52 (ancillary conduct).Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
31 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—(a) section 47 (use of nuclear weapons);(b) section 50 (assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas);(c) section 113 (use of noxious substance or thing to cause harm or intimidate). Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
32 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(a) section 1 (female genital mutilation);(b) section 2 (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia);(c) section 3 (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia).Sexual Offences Act 2003
33 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—(a) section 1 (rape);(b) section 2 (assault by penetration);(c) section 3 (sexual assault);(d) section 4 (causing person to engage in sexual activity without consent);(e) section 5 (rape of child under 13);(f) section 6 (assault of child under 13 by penetration);(g) section 7 (sexual assault of child under 13);(h) section 8 (causing or inciting child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);(i) section 9 (sexual activity with a child);(j) section 10 (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity);(k) section 13 (child sex offences committed by children or young persons);(l) section 14 (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence);(m) section 15 (meeting a child following sexual grooming);(n) section 16 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child);(o) section 17 (abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity);(p) section 18 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child);(q) section 19 (abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act);(r) section 25 (sexual activity with a child family member);(s) section 26 (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity);(t) section 30 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice);(u) section 31 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity);(v) section 32 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice);(w) section 33 (causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act);(x) section 34 (inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder);(y) section 35 (causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception);(z) section 36 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder);(aa) section 37 (causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception); (ab) section 38 (care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder);(ac) section 39 (care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity);(ad) section 40 (care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder);(ae) section 41 (care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act);(af) section 47 (paying for sexual services of a child);(ag) section 48 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography);(ah) section 49 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography);(ai) section 50 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography);(aj) section 61 (administering a substance with intent);(ak) section 62 (committing offence with intent to commit sexual offence);(al) section 63 (trespass with intent to commit sexual offence);(am) section 64 (sex with an adult relative: penetration);(an) section 65 (sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration);(ao) section 66 (exposure);(ap) section 67 (voyeurism);(aq) section 70 (sexual penetration of a corpse).Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
34 An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm).Terrorism Act 2006
35 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006—(a) section 5 (preparation of terrorist acts);(b) section 6 (training for terrorism);(c) section 9 (making or possession of radioactive device or material);(d) section 10 (use of radioactive device or material for terrorist purposes);(e) section 11 (terrorist threats relating to radioactive devices etc).Modern Slavery Act 2015
36 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015—(a) section 1 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour);(b) section 2 (human trafficking).Ancillary offences
37_(1) An offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence listed in this Schedule.(2) An offence committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence listed in this Schedule.(3) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting) where the offence (or one of the offences) which the person in question intends or believes would be committed is an offence listed in this Schedule.”
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 66A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 71: Homelessness: victims of domestic abuse
Amendment 66A
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“( ) In section 199 (local connection), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A person who is, or is likely to become, a victim of domestic abuse is deemed to have a local connection to any authority for the purposes of an application to that authority under section 183.””
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sure everyone will be relieved to know that I do not intend either to detain the House for long or to press my amendment to a Division. I feel slightly guilty because I am keeping noble Lords late, but I raised this issue in Committee and, to be honest, was not very satisfied with the answer. I looked again in Hansard to see exactly what my noble friend said and would like to reiterate some of my concerns with that answer.
My amendment concerns the fact that somebody who has suffered domestic abuse might well have moved from the local authority where they lived when suffering the abuse, either to a refuge or to a friend or parent’s house. Then, being homeless, they present themselves to the local authority. A lot of local authorities will say that to have housing provided to them, they must have a local connection—in other words, they must have lived there for some time. Obviously, that would not necessarily be the case, and they may want to be well away from where the abuse took place.
I looked again at my noble friend’s reply. She said:
“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 there would be at risk of domestic abuse in that area.”
That sounds fine, expect I was not quite sure what the legislation was. My point, which I will get to in a little while, is about the force of guidance. My noble friend continued:
“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.”
I am a little concerned that “actual or threatened domestic violence” might not be the whole gamut of domestic abuse that we have been discussing throughout the Bill. She went on to say:
“It stipulates that authorities should not impose a higher standard of proof of actual violence”.—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 72.]
That concerns me. Is it just where actual or threatened violence has taken place, rather than some of the other forms of abuse that we might be talking about?
My noble friend said that the local connection test was
“to keep a degree of fairness to ensure that those who live locally are prioritised and that no one authority gets oversubscribed.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 72.]
Of course, that is exactly what it is. Having been a constituency Member of Parliament for many years, housing was one of the top issues that people came to see me about at my advice surgeries. However, if there are genuine concerns, that degree of fairness should be given to those people who cannot live anywhere else. The idea that they could be moved around, not only to return to where they have the local connection but to find a local authority that is sympathetic, worried me.
Finally, I wonder what the force of guidance is, as opposed to actual legislation. I hoped that this might get into the Bill, just to give succour to those people. I mentioned quite a few examples in Committee which I will not go through again. The Minister is aware of the situation. Can she provide more clarity on what I have just outlined?
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. We are having connection difficulties. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am pleased to offer my full support for Amendment 66A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I would have happily signed the noble Lord’s amendment and apologise for not doing so. The noble Lord set out his case well—namely, that victims of domestic abuse must often endure lifelong risks from the perpetrator. The risk does not end when the relationship comes to an end and, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, told us, it is often when the relationship has ended that the risk significantly increases.
I can see, therefore, as I am sure other noble Lords can, that some victims will want to get as far away as possible from the perpetrator. However, the action of some local authorities in introducing a local connection rule, whether for access to refuge places or for the provision of housing, puts victims at risk. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to ensure that, in England, victims can seek the protection of moving away to another place when seeking new housing, and that no local rules can be brought to bear that frustrate that protection or that desire if that is what the victims wish to do. With this and the other amendments that we are debating about enabling victims to make a choice that affords them the protection that they feel comfortable living with—that is what this is about—the noble Lord is looking for a positive response from the Minister on how we can move this forward. I am confident that we shall get that.
I should declare my relevant interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association, as this is a housing matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I hope I can provide that assurance. My noble friend Lord Randall explained that Amendment 66A seeks to amend the Housing Act 1996. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just explained, that Act deems victims of domestic abuse to have a local connection to the relevant local authority in England when seeking homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Act.
I indicated in Committee, and will say again, that the existing legislation and guidance on this matter are clear. A victim of domestic abuse, or indeed anyone who is homeless or at risk of homelessness, can approach any local authority in England for assistance without a local connection. Once a local authority has accepted an application, it will then make inquiries around local connection, among other criteria. Ordinarily, if someone does not have a local connection in the area, but has a local connection elsewhere, the local authority may then refer that person to the other local authority. However, the legislation 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 reasonably be expected to reside with them, would be at risk of domestic abuse.
The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that a housing authority is under a positive duty to inquire whether the applicant would be at risk of actual or threatened domestic abuse and stipulates that authorities should not impose a high standard of proof of actual violence in the past when making its 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 which ensure that they are not housed in a local authority area where there is a risk of violence or abuse and ensure that local connection is not a barrier to accessing that homelessness assistance. The local connection test seeks to keep a degree of fairness, ensuring that those who live locally are prioritised and no one authority gets oversubscribed, which is an important point.
The statutory guidance already ensures that victims of domestic abuse should not be hindered by local connection criteria when accessing support services. As I indicated, the Government are committed to proactively engaging with local authorities to ensure that there is a thorough and proper understanding of the new duty and wider domestic abuse policy, including in relation to local connection.
I acknowledge that it is clear from engagement with the sector and points raised by noble Lords today that there is perhaps a misunderstanding that Amendment 66A would impact on social housing allocations. Social housing falls under a different part of the Housing Act 1996 so, regrettably, the amendment before us would not meet my noble friend’s aim.
With regard to social housing legislation, since 2012 local authorities have had the power to decide who qualifies for social housing in their area, including through the use of a local connection test. However, statutory guidance published in 2013 advises local authorities to consider making appropriate exceptions, including for people moving into an area to escape violence. Guidance issued in 2018 goes further and strongly encourages all local authorities not to apply a local connection test to victims of domestic abuse in refuges or other safe temporary accommodation. With those words, I hope I have been able to satisfy my noble friend and, consequently, that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, did not have her connection—obviously it was not a local one. I will have to be satisfied; I think we are nearly there. I noticed that my noble friend changed some of the words—to “abuse” rather than “violence”; I think that is right.
She has been slightly saved by the bell. It had been pointed out to me that the amendment was not quite fit for purpose in what I had aimed to do. I tabled another amendment late and, if we had not got as far as we have today, I would have been able to speak to it next time, but that will not happen. I shall leave it there and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.