House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Government have provided significant financial support to aviation workers and businesses. The global travel taskforce will report in April on a return to safe and sustainable international travel.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Last week, the Chancellor set out the support he is providing to businesses until they can reopen their doors, but although the Office for National Statistics showed that aviation was the worst-affected sector, it was not given a single mention. Does the Minister agree that the support already provided to airports will not be enough to cover them losing many times that amount each month? Is he not missing a trick here both to help the sector to survive and help it to modernise to meet our climate change obligations?
Robert Courts
The Government have given the aviation sector approximately £7 billion of support over the course of the pandemic. The Budget we heard last week from the Chancellor extended both the furlough scheme and the airport and ground operations support scheme for another six months. What we are doing to support and help the sector is the global travel taskforce. It is through getting people travelling sustainably and robustly that we will see brighter days ahead.
Amy Callaghan [V]
Duty free arrival was not part of the Government’s post-Brexit consultations, despite industry stakeholders asking for it to be introduced. The Tory Government decision to end VAT-free shopping schemes for travellers will cost hundreds of jobs across Scotland. Establishing arrival duty free outlets could offset some of that. Can the Minister tell the House whether he lobbied the Chancellor prior to that decision? If so, will he continue to push the Treasury to change its view and save jobs?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member will understand that there had to be a change on that taxation regime at the end of the transition period. All taxation matters are a matter for the Treasury. They are kept under review by the Chancellor at all times, and I am sure he has heard very carefully what she said.
Mr Virendra Sharma [V]
The future of the aviation sector needs greening, which will bring lower pollution and new high-quality jobs. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to increase the Aerospace Technology Institute budget, so that we as a country can focus on developing the technology that will support future zero emission aircraft?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member is quite right that aviation must play its part in the net zero challenge. It is a challenge, but it is also an enormous opportunity. We are already working with BEIS through the Jet Zero Council and the working groups not only on new airframe types and new technology for aircraft, but on things like sustainable aviation fuel.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
It is simply not good enough. The Office for National Statistics confirmed that aviation has been hardest hit. This Government promised a sector deal but then did not deliver, barring a last minute and somewhat diluted version of the uncapped business rates relief available in Scotland. Let us recap: ending VAT-free shopping at airports and refusing to consider arrival duty free; the most indebted aviation sector in the world, now about a third smaller with thousands of jobs gone; and now EU cargo and chartered airlines operating in the UK without reciprocal rights in many EU countries—this Government have utterly failed aviation and its 1 million workers, have they not?
Robert Courts
This is a Government who stand foursquare behind aviation, which is a real mark of global Britain. As I said, we have seen approximately £7 billion-worth of support going to the aviation sector. Through the global travel taskforce we will be expanding horizons even further. Most recently, the consultation has been announced on air passenger duty, which I note has not happened in Scotland.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Minister is strong on rhetoric, but weak on delivery. First, I thank the Secretary of State for writing to me to correct the record after our previous exchange and confirming how few times the Jet Zero Council had actually met.
On this global travel taskforce, the ONS says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) pointed out, that it will take three years for the sector to recovery. The Airport Operators Association is saying five years. What assurances are there that what the workstreams produce—are there any going on at the moment and is it meeting?—will be robustly implemented? We have not seen that so far with other announcements by this Government.
Robert Courts
I simply have to disagree with the hon. Member. The first global travel taskforce reported in November, as promised. We had the robust release of the test to release scheme in December in time for the Christmas market. Now it is right that we take stock, look at the whole aviation sector, consult carefully and have a new GTT. We will, as we have said, report to the Prime Minister and publish the reports on 12 April, and 17 May is the earliest date on which international travel can resume. We are working with and meeting and consulting the sector on a weekly and daily basis. It is a major ongoing piece of work very much at pace.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Yesterday, I welcomed the Union connectivity review interim report. It marks an important moment in looking at how transport can bring people together across our United Kingdom.
Rob Roberts
Transport infrastructure is one of the most vital areas of development needed in my constituency. I was delighted to see that improvements in connectivity to the north Wales coastline and the A55 featured strongly in yesterday’s interim report. Can my right hon. Friend confirm when he expects the review to publish its final report, and that there will be funding available to implement its recommendations, even though some cases were not mentioned specifically in the Budget?
Grant Shapps
The interim report did, of course, mention the A55, which my hon. Friend has campaigned hard for. I have released £20 million to carry on further work and studies on some of these routes and the final report will be released in the summer.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The transport decarbonisation plan will set out transport’s contribution to net zero. We are also delivering ambitious international COP26 campaigns.
Deidre Brock [V]
When does the Minister consider that there will be enough public charging points available for electric-powered vehicles to ensure that no domestic user requires an internal combustion engine? I would settle for her best estimate of when urban motorists could be fossil-free. How quickly does she think the network can be built?
Rachel Maclean
We have ambitious plans to meet our target dates of phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. At the moment, a driver is never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charge point anywhere on England’s motorways, and there are 36 rapid charge points available per 100 miles, but we obviously need to go further. We are working through our rapid charging fund and we will make further announcements very shortly on this topic.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
We know that the Government’s road-building expansion will lead to an estimated 270,000 additional tonnes of carbon entering the atmosphere by 2032. However, in an answer to a recent question, the Minister told me that she was content that the Government’s road-building expansion programme was compatible with the net zero target. Will she tell me how she reached that view when the Secretary of State overruled his own civil servants on the need to conduct an environmental review of the policy? And does she agree that if the Government are serious about reaching net zero and setting an example before COP26, that review should be carried out now?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that we are serious about decarbonising the entire transport sector. We will publish our transport decarbonisation plan in spring this year, as we have committed to do, which will set out how we will decarbonise the entire sector, including roads. I just say to her that, of course, we do need roads, but we want the vehicles driving on them to be electric, and we are investing in electric vehicles—cars, vans, buses and lorries.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Over a year has gone and we have seen neither hide nor hair of this transport decarbonisation plan, or the national bus strategy, or the £3 billion on green buses. In contrast, Scotland is fast becoming a world leader in transport decarbonisation, with higher take-up of electric cars, an impressive charging network, actual investment in electric buses, on which everyone under the age of 22 is now able to travel free, and a much praised rolling rail electrification scheme. Spring is an elastic term in parliamentary terminology. When will we actually see the decarbonisation plan, and when will we actually see zero-emission buses being ordered?
Rachel Maclean
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have invested £2.8 billion to support the transition to electric vehicles, and a lot of that money has gone to Scotland. The funds for the plug-in car grants are available UK-wide, and, as I said, we will publish the transport decarbonisation plan in spring, as we have promised.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Transport infrastructure is central to the Government’s plans to build back better from covid-19, and the Department for Transport is at the forefront of Project Speed. We have also created our own acceleration unit as well as establishing the Northern Transport Acceleration Council, through which we have identified 112 schemes to progress.
Marco Longhi [V]
My Dudley North constituents are seeing record levels of investment coming to them, and much of it is dedicated to very light rail, metro extension and the new transport interchange. However, connectivity from local housing estates to these transport networks is key. What assurances can my hon. Friend give my constituents that every link in this chain will result in a truly integrated transport system?
Andrew Stephenson
Dudley is indeed pioneering research and development into very light rail, and I am pleased that the West Midlands Combined Authority recently signed off funding into the Dudley interchange. Mayor Andy Street’s vision is for it to be the best-connected region in the country, and the Chancellor has confirmed the £4.2 billion intra-city transport fund, as well as the levelling up fund, in the Budget. I am sure that, with his help, Dudley will get its fair share of transport infrastructure funding. I am looking forward to riding the metro to Dudley Zoo very soon.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
Investing in improved transport infrastructure is well recognised by my hon. Friend as a necessity for turbocharging our economy and levelling up. Beautiful Hastings and Rye has some of the most antiquated road and rail infrastructure in the country, which inhibits economic growth and is the reason why HS1 must be prioritised.
If we are serious about levelling up left-behind communities, does my hon. Friend not agree that HS1, as promised by previous Ministers, now needs to be delivered? What discussions has he had with the Treasury to ensure that funding will be available to finance such a vital project?
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s determination in drawing attention to this important local issue; this is the second time she has done so this week, I believe. As she will know, the strategic outline business case for the Kent and East Sussex coastal connectivity scheme is currently being progressed by Network Rail, and it is due to be submitted to the Department in April. I am sure that the rail Minister will be able to update her more in due course.
Elliot Colburn [V]
Network Rail has finished developing plans for the Croydon area remodelling scheme to help to unblock the Croydon bottleneck—one of the most congested parts of the rail network, which impacts 300,000 commuters every day on the Brighton main line as well as those in areas of suburban London such as Carshalton and Wallington. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that this scheme has Government support in order to make it a success?
Andrew Stephenson
I know that my hon. Friend has met the Rail Minister on numerous occasions to discuss the Croydon bottleneck and the impact on stations across his constituency. We recognise the importance of the issue and are continuing to work closely with Network Rail and operators to develop the scheme further.
Rob Butler [V]
My constituents are really enthusiastic about a piece of rail infrastructure that could bring a real benefit to their lives. No, they have not changed their minds about HS2; the railway they really want to see is the Aylesbury spur of East West Rail.
However, funding has so far not been secured, despite it being in the original proposals and despite the DFT’s own figures showing a stronger business case for East West Rail than for HS2. Will my hon. Friend commit to working across Government to get funding for the Aylesbury spur, which would reduce car use, cut emissions and help to level up my town?
Andrew Stephenson
As my hon. Friend is aware, in January the Government approved an additional £760 million of new funding to deliver East West Rail between Oxford and Milton Keynes. I know that he has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Rail Minister to make the case for connecting Aylesbury to East West Rail. I understand how important the connection is to his constituency, and we continue to explore the options.
Mark Eastwood [V]
The Penistone line stops at three stations in my constituency—Stocksmoor, Denby Dale and Shepley—and currently runs an hourly service, hampering the connectivity of those villages. There is genuine cross-party support for having the whole of the line upgraded so that it runs half-hourly services, levelling up all our communities. A delivery plan is already in place for this much-needed upgrade, so will the Minister agree to assist with co-ordinating this proposal with the Treasury and the relevant rail authorities?
Andrew Stephenson
As my hon. Friend will be aware, last week marked one year since the Government stepped in to take over the ailing Northern Rail franchise. Since then, Northern has transformed services with a huge investment in new trains and the retirement of Pacers, and completed the extension of platforms at more than 70 stations. He makes a strong case for increasing local services, and I know that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the Rail Minister, will be happy to meet him to discuss this issue.
Mrs Murray [V]
As my hon. Friend knows, I have long campaigned for the much-needed upgrade to the A38, which is the main trunk road through my constituency to the nearest city, Plymouth. I am working with Highways England and undertaking surveys, but in the light of the fantastic news that Plymouth is to become a freeport, will my hon. Friend revaluate the urgency of improvements, so that the whole of Cornwall can take advantage of Plymouth’s new status?
Andrew Stephenson
I congratulate Plymouth on its status as one of the eight new freeports announced in the Budget last week. Freeports will create national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce, thereby levelling up communities throughout the UK, creating new jobs and turbocharging our economic recovery. We are working across Government to support these exciting developments and will look closely at any changes to transport infrastructure that are required.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Our rail industry must play a pivotal role in fighting the climate crisis with ambitious plans for decarbonising transport infrastructure and extensive electrification. Shockingly, despite the UK’s being the country that pioneered rail, only 38% of our network is electrified—thanks to the Tory Government’s chronic failure to act. We have been left far behind by the likes of Germany, France, Italy and Spain, which have electrified the majority of their railways. Given that we do not have time for further delay and dithering, and to keep costs down, why will the Minister not commit, here and now, to a long-term rolling programme of electrification?
Andrew Stephenson
I politely remind the shadow Minister of the statistics: under the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010, only 63 miles of the railways were electrified; since 2010, we have already electrified 1,110 miles, and we continue to invest.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Government continue to deliver wide-ranging support measures to British ports, including unprecedented levels of direct funding such as grants.
Stephen Morgan [V]
Ministers continue to withhold the vital funds needed for Portsmouth international port to complete the post-Brexit infrastructure mandated by the Government’s own border-operating model. With full customs checks coming in July, what steps is the Minister taking to secure the vital funding needed to ensure that our local authority-owned port remains competitive and prosperous, and that the chaos we saw at Dover in December does not become a reality in my city?
Robert Courts
As a general rule, the “user pays” principle applies, so the Government would expect ports to pay for improvements themselves, but the Government have taken an unprecedented approach through the ports infrastructure fund to support as many ports as possible with grants. Portsmouth was awarded more than £17 million, which is the third-largest amount awarded to any port and is extremely significant funding. The hon. Gentleman’s city is, of course, part of the successful Solent freeport bid, which I am sure he welcomes.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
By 2035, all new cars and vans need to be zero emission at the tailpipe. We are investing £2.8 billion to support this transition.
Virginia Crosbie
Pentraeth Automotive on my island constituency of Ynys Môn is at the forefront of electric vehicle provision locally. Will the Minister consider providing support so that businesses like Pentraeth Automotive can retrain their skilled mechanics to ensure that electric vehicles can be maintained safely?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK is at the forefront of the electric-vehicle industry, and I want her constituency to play its part. We are working with the Institute of the Motor Industry to ensure that the UK’s mechanics workforce is well-trained and has the skills needed to safely repair electric vehicles. Through consultation with the automotive sector, the IMI has developed Techsafe, a register and professional standard for electric vehicle technicians that the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles has endorsed.
Stephen Metcalfe [V]
To be able to truly embrace the EV revolution, does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a comprehensive network of on-street residential charging points close to where people live, especially where they have no dedicated parking space? Will she work with local authorities to start this work now, so that that is one less barrier to EV adoption?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we are already working closely with local authorities. Our on-street residential charge point scheme has so far supported more than 105 different local authorities to fund more than 3,800 charge points. We have recently announced that £20 million will be made available under this scheme for the year 2021-22. We are working so closely with local authorities to ensure the maximum take-up of the scheme, because we do not want a lack of charging infrastructure to be a barrier to anyone wanting to transition to an EV.
Andrew Jones
Following on from the previous question, that charging infrastructure concern can be a barrier to purchase. We know that most owners of electric cars charge their vehicles at home. That often relies on their having a garage or drive, which is not always appropriate or possible in a block of flats or in a very urban area.
Will my hon. Friend keep the House updated on progress on charging facilities in the more built-up urban areas, because that is absolutely critical if we are to see significant take-up of these vehicles?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that we need to tackle all these barriers, which is why we have recently announced that we are changing the criteria for our EV charging schemes to include small businesses, leaseholders and those in rented accommodation, especially flats, to accelerate uptake. Worth up to £50 million, the updated schemes will complement a further £20 million that we are providing for our on-street charging scheme.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about electric vehicles, but the reality is that we have seen little in the way of concrete measures from this Government. We were promised 4,000 zero-emission buses by 2025, but we have heard little more about that—or, indeed, about the national bus strategy, which was expected months ago and has still yet to materialise.
It has now been a year since the Government published their transport decarbonisation plan. The Secretary of State himself said that
“Climate change is the most pressing environmental challenge of our time”,
yet all we have had is dither and delay. Although last week’s Budget saw the Chancellor freeze fuel duty for the 11th year running, costing the taxpayer about £1 billion and flying in the face of the commitment to tackle carbon emissions, this Government have a legal obligation, lest we forget, to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. When will they start delivering?
Rachel Maclean
Let me politely disagree strongly with the hon. Gentleman on the Labour Front Bench. I would need longer than this one simple question to answer the allegations that he has put to me. Shall we start with the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan? Shall we also refer to the transport decarbonisation plan, which, as I have now said three times, we will publish in the spring. The national bus strategy, as my colleagues have reminded me, will be brought forward very shortly. Not only that, but we are installing charge points up and down the country. We have already committed to phasing out petrol and diesel cars by 2030. We are leading the world in this fight against climate change, and we will continue to do so.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I can confirm to the hon. Member that neither I nor ministerial colleagues in the Department have discussed this matter with the Chancellor since the safeguarding directions were issued 11 days ago.
Neil Coyle [V]
I thank the Government for safeguarding the land for the Bakerloo line extension. This is a project that will not just improve transport across London, but create jobs and homes and provide a much-needed economic boost for the whole national economy. The next step, though, is that crucial funding. It is disappointing to hear that there have not been any discussions. What resources have the Department and the Treasury set aside to develop a single preferred option for the extension to ensure that construction is under way as soon as possible, to boost our national economy?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Chancellor has been a tad busy in the past week or so on a very important economic piece for the country. The Bakerloo line extension is a Transport for London project and the issuing of safeguarding directions actually represents the Government’s commitment to fund the project, but it protects the route from conflicting development that could have raised the cost of the project significantly in the future. His question is best aimed at the Mayor.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government have launched the global travel taskforce mark 2 in order to help facilitate international travel as we deal with this virus.
Antony Higginbotham
My right hon. Friend will be aware that thousands of manufacturing jobs in my constituency are reliant on the aerospace and aviation sector. What those people need more than anything else is aircraft in the air, flying again. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking with global partners, including looking at schemes such as the International Air Transport Association’s travel pass, to get aircraft flying again in a way that is safe and sustainable?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that mark 1 of the global travel taskforce introduced test to release to assist with this. Mark 2 will introduce travel certification by using schemes such as IATA’s travel pass or the World Economic Forum’s CommonPass. He will be interested to know that I have been having conversations with my US counterpart and many others around the world to get that travel going again. The report will be on 12 April.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State just mentioned 12 April for the global travel taskforce recommendations. Is that the date on which the public and the aviation industry will know what the rules will be, or is it just the date when the recommendations will be given to No. 10?
Grant Shapps
The Chair of the Transport Committee is absolutely right; 12 April is the date that we will report back, and we will make it public on the same day. Travel for leisure or other purposes will not resume or be allowed until 17 May at the earliest. It is important that people realise that that is the earliest date, but we are very keen to get the aviation sector that many Members across the House have talked about back in the air, and this is the route to get it there.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Department has approved £20 million of funding for the development of an outline business case for the midlands rail hub. We are working closely with Network Rail to apply the principles of Project SPEED to the development of this project to ensure that it can progress as quickly as possible.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
It is good to see you again this morning, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. The rail corridor to Lincoln, which the Minister knows well, has a proposed upgrade of signalling at Newark, as well as plans for faster and more frequent trains to my constituency of Lincoln. Some of these schemes are almost shovel-ready and can begin this year. Will my hon. Friend consider these schemes and help Lincoln to receive the train services that my constituents deserve?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Mr Speaker, I think we can both agree that my hon. Friend is a wonder to behold, as he demonstrates to us all that a sensible, coherent campaigning strategy—bringing together people and businesses, and demonstrating the potential economic growth that could result from schemes and infra-jstructure —leads to this Government delivering that infrastructure. One only has to look at the roads around his great city and the direct trains to London for which he has campaigned. Midlands Connect is developing a proposal, as he outlines, and if history is anything to go by, his resourcefulness will help to speed it through the process.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government are committed to levelling up rail infrastructure across the north. In that spirit, I am delighted to confirm that we have awarded £137 million to Network Rail to complete detailed design and deliver the Hope Valley capacity scheme. The scheme will transform journeys between the northern powerhouse cities of Manchester and Sheffield by removing bottlenecks on the Hope Valley line. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), who has campaigned relentlessly for the scheme since he was elected and has helped to get it over the line.
Cat Smith
May I take this opportunity to remind the Minister that my constituents in Fleetwood would like to be connected to the rail network?
I heard the Minister’s answer to my question, but I do not understand—perhaps he could help me out here—how he squares that with a 40% cut to Transport for the North’s budget.
Andrew Stephenson
I know about the proposals to reconnect Fleetwood; I know them very well, because they have been championed so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
Transport for the North, which, of course, was established under the Conservatives—has seen its funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail and the Rail North partnership increase year on year. Last year, TfN had funding available to it of £59 million for Northern Powerhouse Rail and of £680,000 for the Rail North partnership. For the next year, both those figures have increased—to £67 million and £700,000. We are getting on with delivering schemes. Whether it be the trans-Pennine route upgrade, the Hope Valley line or phase 2a of HS2 coming to the north of England, we are getting on with delivering.
Grahame Morris [V]
On that very point, will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the Prime Minister’s statement in which he denied that cuts were taking place to Transport for the North’s budget? Does the Minister believe that cutting core funding to Transport for the North by 40%, which is what is happening, freezing Northern Powerhouse Rail’s budget at £75 million —a third less than was requested—and mothballing plans to roll out contactless ticketing on services like the Tyne and Wear Metro will level up and improve transport infrastructure in the north?
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman has been in this House long enough to know that the Prime Minister is always right.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I have just told the House, the budget for Northern Powerhouse Rail available to Transport for the North last year was £59 million; next year it is £67 million. Looking at that funding alone, it has all the money it needs in order to deliver on the priorities in the north of England. At the same time, we are getting on with delivering, with £29 billion invested in transport across the north of England since 2010, while in the Budget we committed to over £40 billion more for transport and rail infrastructure projects, £17.5 billion in renewals and upgrades over the next three years, and £22.6 billion for HS2. We are getting on with delivering, levelling up and building back better from covid-19.
Damien Moore
The infrastructure that underpins the Southport to Manchester Piccadilly service, which serves my constituency, is part of the plan to bring in £400 million-worth of investment and to create jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that connecting people to jobs and attracting investment is a key part of the levelling-up agenda?
Andrew Stephenson
Fresh from securing £37.5 million for the towns deal for Southport in the Budget, I understand that yesterday my hon. Friend met the Rail Minister once again to make the case for his local rail services, as he has consistently done since he was elected. I can assure him that the industry taskforce will be doing its utmost to address the concerns he has raised while preserving the core aim of producing a simplified timetable that all passengers can rely on.
Aaron Bell
Newcastle-under-Lyme is the second largest town in the UK without a railway station of its own, and if the Minister gives my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) what he wants, we will be up to No. 1. Keele University is the only major British university without a railway station nearby. Will the Minister welcome the bid that I have submitted to the Restoring Your Railway ideas fund that would solve both those problems with a station in Newcastle and one at Silverdale for Keele University? Will he meet me to discuss the bid so that I can show him some of the details of how it will benefit my constituency?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend makes a very strong case for his constituency. As he correctly points out, the £500 million Restoring Your Railway fund is one of the many ways in which we are intending to level up the country and build back better. The Rail Minister, as chair of the panel, looks forward to reviewing the bid that my hon. Friend has submitted, and I know he would be happy to meet him to discuss the proposals further.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government regularly engage with Transport for London on the impacts of covid-19, and—dare I say?—the Mayor’s management of Transport for London.
Bob Blackman [V]
My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the current Mayor has increased council tax by 30%, brought TfL to the brink of bankruptcy with £12 billion of debt, even before the pandemic struck, and now wants to charge motorists for coming into the outskirts of London. Does he agree that it is time for a fresh start?
Grant Shapps
I cannot have my hon. Friend be unfair to the London Mayor; we do have to consider that covid has been a part of that. This Government have stumped up £3.4 billion to assist TfL so far, and we are talking to the Mayor and TfL again. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there was already a £494 million on-year deficit. Now the Mayor, through not having collected or raised the price of fares over the years, is considering a boundary tax to tax people without representation to enter London. It is appalling mismanagement of our rail services.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Domestic cruises will restart alongside domestic tourism and indoor hospitality. International cruises will be considered within the global travel taskforce.
Royston Smith
The cruise sector is worth more than £10 billion to the UK economy and supports more than 88,000 jobs. Southampton is the cruise capital of northern Europe, with 500 cruise ship visits per year, each one generating £2.5 million for the local economy. Cruises are covid-safe and they are ready to go, but they need three months’ notice to become operational. Will my hon. Friend work with his colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the Prime Minister’s road map includes cruises, so that operators have the confidence to start booking passengers?
Robert Courts
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the impressive steps taken by the cruise industry in its covid-19 framework, which was published in October 2020. He is right to celebrate the immense financial and employment contribution of the cruise industry to the UK, including to the Southampton, Itchen constituency, for which he speaks so powerfully. I am pleased that domestic cruises in England will be able to restart under step 3 of the road map, which will be no earlier than 17 May. The restart of international cruises will be considered through the global travel taskforce report on 12 April. My hon. Friend is right that travel advice remains a matter for the FCDO, but he can be absolutely sure that my officials and I will continue to engage with that Department.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently carried out a review on the progress of the devolution deal, and I understand that the outcome of that will be announced in due course.
Daniel Zeichner [V]
In the Budget last week, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was the only mayoral authority not to get money from the intra-city transport settlement. We are still awaiting the blocked £45 million in housing funding, and we got just 75% of the indicative amount for active travel, when everyone else got at least 95%. What have the Government got against Cambridgeshire? Isn’t the Mayor a chum?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Mayor is a chum, and I would like to think the hon. Member is a chum, too. The cities eligible for the intra-city fund announced in the spending review 2020 have been chosen with the appropriate governance and on the basis of a range of factors, including population, economic growth rates and congestion. The Government are already investing substantially in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough through the £1.5 billion A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon upgrade that was completed last year and a devolved allocation of £95 million from the transforming cities fund for 2020 to 2023, and we are also developing plans for a new Cambridge South station and, obviously, East West Rail.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Highways England is delivering its plan for 2020 to 2025, with sets of all-lane running motorway schemes being delivered over the current road investment period. We have committed £500 million to ensure these motorways are as safe as possible.
Sarah Champion [V]
Since its conversion to a smart motorway, the 10-mile stretch of the M1 between junctions 32 and 35A has seen an average of 68 breakdowns a month in live lanes. Each of these incidents has the potential to end in a tragedy. By contrast, in the three years prior to its conversion, not a serious incident occurred in which a vehicle was struck on the hard shoulder. When will the Government stop gambling with the lives of motorists and abandon these dangerous, ill thought out death traps?
Grant Shapps
I congratulate the hon. Lady for all her campaigning on this subject, and she knows that I share her passion. When I spoke to her a year ago today to explain the 18 different steps involved in the smart motorways stocktake, she warmly welcomed that work. Smart motorways have been under development since 2001 under the Blair-John Prescott Government. I think I am the first Secretary of State in 12 to carry out the stocktake and review, and I will not rest until these motorways are as safe as possible.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Government are investing £2 billion in active travel over the rest of this Parliament, much of which will go to local authorities. This is the biggest ever boost for cycling and walking.
Mr Bradshaw [V]
Many local authorities, including Conservative-run Devon and Labour-run Exeter, are working very well together to deliver on the Government’s vision. What will the Minister do about the small number of obstructionist local councils, such as Kensington and Chelsea in London, which, incredibly, does not have a single segregated bike lane in the whole borough and, furthermore, recently tore out a new temporary one that was very popular with local families, forcing those families and children back out on to a busy main road on their way to school?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, who is a new member of the Transport Committee, and look forward to working with him as we move forward on this agenda especially. We have met on this subject previously. He will know that local authorities across the country are doing a marvellous job. Devon County Council has received £1.6 million from the active travel fund in this financial year and is spending it very wisely. There are local authorities that have not consulted on schemes quite as well as we would have liked in the past. We are trying to rectify that, and we are working from the centre with local authorities that are struggling to deliver schemes, to ensure that they deliver them properly, with the appropriate consultation, and that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
We aim to please, Mr Speaker.
Schools are reopening this week, and many more people, including students and parents, are therefore making essential journeys, so I am delighted to announce that today we have released another 150,000 Fix Your Bike vouchers, helping people to get on to their bikes and back into active travel. Each voucher is worth £50 and will help more people get their old bikes fixed and roadworthy again—all part of our unprecedented £2 billion of active travel funding throughout this Parliament.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
I welcome the news that Transport for the South East has submitted its ambitious 30-year transport strategy, and my right hon. Friend is to have regard to that in setting policy and investment decisions. Decarbonisation is vital, and as Transport for the South East has shown, its ability to bring together local authorities, Network Rail, Highways England and others and act at scale with six other sub-national transport bodies puts them in a perfect position to help deliver our decarbonisation initiatives. What role does my right hon. Friend have in mind for STBs to help bring about the interventions needed to meet our climate goals?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: sub-national bodies are extremely important in helping to bring together what can be quite different, disparate systems within a sub-regional area, to ensure that the transport is effective but also, as she rightly says, decarbonised. I see their role as being pivotal to delivering not only good transport but our transport decarbonisation plan.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, I met some of the families of those who have died on smart motorways. I heard the pain and the devastation of those who have been affected by all-lane-running schemes. We last had an update on the number of deaths on smart motorways a year ago. Will the Secretary of State set out what the most recent number of fatalities on smart motorways is?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about public concern about smart motorways, which, as I mentioned before, I very much share. I was the first Transport Secretary to order a review and a stocktake, which published a year ago yesterday with an 18-point plan. Tomorrow, I will have an update on my desk that I have ordered from Highways England, which will give me all the latest data. The last information I have is the 39 deaths between 2015 and 2019.
Jim McMahon
I appreciate the answer, but I do not think it is acceptable at all that the data appears to be at the very least a year out of date about a scheme that has significant public interest and when there are grieving families who want to know the true impact. I ask the Secretary of State to improve and to press Highways England to improve its data collection on that issue.
Yesterday, Highways England launched a campaign that encourages drivers to sing a Pet Shop Boys song as a reminder to pull into a refuge. That reduces it down to an insult, insinuating that drivers who became stranded were somehow careless. They were not. They were the victims of an ill-conceived scheme that still leaves people at risk today. What the families really want to know is, what is being done to ensure that there are no further fatalities? At the last Transport orals, I asked the Transport Secretary to pick up the phone and to reinstate the hard shoulder. Did he do that, and if not, why not?
Grant Shapps
First, the figures to which I refer are national statistics. My understanding is that they have to be quality assured, and it is beyond the control of the Secretary of State to quote figures that have not yet been checked. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s last point about why we do not simply reinstate the hard shoulder— and I know that is his policy—I know from the work that has been carried out that the statisticians, who have worked very hard on this, tell us that per 1 billion miles travelled, which is the way roads are measured, there are about a third more deaths where there are hard shoulders, because one in 12 fatalities actually takes place on a hard shoulder.
As I mentioned before, I am the first Secretary of State to undertake a full stocktake and review. Tomorrow, I will have a report, and I will come back to this House and report on it very quickly afterwards. These are not new things; they were introduced in 2001 by John Prescott. However, I do absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see the problem resolved. It is important to know that, while I mentioned the 39 deaths on so-called smart motorways, at the same time there were 368 deaths on regular motorways, so it is very important that we take all of these steps.
On an education campaign so that people understand how to use all motorways, not just smart motorways, the £5 million campaign was one of the calls of the stocktake. Many of the victims’ families, including Meera Naran, who lost her eight-year-old son, have welcomed the fact that the Government are spending a record £5 million to ensure that people know what to do when they do break down.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I am delighted to hear about the progress that has been made on the Orwell bridge, which was the subject of an Adjournment debate between my hon. Friend and I a few months back. I am also delighted to hear about the success of the freeport bid. Obviously, good transport links will be essential. We will consider the implications of freeports on local transport networks in future infrastructure investment decisions.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Grant Shapps
I know from our many conversations of the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm to get greater control of bus services in his area. I can reassure him, exactly as he has just asked, that not only is that our intention, but—and this will interest other Members of the House who have asked about it today—he will not have to wait very long at all for the bus strategy.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for Wakefield. A bypass for Denby Dale would be a matter for the local highways authority—in this case, Kirklees Council—to consider, but it is something it could consider as a bid into the Government’s recently announced £4.8 billion levelling up fund, which has improving local transport connectivity as one of its top priorities.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to Christian Matheson—[Interruption.] We will come back to him.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Grant Shapps
The £2.8 billion referred to earlier is designed to do exactly that—for example, investment in a megafactory or a gigafactory to produce those batteries, which is one of the largest components of bringing down the price so that cars are affordable. It is also worth considering that we already have more rapid chargers per 100 miles driven than any country in the EU.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with that situation, so I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention, and I assure him that I will look into it this afternoon. On the wider point, he is right to say that right now people are being told to stay at home and avoid travelling. We must do a lot of work to encourage people back on to our public transport—it is important we do that—and as I have hinted to others, he will not have to wait long for a national bus strategy, which I hope will answer all his questions.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
The Department is considering my hon. Friend’s ideas fund bid for the East Didsbury to Stockport Metrolink line. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as part of the assessment process, and I am sure my hon. Friend the rail Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
Andrew Stephenson
It was worth the wait—it is always a delight to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that as part of the integrated rail plan we are looking at a range of major investments across the north of England. I am keen to see connections to Crewe enhanced, and Royal Assent has now been given for phase 2a that will take HS2 into Crewe. We have also been consulting with the Crewe north connection on further investments, as part of the design refinement consultation for HS2’s western leg into Manchester. I am keen to speak to the hon. Gentleman about this issue. I have been working with local stakeholders, I have met Growth Track 360, and I am keen for us to work together to achieve this.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister said that it is not a case of to be or not to be. We are committed to bringing the benefits of high-speed rail to the north of England and work on the integrated rail plan is progressing well, but Ministers need to take their time to fully consider all the evidence from all stakeholders, including the National Infrastructure Commission and the Government’s own analysis, before finalising the plans. We therefore hope to publish the IRP this spring.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
The Government recognise that changes in travel patterns, which have been accelerated by covid-19, need to be reflected, and we need to accommodate them in a more flexible style of working and travelling. We understand concerns about the cost of some rail fares and the impact that can have on people’s budgets. The Department is actively working with train operators to develop a solution that offers better value and convenience for those who commute flexibly, including on GTR routes, and we will provide a further update on that as part of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
I am very sorry to hear about what the hon. Gentleman’s local Labour council has been doing with the traffic situation there. I will ensure that the Roads Minister meets urgently with Ealing Council to try to address his concerns, and those of other Ealing Members, over their traffic process.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I believe he met my noble Friend the Roads Minister just last week to press the case once again. Highways England is undertaking a full technical review of the options for that junction, to obtain certainty over project costs. That will inform future decisions about how to proceed.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Grant Shapps
Driving tests are among the many things for which there is a big backlog due to the pandemic. I know that because my children are desperate to take their driving tests—or will be shortly. We are doing everything we can to bring them forward, particularly so that people who have already taken their theory test do not end up in a position where they have to pay again. We are doing everything we can. We have already extended the period of time. We have an issue in that we do not want people to take their practical test with a theory test that is so old that it would create new dangers on the roads, but I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
Grant Shapps
On 12 April, my hon. Friend can look forward to seeing that report published. We will ensure that it contains a route not only out of lockdown for travel but, all being well, and as long the vaccination programme is going as it is at the moment here and internationally, for international travel. I stress to the House that while we are in control of our vaccination programme—44% of our adult population are now vaccinated—we do not have control over other countries’ vaccinations. That is why we think we will require a combination of vaccination and testing for international travel to work again. There is a lot to be done. We are working hard, along with my hon. Friend the Aviation Minister, and we will report back to the House on 12 April.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for five minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I would like to make a statement. All members of the parliamentary community will have been deeply affected by the distressing news relating to Sarah Everard. The House service will be issuing a clarification for the media about certain matters which have been reported. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that it is extremely important now to exercise caution and avoid references to any ongoing investigation. Although the matter is not at this stage formally covered by the House’s sub judice resolution, we all need to be very careful to make sure we do not say anything which could prejudice any such investigation.
Before we come to the business question, I also want to make a statement following the point of order that was raised at the end of yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions by the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) concerning the accuracy of the statement made by the Prime Minister. I want to make it clear what my responsibility is with regard to answers, and what the responsibilities are of those giving them. It is long established that the Speaker is not, and cannot be, responsible for the content of ministerial answers. “Erskine May” says:
“The Speaker’s responsibility for questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House. Responsibility in other respects rests with the Member who proposes to ask the question, and responsibility for answers rests with Ministers.”
All Members should correct the record if they make an inaccurate statement to the House. They can do so by raising a point of order or in debate, or, in the case of Ministers, they can make a statement or issue a written ministerial statement. The Government’s own ministerial code could not be clearer about what is expected of Ministers. It says:
“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
The Speaker cannot be dragged into arguments about whether a statement is inaccurate or not. This is a matter of political debate. All Members of this House are honourable. They must take responsibility for correcting the record if a mistake has been made. It is not dishonourable to make a mistake, but to seek to avoid admitting one is a different matter.
I said when I was elected Speaker that we needed to treat each other and the electorate with respect. What I have talked about today is an important part of that, and I hope all Members will act in that spirit. I have been very clear, and so I do not wish to take points of order on this matter now. If necessary, I have no doubt that we will return to this issue some time in the future.
Business of the House
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 15 March will include:
Monday 15 March—Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 16 March—Conclusion of the Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing And Courts Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 17 March—Opposition day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 18 March—Debate on a motion on the UK’s commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, followed by a general debate on World Water Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 19 March—The House may sit on Friday 19 March for further consideration of private Members’ Bills. This is subject to the progress of business and to the approval of a sittings motion.
The provisional business for the week commencing 22 March will include:
Monday 22 March—Consideration of Lords amendments, including consideration of Lords message to the Trade Bill, followed by the remaining stages of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords].
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. I hope he will join me in wishing for speedy boarding of the private Members’ Bills on Friday, with no disruption.
I know that the Leader of the House takes seriously a lack of responses to hon. Members from Government Departments. He will be concerned to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) has not received a response from the Department of Health and Social Care to a question from 9 October, or to two from 19 October. I know she has written to the Leader of the House. Can we ensure that she gets a response?
The Leader of the House is very keen to have us back here, but we seem to be having a lot more Zoom meetings. The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is having a Zoom meeting, and the chair of the Trade and Agriculture Commission has invited us to a Zoom meeting. It is quite difficult in terms of accountability, because not everybody can join these meetings. In addition, the Official Reporters work very hard to make sure that things are on the record. In keeping with what you have just said, Mr Speaker, we need to ensure that things are on the record, and the relevant people need to come to the House to provide accountability.
My hon. Friend the shadow Housing Minister has asked where the Building Safety Bill is. It was published in draft on 20 July, but it has not had its First Reading. It contains important improvements for the safety of residents in high-rise buildings and the building safety regulator. May we have an update?
I know that the Leader of the House will be concerned about the National Audit Office report on local government finances during the pandemic, which was published yesterday, 10 March. Many face significant gaps in funding. We are talking about statutory services such as adult social care and special needs libraries; all those may have to be cut. The shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said that councils have lost 60% of their funding in the last decade. Will the Leader of the House confirm that we will have a debate on the NAO report in Government time, particularly as our constituents may have to pay for it in the 5% council tax increase?
We also need a statement on whether councils are actually getting, pound for pound, what they have spent during the pandemic. We know that the Government have got the money, because they had £37 billion for Test and Trace. I know that the Leader of the House, because he is very keen on making sure that public money is spent wisely, will want to debate the Public Accounts Committee report on Test and Trace, which was published yesterday. It said that there is
“no clear evidence to judge”
the “overall effectiveness” of Test and Trace. It was supposed to be a game changer. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has said that
“test and trace was having only a marginal impact on transmission”
and the NAO said that there was low compliance, yet there is £37 billion of committed expenditure. We now have Serco, one of the companies involved, paying out dividends to its directors. That is appalling.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement. I am going to ask the Leader of the House whether he will correct the record. Will he write and place a letter in the Library, having checked the Official Report from January 2020 to see what exactly the Opposition did? I will repeat it again. The shadow Secretary of State for Health said, “The House will not be divided on this.”
Let us see what the Minister said. He said that 1% for nurses’ pay would cost three quarters of a billion pounds, so—this is a rough calculation—2.1% would cost £1.5 billion. We know that the £37 billion is in the accounts of the Department of Health and Social Care. The head of NHS England said that 2.1% was allocated when the funding was agreed in 2018. We cannot trust the Government now to keep their word, to protect the NHS, or with the finances. May we have a statement on Monday clearing all this up, as the press secretary apparently cannot, or will not, announce it from the £2.9 million bunker?
It is wonderful news that Nazanin has had her tag taken off and that she will hopefully be home soon. There is no word on Anousheh. He was a dutiful son who was visiting his mother. Kylie Moore-Gilbert has said that if her ordeal was made public, she would not have had a 10-year sentence.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for celebrating International Women’s Day and Commonwealth Day on Monday. It is Mothering Sunday on Sunday. I do not know whether you are aware of the survey by the Office for National Statistics, which said that, in the pandemic, women spent more time on household chores than men, and that three quarters of women were emergency educating compared with just over half of men. A Mumsnet survey found that women are worried that women’s equality is
“going back to the 1970s”
at work and home, and in society. We wish everyone a happy Mothering Sunday, and our thoughts go out to Sarah Everard’s family.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed our thoughts do go out to Sarah Everard’s family. The right hon. Lady is right to raise that and the more general point about the burden that has fallen on women during the pandemic. That is a point very fairly and well made, and the men of the United Kingdom should be very grateful for that. It has been a very difficult time for many families.
I share the right hon. Lady’s pleasure that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has had her tag removed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to the President of Iran and made absolutely clear that there is no reason to hold, detain or keep Nazanin any longer. She ought to be free to leave. As the right hon. Lady knows, this is an issue that the Government take very seriously and have been working on consistently, and we must and will continue to do so.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that it would be good if the private Members’ Bills that are down for tomorrow were attended to speedily, though that is out of my hands. I do know some of the tricks of the trade when it comes to filibustering, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not feel that they wish to use those tricks of the trade next week.
The right hon. Lady made the point that people coming to the House to make statements that are on the record is better than endless Zoom calls. That is quite right. I think that Zoom calls do have a place and it is very helpful to give cross-party briefings, but the Floor of the House is where the real business takes place.
As regards the draft Building Safety Bill, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is certainly working on that. That is a matter of Government policy and the Government intend to bring that forward.
Moving on to the right hon. Lady’s more contentious questions, starting with support for local councils, £35 billion is not bad going, is it? It is helpful to councils up and down the country, and £4.6 billion of that has been un-ringfenced, so there has been very, very considerable support. That has gone across the country, so £9.5 billion has gone to the north, with £6 billion for the midlands, £7 billion for London and £4 billion for the south-west. Councils have received huge financial support from the taxpayer. Ultimately, there is only one taxpayer and how taxes are paid is merely a question of how we divide it up. Great support has been given.
As regards Test and Trace, it has done astonishing things. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is aware that 9.1 million people have been contacted, thanks to Test and Trace, who might otherwise have spread the virus. We are carrying out a minimum of 750,000 tests a day, and with the return to school and the lateral flow tests, that has gone to over 1 million in recent days. People are being contacted. They are being tested and, yes, of course this involves the private sector, but the private sector is part of how our economy is structured. We cannot say with any sense of reasonableness that the drug companies—big pharma—that have helped us to get the vaccine are marvellous, but that the companies involved in the roll-out of Test and Trace are somehow improper. They are not. They have done a fantastic job and it is a considerable success, in spite of what the much-respected Public Accounts Committee has to say. Even Homer nods, would be my answer to that.
Regarding the issue of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s comments, the right hon. Lady seemed to change the goalposts a bit. She started talking about a vote a year ago, whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to something two years ago, so there is a lack of clarity about what on earth the Opposition are asking about. If the Opposition cannot bring themselves to answer clear questions, it is not surprising that they then do not understand the answer.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted to clear it up. Her Majesty’s Opposition voted against the Queen’s Speech at the beginning of this Session. The increases that this Government proposed in NHS funding were a centrepiece of the Gracious Speech, and their votes against the Queen’s Speech were an attempt to stifle the Government’s agenda before it had even begun. The Queen’s Speech made clear our intention to establish in law for the first time the NHS’s multi-year funding settlement, a testament to how seriously the Government take funding the NHS. We have delivered a 12.8% increase in nurses’ pay over three years and we are seeing a 34% increase in nurses’ applications. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not ask about a Bill. He asked about a document, and it seems to me that the Queen’s Speech is a document because it is printed, on very fine paper normally—it used to be on vellum.
We have to live within our means. Everyone recognises that. There is not a single person in this country who does not recognise the phenomenal contribution made by the NHS over the last year, by doctors, nurses and all those who work in the NHS, but the Government—the taxpayer—have an enormous deficit, one of the biggest in our history, and what is happening is reasonable within the context that nurses have already received a 0.7% increase. They will receive a further 1% increase in the next financial year, as will all NHS workers. It is worth bearing in mind that the last time there was a 1% increase in NHS pay, it led to an average 2.7% increase for the average worker in the NHS because of grade increments. So actually, the situation is considerably better than is being painted by the Opposition, and the admiration and appreciation of what people who work in the NHS have done is shared across the whole country, but the country has to live within its means. That is a hard truth that the Opposition seek to run away from.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will see that the restoration and renewal sponsor body’s latest report, out today, recommends exactly the same as the report in 2014 and the report in 2016, and draws the same conclusion as the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill that I introduced in 2018. My right hon Friend must surely see that the risks of a major asbestos leak, a sewage failure, or, indeed, a devastating fire, such as we saw at Notre Dame, are very high and remain very high, and we have virtually no contingency for this place. My personal motto is JFDI, and I would like to offer that to my right hon. Friend to gird his loins to make some progress.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I always prefer the motto of Queen Elizabeth I: semper eadem—always the same—which makes a very good motto. Or, if you like, Mr Speaker, honi soit qui mal y pense, which is also a jolly good motto from the Order of the Garter.
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of restoration and renewal. It is crucial that this building has its wiring improved and the basic services made effective. On the fire safety issue, a considerable amount of work has been done; the new fire safety system is being tested currently, and I am getting regular reports on that. It is a mist system with significant excess capacity, which means that there is the prospect of extending it further. I am glad to say that that has made considerable progress since my right hon. Friend was the Leader of the House.
Regardless of all these reports, regardless of what people have suggested, this has to get value for money for the taxpayer. We have suddenly heard talk of costs of £10 billion to £20 billion coming up. We cannot say that to our constituents. We in this House have the responsibility to protect taxpayers’ money. The other place, it must be remembered, does not. We are responsible, responsive and answerable to our constituents. Yes, we need to redo the wiring. Yes, we need to ensure that this place is safe and secure, but we must not turn this House of Commons into Disneyland.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The transition period continues, and I again make a plea to the Leader of the House to do all he can to ensure the speedy return of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to his place in this situation.
I also welcome today’s debate on the celebration of International Women’s Day. However, while we battle the covid pandemic, there is a hidden pandemic of domestic abuse during lockdown. The World Health Organisation has reported that one in three women globally—around 736 million—have been subjected to physical or sexual violence in their homes during this pandemic period. I ask the Leader of the House to do all he can to ensure that the Government take steps finally to ratify the Istanbul convention, as had been agreed in 2017 under the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill presented by Eilidh Whiteford, a colleague at the time. I hope that that can be brought forward with some speed.
Last week, I asked for an Opposition Day debate in the name of the Scottish National party. It has been granted, and I commend the Leader of the House for the pace at which that was brought forward. I have no doubt that he is eagerly anticipating the topics to be debated. However, I am aware that the time for that debate is not protected, so may I ask whether it is possible for it to be protected, or that every step possible is taken to ensure that we have the full time available to us?
Last month, the Prime Minister claimed that directly awarded covid contracts were there on the record “for everyone to see”. We now know that this was widely removed from the actuality. Indeed, the Government broke the law. Does the Leader of the House agree that supporting my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill would help to rebuild public trust, enable our procurement systems to be protected, and enable us to build back better as we come out of the pandemic?
Finally, I echo the comments of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House about Sarah Everard and send my thoughts to her family at this very, very difficult time.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) celebrated his birthday this week, so may I, on behalf of the House, wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns of the day?
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) is absolutely right to raise the issue of domestic abuse. I am glad to say that the Domestic Abuse Bill is making good progress in the House of Lords. I hope it will come back to this House in reasonably good time, so we can have a Bill on the statute book that helps people, protects people and secures people. It is, of course, about more than just passing laws and conventions; it is about changing society’s attitude, and an understanding that domestic abuse is wrong, that it is serious and that a domestic assault is just as serious an offence as any other assault outside the domestic context.
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s plea for protection for his Opposition day debate. I would say in response that having managed to get the Opposition day debate—ask and it shall be given; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto ye—but I am not sure I can promise protected time. However, Mr Speaker has no doubt heard the request in regard to urgent questions and I have heard it in regard to statements. It is sometimes a very difficult balancing act when Members feel a statement or urgent question is necessary, but it is, generally speaking, the aim to ensure that Opposition days are reasonably protected.
Finally, on covid contracts, I just fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think we can be really proud of the honesty of our governmental systems in this country, regardless of the party in power. I do not think we should throw around charges of dodgy dealing lightly, because we should have great confidence in the honesty of our public systems. Normally we have a system that takes three to six months to award contracts. We faced an emergency. It would have been ridiculous for red tape to hold up the delivery of contracts. The contracts were given to Labour-supporting people as well as to Conservatives, so it is recognised that people who have interests in party politics can also provide PPE. We went from producing 1% domestically to 70%, and the vaccine roll-out has been a terrific success, dependent on the private sector. I think we should take great comfort from the efficiency of our private sector and the honesty of our governmental systems.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Farmers in my constituency, like others across the UK, suffer great emotional and financial loss every year as a result of dog attacks on livestock. National Farmers Union Cymru and the Farmers’ Union of Wales have been working with the north Wales police rural crime team to make the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 fit for purpose in the 21st century. Will the Leader of the House support me in finding time for a debate in Government time on this important subject?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Representing a rural constituency, I appreciate how serious a concern it is. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a recent livestock worrying roundtable, which sounds a deeply uncomfortable thing to have. None the less, it had a livestock worrying roundtable last week with the north Wales police rural crime team and representatives from veterinary organisations, where technical questions on the use of DNA sampling in prosecuting an attack were discussed. I am aware it is something DEFRA is looking at. I encourage my hon. Friend, in her effort to make sure DEFRA considers it more and more, to seek an Adjournment debate on this matter, but I will pass on her comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
We have been led to believe that it might be the Government’s intention to retain Thursday 25 March for Government business, which will no doubt be a disappointment to, among others, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). However, as always, should any time on days other than Thursdays become available, the Backbench Business Committee has a number of tasty morsels to add to the parliamentary menu.
I have been alerted to the fact that we have a situation in our schools where, if a student has a covid positive lateral flow test in school which proves to be a false positive when countermanded by a negative polymerase chain reaction test, the current guidance is that they still have to self-isolate and unnecessarily miss even more of their schooling. Can we have a ministerial statement to clear this up and get these young people back to school—and their families back to work, because isolating has to happen for the whole family?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I note the hon. Member’s request for 25 March and for time when available. Of course, 25 March is the feast of the Annunciation, so it may be an opportunity to have a debate on the importance of the Annunciation in the general development of our nation. I appreciate that he would like other days to be available too.
I understand that one in 1,000 lateral flow tests are false positives, so it is a rare occurrence. The circumstances that the hon. Member outlines are therefore usual, but he makes a good point about the secondary test not being authoritative, and I will take that up on his behalf with the Department of Health and Social Care.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]
Now that we have a road map of sorts for the House of Commons, what are my right hon. Friend’s plans for proceedings in the Chamber, including for voting, by which I mean what does he see as temporary and what does he see as permanent? Put another way, with reference to his earlier quote, will he be channelling his inner Elizabeth I with respect to this place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, but I encourage my hon. Friend to come to the Chamber to make his brilliant points, because there is no restriction other than the numbers within the Chamber. MPs have a right dating back to 1340 to come to this House, and I encourage them to exercise that right now that schools are back.
The return of MPs and staff gradually to the estate was approved by the Commission earlier this week, and it broadly mirrors the national road map. Many of these matters are for the Commission and Mr Speaker, and some of them are for decision by the House. However, the measures were agreed by consensus on the basis that they were temporary. If people want to keep some of these measures permanently, they must make the case for them and bring them in at some later date, but we must restore the status quo ante first, because that was the basis on which people agreed to the changes, and they would feel cheated—and rightly so—if anything else were done.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The Department for International Trade’s parliamentary export programme launched this year. Businesses in my constituency will be able to participate in a series of briefings over the coming months run by the Department and assisted by Scottish Development International and Scottish chambers. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on how the UK Government can support companies to start exporting or expand their exports and adjust to the changing trade environment after Brexit?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The Government have a wide range of measures with which they support businesses that wish to export, including the export credit guarantee scheme, the use of embassies to help people to export and guidance that is available. To give that a higher profile so that more people know what support is available is extremely worth while. While I cannot promise a specific debate, her point is one that I am sure the Department will want to follow up on.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the issue raised so eloquently in last night’s Adjournment debate by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski): the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the strategic threat it constitutes to our central and eastern European friends and allies? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), agreed with the analysis by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham but stopped short of agreeing with his recommendations for action we can take. This is a very serious matter, and it deserves deeper and wider consideration.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the important Adjournment debate that was held yesterday by our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It is a useful example of how important Adjournment debates can be in raising issues of national significance. There are currently no autonomous UK sanctions being imposed with respect to Nord Stream 2, and it would not be right to speculate on future sanction designations from the Dispatch Box this morning. None the less, the UK remains concerned about Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European energy security and the interests of Ukraine. Our focus continues to be on regulation, diversification and decarbonisation of sources of supply, and we will continue to work closely with our European allies on these issues, although the implications of the pipeline may be something that my right hon. Friend’s Intelligence and Security Committee is interested in looking into.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
Like women across the country, I have not been able to stop thinking about Sarah Everard; my thoughts are with those who knew and loved her. All women know the fear of walking home at night. We hold keys tightly between our fingers, we quicken our pace, and we pretend to make phone calls. It is almost second nature.
But women should be able to walk home without fear. Does the Leader of the House agree that we, as parliamentarians, should make it clear that the emphasis must be on tackling violence against women and girls and the norms that too often sustain it, rather than victim-blaming narratives that say women should not be on the streets at night?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady—she is absolutely right. Everybody in this country should feel free to walk the streets at night safely and securely, and women should be as free to do that as men. The best way to ensure that is by tackling crime, making our streets safer and getting the extra 20,000 police on the street.
There is nothing more reassuring than seeing a police officer in uniform when walking the streets, and that is a comfort that we in this country hope to be able to continue to take, and to take more of, as more police join the various forces up and down the country. I never thought I would agree so wholeheartedly with a question from the hon. Lady.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
TSB in Radcliffe recently closed, and it was the only bank in the town. That has resulted in footfall in the town decreasing drastically, as I discussed with representatives from Radcliffe market recently, and TSB’s branch in Prestwich in my constituency is due to close next month.
As we are talking about levelling up and the regeneration of our towns, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the importance of banking and cash machines so that we can access cash on our high streets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that the presence of bank branches on the high street is a concern for many Members and their constituents. Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of cash and access to banks to the daily lives of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly those in vulnerable groups.
Although I can understand the dissatisfaction when banks close their branches, decisions on opening and closing branches are taken by the management team of each bank on a commercial basis. It would not be right for the Government to intervene in such decisions. Banks must balance customer interests, market competition and other commercial factors when they consider their strategies. Since May 2017, the major high street banks have been signed up to the access to banking standard, which commits them to work with customers and communities to minimise the impact of branch closures.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Nature is declining all over the world at an unprecedented rate. Every year we are losing species and habitats, yet nature is important to our survival, quality of life and mental health. The next international convention on biodiversity is imminent; will the Leader of the House commit to bringing the Environment Bill back to the House as soon as possible after Easter, so that the UK will have ambitious targets to restore nature?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Environment Bill is in the other place and the Government have every intention of bringing it back as soon as it can complete its passage. It is subject to a carry-over, so there is no risk of it falling at Prorogation; it is a highlight of the Government’s programme. The commitment to nature is enormous, as has been shown in the ocean designations that have been created around British territories to ensure that the oceans are safeguarded. We have done more in that regard than almost any other country in the world.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
Our high streets have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, with many businesses forced to close. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate to consider the support available for reopening our high streets, especially across Stoke-on-Trent, so that our retailers, hairdressers, beauty salons and hospitality businesses can start off on a strong footing when they are allowed to reopen?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have set out their road map cautiously to ease lockdown restrictions, including the reopening of non-essential retail no earlier than 12 April, subject to the data. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have reconvened a small working group of retailers and local authorities to discuss and work together on how best to reopen the relevant sectors, so the Government’s approach is co-designed with the business community.
So far, the Government have provided local authorities in England with £50 million of taxpayers’ money through the reopening high streets safely fund, with grants being available to apply for until the end of June 2021. In addition to the financial support already provided, the Chancellor has announced that Her Majesty’s Government will provide additional one-off restart grants for businesses in England in the non-essential, retail, hospitality, leisure, personal care and accommodation sectors. That new restart grant scheme will provide £6,000 for non-essential businesses.
The Government continue to provide eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England with 100% business rates relief until 30 June 2021, followed by 66% business rates relief from the period 1 July 2021 to 1 March 2022. A great deal is happening, but my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue because we want to see our high streets come back booming when we reopen.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House and all House staff for the restarted hybrid petitions debates; just this week, petitions signed by more than 370,000 petitioners have been debated.
I want to raise an issue pertinent to this week, which marks International Women’s Day. As a precaution, all pregnant women are automatically classed as clinically vulnerable to covid-19. The Petitions Committee recommended back in September that furlough be extended to expectant mothers who cannot socially distance at work or work from home. Government funding through the furlough scheme cannot be used for that purpose, and we have heard worrying reports of pregnant women struggling to come to fair arrangements with their employers.
I again urge the Government to reconsider and listen to calls from Maternity Action and others for expectant mothers to be eligible for furlough if they are unable to work safely. Will the Leader of the House find time for a broader debate on how we prevent the pandemic from deepening pre-existing gender inequalities in the workplace?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hybrid Westminster Hall is getting important petitions debated. It is a very effective way of ensuring that the matters of the greatest concern to our constituents are aired.
It is obviously important that businesses work with their staff to ensure that they are comfortable going back to work and that there is consideration for all sorts of factors that may have an effect on people returning. Pregnancy, inevitably, is a very important one of those. Employers have a duty—a legal obligation—to ensure that their workplaces are secure. I think these issues are best left between employers and employees, rather than having potentially heavy-handed Government intervention.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend make parliamentary time available this Session for the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill—the Pets (Microchips) Bill? Tuk’s law and Gizmo’s law campaigners have fought for many years to protect the welfare of dogs, cats and other pets, together with the rights of their owners. I believe that it is a Bill that the whole House will be eager to support.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has written to me on this matter, and he will be aware that there is a sitting Friday tomorrow for the remaining stages of eight private Members’ Bills to take place. As I said when sitting Fridays were suspended, I brought forward the motion reluctantly following representations made to me from across the House. I committed to ensuring that a motion was brought forward to bring back sitting Fridays at the earliest opportunity when it was possible and practical, which is why there will be a further motion for 19 March if tomorrow goes well and if it is a productive and useful session. That would allow for Second Readings.
I congratulate my hon. Friend, because he is using parliamentary procedures entirely properly. A ten-minute rule Bill does not normally become legislation in the Session in which it is introduced, but it begins a campaign that raises the heat on the Government to do things. I note that he is turning up the gas mark with his question to me today.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have always thought that the best way to deal with some of the historical problems that the Rhondda faces is getting the Senedd to work hand in hand with Parliament as a team. That is especially true because we have some major infrastructure projects that really need financial support. We have already talked about the tips that need sorting out, and there is the Rhondda Fach relief road, the Rhondda tunnel and a whole series of drains that have major problems because of the honeycombing underneath that results from the historical legacy of the mines.
Will the Leader of the House please make sure that there is a proper discussion of the levelling up fund so that this really is a case of Westminster and the Senedd working hand in hand? Will he make sure there is an opportunity for valleys MPs to sit down and discuss this properly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Then perhaps we can have a debate in the House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. It is important that all parts of the United Kingdom are able to benefit from efforts to level up. One of the advantages of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is that it has made it possible for Her Majesty’s Government to fund schemes across the United Kingdom rather than simply in England. He is right to call for further discussions to see how this can be done.
There are applications going in for the levelling-up fund now, and there are a further 49 deals to be awarded. It is about working together as one United Kingdom. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is very keen to settle these issues, too, so I think that there may be considerable cross-party agreement among Welsh MPs in this House on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]
Rugby league is of great cultural importance to communities like Leigh; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome the return of Leigh Centurions to the rugby super league. Will he join me in supporting Leigh Centurions fans to create a category 1 rugby league academy? Furthermore, may I ask for a debate on the benefits such academies can provide to young people in constituencies like Leigh across the north?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate Leigh Centurions on their fantastic achievement. I do not really know how fantastic their achievement is, but it sounds extremely good, and I hope that my hon. Friend will explain it to me in more detail at some point.
Hosting the rugby league world cup later this year will provide a fantastic opportunity to recover, grow, and bring people together. It is the start of our efforts to unite and level up outcomes for people in communities across the UK as we seek to build back better. If I have not confessed it already, I think my knowledge of cricket is a little bit greater than my knowledge of rugby league, but I am looking forward to being educated by my hon. Friend—and, by the looks of it, by Mr Speaker as well.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it has been an extremely difficult week for the family and friends of the 16-year-old who was killed in my neighbouring constituency of Rhondda, as well as for the loved ones of Sarah Everard, whose case I know we are all closely following. No one should live in fear of male violence, which is a topic we should be regularly speaking up on, and not just in an annual debate to commemorate International Women’s Day. Will he therefore commit to a debate on male violence in Government time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady makes a really important point, which I would perhaps answer in a slightly different way. What this House does that is of the greatest importance is not to have debates on particular issues but to legislate. That is why I am particularly pleased that, unusually for a Second Reading debate, we have two days on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, because when we legislate we change the law—we actually do things. When we have debates, we may develop views but we do not actually do things. Likewise, the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is in the House of Lords, does things. We should really focus the mind of this House on legislating so that we can improve things in the way the hon. Lady is calling for.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) [V]
The anniversary of the first lockdown—the day that changed everything in this country—is rapidly approaching: it will be with us on 23 March. I am working with Variety, the children’s charity, among others, to ensure that that date is commemorated so that we remember those who died and those who have lost so much, thank those who have done so much, and also look forward to a brighter future as lockdown lifts. Can the Leader of the House assure me that the House, too, will commemorate that date and have a minute’s silence? In doing so, can I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your willingness to ensure that the House commemorates 23 March—the National Day of Reflection?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is going to be important for us to remember the people who have died during this national pandemic. Obviously the proposal for a minute’s silence is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, but there would be absolutely no objection—indeed, there would be support—from Her Majesty’s Government. It may be, Mr Speaker, that your Chaplain would like to hold a service on that day to have a commemoration. I think that it will be a prayerful day for the nation.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
As Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s local MP, I have raised the issue of the £400 million that the UK owes Iran with three Prime Ministers and four Foreign Secretaries so far. In a call to the Prime Minister yesterday, Iranian President Rouhani all but confirmed that resolving this debt was the key to diplomatic progress, and could help Nazanin’s case. Will the Leader of the House finally admit that there is a clear link between the two, or at least allow a debate in Government time to test their arguments?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No. The hon. Lady has quite rightly campaigned for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as has the shadow Leader of the House. However, it would be quite wrong to link payments of any money to the release of somebody who is improperly detained. Once Her Majesty’s Government go down that route, every badly run country in the world will hold us to ransom via our citizens; we must not do that. We must be absolutely clear that the UK Government do not pay for the release of hostages, whether they are held by states or by individuals. To link these two issues would be a dangerous change of very, very long-standing Government policy.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It saddens me to say that Labour-run Hyndburn Borough Council announced that it will be closing the baths at Mercer Hall in Great Harwood. We saw the same happen with Labour-run Rossendale Borough Council and Haslingden baths. All Labour councillors also voted against a fully costed amendment by the Conservative group to put capital investment into saving the baths and providing disabled access. There is a now a petition urging the council to listen to the wants of the residents of Great Harwood, but will the Leader of the House also allow a debate in Government time as to how best to protect valuable local leisure facilities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. It is regrettable that a Labour council—a socialist council—would close a local facility that is loved so much by the residents of Great Harwood. It is a shame to see the people of Hyndburn let down in this way.
The Localism Act 2011 introduced the community right to buy, which is a way in which communities have come together to protect local assets by making the case to their local authority to list the facility as an asset of community value; local people can be assured that the amenity will not be lost without them being notified and being given an opportunity to bring the building into community ownership. To date, the Government are aware that over 4,000 assets of community value, including leisure centre facilities, have been successfully nominated by community groups in England. I encourage my hon. Friend to have an Adjournment debate to keep raising the subject, so that support may be built up for using the community right to buy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
The Government have announced a consultation to reform aviation tax, including air passenger duty, and a commitment to decarbonise. These commitments come at a time when our travel and aviation industries are facing the biggest crisis in their history, and at the time of the Union connectivity review. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether we will have the opportunity to debate how our domestic airports and air travel, as part of UK connectivity, can be pursued with a green agenda?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have made it very clear with the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan how green we are going to be, while ensuring that there is good economic growth; that is absolutely at the heart of what the Government are doing. The proposals for aviation tax are to encourage connectivity across the United Kingdom. I am sure that these matters will be debated over the coming weeks and months in the House of Commons, because they are important to the development of the country’s economy.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I am a little concerned that Ministers are now casting doubt on the reliability and efficacy of the vaccine, but we have been told by scientists that the first dose brings substantial protection, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has said that it offers between 70% and 90% efficacy. We must follow the science and trust the data—or so we are told. We must believe in the vaccines, and we must lift restrictions in line with the protection that the scientists are telling us that the vaccine brings. I do not believe we should keep the country in lockdown any longer than necessary. We have to get people out, because of the substantial harms that lockdown brings. Will my right hon. Friend talk to Government Ministers and ask them to stop changing the test for lifting restrictions every time we get past what we think might be the finishing line? I would also like to say to the Leader of the House that I am looking forward to joining him in going to Annabel’s or anywhere he chooses.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That’s a date, then, although I am certainly not a member; perhaps my hon. Friend is.
The vaccination programme has been a huge success and is a key part of the road map to get back to normal. The Government’s aim is to offer a vaccination to everyone in the first nine priority groups, including everybody over the age of 50, by 15 April, and to all adults by the end of July. The road map that has been set out has been set out clearly so that we can stick to it and the goalposts do not get changed. I think she and Government policy are at one on this.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Inspectors this week issued an absolutely scathing report about conditions at Napier and Penally barracks, into which the Home Secretary has crammed hundreds of asylum seekers in the middle of a pandemic, and hundreds have become ill with coronavirus. It is challenging to say the least to reconcile that report with what Ministers have previously told this House. When will the Home Secretary be making a statement in response, and will she be correcting anything that she has previously told us about the conditions at Napier and Penally barracks?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I, like the hon. Gentleman, have read the interim report, and certainly it raises some matters of considerable concern. There will be a full report coming later, and I think it is best to discuss these matters in detail when we have the full facts.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]
The £67 million awarded to my borough of Sandwell from the towns fund is a great success for the Government’s levelling-up agenda. However, my communities in Wednesbury and Tipton were the only parts of the borough of Sandwell to receive nothing from the towns fund. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my communities in Wednesbury and Tipton, through a debate in Government time, on how the measures announced by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week in the Budget can ensure that towns like Wednesbury and Tipton get equal access to funding opportunities, just as much as towns like West Bromwich?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will spend taxpayers’ money on local infrastructure that improves everyday life across the United Kingdom, including regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and spending money on cultural and heritage assets. The fund will operate UK-wide, extending the benefits of funding for priority local infrastructure across all regions and nations. The prospectus published at the Budget provides guidance for local areas on how to submit bids for the first round of funding for projects starting in 2021-22. That includes guidance on the process for submitting bids, the types of projects eligible for funding and how bids will be assessed. To reassure my hon. Friend, there are still 49 deals to be awarded, and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be making further announcements in due course, which will be the opportunity for other communities in his constituency to apply.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Two weeks ago, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published its provisional assessment of the drug Kuvan, for the treatment of phenylketonuria, or PKU. While it is good to see NICE recommend it be made available for children up to 18, it is hugely disappointing that it has not recommended making it available for adults. People with PKU have already waited 12 years for access to this treatment. Can we have a debate in Government time on access to medicines for rare diseases, such as Kuvan for PKU?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady is making. When we represent constituents who need drugs for rare diseases, it is important that we get them. I think the principle that NICE is independent in making these decisions is also a sensible one, but it is crucial that its decisions are made in a timely way and appear to be reasonable to the country at large. NICE is a matter that will come up for debate, but it may be that the hon. Lady will want an Adjournment debate on this specific issue. I had one on Batten disease before joining the Government, and the Government proved very sympathetic to the quest for my constituent.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Some people overstate their case by saying that the state of this building is ruinous, but one thing that is certain is that the public finances are in ruins. So will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to make it clear that, when it comes to the restoration and renewal of Parliament, the absolute first priority of Government is value for money? In this context, will he note that the House has never voted to demolish the grade I listed Richmond House? It is a listed building, and there is the issue of carbon and all the other issues. Can the Leader of the House have an open mind about it and learn from our experience of working virtually by perhaps not having a September sitting and, above all, getting on with the work now? In this report, where it says, “What is the cost?”, the whole thing is blanked out. What is going on here? Let us have value for money. That is what the taxpayer wants.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with my right hon. Friend that taxpayers’ money has to be spent wisely. The proposal for Richmond House and the Queen Elizabeth II Centre was that there would be about £1.5 billion of expenditure on temporary Chambers. This cannot have been a sensible thing to do even in less straitened financial times; in the current circumstances, it seems to me to be for the birds. We have to focus on value for money, and I agree with my right hon. Friend.
I am not the greatest advocate of hybrid proceedings—they are better than nothing, but they are not as good as real physical participation in debate—but I would rather have hybrid proceedings for a little bit when we could not use this Chamber than spend a billion and a half pounds. We as Members of Parliament have a responsibility to our constituents when their money is being spent to accept that, while great reforms or restorations are taking place, we may have to put up with a little bit of discomfort. There may be, occasionally, a little bit of banging and noise being made, and we cannot be too fussy about that if we are to keep this as a working operational building. But the key work needs to be done, and it needs to be done in a timely fashion, with value for money at its heart.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
Please could we have an opportunity to raise with the Steel Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—the news that one of Liberty Steel’s main financial backers has gone into administration and the company is looking to refinance? We have an important plant in Newport at Uskmouth, with a dedicated workforce, and we need to hear what contact the Government have had with the company and that Ministers will do whatever they can to protect our steel jobs.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thought that the hon. Lady would raise this important point, because I am obviously aware of the reporting this week on Liberty Steel, which is worrying for the company’s employees. I can reassure her that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is following the developments closely. It remains a strong advocate for the steel industry and continues to work closely with the steel industry to support the sector’s transition to a competitive, sustainable and low-carbon future. It has made some funding available for this, with £500 million of taxpayers’ money in relief for the steel sector since 2013 to make electricity costs more competitive. It is obviously important, however, that the Government and the company are working as one to ensure a good prospect for the steel industry in these difficult times, with regard to the background of Liberty Steel.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
We all understand that the pandemic has led to a substantial increase in correspondence between Members and Government Departments, and I do thank the Leader of the House for his efforts to ensure that this correspondence is responded to in a timely fashion. However, may I gently suggest to the Government that extra resources need to be committed to the Department of Health and Social Care’s correspondence teams in particular? On occasions, I have been waiting for up to six months to receive a substantive response to my inquiries on behalf of constituents, despite chasing through the normal channels, and I know I am not alone. Such a situation does not reflect well on either the Government or Parliament.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have taken up far too many Members’ issues with Departments relating to correspondence. I said last year that I had considerable sympathy with the Department for Health and Social Care because of its excess workload. I must confess that that sympathy is no longer as great as it once was. My hon. Friend is right that more resources need to be dedicated to the matter. We have a right and a duty to hold the Government to account, and the Government have a duty to respond to Members. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I also think that scrutiny leads to better government, so it is in our interest as the Government as much as in that of Back-Bench MPs that scrutiny takes place, and therefore responses should be timely.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
New research from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has found that two thirds of people believe that the Tory two-child limit for universal credit and child tax credit should be scrapped, not least because there is evidence that the policy is pushing women to terminate a pregnancy rather than bring a third child into the world. Can we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need to scrap the pernicious two-child limit and the rape clause that stands part of the policy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the father of six children, I have rather exceeded the two-child limit. Children are a great joy to families and the country as a whole, but there are limited public resources, and that is part of the difficult choice that Governments need to make. Parents have a responsibility to their own children. It is fundamentally a parental responsibility, but anything that leads to a termination is a deep sadness.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the role of the monarchy? During such a debate, I very much hope that the argument could be made that it is never wise for a family dispute to be aired in public, with everyone getting damaged and hurt by the fallout. Perhaps during such a debate, we can celebrate the fact that we are so blessed to have had our monarch for 70 years, compared with the alternative of having a president as our Head of State, which we very nearly had under Tony Blair.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Were we to have a debate to praise our sovereign lady, it would take up all the legislative time available in the House, so all I will say is:
“God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all!”
Points of Order
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, the Prime Minister confirmed to me last week during Prime Minister’s questions that we have a unified civil service in the United Kingdom and that there are no separate civil services in the devolved Administrations. Logically, that means that Ministers are answerable to this House of Commons for issues relating to the conduct of the whole civil service. Will you please confirm that that is the case, and that, if any Member of this House consequently wants to table a question or ask for a report into the conduct of civil servants currently serving in any devolved Administration, which Ministers would answer such questions? Will you also confirm that any Committee of this House that seeks information from any civil servants in any part of the United Kingdom will be able to do so if that is needed for any parliamentary inquiry?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Table Office will be able to advise him about the tabling of questions. The Government decide which Department responds. The Table Office will be able to advise about the most appropriate Department to direct the questions towards in the first instance. The normal rules about questions, including on ministerial responsibility, would of course apply.
Select Committees may seek evidence from a wide range of sources and certain options are open to them if that evidence is not provided.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Clerk reads the Orders of the Day for the Second Reading of the supply Bill, may I put on record that I and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends had hoped to table an amendment yesterday to the motion on the vote on account? The amendment would have referred to the sums being appropriated to overseas aid in that motion and sought to establish that the Government should not be able to reduce planned expenditure below the sum set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.I am advised—I am sure correctly—that that was not possible, as no amendments could be moved at the roll-up, and the Bill is about to go through on the nod. That means that Members have no way of deciding whether or not the House assents to the massive cuts planned in our support for the world’s most vulnerable people. Whatever the merits of that case, Mr Speaker, do you agree that if we are to take back control, one place to start would be to get some grip on public expenditure plans, which are at the heart of what we do in this place, and yet seem to be totally in the hands of Ministers?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I confirm that he was given the correct advice, and that under Standing Order No. 55 no amendments can be proposed to the roll-up motions. The matter is therefore not a point of order for the Chair, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record, and the House has heard them. As he knows, this has been the longstanding way that the House has dealt with issues, and I gently say to him that he was the Chief Whip and he did not complain too much when he was in charge at the time. There are ways that we can change things, but at the moment we will carry on with the way we are.
Sir Edward Leigh
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was on the Procedure Committee, I was instrumental in getting that committee to ensure that we had proper debates on estimates days. On a previous occasion, when I tried to speak about the estimates on estimates days, I was ruled out of order by your predecessor. We have made progress, but I would have thought that the whole debate to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) alluded, shows that we can continue to make progress on this and improve parliamentary scrutiny on estimates. In particular, we should follow up the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament that we should have a proper Budget committee. I appreciate that you are constrained by present rules, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will forgive me if I make that point.
Mr Speaker
As you well know, Sir Edward, that is not a point for me, but I am sure the Leader of the House has managed to hear what is being said. I think we will leave it at that. I will suspend the House for three minutes to allow preparations to be made for the next item of business.
Business without Debate
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Contingencies Fund Act 2021 View all Contingencies Fund Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 March 2021 - (11 Mar 2021)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a technical measure that concerns cash management. Its purpose is to allow the Government to use cash advances to act swiftly and decisively to safeguard the people of this country, both from the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and from other unexpected events. But I would emphasise that money from the Contingencies Fund constitutes a cash advance, which will have to be repaid once a Supply estimate is voted through the House; it is not additional spending. It is important to be clear that the House will still be able to scrutinise and debate where resources have been allocated in the usual way when the Government publish the Supply estimates.
As hon. Members will be very much aware, Parliament provides the Government with the authority to expend resources in the form of capital and cash. However, the Government must also sometimes provide a swift financial response to national emergencies and other pressing events. That is why the Contingencies Fund exists. In the Contingencies Fund Act 1974, Parliament put a limit on the amount that could be issued from the fund at 2% of the previous year’s cash spend. That cap has normally proved to be sufficient to meet unexpected and sudden financial requirements, but we are not living in normal times at present, and uncertainty as to the impact of covid-19 has required a degree of flexibility in setting the cap.
As colleagues across the House will recall, a year ago, as the full implications of the pandemic started to emerge, the House agreed to change the limit on the Contingencies Fund from 2% to 50% of the previous year’s cash spend for the financial year 2020-21. That had the effect of raising the amount in the fund from a possible £11 billion to £266 billion. This cash advance has been invaluable to Departments in dealing with the unprecedented events that have been set in motion by the pandemic. In fact, over the past 12 months, requests from the Contingencies Fund have totalled over £210 billion. It has provided the cash for Government interventions to support businesses, to support frontline workers and to pay for the furlough and other schemes. In addition, it has provided the financial firepower to help the NHS through the crisis, and it has funded numerous other measures that have helped to safeguard lives and livelihoods throughout this extraordinarily difficult period. As is the case in every previous year, the fund has also paid out on business-as-usual requests.
This Bill again seeks to adjust the limit on the amount that can sit in the Contingencies Fund for the financial year ending 30 March 2022 to 12% of last year’s cash spend. I will set out the reasoning behind that decision. With the new cap, the amount in the fund will total £105 billion. By contrast, with the 2% cap—the normal percentage limit—the fund would have contained £17.5 billion. That is clearly a substantial sum, and it would be more than ample to deal with spending requirements in the normal run of things.
While the Government will provide Departments with suitable resources for the 2021-22 year, it is prudent to be prepared in cash terms. While the resounding success of the vaccination programme offers us light at the end of the tunnel, it is equally true that we must remain vigilant. The crisis is not over, and therefore the Government believe it is only right to retain flexibility on the amount in the Contingencies Fund. However, given the experience accrued by each Department over the last year in dealing with the virus, we can scale back the limit from 50% of the previous year’s cash spend to 12%. Once again, let me assure Members that the House will still be able to scrutinise and debate where resources have been allocated in the usual way when we publish the supply estimates.
This is a small and technical but important Bill that will allow the Government to deal with unexpected events over the coming year. It provides Departments with a mechanism to respond swiftly and decisively to emergencies and sudden, unpredictable needs so that they can safeguard our public services and support the wellbeing of people across the country. It does not impinge on Parliament’s right to scrutinise and question, but it does underline this Government’s commitment to do whatever it takes to protect lives and livelihoods in order to overcome this virus, and I commend it to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the Financial Secretary for setting out the case for the Bill so clearly. The Bill seeks to amend the Contingencies Fund Act 1974, which is one of the monuments of a previous Labour Government. The 1974 Act embodies principles that are central to the accountability of Government, so its amendment should not be taken lightly.
This time last year, the Opposition fully accepted that the conditions of the pandemic made it necessary, expedient and right for there to be provision for the Government to act swiftly. We accepted that, in the rush of the early response to the outbreak, there could be times when it would not be possible to follow normal procurement processes. We accepted that, at certain points, the spot price paid for particular goods facing global shortages might be higher than it would otherwise have been, and we accepted that, on occasion, at a time when the Government were taking on entirely new responsibilities, some mistakes would be made. But we do not accept, and the British people will not accept, that what may have been excused in the early days of the outbreak has turned into a succession of failures and scandals, which it seems Ministers can no longer even see as wrong.
Last year, the Opposition agreed to a rise in the provision of the Contingencies Fund to some 50% of annual expenditure. While we accept that a higher than usual level for the Contingencies Fund is again in order and we will not be opposing the Bill, Ministers would do well to remember that the fund was created as a fall-back and that its extension is an emergency response, not an opportunity for unaccountability. Ministers seem to have forgotten that public money needs to be spent effectively, in a way that achieves value for money and commands public confidence.
The starkest example of failure by this Government must surely be their flagship Test and Trace scheme, a programme outsourced at great expense and the subject of a report published yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee, which was truly damning. The Government should be embarrassed and deeply apologetic over Test and Trace, which Lord Macpherson, who led the Treasury civil service from 2005 to 2016, described as
“the most wasteful and inept public spending programme of all time.”
What makes it even worse is that everyone in the country desperately wanted Test and Trace to work. Everyone was willing the programme and its team to succeed. We all wanted and needed that money to be spent on a programme that would achieve its stated goal, and we have all witnessed the profound consequences of incompetence on such a scale. I lost count of the number of times that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) called for the Government simply to focus on getting Test and Trace working, yet Ministers did not.
The opening summary of the Public Accounts Committee’s report contains the following telling sentences:
“The Department of Health & Social Care justified the scale of investment, in part, on the basis that an effective test and trace system would help avoid a second national lockdown; but since its creation we have had two more lockdowns. There is still no…evidence to judge”
Test and Trace’s “overall effectiveness”.
Only people who have no real understanding of the value of money or the importance of public investment in changing lives for the better could be so reckless about how it is spent. We believe that the Government really need to learn from the last year, not only by accepting that the outbreak exposed the weakness of our rights at work and the impact of a decade of cuts to our public services, or by recognising that they repeatedly did too little, too late to protect the public’s health and our economy, but by making serious structural reforms to how they initiate and examine spending.
The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East, has set out how the next Labour Government would do things differently, by taking a robust and determined approach to ensuring that public money improves the lives of those we serve. She has explained how we would invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to submit an annual report to Parliament, bringing together the National Audit Office’s findings throughout the year into a single assessment of the effectiveness of public spending in those areas that it has examined. As my hon. Friend has said, we must hard-wire value for money into the budgetary process.
But the value for money aspect is not the only part of this extraordinary year for public spending that commands our attention. It would be possible to achieve value for money and yet still fall far short of other standards we expect. That is why the new clause that the Opposition will move in Committee seeks to improve the transparency of Government spending.
We know only too well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has set out, that the way in which procurement is conducted also matters very much. Put simply, the time to end emergency procurement is overdue. Covid, as she rightly observed, is no longer a surprise. Supply chains have been established and, while there are of course still significant challenges and responding quickly remains essential, there is no longer a case for the continued widespread use of emergency measures of procurement for items that the Government now know how and where to find.
Contract publication should now follow the normal rules, and when contracts fail to deliver, the Government should get money back. That is public money. “Deliver or you won’t get paid” is what contractors expect from every other organisation and company they supply. The Government must not be the softest touch in the market.
We must drive a culture of transparency throughout public spending. The new clause that we will move today seeks to improve the transparency of the Contingencies Fund, because that is what the Bill before us concerns, but it is time for every part of public spending to achieve better value for money and for the Government to use their spending power to improve standards in the way the public would expect. The Opposition believe that achieving these changes need not be difficult or controversial.
We recognise the power of public investment to transform people’s lives for the better. That is fundamentally why we, like the British public, cannot bear to see Ministers casually and carelessly waste public money on deals that do not deliver, on contracts that do not work and on outsourcing that should never have taken place. Every pound that this Government misspend makes it that bit harder for nurses to accept the Chancellor’s pleading that a 1% pay rise is all he can afford. Every penny that this Government waste could have gone towards building a fairer, more secure future for our country. We will not be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but our new clause in Committee will set out a new standard of transparency that would pull Ministers up, force them to sharpen their focus on value for money and make sure we have more money to spend on the things that matter to us all.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Andrew Jones, I want to point out that although what we are dealing with is very important, we also have the Committee of the whole House and Third Reading, and then we have 70 contributions in the International Women’s Day debate. If people could keep that in mind as they consider the length of their contributions, I would be extremely grateful.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I will, of course, follow your advice as scrupulously as ever, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This Bill is about cash flow. It is not about all the stuff that we have just been hearing from the shadow Minister. All organisations have to manage their cash flow and meet their liabilities, and failure to do so is a significant reason for corporate collapses. It is, obviously, different in the public sector, but the rule about meeting liabilities remains as Government react to urgent situations. There are also clear mechanisms for making sure that in the event of a cash need, the cash will be there. That is what the Contingencies Fund is.
This Bill is about the Treasury’s capacity to make repayable advances to other Departments, so that they can react to events if needed. Parliament has long recognised that principle. The legislation governing it is 45 years old, but in fact the principle was established by Treasury minute in 1862, when the Contingencies Fund was created. For this financial year—and the next, if we pass this Bill—the threshold allowed in the legislation has been increased, and for obvious reasons. We are dealing with the greatest health crisis in 100 years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand. Although I understand that this is specifically about cash flow, the whole House recognises that there is a real crisis in cancer treatment when it comes to diagnosis and surgical operations, and many people have died waiting for those to happen. Does he agree that covid-19 has increased the demand for cancer care, and therefore all requests that come from the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care must be treated sympathetically and urgently?
Andrew Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. There is no doubt at all that we have seen some health treatments delayed as a result of the crisis, and that is a real tragedy. He is right that cancer is one of those where we should be most concerned, and the requests that come in should be treated with urgency and compassion as we seek to catch up on the treatments that the people we represent urgently need. That was a wise point.
I go back to the core purpose of the Bill and why it has been introduced. The Government needed to respond quickly and at scale, and they have done so. The Bill before us is about renewing the increased capacity for the next financial year, and we are only three weeks away from the new financial year. We are being asked to approve a one-year increase in the limit from 2% to 12%. That is, of course, a big jump, which amounts to more than £100 billion. We should also perhaps remind ourselves that the House approved an increase in the limit to 50% for this financial year—truly exceptional in every way.
I support increasing the limit in the Bill. We are not through this pandemic, and it is not hard to imagine circumstances where the Government have to react urgently ahead of the regular voting provision under the normal supply procedure. One of the lessons of the past year has been that the course of the pandemic has not been linear. None of us can guarantee that the future will not require urgent action. In reality, we can probably all predict that it will.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, this is quite a dry Bill, but once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister. That does not mean, however, that we should not scrutinise; of course we should. But the Bill does not increase budgets, and it does not give the Government a blank cheque. These are cash advances, which are highlighted to Parliament through the normal estimates booklets and memoranda, and then we vote on them. There is transparency as funds are drawn upon by Departments. There is guidance agreed between the Treasury, the National Audit Office and Parliament. That means that written ministerial statements are published throughout the year and cash advances are included in the main or supplementary estimates. I hope we will not be facing a contingencies Bill for the 2022-23 financial year. The progress that we are making in tackling the virus is obviously fantastic, but the consequences will be felt for a long, long time.
It is too early to spend time on an inquiry on the lessons from the pandemic, but one thing I am sure we will consider in due course is how well and how quickly government—I am talking about the UK Government, devolved Administrations, local government and, above all, the NHS—have responded. They have been nimble and dynamic in their response. This Bill is simply about facilitating the cash flow to allow that quick response and that is why we should all support it.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
This is a short but important Bill. Last year’s measures in the Contingencies Fund Act 2020 were absolutely unprecedented. Setting a level of 50% on the fund ensured that the rapidly evolving policy response to covid-19 could be matched with the necessary resource. It was important that we did so. At that time, we were heading for a lockdown and a parliamentary recess for Easter. It was unclear when Parliament would be able to return and we had no means at that point, at least as I recall, of enabling virtual participation in Westminster, so it was essential to allow necessary and perhaps even extraordinary expenditure to take place in the short to medium term to support the policy responses to covid that were deemed to be necessary, without the requirement for us to reconvene Parliament to ensure that further spending could be authorised.
This year’s Bill, by extending the scale of the fund beyond the usual 2%, clearly recognises a need for that flexibility to continue. Setting this year’s contingencies fund at 12% may well give access in the short term to the same amount of resource that was used in practice last year. In the light of experience, it may be felt that out of all the arbitrary figures that could have been chosen for the Bill this year, this is the figure that somehow just feels right. However, for all the progress that has been made with vaccines and vaccinations in recent times, we are not out of the woods yet. There have been mutations to the virus, which have increased its virulence and forced us in consequence to change our behaviours and responses. There may yet be further mutations that force us to further reappraise our plans on how we wish to emerge from the present restrictions.
The only thing that we can predict with certainty about the future of living under this virus is that we cannot predict it with certainty. As such, while the Scottish National party group supports the Bill and will not oppose the 12% level being set on the fund, I will place on the record that we would have been content, in the interests of prudence and good governance, to see a higher figure being used.
Let me turn to the proposed amendment; I am aware of your injunctions about time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that the Bill will have a Committee stage. I have looked at the amendment, which has been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, and although it increases the length of the Bill tenfold, it clearly seeks to tackle important issues regarding transparency and accountability in Government spending. I have a lot of sympathy with its intent and will listen carefully to the arguments in Committee.
There is, however, a much wider issue regarding the ability of this House to properly scrutinise Government expenditure, which extends to the estimates process. For someone who entered the House with a background in local government and who bore the scars of passing budgets as a co-leader of a minority council administration, it is remarkable, in contrast, how contested local authority budgets running to just hundreds of millions of pounds can be, when hundreds of billions of pounds across the year in central Government expenditure can still sail through relatively untroubled by the interference of competing views from the Opposition. Although there have been some recent changes to the estimates days’ debates—the estimates can now be debated rather than needing the vehicle of Select Committee reports related to them—it is still extraordinary to my mind that there is no meaningful way to seek to amend Government spending through the estimates process or an ability, as a matter of course, to scrutinise planned departmental expenditure before it is approved.
That brings me, in closing, to the current fiscal framework. The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance has repeatedly pressed the UK Government to provide extra flexibility so that the Scottish Government can mobilise funding when it is most urgently needed through this crisis. While the UK Government have indeed confirmed that the late funding allocated in this financial year could be carried forward into 2021-22 without having to use the Scotland reserve, that flexibility is still limited and temporary. The crisis has revealed a fiscal framework in the UK that is not fit for purpose. As the previous furlough extension for England demonstrated, no matter what the devolved Governments might wish to do in policy terms, problems still have often to be felt first in Whitehall before a budgetary response is triggered for England, which then triggers its way through to other Governments.
In my view, the best people to take decisions for Scotland are those of us who make our lives here. The policy choices we make should be restricted only by the limits of our own resources, the limits of our own choices and the limits of our own imaginations, and not by limits and constraints that are set elsewhere. We will continue to press for these additional flexibilities as part of the fiscal framework review.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also take note of your indication to limit our contributions, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could speak for hours on the Bill, but I will refrain from doing so.
I want to speak in favour of the Bill because, quite frankly, if there was ever a time when we needed a contingencies Bill it would be during a pandemic, and we are still in a pandemic. As the Financial Secretary said, for those members of the public who will be watching today, the Contingencies Fund Act 2020 enabled Government Departments to increase their percentage of spending at a time when the country needed it most. It was vital to make sure that the Government could act in a timely manner to safeguard the people of our country.
This is, of course, a contingency. It is not additional spending. It is there to ensure that Departments have access to funds if needed. If there is one takeaway from the past 12 months, it is that we should be prepared for every eventuality. It is appropriate that the percentage of the total supply expenditure is reduced to 12%, as opposed to the 50% it was last year. Of course, last year, when the previous Bill was passed, we knew we had a crisis, but it would have been near impossible to estimate the full cost of Departments’ needs at that time.
Today, we know more. We have a world-leading vaccination programme, which means we have vaccinated over 22 million people. We know that infection rates are falling and, thankfully, the Prime Minister has laid out a road map as to how the economy will open up. In the light of that, it is correct to reduce the contingency need while not yet returning to the normal 2%. We are, after all, not in normal times, so the normal 2% cannot apply. I would go further. This Bill, in my view, represents strong leadership, as the previous one did at the start of the pandemic.
We should not forget what the previous Bill allowed Government Departments to do. The urgent procurement of contracts allowed the Government to be swift in their response. It allowed us to deliver 32 billion items of personal protective equipment—32 billion, Mr Deputy Speaker—and 22,000 ventilators, when at the start of the pandemic there was an acute need. Those were quite literally matters of life and death. In such instances, the Government have but one duty: to take every possible measure to provide security and safety for their citizens. Since then, we have also completed 96 million tests. That is a phenomenal achievement and we should not downplay that.
As we look to the Bill, it is correct to think about how the resources will be applied until the supply and appropriation Bill is voted on in this House. The Chancellor last week set out a characteristically world-leading Budget, ensuring, to name just a few: the furlough scheme, which has been a lifeline for so many, continues until September; more money for apprenticeships and restart grants to get our worst-hit businesses back up and running; and the extension of universal credit. There are also infrastructure spends across the country, which are a testament to my right hon. Friend’s focus on the next stage of dealing with this pandemic. As we emerge from the public health crisis, we must look to the economic recovery stage.
Accountability and transparency matter, of course, and the Bill does not take away the usual mechanisms that have been in place for ensuring that expenditure is met through the contingency fund and that it is scrutinised. Advances made in this way are presented in the usual way in the estimates booklet and the memorandums that Parliament can scrutinise and vote on.
To hinder the Bill would in my view seriously hinder the Government’s response in dealing with the pandemic. It would risk undermining the measures by the Government to help those who need our urgent support. That is why I am supporting the Bill.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
It is correct that a contingencies fund Bill is vital when the Government need to react, especially during the pandemic, but it relies on trust. Trust requires transparency, truth and honesty. Most colleagues in this House will have noticed the Conservative party’s habit of gaslighting the nation over the past decade. “We’re all in this together,” Osborne and Cameron said, before axing the safety net that the poorest in our country relied upon. I recently read a quote that said:
“We’re not all in the same boat, but we are going through the same storm”—
some of us are in yachts, some of us are in boats and some of us are in dinghies and just holding on.
Recently, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak promised to take care—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have to correct my hon. Friend—I will put it that way. Please do not refer to current serving Ministers or other Members of Parliament by their names.
Dawn Butler
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Prime Minister recently promised to take care of the nurses who sat at the nation’s bedside during one of our darkest moments, before offering them an insulting and paltry 1% pay rise—a real-terms pay cut. The question of cronyism is no different. Ministers on one hand claim that they did nothing wrong. They say that Opposition Members are stirring up fake news, and that we are not patriotic if we dare to question their actions and how they are spending public funds, yet when the evidence is too powerful and shocking to ignore, when it is so stark that the Government have to respond, they say that their mistakes can be excused because they were rushing to procure vast amounts of equipment in a national crisis. Both those things cannot be true, so which is it? Which do they believe?
Of course, the country is willing to accept that mistakes were made, but that was a long time ago—a year ago, in fact. Ministers must have the humility to admit their mistakes and errors, and work with the Opposition to ensure that the current situation, which has eroded many people’s basic trust in democracy, is never repeated. Supporting this amendment is a start.
The truth is that the evidence is overwhelming: as Byline Times has calculated, more than £900 million in coronavirus-related contracts has been awarded to firms that have donated to the Conservative party—a huge return on their donations. The country’s purse is not the Government’s piggybank. Countless more deals have been awarded to former Government advisers, chums of Dominic Cummings and former drinking pals of the Health Secretary. Ministers may dispute why so many deals have been awarded to firms with close ties to the Conservative party and senior Government figures. Some of those firms were not even suitable or equipped to deliver what was needed.
The reason could be the Government’s infamous VIP lane, which meant that some firms with links to Ministers, MPs and officials were 10 times more likely to win contracts. Some of it could be down to the old boys network—who knows? We still do not know, but we should know before we continue to trust the Government. Some Ministers may know what is going on and why, and what the cause is of this rampant cronyism, but all Ministers and Conservative Members must recognise the basic facts: vast amounts of public money have been spent and wasted on firms with Tory and Government connections. People across the country are angry and disillusioned.
The Conservatives’ own constituents, and constituents of Members on both sides of the House, are questioning why the Conservative party has abandoned its belief in the basic principle of accountable, transparent public spending. It is imperative that Ministers and officials figure out the root cause of this rampant cronyism, admit their errors and safeguard public money so that, in the future, it cannot end up in the hands of Conservative donors.
Some in the Conservative party might say that the money is not wasted because some of the money that has been given to companies is finding its way back to the Conservative party through donations, but that is wrong and corrupt. If I am wrong in what I am saying, the Minister, when he gets to his feet, must admit the mistakes and errors made.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome the Opposition’s interest in this motion. It is incredibly important. I particularly welcome their conversion to the importance of value for money. It is the Conservative party that has always been the party that realises that we are just guardians of public money. It is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money and we should treat it as carefully as if it were our own.
I arrived at City Hall after Ken Livingston was there and when the current Prime Minister was Mayor of London. We went through the accounts and were absolutely shocked at the staff’s attitude towards money—it was just there to be shovelled out the door. We imposed a very strict control regime, which dramatically reduced costs and improved value for money. If Labour Members want to learn more about value for money, I would welcome them to the Conservative Benches, so that we could discuss it.
This whole debate reminds me slightly of discussions that I have often had with environmental activists about nuclear power. They come out with lots of arguments against nuclear power. One by one, those arguments are knocked back. Finally they say, “Well, it costs too much.” When they resort to that argument, we realise that they have lost the argument. The reason the Labour party is focusing so much on value for money is, I fear, not because it has converted to this cause, but because there are no other lines of attack for it to follow.
If we look at the progress of this pandemic since it started, we will see that, at the very beginning, we were really worried about not having enough ventilators. We now have 22,000 ventilators. We have far more ventilators than we need at the moment. Then there was the personal protective equipment crisis—remember that? There was shock, questions and attacks the whole time from the Opposition, who were saying that we did not have enough PPE and asking why we did not have it in stock. Actually, we only made 1% of the PPE in this country. We did not have manufacturers that we could turn to and say, “Can you ramp up supply?” There was a global shortage. We now have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said, 32 billion parts of PPE in stock and 70% of it is made in this country. There is no line of attack that the Labour party can make on PPE.
Then we come to vaccination. The Labour party previously made many attacks on vaccination. What can I say? We all know, everyone knows, the voting public know that it is a great success. It is an absolute triumph and truly world leading, as is so well documented, thanks mainly to many teams across the NHS and the public sector, but also to the vaccine taskforce led by Kate Bingham.
The Labour party has raised test and trace because of the Public Accounts Committee report yesterday. The report said many things. It did not say that 80% of the cost of test and trace is on the testing. On the testing, we are very much a world leader. I was looking at the figures for the G20 countries—the 20 main countries in the world—and we are doing twice as much testing as any other G20 country in the world. According to Our World in Data, we are doing 10.54 tests per 1,000 people a day in the United Kingdom. The next highest in the G7 is Italy, at 5.2. We are doing four times as much as Germany, and three times as much as Canada. We are truly world-leading in testing and that costs money. It also means that all the children can go back to school. We did 1.5 million tests on the day that they went back to school. It is only because we can do the testing and the tracing that follows that children can go back to school to regain their education and we can slowly return to normality.
All these are great successes and the Labour party should welcome them. The British public can see it: we can see the mood of the nation changing and, fingers crossed, that will continue. However, we are still in the middle of the pandemic. It is not over yet. It is too soon to take the hands off the brakes and say, “Let’s roll down.” Things could go the wrong way and it is absolutely right that the Government continue with their contingency policy, with 12% of supply, in case other things flare up. This is not about spending more money. It is about giving us the ability to spend money should it be needed and I fully welcome it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
Accounts mean accountability. Every set of accounts needs contingency lines—sometimes quite annoyingly, in my experience—but this crisis has shown the importance of having a contingency fund.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister: the Government have acted swiftly, decisively and with a great deal of flexibility in respect of the schemes they have rolled out. Almost every businessperson I speak to in my constituency is supportive of what the Government have done in this regard. It is not just the Government who have acted swiftly and decisively; bodies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have done a tremendous job in getting some of the grant aid out to businesses, and we should be grateful for those efforts.
When I listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—who I do not think is even in his place at the moment—all I got was a deep suspicion of the private sector. It was quite astounding. It was reminiscent of that great Churchill quote:
“Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.”
I just do not understand why the private sector is still anathema to Labour, even though it has been responsible for so many things in this crisis, not least the development of the vaccine, the first of which, the Pfizer vaccine, was rolled out without any public support whatsoever.
Things such as bounce back loans and coronavirus business interruption loans have all been delivered by the private sector, through the banks. As I am sure you recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not shy of criticising the banks, but this year they have done a tremendous job in getting the money out to businesses, yet we see no recognition from those on the Opposition Front Bench of what the private sector has done throughout this crisis.
All the money that flows through the contingencies fund will of course be accounted for and the Government will be held to account for the related spending. It is important that the Opposition should also be held to account for their spending. I find it quite astounding that the shadow Minister talks about value for money; I have sat through so many debates over the past five years in which Labour has called time and again for more spending via pensions, social security, health services and social care—whatever—despite our spending challenges and without any assessment of value for money. Labour just wants that money to be spent without any consequence or accountability. That cannot be right and the shadow Minister’s claim about value for money was quite laughable. Every bit of spending has to have somebody to pay for it, and that is, of course, the taxpayer, which is why we have to be careful and judicious with Government or public money. It comes from the taxpayer.
Most recently, Labour has been calling for a greater increase than 1% for nurses. Who is not sympathetic to that? But I do not hear Labour saying what pay rise it would give or how it would pay for it. It is surely a responsibility of any responsible party that wants to be in government to say how it would pay for things.
Finally, I think the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was quite disgraceful in some of her comments. I may be wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I thought she described Ministers as corrupt. I think that is something you might look at, because it is entirely inappropriate and entirely inaccurate. I am very much looking forward to talking more in Committee about procurement and why the Opposition are wrong again.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s test and trace scheme, outsourced to companies such as Serco, has been one of the most scandalous wastes of public expenditure in living memory. It is quite difficult to imagine what £37 billion looks like, but here are some examples. In 2015, the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital was constructed at a cost of around £75 million; £37 billion is enough money to build nearly 500 brand-new state-of-the-art hospitals. With around 670,000 nurses on the permanent NHS payroll, £37 billion is enough to give every single nurse a pay rise of not £3.50 a week but around £50,000. But instead, what did the Chancellor, in his recent Budget, announce for nurses? Not even, actually, a pay rise of £3.50 a week, but, in real terms, a pay cut of about £5 a week.
It is a disgrace that this Government are so profligate with their cash that they will give £37 billion to private outsourcing giants, including Serco, and at the same time choose to take money away from our nurses with that real-terms pay cut. Of course, if that £37 billion had kept people safe—if it had worked—that huge sum of money might have represented value for money. Yet as the National Audit Office said:
“The Department of Health & Social Care justified the scale of investment…on the basis that an effective test and trace system would help avoid a second national lockdown; but since its creation we have had two more lockdowns.”
The ineffectiveness of the outsourced test and trace system is one of the reasons the UK has experienced the worst death rate of any major country. Yesterday, Serco’s top two executives, one of whom is the brother of a Conservative MP, received £7.4 million each in pay, including bonuses worth about £5.5 million. The company has previously handed out over £17 million in dividends to shareholders while reaping the rewards of its role in the grossly wasteful and ineffective test and trace programme. Today we read that the Business Department has invited Serco bosses, among others, to apply for new year’s honours. We now have a Government all too happy to waste billions of pounds on dodgy contracts for companies with Conservative party links, and when the scheme invariably fails, they give the people responsible a title as a consolation prize, all the while starving our public sector of funding and our public sector workers of pay.
After £37 billion, no test and trace, and the failure to prevent the second and third lockdowns, Ministers and those profiteering from this say it was a success. The National Audit Office says that there is no evidence of effectiveness. England has had the worst death rate in Europe. Other countries were able to balance value for money with support for the public’s health and the economy. If other countries can do better, the Government at Westminster can and must do better too.
All this is to say nothing of the disastrous PPE contracts. PPE Medpro was incorporated on 12 May. Just 44 days later, it was awarded a contract worth £122 million for single-use medical robes, which it intended to import. The contract was not advertised, but the company had links to the Conservative party and a Conservative peer. In contrast, my constituents who own Florence Roby Ltd, a uniform supplier with a track record of more than 50 years’ trading, spent months trying to get a contract for medical robes but were given the runaround and eventually had to lay off staff. I am afraid that these examples illustrate perfectly everything that has been wrong with procurement during this crisis: wastefulness and poor value for money. No wonder so many people think this is corrupt.
Compare this with the situation in Wales, where decisions on PPE are devolved. Since the outset of the pandemic, well over 450 million items of PPE have been distributed in Wales, and the vast majority of the PPE issued has been directly sourced by NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership, with all contracts awarded subject to robust governance. That includes additional scrutiny from a finance governance group, and all contracts over £1 million are approved by the Welsh Government directly. The UK Health Secretary has said that urgency is the reason that the Conservatives paid billions of pounds to their mates for PPE contracts, but that does not excuse the fact that companies with connections to the Conservative party such as PPE Medpro—which, remember, was awarded a contract 44 days after incorporation—were 10 times more likely to win contracts than those without those contacts.
In Wales, with a Labour Government, the situation was just as urgent, but the oversight and accountability were in place. Instead of waste, we have seen local public health boards delivering effective contact tracing, without the scandalous payments that we have seen in England of up to £7,000 a day to consultants. The Westminster Government must be able to spend the money needed to address the public health emergencies of the pandemic—everybody agrees on that much—but they must also listen to the National Audit Office, put an end to the cronyism and put public health first. The day of reckoning will surely come for the gross negligence, waste and cronyism displayed by this Conservative Government.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
May I use this opportunity to personally thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has met the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group several times over the last few weeks? That was good of him, and it has been a constructive relationship with Opposition MPs.
That takes me to the first of two brief points that I want to make. Clearly my constituency is very different from other constituencies. It is vast, it is very far away, and we have particular challenges with distance, sparsity of population and even temperature. During the pandemic, my constituency has had particular problems to be dealt with. I understand, and indeed I support, the mechanism that we are debating, which is about getting the money to where it is needed at the right speed. It might be useful if the Government agreed to meet Opposition MPs such as myself slightly more often, to look at the overall package and how it is hitting or not hitting where it should.
I will give one example. I have said many times in the House that businesses involved in tourism and hospitality are fundamental to the economy of my constituency and, indeed, of all the highlands and islands. The package of support during the pandemic needs to be best tailored to ensuring that those businesses can be got off their knees and got going again once the pandemic starts to recede. It would be tragic if we lost any of those businesses during this time, because that would impoverish our tourism product, which people come from not only most of the UK but all over the world to see.
We need a tailored package for tourism and hospitality businesses, and I am happy to talk to the Government about that. There is a precedent. Last summer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came to my constituency, and, as he will agree, we had a constructive meeting with tourism businesses, which was helpful. I am quite open about this: I will work with a Minister of any political colour if it is for the betterment of my constituents and the economy of my constituency.
The second and final point I want to make is one that needs to be stressed. A lot of this money is going to the devolved institutions—the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government. I support the Secretary of State for Scotland’s plea that, when the pandemic is over, we look at what the Scottish Government have actually spent the money on. As other Members have said, this is not our money—it is public money; it is taxpayers’ money—and I want to be absolutely sure that it has been used in the most prudent fashion by the Scottish Government and has gone where it should have gone. I support the Scottish Secretary’s plea for some sort of audit, balance sheet or, if you like, profit and loss account to be produced at the end of this.
I have listened to the debate with the greatest of interest—there have been some very high-quality speeches—and I shall listen to the rest with great interest.
James Murray [V]
With the leave of the House, I would like to respond briefly to the debate and pick up on some of the contributions. First, I would like to address a comment by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who seemed to claim that I was not in my place during his speech. I would like to reassure him that I have been listening carefully throughout in the virtual Chamber, but perhaps he was not here earlier when I began my contribution virtually.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) made a powerful and important case about the link between trust and transparency and how important it is for us to take action in this place to reassert that link. She also set out how insulting the 1% pay rise—a real-terms pay cut—is to the nurses in our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the huge waste that has happened through Test and Trace and the private outsourcing giants that have benefited from that money. It is telling that no Conservative Members today addressed Test and Trace and the spending on that programme, as far as I could tell. I found it curious, however, that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), when trying to make a case around value for money, chose to focus on the time that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) spent in City Hall, given that one of the most notable achievements of that right hon. Member in that office was to oversee £46 million of public money being spent on a garden bridge that was never built.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, we will not be opposing the Bill’s Second Reading, but in the Committee debate that follows, I will set out how our new clause aims to introduce a new standard of transparency, which we believe is urgently needed after the Government’s approach over the last year.
Jesse Norman
I will not detain the House for long. By leave of the House, let me just say a couple of words. I thank all Members who have spoken so far. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) for the Opposition’s support for this, but I think he was mistaken in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was making a point about the absence of any person on the Labour Front Bench during the debate. That has largely been a characteristic of this debate so far, and that is a pity. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his recognition of the way in which I and colleagues at the Treasury have leant into the difficult issues he raised in relation to the excluded. That does not bear directly on this debate, but the wider point he makes is welcome.
I am mindful that this debate has featured several contributions from Labour Members that have resolutely failed to engage with the substance of the Bill under discussion, and that is a particular shame. This is a party that talks about proper accountability but simply finds it impossible to exercise that accountability in the Chamber by asking the Minister questions. I hope that hon. Members will do that in the next stage of the debate, so that we can have a proper discussion about this. They have, after all, just had a long period of debate on the Budget in which any of the points they wished to raise—irrelevant to the Contingencies Fund Bill but relevant to that topic—could have been discussed. Instead, they have indulged in cheap and irrelevant political posturing, and that is a particular shame—all the more so as their contributions have had the effect of delaying an important and much needed debate in this House called by the Backbench Business Committee on International Women’s Day.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be issued out of, or paid into, the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to increasing, in relation to times before 1 April 2022, the percentage specified in section 1(1) of the Contingencies Fund Act 1974 to a percentage not exceeding 12%.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Contingencies Fund Act 2021 View all Contingencies Fund Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 March 2021 - (11 Mar 2021)
13:44 - divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will carry out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chair of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee rather than Deputy Speakers.
Clause 1
Temporary increase in capital limit of Contingencies Fund
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Contingencies Fund: reporting in financial year 2021-22—
“(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons within 15 days of the end of each calendar month in the financial year 2021-22 a report which includes a complete list of each advance from the Contingencies Fund, in each of the following categories—
(a) during the Vote on Account period, to meet urgent cash requirements (other than supporting a new service) in excess of the net cash requirement granted in the Vote on Account;
(b) to meet the cash requirement supporting an urgent service which Parliament has already approved through specific enabling legislation but for which existing provision is not available;
(c) to meet the cash requirement supporting a new service which is urgent and cannot await Parliamentary approval of both the specific enabling legislation and the necessary Estimate;
(d) to meet a further urgent cash requirement for existing services when provision for the total net cash requirement on the Estimate is exhausted; and
(e) in the case of an Estimate where expenditure is largely financed from income, advances made in anticipation of the receipt of cash associated with such income.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include a reference to any written ministerial statement made to the House of Commons in relation to each advance from the Contingencies Fund in financial year 2021-22.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include any relevant formal written direction to the accounting officer where a Minister of the Crown decided to continue with a course of action which the accounting officer had advised against.
(4) If a report under subsection (1) mentions in relation to subsection (2) or subsection (3) anything in connection with procurement from the private sector, the Treasury must refer the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General for a preliminary opinion on the regularity and propriety of the procurement referred to.
(5) Nothing in this section affects access by the National Audit Office to any documents as provided for under section 8 of the National Audit Act 1983.”
This new clause is intended to enhance accountability to Parliament for as long as the increased flexibility of the Contingencies Fund is in place, and in particular to provide an additional check on the regularity and propriety of any procurement decisions which lead to advances being required from the Contingencies Fund.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The new clause is intended to ensure that the Government learn from the past year and, as I set out in my earlier contribution, not only recognise that they have repeatedly done too little, too late to protect the public’s health and the economy through the outbreak, but make serious and structural reforms to how they initiate and examine the spending of public money. The new clause would ensure that the extra financial freedoms that Parliament grants in the Bill are used in a manner that reflects the importance of transparency with public money.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I and other hon. Members made on Second Reading, but address the substance of the new clause. Our new clause is simple. Subsection (1) sets out that, in respect of each plausible category of unforeseen Government spending—urgent cash requirements for existing services; urgent cash requirements for new services, whether yet approved in principle or not; increased cash requirements; and short-term cash flow issues—the Treasury must lay before the House a report of all the advances made that month.
Subsection (2) sets out that each payment from the fund should be explicitly associated with ministerial statements, which explain the purpose of such expenditure. Subsections (3) sets out that where such payments have been carried out only on the basis of ministerial direction, the fact and nature of that direction should also be disclosed. We fully accept that on occasion ministerial directions are a vital part of how our country and political system responds quickly and effectively to unforeseen circumstances. There are occasions when the accounting officer will not be able to align urgent needs with normal accounting procedures. What matters is not the fact of the direction, but its nature.
Subsection (4) ensures that where rapid procurement decisions are taken, they provide an opportunity for the Government to improve and are assessed as such. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is crucial in our system of parliamentary control over public finances. There are lessons to be learned from the specific practice of emergency procurement. It is wrong to see each instance of rapid procurement as a special case.
Subsection (5) reflects the premise of subsection (4) and ensures that there is no conflict with the wider role of the National Audit Office. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the new clause in the spirit in which we propose it.
The Financial Secretary will be aware of the many extraordinary and frankly irregular arrangements, which have been explored in the court and in the media recently, for the disbursement of public money in the past year. I will not take the Committee through the full annotated catalogue as time is so limited, but I will mention just two of the most egregious examples to emphasise our concerns.
First, there was the contract given to Randox Laboratories for £133 million in respect of tests. Randox is a company that we understand is advised by a Conservative Member. The Department of Health and Social Care ordered that 750,000 of those tests be withdrawn from use for safety reasons. Secondly, at least £150 million of a £252 million face mask contract with Ayanda Capital seems to have been wasted owing to the unsuitability of one type of mask in the order. We understand that the contract included FFP2 masks, which did not meet requirements for use by frontline healthcare workers because they had ear loops instead of head loops. The sum of £150 million pays the salaries of some 4,000 nurses. That fact alone should make clear why it is so important for public money to be spent on improving the lives of those we serve.
The new clause sets out a new standard of transparency that would pull Ministers up, force them to sharpen their focus on value for money, and ensure that we have more money to spend on the things that matter to us all. With such concerns in mind, I ask the Committee to support the new clause.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Before I call Andrew Jones, let me just say that I am grateful for the restraint that people demonstrated on Second Reading. We have a rather extensive call list for the International Women’s Day debate that follows, so if people could show the same restraint in Committee, whether they are remote or in the Chamber, I would be grateful. A number of people withdrew from the Second Reading debate; if anyone wishes to withdraw from Committee stage, please will they do so in the normal manner, through the Speaker’s Office?
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I will keep my remarks as short as possible; I fully recognise that we have a very well-subscribed and important debate to follow.
I read new clause 1 with interest, but it should be rejected. On Second Reading, I outlined the transparency and accountability mechanisms already in place when funds are drawn from the Contingencies Fund. I will not repeat any of that, but what the Contingencies Fund does not need is extra layers of bureaucracy, and that is what the Opposition are seeking to bring in. The whole point of the fund is to facilitate speed of response. Adding monthly reporting to the existing reporting is not necessary, and it goes against the whole purpose of the fund.
For one year, in the midst of the greatest health crisis in a century and the consequential biggest economic crash in three centuries, the suggestion from the Opposition is more bureaucracy. What problem are they seeking to solve? Accounting officers are still accountable. Departments must still notify Parliament. The Contingencies Fund is managed by Treasury officials. The agreed procedures must be followed.
The Opposition also want to bring in extra measures when dealing with the private sector. How does dealing with the private sector reflect the cash flow in a Department? Liabilities are liabilities, to whichever organisations they are owed. Speed of response is need-based, not sector-based.
Basically, what we have here is Labour distrust of the private sector underpinning its suggestion. It is not relevant to the Bill, and it underlines Labour’s lack of relevance to the nation. That is why the new clause should be rejected.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I cannot support the Opposition’s new clause 1 because, in my view, it would do nothing but introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy where, frankly, sufficient and robust transparency and accountability systems are already in place.
As I said on Second Reading, of course accountability and transparency matter. The Bill does not take away the usual mechanisms already in place to ensure that expenditure met through the Contingencies Fund is scrutinised. Requiring private sector procurement to be referred to the National Audit Office would do exactly what businesses cry out against time and again when it comes to procurement practices. They want less bureaucracy and less burden, not more unnecessary red tape that would hinder engagement from the private sector.
To me, the new clause speaks to the intent of the Opposition and their general attitude to the private sector. It does not recognise the crucial role that business has played over the last 12 months in helping to tackle one of the greatest public health crises of our times. It does not recognise the businesses that otherwise would have been shut down—Formula 1 teams such as McLaren, for example—that adapted their processes to make ventilators; the companies, such as Burberry, that retooled to make personal protective equipment; or the companies, such as the National Exhibition Centre in my constituency, that gave up part of their business to build Nightingale hospitals to ensure that the national health service was not overwhelmed.
The new clause does not recognise, either, the big pharma companies that came up with new drugs at unprecedented rates, using innovative methods that only the private sector can come up with to vaccinate and protect the most vulnerable in our society. Frankly, it is time that the Opposition recognised the role that the private sector played in overcoming this crisis. While it is not yet done, we on the Government side of the House certainly will not forget that role.
While I am on the subject of intent, I commend the Government for their aspiration to reform procurement rules. The Green Paper put forward by the Government puts value for money and transparency right at the heart of the United Kingdom’s procurement rules. The Government buy around £292 billion-worth of services from the private sector. Their proposed reforms will allow UK procurement rules to be more modern and flexible, allowing the Government to consider things such as social value, including economic, social and environmental factors.
These new measures will also allow competition for Government contracts under £4.7 million for public works and £122,000 for goods and services to be limited to small businesses, whether they are voluntary, community or social enterprises. Fundamentally, that will improve the quality of suppliers’ output, and it will also increase competition, ensuring that taxpayers get a better deal while our small and medium-sized businesses have greater access to Government procurement contracts.
That intent can only be applauded, in contrast to the Opposition’s desire to make the process clunkier, more difficult and less accessible.
On accountability, as has been said, Ministers cannot choose to use the Contingencies Fund. That is managed entirely by Treasury officials, and the accounting officer must ensure that advances are given in line with strict rules agreed between Parliament, the National Audit Office, and the Treasury. Such rules can be found in the Estimates Manual. Finally, business is and can be a force for good. We would do well to recognise that.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which hopes to improve the transparency behind emergency spending that we are being asked to sign off. When the Conservative party took office 11 years ago, it promised people transparency and responsible spending. The Prime Minister’s predecessor even told us that sunlight was the best disinfectant—could we not do with some disinfectant to rid us of the stench of cronyism right now?
One hundred and eight million pounds to a pest control firm to make PPE; £60 million on antibody tests that did not work. To top it off, a £37 billion test and trace system that at times did not test and did not trace. It was run not by clinicians or the NHS, but by a failed phone company executive, who just so happened to be one of the Prime Minister’s mates from the other place.
Cronyism, irresponsible spending and sweetheart deals that handed the public’s taxes to their mates are what this Government are all about—a £133 million testing contract to a Tory donor, £108 million to Serco, and a £40,000 pay rise to Dominic Cummings. Under this Government, someone who breaks the rules and fails at their job gets a pay rise; those who save people’s lives get a pay cut. If the Conservative party cannot be trusted to spend people’s taxes wisely, it does not deserve to serve our country.
The Minister asked for questions, and I am sure we all look forward to some answers. Will he tell the House why as much as £11 million was spent on the initial trial version of the NHS Test and Trace app before it was abandoned? Will he confirm whether he personally played any part in recommending contractors to the Government over the past year? We are often told by the party of Government that money cannot be found to feed hungry schoolkids, or that the healthcare heroes who looked after our loved ones during the pandemic cannot have a pay rise. We are told by Conservative peers that nurses should be grateful for the job security they have.
The public have a right to know how their money is being spent. Covid contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors have now risen to almost £2 billion. Such money could have provided free school meals to each of the 1.4 million children in poverty, including nearly 4,000 children in Luton North. If there is money for the Prime Minister’s mates, there is money to feed hungry kids. If we can find £30 million for the bloke down the pub, we can find money to give nurses, and every other healthcare worker, a pay increase.
Conservative Members will say there was no choice at the start of the crisis and that it was an emergency, as it was. However, there is always a choice. Instead of turning to established PPE providers from the UK safety industry, Ministers chose a deal that handed £30 million to the Health and Social Care Secretary’s mate from down the pub. That is a cruel and blatant failure by this Government. The Bill asks us to sign off up to £266 billion in emergency loans by the Government. That might be necessary, but it is unnecessary for such a number to go unchecked.
It is our job as MPs across the House to hold the Government to account. The public expect better and for us to spend their money properly, which is why Labour has tabled this amendment. We are not saying that the Government should not do everything in their power to help people in an emergency; we are saying that they must never forget whose money they are spending, and who they need to answer to in the end: the British people.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I agree with the shadow Minister that we need accountability and transparency, but there is already a whole framework for public spending. As others have said, all the amendment does is introduce more bureaucracy into the Contingency Fund, without adding any value from the perspective of public accountability.
We need to learn the lessons from all this. It is an unprecedented thing that hopefully will never happen again, but we must ensure that we learn those lessons. Fortunately, there are bodies that help us learn those lessons, such as the National Audit Office, which has already done several reports into procurement.
Given that the speeches made by various Members on the Opposition Benches have been all about scoring cheap party political points, casting aspersions on the Government and Ministers and so on, I thought it was worth quoting the finding of the main National Audit Office report about the issues to which they are referring. It said:
“In the examples we examined where there were potential conflicts of interest involving ministers, we found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
That is the National Audit Office, which has strong powers of investigation.
I find it rather disturbing that the Opposition are trying to use this important issue just to score cheap political points. I suppose I should not; I am a new politician, and I should get used to it. What I find most concerning about the Labour party is its clear disdain for the private sector. It is using this issue to criticise private sector manufacturers. The speaker before me, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for example, criticised companies that were trying to produce PPE. We did not have a PPE industry in the UK at the start of this—we imported it all—and I welcome the fact that lots of companies that had not made PPE put in the effort to develop it and then supply it to the national health service. That is to be welcomed.
The drugs company in my constituency, AstraZeneca, did not do any diagnostic testing. That was not what it did; it had no arm doing that. It said, “Right, we will learn how to do this”, and it did it. It set up a whole arm to do diagnostic testing. It did that at no profit, and that is now a huge part of the testing industry in the UK. It also agreed to produce the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at no profit to itself and to give that to the developing world on a not-for-profit basis throughout the pandemic.
That is a private sector company, as is Pfizer, which produces the Pfizer vaccine, and Moderna, which does the Moderna vaccine. All these are private sector companies coming to our rescue and to the rescue of other countries around the world when we need it, and that is very much to be welcomed. I wish the Opposition would pay tribute to the efforts of the private sector, often working in collaboration with the public sector. It is a partnership.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about money going out into the private sector, but a lot of this contingency money has gone into the public sector. The key point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted, that it is taxpayers’ money. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should have clear oversight and regular reporting of how taxpayers’ money is being spent.
Anthony Browne
I agree, and I welcome the points that the hon. Lady makes. I did say in my speech on Second Reading that I welcome the fact that the Labour party have this new-found interest in value for money, because I absolutely believe that taxpayers’ money is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money and it should be treated as such. As I said earlier, we have sufficient mechanisms for accountability and transparency. We do not need this new clause, and I will not support it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
I would like to speak to new clause 1. First, I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for putting the record straight. It was a reflection of the fact that there was no Opposition Minister on duty. It is suboptimal to have an Opposition Minister speaking by video link: Members have no opportunity to challenge some of his statements, many of which I thought were absolutely out of order. You are obviously the judge of that, Chair, but to call Ministers corrupt, as other Members have in this debate, or to accuse them of cronyism, is basically bringing this House into disrepute.
Yet again, we have the Opposition’s obsession that everything public sector is good and everything private sector is bad. It is simply outrageous. It goes back to that sturdy horse analogy. It is pulling the whole wagon, whether it be vaccine companies or indeed our GPs. Our GPs have done a wonderful job disseminating the vaccine to so many people, and it is heart-warming to go to those centres and see that. GPs are private practices. The health service has never been totally public sector, and we should recognise that. We should recognise the benefits that the private sector brings, just as the public sector clearly brings huge benefits, too.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) that this new clause would simply bring an unnecessary added layer of bureaucracy. I absolutely support the need for accountability and the proper assessment of where taxpayers’ money is spent—we absolutely must be responsible about that—but I do not know where it would end under the new clause, because much of the money that we have provided to deal with the coronavirus crisis has been provided through the private sector, not least the loans through the banks. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) seemed to think that there were no checks on that process, which is clearly not the case. Banks go through a lot of checks, even when the Government are guaranteeing loans, so that is simply not correct.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
The next speaker, by video link, is Jamie Stone. [Interruption.] Jamie, you may be on mute—I know that you are audio only. [Interruption.] We will try to get back to you. Waiting in the wings is Meg Hillier.
Meg Hillier
It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Bill and perhaps slay some of the misstatements that I have already heard in the short while I have been in the Chamber.
First, I should point out to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) that value for money in respect of taxpayer spending is not a new-found interest for most of us on the Opposition Benches. I have spent 27 years being responsible for either spending taxpayers’ money wisely or scrutinising that spending. I am very aware, as are the shadow Chancellor and her team, that every pound of public money saved is a pound to spend on something else. We may disagree about what that something else might be, but scrutiny is really important.
Contingencies Fund Bills are interesting pieces of legislation. They are about as old as the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and are an important mechanism for making sure that the Government cannot just routinely spend over budget. It is fair to say that in this House we are very bad at scrutinising Government spending. That is not down to individual Members or the official Opposition; it is because the structures of this place do not allow us properly to discuss estimates, excess votes and so on. In fact, some time ago the OECD said that as early as the 18th century our scrutiny of finances in this place was “reduced to hollow ritual.”
The change in this legislation, which will allow the increase in contingency funding, has been rushed through. I do not deny that it is necessary to have additional contingency. The way it works normally is that if a Department overspends on its budget as granted, albeit inadequately, by this House, the matter then comes to the Public Accounts Committee and we have to examine whether the excess is justifiable and reasonable. Pretty much our only weapon is the ability to call in the officials who have made a mistake and get them to explain the issue in public, but then a Government majority can certainly agree the excess vote regardless.
In Ghana—Mr Evans, you might be interested to know this, and officials might be quaking as I say it—if an official overspends taxpayers’ money, they have to go to court, and if they take an appeal to court, they have to pay up front half of the money that has been wasted. Certainly, that would sharpen minds.
The point is that it is right that we have a Contingencies Fund Bill. I accept it is necessary, but I welcome new clause 1, because the mechanisms for oversight of this are very flimsy; they are reports on paper after the event. This is not about more bureaucracy. I see it as being about greater transparency. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which has had an important constitutional position in this place for 160 years, I get passed information by Government—from Ministers and senior officials—about issues relating to the finances of Government, sometimes confidentially, and that is counted as the scrutiny of Parliament.
I believe there is a very important role for the constitutional position of the Public Accounts Committee and thereby the Chair, a role I am privileged to occupy at the moment—it is not about me, it is about the position—but that is not enough scrutiny. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and spending eye-watering sums of money—hundreds of billions of pounds—with the public sector and the private sector. It does not matter where the money goes, in this sense; it is about scrutinising that expenditure and making sure that Treasury Ministers, whom I would have thought would be aligned with me completely on this issue, are clear that we are not allowing Departments to overspend willy-nilly. Although the Treasury has its checks, it is important and vital that Parliament has its checks too and that we have sunlight on these issues in real time. This is important, and I would say that the new clause is really pretty anodyne. It is saying that we want better reporting to the House of what the Contingencies Fund Bill already allows to the Government.
The National Audit Office has been much quoted, and I do not have the exact phrase in front of me—forgive me, Mr Evans, but for once I paraphrase, which I really try not to do—but the NAO has looked in detail, as other Members have commented, at the Government’s approach to procurement, and this is its clear message. All these allegations are out there, but part of the reason for that is the lack of transparency and the lack of information being published in real time on some of these issues. We have seen, heard and talked about in this place the many contracts that were not published on time, and that undermines public and parliamentary trust in the process. Whether or not anything has gone wrong, it is undermining trust, and people start asking questions and laying down allegations whether or not they are true.
It is in Government’s interests, the taxpayer’s interests and Parliament’s interests to agree to this new clause. I am disappointed—I am embarrassed really—that those on the Treasury Bench can come forward with a change at such short notice and not have a meaningful discussion about what is a reasonable new clause to allow this place greater scrutiny over what are unprecedented amounts of spending in the middle of a pandemic. At a time like this, we need more transparency, not less. This is actually a minor change. It is not about bureaucracy; it is about accountability and transparency, and taxpayers deserve better.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Labour’s new clause seeks to make contingency spending more transparent and accountable to our Parliament and, through us, to the public—taking back control, if you will. It is right that Governments have the flexibility to act in an emergency such as this pandemic, but this greater latitude for Ministers should oblige them to be additionally vigilant about the value for money of the decisions that they make and the contracts that they sign. This has unfortunately not been the case. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, this year we have seen case after case of appalling mis-spending of taxpayer money, too often on procurement from Tory friends and donors—with, according to The Times in November, £1.5 billion to Tory-linked firms. Companies and individuals with no track record of producing the materials needed were given vast sums on a promise, and businesses in constituencies such as mine, with experience in manufacturing this sort of equipment, were denied on spurious grounds.
Some of the examples sound as though they come from an old episode of “Yes Minister”: £150 million of the £252 million of unusable face masks ordered from an investment firm advised by an adviser to the President of the Board of Trade; a £60 million contract to provide free laptops for disadvantaged pupils that delivered less than half of what was needed, leaving too many pupils in Warrington North without the tech they needed to learn; and £208 million to provide food boxes wholesale for people who were clinically sheltering, at a cost of £44 a box, when analysis showed that the content could have been bought for £26 from their local Tesco. There was the £133 million to a Tory donor, a private healthcare firm, to make testing kits that were withdrawn for safety reasons. Its contract was actually extended for another six months for a further £375 million, without any other companies being invited to bid. During this time, consultants have been employed on up to £7,000 a day, equivalent to £1.5 million a year, by a Government who believe that nurses and other NHS staff should not even receive a pay rise at least in line with inflation.
We understand that there was an urgency to get contracts in place for PPE in particular, but this was not just a case of suck it and see, as Ministers doubled down on their projects, such as the £37 billion on the outsourced test and trace programme—or test and waste, as it is increasingly known locally. The National Audit Office says that this incredible amount of money has been spent for no clear impact, while the skills and expertise of our local public health staff were spurned. Should we not be demanding better?
We understand that the Government had to act quickly to put contracts in place at the beginning of the pandemic, but we are now a full calendar year on from then. They should no longer be operating in crisis mode, but should be able to make clear, sensible and justifiable decisions. Since the Chancellor announced that he is to run the biggest deficit since the second world war, with public debt at over 100% of GDP, I think our constituents should expect us to be as open about our financial decisions as we can possibly be. It is not onerous to request that the Government make a monthly report on its contingencies expenditure, and improved transparency would help to halt bad decisions earlier, rather than waiting for spendthrift contracts to finally be revealed in court.
This is a reasonable and responsible new clause. A fiscally sound Government should not fear it or have any objection to it.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
This is a technical Bill, but it is important and so is parliamentary authorisation of public expenditure. That authorisation is an absolutely crucial part of our democracy and of the principle of parliamentary control over the decisions taken by Ministers in this Government.
Of course, I accept that the Government need to be able to act swiftly and decisively, and that financial control provisions may need to be relaxed proportionate to the need for the Government to take unforeseen and unforeseeable actions to reduce, resolve and mitigate the threats we face. As such, I fully accept the approach taken by the shadow Minister and support the fact that Labour is not opposing the Bill. However, while it is vital that the Government have the space and ability to respond to the crisis, it is vital that Ministers do not take the people of this country for fools. Contracts for cronies, pals from the pub and family members cannot be the order of the day and must be rooted out fast.
The Tories, as we have already heard, have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds across Government during the pandemic, from failed tracing apps to useless PPE to insufficient provision for disadvantaged children. The analysis by my party and other independent organisations shows that the Government have made the wrong decisions throughout the crisis. I hope they will listen and learn. Every penny of public money must be accounted for and the people who pay their taxes must be able to see that these monies are spent wisely and properly.
I support the Bill. I hope Ministers will accept Labour’s new clause and will look to spend the people’s money wisely, sensibly and properly.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
We recognise that in the circumstances of a global pandemic the Government need to be able to act swiftly and decisively, and that financial control provisions may need to be relaxed proportionate to the need for the Government to take bold actions to reduce, resolve and mitigate the threats we face. However, we know full well that the Government’s record on proper and transparent procurement processes, and on securing value for money on public spending for emergency purposes, has been shameful.
The Times estimates that during the crisis £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ cash has been given to companies linked to the Conservative party with no prior experience of supplying the Government, from failed tracing apps to useless PPE to insufficient provision for disadvantaged children. Analysis by Labour shows that the Government have made the wrong decisions time and time again throughout the crisis.
That is exactly the story of Tory waste, negligence and cronyism, but the Tories want a pat on the back for spending over £700 million on coveralls, despite NHS records showing only 500,000 out of 13 million were actually used. In April, £16 million-worth of antibody tests were sourced from two Chinese firms. Two million units were purchased, but the test did not work. A PPE contract worth £108 million was handed to a pest control company, PestFix, which has just 16 members of staff. Some of the masks failed checks by the Health and Safety Executive and emails obtained by the BBC suggest that the HSE came under political pressure to ensure that PestFix’s PPE passed necessary quality assurance tests.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union.
Parliamentary authorisation of public expenditure is critical, but we all recognise the need for this Bill to ensure that the Government can act quickly to support the economy. That said, the Government should not be able to act without accountability and transparency. I support the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) with regard to transparency and scrutiny. Indeed, just this morning, as part of business questions, the Leader of the House reiterated the point that Members have a right and a duty to hold the Government to account. He also said that scrutiny leads to better government, and that it is in the interests of Government that scrutiny takes place.
It is with those principles in mind that I want to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which seeks to improve Government accountability to Parliament for as long as the increased flexibility of the contingency fund is in place. I want to speak specifically with regard to the checks on the regularity, propriety and value for money of any Government procurement decisions, particularly the importance of the reporting of any written ministerial directions given, so that Parliament can be clear when Ministers have decided to override objections made by senior civil servants.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government’s record on transparent procurement processes and securing value for money on public spending has been, sadly, too often completely inexcusable. Despite NHS Test and Trace being allocated a total of £37 billion and a Conservative peer being handed the top job, the Public Accounts Committee’s report on test, track and trace made this finding. In terms of tackling the pandemic, it said:
“There is still no clear evidence to judge NHST&T’s overall effectiveness.”
I also ask the Minister whether he has reflected on yesterday’s report by the National Audit Office on Test and Trace and whether it contained any lessons to be learned by the Government as well.
The theme of incompetence and cronyism does not end there. In a Westminster Hall debate back in December, I joined many other MPs in highlighting the fact that the National Audit Office report on the Government’s procurement during the pandemic had found that contracts had been awarded without due diligence, with a lack of documentation, and no clear audit trail or transparency. Just a few weeks ago, the High Court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully by not publishing details on the contracts awarded within 30 days, including many awarded through the Government’s VIP lane. The judge ruled that the Government’s inaction breached a vital public function of transparency regarding how vast quantities of taxpayers’ money was spent. The passage of the Bill should not allow the Government to act without accountability and transparency. There are too many instances of the Government’s poor procurement policy representing poor value for money.
In conclusion, I wish to press the point that Ministers must be accountable and civil servants must not be scapegoated for the Government’s poor decision making. The legally binding protection of written ministerial directions ensure that they are not implicated in the Government’s incompetent decision making and cronyism. This is not unnecessary bureaucracy, as referred to by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); it is right for Parliament to be able to scrutinise them in a timely manner in the public interest.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
I will be brief. The concerns of Scottish National party MPs over certain covid-related Government procurements are well known and on the record, and we will continue to hold the UK Government to account for them. Nevertheless, whether the new clause is viewed through that particular lens or not, the fact remains that taken on its own terms it would greatly improve scrutiny, oversight and accountability, without creating any disproportionate impact on the Government or the overall efficiency of the spending process. Trying to equate the improvement in process that would result with an attack on business, as we have heard today, is frankly nonsense. It smacks of desperation, and I am certain that that is exactly how it will be seen.
The SNP will be supporting this amendment. If the Government have any care at all for transparency on these matters, and for being able to demonstrate that there is proper stewardship of public funds, there is frankly no good reason for them not to support it as well.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
As you will be aware, Mr Evans, clause 1 provides for an increase in capital for the Contingencies Fund. It raises the limit from the standard 2% to 12%, providing a sum of approximately £105 billion for the financial year 2021-22 only.
We are all agreed across the House on the central importance of accountability to Parliament, but it is the Government’s very firm view that new clause 1 is not needed in order to achieve accountability. It is important to say again that supply processes continue to be used in the usual way with expenditure still subject to parliamentary scrutiny and a vote. This Bill simply permits an advance on expenditure that will be included in the main or supply estimates.
Let me set out four points that make this quite clear. First, the Contingencies Fund is about ensuring cash flow, restricting it to urgent services in anticipation of parliamentary provision becoming available and temporary funds required for necessary working balances. It is not additional spending; it is simply a cash advance to be repaid. It does not in any way preclude the scrutiny by Parliament of additional provision sought by a Department through the supply estimates, nor does it preclude the Comptroller and Auditor General from expressing his view on the regularity of departmental expenditure.
Secondly, each and every departmental accounting officer remains fully accountable for expenditure; and, of course, that expenditure will be audited by the NAO in the usual way as part of the annual reports and accounts of each Department. Transparency arrangements for ministerial directions—where they are sought under the requirements of the doctrine of “Managing Public Money”—will also continue in the usual way. Accounting officers are already required to publish any direction that they receive as soon as possible, unless there is a broader public interest in keeping it confidential.
Thirdly, the House has seen throughout 2021 that Departments must notify Parliament by way of a ministerial statement agreed with the Treasury where a commitment will be or has been entered into in advance of supply. I would like to make it clear that the mandatory WMS wording agreed with Parliament and the NAO already distinguishes whether this advance is a new service, new expenditure or simply a cash requirement ahead of a supply estimate.
I remind hon. Members that the Contingencies Fund is not a tool—some hon. Members have made this point—that Ministers can choose to use; it is not discretionary. It is managed entirely by the Treasury, and the accounting officer must ensure that advances are given in line with strict rules agreed between Parliament, the NAO and the Treasury. These rules are set out clearly in the published estimates manual. Every Department makes an application outlining the urgency of their case and how they plan to meet the listed requirement. It is worth mentioning that the NAO also audits the Contingencies Fund accounts, and that includes a full list of advances.
Let me turn to a couple of the points raised by Members in the debate. I did ask for questions on the Bill, but the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) somehow found that difficult. She raised another irrelevant issue about public spending. She asked me about my own link. I assure her that I had nothing to do with the awarding of any contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) pointed out, this is true for Ministers across the Government, according to the NAO.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, made a speech, wonderfully—and I thank her for it—on the Bill. I am very grateful. She asked whether the Bill is rushed through. The answer to that question is no, it is not. It is important to do it, we think, before the beginning of the new financial year. The same Bill was put through in March last year, and so it is here. She asked about Treasury controls. We fully, strongly believe in them. She recommends Ghanaian principles of public finance, but I am not sure I can follow her in that direction.
James Murray [V]
With the leave of the Committee, I will respond briefly to the debate and pick up on some contributions that hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made powerful remarks and drew our attention to how hollow the phrase of the former Prime Minister—that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”—now rings, given how the current Government have behaved. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke from great experience about the weakness of Parliament in scrutinising Government spending. She set out how the claims of bureaucracy from Government Members are misplaced and that, in fact, new clause 1 is about transparency and accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) set out clearly the consequences of vast sums being given to companies with no track record of delivery, underscoring why this really matters to people’s lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made it clear that the Government should listen and learn from the events of the past year and regain the trust of the public, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) highlighted the Government’s shameful record on transparency, value for money and, crucially, the outcome of what is actually delivered. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) made some critical points on scrutiny leading to better government. She spoke from great experience of why it is so vital that the reporting of written ministerial directions is taken into account so that they can take responsibility for their decisions.
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I was disappointed that he did not use the opportunity to refute or respond to any of the comments about the Public Accounts Committee’s report on Test and Trace. I noted that despite some Government Members having spoken for a second time today, they still did not find time to justify and explain how the spending on Test and Trace has been value for money. The Minister fundamentally failed to address the inadequacy of current scrutiny arrangements, given what has happened over the past year.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, our new clause aims to introduce a new standard of transparency. We believe that it is urgently needed after the Government’s approach over the last year. I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument. I welcome the SNP group’s support for new clause 1 and we will seek a Division on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That new clause 1 be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now suspend for three minutes for sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, and to allow the safe exit from the Chamber of those leaving and the safe arrival of those entering for the next debate.
International Women’s Day
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
It is a privilege to lead this International Women’s Day debate on behalf of members of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, who put forward the application. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its continued strong support for this debate as an annual event.
I want to start by sending my thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of Sarah Everard, who are going through such a painful time. Her abduction has sent shockwaves across the UK. Sarah did everything to avoid danger. Let us be very clear: women are not the problem here. For many women, this news story will bring back memories of threatening situations they found themselves in through no fault of their own, sexually harassed on the streets when walking home from meeting friends, receiving anonymous threats of physical violence on social media, or sexually assaulted in plain sight in rush hour on public transport on the way to work. Many choose not to talk about this and not to report it for fear of not being believed or taken seriously. But the research shows that these sorts of events are part of women’s everyday lives, and that is why what happened to Sarah Everard feels so very close to home.
The shocking findings of the report published yesterday by the APPG on United Nations women show that virtually all young women have experienced the threat of sexual violence in public spaces and, indeed, that three in four women of all ages have experienced sexual harassment. Although the raw facts may show that it is rare for a woman to be abducted, the experience of young women is that the fear of sexual harassment, or worse, is ever in their mind, whether on a night out at the pub or after threats to their physical safety on social media, while for the one in six women who will be stalked in their lifetime, the fear of attack is very real.
So rather than telling women not to worry, listen to our experience. Understand why so many women relentlessly campaigned in this Chamber for change to make women feel safer by stopping the harassment and threats of violence in the first place. We should not accept a culture of violence towards women, we should not be complicit in covering it up, and we need to give women effective mechanisms to report what happens in order to expose the scale of the problem, call it out publicly, and punish those who perpetrate this culture of fear.
Reflecting on the past 12 months women have gone through in terms of their response to the challenges presented by coronavirus, at home women have been prominent in delivering on the frontline of health and social care, with two women professors, Sarah Gilbert and Catherine Green, helping to pioneer a global solution to the pandemic. In the US, Kamala Harris has become the first woman to be elected Vice-President of the United States, shattering another glass ceiling in the political world. Even closer to home, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, became the first woman ever to hold the role of Chairman of Ways and Means, bringing your infinite wit and wisdom to that important role.
While we acknowledge these significant milestones, the pandemic has brought existing inequalities into sharp focus too. Women have faced pressures in balancing work with home schooling and childcare. Domestic abuse cases have spiralled—up by 83%. When it comes to job losses, women have faced a heavy toll, with those aged 25 to 34 facing the highest unemployment rise. The Government’s mission of levelling up is very relevant to women. To mark International Women’s Day 2021, my message and hope is that a focus on levelling up for women is in place now more than ever before, both here in the UK and across the world.
We have record numbers of female MPs, yet still men outnumber women two to one in positions of power. A 50:50 Cabinet would help to ensure that women’s voices are heard where they need to be—right at the heart of Government. This week, as part of a whole host of International Women’s Day celebrations, we heard from the parliamentary archivist, Mari Takayanagi, about the remarkable contributions of early women MPs and the huge impact they had on law-making—how they spoke out 100 years ago in this place about the most sensitive of crimes against women, like FGM. These stories of courage can be seen in the work of women elected to this House today—women like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), whose courage means that we have world-leading domestic abuse legislation and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, a blueprint for others across the world.
We need more women aspiring to become Members of Parliament, so I warmly welcome the Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry looking at the actions taken on gender equality in the House of Commons. I hope that we can conduct a second gender-sensitive audit as soon as possible, with a body identified as being responsible for putting its recommendations into practice.
Above all, we need 2021 to be the year that we finally grasp the nettle of online abuse, which so badly affects women, particularly those in public life. We need the forthcoming online harms Bill to be more than a set of regulatory guidelines. We need laws that make it clear that online abuse is a crime, particularly with regard to posting intimate images online without consent. A safer, more respectful environment online will also lead to a kinder politics; I really believe that. In the meantime, let us stand up to those who gratuitously abuse women online—particularly women MPs and journalists—to help make sure that more women choose to stand for election and be leaders in our media too.
Women face barriers here in Westminster, but the same is still true of other sectors—in healthcare, for instance, where women account for more than three quarters of the workforce yet fewer than half have leadership positions. An out-of-date workplace with a presenteeism culture does little to support women, particularly when they have had children, so it was helpful to see the Birmingham Business School conduct research through the pandemic to show that flexible working can improve productivity. We need as a nation to adopt flexible working as standard, as part of levelling up for women and delivering a truly modern British workplace shaped around the whole workforce. We need to look closely at what Parliament should retain from the last 12 months of changed ways of working, so that we can play our part in modernising our workplace too.
In levelling up, we need to provide pregnant women and new mothers with better protections to stop them being pushed out of work simply for being pregnant. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that one in four pregnant women felt discriminated against in the last year. Outlawing pregnant women from being made redundant, as Germany has done, would help to stop so many women falling out of the labour market into low-paid work when they have children.
In this mission of levelling up for women, our voice on the global stage will be just as important. The Prime Minister has been a long-time advocate for girls’ education as central to levelling up for women across the globe. As the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office considers its new role, including championing international development through open societies, we need to continue to take forward this principled commitment to girls’ education, alongside the UK’s internationally acknowledged role in outlawing the other inequalities and abuses that women face—for example, abuse in conflict zones, forced marriage and the lack of a host of other basic human rights.
With the UK leading the G7 this year, there is a truly unique opportunity for our country to show leadership on the global stage in promoting gender equality. The UK Government ratifying the International Labour Organisation convention on violence and harassment—the first international labour instrument that recognises the right of everybody to work free from violence and harassment—would be an act of leadership and an appropriate start. Let us celebrate an astonishing year for women and call for a commitment to level up for women across the UK and across the globe, for a fairer society for everybody.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will not surprise Members to know that well over 60 people wish to participate in the debate, and therefore I am afraid that we will have to start and remain with a time limit of just three minutes.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing the debate, and I agree with every single word that she said in her excellent speech.
This International Women’s Day debate comes in the shadow of the menace of male violence against women. I am sure we all feel the same as the Home Secretary, who said that she is “deeply saddened” by the developments in the Sarah Everard investigation, and we all hope against hope that we will not hear the news that we all dread. But at the same time as the sadness, there is real anger among women at the threat that they face on a daily basis. That is not to spread alarm; it is to spell out the reality.
Here we are, in the 21st century, in a country where women and men expect to be equal, but we are not. Women, particularly young women, are terrified of the threat of male violence on the streets—men who try to get them to get in their car, who try to get their number, who follow them, who film them, who will not take no for an answer. Every young woman, every day, walks under this threat, so they adopt myriad strategies just to get home from work in the dark—choosing the busiest route, even if it is longer; keeping their keys in their hand; trying to go with someone rather than alone; getting a friend or their partner to map their location on a phone app; phoning on the way home so that they know they are expected.
Women will find no reassurance at all in the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s statement that it is
“incredibly rare for a woman to be abducted from our streets.”
Women know that abduction and murder is just the worst end of a spectrum of everyday male threat to women. When the police advise women not to go out at night on their own, women ask why they have to be subjected to an informal curfew. It is not women who are the problem here; it is men.
The criminal justice system fails women and lets men off the hook. Whether it is rape or domestic homicide, women are judged and blamed—“Why was she on a dating app?” “Why was she out late at night?” “Why had she been drinking?” “What are those flirty messages on her phone?”—and men find excuses, raking up her previous sexual history in court to try to tarnish her character and prejudice the jury. Let us hear no more false reassurances; let us have action.
Next Monday, we will be debating in this House the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. That is the chance for the Government to banish the culture of male excuses from the criminal justice system and, instead of blaming women, start protecting them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Mother of the House for her very powerful speech, as ever. We now go to the Chairman of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who does so much in this place to champion women.
Last year in this debate, we were not learning how to run a Parliament remotely, and none of us had ever considered being able to contribute to a debate while admiring the cobwebs on our own light fittings. In the spirit of celebration, I am going to think of uplifting things to start with, such as the sheer fact that this centuries-old institution has learned to flex and change—to adapt to Zoom and remote voting.
I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for having driven that agenda forward. We have seen more women contributing more often in Commons debates—more female voices in our Chamber, whether physically present or not—and that I celebrate. We have seen stunning contributions and campaigns from women right across the House and across Parliament, making desperately needed amendments and improvements to the Domestic Abuse Bill. We have seen women outside Parliament, such as Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce determinedly, making sure that we got that roll-out.
We have heard from the Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), about her support for the normalisation of flexible working. That could mean so much to women, and I look forward to an employment Bill coming forward that champions that.
But it is impossible for me to turn my contribution today into an unabashed celebration. It is not going brilliantly for all women—not here, not anywhere. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will speak later, and I know that she will have had to update that hideous, depressing list she is going to read out to add the name of Sarah Everard, so tragically killed while just walking home. Overnight, we saw an outpouring of stories from women about keys, headphones, clothes and sticking to lit streets. We all know the reality is you will probably not be attacked by a stranger, but the fear is there and the fear is real.
On this International Women’s Day, let us champion all women—gay women, who do not need conversion therapy; trans women, who want to be treated with respect and fairness. Remember, they are the ones most likely to suffer domestic abuse.
I wish to reference the work of the Women and Equalities Committee and its report on the gendered economic impact of covid. That was reinforced yesterday by the publication from the Office for National Statistics confirming that women have indeed suffered a greater economic impact from the pandemic—more likely to be furloughed than their male colleagues; more likely to be employed on a part-time contract and not entitled to statutory sick pay; less confident that they will not be made redundant.
We no longer have to look at health policy in the round because of the announcement this week of the women’s health strategy and the call for evidence, but apparently we still have to look at economic policy in the round and cannot accept data from the ONS that women have been harder hit economically. We will not get a female employment strategy, and I do not celebrate that.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
I echo the comments made previously about the horrific news we are hearing about Sarah Everard. My thoughts go out to her and her friends and family.
Celebrating women for one day alone is not enough. Women’s issues are not challenges on the periphery that can be addressed in isolation, and the problems that women face are firmly embedded in our everyday politics, systems and lives. Year after year, the overall experience of women largely remains the same, and women are still more likely to experience inequality, poverty and abuse.
As with all forms of oppression, understanding how women are held back requires an ability to reassess everything as we know it, but through a different lens. For example, women make up the majority of part-time employment, and when we create an economy in which such work is often low paid and insecure, is it a surprise when women disproportionately suffer the consequences of that? When we have a Budget that will not implement a real living wage, we know that the consequences of that will disproportionately affect women. When we have a stigmatising social security system that includes things such as the rape clause, are we helping women?
I do not want to sound ungrateful for the progress we have made. Organisations such as Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid serve to educate me just as they inspire me, but as policymakers we must reflect on whether we are giving such organisations the support they need, and treating their opinions with the value they deserve. The inequality, harassment and poverty that women disproportionately experience does not come about by nature; it is enabled by our institutions and culture.
Human beings are varied and complex, and intersectional feminism provides a greater level of clarity as to how inequality can impact different people. For example, the experiences of a woman with a disability are likely to vary from the specific experiences of a woman of colour. Only by taking time to look through those additional lenses can we begin to unpick what enables that inequality, and learn how we can better support each other as women. Rather than trying awkwardly to cram women into institutions that undervalue them, and structures that were built long ago for men and by men, we must reimagine and reorganise those very structures, but this time build them with women, especially marginalised women, at the heart of everything we do.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is great to see the Chairman of Ways and Means—a woman—in the Chair, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this important debate. When I left this morning, I told my husband that I was speaking in an International Women’s Day debate. He said, “But that was on Monday”, and I said, “Unfortunately we didn’t get time to debate it on Monday,” so I am pleased we are debating it today.
Time is short, so I will touch on just two issues. First is the UK’s leadership and role in combating the abuse of women globally. I was a Home Office Minister with responsibility for preventing abuse, exploitation and crime, and I saw some of the most grotesque and horrific crimes that can be inflicted. All too often they were inflicted on women. Breast ironing, female genital mutilation, forced marriage—things that are done to and forced on women around the world; things that should never happen to any woman.
The UK has had global leadership in this area, and I am enormously worried, given the mood music coming from the Government around our commitment to overseas aid, that we are not committed to those areas in the way that once we were. It is the UK’s leadership that has meant that we have seen reductions in these horrific crimes.
The UK’s leadership has also led to the focus on 12 years’ education for girls, which the Prime Minister championed when he was Foreign Secretary. The UK has led on modern slavery, which affects men and women, but predominantly women. Let us be clear: our overseas aid stopped Ebola becoming a pandemic. Those are real achievements that our aid budget has helped to deliver and I am desperately worried that we may see that as a nice-to-have rather than an essential. I call on the Government to ensure that we have a debate on the matter and a vote, so that parliamentarians can have a say on that manifesto commitment.
I want quickly to consider Parliament and this place. In my role as Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. It has been fantastic to see the way in which Parliament has adapted. We did not want to be in this situation in Parliament. We did not want to sit 2 metres apart, but we have to. We have adapted and women have benefited. Evidence to the Committee shows that more women have used virtual participation than men. More women have been able to enjoy the benefits of perhaps an even more family-friendly House. We are following the road map and are coming to the point where we end lockdown. We should look carefully at the things we have done in the past 12 months and consider what would work for the future.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a great privilege to be the first female MP for Neath. I would not be here if it were not for the first female general secretary of Welsh Labour, Baroness Anita Gale of Blaenrhondda, who fought for all-women shortlists. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) succeeded Baroness Gale and the current general secretary is Louise Magee—three inspirational female leaders.
Gwenda Thomas, the first female Senedd Member for Neath, is a staunch advocate for equal opportunities. Margaret Coleman, widow of former Neath MP Donald Coleman, is the busiest octogenarian in Neath. Renowned soprano Katherine Jenkins, famous actress and singer Siân Phillips and singer Bonnie Tyler are from Neath.
During the 1984 miners’ strike, women were at the front of picket lines, organised valley support groups, and kept spirits up across south Wales. “Pride” was filmed in Onllwyn Miners’ Welfare Hall, called the “Palace of Culture” by my dear friend Hywel Francis. Dove Workshop was formed during the strike, by women for women. Its founders were Hefina Headon, Mair Francis and Lesley Smith. Dove Workshop retrained women to gain qualifications and is the birthplace of the Community University of the Valleys.
Women are pioneers in sport. As a former Welsh squash international with over 100 caps, and the only female Welsh squash national coach, I was awarded the Sport Wales Female Coach of the Year in 2008 for my contribution to squash. I am proud of our current Welsh squash senior internationals. Tesni Evans is ranked world No. 9, is a Commonwealth bronze medallist and British Champion two years running. Emily Whitlock is a former world No. 12. Ellie Breach, aged 15, and her sister Millie, aged 13, from Neath are both age-group Welsh internationals. Squash Wales held an International Women’s Day virtual session with Tesni, and more than 40 women across Wales joined in. I will continue to fight for squash to become an Olympic sport.
My friend Bethan Howell, captain of Seven Sisters RFC Ladies, a Welsh international and Ospreys player, is a fighter for women’s equality, on and off the field. I am proud to be patron of Seven Sisters RFC Ladies.
As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I will miss my dear friend Karen Wilkie, who is retiring as deputy general secretary of the Co-operative party in June, after 26 years of loyal service.
I thank my daughter Angharad from the bottom of my heart for her love and support. Angharad is my world.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Today, I feel pretty angry and sad: angry that women walking home in the dark have to be scared of the person walking closely behind them, and sad because for far too many women, even getting home safely does not mean they are safe from harm. So I say to all colleagues right across the House: let us never allow party politics get in the way of protecting women and girls. I want to use my short time today to raise an issue that would help women, and that is making flexible work standard.
In 1995, I was working for Barclays. At the age of 32, and five months pregnant with my first child, I was promoted to senior executive. Of 240 senior execs, only eight were women. I was told that taking on this massive new job would mean coming back quickly from maternity leave, and I naively leapt at the chance. Three months after Fred was born, I had fallen in love with him, but he did not sleep much and I was under huge pressure from my male boss to go back to work. I will not dwell on it, but after post-natal depression and 18 months holding down the job while seeking to go part time, and two miscarriages later, I took legal advice. The head of the UK bank had said:
“We have managed without female directors until now. We certainly do not need part-time ones.”
I was advised to sue for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination, but blissfully for me, I was now pregnant with Harry, and this precious pregnancy was not worth the stress of a court case so I took voluntary redundancy. The reason that I could have sued was that, even then, employers were not allowed to refuse to consider part-time work, and 25 years on, that is still the case, but the 21st century demands change.
Mrs Miller
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this is one of the many reasons why we should protect pregnant women from being made redundant, as in the case that she is talking about?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with everything she said in her remarks.
During my time in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a top priority was to make the UK the best place in the world to work, by encouraging flexible working as standard, transparency of employment terms and regular working hours. I planned to bring this forward in the employment rights Bill, so that applicants could propose their own working day as opposed to the employer setting the terms. Whether someone works in a supermarket or behind a desk, they should have the right to request a working pattern that suits them without negative consequences. Of course, employees can already request flexible working, but I have found that many fear to do so because of repercussions for their job security.
Flexible as standard can also be a huge advantage for employers. If job ads do not specify fixed working arrangements, applications will come from a much wider and more diverse pool of candidates. Employers must of course be able to refuse unrealistic offers, but enabling flexible as standard will, in my view, improved quality of life as well as productivity and diversity in the workplace. We know that women provide the majority of part-time workers and also the principal caring roles, so capturing all their talents will benefit both our economy and our society. So, as we look to build back better, let us put flexible work as standard at the heart of our recovery.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
As always, it is a pleasure to speak in the International Women’s Day debate. International Women’s Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on the contribution that women make, here and around the globe, and to look at how far we have come in the fight for equality and the distance we yet have to travel. Of course, this debate is taking place at a time like no other. The past 12 months have been incredibly difficult for all of us. Covid has brought disruption and worry, and to some it has brought heartbreak. It has also exacerbated the inequalities that were already present, and the means to challenge these things has been hampered by the outbreak of the pandemic. Sadly, this has exacerbated the inequality between men and women.
Only 9% of working-class women in the UK can work at home. The sectors that are most severely affected are dominated by women, including hospitality, education and healthcare. With schools and nurseries only partially open, it is women who are taking on most of the unpaid care, often reducing their hours or giving up their employment to look after children. It is women who are more likely to care for their older or disabled relatives and neighbours, and sadly, it is also women who will be trapped in their homes self-isolating with an abusive partner. Despite this, women and girls in the UK have been largely invisible from the debate and excluded from decision making.
Hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ pounds have been spent without considering the specific challenges that women are facing. For example, in January the LSE reported that 71% of women in the UK were in some form of employment, but three months later that figure had dropped by 5%. If they have remained in employment, women have seen their work volumes increase and have also experienced job loss. Furlough was impacting 2.3 million women in January this year. Although the extension is welcome, there should not be a cliff edge to that support. The uplift to universal credit, worth £1,040 a year to claimants, is due to be axed later this year. That must not happen at all, at any time.
Women have been adversely impacted and are the worst affected in this pandemic. There have been a few silver linings to the pandemic, and the opportunity for women to work from home and have flexible working is more important than ever. I call on the Government to take into consideration the findings of the Women and Equalities Committee in this regard.
Lastly, how often have we said to a friend on the way home, “Be safe—text me when you get home”? The fear alone should tell us we have a problem.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go to the Father of the House, who, I recollect, has taken part in this International Women’s Day debate on every occasion I have observed over the last 25 years—long before it was fashionable.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
That is probably because my mother thought she would have been a better MP than I have been, and my wife, daughters and granddaughters are probably certain that they could be, too.
I want to recognise that there has been progress, but I also want to join the right hon. and hon. Ladies—colleagues—who have spoken so far. We will listen in silence to the next speaker, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), giving the roll call of those who been killed by men.
I echo the remarks that have been and will be made about the fact that cuts in our target for UN overseas aid will predominantly hit women—the women whom I have been dedicated to since I was a trustee of Christian Aid, and since I served on the Select Committee on overseas aid in the 1970s. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to say that the Government should stick to the promise that was proudly in the Conservative manifesto at the last election.
Domestically, it is not a question of, “Most men behave well most of the time, and no one can claim to be perfect,” or a question of, “Why are most women in a worse position?” The fact is that we all need to change. I hope that we can get to the stage where I do not have to carry a whistle on my keyring, and neither do my daughters and granddaughters.
People need to feel safe at work, when travelling and in their domestic circumstances. For that to happen, we need to find a way to ensure that people have the patience and courage to challenge behaviours in themselves and others that result in people feeling threatened and suffering violence, whether physical, mental or economic. I would like people to be able to be people. I recognise that we may be men, we may be women, we may be female, we may be male, we may be mixed, we may have other orientations or we may feel differently. That is not the point; the point is that we should be safe and secure, and we should be able to talk. For that, we need to encourage each other.
I hope that the elements of this debate will be reported in the newspapers, along with practical suggestions about what we can see in ourselves and around us. As Dr Richard Stone—one of the assessors, along with Sir William Macpherson, on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry—said in relation to housing, too often we ask the victims to put things right. He said that it is normally white, middle-class men in full-time jobs who have the power. It is our responsibility to join with others to make life better. Whatever our age, stage, race, background or religion, people need to be safe, and at the moment women do not feel safe. I am glad to have contributed, and I hope to learn from what I will hear in a moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Father of the House for his contribution, for his constant support in favour of this debate taking place here in this Chamber—for which we have had to fight over the years—and for his constant support also for the matters discussed here.
I am now going to temporarily suspend the time limit, because I appreciate that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is going to read a list of names. Members will know that the reading of lists is prohibited in this Chamber, but Mr Speaker has given special dispensation to the hon. Lady, as has happened in previous years, to read this particular very sensitive and very important list.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all in the Speaker’s Office for their consideration. It shows that Parliament is very committed to this issue.
In this place, we count what we care about—we count the vaccines done; we count the number of people on benefits. We rule or oppose based on a count, and we obsessively track that data. We love to count data about our own popularity. However, we do not currently count dead women. No Government study is done into the patterns every year of the data on victims of domestic abuse who are killed, die by suicide or die suddenly. Dead women is a thing we have all just accepted as part of our daily lives. Dead women are just one of those things.
Killed women are not vanishingly rare; killed women are common. Dead women do count, and thanks to the brilliant work of Karen Ingala Smith and the Counting Dead Women project, and the academics and charities working on the femicide census, these women’s lives and the scale of male violence against women can be known.
Since last year on this day, these are the women killed in the UK where a man has been convicted or charged as the primary perpetrator in the case: Vanita Nowell; Tracey Kidd; Nelly Moustafa; Zahida Bi; Josephine Kaye; Shadika Mohsin Patel; Maureen Kidd; Wendy Morse; Nageeba Alariqy; Elsie Smith; Kelly Stewart; Gwendoline Bound; Ruth Williams; Victoria Woodhall; Kelly Fitzgibbons, who was killed alongside her two daughters; Caroline Walker; Katie Walker; Zobaidah Salangy; Betty Dobbin; Sonia Calvi; Maryan Ismail; Daniela Espirito Santo; Ruth Brown, Denise Keane-Barnett-Simmons; Jadwiga Szczygielska; Emma Jane McParland; Louise Aitchison; Silke Hartshorne-Jones; Hyacinth Morris; Louise Smith; Claire Parry; Aya Hachem; Melissa Belshaw; Yvonne Lawson McCann; Lyndsey Alcock; Aneta Zdun; Nikoleta Zdun; Mandy Houghton; Amy-Leanne Stringfellow; Bibaa Henry; Nicole Smallman; Dawn Bennett; Gemma Marjoram; Karolina Zinkeviciene; Rosemary Hill; Jackie Hoadley; Khloemae Loy; Kerry Woolley; Shelly Clark; Bernadette Walker; Stella Frew; Dawn Fletcher; Deborah Jones; Patrycja Wyrebek; Therasia Gordon; Esther Egbon; Susan Baird; Balvinder Gahir; Lynda Cooper; Lorraine Cox; Suzanne Winnister; Maria Howarth; Abida Karim; Saman Mir Sacharvi; Vian Mangrio; Poorna Kaameshwari Sivaraj, who was killed alongside her three-year-old son; Louise Rump; Julie Williams; Rhonda Humphreys; Nicole McGregor; Angela Webber; Carole Wright; Sarah Smith; Ildiko Bettison; Kimberley Deakin; Marie Gladders; Paula Leather; Caroline Kayll; Lauren Mae Bloomer; Hansa Patel; Helen Bannister; Marta Vento; Andreia Rodriguez Guilherme; Joanna Borucka; Azaria Williams; Catherine Granger; Eileen Dean; Sue Addis; Carol Hart; Jacqueline Price; Mary Wells; Tiprat Argatu; Christie Frewin; Souad Bellaha; Ann Turner; N’Taya Elliott-Cleverley; Rose Marie Tinton; Ranjit Gill; Helen Joy; Emma Robertson; Nicole Anderson; Linda Maggs; Carol Smith; Sophie Moss; Christina Rowe; Susan Hannaby; Michelle Lizanec; Wieslawa Mierzejewska; Judith Rhead; Anna Ovsyannikova; Tina Eyre; Katie Simpson; Bennylyn Burke and her two-year-old daughter; Samantha Heap; Geetika Goyal; Imogen Bohajczuk; and Wenjing Xu.
There has been much debate over what I would say at the end of the list. Her name rings out across all our media—we have all prayed that the name of Sarah Everard would never be on any list. Let us pray every day and work every day to make sure that nobody’s name ends up on this list again.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who—well, there are no words. There are no words at all.
I want to talk about the influence of women in my life. I can honestly say that in my life, when I have chosen parts of my career that have been male-dominated, I have had nothing but support from the male colleagues, friends and family members in my life. I would not be here today if it was not for their wholehearted support. But we need to remember that we do not have that support from every man in society. We have come a long way in the UK, but we still have a long way to go. That is true not only in this country but around the world.
I want to reflect today on the commemoration of Beatrice Shilling, the now renowned engineer who was awarded a gold star for doing a lap around Brooklands at more than 100 mph. That reminded me of my grandmother who was, in the 1930s and throughout the second world war, a military dispatch rider on a motorcycle. She travelled the length and breadth of the country on her own. When I started to drive as a young woman, she would ask me where I had been, but she could never understand where I had been if I talked about motorways. I had to talk to her in terms of A roads and B roads, because that is how she navigated the country. Often, in blackouts, she had to navigate the country totally in the dark.
I would also like to pay tribute to my mother, who in the late 1950s became a police officer. There were so few women police officers in those days that her police number was 5. She was seen as a great talent and became a detective, but to go into the criminal investigation department in those days officers had to have special dispensation to become a female detective if they were under the age of 21.
Without my grandmother’s and mother’s stories—without them recollecting what they had done—and without their advice about what I could do by being fearless, going out there and doing the job that I wanted to do, working with both male and female colleagues and friends to put something back into society, I would not be where I am today.
I pay tribute to the working women and our male colleagues who continue to support the great moves forward. I am so proud to be here, and thank you all very much.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
It is 2021—it is more than 100 years since women got the vote and more than 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970. We have come such a long way, and although we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us and fought for equality, we still have such a distance to go.
My children are growing up in a deeply unequal world with deeply unequal experiences. They are pigeonholed and they are stereotyped. Even now, in 2021, little girls are told to be kind, to be nice and to smile, while little boys are told to be brave, to be fast and to be strong. How often have we picked up a toy teddy beer, looked at it and said “he”—used the word “he” to describe it—unless it has a pink bow? In all of those cases, we will say “he” for those things. That is because this is drummed into us, and this is drummed into our society works.
We must consider this—we must look at stereotypes—and we must always consider intersectionality: we must check our own privilege. Younger women, ethnic minority women, bisexual women, trans women and disabled women are more likely to be domestically abused. Terry Pratchett wrote:
“Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.”
But I also think it begins when we remove anyone’s agency or we remove their right to make their own choices. Before we embark on criticising a focus that someone has, we should all check our own actions and we should check our own privilege. We have the ability to fight on behalf of others, but we have that ability because we have our own agency and we have our own rights to make choices. Before we can fight for anyone else, we need to have a measure of privilege that gives us that those options and the energy to do so.
The social security system and this UK Government have done what they can to remove that agency and to remove those choices. We can see that by the number of women who have had abortions during the course of this pandemic and have said that the two-child policy and the rape clause have created the financial situation that has forced them into this position. That is horrendous. In Scotland, we are putting dignity and respect at the heart of our social security system. Instead of drowning out the voices of sidelined minority groups with our own concerns, we should be hearing their voices, we should be listening to their voices and we should be amplifying their voices.
Before #MeToo women were experiencing sexual harassment, before George Floyd BAME people were being murdered and before Sarah Everard’s murder women were scared to walk home alone. We should not be waiting until somebody is murdered before taking their voices seriously.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate, and I agreed with every word she said. As for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I just hope that, when she is on her feet next year, she will be speaking for a much shorter period of time and there are not so many women killed at the hands of man. As for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to send her a virtual hug for her brave speech.
It is with a heavy heart that we are recognising International Women’s Day today, and the mood of the House has once again been dictated by the actions of men, not by the achievements of women. That is the reality of our day-to-day lives. It is the actions of men that dictate our lives and our choices, and for the next few minutes I want—I choose—to celebrate some phenomenal women in my constituency, particularly Helen Taylor-Thompson.
Helen Taylor-Thompson lived in the village of Nutley and, unfortunately, I had to attend her funeral last year. When Helen was around, she was wonderful in providing me with cups of tea and bits of cake. The reason why she is so important is that, at the age of 19, she signed the Official Secrets Act and began working for the Special Operations Executive, but she did not stop there. Later on, she raised over £3 million and set up the UK’s first hospice caring for people with AIDS-related illnesses. It was the hospice where the late Princess of Wales hugged or shook hands with a Mildmay patient, helping to break the taboo and stigma around HIV and AIDS. I wonder whether, if Helen Taylor-Thompson had been a man, all us would know her name, but she was a woman, and I want to put her name on record today.
When we celebrate the phenomenal vaccination programme, I hope that we do not whitewash the roles of women. I want women like those in my constituency to be recognised, including Charlotte Luck, the practice manager of the Meads medical centre, for having done so much work in ensuring vaccines are rolled out efficiently, and Dr Susie Padgham, a GP based at Saxonbury House surgery in Crowborough, who at one point was provided with over 1,000 extra vaccines and was able to get patients vaccinated in a short period of time. I hope that their stories are heard too.
I can speak about the progress of women and the fear and prejudice that we face, but I want to talk about the plight of Uyghur women, who are living the nightmare of “The Handmaid’s Tale”, and in particular the brave woman Rahima Mahmut, who is a Uyghur survivor. We should carry her on our shoulders as she fights for the plight of women—women who are forced into being sterilised or having abortions and who have their children removed, all because they are Uyghur and based in Xinjiang. I hope that we can do much more within our power to support them.
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, but it would be far more powerful if we had more than just three minutes to talk about the phenomenal progress that women have made and the work that we have to do.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing the debate. International Women’s Day is supposed to be a celebration, but even before the last 24 hours—given, for example, the progress of the Scottish Parliament’s inquiries into the handling of harassment complaints and, more generally, the notably more negative impact of the pandemic on women across so many areas of their lives—it has not really felt like something worth celebrating.
Mr Speaker reminded us earlier today that it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the live investigation in relation to the tragic disappearance of Sarah Everard. I cannot help but reflect that, of course, it is not all men; but particularly where men in public positions of trust are guilty of committing acts of violence against women, it could be any man, and women feel compelled to act accordingly. I retweeted a tweet expressing that sentiment last night, and my 16-year-old daughter liked it. She never likes my tweets. The fact that she chose to like that one makes me incredibly sad.
I also reflect on my own time in the police service. I was a trained sexual offences officer. I recall that early in the 2000s, my force ran a bus advert in Edinburgh advising women to think about what they drank and who they were with when socialising—basically a plan to prevent sexual assault. In my early 20s, as I was then, I probably thought that that was reasonable. It shows how conditioned we all are.
As part of my sexual offences role, I was responsible for taking the victim’s statement and then attending any medical examination. Securing evidence and productions and maintaining a chain of evidence is crucial, but I also witnessed the impact of that initial investigation on the women involved. Time is a factor—the length of time for a sexual offences officer to travel to wherever the assault was taking place, to take a statement, to travel to the place where the medical exam would happen and for the exam itself, with women not being able to wash or change in that time, in order to preserve evidence. It is an incredibly invasive process. No matter how empathetic the investigating officer is—and I like to think that I always was—they are not your friend; they are not your family member. The real tragedy is that, a lot of the time, all that comes to absolutely nothing. And of course, that is just in the cases of those women who feel able to contact the police and disclose in the first place.
So how do we choose to challenge? The challenge to the Government is: pass the Domestic Abuse Bill, which has been in the offing for four years; legislate to make misogyny a hate crime; and make sure that those occupying positions of trust are people we really can trust. Men need to step up. They need to be active allies. International Women’s Day is just as much about my 13-year-old son as it is about my 16 year-old daughter.
The final challenge is to ourselves. We need to do much more to ensure that when we talk about women and about discrimination and violence, we are inclusive. Wenjing Lin, 16, died on Friday at her family’s takeaway restaurant in Wales. The man accused of her murder appeared in court this morning. At the root of much of our debate around single-sex spaces is the fear of sexual violence perpetrated by men. Changing men’s behaviour changes that debate, and on International Women’s Day, that is a challenge that faces us all.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for organising the debate. It is a privilege to take part in it. I am the representative man who is here to take the punishment and the blame, and I do that—I do not shirk from that responsibility—because, despite everything that has been achieved for women’s rights, this debate proves that this is not a job that has been done; it is still very much a job to do. I think of things that have changed in my lifetime, such as the right for a woman to claim she has been raped by her husband, and, in retrospect, it is astonishing that they were allowed to persist in the modern age.
The main point I want to make is about the male blindness that still persists, which can so easily distort decisions. We need a political settlement in which it is impossible for decisions to be made that fail to recognise that, while men and women are equal, we have very different life experiences, which means that we need more women in the room when decisions are being formed. Look at how disadvantaged women have been in this covid crisis. How much do we think the Government have been able to recognise that?
If we want more women Ministers, I say to my colleagues on the Government Benches that we need more women MPs. I was tasked by David Cameron, when he first became leader, to increase the number of women candidates who could win Conservative seats. Up until 2010, only 9% of those on the Conservative Benches were women. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was first elected to this House, she was one of only 13 women Conservative Members. At that same time, the Labour party had 101. Today, we still only have 25%. I am very proud of that rapid improvement, but it is not enough. Can I just point out to my male colleagues that half the population are women?
I applaud the Prime Minister’s November statement that we should have a 50:50 Parliament, but how are we going to get there? Who stands in the way? It is the Conservative party, because we are not making this happen. Is the only way by legislation? I hope not, but we men have to understand why so few women come forward, why so many women MPs feel hounded and belittled by our political and social media culture, and why most women tend to have shorter political careers than men. I urge my male colleagues to join the Prime Minister in this ambition. This is not just a women’s issue. We men have to help to make this happen if we believe in it, or else the men are still the problem.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Our International Women’s Day debates are usually a chance for us to celebrate our achievements, our pioneers, our trailblazers—those fearless glass ceiling smashers. We sigh and roll our eyes in frustration about how much further we still have to go. We remember that in contrast to the 5,000 or so men who have sat here, still only 520 women ever have. But then we buck ourselves up, rally other women, encourage them, ask them to stand, cheer those who persist, be positive and push ourselves even further, looking forward still to the changes that are surely only just around the next corner. But not today. Today is for Sarah. I wish we could all tell her just how angry we all feel. I wish she could see how much she has touched our lives and that we continue to keep her in our prayers.
The women here know that this is the day we hear my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out that list. We bring tissues. We prepare ourselves mentally as well as we can to hear the names of all the women killed by men since she last read us that horrific list. We will ourselves not to cry in this place, but it is almost impossible not to be overcome as those names echo around the Chamber: ordinary and extraordinary women, mothers, daughters, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, colleagues, best friends, neighbours—all loved, all the centre of someone’s world.
We know the statistics all too well. We know that every single day of every single week—pandemic or not—women are murdered by men. A very quick and basic search on a phone will reveal headlines such as “Three Women a Week Killed by Domestic Violence During Lockdown,” “Domestic Abuse Killings More Than Double Amid Covid-19 Lockdown,” and “Calls to Women’s Helplines Soar During Lockdown.” It goes on and on and on.
The outpouring of collective rage over the last 24 hours shows that women are tired. We are tired of having to pre-empt possible violence. We are tired of having to risk-assess every ordinary everyday action every hour of every day of our lives. We are tired of having to explain and justify every simple choice we make, every opinion we hold, every aspect of our appearance. We are sick of our voices going unheard, our calls for action being dismissed and delayed; sick of rules being changed to exclude us even in the oldest and seemingly most noble of our long-established institutions. Sarah Everard has reignited a fire within us, much like George Floyd did. Enough is enough. We must take a long hard look at society, at social media, at misogyny, at violence, at ourselves. Let us hope that next year’s list is virtually non-existent.
It is really painful to see the revelations that brave women are making individually on platforms such as Twitter. Every woman I know will have a similar story. If a man is reading some of those stories and is moved, shocked or upset by them, I promise them that the women in their life will all have lived some of those experiences themselves. Some of those experiences just need to be listened to.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this important debate.
As the first female Member for Sevenoaks and Swanley, I was going to use my time today to talk about women in the covid recovery and the need for flexibility in the workplace. I strongly support all that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) had to say, but I want to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) in talking about the heart-breaking case that we have seen and the developments in the past 24 hours.
What we have seen online is an outpouring of grief and of people’s stories about the harassment and violence to which they have been subject over a number of years. These terrors that we experience as we walk down the street, looking over our shoulder, clutching our keys because we are nervous that someone will come up to us, but hoping desperately that we will never have to use them are, sadly, universal experiences.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said yesterday that such cases are rare. Yes, thankfully, it is rare that women are abducted in this country, but the roll call from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) is devastating. Incidents of women being harassed are nowhere near rare enough. A recent report from UN Women UK shows that almost all women—almost all women—have been sexually harassed. We must do more to address that.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has arrived in the House. I am pleased that it proposes to extend the minimum term for sexual and violent offenders and the power to end automatic early release. The Government should consider ending the standard determinant sentences for rape so that the Parole Board is always involved before these perpetrators are let out into the public.
The Domestic Abuse Bill, thankfully, is progressing well through Parliament and will create a legal definition of domestic abuse to provide clarity that domestic abuse can be financial, verbal and emotional as well as physical and sexual. Critically, it is about patterns of abuse over time. More needs to be done. We have seen from the outpouring of grief, upset, worry and concern that this exhausting pattern needs to end, and I hope that the violence against women and girls strategy, which is forthcoming later this year, will look at what more we can do on police harassment and on the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting cases. Women have a right to feel safe and it is about time that we made that a reality.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate.
Every 16 minutes, a woman or a girl is abused. Every three days, a woman is killed by a man. We heard the list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). We must get to the root of this crisis. Inequality in society is fuelling the killing of women. The bullying and silencing of women’s voices contributes to the abuse that women receive. If a man was killed every three days, there would be investigations at every level of society. Unfortunately, though, at every level of society, a man still holds the power—whether it be economically, politically, in the media or the judicial system. One woman is killed every three days, but let us ask ourselves this: what are we really doing about it.
It is time for all those with power to stop being bystanders in this pandemic and get involved. Just yesterday, we read about Sarah Everard who it seems has been sadly killed. The suspect is a policeman who roamed the corridors of Parliament. I have made a freedom of information request to establish how many police officers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I must caution the hon. Lady to be very careful about what she says, please. I will not say any more than that. Perhaps she could go on to the next part of her speech.
Dawn Butler
I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have made a freedom of information request to establish how many police officers have been investigated for domestic violence. Recognised journalist Alexandra Heal won a Paul Foot prize for uncovering the shocking stories of how police forces handle domestic abuse complaints against their own officers. Justice for Women highlighted the injustices face by women who kill abusive partners. Why are so many women charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter if there is strong evidence of domestic violence? It is because, predominantly, men are making the judgments.
There was the recent case of Anthony Williams, who was sentenced to five years in jail for strangling his wife to death. She had her keys in her hand and was trying to escape. Judge Paul Thomas said that, in his view, Williams’s mental health was
“severely affected at the time”.
This is ridiculous. In 2019, Judge Hayden said:
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife”—
really, Justice Hayden? How about the fundamental right to life, or the fundamental right to say no? Lord Chief Justice Burnett said that the small number of sexism cases in courts gives a false impression. I say that all sexism in courts must be eradicated and judges removed.
We need more men tackling male violence against women. We need judges to be barred if they do not understand that any violence against women and girls is wrong. I welcome Baroness Helic’s amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill and I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will support it. We need to challenge and interrupt abuse at every level in society, so today, I challenge the judiciary. The pool from which judges are drawn is too narrow. Retention of women is dismal because of the abuse they suffer at every stage. Our judiciary is poorly served because of misogyny and discrimination. We ultimately need a wider pool if we are going to change the culture and structure. Let us start with three Ps—prevent, protect and prosecute.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
I am fortunate: I am a white, heterosexual, well-educated woman. I am not a ’50s-born woman, and, as far as I am aware, I am fit in mind and body. I was married to the same man for 47 years and jointly raised two sons and a daughter. After leaving university, I received the same salary as men I worked alongside throughout my working life. Other women are not so lucky. In the spirit of International Women’s Day, I challenge the treatment of these less fortunate women today. I can list only a few.
I was raised in a different era by my mother, who was born in 1919. I raised my family differently and, for my daughter, some things were easier than they were for me. We have laws now on equal pay, protected characteristics and statutory maternity pay, which makes me wonder why, last month, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee, described pregnancy and maternity discrimination as one of the
“most urgent…threats to equality”
during this pandemic. I ask myself, is this to be a never-ending fight? The Government must introduce redundancy pay gap reporting by protected characteristics and reporting on the numbers of women who have been pregnant or on maternity leave when they were made redundant.
I challenge the gender pension gap that still exists today. Women, particularly disabled, older, minority ethic, from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds and those with caring responsibilities, are among those who will have lower lifetime earnings for one reason or another. The gender pension gap is around 40%, more than twice the gender pay gap of 17%. This leads to £7,500 a year less pension for these women on average.
Finally, I also want to reference the results, which have already been mentioned, of a recent survey of 1,000 women commissioned by UN Women UK. Over 70% of UK women say that they have experienced sexual harassment in public. Only 3% of women aged 18 to 24 said that they had not experienced any of the behaviours that were asked about. Only 4% of women reported these incidents, with 45% of women saying that they did not believe reporting them would change anything. We all need to take this issue seriously. We are all aware of the tragedies that occur daily. We must make public places safer for all and we must desist from victim blaming.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this debate, and for her wider work championing women.
I was recently looking at a BBC poll from the early 2000s about the greatest Britons of all time. It is striking because only 13 of the top 100 are women, and most of those are royalty. That is not because women cannot be great explorers, scientists or war heroes; it is because, until relatively recently, we were not afforded those opportunities. What we have been through this past year, and what we are still going through, is like a war. In previous wars, the heroes would have been great men such as the Duke of Wellington, Nelson and Churchill. This time around, people will remember the names of Sarah Gilbert, Catherine Green, Kate Bingham and many more.
Although it is always important to reflect on the progress we have made, today is a day to reflect on how much more we have to do. Since before I became an MP, I have been privileged to work alongside brilliant organisations encouraging women to stand in public life, such as 50:50 Parliament and Women2Win. We know that women are much less likely to put themselves forward, but if we are going to rebuild from this pandemic, we are going to need the very best talent, no matter what their background or gender. We simply cannot afford to miss out. Although we should do all that we can to encourage women to put themselves forward for what I think is one of the best jobs in the world, I am pleased that the Government are also taking steps to address some of the challenges that may put women off, particularly around intimidation and abuse.
Like many others, this week I have been horrified by the disappearance of Sarah Everard. Her family are in all our thoughts, as is she. As someone who lived in that area for many years, I have both made that judgment to walk home alone at 9 pm and also felt the nagging fear of doing so.
When one in four women has experienced domestic abuse, and nearly 80% of all women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces, we have to acknowledge that there is a lot to do on women’s safety. The responses that we have seen in the last few days show just how prevalent harassment and violence against women is. I know that I have experienced it: in the workplace, in a bar, in the street, on public transport and as a student—and that is completely in line with all the other women I know. As long as this continues, we will need the brilliant specialist services that we have. I constantly feel so grateful for East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services, and Reigate and Banstead Women’s Aid.
I welcome the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill and the hundreds of millions of pounds that we have added to funding domestic abuse services during the pandemic, but they will always need more funding as long as abuse is on the rise. I think what they would actually like, more than anything, is for us to take away their custom. I look forward to the progress that we can make on this, particularly through the upcoming ending violence against women and girls strategy.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. Until recently, thousands of women were detained indefinitely every year in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre on the outskirts of Bedford. Many of those women were survivors of rape, torture and trafficking, and had left their countries to find safety; yet, in the UK, they were locked up for weeks and even months on end, causing them huge mental distress.
In 2015, research by the charity Women for Refugee Women found that 40% of women that it spoke to had self-harmed while in detention. In the same year, the chief inspector of prisons called Yarl’s Wood a “place of national concern”. Campaigners, including women who had previously been detained in Yarl’s Wood, called for its complete closure—a measure that I have long called for. But the Home Office did not close Yarl’s Wood. The Home Office has now announced that it is planning to open a new immigration removal centre for women in County Durham. It has decided to open this new detention centre for women, in spite of the fact that the number of women detained under immigration powers is currently at an historic low
Immigration detention retraumatises women who have already survived serious human rights abuses. It is also often completely pointless. Home Office statistics show that in 2018, just 14% of asylum-seeking women who were released from detention centres were removed from the UK. This Government could not find resources in the recent Budget for any investment in areas that would help women towards greater equality, such as childcare, but they can find the resources to open an unnecessary detention centre that will retraumatise vulnerable women.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my interests set out in the register.
I want to talk about the position of women across the world and the deep poverty that disfigures our world. I think the whole House will accept that we cannot understand international development unless we see it through the eyes of a girl or a woman, because girls and women suffer most grievously from the effects of poverty. They suffer first and hardest from climate change, food insecurity, conflict and disorder. As we have heard, so many are in important caring roles, and they are often, in the developing world, the earners in families. Some 2.1 billion girls live in countries that, even before the pandemic, were not on track to meet any of the gender equality targets set down by the United Nations. One of the best ways of changing the world is to educate girls. If we educate girls, they marry later, educate their own children, tend to be more likely to be economically active, and adopt leadership roles in their communities. That is why the Prime Minister is so right to champion—to aspire to—every girl getting 12 years of education.
But all this great work will be prejudiced—British leadership will be prejudiced—if we break our promise on the 0.7% commitment. We have recently seen horrific cuts, often of more than 50%, in Britain’s role in this area. For example, in family planning—giving women control over their own fertility so that they can decide whether and when they have children—there has been huge British leadership since 2012 and before, but if these cuts go ahead, 8 million women will not get access to family planning. I have seen the powerful effect of British leadership in this area empowering women. I remember, on one occasion, watching 60 women sitting under a tree in Uganda hearing what was possible thanks to UK taxpayers. At the end, they were asked if they wanted to proceed to further consultation about contraception and women’s health, and every single hand under that tree went up. The cause of women’s empowerment will be set back if these fearsome cuts go ahead.
As chair of the G7, we are the only country cutting back. Only a week ago, France committed to 0.7% for the first time. Germany has reached 0.7%. The United States has added $15 billion to the aid budget. We are relinquishing our global leadership. Every story on the world stage will be about cutting life-saving support. One of the key aspects of global Britain is being trashed and binned. The Government must stop being timid and put this matter to a vote of this House. Failure to do so means that that they may be implementing an unlawful Budget from April. Let the Government ask the House its view on whether we wish to break the promise on which we were all elected just over a year ago.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
International Women’s Day is an opportunity to highlight how millions of women worldwide suffer discrimination, persecution and violence doubly on account of their gender and their beliefs. Many are subjected to some of the most egregious atrocities on earth today, pressed into slavery, sexual or otherwise, tricked and subjected to human trafficking, scarred mentally and physically through the use of rape in conflict. Young girls are sold as a commodity, deprived of an education and, as a result, of a livelihood and any chance of flourishing or reaching their full potential, subject to systematic abuses such as early or forced marriage, female genital mutilation and honour killings, or trapped in prostitution and poverty.
My duty, as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, is to speak out against this. I am proud to be the first woman to have been appointed to this role. Many women around the world suffer lower social status or reduced legal rights, which can exacerbate the problems they encounter in trying to exercise their freedom of religion or belief.
It is good that tackling gender and belief-based violence is a priority for our Government. Let me focus on a few instances where the UK Government are taking action—although of course there is much more to be done. In Pakistan, the ongoing reports of forced marriage and conversion of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim women and girls, reportedly hundreds of girls a year, are alarming. I raised concerns about this a few days ago at a virtual meeting with our high commissioner in Pakistan. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign Office share these concerns and regularly raise them with the Government of Pakistan. In Nigeria, officials have in recent months raised with the Nigerian Government the case of Christian schoolgirl Leah Sharibu, abducted by Boko Haram and the last of her group still not released. Our Government are providing a package of humanitarian and stabilisation support there, including for women, but more—much more—needs to be done.
Turning to China, reports of dehumanisation of Uyghur women there are deeply distressing. The Foreign Secretary recently addressed the UN Human Rights Council, saying:
“The situation in Xinjiang is beyond the pale. The reported abuses—which include torture, forced labour and forced sterilisation of women—are extreme and they are extensive. They are taking place on an industrial scale. It must be our collective duty to ensure that this does not go unanswered.”
Indeed, we must all ensure, as a true response to International Women’s Day, that they do not go unanswered. More needs to be done.
Finally, Yazidi and Christian women in Iraq suffered horrific crimes at the hands of Daesh. Iraq must ensure that minority communities displaced by Daesh are allowed to return home safely. No one should suffer or be coerced doubly because of their conscience or their gender. More needs to be done.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
Recently my four-year-old daughter proudly declared that she wants to be a politician when she is older, because she wants to work to make life easier for other people. Her words came back to haunt me when I saw my six-year-old constituent Gabriella Ratcliffe, whose life has been anything but easy.
The story of Gabriella’s childhood is well rehearsed. She was separated from her mother, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, when she was still being breastfed at 18 months. At the age of two, she had to wear a sack over her head when visiting her mother in prison, and she celebrated her third birthday in the waiting room at Evin prison. By the age of four, she had forgotten how to speak English, and so lost the ability to communicate with her father, Richard. At the age of five, she travelled across two continents, from Iran to the UK, saying goodbye to her mother indefinitely and promising to be brave.
I often see Gabriella on my Zoom calls with Richard, and she once asked me if mummy would be coming home in time for Mother’s Day—a plea from a young woman about her imprisoned mother to her female MP felt particularly poignant on International Women’s Day.
Yesterday it was reported that the Prime Minister and President Rouhani had a conversation about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release, and it was heavily implied that the £400 million debt that the UK owes to Iran was linked to my constituent’s case. I imagined being a fly on the wall, listening to two men at the top of their respective Governments discussing the fate of a poor woman who had been caught as a political pawn between the two countries, taken hostage and imprisoned for crimes she did not commit, mentally tortured for years, all to serve a diplomatic negotiation with an oppressive regime over issues including a debt dating back to the 1970s and the international arms trade.
For a lot of women we will hear about today, their tragedies have been caused by personal or local circumstances. Gabriella’s personal tragedy has been caused by global injustice, which has overwhelmingly been orchestrated by men. At this moment, Nazanin’s fate is held in the hands of men: President Rouhani, the judges in Iran and, of course, our Prime Minister.
I hope that Nazanin returns to the UK soon, and that she returns to a country that is on a path to true equality between men and women, where her daughter and my son can walk the same streets as equals.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who made a powerful speech.
“A woman is like a tea bag: you can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.”
After the year we have had, Eleanor Roosevelt’s words certainly strike a chord. Women have spent more time home schooling and are more likely to have been furloughed and to have experienced anxiety and loneliness. I want to thank all the women in Rushcliffe, whose sacrifices have got their families and communities through this pandemic. In particular, I want to thank four incredible women.
First, Hetvi Parekh recently won the Prime Minister’s Points of Light award for her volunteering with Sewa Day. She has provided hot meals to frontline NHS staff, furnished a respite room in Queen’s Medical Centre hospital, and made 750 activity packs for children on low incomes, which I am told involved wrestling with a staggering 29,000 pipe cleaners. No task is too big, no challenge too daunting. She is currently collecting Easter eggs for children living in refuges.
Then there is Nicola Brindley, with whom I am working to set up a network of J9 safe spaces in Rushcliffe, where survivors of domestic abuse can go to get help. J9 is named after Janine Mundy, who was murdered by her ex-husband. Nicola has trained 60 people in Rushcliffe. She set up J9 in all Nottingham’s jobcentres and launched a programme to train a domestic abuse specialist in every jobcentre across the country. That work has saved lives from day one.
Farah Jamil set up Meet, Greet and Eat a year ago—a project that enables adults with additional needs to come together and create a place they can call their own. It helps participants build confidence, communication and practical skills. The group provides food bags and hot meals to elderly people, and it wants to set up a café and a social supermarket, providing opportunities for adults with additional needs to learn, grow and be themselves.
Jill Mathers started the Cotgrave Community Kitchen in 2019 to tackle social isolation. It gets everyone together for a nutritious meal at an affordable price. Refusing to be beaten by lockdown, Jill and her volunteers provide 200 weekly food bags and takeaway meals. She also runs a mini-market with donations from FareShare. She cooked 188 Christmas lunches for local pensioners. She hopes she will soon be able to open a community café, providing a social space, training opportunities and a market for locally grown produce.
Women are survivors. Women are fighters. As the stories of Hetvi, Nicola, Farah and Jill show, women are the heroes at the heart of our communities.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
International Women’s Day is a chance to celebrate women’s achievements, acknowledge the struggles that women continue to face and recommit ourselves to the ongoing fight for equality. The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “choose to challenge”—a reminder to challenge and call out gender bias and inequality.
It is clear that women in conflict zones carry some of the heaviest burdens. Horrors reported from Xinjiang reveal how Uyghur women in concentration camps have been violated as part of the Chinese Government’s brutal campaign to curb their Muslim population. The abuses they face include forced sterilisation and labour, sexual violence and rape, denouncements of faith and torture, all of which can be described only as genocidal acts. Action is desperately needed, so I implore the Government to consider sanctions and follow in the footsteps of America, Canada and the Netherlands in declaring China’s treatment of the Uyghurs as genocide.
As the son of a Kashmiri woman, it pains me deeply that women in Kashmir live under some of the most difficult conditions in the world. They are subjected to mass surveillance and sexual violence, and many are half-widows. Their painful stories need to come to an end, but for that to happen there must be sustainable peace in Kashmir, which cannot be imposed by military means. Time and again, the UK Government have maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue, but the Kashmir conflict came about as a direct result of Britain’s actions. To assume zero responsibility is frankly offensive.
Global Britain is meaningless unless the UK leads the global effort to protect and empower those women. It is disappointing that the Government have cut aid at a time like this; aid is often the first and last hope of improving women’s and girls’ lives. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the UN penholder on women, peace and security, the UK is in a rare position to do more. I urge the Minister and the Government to grasp with both hands the opportunity that is in front of them to make a genuinely transformational change that will improve the lives of women and girls globally.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches by Members on both sides of the Chamber and of all sexes in such an important debate.
I take part in this debate knowing that we are many in this Chamber, but not enough. Two hundred and twenty, to be exact, were elected in 2019 to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons. It should be at least 325. Actually, we are 51% of the population, so it should be a few more, but I would happily take 325. We have some way to go. Why? Historically, this place was built by men, for men, as women did not have the vote and could not be MPs until 1918. Its traditions and procedures were developed by and for men, and, in the most part, the hangover persists.
In 2018, before I came here, the “UK Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit” was published. It identified
“barriers…to equal female representation in Parliament, including:
The culture of Parliament,”
with
“reports of bullying and harassment, and sexual harassment;
The challenges that working in Parliament poses for family life, including the unpredictability of business and…long hours;
The financial impact of standing for Parliament; and
Online threats…in particular gender-based intimidation, harassment and violence”
against women parliamentarians and candidates.
There has been progress, of course—220 is an all-time high, women Ministers can now take maternity leave without having to quit, there is childcare, and the hours are not quite so long. I am grateful that I benefit from the stand taken by my colleagues and my predecessors.
However, one of the barriers highlighted in the audit has not improved; in fact, it has got worse. Online abuse, intimidation and threats impact all MPs, but I believe that gender-based abuse is the biggest single impediment we have as a Parliament, and as a country, to ever reaching true equality. Without doubt, women receive more abuse than men. Many women in this place suffer horrendous amounts of abuse. Being called a “slag”, a “bitch”, a “whore” and worse can be a daily occurrence on social media. We refuse to be victims, but we must call the abuse out for what it is, because it is one of the main reasons that women choose not to enter politics or public life.
I recently called out for everyone in my constituency of Ynys Môn to stand up to the online hate—to call it out, to report it and to make doing so as normal as the hate itself has become. The support I have received has been inspiring, but I have also been contacted by women who tell me that they will not stand for public office because they have seen the level of abuse that I receive. Often, it is their families and children that they want to protect, rather than themselves.
In this debate celebrating women’s achievement, I ask everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity or political persuasion, not to ignore abusive comments, not to pass them off as banter and not to think that they do not matter, but to call out the hate. If we want a democracy that truly represents our beautiful, diverse country, then we as a society need to take a stand.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
It is so important that we have this debate each year to honour the contribution of women across society. Covid-19 has highlighted and exacerbated inequality. Because of deep-rooted gender inequality worldwide, women and girls have experienced the pandemic differently. Some 47 million women worldwide are expected to fall into extreme poverty this year, and 20 million girls, on top of the 131 million out of school before the crisis, may now never return to school.
We have seen a huge surge in gender-based violence. In some parts of the world, it has been called a “shadow pandemic”. Women’s sexual and reproductive rights and services have been dramatically reduced. That is why the Opposition have been calling for gender analyses in the UK’s international response to covid-19. Instead, the Government shut down the Department for International Development, which was renowned for its work on gender equality around the world, and now, as the Father of the House pointed out earlier, they are slashing the aid budget.
The Government must reverse their decision to cut their aid from 0.7% to 0.5%. That will threaten lives. Let me give an example. There has been a 60% cut to the International Rescue Committee’s health programme in Sierra Leone, which helps over 3 million mostly teenage girls in a country where one in 17 women dies in pregnancy or childbirth. The global covid response has abandoned women and girls. Another programme in Rwanda, which was helping over 200,000 young girls, has also been scrapped.
On International Women’s Day, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and I launched a consultation on advancing gender equality in development. If we really want to understand how to address structural inequalities in our society and in the world, we must engage with communities and civil society, and understand the international perspective active in the global south. Will the Minister please speak to the Foreign Secretary and reverse the aid cuts that are taking place, because they are endangering so many women who are already in difficult circumstances? Only if we all fight together and stand in solidarity can we make a better, more equal world.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Like others, my thoughts are constantly with the family of Sarah Everard. I have daughters around the same age, and I can only imagine how devastated the family must be at what has happened. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her yearly reminder of the dangers that many women face, both here and around the world, as they continue to be attacked for their gender.
Last week I spoke to one of my oldest friends, Henrietta Blyth of Open Doors, on a Facebook Live chat. We talked about how Christian women around the world face the double danger of being attacked not only because of their gender, but because of their religion. We are seeing the systematic murder of women in leadership roles in places such as Afghanistan. Those women could be the future in a failed state and could make a difference, yet they are gunned down. On a more positive note, I welcome to her post Najla El Mangoush, who yesterday was confirmed as Libya’s Foreign Minister by its Parliament—the first woman to hold the post. I know that all Members of the House will wish her and her colleagues well in re-establishing peace and order in Libya.
The theme of International Women’s Day this year is “Choose to Challenge”, and while I want more women to challenge for the leadership in their field, whatever it is, we must recognise that our ability to make that choice often depends on an accident of birth or nationality. I have been reading the World Economic Forum’s report on the global gender gap, which contains striking details on the subtleties of inequality. Without including women, who are half the world’s talent, we will not be able to deliver the fourth industrial revolution for all societies, or grow our economies for shared prosperity.
Technology is still overly dominated by men, but there is also potential for it to improve the place of women in the world. Technology offers us a means of education, and a channel for us to communicate with those who face oppression. It also offers a means for women, whose stories we might not otherwise hear, to get those stories to the outside world. Sometimes they are positive stories, but too often they are stories of abuse and neglect. Technology can help to empower women through education. “Knowledge is power” might be a cliché, but it is also a solution to reducing gender inequality. We should surely be using our foreign aid to harness the technology that women can use for education, business and leadership. The covid pandemic has shown us all how we can work differently, so in the spirit of this day, I “choose to challenge” every Government, organisation and non-governmental organisation to be more effective in using technology directly to empower women and beat gender inequality.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Women in my community have been shaken to the core by the abduction of my constituent, Sarah Everard. The ongoing investigation means that there is only so much we can say, but the response to the appeal and the investigation show that Sarah was much loved, and my thoughts and prayers go out to her family, her boyfriend, and her friends at this unimaginably difficult time.
Sarah’s disappearance has left so many women feeling unsafe. With the theme of International Women’s Day, I choose to challenge the disgusting victim shaming that we have seen since Sarah’s disappearance. It should go without saying that victims of gender violence are not to blame. Sarah did nothing wrong. All she did was walk home.
It should not be luck that sees us home safely at night; it should be our fundamental right, respected by all. So on Saturday, as the sun sets, I choose to challenge the reality that being a woman means I am not safe, and I will join Lambeth Councillors Anna Birley and Jess Leigh and others, who will be leading a vigil for Sarah and reclaiming our streets.
As we reclaim our streets in unity, I ask all women to remember what that unity means. Earlier this week, the world watched as a biracial woman recounted her struggle with mental health and her experience of racism. We then saw how easily and vocally people berated her and refused to believe her, even other women. I choose to challenge a feminism that is not intersectional and that all too easily forgets the impact of racism on so many women. It is wrong for those who have never faced racism to discount the experience of those who have, just as it is wrong when men discount our experiences of sexism and harassment. Our allyship cannot be selective.
In our country, one in four black women dies in childbirth. I know this pain all too well. My own pregnancy nearly killed me and my daughter did not survive. The children of black women have a 121% increased risk of being stillborn and a 50% increased risk of neonatal death. As women, we are told that it is just one of those things, but staggering health inequalities and outcomes tell a different story. When, like me, you relive the experience again and again, it is not hard to find instances where how you are perceived or if you are believed as a black woman make all the difference. I pay tribute to the work of the campaign Five X More, which continues to raise awareness and call for change. I hope the House will give Members time to fully debate the issue of black maternal health.
I choose to challenge a world in which all women do not have the equality they deserve.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
The UK is a signatory to the 17 sustainable development goals, which I wish we discussed much more in the House. Succeeding in delivering them will lead to women and girls having the greatest opportunity to live full, safe and rewarding lives. That is not because the 17 goals are targeted specifically towards the life chances and rights of women and girls, but because we know that, sadly, women and girls are most likely to be adversely affected by poverty, prejudice, limited opportunities and poor quality water, to mention just a few of the injustices in the world.
The UK has reason to be proud of its role and record of raising those issues, which have an impact on world’s poorest people, as we meet our foreign aid commitments and responsibilities. However, to mark International Women’s Day, I call on the Government to review our progress on the sustainable development goals and especially the areas that most affect women.
The sustainable development goals cover 17 specific areas, but I want to mention just a few. When we adopted the goals in 2015, we said that we would commit to ruling out poverty, ending hunger, providing good health and wellbeing, ensuring access to education, delivering gender equality, providing clean water and sanitation, and giving greater access to decent work and economic growth. Those are just seven of the 17 goals and they all offer real hope, opportunity and improved life chances for women and girls around the world.
Given the Government’s continuing commitment to those worthy outcomes, I gently ask them to question themselves about the justification for the cut in our UK foreign aid. International aid has led the war on forced labour among migrant women and started to crack down on human trafficking. The UK has led the global action on that. Foreign aid has led to African women finding a market for their camels’ milk and been essential in the fight to end violence against women and girls in Lebanon. UK aid is critical in addressing the displacement of women due to conflict, climate change and, more recently, the covid pandemic.
As we mark International Women’s Day, will the Government consider what impact cutting international aid will have now and for years to come on the women and girls who need our help if they are to lead full and fulfilling lives?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this debate to mark International Women’s Day.
I would like to begin by celebrating a number of women in my constituency who have gone above and beyond to serve our community during this difficult year. Dr Sam Parrett OBE, principal of London and South East Education Group, has done so much to ensure that young people were supported throughout the pandemic. Sue Stockham, an ovarian cancer survivor, is using her experience to raise awareness about the signs of ovarian cancer and the importance of getting help quickly during the pandemic. Carmel Britto is the founding director of LPF Kiddies Club, which offers educational enrichment to young children from African and Caribbean backgrounds. Kate Heaps is the chief executive of Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice. Yeukai Taruvinga is the founder and director of Active Horizons, a charity that works to support black and ethnic minority young people in Bexley. Yeukai grew up in Zimbabwe but came to this country after her political activism in Zimbabwe made her the target of a campaign of intimidation and violence.
And of course, there are the many women who have served on the frontline during the pandemic as doctors, nurses, carers, cleaners and other key workers. I am afraid I cannot name them all, but we must not forget the sacrifices they have made and the burden that has fallen on them. I also take this opportunity to support Unison’s campaign to create a lasting memorial to the matchgirls—the women who took strike action against poor working conditions at the Bryant and May match factory in east London.
As well as celebrating the achievements of women, this debate is an opportunity to talk about the challenges and barriers that women continue to face in all walks of life. Given the events of the last week, I want to talk about violence against women. My thoughts are with Sarah Everard’s family and friends at this awful time, but I also think of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry. While those cases are particularly shocking, we must not forget that most violence against women occurs within the home. In the boroughs I represent, domestic violence is a significant problem. The pandemic and lockdown have only made this situation worse, with the Met reporting an 8.5% increase in domestic abuse incidents compared with the year before.
I will finish with three specific asks of the Government. First, the Government need to properly invest in and reform the sectors that overwhelmingly employ women—most notably, the care sector. Secondly, the Government must commit to be more transparent about the impact of policies and decisions on women, particularly black and Asian women, including through gender pay gap reporting. Finally, the Government must provide targeted support for women to recover from the pandemic, including investment in women’s mental health services, helping young women back into work and funding specialist domestic violence services.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
This debate gives us a fantastic opportunity to celebrate women. As 21st-century women in Britain, we have so much to be thankful for: education, opportunities, free healthcare and full equality under the law. Much of what has been achieved over the last century has been about empowering women by releasing choices and freedoms that our great grandmothers could barely have imagined. We have the choice over who we vote for, choices over fertility, choice of career and freedom over our finances. Those achievements should be celebrated, and we are deeply grateful to those who have gone before.
But in recent years, the focus of progress has become too narrow, and some of the things we are now fighting for in the name of equality are actually reducing the choice, freedom and happiness of many women. So much of our recent attention in the UK has rightly been focused on trying to enable women to both work and have a family life, with more free childcare, more flexible working, equal pay and excellent maternity rights. That has certainly benefited many women, particularly those who are well paid, with careers that are stimulating, rewarding and influential. But many women do not have a career—they have a job—and for many women, if they had a choice, they would spend more time with their children and less time in the workplace.
Sadly, women in previous generations did not have the choice to work, but in modern Britain many women no longer have the choice not to work. Our individualistic tax system places a huge penalty on single-earner families, with UK families paying as much as 30% more tax than those in similar countries.
The penalty is so high that for a one-earner family to have the same standard of living as a single person on median income, the breadwinner needs to have a salary of £60,000—a wage that is simply unattainable for the vast majority of families. For many women, then, there is no choice but to work long hours, not in some stimulating, highly rewarding professional job, but in a job that pulls them away from their young children and denies them the time and energy that they want to spend on their families. A recent YouGov survey showed that 78% of mothers of pre-schoolers would prefer to work part time or not at all.
As we approach Mother’s Day, we need to recognise that mothers who invest time in their children are doing a great service to society, and that a woman’s value is not determined only by her economic output. Choosing to stay at home when children are small should not be a privilege that only the richest can afford and should not be seen as an inferior choice or second best. For progress to continue, we must enable women to have a genuine choice to spend more time with their children if they want to, including by looking at reforming the tax system to recognise family responsibilities. Let us celebrate International Women’s Day by committing to giving all UK women real freedom and real choice over both their work and their family lives.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
In a debate to mark International Women’s Day, it should not be a revolutionary statement to say that sex matters. But it is and it does.
Despite the fact that men’s violence against women is a leading cause of the premature death of women globally, research in the UK and Europe is inadequate. Thanks to Karen Ingala Smith’s Femicide Census, we now have detailed, comparable data on femicides in the UK since 2009. In a report published at the end of last year, the Femicide Census examined 1,425 cases of women killed by men. It found that the number of women killed every year by men has stayed distressingly consistent over the past decade, at between 124 and 168 each year. This raises serious questions about the state’s response to men’s violence against women in the past decade.
The Femicide Census believes there is a lack of willingness to tackle the root causes of this violence, and identifies a number of systemic problems, including a lack of funding for and cuts to the specialist women’s sector and a failure to collate, store and make easily accessible transparent, disaggregated data on violence against women. We need this data because sex matters. Women are uniquely vulnerable to men’s violence because men are so much stronger than us. That is a fact of our different biological make-up. Sex matters.
This week, as women responded on social media to the horror of the abduction of Sarah Everard, one woman tweeted:
“Half my timeline is women being told they’re responsible for keeping themselves safe from male violence. Half is women being told they’re bigots for insisting on retaining existing protections against male violence.”
Her exasperation echoes that felt by many women. It feels like our society is going backwards. Women who speak up for women’s rights are accused of bad behaviour, while men accused of abusive behaviour are often shielded from the consequences of their actions.
Men are still largely in charge, and many women who get the top are too scared, once they are there, to challenge men who want to silence and control women. So they invent a new kind of feminism—one that is so inclusive and so kind that it will not dare name the problems that women face. Nobody wants to pit women against men, but we need to be able to name the problem of male violence against women. We also need to be able to acknowledge that sex does matter, without being labelled bigots. The high incidence of male violence against women shows us that sex is a reality that we cannot ignore. If we ignore the reality of sex, we distort reality in a way that will only make women more vulnerable.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to this debate as the first female MP for Hyndburn and Haslingden.
International Women’s Day is hugely important in recognising women around the world. It is a time to reflect on the work that they do and a day to celebrate all that we have achieved. But women have significant battles to face whenever they try to succeed, progress or do something to make a difference.
“A little girl incapable of thinking for herself”; “A cut-and-paste MP out of her depth”; “A pygmy lower than vermin”—these are just some of the insults I have received since being elected just over a year ago. I have been objectified, patronised and threatened on more occasions than I care to count. My age, my looks and particularly my gender have been used as weapons to try to undermine my confidence and “put me back in my place.”
Sadly, my experiences are not unique or even in the minority. Indeed, I would be surprised if we could find one female Member of Parliament across the whole House who has not had some kind of threat or abuse, or just casual sexism during their time in office.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, my parents and quite a lot of my family live in her constituency. Their opinion of her is that she is an extremely capable Member of Parliament. She is also the youngest Member on our Benches. Does she agree that it is really important for young women to see strong women in this place?
Sara Britcliffe
I thank my hon. Friend. I absolutely agree.
On a day when we celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women, I wanted to share my own story and highlight that, even in 2021, the experience of men and women can still be very different. Even by highlighting this problem and making this speech today, I am encouraging the trolls, the incels and the other people who like to see me as a target. I will probably be accused of being a man-hater, or dismissed as overly emotional or seeking attention.
It is not just in politics that we see this. Women in every industry—from journalism to the armed forces, from law to business and those on the factory floor—report similar experiences. Many stayed silent until last night, as we read and heard about Sarah Everard. They opened up because they realise that this happens in everyday society. For the first time, I publicly spoke about being mugged at 12 years old. I spoke about it because of comments that hit home about “not walking down that street at night alone.” This is what we still see today in this day and age.
Through learning from other women and recognising the position I hold, silence is no longer an option. We need to speak about this because we need to break the norm. I am not saying that to suggest I am a unique victim; I am saying it because it is a widespread experience for women. We all need to stand up because it has to stop.
To finish, I would like to end with a quote from Malala Yousafzai:
“I raise up my voice—not so I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard…we cannot succeed when half of us are held back.”
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
Today, I would like to celebrate the achievements of a few women that I am proud to have in my life. This year’s theme is “Choose to challenge” and these women have done just that—achieving great things, often in the face of adversity. These are women who deserve to have their stories shared and their names remembered.
I have a team of staff who are predominantly women. The newest member of our team is a young lady from Kirby called Melissa Rice. Remember that name and if you read one book this year, read hers: “Sobering: Lessons Learnt the Hard Way on Drinking, Thinking and Quitting”. I first met Melissa back in 2019 when she was living at Amy’s Place, a recovery house set up by the Amy Winehouse Foundation for young women who are overcoming drug and alcohol addiction. Even then, this was a woman who wanted to use her experience for good and for change. Melissa moved to Amy’s Place after spending time at residential addiction centres in Wiltshire and London.
After years of drinking and several attempts to manage her addiction at home, with the help of outstanding specialists and therapists Melissa has now been sober for over three years. Melissa chose to challenge her addiction and her book, which follows her journey in all its sometimes heart-wrenching glory, is outstanding in the way it challenges the perception of addiction and its associated taboos. It has made me cry, but it has also made me laugh out loud at times. Melissa is a strong young woman and I am so proud of her determination not just to turn her life around, but to help others to do the same.
Helping others is also key to the work of two other wonderful women who deserve to be celebrated. Powered by the belief that hygiene and being clean is a human right not a luxury, journalist Sali Hughes and beauty PR legend Jo Jones joined forces three years ago to set up Beauty Banks. This not-for-profit organisation collects discontinued and unused stock from an array of high street and high-end brands and redistributes it to those experiencing hygiene poverty. Sali and Jo chose to challenge the poverty that they were witnessing, and they challenged the beauty industry to do something about it. The results of their determination have made such a difference to the lives of so many. Beauty Banks: please look it up! The dignity it gives to so many is something that we should all be championing. So I say to all women today, and to all young girls who are the women of tomorrow: be strong, be determined, be supportive, be yourself and be proud of your achievements.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
May I first say how nice it is to see so many men contributing to the debate this year? That has not always been the case in previous years, but the fight for equality for women is as much their fight as it is ours, and I am grateful for their support. We should all be champions of equality.
I was driving home last evening when the news about the arrest in the case of Sarah Everard was breaking. I was listening to the radio and a gentlemen journalist expressed his horror at the report that 97% of all women aged between 18 and 24 had experienced some degree of sexual assault or sexual harassment. I do not think that figure will come as a surprise to any woman in this room, because we spend all our lives dealing with the reality that some men objectify us and behave as sexual predators. It is so sad that it takes such a horrendous case as the one we are living through at the moment to bring that home, but this has become normalised. That is why I make no apology for continuing to fight for women’s safe spaces. This is our lived reality. Not a day goes by when we do not take a decision to protect our own safety; that has become part of the way of living as a woman.
There is so much I could say today, but there is so little time. I want to raise the issue of the criminal justice system. I am sure that many Members will have been horrified to see the sentence handed down for the murder of Ruth Williams. Her husband, who was her murderer, received a sentence of just five years. At a time when some people are mooting 10-year sentences for bringing down statues, I think that puts a very low value on a woman’s life. It feels to me that the criminal justice system is perpetuating a fiction that women in domestic contexts are effectively the property of their husbands or partners, and that is why we see such low sentences in cases of domestic abuse that lead to death. That really needs to be tackled.
In the few seconds I have left, I would like to pay tribute to Keira Bell, a very inspiring woman I had the good fortune to meet last month. Keira had the experience of being put on gender dysphoria treatment as a teenager. It led to hormone treatment and a double mastectomy, but she realised that her issue was not that she wanted to be a man; she was a lesbian. This brings home the real difficulty we have with gender dysphoria treatment for children. We must ensure that our pathways are safe and that we do not make young girls do things that are irreversible when the issue is their sexuality.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to speak in this debate, and although it should really be a debate of celebration, I shall begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard. We all need to do all we can to ensure that the UK is a safe place for all women. I also wish to acknowledge the powerful and meaningful contribution from the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), who spoke a moment ago.
I now wish to turn my focus to the cruelty that so many women experience in other parts of the world. The brutal Chinese communist party regime in China has put hundreds of thousands of lives under threat. The women of the Uyghur Muslim community are being persecuted as we speak, in what our Government really need to accept is an attempt at genocide. In Xinjiang province, women have been sterilised en masse in an attempt to reduce the population, women have been forced to have abortions and women have been separated from their children as they go off to prison camps and their children go to orphanages. In the prison camps they are systematically raped by prison guards. They are beaten and their morale is broken. Footage has been found of large-scale forced labour where they are picking cotton, which then ends up on our clothes rails. It is devastating speaking about this, but what is even worse is that our Government are doing nothing. We sit back and merely condemn the Chinese regime, and the suffering of Uyghur women is getting worse by the day. I call for the Foreign Secretary to impose sanctions on the Chinese officials committing these abuses and to declare that it is a programme of genocide.
Women are also being persecuted for their faith. Open Doors UK has written about women and girls being at greater risk of gender-specific religious persecution, including forced marriages, sexual violence and emotional abuse. ActionAid UK has made it clear that the UK has a significant impact on challenging the oppression of women around the world. If we restored the 0.7% rate of overseas aid, which our Government tragically cut last year, it would make a huge difference to so many people’s lives.
We are co-leaders of the UN action coalition on gender-based violence. How can we hold that position with integrity while at the same time breaking our financial promises to charities and NGOs around the world? Today we are reminded of male violence against women. We have come so far as women, but there is still so much more to challenge. I ask hon. and right hon. Ladies from across the political divide that we are not divided on these issues.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I start by echoing the comments and sadness expressed by so many colleagues about Sarah Everard. I cannot begin to imagine what her family are going through, but I send my deepest thoughts and prayers to them and to the families of all those mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
I entered the world of politics completely by accident in 2009. Little did I know that 10 years later, I would be one of the record 220 female MPs here on the green Benches, proudly representing Bishop Auckland. Some of those on the Opposition Benches may groan, but my accidental interest in politics was sparked after watching a video at school about our first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Taking politics out of the equation, because at that time I did not know the difference between Labour and the Tories anyway, seeing a woman so unapologetically powerful and in the highest job in the land meant that I grew up never for a second doubting that a woman’s place could be in No. 10. Again putting politics aside, that is why I so warmly welcomed Kamala Harris becoming the first female Vice-President of the United States, because representation matters.
In the decade since then, so much has changed for women. Lazy stereotypes have been consistently challenged and we are seeing more representation across all walks of life. We have seen the first female winner of the Abel prize for mathematics, the first female Doctor Who, and we have even had the first Marvel film to feature a female solo lead with “Captain Marvel”. I am pleased to say I have a figure of her standing proudly in my office in Parliament.
In this place, much has been introduced to tackle the obstacles faced by women today and to try to demolish them for the next generation. We have had the Equality Act 2010 and the largest ever single investment to help end female genital mutilation. We are leading the world in promoting the right of every girl to quality education. We are protecting women. We have reformed divorce laws for the first time in 50 years. We will soon have the online harms Bill, which is set to challenge how we tackle harmful online content, and we are in the final stages of the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, but we cannot legislate to change attitudes.
As this year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Choose to challenge”, I want to challenge the double standards that exist in society for women. A female worker is still more likely to face questions on balancing home and work life, as though home is where we women should be. If a man is a leader, a woman is bossy. If a man is considered, a woman is over-emotional. If a man speaks his mind, a woman is oversharing. A man can react, but a woman can only ever overreact.
To any woman wanting to enter politics at local or national level, this is a rallying cry. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced by fear. We will not stand for abuse, and we will be here to lift one another, because with every female elected, we see greater representation and, with that, the hope that one day a young girl watching this debate will see someone who looks like her, and she will know that she can achieve anything—becoming an MP, Home Secretary or even Prime Minister—because, after all, a woman’s place is anywhere she wants to be.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
Can I, too, associate myself with all the thoughts expressed for Sarah Everard and all those mentioned?
International Women’s Day and this debate are a chance for us both to celebrate those who came before us and to commit to fight for a better future for the women to come. In celebrating those who came before us, can I start by putting on record my appreciation for the fantastic inspiring women of the Statue for Lady Rhondda group, led by the feisty campaigner Julie Nicholas, who are fundraising for a statue of Lady Rhondda in Newport as one of the next statues in the Monumental Welsh Women campaign? Newport East’s Lady Rhondda, a suffragette who campaigned for women to take their seats in the other place, has been described as the
“greatest global businesswoman of her era.”
She was the editor of Time and Tide magazine, which campaigned for gender equality, and she even survived the sinking of the Lusitania. Any one of these achievements would have secured her place in history, but she did it all. It is fitting that we celebrate her in this way, as you cannot be what you cannot see.
I would like to take a moment to thank all those dedicated women on the frontline as key workers in my constituency during the pandemic, as women are twice as likely as men to be key workers in Wales. I also want to put on record my thanks to Judith Paget and Sarah Aitken at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board; Jane Mudd, Newport City Council leader; Pam Kelly, Gwent’s chief constable; and all those carrying the enormous responsibility in their leadership roles in this unprecedented year.
I want to highlight research by the Welsh gender equality charity Chwarae Teg in its third “State of the Nation” report, which monitored the impact of women’s experiences, and thank it for the focus this brings on ensuring that we are not complacent. The effect of sector shutdowns, business closures and unemployment is falling disproportionately on women. Young women in particular are more likely to lose their jobs in retail and hospitality. Women are more likely to be furloughed, and 70,000 pregnant women and new mothers have been discriminated against in Government schemes. Women of colour, too, have been excluded from support schemes and have been hit particularly hard in their employment.
We know that women are more likely to carry out caring responsibilities and home-schooling, and as Chwarae Teg points out, now is not the time for the Government to be suspending gender pay reporting. If we do not know the scale of the problem, we cannot address it. In the words of the Women and Equalities Committee,
“this should have been a time for more—not less—transparency.”
The Government should review the impact of their policies on woman, and the recovery from covid must be an equal recovery. We have also seen the worrying rise in domestic abuse, and I want to thank Welsh Labour Government Ministers for our partnership working and for the focus they have put on tackling this issue by giving the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence sector in Wales extra funding this year.
Lady Rhondda wrote that the suffragette movement gave women
“hope of freedom and power and opportunity.”
It is vital, as we rebuild after this pandemic, that we progress from where we were so that every woman has the freedom and power and opportunity to live their life however they wish.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on International Women’s Day as a Member from the original suffragette city of Manchester, home of Emmeline Pankhurst, and as a proud feminist. Women are the majority of the UK’s population, but only a third of the Members of this place. While I am sure there is a strong quality versus quantity argument to be made, that sits badly with the majority of us who value fairness. For me, the problem lies partly in the belief that it is perfectly acceptable for a young woman to have a male mentor or adviser, but it is seen somehow as unusual or undesirable for a man to look up to a women as a role model.
I was lucky enough to grow up with strong female role models, and I was later encouraged by some remarkable women on my way to this place. I would like to take a moment to thank them from this Chamber, because I simply would not be here without them. In particular, I would like to thank Judith Tope, who taught me the value of taking your duty seriously and yourself less so; Laura Evans, one of the most selfless, self-effacing and genuinely good people I know, and hopefully the next Mayor of Greater Manchester; and my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, who changed my life forever over a glass of wine in her kitchen simply with the line, “Why don’t you stand?”
It is mind-boggling to people of my generation that there should be any barrier to a woman being able to achieve her potential, and I have to hope that the idea will be utterly inconceivable to generations after. However, until they are on these Benches and the third, fourth and fifth woman Prime Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box, we have a job of work to do to remove structural injustices. I am proud to say that I have never needed an all-women shortlist to lose a selection to a colleague, and every woman who has beaten me has done so by being better than me. I would say that Conservative women are the equals of Conservative men, but some of them are very dear friends and I do not want to talk them down.
I pay tribute to women such as the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who stuck it out as a feminist in frontline politics when the derision and value judgments that still seep out of the darkest recesses of society were mainstream values. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), a fellow Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, took on the City boys’ club with a backbone of steel and a brain the size of Canada. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), an inspirational young woman, has achieved more in her 26 years than many of us have in our 30-plus, and, much to my chagrin, is my mother’s favourite MP. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) ran one of the most successful local authorities in the country before turning her attention to these Benches.
There is much more talent out there, and we have to recognise that the problem is not a lack of ambition or qualified candidates; it is a system that needs an International Women’s Day because, quite simply, the other 364 are men’s days. I join colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) in pushing to ensure that we as men do more to support strong women candidates into politics, and in working to ensure that more men and boys understand that a woman’s place is wherever she says she wants it to be.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) wished to be here, but she is detained on other work.
Our thoughts today are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard, and with all those who have suffered from male violence against women. It must end, and all men have a duty to play our part.
I wish to focus on endometriosis, a condition that can have a profound long-term negative impact on all aspects of life. Endometriosis affects one in 10 women from puberty to the menopause. It takes an average of eight years from onset to diagnosis. The delay has been unchanged for a decade, and in Wales it is nine years. I applaud the work of Health Ministers in Wales and England on endometriosis, and encourage them to ensure ongoing studies into pain alleviation, such as the use of medical cannabis.
This is not only a matter for Health Ministers. A recent study by the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis with Endometriosis UK found that 38% of those surveyed feared losing their jobs, and 35% had a reduced income due to the condition. Accessing support can be difficult. Statutory sick pay for a linked period of sickness lasts for up to three years, penalising those with chronic conditions. Hon. Members will recall that the period from onset to diagnosis is eight years in England and nine in Wales. Many of those most severely affected struggle to access personal independence payments and universal credit, partly as the assessment fails to recognise long-term intermittent conditions.
This pandemic has highlighted some of the outmoded patterns of our welfare system, which need to be reformed, but many with endometriosis were already painfully aware of the system’s deficiency. That is one reason why I will continue to campaign for better health and welfare provision, and make the case for the devolution of welfare, so that in Wales, with our higher rates of long-term illness and disability, we can create a fairer system for all in their time of need.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
The world is not the same place as it was at the time of the last International Women’s Day. The challenges we face globally and locally have been unprecedented and have required unprecedented responses. I want to highlight some literally life-saving contributions by some amazing women in my constituency. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to thank all the women I would like to include—all the local champions, women who have volunteered in their local communities during this crisis, nurses, teachers, carers and key workers—so I will focus on the response to the pandemic itself and, in particular, the women across the public sector who have played a huge role in shaping the structures crucial to dealing with the situation we have found ourselves in.
First, I thank the local leader of my council, Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, the chief executive of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Kersten England, and our director of public health, Sarah Muckle, for all their efforts and leadership during the pandemic and the vital work that they continue to do to help us come out of lockdown. I also thank vice-chancellor Shirley Congdon for her leadership of our university, which was ranked No. 1 recently for social mobility. With the contributions of the chief officer of the clinical commissioning group, Helen Hirst, and Mel Pickup, the chief executive officer of the local hospital, Bradford Royal Infirmary, which is in my constituency, we are looking forward to getting out of the lockdown soon. The joint senior responsible officers, Nancy O’Neill and chief nurse Karen Dawber, who are responsible for the roll-out of testing centres and vaccine roll-out, have worked tirelessly to ensure that the people of Bradford are supported throughout the pandemic.
Today marks a year since the opening of our first designated covid ward, ward 31 at the BRI, under the leadership of Sister Emma Barnes. I pay special tribute to those on the frontline, such as Dr Deborah Horner, our consultant anaesthetist, who led on the operational management and restructuring of services across the hospital during the pandemic; Sara Hollins, our director of midwifery services, who has transformed the service completely after being here for less than four years, not only reducing stillbirths by a quarter, but transforming services to respond to the pandemic; and our ICU matron, Marianne Downey, who has led the ICU through the most challenging of times.
We have lost so many loved ones during the pandemic, and Shaheen Kauser, our Muslim chaplain, has worked seven days a week providing loved ones with comfort and support during these most important times of grief and heartbreak. During this pandemic, I have found myself calling NHS staff, particularly our chief nurse Karen Dawber, at very unreasonable hours. Karen told me that her inspiring grandma, Joan Dawber, was a midwife, nurse and health visitor during world war two. In the ’60s, Joan was involved in the first trial of the TB vaccine, and now Karen is involved in the covid vaccine roll-out. The work of all these women and others across my constituency inspires me to do what I do, and for that I am very grateful. Here’s to International Women’s Day and to all these women—may we know them, may we be them, may we praise them.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
I echo the sentiments that my colleagues have expressed today about Sarah Everard and her family.
This year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Choose to Challenge”, and I am reminded of that famous quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
“One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes.”
The choices we make are ultimately our responsibility. To me, this quote says that life is about making choices and decisions, not just sitting back and accepting the status quo. Sometimes it is right to stand up and challenge, and to choose. We in this House have an awesome responsibility in that our choices and decisions impact directly on the lives of thousands, and indeed millions, of people around the country and sometimes the world. The choices we make matter.
As we think about this year’s theme “Choose to Challenge”, I think about all the women locally in Hastings and Rye who do not talk about making a difference, but who are doing it every single day in their actions, from Joe Chadwick-Bell, who took over as chief operating officer of the local NHS trust last October in the midst of the pandemic, and who has inspired and steered her team through some of the toughest months they have ever faced, to Natalie Williams, who runs the Hastings food bank and has tirelessly devoted her energy and enthusiasm to supporting and helping the most vulnerable in our communities.
Then there are those in local government, such as Becky Shaw, who is the chief executive officer of East Sussex County Council, and Jane Hartnell, who is the managing director of Hastings Borough Council. Both have shown grit and dedication over the last year to help in the response to covid-19. Frontline leaders, from Dawn Whittaker, the chief fire officer for East Sussex fire and rescue, to Jo Shiner, the chief constable for Sussex police, have shown tireless dedication to leading their teams and instilling confidence and security in the communities they serve as we have battled through these dark times.
I could keep going. From Katy Bourne, our police and crime commissioner; to Councillor Kim Forward, the leader of Hastings Borough Council; Rebekah Gilbert, the mayor of Rye; Jacki Monroe from the DWP; and chief inspector Sarah Godley at Hastings and Rother police, all these women and many others besides have chosen throughout their lives not to accept their lot. Instead, they have chosen to challenge, chosen to reach and chosen to be ambitious in the pursuit of serving others and giving back to the communities they call home. If we choose to embrace their light and inspiration, if we choose to shun the pessimism of others and if we choose to challenge, in time we can make this a more just and equal world. The leadership and inspiration of women that we see across Hastings and Rye will be recognised and commonplace in all four corners of this country and the world.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, just as it was a pleasure to deliver my maiden speech in this debate last year. I am grateful to be able to address the House today, as well as the newly elected chair of the all-party group on domestic abuse and violence.
In the short time that I have today, I wish to pay tribute to women who have been subjected to honour-based abuse. Honour-based abuse is often misunderstood. This is despite the fact that, in 2019 alone, the charity, Karma Nirvana, reported seeing a more than 60% increase in the people using its helpline. Honour-based abuse may be best described as a collection of practices, or a code, used to control behaviour in order to protect perceived beliefs and honour. Breaking this code is often seen by perpetrators as having brought shame on a family or a community.
All around the world, honour-based abuse can lead to horrific situations and outcomes. Two cases have been on my mind this month. In south Asia, a man was filmed carrying the head of his 17-year-old daughter, whom he had beheaded because of her alleged affair with a man of whom he did not approve. I have also been thinking about Ayesha Arif Khan in Ahmedebad who filmed herself smiling moments before she killed herself because she could not deliver enough dowry to her husband and his family.
Honour-based abuse does not always present itself in horrific murder and suicide, but it exists in day-to-day life and we would all do well to recognise that. We can do so when we think about how many women are policed or make decisions on the basis of the honour code. The question of what people will say deprives women of opportunities, choices, dreams and rights. The dangers of breaking the honour code are real, along with the associated risk of violence. I know that pain all too well.
Contrary to the common understanding of honour-based abuse, it is not something that is rooted in culture or religion. It is important to recognise it as a form of abuse that cuts across all countries, all cultures and all religions and none. Members may be surprised to learn that I felt that the comments made by a man in the public sphere recently might resonate with some survivors. He said, “I was trapped, but I did not know I was trapped. That is like the rest of my family. My father and my brother are trapped. They do not get to leave, and I have huge compassion for that”. It appears that a person does not need to be a woman, or even from an ethnic minority background, to experience the honour code—indeed, they might even be a royal.
There needs to be a statutory definition of honour-based abuse in the Domestic Abuse Bill. The racialising of honour-based abuse needs to stop. We need to see it in a framework that recognises patriarchy and inequality as the root cause of violence against women and girls, rather than placing it in a cultural context. Even though the devastating impacts of this type of abuse are felt in some communities more than others, we need our laws to lead the world in this way.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate. It has been a pleasure to follow her work in the Westminster Hall debates when they were taking place and her continued action on this issue.
I rise to speak in this House as chair of the all-party group on preventing sexual violence in conflict, an initiative that I worked on with the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and have continued to work on since I was elected.
Before I undertake to describe what we can do, I would like to pay tribute to where we have got to with the Domestic Abuse Bill. It has been remarkable achievement for the Government, working across the parties, to get it to a place in which we can make a real and meaningful difference. Communities in my constituency are grateful to see the progress that has been made. Organisations such as SASHA, based in Totnes, are hoping that we will be able to pass this into legislation in due course.
I would like to speak about the international approach. Each year, the United Kingdom stands up on International Women’s Day and reaffirms its commitment to the millennium development goals for gender equality, reaffirms its commitment to women’s education, and reaffirms its commitment to seeing through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. Unfortunately, this year, I can only think that these are hollow words, because the impact of the forthcoming cut in international development aid from 0.7% to 0.5% will place a significant burden on the way in which we tackle women’s rights. The way in which people in Syria, Libya and Somalia are able to be helped by the projects that we put forward is now cast into doubt. The reason we have pushed forward these policies is not that there is a legal obligation to do so, not that Parliaments and Governments of yesteryear decided to put forward an agreement that would hold and lock in Parliament, but because there was a moral duty for us to stand up for those who were most endangered around the world. There was a moral duty for us to be able to help those in some of the most difficult scenarios and circumstances in the world.
In the time that the Government have before there is a vote on this issue—and there must be a vote on the 0.7%—I hope that they will rethink their approach, maintain the 0.7%, and maintain our commitment to tackling women’s rights and eradicating gender-based violence. Make no mistake—gender-based violence is a pandemic. It is a pandemic that was here before covid and it will be here long after. If we have the strength and ability to push this, we can garner international co-operation, create new institutions, ring-fence spending and ensure that the United Kingdom is seen as a country that stands up for women’s rights across the globe and that is not shirking its duties.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a genuine honour to speak in this debate, in what has been an especially difficult week for women across the UK. It is crystal clear to me that this country has a severe systemic problem with male violence. As has already been mentioned, last week a 16-year-old girl died in disturbing circumstances, practically on my doorstep. South Wales police have since confirmed that the death, which took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is being treated as a murder, and last night a man was charged. Of course, we are all aware of the sensitivities around Sarah Everard’s case; my thoughts are with both families, as well as those who have lost a loved one at the hands of a male perpetrator.
I am extremely grateful to the people who have dedicated their lives to campaigning for real change. I continue to be inspired by the victims who bravely report their cases to the police, by the journalists and editors who choose to tell their stories, and by the families who continue passionately to seek justice on behalf of those who have been silenced. I am also grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—my good friend—with the support of the incredible Karen Ingala Smith and the Counting Dead Women project, has been able to use today’s debate to painstakingly list the names of the women who have died at the hands of a male abuser over the last 12 months. But it should not be this way. I fear that there are many more names that would sadly join that list if only their deaths were investigated and recorded in the usual way. If we are not clearly and centrally measuring the number of victims, how can we possibly be getting a grip or a steer on prevention?
Colleagues will be aware of the vastly complex issues around the way in which homicides involving females with domestic abuse markers against their name are measured and recorded in this country. There are families up and down the country—and more of them than we might think—who deserve clarity on the circumstances surrounding unexplained or sudden deaths. The situation can only change if more of us speak up on these issues. It has been incredible to hear so many colleagues touch on domestic abuse in their contributions today.
There is clear work that all of us in this House can be doing to support campaigners and grieving families across the country. We can reach out and ask our local police forces for the data. We can push for clear guidance on how police should approach the scene when a woman with domestic abuse markers has died suddenly or unexpectedly. We can legislate to give agencies—from GPs to local authorities to social services—the tools to share information that will allow the creation of a centralised database that has the power to speed up the police response.
We need to start counting women and making women count. The women whose lives have been lost at the hands of an abuser deserve a voice, even when their own has been silenced. I will not stop until I see practical reform. The system has failed these women, and it is our duty and honour to give them their lives in whatever way we can.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Our final Back-Bench speaker is Liz Twist.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate.
International Women’s Day is a day to remember and to celebrate, and this year I want to celebrate the wonderful women in trade unions. My union, Unison, has nearly 1 million women among its 1.3 million membership. They are women working in public services, ensuring that our essential services keep going, and they include: nurses, healthcare professionals, healthcare assistants, cleaners and catering staff in our NHS. They have been so vital this year, above all others, and deserve so much more than the 1% pay rise proposed by the Government. There are also the women in local government, energy, schools, colleges, the police and social care, who have been undervalued for too long. I want to say a huge congratulations to our new Unison general secretary, Christina McAnea, who was elected by Unison members as head of Britain’s biggest union. Christina will do an absolutely brilliant job and make a real difference for her members.
I also want to mention some other brilliant Unison organisations and women here in the north-east with whom I work. The brilliant northern women’s network is headed by Pat Heron, Maria Alberts, Linda Hobson, our regional convenor Nikki Ramanandi, Josie Bird, our national Unison president, and so many others working to fight for what is important to women in work and in society—as well as, of course, our fantastic regional secretary, Clare Williams. There are so many more people I could mention, including in other trade unions, but time does not allow.
Trade unions are still needed by women in dealing with fairness and equality at work, but I want to mention the campaign backed by Unison to create a permanent memorial for an earlier group of women trade unionists—the match girls. Those women and young girls took strike action against the terrible conditions in the Bryant and May match factory in London in 1888. Their action led not only to better conditions for themselves and their fellow workers, but inspired many more workers, male and female, to organise and fight for better and fairer conditions at work. How sad it is to hear that there must be a petition to save the grave of one of the strike leaders, Sarah Chapman. I look forward to marking the 150th anniversary of the match tax protest in April. Perhaps we can also mark the day in this House. This struggle continues today. A survey of Unison female workers, including nurses, teaching assistants and council employees, showed that many feel on the brink of burnout in trying to juggle both work and home commitments.
But today we must also think of Sarah Everard, and my thoughts and prayers go out to her family.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I knew that I would not be the only woman in this debate who changed what she wanted to speak about because of recent events. The Sarah Everard case feels quite close to home for a lot of people, including me, and my thoughts are with her family.
Looking online last night, I was struck by the scale of many women’s concerns about their experiences of doing mundane, everyday things and feeling unsafe or experiencing harassment or attack. I did not see any women saying that it is fine and they do not feel like that. That is no surprise given the outcomes of the recent UN survey and all we have heard today, and that is really quite depressing.
Of course no woman should have to face this. None of us should have these concerns. We should not fear walking down the streets in the dark. I would like to tell you all that I am scared of nothing. That is pretty much how I try and live my life. I am not sure that it always works, but I do try. I do walk down streets in the dark. I will not be moved from the streets and I will not change my behaviour. But here is the thing: I do feel scared sometimes. I cross the road, I have my keys in my hand, and I think about where the streetlights are and where the dark alleys are. I am aware—vigilant—because, like all women, I have to be, and we all know that. We all have reason to know that, directly and indirectly. We know we need to protect ourselves.
This morning on BBC Radio Scotland, I heard journalist Jane Dougall speaking about her own experience, which was incredibly brave of her. She pointed out that all the calls to be careful and to do this or not do that—the calls to modify our behaviour—are not right. We need to be able to walk down the street without any of that. She was in her own driveway and, as she said, it does not get much more careful than that. Between that brave interview and the news about Sarah Everard, I have been thinking a lot about what women face when, without consciously thinking about it, we do these calculations about what we need to do to keep safe—all the “Text me when you get in”, “Oh no, I’ll be fine” routine. But sometimes it is not fine at all: the tragedy that Sarah’s family is facing and the huge hole that could be ripped into her family if the worst news comes. I know that feeling will never go away if that is what happens. Sometimes there is no positive end.
A wonderful, vibrant woman that I knew and loved never did make it home. She was just near her own front door, too, going about her business. I cannot adequately explain what that meant and how life-changing it has been for those closest to her, who, I have to say, are extraordinarily brave and strong. I can tell you that the police were, and remain, magnificent, and that my admiration for those left behind is beyond what people could imagine. But that should never happen to anyone.
This issue really matters, and we really need to talk about it more if we want things to change. It is a universal reality that affects women in every country, city, town and village in the world. Women experience low-level and high-level harassment and violence just for catching a bus or walking up the street—and I am not even getting into the issues online that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) described. We are not to blame. We do not need to modify our actions or behaviours. We are not responsible for the actions of men.
Indeed, women do not get attacked because of their actions; they get attacked because of the actions of their attacker. I know that some women are talking about reclaiming the night. So they should—so we should. The solidarity of women in all this has been very powerful, and I think that has everything to do with how recognisable and relatable this all is to women the world over.
I think what I am saying is uncontroversial and straightforward, but it has all been said before and yet here we still are. Hearing the concerns and fears of young women in particular, and knowing the increased vulnerabilities of so many because of covid and the additional challenges for women in minority and marginalised groups, we absolutely need this to be a continued focus for us all.
I am really grateful for strong women leaders such as Nicola Sturgeon, who always raises her voice in support of women—all women—day and daily, pushing back against stereotypes and barriers and making a measurable difference on gender equality in Scotland. I am also grateful for women more locally to me, such as East Renfrewshire councillors Angela Convery, Caroline Bamforth and Annette Ireland, all champions of women in my local community and all committed every day to supporting women in all walks of life—and goodness knows, they have made a huge contribution during covid.
Maybe that is what some of this comes down to. Maybe we need to get away from treating things as women’s issues. They are just issues; it is not a niche thing. Maybe the fears and concerns that we have heard so much about would be so much less of a problem if that was how we looked at the world. But for today, let us celebrate all women. I am glad of the progress we have made—there is much to be proud of—but I look forward to the day when we have made a good deal more progress.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I am disappointed that the Minister for Women and Equalities is not here to respond. That is no disrespect to the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), but the Minister should be here to respond.
Before I begin, I want to give my thoughts and prayers to the family, friends and loved ones of Sarah Everard and all the victims and survivors of violence against women. From my own personal experience, I know what it is like to walk in the dark feeling frightened, fearful and anxious, and I know that many Members across the House share that experience—in fact, I was not aware that many did, because my biggest fear was that I cannot see very well in the dark. We have so far to go to make our public spaces, both online and offline, safe for women.
Let me begin with the many contributions that we have heard; over 50 Members contributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made a powerful speech, reading out those names. Certainly, we all only hope that, going forward, we do not have to hear such a long list of names being read. Many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), spoke about violence against women and girls.
Many Members spoke about the hugely unequal impact that covid has had on women, and I will come on to that. I also want talk about the plight of women across the world, which my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) really shed light on. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), not just for raising the most important points about black maternal health but for her bravery in sharing her own personal experience.
International Women’s Day is a time to celebrate all the gains we have made in the pursuit of women’s equality. I want to pay tribute to many of the brilliant women on whose shoulders I stand here today, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who was elected as the first black female MP over 30 years ago, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and all she has done in introducing the Equality Act and championing the rights of women. The Labour party has been and always will be the party of equality. We introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970, the minimum wage laws and laws guarding against discrimination against women. I also want to pay tribute to activists such as the late Olive Morris, a member of the Brixton Black Women’s Group, who went to school in my constituency of Battersea and was a tireless campaigner against racism and sexism. It is a shame that we continue to still have those same fights and struggles today.
This International Women’s Day falls a year into a pandemic that has had huge consequences for women. Issues such as domestic abuse and childcare have been sidelined throughout this year. Pregnant women and new mothers have faced discrimination in the Government’s job retention and self-employment income support schemes. Young women have been more likely to work in sectors shut down, and mothers have picked up more of the unpaid care work and more of the home schooling. Meanwhile, the childcare and social care sectors, in which women are more likely to work, have been hung out to dry. After a decade of austerity and negligence, these sectors are on their knees and are being ignored. Women have been on the frontline of the pandemic in our hospitals, our care homes, our schools and our homes, and yet the Government think that now is the time to give nearly 1 million women on the NHS frontline an effective pay cut. It is shameful.
With gender pay gap reporting suspended for over a year, we have no way of knowing what the cumulative impact of these failures will be. But we do know that black women are still four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women; that over half of victims and survivors of violence against women were turned away from refuges last year because of a lack of funding; that migrant women remain excluded from the Domestic Abuse Bill, with the funding announced falling short of what is needed; and that abuse against women—especially black women—on social media and in the press is going completely unchecked. This week alone, we have seen the Duchess of Sussex vilified by some in the media. The continued denial of racism in the media is unacceptable. Racism is real. It is a lived experience for many women, including myself.
At the Budget last week, we did not see any action taken to tackle the widening inequalities that have been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic. Instead, we saw a delay to the cut in universal credit. We saw a complete failure for disabled women by not applying the £20 uplift to employment and support allowance. We have seen the Chancellor out there doing his bit with his high-vis and hard hat, sending a clear message about the industries he is interested in supporting. All the talk of kickstart, restart and recovery is meaningless for women unless the Government commit to equal opportunities. We need to see them publish data that guarantees that equal numbers of jobs are created for women and men, so that STEM and care are valued equally. I hope that that will be the case, as we run the risk of a two-tier recovery, which will only widen gender inequality even further.
I mentioned the Equality Act earlier, and I want to come back to it. I am concerned that it is being all but ignored by the Government and colleagues, including the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is not here today. There have only been two equality impact assessments published since the beginning of the pandemic, despite this being the biggest public health and economic crisis for a generation. There was no equality impact assessment of the Budget last week. It is a complete failure that these Acts are not being assessed adequately. It is unacceptable that equality guidance is being overlooked and ignored. Can the hon. Member for Lewes confirm whether the Government will finally commit to publishing impact assessments?
We have come a long way, but progress towards meaningful change for women is still too slow. In the light of this week’s events alone, I would like to know what the Government will be doing to address violence against women in public spaces and in the press. Is it not time that misogyny is made a hate crime? Will the Government immediately reinstate reporting on the gender pay gap? Representation and leadership matter. Diversity in decision making matters.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
May I start by saying how delighted I am once again to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate? I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their powerful contributions. There were too many to single any out, but it was poignant to have both the Mother and the Father of the House taking part.
While International Women’s Day is an important opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women in the UK and around the world, it is also an opportunity to look at what more needs to be done. This year, covid-19 is the biggest challenge the UK has faced in decades, and everyone across the country has been touched by it in some way. We have heard this afternoon many examples of extraordinary women who have been at the forefront of the fight against this virus, including those working in the NHS to keep us safe, many of whom I have had the privilege to work alongside on the covid wards during this period. I pay tribute to them for their incredible efforts, bravery and strength.
The United Nations theme for International Women’s Day this year centres on women’s leadership and the importance of securing an equal future in a covid-19 world. We cannot underestimate the importance of this approach as we build back better following what has been a challenging year for many. The economic impact of the past year is complex and emerging, but as the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund have all recognised, our economic response is making a difference. It is saving jobs, keeping businesses afloat and supporting people’s incomes.
In order to protect jobs for women, who are more likely to be furloughed, the Government have rolled out unprecedented levels of support, particularly in crucial sectors such as retail and hospitality, which employ high numbers of women and those from ethnic minorities and younger people, and the self-employment income support scheme has provided support for many of the 1.7 million self-employed women in the UK. As of 31 January, the scheme has received nearly 2.1 million claims from self-employed women across the three rounds of grants.
Despite the progress in changing the stereotypical views of the role of women at work, evidence shows that during the pandemic many women have been pressured into balancing work with childcare and home schooling. To help with that, the Government have enabled employers to furlough parents who are unable to work due to the closure of schools, nurseries and childcare services. I know that many will want to welcome and thank those who have worked so hard for the safe reopening of schools this week.
On the theme of women’s leadership in the covid world, we have seen some real-life heroines in the STEM sector, such as Kate Bingham, chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, and Professor Sarah Gilbert, who devised the Oxford vaccine. These women have quite literally saved lives, saved our economy and, quite frankly, saved our way of life, and they are role models for the next generation of women.
If we want to inspire young women, it is vital that we start early, and that is why we continue to encourage girls to take STEM subjects at school, college and university. While there is work to be done, there has been a 31% increase in entries by girls to STEM A-levels in England in the past 10 years.
The issue of violence against women has featured heavily in this debate, and the last 48 hours have hit home for all of us. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) put it so well, today we are all Sarah. My prayers and thoughts are with her and her family at this time.
Women and girls are still suffering from unacceptable violence. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), whose contribution has, unfortunately, become a sombre but important tradition in this House. Today she read out the names of women killed by men in the last year. Sadly, her list seems much longer than it was last year. I hope she does not take this the wrong way, but I look forward to a year when she is unable to make a contribution to this debate.
The home should be a place of safety and comfort but, for many, it is not. During this pandemic, the Government have listened to charities and the domestic abuse commissioner, and in last week’s Budget, we announced an additional £19 million of funding to tackle domestic abuse, with £4.2 million for a two-year pilot project of respite rooms to provide specialist support for vulnerable homeless women. The landmark Domestic Abuse Bill has been on Report in the House of Lords this week. It is on track to receive Royal Assent by the end of April, and we will publish our new tackling violence against women and girls strategy in the spring. This will help to better target perpetrators and support women in relation to these crimes.
The Government takes all forms of harassment extremely seriously, whether it is in the workplace, in the home or on the street, and I pay tribute to those across government, up and down the country, working to make the UK a safer place for women. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, harassment is too regular an experience for women. I am inspired by many young women campaigning on these vital issues. In particular, I want to pay tribute to my constituent, Maya Tutton, and the Our Streets Now campaign, who are working hard to raise the issue of street harassment and the impact that it is having on the daily lives of younger women across this country. The tragic news of Sarah Everard this week emphasises their point, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today, reinforcing the Government’s commitment to protecting women and girls from violence and harassment.
It is not just physical abuse that women have faced during the pandemic. We know that more people have spent time online and, although there have been many benefits to this, there has of course been greater risk of harm. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) said so eloquently how many female MPs—if not all of us—know only too well about the reality of online abuse and the constant toll of negative comments, which people would never be brave enough to say to someone’s face. Online abuse is unacceptable and our approach will make platforms responsible for tackling abuse online, including anonymous abuse, while protecting the rights of freedom of expression.
There is also more to do to improve the lives of women and girls internationally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) emphasised. One of our most visible commitments to this is ensuring that there are 12 years of quality education for girls around the world. This is a transformational development. Having volunteered in Rwanda on Project Umubano, teaching English in schools, I have seen at first hand the difference that education makes to women. There are perhaps a few Rwandan women speaking English right now with a slight cockney twist, thanks to my effort. Education is the key to breaking down barriers for women. In the last 10 years, the UK has supported at least 15.6 million children in gaining a decent education, over half of whom are girls.
In conclusion, I again thank all those who have contributed to this debate this afternoon and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for securing this debate.
Mrs Miller
This is probably the first time that two Marias have followed each other in a debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am very glad about that. This debate comes at the end of a week of events organised by the all-party group on women in Parliament marking International Women’s Day, with fantastic support from Mr Speaker, many right hon. and hon. Members, the House service, the Parliamentary Archives, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Fawcett Society and UN Women. This has been the first time that we have organised events in this way, but I do not think it will be the last. I also thank the APPG’s secretariat, the Fawcett Society and my parliamentary staff—particularly Rachel Edwards, for her extraordinary commitment to organising this week’s programme.
In a world where gender equality issues are so entrenched, it is right that we should spend some time thinking about how we can do things better. I thank every one of the 67 colleagues who wanted to contribute today, many of whom were not able to speak. Perhaps next year we should have a new tradition: a full-day debate to reflect the overwhelming support, to consider the issues that affect women’s equality and to mark International Women’s Day here, on the Floor of the House of Commons, at the heart of our Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 7 and 8, on the Church of England measures, together.
Ordered,
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Diocesan Boards of Education Measure (HC 1259), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Cathedrals Measure (HC 1260), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(David Duguid.)
Electoral Commission
Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Concussion in Sport
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am good at clearing the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me start with a couple of quotations:
“I felt like there was a rage inside me boiling up and I just needed to get it out. On one occasion, I lit the grill and forgot about it, even though my young child was in the kitchen. When the burning started, it was only when my wife turned up that I realised. When I went out on my bike, I got completely lost, even though it was a journey I have done many times.”
Somebody else said about her father:
“He started to ask: ‘When am I going to get this sorted? When is someone going to fix my head?’”.
The truth is that brain injury is a hidden epidemic in this country. We are used to talking about a pandemic at the moment, but there is a hidden epidemic. It is hidden because lots of people have a brain injury and we would never know. In some cases, yes, there is an evident scar from an operation or road traffic accident, but in many cases the damage is inside the brain and is not visible to anybody. Sometimes, the person in front of us in the queue who is slurring is not actually drunk at all, but has had a brain injury. Our judgmentalism may make that moment even worse for them.
Attitudes have changed considerably in recent years. I remember watching rugby matches in which the commentators used to sort of celebrate the big clashes, when head hit head or boot hit head. I was so proud when in the Six Nations rugby matches this year every single commentator was saying, “I’m sorry, but that tackle is too high”, or, “That’s a really dangerous injury. I hope somebody is looking at that. Isn’t it great that the player’s being taken off the field?”
In the past, there used to be so much: “Play up, play up, play on—play the game!” Or it was: “You’ve got to stay on the pitch whatever, because you’ve been selected and you want to show that you’re a man”—I will talk about the issues facing women in a few moments. There was almost a celebration of that concept of being punch-drunk in rugby, and people would laugh at players who were clearly groggy and unsteady on their feet on the rugby pitch or the football pitch. Thank goodness that a lot of that has changed. The honest truth is that it has changed in very recent years—it is only three or four years ago that commentators were sort of relishing these big fights.
I am really proud that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee started an inquiry into concussion in sport. It feels like some of us have been making these arguments in the House for a long time. This week, Dr Willie Stewart laid bare some of the problems. He said of rugby that one player in every match suffers a brain injury. In every single match that we watch, somebody suffers a brain injury, and the effects of that may last for many years of their life.
“Chronic traumatic encephalopathy” is one of the ways they describe it. This is a horrible image, but it was given to me by Willie Stewart originally: basically, we can imagine the brain as being like a wet sponge in a hard bucket, and when it is smashed against something else, the sponge moves with it, of course, and all the parts of the sponge get stretched, and sometimes they get stretched out so much that they never get back to normal.
Willie Stewart also said that
“the only thing that connects football to American football to boxing to rugby to wrestling…is head impact and head-injury exposure.”
He said that neurodegenerative disease and dementia
“was recorded on the death certificate in about 20% of our former footballers”,
compared with 6% of the population control: 20% versus 6%. I am not sure how much more evidence we need that concussion in sport is doing immense damage to players. In other words, the beautiful game is damaging brains and killing players. Nobby Stiles, Jack Charlton, Sir Bobby Charlton—I think five members of the 1966 team have now been diagnosed with early onset dementia of one kind or another.
This is not just about dementia. Post-concussion syndrome comes in many different forms. Some individuals have diminutive cognitive functioning. They have difficulty remembering things and do not understand why. Others have diminished inhibition, and a sense of rage—I referred to that earlier—or sexual inappropriateness. Those different elements of diminished inhibition also come with diminished executive function, such as an inability to turn up on time, or sometimes chronic fatigue. I do not mean just feeling tired or lazy. Some people call it brain-drain, when every ounce of energy that should be in someone’s Duracell battery has gone. There is nothing left; they are completely running on empty and cannot get themselves out of bed.
Others suffer from depression, anxiety, or horrific mood swings that have a terrible effect on their relationships with loved ones, family members and children. People start to fear what they might do to their children, and there is the horrible effect that that has on someone’s relationship with a wife, husband or partner. It causes terrible family distress.
I have spoken to players and their partners who are desperate to support the person through this, but they do not know how. They do not have the skills. Indeed, they never thought they would need them, as the person involved was so fit—the epitome of health—and to see them in that condition is terribly depressing. Dementia and many of these conditions affect many families, regardless of sports, but they are strongly felt in the sporting community. There is also second impact syndrome, perhaps the most notable instance of which was Ben Robinson in 2013. A young Irish lad, 14 years of age, had a second concussion having gone back on to play. He died later that day.
This is not just about men, although a lot of the research done so far is about elite players who are men. That needs to change. We need to do far more research into the effects of concussion on women, not least because in the United States of America more work has been done because of legal cases. If we consider the incidence of these problems per 1,000 athlete exposures—stick with me—as they call it, for women in soccer the rate is 0.54, whereas for men it is 0.26. In other words, it is 100% higher for women. Similarly, for lacrosse the figure is 0.3 per 1,000 athlete exposures for men, and 0.45 for women, which is 50% greater.
I suspect we would find all those figures writ large across football in the UK and for women’s sports, and we need to do that work. For instance, lots of work has been done on men’s boxing, and one reason why people changed the rules on wearing headguards is that they discovered that there tended to be more concussions with headguards than without, which was counterintuitive. That research was done on men, but there is still no data for women at all. It is shameful.
It is not just about adults, either. Figures I saw today show that 40,000 children go to hospital every year with a brain injury. That is significantly more children than present in hospital with autism, yet we know far more about autism in children than about brain injury in children.
The sporting bodies have repeatedly failed the people they should be there, as employers, to protect. Jeff Astle died in 2002 and the coroner decided that he had died of an industrial disease. He was 59—my age. On 15 October 2020, the coroner decided exactly the same in the case of Alan Jarvis; another footballer and the same verdict—death by industrial disease. What has happened in between? To be honest, from the football authorities, next to nothing: a lot of hand wringing, moaning and saying, “Yes, we’ll do more research; we’re committed to funding more research”, but there has been precious little action.
In UEFA matches, there is still only three minutes for an assessment. A proper brain injury assessment cannot be done in three minutes; 10 minutes would be far more sensible. A team doctor still does the assessment. It should not be the team doctor but an independent medic who does it. Of course, the team doctor wants the player to go back on. The Minister will rightly say that the UK is trialling substitution, but only five countries out of 211 have decided to trial it—five out of 211. Not even all the sports organisations in Europe are doing it. That is a disgrace. By now, substitution should not be a trial, but fully in place.
There is no independent medic sitting on the side of the pitch, watching the match and deciding, “Sorry, that person’s had a brain injury. Ref, you probably didn’t spot it, Coach, you probably didn’t spot it, but I did. That person’s coming off because we’ve got to do an assessment.” It is just basic if we really want to protect the players.
How many times must I hear, “Oh, but the ball is much lighter these days”? Actually, the ball is exactly the same weight as a leather ball. The leather balls gathered more water, so they got a bit heavier, but if we do the physics, the real issue is the speed of the ball. The ball probably travels faster than it did in the past, which means that we probably have more of a problem with heading the ball than we had in the past. We should listen to the research that has been done and implement its recommendations.
Far too much has been left to charities such as Headway and Head for Change, which has just started up and has as ambassadors James Haskell, Geraint Thomas, Inoke Afeaki, Lewis Moody and me; I do not look quite as good in the pictures on the website. There comes a point when if people constantly obfuscate, delay, refuse to act and demand more evidence before acting, they are complicit in the harm that is being done. I have come to the conclusion that football is simply a disgrace.
It is great to see the Minister here today, not least because I know he has been taking some action recently. He has covered several roundtables online. I think I know everybody who has been on his calls. It is great to see that work happening. I was a bit irritated with Leader of the House when I asked him about the matter a few weeks ago because he said that action was for the sporting bodies to take. I know that the Government, through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, have co-ordinated work between different Departments, which is good. I had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) earlier today, which was really positive.
As I have argued for many years, I want the Government to deal with the matter not in little silos, but through one whole co-ordinated effort because it affects the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—indeed, there is hardly a Department it does not affect. We must therefore tackle it in a co-ordinated way. I am grateful that the Government are doing that. I hope the Minister will be able to say that they will be reporting back to the House at some point on those joint ministerial meetings, because I think they would receive a very strong welcome across the House.
However, I think the Government will still have to go further. If we really want shared protocols on concussion in sport that are shared across all sports at elite, junior and grassroots level for both men and women, that will only really happen with real pushing from the Government —and that means the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. We have to have shared protocols. I know sports are different, with elements that might play out differently, but rugby, football, cycling, hockey, ice hockey, boxing and wrestling all need shared protocols. Quite often, a child in particular will play several sports. They will not understand why there is one set of rules when they play netball and a completely different set of rules when they play baseball, basketball, soccer or whatever. There has to be a shared set of protocols with the same language used in all sports, and that will only happen if it comes from the Government.
I am a Welsh MP. The Minister sent me a text—I hope I am not breaking a confidence—to say that I have to remember that some of this is devolved. I am fully aware of that, but because Wales plays England at rugby in particular—the Minister may not want to remember that fact—it is important that we share the protocols across the whole of the UK. I want a UK-wide approach if we can possibly achieve that. If the Minister were to knock on that door in Wales, I believe he would receive a socially distanced welcome.
Physical education staff in schools and coaches really need a full understanding of concussion. There are still far too many people who simply do not understand it. They think it is only a concussion if you have been knocked out. Actually, being knocked out is a particular form of concussion where a particular part of the brain is affected. However, you might have several concussions without being out at all. That is why it is really important that a better understanding is shared across all PE teachers and coaches.
On legislation, I am always very reluctant to suggest that we need to legislate, but I just note that in the United States of America between 2009 and 2015, all 50 States and the District of Columbia introduced legislation on concussion in sport primarily, but on brain injury in general. The United States of America has a traumatic brain injury Act—we still do not—which lays down all sorts of different elements. It may be that if sporting bodies are not prepared to act, we will have to consider legislation in this field.
There are arguments for legislation in other aspects. There is a Bill going through the House of Lords at the moment to which Lord Ramsbotham, I think, has been tabling amendments this week that insist women who have been subject to a brain injury as part of domestic abuse will be guaranteed a proper test and be screened for brain injury. Women who go to prison will, when they first arrive in prison, all be screened for brain injury as well. I suspect we also need legislation on the treatment of veterans to provide for proper research programmes and for the protection of prisoners.
I warmly welcome the fact that the Select Committee is doing its work and the Government are doing their work, but I suspect that it is still woefully under-resourced. I do not know whether the Select Committee will produce a report or whether it is having another day of evidence, but I think the time is long past when we need a royal commission on brain injury as a whole and concussion in sport in particular, so that all the evidence can be presented, analysed and considered in a quasi-judicial way and we end up protecting people.
I end with this. Sport is good for us. I have no desire to stop people taking part in sport. I want more people to take part in sport. I would like myself to take part in more sport. Sport often involves risks, of course it does, but one player said this to me—I apologise for the language, which is not my language:
“I knew it would bugger up my body. I had no idea it would bugger up my brain.”
That is the bit here that matters and that we have to change. I am not interested in cotton wool—I do not want to mollycoddle anybody—but this is what Hayley McQueen, the sports presenter, said about her dad, Gordon McQueen, the ex-Man United player:
“I can’t believe football, the thing that gave him so much love, has cruelly taken a lot away from us.”
We do not have to lose the good. We can do the good.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this important debate. I know—he has just illustrated this—how deeply he is concerned about the welfare of sportspeople and this issue. I greatly appreciate the care and commitment he has shown in regard to concussion and brain injury in the sporting sector and beyond over many, many years. He has spoken eloquently yet again today, showing great empathy and emotion. I have indeed interacted with many people he has interacted with over a much longer period than I have, and the stories I hear are absolutely heart-rending.
The fact that this debate is taking place is testament to the hon. Gentleman’s energy in chairing the all- party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury. The subject is getting increasing attention across the House and beyond, and I genuinely give him and the APPG credit for highlighting it.
Sports national governing bodies are rightly responsible for the regulation of their sports, and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from serious injuries. We look to individual sports to take primary responsibility for the safety of their participants, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it must go beyond that, and that the Government have a responsibility too.
I am pleased to acknowledge that positive progress has been made in recent years on this issue, and I am sure it will continue to be made. The Rugby Football Union has been researching head injury in the UK for the last 20 years. Its extensive Headcase education programme, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has helped increase understanding of concussion prevention and management. The British Horseracing Authority has also made extensive efforts to improve its concussion management protocols.
In football, although there is clearly more to do, I welcome the Football Association’s introduction of two concussion substitutes per FA cup match earlier this year. I am also glad to see that the Premier League started trailing the use of concussion substitutes last month, as the hon. Gentleman also highlighted—we should have shared a speech. Indeed, England is one of only five out of more than 200 countries to trial the new International Football Association Board concussion protocols. I am hopeful that far more countries will follow our lead. We can be proud that we are leading, but there are clearly many more countries to follow.
The FA also issued guidelines last year to help prevent children aged 11 and under from being taught to head footballs during training in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not just national governing bodies contributing to improvements in player safety. Last November, the Professional Footballers’ Association announced that it would set up a dedicated taskforce to investigate further the issue of brain injury diseases in football, and two independently led research studies supported by the FA are currently examining former professional players for early signs of deteriorating cognitive function. Those are demonstrably good steps across sports, but there is clearly more to do. That will be a familiar theme.
Concussions are notoriously difficult to identify. It is important to note that about 10%—but only about 10%—of reported concussions involve a loss of consciousness, so they are not always readily apparent and the player’s injuries may be far more serious than they appear at the time. Player safety is the No. 1 concern for sport. Much more work is needed to ensure that robust measures are in place to reduce risk and improve the diagnosis and management of sport-related concussion at all levels of sport.
That is why the Secretary of State and I hosted two roundtables on concussion in sport last month. I am grateful to the current and former sportspeople who attended the first roundtable. There were many heartfelt contributions to the discussion, which gave valuable insight into the experience of those who have suffered the consequences of brain injury directly or via loved ones. Attendees acknowledged that sports were now taking concussion far more seriously and players were now more likely to admit to being concussed, but there are still concerns about culture, promoting safety for children, differences between the amateur and professional levels and levels of education among players, whether that is advanced education or education and awareness on the pitch when an injury happens and, indeed, all the way to A&E and so on. There are many areas to investigate.
The second roundtable we had involved mainly national governing bodies and academics who focus on this area. The Secretary of State and I wanted to further understand what work is under way, what research is being undertaken and what more can be done. Chief executives and medical officers from various contact sports attended, along with academics. We also had in attendance representatives from the Department for Education and NHS England, and I am grateful again for those contributions.
We are in the early stages of these discussions, and it is clear that the Government have an important convening role to play here, and perhaps more. Collaboration on best practice, research and concussion protocols must be a priority for sports governing bodies, because one of the things that struck me is that while a lot of work is being done and a lot of research is being undertaken, I was not necessarily convinced there was a lot of sharing of that information and research. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, collaboration is key to moving forward here. We must also ensure that players are not in a position to overrule doctors on medical issues.
Chris Bryant
One of my anxieties is that some sports are nervous about sharing because they think that there are legal cases coming, and they do not want to reveal their hand. We need to create a space in which they can do that with safe harbour.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. He may well be right. Of course, as soon as we get into the area of litigation, I am not really able to say much more. But on the principle of encouraging the sharing of information and data wherever possible, he is absolutely right, and we will look at what role we can play in encouraging that. That is a really important point.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fact that there is lots of research on men but very little on women. We brought that up in the roundtable. We were proactively saying, “Do you have any research? Is there anything more on women?” I think there was a recognition that there is far more work to be done there, but, of course, women suffer injuries as much as men do. In fact, the physiology is perhaps not as well understood, and I therefore appeal to all stakeholders to particularly focus on that area.
We are currently reflecting on the ways that we can move forward on the issues raised in these discussions, and we plan further work and further discussions. The hon. Gentleman is right to sound slightly frustrated—there are lots of discussions, but we do intend to act. I do not know what the conclusions of the work we are doing will be, but I do want to see action. I do not want this to just be a talking shop and ongoing discussions. I also welcome, as he did, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry, which I hope will add valuable evidence to this debate.
I know that sports want to make progress in this area. It is in their best interests to improve safety for players and, indeed, everybody involved in sport as much as possible. As I said, we want tangible actions. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the further work that is happening across Government on the issue of brain injury. I was delighted to attend a meeting convened by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for Care. We will continue that work across Government, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be involved. I invite ongoing discussions with him; in fact, I am due to meet him and the APPG shortly.
Last week I met a non-governmental organisation, Podium Analytics, which is starting to carry out more important research in this area, particularly focused on under-18s, alongside work and collaboration with the Department for Education. That is important, and that work will continue. Collaboration between sports, player associations, NGOs and others is clearly important, and we want to ensure that it continues and progresses.
The importance of sport has come even more into focus in the last year. We want to redouble our efforts to ensure that progress is made, and I am determined to play my part. I firmly believe that we need to continue to work together in driving forward research and continuing to improve player safety and welfare at all levels of sport. Everyone involved has a love for their sport, and good work has already been done, but there is more to do. We will do everything we can to ensure that all reasonable steps are being taken on safety and to protect British sport from concerns both now and in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Owen Thompson |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Change of Expiry Date) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to sit in only the designated places, that Mr Speaker requires that everyone wears a mask when in Committee, and that Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and not send hard copies.
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 Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Change of Expiry Date) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
The regulations were laid before the House on 11 February. We have a road map ahead of us that gives us some light at the end of the tunnel. That is thanks to so many people, including those working in the NHS, and we must always be grateful for the work that they do and conscious of the pressure that they remain under. However, we know that the future is still far from certain for many businesses.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 contained regulatory easements designed to allow viable businesses the best opportunity to survive the pandemic, as well as new procedures that allow them breathing space to restructure or, if that is not possible, seek the most appropriate form of insolvency proceedings. It contained a general power for the Secretary of State to make temporary amendments or modifications to the effect of specified insolvency and governance legislation through regulations—a wide power, but with significant conditions imposed so that it can be used only for specific purposes relating to the pandemic, and only under certain circumstances. The regulations made under this power are subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure, so they become effective upon laying, but are still subject to debate and approval by both Houses. That allows us to react quickly to deal with urgent issues.
When we drafted and debated the legislation, the future was uncertain. We just did not know the impact that the pandemic was going to have on the administrative and regulatory framework, and for how long, so we had to be able to react quickly to challenges and prevent businesses from having to close just because of the pandemic, with the impact on jobs and livelihoods that that would entail. However, the pandemic has clearly continued for much longer than was anticipated. At the moment, the general power to make temporary amendments will expire at the end of April. That date was set in the expectation that normal trading conditions would return by the autumn of last year, but sadly, as we are all too aware, that did not happen.
These efforts use the power contained in section 24(3) of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act to substitute the expiry date of the general power for a date that is a year later. It will mean that the Secretary of State is able to use the general power until 29 April 2022. Although section 24(3) allows for extension of the period in which the general power may be used on more than one occasion, this is limited by the provision in section 24(4) that prohibits the power lasting beyond 24 June 2022—two years from the day on which the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act was passed. Having an expiry date for the power was an important restrictive provision. The power may be used only for purposes directly related to the impact of the pandemic on the business and insolvency regime, so if there is no impact the power should expire.
We will continue to do what we need to do to support businesses through this period. We are hoping, and aiming, for the economy to return to pre-covid levels by the middle of next year, but in the meantime, supporting viable businesses and jobs must be our priority. As such, we need to be in a position where we can continue to temporarily adapt to allow as many viable businesses, jobs and livelihoods to survive the pandemic as possible, and to deal properly and fairly with insolvencies that might be an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic. It is quite possible that the power will be pivotal in providing the flexibility we need to deal with any extraordinary pressures on the regulatory regimes.
No new powers are introduced by the regulations; they merely extend the period in which the power may be used. There are no specific plans to use the general power again at present, but this may quickly change depending on the situation. I hope the Committee agrees that the power represents a vital tool for the Government in being able to respond to the challenges of covid-19 and that it should be extended for a further year. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Efford.
As we repeatedly said about the business support measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, we support the change that the Government are making. We have called many times for the ending of the provisions to be delayed, and we have called consistently on the Government to give themselves a bit more wriggle room. I repeat those calls today.
It is clear that even though the vaccination programme is going great guns—I know the Chair is having his jab later today—businesses are still in distress and the lockdown and business disruption will continue past the original date in the provisions. As I have said previously, a system of business support that was set up for three months has not really been adequate for the 12 to 18 months that this crisis is going on for. In truth, we do not yet know whether all the restrictions will be lifted after 21 June, when social restrictions are due to be lifted. The explanatory notes for the change state that
“the future impact of the pandemic on business and the insolvency regime remains uncertain.”
As such, it is only sensible to maintain the option of further extending the measures in the Act in this way. Indeed, the economy is in dire straits. Although the covid support measures that the Government have put in place have given businesses a stay of execution, we are concerned that we could still see a wave of insolvencies as support is withdrawn and the safety net dissolves.
A number of measures in the Bill are due to expire at the end of March, including the temporary suspension of the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions, and the flexibility for companies to hold annual general meetings. The temporary removal from directors of the threat of personal liability for wrongful trading is due to expire on 30 April this year. Can the Minister tell me whether the measures will now be extended, as they should be? Will he ensure that businesses will have a smooth landing out of this crisis? I met the big five business organisations this morning, and this issue was raised with me. The Institute of Directors was extremely concerned that the provisions should be extended beyond their expiry in March and April this year.
I expect to see the Minister again soon, when the Government lay further statutory instruments to extend the provisions. As I have before, I advise him to go longer than he thinks will be needed, and then we can have fewer SIs.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Mr Efford, having a photo of your vaccination will obviously help the take-up across London, but entering into the proceedings of the Official Report is forever.
I am glad that we have a consensus that we need to go further in order to protect our economy over the coming few months. To answer the hon. Lady’s question, we have already looked at statutory demands and winding-up orders, as effected on the rent for a number of businesses, and we are obviously extending that for another three months. We will take into account what needs to be done, and we will try to consolidate it as best we can, so that we can be flexible but also make sure that we do not have to come back and forth to give businesses certainty. Frankly, it is not about our time; it is about those businesses needing the time and certainty to be able to plan.
We will be able to do that, but it is vital to have these measures to prevent unnecessary insolvency proceedings for viable businesses, and to allow the insolvency regime to cope with any significant impact on case numbers. I thank hon. Members again, and I hope the Committee approves the SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 9 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
Backbench Business
(3 years, 9 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
Covid-19: Community Pharmacies
(3 years, 9 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
Sir Graham Brady (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 for debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members 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 they use them and before they leave the room. Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members may speak only from the horseshoe, because that is where the microphones are.
Once we move on to Back-Bench contributions, I intend to begin with a time limit of three and a half minutes. Hopefully we will not need to make it shorter during the course of the debate.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered community pharmacies and the effect of the covid-19 outbreak.
It is good to have you in the Chair for this important debate, Sir Graham. It is an honour for me to chair the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, not least because so many colleagues are big fans of the pharmacy sector. I am pleased to be introducing this debate this afternoon and to see so much support from Members who recognise the huge contribution that our community pharmacists have made during the pandemic. They are the front door to the NHS, and their doors have never been closed throughout the last year. We are all very grateful to them.
That contribution has not been without consequences for pharmacists, both financially and in terms of their own personal wellbeing. This debate is a chance for me to make a plea that the Government and the NHS fully appreciate the contribution made by our community pharmacists and ensure that they are recompensed adequately for it. Pharmacists can play a much fuller contribution to primary care, as they have shown over the past year, and they should be supported to do so.
Let us look at some figures. According to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, community pharmacists dispense 1 billion prescription items every year. They deliver healthcare advice at a rate of 48 million consultations a year. To put that in context, that saves nearly half a million GP appointments and 57,000 A&E visits every single week. That, by any stretch, is a service that is offering good value for money, and it deserves better support from us.
Community pharmacies are part of the NHS family. We often talk about “our NHS,” but what do we actually mean by that? Quite often, people think of our hospitals, and the doctors and nurses who work in them. For me, the NHS is every single person who works in dispensing health services, be they a nurse or paramedic working in a hospital trust, or somebody working independently, either as a GP or a pharmacist. We must ensure that whoever they are and wherever they are employed, if they are delivering NHS services, the NHS should ensure that they are adequately recompensed for it.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I am preaching to the converted, frankly, as she is a huge supporter of pharmacists. I know that the contribution made by the sector over the last year has not gone unnoticed by her. Those working in the sector have also felt well supported by the recognition they have received from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Prime Minister. It is a level of support they are not used to and they are grateful for it, but perhaps now is the time to look beyond words of thanks and see that reflected in deeds.
I am sad to say that while the sector is getting that support from Ministers, it does not always get it from the machinery of the NHS or from the Department of Health and Social Care. The truth is that there are some people in our health establishment who view pharmacists as nothing more but glorified retailers. They are not. They are medical professionals who go through a substantial amount of training, and they do not all work for Boots and Lloyds. Most of them work independently, in small shops on our high streets, in the heart of our communities, and for those, 90% of their income comes from the NHS.
I am sad to say that I attended a discussion in which a DHSC representative asked, “Why can’t pharmacists earn money from other sources?” My answer to that is, “Why should they?” They are providing medical services. We have a contract with society that the NHS will meet the cost of those services, and the pharmacy sector should not be expected to go scrabbling around for other business to subsidise work that is done for the NHS. That is not the deal, and I think we need to properly take that on. Their fundamental business is the dispensing of prescriptions, which is an integral part of delivering an NHS that works for all patients. The NHS therefore has a duty to ensure that it is supporting a functional community pharmacy sector. It is not the job of independent providers in our pharmacy sector to be subsidising their NHS work through what they can sell. That is fundamentally not the ethos of our national health service.
As such, I am very clear that we need to put our pharmacists on a more secure financial footing if we are to maximise the use of this sector in delivering good primary care services, and we need to look at how it is supported and how it sits with GP services in our primary care system. My challenge is for DHSC and the NHS to look properly at whether, and how, they can make sure that pharmacies get a fair deal. It is fair to say that our pharmacies are held in very high esteem by the patients who use them. That has been especially true during the pandemic, when patients often found that their pharmacy was the only ready source of advice.
Our 11,500 community pharmacies have been open every day for every single one of us, but that has not been without real costs, as I mentioned. Our pharmacists today are facing debts simply because they stayed open. They had to supply their own personal protective equipment. They had to invest in keeping their shops covid-secure. They had to deal with staff absence due to sickness or self-isolation, and they had to deal with the increased wholesale prices of medicines.
To be fair, like most of the NHS, community pharmacies did receive funding to ensure that they could remain operational, but that was only ever advanced as a loan that needs to be paid back. That is now threatening the operation of some of our pharmacy businesses—as many as one in five, as estimated by Ernst and Young. It simply cannot be right that, in stepping up to the challenge posed by the pandemic, some pharmacies have unwittingly crippled their businesses, as the additional costs are not being properly reimbursed.
The covid pandemic has highlighted that we are long overdue a conversation about the role of pharmacy and its place in the NHS, and the all-party group stands ready to play its part in having that debate. Central to this will be the following principles. First, pharmacies can play a fuller role in primary care. GPs will face additional pressures as we come out of the pandemic. Pharmacies can give that support, but they should be properly supported in doing so.
Secondly, we will be living with covid forever, and it looks as if regular vaccination will become as big a part of our lives as the flu vaccine. I really want to see pharmacists fully engaged in that. There has been disappointment with the number of pharmacists engaged so far, which I think is due to constraints on the supply of the vaccine, but I hope that will be properly addressed as we go forward.
Thirdly, we need a plan to deal with the £370 million loan to the sector. To be brutally frank, when we look at the sums given to other areas of the economy, and indeed to the NHS, our pharmacies can be forgiven for feeling a little hard done by. It will mean curtains for some businesses that acted in good faith after being promised that the NHS would receive all the money it needed to fight the pandemic. No pharmacist should be out of pocket for stepping up to this challenge, and we really do need to look very closely at this. Fourthly, we need to make this sector understand that it is valued, and we should encourage people to work in it.
To end, I can advise the House that the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy held an inquiry in December in which we surveyed the opinions of pharmacists. We found an overstretched workforce responding heroically to the challenge of a pandemic, with an attitude of doing what needed to be done, and I salute them for that. The survey also told a story of businesses being saddled with debt for doing the right thing, and it found a workforce who felt undervalued and burnt out by the professional pressure they faced. Let us have a conversation about how we secure our finances for the future. Let us properly thank pharmacists for everything they have done to support us in the last year. If we do not, we will miss them when they are gone.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for bringing this issue before us today. She is right to say that pharmacies need our support now. They have played a crucial role as an integral part of our health service, which is under stress and strain at the best of times, and that is all the more the case during the covid pandemic. Pharmacies continue to play an even more important role, if that is possible, during this crisis. They have been there to support our communities when people could not access GP services. We have heard so many times during the crisis that people did not seek advice from their GP, local walk-in centre or hospital because they did not want to put even more of a strain on those services. Of course, many of them got the help and support that they requested, and it was from pharmacies. On behalf of my constituency, I would like to thank all the pharmacies that have helped during this crisis.
As the hon. Lady says, all the warm words we express count for nothing if that is all we do. Words are meaningless without action to back them up. Pharmacists have had enough words to last them a lifetime, so I will cut to the chase. First, the Government should review the response from pharmacies during the pandemic and re-evaluate a clear vision of what we need from these undervalued and vital frontline healthcare workers. It is not good enough to take pharmacies for granted. If this pandemic has shown us anything, it is how hard-pressed yet responsive our pharmacies have been during the crisis.
Secondly, the NHS and the Government should enable pharmacists to do more, as the hon. Lady said, by giving additional resources for training and support for this vital sector. The Test and Trace system has been given £22 billion, with another £15 billion in the pipeline. That is almost £600 per person to run a system that, at best, has been mediocre in terms of its returns. Frankly, a fraction of that resource could be put back to pharmacies. That would have a higher rate of return, be more productive and have a better outcome for our constituents.
Thirdly, a reassessment of the value of pharmacies, especially by finance teams in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, would be welcome. When was the last time any real assessment of the value of pharmacies was undertaken by the Department or NHS finance teams in a comprehensive fashion that has led to any real support for the sector?
Fourthly, the Government should write off the advance payments as an immediate way of providing relief. Additionally, they should re-evaluate the financial implications of asking pharmacies to pay back the £370 million advance. This is crucial, given that pressures are pushing many community pharmacies to the edge. Quite simply, payments have not been enough to cover the financial pressures brought on by covid-19.
Fifthly, and linked the points above, the sustainability of pharmacies is crucial. That is why the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy is giving them its support.
I urge the Government, before it is too late, to consider that current funding levels may already be causing irreversible damage. It is time for us to give our local pharmacists—for example, Dr Lisa Manning, the CEO of my local pharmaceutical committee—and their colleagues a shot in the arm. It is time to support them, and the time is now.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
The sitting is resumed. The debate may now continue until quarter past 3.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing this important debate.
The pandemic has shone a light on some of the more extreme challenges that we face as a society, but it has also highlighted the role of some of the institutions that support our communities—quietly, day in and day out. They are there for advice and support and offer a friendly and welcome face to those who are not reassured by going through online channels. Some people want a relationship but do not want to trouble their GP, and community pharmacies fill that role. These institutions have long been at the heart of all our constituencies, offering so much more than just prescriptions.
It would be remiss of me not to mention a few of the local pharmacies in my community and the incredible work that they have done and continue to do as part of the NHS family. Cohens, Coward’s and Murray’s, among others, are Furness institutions that have been remarkable in the support they have offered the community over the past year. Not only have pharmacies remained open over the past year; they are now supporting the vaccination programme.
A local pharmacist, Ben Merriman, was out vaccinating in Millom yesterday. I was told this morning of one pharmacist who was doing the same and, at the end of a very long day, found that their final patient was needle-phobic. It took an hour of gentle persuasion to get that final needle into the patient’s arm, which shows in one simple act the generosity and forbearance of the community pharmacist. This is a sector that we need to nurture and support, especially now.
Let us be honest: community pharmacies are struggling. While they have never been busier—significantly busy at the moment—90% of their business is pharmacy work and not retail, and that part of their business has dropped off. They have also seen a significant increase in their workload as the number of consultations they have taken on has increased since the start of the pandemic. Some of that is due to the approachability of community pharmacies, and some of it is due to word of mouth. If someone has had a good service, they are more than likely to tell their friends and family.
The Government’s support for this arm of the NHS is welcome, and the £370 million helped to deal with some of the immediate cash-flow issues at the start of the pandemic. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to engage with the PSNC to ensure that this vital arm of the NHS has the support that it needs to stay afloat. Ultimately, if pharmacies close—that is what is happening now and it will continue at a faster rate if it is allowed to progress—the patients of Furness and those in constituencies around the country, along with the rest of the NHS, will suffer.
No one could have predicted the pandemic and the massive impact that it would have on the NHS, the Exchequer and the country as a whole, but pharmacies were already under massive financial strain before this. I have already lost one pharmacy in Barrow and several others have cut their hours because of financial cutbacks. It is worth looking at where the bulk of pharmacy closures have taken place in the past four years. The vast majority sit in the most deprived areas of our country, where we need to level up healthcare the most. Squaring that circle is the challenge that my hon. Friends in the Treasury face—one that they are no doubt alive to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said when she opened the debate, community pharmacies are the front door to the NHS. We need to make sure that that door stays firmly open.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I feel there will be a great deal of consensus over the course of this debate.
I have shared my experiences of my first job working in my uncle’s community pharmacy on numerous occasions in Parliament. Indeed, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the role of community pharmacies in October 2019. I spoke of how there was never a dull moment in a pharmacy. I recalled the time a frantic mother handed me dead headlice taped to a piece of cardboard, and someone asking me to run a pregnancy test on a bottle of cough medicine before discreetly letting me know it was actually a urine sample and the bottle was the most secure way that she could think of getting it to the shop.
The lighter moments aside, what has always stayed with me from my time working evenings and weekends in a local chemist shop was that so often, particularly for older people, someone’s relationship with the pharmacist was the longest standing and most trusted relationship they had with any clinical professional. When we think about the pandemic, we think what an invaluable community asset pharmacies are, and I take this opportunity to thank all those who have worked so hard to keep pharmacy doors open during the most difficult times of this crisis.
Prior to the crisis, pharmacies had their budgets cut back in 2016, with a reduction from £2.8 billion in 2015-16 to £2.59 billion in 2017-18. That represented a 4% reduction in funding in 2016-17 and a further 3.4% reduction in 2017-18. When inflation is factored in, as well as all the services that pharmacies already offer free of charge—costs that they absorb—it dealt an almost fatal blow to pharmacies. The then Minister told the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group that he expected between 1,000 and 3,000 pharmacies to close as a result, because they would simply no longer be viable, with multiples and chains of pharmacies best placed to weather the cuts, and independent and more rural chemists left at a disadvantage.
That was in 2016 and it set the landscape going into the pandemic. When the pandemic started, these already underfunded pharmacies were called on to be a crucial element of the UK’s frontline response, dealing with a 20% rise in demand for medicines and a 35% increase in required prescriptions. They experienced a doubling in demand for home deliveries of medication and a tripling in calls from the public. According to the PSNC pharmacy advice audit, pharmacies have been providing healthcare advice to more than 600,000 people every week. We owe a great debt to these underfunded and overworked pharmacies and their teams, who went above and beyond to relieve pressures on our NHS.
I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group under the leadership of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for its detailed work on this issue. I ask the Government to reflect on the ask within its recent flash inquiry report. We need pharmacists—that has to be the bottom line—so why are we putting these perverse financial barriers in their way? They are providing a great deal of care, as well as social care, to those who most need it. We have to find ways of looking after them into the future.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate.
We all know that the pandemic has put unprecedented pressure on our health services. That, for me, includes pharmacies. I consider pharmacies to be frontline medical services and a really important part of patient care. I emphasise that view, which is clearly shared among those of us in this debate, but I do not think it is a view universally held across the health sector.
Before going any further, I should declare an interest. Many years ago, I worked for Kingfisher and I had responsibility for pharmacy marketing and Superdrug, among other things. As a result, I spent considerable time with pharmacists and understood the value that people place on them. I saw at first hand the expertise and care, and have had much respect and affection for the sector ever since.
This debate is focused on the current crisis. The way that the whole sector has responded—the NHS, pharmacies, the pharmaceutical companies; everybody—has been truly impressive. They have showed agility, which is not always what we expect in large organisations. Their working together has perhaps also taken them to new places.
Pharmacies have remained open and accessible places of advice and reassurance, and, above all, sources of vital medicines. Keeping that flowing was critical. Pharmacies have adapted to new rules and used their positions of trust and authority to really help patients.
I saw a little bit of that doing some volunteering for the Harrogate Easier Living Project. It has not been the quietest time for MPs or I would have done a little more. I helped deliver prescriptions to those who were shielding and visited a number of pharmacies across the constituency as a result. I was impressed by the actions they had taken to keep people safe and to continue their vital work.
When the NHS was rightly dealing with the immediate urgency of this crisis, pharmacies took a pace forward and helped with health advice. They took the pressure off other parts of the system. That is my key point: pharmacists are key frontline health workers. They are owed a debt of thanks and I put my thanks on the record.
The pandemic has shown what pharmacies can do. There is the work of the pharmacy-led vaccination centres. In Knaresborough in my constituency, we have a vaccination centre run by the local company, Homecare Pharmacy Services, at the former Lidl store. It is going great guns. It has the capacity to do 1,000 vaccinations a day, and I have heard nothing but positive reports.
Looking ahead, I can see a role for pharmacies in helping with the likely winter covid booster jab, which is probably going to be part of all our futures, and a role in helping people who take several medicines as they manage what the NHS cheerfully calls “multiple comorbidities”, alongside their regular care and the community value that they bring, day in, day out.
My message is that pharmacies do a lot. They have shown us that, and that they could do more. They have the expertise and trust. They should be at the heart of how frontline health services are planned. A stable, secure pharmacy sector, planning and supported for the future, will be able to add a huge contribution to the health of our nation.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing this crucial debate. As a qualified pharmacist, I know the important role that community pharmacists play at the heart of communities, going above and beyond for their patients on a daily basis. I thank those in my constituency such as Allesley pharmacy and Rotherham Road pharmacy for their ongoing hard work. Since the start of the pandemic, much of our high street has shut up shop, faced with the unique threats that covid presents. Community pharmacies, on the other hand, have opened their doors to all those who need them. They quickly adapted their services to be covid secure, and offered face-to-face advice and healthcare on a walk-in basis when communities needed it most. They have been a shining light in the dark times for our high street and taken the strain off other sections of our health system.
We should celebrate the innovation shown by community pharmacists. Pandemic delivery services ensured that patients shielding at home were able to access their prescriptions without putting themselves at risk, and pharmacists reviewed the medication for those discharged from hospital, helping patients manage their medicines properly, reducing confusion and improving patient safety. They have used their expertise to support the national covid-19 vaccination programme, making it easier for many to receive the vaccination at their own convenience, from a familiar trusted face.
However, these changes have come at a huge cost, both financially and emotionally. Pharmacies have been left to fund the increased staffing costs, PPE, cleaning and social distancing measures that came with the effects of covid. Coupled with a reduction in over-the-counter sales and services, many are now facing serious financial challenges. Yet pharmacies have received no targeted funding for their efforts. Instead, this Government have taken advantage of the good will. From the ongoing effects of the devastating cuts of 2016, to the unforeseen cuts of the last year, pharmacies have been left in the lurch, forced to fend for themselves.
The systemic underfunding has put community pharmacies in dire straits and many owners have been left having to use their own money to keep these vital parts of our community afloat. A third of pharmacies and businesses in England are now in deficit and many have closed for good. It is counterintuitive that pharmacies are being forced to close in the midst of the pandemic. If we do not act now to stop the loss of community pharmacies, our high streets will be hit hard and many of the most desperate and deprived will lose their main link to NHS services. Only by picking up the extra costs faced by pharmacists and writing off the £370 million in emergency loans—that most will struggle to ever repay—can the Government ever hope to fulfil their promise to do whatever it takes.
Looking ahead, we need to understand the value and work that our community pharmacists do every day. Not only do they provide a key link between individuals and a wider NHS but they are a vital part of our plan to address the health inequalities that many in my constituency and across the country, are seeing grow more and more. Our pharmacists have a fantastic set of skills, and a broad knowledge and expertise that can take some of the burden from the overstretched primary care network. I hope the Minister will listen to what has been said, because now we need active steps to give community pharmacists guaranteed support grants and to fully fund the enhanced community and public healthcare and covid-19 booster vaccinations. The Minister and his colleagues in the Treasury should remember that the success of pharmacies does not simply keep our communities healthy. They also inject life into our high street—which themselves have been ravaged by the pandemic. An investment in pharmacists is an investment in public health, local economies and preventing future pandemics having the startling impact that we have seen in the past year. This is an investment that will pay for itself many times over.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), because she effectively puts over the concerns of many colleagues across the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this important debate and making a powerful speech championing the sector. My right hon. Friend the Minister, and the whole Health team, have done amazing work in general, but particularly over this recent period. For the wider agenda of the health service, pharmacies and high-street chemists are an important part of how we want the health system to evolve in the future. Making sure that this sector is secure, and can perform, in the long term ought to be a key part of her thinking about the way we support these places in the future. I did not appreciate just how many pharmacies there are right around the country. There are 11,500, with nearly 43,000 pharmacists and more than 19,000 technicians. As has rightly been highlighted, they are all medical professionals. There have been significant financial pressures, which, if not addressed, may challenge the ability of the Health team to develop and deliver effective health services in the future.
Through the pandemic era of the last year or so, access to GPs, hospital admissions and visits to accident and emergency have all been reduced. Those three sectors, and other aspects, too, are part of the loss from the mainstream NHS that local chemists on our high streets have taken up. We ought to credit them for that. It has put enormous stress and strain on those on the frontline in community chemists. They suffer all the pressure of additional hours, busier working lives, and concerns and fears about the risk of covid infection, as well as the pressure on chemists if someone is sent home for a period of time after a positive test. All those things add pressure. To some extent, for community chemists, as with GPs, there is vocational element, but there is also the aspect of the significant costs they have faced, which must be addressed.
Before the covid crisis began, there were significant concerns about the long-term financial viability of the sector, and I think those concerns have now been compounded. I express my appreciation of the chemists right across my constituency, especially those at Hootons pharmacy in Horwich, because of the work that they are doing on the vaccine roll-out, and for what they have done at the University of Bolton stadium to give so many people access to vaccinations. I support the recommendations of the APPG for pharmacies. Although we would normally want to reduce aches and pains and coughs and colds, will the Minister ensure that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister cough up the cash for community chemists?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing the debate. As we have heard, most community pharmacies have remained open throughout the pandemic, and many have worked extra hours because they have often been the only available source of medical advice. The pandemic delivery service has ensured that those shielding have been able to receive their prescriptions. Last winter, community pharmacies administered 2.6 million flu jabs. I had mine at Kings pharmacy in Cotteridge, administered by pharmacist Ameet Pancholi.
Measures to take pharmacies covid-safe cost money. Pharmacies have had to install door entry systems and counter screens, and buy their own PPE. They have been involved in supporting people with mental health issues, and in fielding dental and optical inquiries, for which they do not get paid. Ameet Pancholi had to employ extra drivers to ensure the delivery of prescriptions to vulnerable patients.
As with much of the health service, the Government do not seem to recognise the real costs. Pressures date back to the 2016 Budget cuts, which resulted in many closures, often in the most deprived areas. If drug prices rise, pharmacies lose out because they are tied to a pre-set NHS drug tariff. A recent Ernst and Young report concluded that our pharmacy network is unsustainable within the current framework. It projected that 72% of pharmacies would be in deficit by 2024. As we have heard, pharmacies received money to meet extra pandemic costs, but they say that they have spent rather more, and it turns out that that money was loan that will now be clawed back. What happened to “whatever it takes” and “all help necessary”?
Only 55 days ago, I received an email from NHS England extolling the virtues of community pharmacies. It told me that 200 of them were due to start delivering the covid vaccine. It quoted the Secretary of State as saying:
“It is fantastic that high-street pharmacies will now begin”
administering the vaccine. He went on to say:
“Pharmacists have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, often acting as the first port of call…and often staying open when all around have closed.”
It also quotes the Vaccines Minister as saying:
“Pharmacies play a vital role in caring for the nation”.
If Ministers want to keep these fantastic pharmacies, which they think play such a vital role, there is only one solution: we need a review of funding and the drug tariff, and they should be fully compensated for the costs incurred during the pandemic. That means converting the £370 million covid funding to a grant.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this important debate, especially as pharmacists really have been the unsung heroes of this pandemic. Not only have their doors remained open to their customers for their regular services but they have also picked up huge demands for minor ailment consultations, medicine deliveries for people avoiding GPs and staying at home, and so on.
In Carshalton and Wallington, I pay particular tribute to my local community pharmacists for their extraordinary efforts over the past year, and for their strong lobbying on behalf of the sector, including Sanjay from Sutton pharmacy, Jaymil from Hackbridge and Anna pharmacies, and Alfie from MPS pharmacy. Of course, I know that the Minister will know Reena from S G Barai pharmacy. She does a lot of lobbying on behalf of the sector in the UK, and I am so proud that she operates a pharmacy in my constituency.
The increase in workload has taken its toll, as we have heard. Pharmacists tell us that they have worked late into the night and over the weekend without a break in order to keep up. That highlights a real problem: they have not been recompensed for much of the additional work that they have taken on. It has also demonstrated a great opportunity for the NHS—something that I know the Minister recognises but that I hope NHS England will also recognise and grasp with both hands.
Having worked in the NHS myself, I know first hand about the significant pressures on demand for GP appointments and A&E capacity, but we know that many people presenting at GPs and even at hospital could be seen by a pharmacist first. The talents and abilities of pharmacists were massively under-utilised before the pandemic began, and I argue that we need to unlock that capacity to ease pressures on the NHS and create a new culture of “pharmacy first” within the UK.
I will quickly make three points. First, I will outline what more pharmacists could do if we let them. I do not have time to go into any great detail, but they should be on the frontline of the prevention agenda, helping their customers with such things as obesity, smoking and drinking. They should also be providing a huge range of additional services. Any and all vaccinations could be done at a pharmacy, as could sexual health screenings and HIV testing, and they could have greater powers to prescribe, to name just a few.
Secondly, pharmacies should be better represented at strategic planning level, with representation in clinical commissioning groups and integrated care systems, for example, to ensure that they form part of the conversation about the delivery of health and care within our local communities.
Finally and most importantly, as has been well covered and eloquently set out by colleagues, pharmacies have to be adequately funded for the work that they do. Time prevents me again from going into any great detail, but I echo calls from colleagues to look at the recommendations of the APPG, at turning loans into grants, at the Ernst and Young report, and at formally making pharmacies part of our frontline NHS and using existing primary care resources where necessary to ensure that that can happen.
I will finish by thanking yet again the pharmacies in my constituency and across the country for their extraordinary efforts. I know how valued they are by my constituents, so I hope that we can secure them greater responsibilities and appropriate funding to create that “pharmacy first” culture in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for setting the scene, as she always does on such issues. I am very pleased to speak on this matter, because it is essential for me. I have often referred to pharmacies in my constituency, and I have often sent questions to the Minister here, and to the Minister whose responsibility they are back home as well.
Those pharmacies have reported much of the concern that has already been outlined by others, and they are in need of Government support. I have a good working relationship with pharmacies in my area and I visit them fairly regularly, but they are under additional pressure because of the recent strains relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the Northern Ireland protocol, but this debate is about pharmacies and the Northern Ireland protocol becomes part of that, as it always does with everything, for us in Northern Ireland anyway.
I was in contact with one of my local pharmacies, who spoke with other members of Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland and outlined the following:
“Community Pharmacy NI has been in on-going local and national discussions in respect of matters relating to the supply of medicines to Northern Ireland, and has highlighted the continuing concerns in respect of continuity of supply from a Northern Ireland perspective in 2021/22 and beyond. There is a 12-month derogation in place and Mr Gove has requested that this be extended to 2023.”
That is good news because it helps us in the short term, but we need a long-term solution as well. It goes on:
“there is work being undertaken at policy and operational levels to resolve anticipated supply issues before they impact on contractors and patients here.”
So, we are seeing some conciliation and help for us in Northern Ireland, and we appreciate that.
Community Pharmacy NI continues:
“However, additional regulatory requirements post 2021 may put a significant burden on manufacturers for a small NI market”—
it might be small, but it is crucial for us in Northern Ireland and for our constituents—
“and the fear is that this may force them to withdraw altogether from supplying here and that there may be significant disruption to the supply chain which will result in shortages.
There are also looming implementation dates for full compliance with HMRC and EHC requirements, which may impact on medicines movement. The potential shortage issue could be managed to a large degree by ensuring that the licensing status quo is retained as far as possible to allow the unfettered use of GB packs in Northern Ireland.
Community pharmacies in Northern Ireland provided a vital role in supporting patients, the health service and by maintaining medicines supply to patients during COVID.”
We have all said that.
“As we go forward now in 2021 can Government provide details/give assurances that work is ongoing to identify and quantify any possible medicines shortages and to put in place sufficient measures and contingencies to deal with any anticipated issues in respect of medicines supplies to Northern Ireland?”
Can the Minister respond to that today? If not, can she respond to it further down the line?
Local pharmacies are a focal point of villages and communities across my constituency. Throughout the pandemic, the community pharmacies have battled through as a lifeline for people. In the same way that we owe a debt to the NHS, I believe we also owe a debt to local pharmacies, who did their utmost to keep it together and keep going. There must be a better use of them to relieve the pressure on the NHS. I believe that pharmacies are at the frontline to do that. They could be addressing issues to do with diabetes, minor ailments or small medication problems.
I end by putting on record my sincere thanks to all the pharmacists, technicians and staff who kept making the packs, were available for assistance, and kept their doors open and medication flowing. We could not have done it without them, and now is the time to do right by them.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing the debate and for speaking so eloquently. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); it is usually the other way around. He usually follows me, so it is a pleasure to do it this way around.
My first point is about the question of inoculation. A number of hon. Members have said that their pharmacies are already providing the covid inoculation. They are not doing so in my area. I raised that with the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment. He, like me, said that he wanted to be able to wander down to his local pharmacy to obtain his vaccine. His view was that it was not available because of the lumpiness of the supply of vaccine and that we would see more pharmacies coming online to take that on. Can the Minister comment on how we are getting on with that? How far have pharmacies been brought into the continuation of the programme?
I had my flu injection at my local pharmacy. It worked efficiently and discreetly, and I was pleased to be able to have it there. Looking forward, pharmacies have a great role in the ongoing provision of booster vaccinations for covid. However, we have a problem at the moment with the net closure of something like 400 pharmacies. We have a problem of funding there. Concern has already been raised during the debate about the emergency loans that were provided and being able to convert those into some form of grant, or simply to write them off altogether. Any policy needs to reflect the fact that pharmacies have had to provide covid-secure screening facilities on their premises, and that they have not been reimbursed for having to provide their own PPE.
For the future, there is a lot that can be built on the relationship between pharmacies and GPs. For example, I see a role for pharmacies in being able to detect undiagnosed high blood pressure in a number of people. When my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was a Minister, he always said that I used these debates as an excuse to reveal my ailments. I am not doing that this time, but I am saying that this is a very good opportunity to be able to provide public health guidance for communities at a local level.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]
I am delighted that the Henley reveal is not on show today. It is always good to discuss community pharmacy in the House. In doing so, I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and of course my experience as a former pharmacy Minister.
The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 has received Royal Assent, which is a good thing, as it is an important piece of legislation. I remember its conception. The Minister is right to say, as she has done previously, that it has the patient at its heart, but the Bill, and certainly the discussion around it, has also advanced the idea of making what would be a pretty fundamental change to community pharmacies through a shift to what we call the hub and spoke model, which I want to touch on. The Minister is very familiar with the arguments. For those who are not, we are talking about a totally new way of working, whereby independent pharmacists have a hub pharmacy that dispenses medicines on a large scale for regular spoke pharmacies, which then supply them to the patient.
A consultation as far back as 2016 flew this flag, and it was confirmed in the long-term plan of January 2018. Fast-forward to life in the pandemic, and it is true that the combination of rising prescription volumes and reduced patient access to primary care services has put great pressure on community pharmacies to keep up the face-to-face contact that their customers want and need. Boy, have they done that. I am so glad that Ministers have consistently recognised the work of community pharmacists throughout, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to mine. They are a workforce who just get on with it.
Adding the rising volumes and access to primary care services to the Government’s requirement for greater value from pharmacy, it is clear why many people believe that a hub and spoke dispensing model is the way forward. On the flipside of the debate, many are understandably worried that centralised dispensing could drive down costs in pharmacy. Unless the pharmacy on the high street then acts as the spoke part by handling the prescription to the patient, we just end up with a bigger distance-selling pharmacy market and a lack of patient contact, which then puts opportunities for wider primary care contact out of reach. Put simply, the unintended consequence could be a total stitch-up that leaves community pharmacy not so much as “always the bridesmaid, never the bride”—as I have often heard—but more like “jilted at the altar,” and I do not want to see that happen. The truth is that, as with everything else, and especially the growth of distance-selling pharmacies, it is somewhere in between.
We can debate the pros and cons all we like, and I am really pleased that the Minister has committed to a full public consultation on hub and spoke, to ensure that we get the right model going forward, but let us be clear that it is already happening, with the technology embedded in the multiples and the large chains long ago. Can she give an indication of when she thinks it is likely that her Department will bring forward concrete proposals to consult on hub and spoke?
In closing, I return to an old theme of mine in respect of community pharmacy: whatever the future architecture of the NHS—obviously, the White Paper is being discussed—it must take its rightful place as part of pre-primary care, as I call it. That is why I have always been so positive about the potential that primary care networks have for this sector. PCNs are a great chance for community pharmacy, and the new integrated care systems set out in the White Paper are the chance to bake in primary care, in its widest sense, within the NHS family. Hub and spoke is a positive opportunity moment for community pharmacy post covid, but only if the income and the process of dispensing are replaced in a way that allows the sector finally to realise its potential as part of primary care.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham, and also to follow a very knowledgeable former Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing this debate and for the lot of good work that she has been doing on the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy.
I will be brief, as we are all saying pretty much the same thing. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will suggest some concrete measures that can make a difference, and specifically answers the questions that I will put. I have also written today to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor about support for pharmacies, and I am grateful for the conversation that I had with the Minister the day before yesterday about them.
First, we are attending this debate because we know what an important service pharmacies perform for communities, which they are embedded in. Pharmacies, especially independent pharmacies, are a friendly, valued and, above all, trusted voice. For the NHS and the nation, they take pressure off accident and emergency departments, GPs’ surgeries and other parts of the health service. At a modest cost, they deliver very significant benefits, and they are a critical part of primary care that pays significant dividends, as well as alleviating pressure elsewhere.
I have six independent pharmacies in my constituency and they are all highly valued: Yarmouth; Freshwater; Seaview; Ryde; and Regent, which has branches in both East Cowes and Shanklin. I talk to all the pharmacists regularly. Despite pharmacies’ significant role during covid, by remaining open they have incurred nationally costs of £370 million in staffing and other costs. I am delighted that the Prime Minister said in a recent press conference that that money was going to be reimbursed, but following the Budget we have not yet seen that money and I am none the wiser as to whether we will see it. Can the Minister therefore reassure us that the support promised will actually be seen through, and that that £370 million will reach pharmacists?
Secondly, hon. Members have already referred to the Ernst and Young report. Three quarters of independent pharmacies are under pressure and may be forced to close within the next 12 months, and between two thirds and three quarters of community pharmacies will potentially be in financial deficit by 2024, according to that report. I asked a written question about the report but was told that, as it was not in the public domain, the Government would not comment on it. That is not true; it is in the public domain and I would like the Government to comment on it. If the Government agree with what the report says, the Minister needs to act.
Thirdly, we know that independent pharmacies do not gain the discounts given to big multiples, which are often part of a single wholesale and retail chain. Why can the Minister not ensure that the independent pharmacies are paid the same and are allowed to make the same profit margins on prescriptions and other services?
Summing up, I know that the Minister has good plans for pharmacies, because she has talked them through with me in the past, and I am grateful to her for sparing that time. However, pharmacies need to be open and functioning if they are to take advantage of the plans that we have for them. There must be a financial model that allows pharmacies, especially independent pharmacies, to make a reasonable living for the exceptionally valuable work that they do nationally and in their communities. I look forward to hearing some solutions to these problems from the Minister.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate and on being determined that it would not be a hot air debate but one in which we actually work together to find some solutions.
Although many GPs’ surgeries closed their doors at the start of the pandemic, pharmacies have stayed open and even increased their hours of operation in order to meet the extra demand for their services. They have been a lifeline for the elderly and vulnerable, delivering medicines to those shielding or self-isolating. Many pharmacies in Southend have also supported care homes, sourcing medication where there were shortages of end-of-life medicines. When needed, they have also assisted with the reuse of medicines in care homes under national protocols.
Working with local general practitioners, chemists are now processing the majority of prescriptions electronically, reducing the number of face-to-face visits that are required. The discharge medicines service has just rolled out to Southend pharmacies, so that they are able to see all the medicines that a patient has been given upon being discharged from hospital, which improves safety and reduces potential errors. Many pharmacies have also joined the vaccination programme. Their experience in handling large numbers of patients effectively has been vital in delivering the first jab to the elderly and clinically vulnerable.
Having visited a number of pharmacies in my constituency before the coronavirus outbreak, I am aware of the pride that they feel in serving their community and of their ambitions for the future. Frenchs Chemist in Leigh-on-Sea suggested running a phlebotomy clinic three days a week and installing a treatment room with ultrasound scanning facilities, so that many routine scans can be carried out without the need for a hospital visit. Derix Healthcare Pharmacy, also in Leigh-on-Sea, is keen to take on more work, such as producing blister packs on behalf of the hospital, which is a very time-consuming task, and has offered to perform medicine use reviews and other services currently carried out in hospitals, freeing up staff time on wards and in out-patient departments.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on liver health, I have worked closely with our brilliant secretariat, the Hepatitis C Trust, to promote the delivery of testing and treatment for hepatitis C in community settings. A report published by the APPG in 2018 showed that, in order to eliminate the disease, levels of testing and diagnosis needs to be much higher. Offering testing and treatment in community pharmacies presents an important opportunity to access at-risk groups who are already attending for other services. Hepatitis C is a major cause of liver cirrhosis and cancer, and in order to eliminate it as a public health concern by 2030, those who cannot be reached by traditional healthcare settings must be offered more help locally.
Of course, all this comes at a price, and many pharmacies are struggling to continue the level of service they currently offer. Coping with the pressure of additional demand during the covid-19 crisis has meant many extra costs in staffing and PPE and an increased cost of medicines. The advance payments made during the pandemic, which allowed them to cope with additional demand on their services, were welcome but will have to be paid back—a total of £370 million—putting pressure on pharmacies to cut services and opening hours. This is a real opportunity for our wonderful pharmacies to deliver even more services than they have been given the power to do at the moment.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I thank everybody for keeping to time so well, making sure that we have sufficient time left for each of the Front-Bench spokespeople to have up to 10 minutes to wind up, and for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) to have at least a couple of minutes at the end to sum up.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, which I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing. I think we all agree with the hon. Lady that the sector is valued. There can be no doubt that, throughout these islands, pharmacies play a vital role in our communities, and they have gone above and beyond that during the covid crisis.
Health is a devolved matter, of course, and in Scotland we do things a little differently, which means I often feel like a foreign observer during debates about pharmacies and healthcare in England. We have heard from a number of speakers about the different practices that affect their parts of England, and I hope that my observations from Scotland may also be of interest to Members. I have commented in a few debates that there are often lessons that we can learn from one another, and good practices that can be shared. This issue provides an excellent case in point.
Community pharmacies were developed in Scotland 15 years ago and are there for minor ailments, chronic medication and public health services. These services involve pharmacists more in the community in the provision of direct patient-centred care. It may be worth pointing out that prescriptions are free in Scotland, and that fact enabled the development of the minor ailment service across Scotland, which in turn has evolved into our Pharmacy First service, launched last July. Originally planned to start in April 2020, it was delayed to allow pharmacy teams to focus on managing the covid-19 pandemic. It is backed by £7.5 million of investment in 2021-22, rising to £10 million by 2022-23.
The Pharmacy First approach removes huge pressure from GPs and A&E services and allows the public to access treatments more easily across some 1,200 pharmacies located throughout Scotland, and with the greater flexibility of longer opening hours. Community pharmacists can only give out certain medicines and products, but the benefits of this are massive because it can cut the workload of GPs and other NHS staff across the country. Pharmacists are located throughout communities in Scotland, from rural areas to the deprived inner cities, providing pharmaceutical care on behalf of NHS Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s policy remains that, wherever possible, people across Scotland should have local access to NHS pharmaceutical care. From 1 October, Scottish pharmacies now receive £1,250 a month as part of this scheme, and in Scotland, if a person is registered with a GP practice and has a minor illness, a pharmacy is the first place they should go for advice. They do not usually need an appointment, and they can go to any pharmacy. The pharmacist can give advice for a minor illness, and medicine if they think the person needs it. Pharmacists, like GPs, can only provide certain medicines and products on the NHS. Health boards in Scotland have been able to enter into local arrangements with pharmacy contractors for the delivery of the covid-19 vaccination, following an agreement between the Scottish Government and Community Pharmacy Scotland.
The covid pandemic has flagged up examples of both good and bad behaviour from our fellow citizens. We have heard tremendous examples today of how pharmacists have adapted to the challenges over the past year, providing vital lifelines in so many of our communities. The work and efforts from our pharmacists have been a great example for us all. The growth in abuse faced by pharmacy staff, on the other hand, is of particular concern. That pharmacy staff are needing to wear body cameras to protect themselves speaks volumes about the world we now live in, and my praise goes to the Pharmacists’ Defence Association for its work in combating threatening and abusive behaviour. We must all support, and give leadership to, a zero-tolerance approach.
In conclusion, we have seen societal change from before the pandemic to where we are now, and indicators of what may emerge in the future, with more people than before now treating their minor ailments at home with the support of pharmacies. We should encourage this transition to continue, in order to alleviate the strain that minor ailments place on the NHS, such as in A&E. Scotland’s Pharmacy First programme is an example of how this is possible.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing this important debate through the Backbench Business Committee, as well as for her leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy. We are very lucky to have her commitment and her expertise in this area, and we can tell by how subscribed the debate has been and the high quality of it just how important community pharmacy is to Members of Parliament of all political persuasions. This is a very well-timed opportunity to talk about this important subject. As a Nottingham Member of Parliament, I know that Boots has been putting us on the map for 170 years now, so I am always very enthusiastic to talk about pharmacy.
The hon. Member for Thurrock made a number of important points, a couple of which I double-underlined. First, that sheer volume of work is indicative of the capacity, ability and creativity of our pharmacies, but also just how popular they are with our constituents. Secondly, she made a particularly important point about cross-funding, which is what pharmacy is built on at the moment. We have to get to a place where pharmacy, and the provision of what are, however we think about them, NHS services, is not cross-subsidised from selling Dairy Milks as well. That is the situation at the moment, and we need to do better.
The contributions from colleagues were really great, and it was really interesting to hear just how much commonality there is. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), because of her special expertise in the NHS as an oncologist pharmacist. The points she made about how pharmacies stayed open and the financial pressures that they face today were shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), but they were also echoed across parties, in the contributions of the hon. Members for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess), as well as by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who left us with the sobering reality that his community has lost a pharmacy during this crisis. That is a big gap in the high street.
The hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made very good points about vaccinations, which I will draw on shortly. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, brought his insight from Northern Ireland, which I thought was interesting. In particular, his points about medicine supply remind us that, without the right supply, we can have all the best services in the world but we will be unable to meet need. Finally, I was delighted that the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the former Minister, raised the issue of hub and spoke. This is going to be such a seismic change to pharmacy that is going to affect all of our high streets, and I will make a couple of points about that in my conclusion in a moment.
Throughout this pandemic, we have had many heroes working on the frontline—doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare staff, as well as others in other professions, such as teachers, retail workers and many more. They have all adapted to fight the impact of the pandemic on the frontlines. They have had to adapt the way in which they operate, as has everybody in some way, whether it is working from home, working with social distancing measures or being on furlough. We ourselves are meeting in an extraordinary Chamber today, and we are very lucky to have the staff to deliver this for us.
However, one profession that has carried on very much as normal on the frontlines is community pharmacy. My local chemist in Bulwell has been open for me to pop in to pick up essentials, to get face-to-face advice and healthcare, and to pick up prescriptions. Now he is starting up as a vaccine centre—Raza, we are very lucky to have you. That has been the case all over the country, and although the hon. Member for Thurrock and I have obviously had similar briefings on this, I will reiterate the numbers, because they are really something. As well as dispensing the annual 1 billion prescription items, pharmacies have delivered healthcare advice at a rate of more than 48 million consultations a year. More than 600,000 people have sought advice from English pharmacies on medical symptoms each week, with a further 185,000 regularly needing help with an existing medical condition.
Pharmacies are acting as a buffer for the NHS, sharing the load when it has been most desperately needed. Thanks to community pharmacies, half a million GP appointments and 57,000 A&E walk-in centre appointments every week have been avoided. This has been a massive help for local communities and kept our NHS going. We should feel very fortunate to have these services available to us throughout the pandemic, but we must therefore show our gratitude in a meaningful way.
On 8 March last year, the Chancellor said that the NHS would have whatever it needs. Well, like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), I count community pharmacy very much as NHS—absolutely—and they should be covered by this too. That extra work and the extra costs of providing a safe environment have cost them money, and we have an obligation to meet those costs. That is not just my view, but the view of the Prime Minister on 10 February at the Downing Street press conference. He promised reimbursement as soon as possible, but pharmacies are still waiting. Those must not be empty words, to go along with empty claps for carers who have done so much for us but whose justice is a real-terms pay cut. We cannot see that happen again.
In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) published on Tuesday, the Minister said that negotiations about this issue are ongoing. I hope the Minister can update us on progress and give us some good news. I am very mindful that, whatever we think about the recovery in dentistry, it was not satisfactory that negotiations between NHS England and the dentistry negotiating bodies collapsed before Christmas, meaning that the new arrangements were imposed on dentists. That has left a lot of ill feeling and anxiety. We should not repeat the same in pharmacy.
In that reply, the Minister also discussed advance payments as part of Government support for pharmacy, but we know now that the Government want those emergency cash-flow loans to be paid back. We should not be selling this as money given to the sector, when it is indeed a loan. That repayment of £370 million—an average of £32,000 per community pharmacy—is a real burden. I would be keen to know from the Minister what assessment she has made of the impact, because this could well harm patient care. It is impossible not to see, certainly because of the elegance of the figures, that that is exactly 1% of what we will spend on Test and Trace. Given what the Public Accounts Committee said about the effectiveness there, community pharmacies, which are getting a 100th of the funding, have probably had 100 times the impact.
This has been an ongoing situation in recent years. Pharmacy finances were marginal prior to this pandemic. A study by the National Pharmacy Association last year found that 28% to 38% were in financial deficit already, that this number would more than double without funding changes and that we have lost 400 pharmacies since 2016—disproportionally in the poorest communities, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said. That has a significant impact on communities: patients travelling further, people waiting longer for appointments with overstretched GPs, and people suffering in pain with their minor illnesses and ailments or overloading our A&E departments. Communities lose the benefits of prevention, tackling health inequalities, early identification of disease, tackling obesity and other health conditions, and, of course, the vital administration of vaccinations.
Now is a good time to talk about the covid vaccine supply. With vaccine supply doubling this week, and with community pharmacy being so keen to do more, could the Minister tell us how we might get up from the few hundreds to perhaps the majority of the 11,500 pharmacies in England being part of the programme?
I want to finish by talking about hub and spoke dispensing. I am not against it, or particularly in favour of it. It still seems a bit like a solution in search of a problem to solve. I have met with pharmacy big and small—pharmacy representative bodies, independents and massive multiples—and everyone is always pretty nonplussed by it. It is never in the top few things that they want to talk about. That gives me some cause for concern. There will be thorny issues around the regulatory framework relating to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the General Pharmaceutical Council over issues such as refrigeration and those differences that will need to be ironed out. Similarly, there are issues about finances and where risk and reward relating to the dispensing margin will lie in the system.
Despite the ambivalence on hub and spoke generally, there is a lot of interest in how it is going to proceed. I echo much of what the hon. Member for Winchester said. I hope the Minister will say today when we can expect the consultation on hub and spoke and critically— I have been asked this question multiple times—whether the Government see it happening before the NHS Bill, at the same time as the NHS Bill or after the NHS Bill. I understand that information sometimes cannot be shared, but knowing that would be of great importance to organisations that are planning their responses to both things and that want to know what their priority should be.
The Minister has made welcome commitments about consultation, but what is coming back to me from the sector is a desire for a really deep, proper technical consultation about this. I hope she can commit to that, because this is one of those strange circumstances where some people are already doing these things: we can build on their expertise and understand what hub and spoke does and does not do.
Pharmacy is a critical part of our health service. It has delivered for us in the most testing of times. We do not want to repeat the mistake that was made with dentists. We do not want broken commitments such as those that have been made to NHS staff. Pharmacy deserves better than that. I hope that today we can hear good news from the Minister about negotiations and get a sense of where we are going in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), not only for securing the debate today, but for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, and across the health space more generally.
All those who have participated today have shown how important pharmacy is to every one of us. The voices of my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), for Henley (John Howell), for Winchester (Steve Brine), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess) joined those of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). Everyone recognised how important community pharmacy is in their community, and I want to join in the thanks given to that community today and say how much I value what it does on the frontline. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, pharmacy workers are key, skilled frontline workers and deliver over and above, every day, to our communities. I repeat the thanks of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and add my gratitude.
The fact that pharmacy workers are a key part of our NHS family, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, and have risen unfailingly to the many, varied and enormous challenges of the pandemic should not go unnoticed. There are 11,210 pharmacies sitting at the heart of our communities. They are easily accessible: 80% of them are within 20 minutes for someone walking there. They are highly rated, as many hon. Members have said, and highly trusted. Throughout the pandemic they have stayed open and served their communities. They have provided vital pharmaceutical services. Medicines are not something that people can choose to have or not have.
I am immensely proud to stand here as the Minister for pharmacy, and I thank everyone involved in community pharmacy for their hard work, whether they talk to patients every day or are involved in the vaccine roll-out or the broader team. From the times I have spoken to them, I know that they are tired. They have worked unbelievably hard for the past year. I do not think that, when this started, anyone anticipated that it would go on week after week. They have been working evenings and weekends, and I would like to thank them for it.
Hon. Members might recall that we agreed a five-year deal back in July 2019, before the pandemic. It commits almost £13 billion to community pharmacy—just under £2.6 billion a year—and was the joint vision of Government, NHS England and the pharmaceutical negotiating committee, the PSNC, for how community pharmacy will support the delivery of the NHS long-term plan, and patients.
As we have heard from many, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, there is so much more that pharmacies are saying they want to do for our communities. Having spoken to many pharmacists and their teams, I know that using their full skillset is something they would welcome. It is what they want to do and what they want to see happen.
Over the period of the five-year deal, community pharmacy will be more integrated into the NHS and will deliver more clinical services, taking pressure off other areas in the NHS, as the first port of call for minor illnesses. That recognises, importantly, the skill base in the sector. To that end, more than 2,800 pharmacists each year go into training at the current time; there are more than 10,000 in training at the moment. We are making sure that, as the current cohort come out, they are equipped to be part of that future high-skilled workforce, enhancing their skills for consultation and so on.
Jim Shannon
One of the advantages that I am sure the Minister is coming to is that GP surgeries and A&Es will potentially have fewer people to see if the pharmacies take over that role.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.
We are already making good progress on the journey. The community pharmacist consultation service went live in November 2019, enabling NHS 111 to refer patients into community pharmacies for minor illnesses or the urgent supply of prescribed meds. We have had more than 750,000 referrals so far.
In November 2020, we expanded that service to GP surgeries, so GPs can now formally refer patients to community pharmacies for consultation. In February, we introduced the discharge medicines service, enabling hospitals to refer discharged patients into a community pharmacist for support with their medicines. There will be more services introduced over the financial year.
Those services are to do what pharmacists and their teams do best, and that is to help patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West spoke about hepatitis C. I assure him that, as of last year, we gave access to hepatitis C testing to those pharmacies that chose to take up that option.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester that there is great potential in hub and spoke dispensing. I also agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) that there is already experience to learn from in the sector.
As set out in the community pharmacy contractual framework five-year deal, we want to make dispensing more efficient and, by doing that, free up pharmacist time to provide more clinical services—they are highly skilled, and we know they want to do that. The Medicine and Medical Devices Act 2021 paves the way for us now to progress legislative change to enable the better use of skills in pharmacies, something that several Members this afternoon have alluded to. There is a large amount of will to make sure that the whole team can use their skills appropriately and perhaps free up the pharmacist a little more for him or her to concentrate on other areas.
We have already started informal engagement with stakeholders—that started this week—which will be followed by a formal consultation. I am afraid I cannot give hon. Members an exact date, but I will commit that I want that to be as soon as possible—I want us to get on with this. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, who knows the sector extremely well, for his comments about the opportunities that lie therein. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to work to develop that.
New services will develop and expand the role of community pharmacy across three key areas. Several hon. Members alluded to the fact that pharmacies would be expert in helping with prevention, urgent care and medicine safety and optimisation. Those are all areas in which growth is envisaged in the short, medium and longer terms.
That brings us to the pressure. I am well aware of the pressures community pharmacies are under. Not only has the last year brought quite unprecedented circumstances, but it has not allowed some things to go on that we thought would be embedded by this point. Throughout the last year, we have had conversations with community pharmacy and stakeholders, and have tried to respond as best we can by putting in place a package of measures and support for the sector.
Most community pharmacies have been able to access some general covid-19 business support, including various rates reliefs and some retail, leisure and hospitality grants, and we estimate that there has been access to about £82 million in grants. There has been extra funding for bank holiday openings, when—particularly looking back to last Easter, for example—the sector has responded phenomenally by remaining open and giving patients access across long holiday periods; for a medicines delivery service for shielded patients, which has been mentioned and has been hugely appreciated; and for a contribution to ensure that social distancing measures can be in place in every pharmacy.
We are still talking, however. We have provided personal protective equipment free of charge via the PPE portal, and have reimbursed community pharmacies for PPE purchased. We have also provided non-monetary support, such as the removal of some administrative tasks, flexibility around some of the opening hours, support through the pharmacy quality scheme for the sector’s response to covid-19, and the delay to the start of new services, all of which have been requested.
Between April and July 2020, an advance payment of £370 million was made to support community pharmacies with cash-flow pressures, which were extremely acute. Those were caused by several issues, including a sharp increase in prescription items in the March-April period, higher drug prices, delayed payments from the pharmacy quality scheme, and extra covid-related costs. Acting swiftly and providing those advance payments helped to alleviate immediate cash-flow concerns, but since then pharmacies have been paid for the increased items that they have dispensed, reimbursement prices were increased to reflect higher drug prices, and payments have been made under the pharmacy quality scheme.
We are still in discussions with the PSNC about the reimbursement of covid-19 costs incurred by community pharmacy, and I can reassure the House that the Government will take a pragmatic approach. I expect to deduct any agreed funding from the £370 million advance payments, and to discuss timescales around the advance separately with the PSNC, being very mindful of the pressures. We need to assure ourselves that community pharmacies are financially stable. Without that stability, they cannot deliver those services.
I am aware of the concerns that current funding is not enough, and I need to work with the sector to look at things in much more detail, because pharmaceutical services are complex, and there is a range of different providers. The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned that he has a Boots in his constituency, but that is a very different operation from many of the individual pharmacists, such as Tim, who has a pharmacy on the harbour in the constituency of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
Whether they are independent, small-chain or large-chain pharmacies, no two pharmacies are the same. The solution has to be one that we can tailor. A balanced and considered approach must be taken to maintain the variety and vibrancy that we all recognise as absolutely key in the pharmacy network. People and patients absolutely value the diversity that best suits them and their own needs. We need a sustainable funding model that works for all types.
I have heard the concerns about pharmacy closures, and I can assure Members we monitor the issue very closely indeed. Our data shows that, despite the number of pharmacies reducing since 2016, there are still more than there were 10 years ago. We have seen more closures in deprived areas, as many Members have said. However, importantly, there were more in deprived areas, so making sure that there are still more pharmacies in deprived areas is extremely important.
Proportionally, the closures reflect the spread of pharmacies across England, with closures tending to be where they are clustered. The most recent data shows that three quarters of the closures were part of large chains, and that aligns with consolidation announcements made before the pandemic. It is important that we protect access to pharmaceutical services. The pharmacy access scheme protects access in areas where there are fewer pharmacies and higher health needs so that no area is left without access to a local NHS pharmacy.
It is important to recognise that covid-19 is also an opportunity, which many Members have alluded to. The pandemic has shown across healthcare the value of our highly skilled community pharmacy teams, and how they can contribute and receive more funding. Commissioning community pharmacies to operate the medicines delivery service has been vital to ensure that vulnerable constituents have received their medicine. Community pharmacies have delivered the biggest flu vaccination programme ever, vaccinating more people than ever before.
There are currently around 200 pharmacy-led covid-19 vaccination sites, with a target to double that number by the end of this month, and there have been 60 more this week alone—on many of the questions around vaccines, I will defer to the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment. I expect more to follow, and NHS England is looking to designate more pharmacy-led sites, including sites that can deal with up to 400 vaccinations a week in areas where there were not sites that could deal with large quantities of vaccine, which initially put some sites off.
We are considering the important role of community pharmacy and how that can play out in future as we learn to live with covid-19 and having vaccinations. In addition, community pharmacies are taking part in pilots of antigen testing at lateral flow test collection sites. If those are successful, community pharmacies will be able to provide a valuable service to their local area and will be paid to do it.
The community pharmacy continues to be part of local PCNs, and I know it stands ready to take its full part in primary care as we learn to live with the disease. Those examples show how community pharmacy is helping the broader healthcare family fight covid-19. The Government are keen to make better use of the clinical skills, while giving pharmacies opportunities to generate more income above the £2.5 billion per year that the five-year deal went to—and there are opportunities.
Finally, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for this important debate. The past year has tested all pharmacies, and the following months will continue to be challenging. I am personally committed to doing everything I can to support all community pharmacies in what I view as their essential role as part of the NHS family, which, again, many have spoken of. This is a responsibility on all of us. Pharmacies bring incredible value to local communities and their patients. We are beginning to see the light at the end of a troubling tunnel, and we would not have made it this far without the contribution from community pharmacy. I look forward to having the conversation to ensure that we get a sustainable funding model not only with colleagues but, mainly, with the sector.
Jackie Doyle-Price
No one watching this debate could be left without the impression that our pharmacists are regarded with huge respect and affection, not just by Members of Parliament but by our constituents. We heard the Chancellor say that the NHS will get everything it needs to fight the pandemic, but it is fair to say that some of us feel that pharmacists have perhaps not been treated as fairly as they should be. I recognise that that is fully connected with the future sustainability of pharmacy, and I look forward to having this debate again in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered community pharmacies and the effect of the covid-19 outbreak.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, we will suspend until half-past 3.
Patients with Heart Failure
(3 years, 9 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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been 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.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members 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 they use them and as they leave the room.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered quality of life for patients with heart failure.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I look forward to this debate. Believe it or not, I applied for it this time last year. It has taken that long for the opportunity to come round. It does not matter that it did not happen in March or April last year; I am pleased that it is happening now. That is the important thing.
I am very pleased to see Members virtually and in person. I look forward to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). It is a pleasure to see the Minister. I have already enjoyed her company for an hour and a half, and now I will enjoy it for another period of time. We will see how we get on.
I am delighted to have been granted this important debate and I am particularly pleased to see Members from across the House present to take part in it. Heart failure is a progressive, long-term condition affecting nearly 1 million people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; nearly 20,000 people have been diagnosed with it in Northern Ireland alone. I am my party’s health spokesperson, so I am pleased to present the case, and as we are on the UK mainland, I ask the Minister to respond.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). He and I had an opportunity to observe an operation at St Thomas’ Hospital. I was telling the shadow Minister about it. I will not go into the details, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will remember it well. The operation was on someone who was having a stent put it. I thought we were going to have a wee chat, and was not fully aware that we were going to see it. When I got there, I suddenly found out. We were in the blue surgical gowns, had the body armour on and were present as the gentleman had his operation. The hon. Gentleman was more prepared than I was; he survived it, and I just about survived it. So, we have seen that in person, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make a valuable contribution later in the debate.
Around 98% of people in this country who have heart failure live with at least one other long-term health condition, and many have complex care needs. Living with heart failure means that the heart cannot pump blood around the body as effectively as it should, and it usually occurs as a result of a heart attack, high blood pressure or congenital heart disease, though there are other causes. As people get older, their bodies get weaker. I hope you are an exception, Mr Mundell. I myself am on a list of tablets, and during the last debate, about pharmacies, I knew my tablets were in my pocket, and I was thinking about them when the Minister was speaking, so I know what it is like to live with a disease. In my case, it is high blood pressure and diabetes, not heart disease.
At present, it is not possible to cure heart failure, as there is no way to repair damaged heart muscle, so people with that condition can live their lives dealing with severe fatigue and shortness of breath, among other symptoms. A young lady called Tara Loughlin from Ballyclare was diagnosed with heart failure at the age of just 41, as the result of a rare heart muscle disorder. Tara had symptoms such as breathlessness and extreme fatigue for years. She visited her doctor multiple times with those symptoms. Only when she felt very unwell one day and was referred for an echocardiogram, which is an ultrasound scan of the heart, did she receive the diagnosis of heart failure.
Unfortunately, a significant delay between identifying symptoms and a diagnosis of heart failure is common for many people with the condition. I will speak about that more as we go forward. Life changed forever for Tara, who is a keen runner and loves nothing more than walking her dogs or working up a sweat in Zumba classes. People might think that Tara looks well from the outside, but in fact she battles extreme fatigue and wakes up exhausted and breathless. She gets severe fluid build-up in her hands and legs, to the point where she cannot wear jeans. Tara says this gets her down. Before, she loved clothes and going out, but she is now forced to wear looser clothing and stay home. She said she has still not come to terms with her diagnosis, and the same is applicable to many other patients across the United Kingdom.
Sadly, around half of people diagnosed with heart failure in the UK will die within five years of the diagnosis, but that can be improved; we can do better. With early diagnosis and access to the right treatment, care and support, people can manage their symptoms. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about that in her response—I look forward to hearing what those things might be. They can have a better quality of life and live longer, which has to be good news.
That, however, has not been a reality for many people with heart failure, which is why the debate is being held —to look at those people who might not be getting what they need. At the end of my speech, the Minister will have heard the four questions that we are asking, and I hope she will be able to respond. We might ask a few more on the way; we do not want to let her off with just four, if we can help it.
As we all know, health services across the country are under unprecedented pressure, and I express my deep gratitude to all frontline staff who work tirelessly to provide care to people who urgently need it. It is vital that we do not lose sight of people with heart failure who may not be able to access the care and support they need at this time, and who may become more unwell as a result. The same is true of other things—for example, cancer has been a big issue, and the Minister understands that disease better than most—but I seek clarifications and reassurance on heart failure.
In 2016, the all-party parliamentary group on heart disease made 10 recommendations to improve heart failure care in England. Its inquiry highlighted issues and opportunities across the patient pathway, including the need to raise awareness of heart failure among generalist medical professionals, so that they understand it. I know that they are experts, but they deal with lots of problems. It would also be good to improve the information given to patients at the point of diagnosis, and to ensure that all patients can access the specialist care needed from a multidisciplinary team. They should also be able to access rehabilitation services and timely palliative care.
Unfortunately, insight gathered by the British Heart Foundation and others suggests that progress has been slow in realising the recommendations. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us about the 10 recommendations made by the APPG in 2016. Services are still not always joined up or consistently addressing the needs of people with heart failure across the patient pathway. That variation starts at diagnosis.
We always say that diagnosis is so important—it is critical—but many people are still diagnosed late and in inappropriate settings. Research shows that although 40% of heart failure patients display symptoms that should trigger an assessment in primary care, as many as 80% of heart failure cases in England are diagnosed in hospital. That can lead to worse outcomes and higher mortality rates. Why has that happened? That is one of the questions that we want to ask.
Staffing shortages and variable access to echocardio- graphy—a key tool for diagnosing heart failure—in primary care and the community are just some of the reasons for late diagnosis. Again, we seek from the Minister some assurance that such issues are being addressed. N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide testing—a blood test that helps in the diagnosis of heart failure—is another key tool, but it is still not routinely available or appropriately used in primary or secondary care settings across the country.
Heart failure can also be challenging to diagnose. What is happening on that? Are we are seeing an improvement? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know her well, and I am quite convinced that we will get the answers we seek, which will help to alleviate some of our fears and concerns. Symptoms are variable and can be confused with those of other conditions, meaning that it is easy for those without specialist expertise to miss the signs of heart failure. I sometimes wonder how that can happen, but it can, because of the system that we have. Better training of generalist healthcare professionals and improved access to key diagnostics will be critical to improving outcomes, while early intervention allows people with heart failure to live with a better quality of life for longer. I gave an example of that earlier. Their quality of life can be better, and they can live longer as well.
There is also significant regional variation in the quality of care patients receive following admission to hospital; the percentage of patients seen by a specialist is reported to be 100% in some hospitals in England and Wales but less than 40% in others. Why the variation? Specialist input during admission is key, because it increases the likelihood that patients receive the drugs and referral to ongoing support that they need. It is important to note that the audit does not include data from hospitals in Northern Ireland, as this is obviously a devolved matter, although the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research seeks the participation of our hospitals back home for future reports. I intend to follow up on that, and I will replicate every question I ask the Minister here to the Minister who has responsibility for this in Northern Ireland.
Regardless of where a person is diagnosed, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends that heart failure be managed by a multidisciplinary team with relevant expertise to optimise medications, provide the necessary information about heart failure and its treatment, and refer patients to other services, such as rehabilitation and palliative care, as needed. Again, it would be helpful to know from the Minister exactly where the multidisciplinary team plays its role.
Hospital data shows that, in 2018-19, only 41% of patients discharged from hospitals in England and Wales were recorded as having relevant follow-up with a member of the multidisciplinary team within two weeks of discharge. That figure concerns me. We need reassurance that that shortfall is being addressed, and that, in the long term, a much larger number of patients will have that treatment and this problem will no longer occur. Access to multidisciplinary team-led care is vital for improving outcomes for people with heart failure. As well as treating the acute episodes that bring someone with heart failure into hospital, it is really important that healthcare services treat each person as someone living with a long-term condition, giving them the tools to self-manage and access routine care in community settings.
Only 13% of patients admitted to hospital were referred to cardiac rehabilitation services at the point of discharge. Many of these services have been severely depleted by the pandemic. I understand the pressures that the Minister and the Government are under, and I know how hard they work to try to address these issues, but that really is a small number, so we need reassurance on that. I found evidence that some people are even disappearing, and others are moving online. Perhaps the follow-up is just not done in the way that it should be.
Rehabilitation services offer a range of support for patients, including exercise to improve cardiac function, advice on living healthier, and psychological and peer support. How important is peer support? It should be there, if at all possible. It is the family around the patient who give them the help that they need. Many people with heart failure who have been referred to rehabilitation services describe them as having a major positive impact on their wellbeing. Many rely on these services to help them exercise safely and to provide the emotional, psychological and physical support needed.
Very few people with heart failure are referred to palliative or hospice support, or are referred late. This is partly due to the disease trajectory of heart failure. Many patients can experience several acute episodes, after which they recover, making it hard to know when they are truly at the end of their life. This means that end of life care decisions may be made late for many heart failure patients, which limits the time for advanced care planning, and increases the chance that professionals without the necessary palliative care skills will deliver inappropriate care at the end of patients’ lives. I find that disturbing—we all do—but it tells us that we have to look at this issue. This reduces the chances of patients having their wishes around their end of life treatment being met.
Although these statistics are not published by nation, it is concerning to see that referrals to cardiac rehabilitation services are low, and that conversations about end of life care are not starting as early as possible during a patient’s heart failure journey. This disrupts their chances of receiving the care they need and of their wishes being met at this critical time. To avoid this, we must stop treating each healthcare touchpoint in isolation. By focusing on the person and taking a full pathway approach, we can avoid disjointed care and better address all care needs, including psychological support and end of life care. Clear leadership across the whole pathway is vital.
Strong leadership in heart failure services has led to significant improvements in care in Scotland. I often look to the Scottish health system with a purpose, because it is always good to share. They have some advantages and have taken good steps—I welcome that. The Scottish Heart Failure Hub is working to raise the profile of heart failure among decision makers and spread best advice across the nation. This has allowed it to respond quickly to the impact of coronavirus. Health services across Northern Ireland, England and Wales must follow suit, identify strong leaders of heart failure services, and give the resources needed to drive change across the pathway, both nationally and regionally.
Despite improvements in heart failure therapies over the past two decades, the risk of premature mortality remains high among heart failure patients. There are inequalities linked to characteristics including age, ethnicity and gender, and details such as geographical location and socioeconomic status. The variability in mortality can be linked to how quickly someone is diagnosed with heart failure and the severity of their condition at diagnosis, the number of times that they are readmitted to hospital, and whether they receive support following discharge.
Socioeconomically deprived groups have consistently worse outcomes than the most affluent. They face a 20% higher risk of hospitalisation, even after adjustment for other factors. This inequality has persisted for several decades. Again, I ask the Minister, what has been done to address this continual problem? Access to important services, such as rehabilitation and other relevant recovery and support services in primary care and the community, can also vary as a result of demographic factors, geographical location and socioeconomic status. It is vital that comprehensive demographic data be collected, so that we can better understand the inequalities in access to care and healthcare outcomes. This will help those with worse outcomes to receive better care. Government, and the Minister in particular, must act to ensure that no one is receiving substandard care just because of their age, ethnicity, or gender, where they live, or their economic status.
It is likely that the coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated all the issues that I have talked about—we all know that. Little did we know this time last year, when we were coming into the covid-19 episode, that we would still be in it a year later. I certainly did not. We all thought that the summertime would be better, but that was not the case. The Government’s strategy and response, here and in the devolved Administrations, together with the vaccine roll-out, has enabled us to look forward with positivity. I give the Government credit for this: there is no doubt in my mind that the Government pushed that and made it happen. From the regional point of view, we in Northern Ireland thank them. Over 600,000 of our people from Northern Ireland have had their covid-19 jab. On Monday coming, at 20 minutes to 5 in the afternoon in the Ulster Hospital, I will have my covid-19 jab. I will go and get the other one about eight weeks later.
While the NHS has rightly prioritised providing urgent and emergency care, the redeployment of clinical staff, combined with the need to maintain social distancing, has resulted in a significant amount of routine care and treatment being postponed. I understand that, but the question is: how do we address the problems that are being caused even now?
The postponed care and treatment include routine appointments that allow for review, opportunities for medication optimisation and access to treatments to prevent the exacerbation of conditions. These are the interventions that enable people with heart failure to maintain a good quality of life, and without them we risk patients becoming more unwell, adding to urgent and emergency care needs, and to a rapidly growing backlog of people for health services to deal with as we come out of the pandemic. That is being seen not just with delays to treatment, but with delays to diagnosis. Again, the issues are very clear.
Although we do not have figures for Northern Ireland, figures from NHS England show that completion of echocardiograms—as I mentioned before, these are scans that can detect heart failure, so it is very important for people to have them—fell by around two thirds, or 67%, in April and May 2020, compared with February 2020. While I understand that there was some improvement throughout the rest of 2020, for which I give credit, can the Minister say whether we have caught up yet and matched the figure from before the pandemic?
The use of echocardiograms has struggled to return to pre-pandemic activity levels, meaning that waiting lists have remained long—perhaps even longer than they should have been. As a result, thousands of heart failure diagnoses are likely to be delayed or even missed, with potential implications for people’s long-term health and quality of life.
The fall in the number of people presenting to hospital with heart failure has also been dramatic, dropping by 41% in England as we entered the second wave of the pandemic. I believe that there is limited information about how these missing patients may or may not have accessed care and support during this period. It seems that many people with heart failure have fallen through the cracks since the pandemic began, adding to the picture of disrupted and fragmented care. Again, I seek an answer to this question: has the Minister any figures or statistics that can identify these missing patients?
While some parts of the country lost heart failure services altogether during the first wave, due to redeployment of heart failure specialist teams to the initial covid-19 response, other parts maintained a skeleton service. The impact on services, combined with the continuing reduction in capacity to deliver face-to-face care, has meant that many people with heart failure have struggled to access the support that they need.
Organisations such as the British Heart Foundation—I work quite closely with it; indeed, I think it works quite closely with everyone—have stepped in to provide information, for example through the BHF’s heart failure online hub and heart helpline. It is vital that people can access the health and care services they need to live well during, and indeed beyond, the pandemic.
The BHF has highlighted in its report, “Heart failure: a blueprint for change”, that one of the main problems is that there is a lack of co-ordinated data outside hospital settings, and particularly in primary and community settings. This has meant that a significant proportion of the heart failure community has been largely invisible to the system during the pandemic, and opportunities to drive real system change have been lost. Again, the information and statistics that the BHF has been able to gather show that many people with heart problems went missing during the pandemic.
The covid-19 pandemic has clearly exposed the huge inequalities in care that people have been experiencing for years. I believe that now is the time for stakeholders across the health service and the Government, and parliamentarians, to come together and seize the opportunity to build back better. I want to ensure that each and every one of the 860 people diagnosed with heart failure in Strangford in the last year, and the thousands more across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who have received a similar diagnosis, has the opportunity to live a better quality of life, and that we all have an opportunity to create better outcomes for everyone living with this condition.
I have four asks—indeed, I made a few asks throughout my speech and I know that the Minister has been writing them down. However, there are four key asks that I hope the Minister will respond to at the end of the debate. I will conclude with them.
First, system leaders must take a full pathway approach to improving services. By focusing on the person and taking a full pathway approach, we can avoid disjointed care and provide better support for patients, including addressing their psychological and emotional needs, from diagnosis to end of life.
Secondly, we must stop just treating the acute episodes that bring someone with heart failure into hospital, and instead treat each person as someone living with a long-term condition, providing them with the tools to manage their condition and access routine care in community settings.
Thirdly, leadership across the pathway will be vital. Recruiting heart failure champions at regional and national levels—it is really important that we do this—will help to strengthen leadership and accountability for services, and lead to significant improvements in care.
Fourthly, collecting more reliable, comprehensive and timely data across the whole pathway could break down the barriers to improving heart failure services and drive real system change. I do not know how many debates the Minister and I have been at, but the issue of data comes up continuously. That data will prove where we need to focus the attention, and I think that is what we are likely to do.
In conclusion, for too long people with heart failure have not been given the chance to live well with their condition, and the pandemic has disrupted opportunities to make that a reality for more people. I believe we owe it to those people to finally address this issue and give everyone the opportunity to live well for longer. I thank those who are going to speak for their participation, and look forward very much to the Minister’s response.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell.
As chair of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on heart valve disease, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a co-founder of that new all-party group, on securing the debate. The aim of the all-party group is to increase awareness of heart valve disease in the United Kingdom, and help ensure that patients receive timely diagnoses and the optimal management and treatment of their condition.
Heart valve disease affects approximately 1.5 million people in the UK. As we have heard, patients can experience fatigue, shortness of breath and chest tightness and/or pain. The most common form of heart valve disease is aortic stenosis, which affects about one in eight people over the age of 75. Unfortunately, awareness and knowledge of the condition in the general population is alarmingly low: in a recent survey, only 3.8% of people really knew what aortic stenosis was. People with heart valve disease have poor survival rates without prompt treatment, and longer waiting times inevitably lead to worse outcomes. However, as we have heard, heart valve disease is a very treatable condition, particularly if patients are diagnosed early.
The all-party group receives secretariat support from Heart Valve Voice, with which I have worked closely on several projects. Most recently, I have been working with Wil Woan, its chief executive, on the “100,000 Conversations” initiative, a campaign focused on improving awareness by encouraging people to discuss their condition with friends and relatives, particularly the symptoms, as well as access to diagnosis and treatment. I should perhaps confess that I had open heart surgery for a repair to my mitral valve back in 2012, and so feel very familiar with many of the issues people raise. I recently had the opportunity to hold one of these conversations with the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), and I know Heart Valve Voice would be delighted if I could persuade the Minister to also take part in one.
We are also working on a campaign called “Just Treat Us”, which concentrates on encouraging patients to see their doctor if they are experiencing symptoms such as breathlessness, dizziness or fatigue, as well as encouraging care centres to treat patients, especially as the country starts to move out of lockdown. A simple stethoscope test is often all that is needed to identify a heart valve problem. Delaying treatment leads to worse outcomes, but with timely treatment, people can go back to a good—or even a better—quality of life.
As we have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford, covid-19 has had a significant impact on the investigation and care of people with heart valve disease, as with many other conditions. It has been reported that 100,000 fewer heart operations were carried out in 2020 compared with 2019. It has also been reported that 45,000 cardiac procedures have been cancelled.
When I had my mitral valve repaired, I was in an operating theatre for over seven hours. I was in intensive care for three days and spent another two weeks in hospital, and it took me approximately six months to fully recover. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation—TAVI— has been introduced as an alternative therapy to replace damaged aortic valves in patients who are considered high risk for traditional open-heart surgery. The procedure is less invasive, and patients can be discharged from hospital in a short period, allowing them to return to normal life while also saving hospital resources. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, he and I once witnessed a transcatheter procedure carried out on an 85-year-old gentleman at St Thomas’s. He had a local anaesthetic and was largely alert during the procedure. He was able to return home and was working on his allotment within three weeks of the procedure.
The “Valve for Life” initiative, run by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, aims to promote transcatheter valve interventions, which could be crucial in rapidly reducing the waiting list that has been built up during the covid-19 crisis. It has four main goals: to raise awareness of valvular heart disease; to facilitate access to new therapies, such as TAVI; to increase educational standards; and to reduce obstacles to therapy and discrimination in access to care. The overall objectives of “Valve for Life” are to address inequalities in patient access and the disparities between countries in Europe, as well as to inform Government officials, healthcare administrators and healthcare providers about the clinical and economic value of transcatheter heart valve therapies in the management of valvular heart disease.
The UK has the second lowest rate of TAVI procedures per million people in Europe. Even within the UK, there is a large geographical disparity regarding access to treatment, as I think we heard earlier. We are very lucky in this country to have Dr Daniel Blackman, one of our leading interventional cardiologists, spearheading the campaign to raise the volume of transcatheter procedures. As we learn the lessons from the pandemic, I hope this is one area where we might be willing to entertain new thinking.
Heart valve disease is extremely common among older people and will obviously continue to place huge demands on our health service, but with early diagnosis and increased use of TAVI procedures, it need not be a killer. Indeed, it need not impair the quality of life. I hope that in the months and years ahead we can work to increase the use of new treatments and interventions, so that those suffering with heart disease can, in large part, look forward to a long and productive life following timely treatment and prompt rehabilitation support. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate and for making such an informed contribution.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
I echo the comments just made. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for the comprehensive exposition with which he started it.
A debate on heart health matters to many of our constituents who live with heart conditions. My father died in 1969, when I was 15 months old, of a heart attack in Hamilton where he had been working, collapsing and dying at Hamilton Cross, leaving my mother widowed with eight children. I looked on helplessly as my stepfather collapsed and died in the hallway of our home with a heart attack in 1985, when I was 17 years old. That is something I will never forget.
Sadly, too many of those who have lived with someone with compromised heart health could recount similar experiences. Sadly, in my family the deaths were caused by lifestyle factors, but it is important to remember that the most important factor in such disease and premature deaths is poverty. Ultimately, it is poverty that kills, whatever may be written on the death certificate. We really need to be mindful of that.
About 1 million people across the UK and 48,000 people in Scotland have been diagnosed with heart failure. There are around 200,000 diagnoses of heart failure every year in the UK, with some evidence to suggest that the burden of this terrible condition is increasing and is now similar to the four most common causes of cancer combined, in terms of the scale of the challenge. The British Heart Foundation estimates that around 230,000 people in Scotland have been diagnosed with coronary heart disease, more than 700,000 with hypertension and around 48,000 with heart failure. Heart and circulatory diseases are killing three in every 10 people in Scotland.
Some 98% of those in the UK diagnosed with heart failure live with at least one other long-term condition, such as diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As we have heard this afternoon, the signs of heart failure are there if you know how to recognise them: breathlessness, frequent and excessive tiredness, swollen ankles or legs, perhaps a persistent cough, a fast heart rate and dizziness. If anyone has these symptoms, it is very important that they go to their GP.
It is often the case that the underlying causes of heart failure are heavily influenced by lifestyle factors, which can cause heart disease and high blood pressure, although we have to be aware of genetic inheritance and the fact that some people are born, unfortunately, with congenital heart difficulties. While treatment is available, there is no real cure, but the important thing for us all to do is to do the best we can to live as healthy a lifestyle as possible. However, as we have heard, the scale of this illness is significant and demands our attention.
Those living with heart failure can find their lives limited in ways that detrimentally impact their quality of life. They may experience various physical and emotional symptoms, such as dyspnoea, fatigue, oedema, sleeping difficulties, depression and chest pain. These symptoms limit the daily physical and social activities of those living with heart failure and result in a poor quality of life. That, in turn, often corresponds with high hospitalisation and mortality rates.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government are taking action to tackle heart health problems and will publish an updated heart disease improvement plan later this spring, which will make sure that there is equitable access to diagnostic tests, treatment and care for people with heart disease in a timely manner. This must remain a national priority. In addition, £1 million has been invested in the heart disease improvement plan, supporting important work such as that led by the Heart Failure Hub and the cardiac rehabilitation champion. The recent publication of the British Heart Foundation Scotland strategy document has been welcomed by the Scottish Government, who are keen to work with the British Heart Foundation.
As we begin to hope that we can emerge from this health pandemic, we cannot forget the stark health inequalities that were exposed and exacerbated by covid-19. The disproportionate harm caused by covid-19 to a number of groups in our communities, including those with cardiovascular disease, has highlighted new vulnerabilities and underscored existing health inequalities. That is why the Scottish Government in their recent Budget delivered an increase of more than £800 million on health spending, bringing overall health funding to a total of £16 billion, with an additional investment of more than £1 billion to address pressures related to covid-19. A significant proportion of those resources will be spent on caring for those with heart disease. I urge the UK Government to match Scottish Government spending per capita on health and social care.
I shall end where I began, by saying that the answer to many of our health problems, and even our social problems, is to do all we can to build a more equitable society. If we can do that, fewer adults will develop heart failure and other serious life-limiting conditions. There will be fewer folk whose health prevents them from being economically active. We will have children who can reach their full potential if the chains of poverty and poor health outcomes can be broken. Health outcomes are driven by poverty and our health is the key to the kinds of lives that each of us can live, the kinds of opportunities that we can create for ourselves, and the kinds of paths that we can follow. As with so many things, we could make much greater inroads into this and other health inequalities if we were to tackle at source, with more vigour and determination, inequality born of poverty. As we begin to emerge from the pandemic, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that there is no better time than right now to look afresh at how our society works, to make it better for everyone.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I want to add my congratulations to those offered to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on securing the debate and on his persistence in getting it almost a year after he first requested it. It is important to discuss the quality of life for patients with heart failure. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent introduction, and for raising many issues, many of which are similar to those that I want to talk about. I add my thanks to those he expressed to people working in the NHS, for the wonderful care that they provide.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for his contribution and congratulate him on the formation of the new all-party parliamentary group on heart valve disease. He spoke about the initiative for 100,000 conversations, which sounds like an excellent way of drawing attention to the issue. Indeed, he brought his own experiences to the fore, which can only help in drawing more attention to the matter.
It is important to discuss heart failure. It is a progressive, potentially life-limiting condition, and there are a number of potential causes; coronary heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes can all contribute. It can manifest in a number of different ways, including, as we heard, shortness of breath, fatigue and sometimes swelling of the lower limbs. It can occur at any age and the example that the hon. Member for Strangford gave from his constituency was of someone at the lower end of the age bracket. However, heart failure is of course more common in older groups.
As we have heard, there are currently an estimated 920,000 people living with heart failure in the UK, with around 200,000 new diagnoses every year. That is a significant number of people, by any calculation. Nearly all of those people—98%—will also have at least one other long-term health condition. Sadly, about half of all people diagnosed with heart failure die within five years of their diagnosis. Heart failure is a common cause of unplanned hospital admissions, with more than 110,000 of those each year. The rate of such admissions increased by nearly a third in the past five years, and now nearly one in 17 hospital visits in England can include a heart failure diagnosis as either a cause or a contributing factor.
That of course means that the issue puts a considerable burden on the NHS. The Lancet reports that
“the burden of heart failure in the UK…is now similar to the four most common causes of cancer combined.”
It accounts for 2% of the total NHS budget, and around 70% of those costs are due to hospitalisation. I should add the caveat that that clearly does not include covid, which we hope will not be something we must deal with on an annual basis at the level we have had to for the past 12 months.
The British Heart Foundation says that, despite improvements in heart failure therapies over the last two decades, the risk of mortality for patients with heart failure remains high, with the inequalities that we have heard about linked to age, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status and geographical location. Those inequalities can affect the entire patient pathway, from how quickly someone is diagnosed, which of course, as we have discussed, has an impact on the severity of their condition, to the number of times they are readmitted to hospital and whether they receive the correct support in the community following their discharge from hospital.
For example, while the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reports the average age of diagnosis as 77, according to the British Heart Foundation it falls to the age of 69 for people from black and minority ethnic groups, and to the low 60s for people from the most economically and socially deprived backgrounds. In 2021, that is simply unacceptable.
Looking more closely at diagnosis, as with many serious health conditions, early diagnosis can of course save lives, yet sadly it is still too often the case that patients are diagnosed late. In a hospital setting, that means they are more likely to have advanced disease, and therefore face poorer outcomes. Research from Imperial College shows that eight in 10 diagnoses of heart failure in England are actually made in hospital—for example, when a patient is admitted with a life-threatening episode of breathlessness—despite four in 10 people presenting with potential symptoms, such as fluid retention or breathlessness, to their own GP. That could have triggered an early assessment or diagnosis in a different care setting.
NICE guidelines for diagnosis and management have been in place for over a decade now, but the British Heart Foundation reports that they have not been universally implemented, meaning that heart failure services remain variable across the country. When there are national guidelines in place, it really should not be something that we have to address, and we need to do better.
Moving on to admission, we know that specialist input during admission is vital to ensuring that patients receive the care that they need. It leads to fewer deaths in hospital and fewer deaths after discharge. Heart failure cannot be cured, but there are treatments that can keep symptoms under control, such as healthy lifestyle changes, medication or devices implanted in a person’s chest. Those treatments not only prolong life, as we have heard, but can improve quality of life, relieving symptoms and improving overall enjoyment and participation in life. Some of the most common symptoms of heart failure—breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention—really matter on a day-to-day basis for people’s quality of life.
Some treatments can limit physical function, leading to withdrawal from activities and social contact. They can cause psychological problems. Being aware of our own mortality obviously can have an impact, leading to sleep disturbance, depression and anxiety. Many things flow from such a diagnosis that cannot be underestimated. It is therefore vital that we look at all of the pathway in terms of a patient’s journey, so that they receive the best possible specialist care and treatment throughout, to ensure that their quality of life can get better following a diagnosis.
We know from the heart failure audit carried out by the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research in 2018-19 that the percentage of patients seen by a specialist ranges from as little as 40% in some hospitals to 100% in others. That can continue following discharge, when many patients are unable to access or are not offered the care and support, such as rehabilitation and relevant recovery and support services in primary care in the community, that they need in order to continue to live well.
Again, unfortunately that is particularly true for those in socially and economically deprived groups, who have consistently worse outcomes than those in more affluent groups and are 20% more likely to be hospitalised. According to a population-based study by The Lancet, that has not changed in decades. We should be ashamed that we are still talking about it today.
This is before we even start to consider the impact that covid has had on such vital services, which, as we would expect, has been significant. NHS England data shows that during the first wave of the pandemic the number of echocardiograms fell by around two thirds in April and May of last year, compared with February 2020, and it has since struggled to return to pre-pandemic levels. During the second wave, the number of people presenting to hospital with heart failure also fell dramatically—by some 41% from the beginning of October to mid-November.
We should be worried about that, because we know that late diagnosis has long-term implications for health and quality of life, but also because we do not know whether these missing patients have accessed care and support during this period or whether they have simply fallen through the cracks. Then there are the indirect effects on patients who are already in the system who face reduced access or delays because their care has struggled to meet what we would normally expect in a non-pandemic situation.
We know the reasons for that: staff had been redeployed; there is a need to maintain social distancing in clinical settings; there have been changes to the way services operate; and a significant amount of routine care and treatment for heart failure patients has been postponed, including routine appointments just to review their condition and their treatment or medication to ensure that they are able to live well. The backlog has come about for a number of reasons. We know that services across the board were already severely strained before covid-19 hit us. The shutdown of non-covid services, combined with drastic changes in patient behaviour, means the NHS is now facing a large backlog of non-covid-19 cases.
We also know that stricter infection control measures mean that, as we hopefully move out of the pandemic, there will still be a reduction in the number of patients able to go through hospital. That backlog could actually take longer to work through than we would otherwise expect it to. All this matters because we know that diagnosing people with heart failure earlier and getting them into the specialist care as soon as possible not only cuts emergency admissions, but relieves overall pressure on the NHS. It also improves the quality of those individuals’ lives, giving them the opportunity to live well for longer.
We are thankfully past the peak of the virus, we hope, although we know the pressure that the NHS is still under. We know the number of patients in England waiting over a year for routine hospital care is now 130 times higher than before the pandemic, and there are now 4.5 million people waiting for NHS treatment. This could take years to address, and of course, as we have discussed many times in the past few weeks, our healthcare workers are exhausted. They are struggling with the long-term consequences of giving care during the pandemic, with one in four doctors having sought mental health support during the pandemic. The staff survey that was released today gave some alarming statistics about how our NHS workforce are feeling at the moment.
It is vital that we come up with a realistic plan to tackle the backlog in non-covid care, which is something we have called for. I hope the Minister can set out how the NHS, and heart failure services in particular, will be able to recover from the pandemic, now that hospitalisations for covid are beginning to decrease. We know that the long-term plan already identifies cardiovascular disease as a clinical priority and commits to supporting people with heart failure better through improved rapid access to heart failure nurses, so that more patients with heart failure who are not on a cardiology ward will receive specialist care and advice. It is welcome that the Minister has confirmed that these are priorities from the number of written questions we have seen her answer recently.
We know that there are shortages across the NHS workforce. The 2018 audit of heart failure nurses showed that the biggest concern was the significant case load that they are having to manage, with demand on services increasing without further resources being provided. Can I ask the Minister to set out in her response what steps she will take to increase the number of heart failure nurses to meet this commitment? Could she also update us on the number of heart failure patients who actually have access to a specialist heart failure nurse?
The Minister will be aware that a report from the Public Accounts Committee in September was highly critical of the Government’s approach, finding that a long-term plan was not supported by a detailed workforce plan to ensure the numbers and types of nurses that are needed across the board. It also found that the removal of the NHS bursary in 2017 failed to see the increase in student numbers that we would have liked to see and that the Government had said would occur.
We are also still waiting for publication of the substantive long-term workforce plan, which we all want to see deliver a lasting solution to recruitment and retention in the workforce, ensuring that there are enough skilled staff to provide the care that we all want to see. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on when we might see that plan. The long-term plan also commits to greater access to echocardiography in primary care to improve early detection. Will the Minister update us on what steps have been taken to improve that access?
I will say a few words on data, which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The only nationally available mandated dataset for heart failure is the heart failure audit, which collects data about hospital admissions, symptoms, demographics, access to diagnostics, specialist input, types of treatment, and mortality. Unfortunately, that data is not linked to primary community data, and local systems struggle to get their own data back out of the audit to inform their local decision making. We need a comprehensive dataset that is accessible and useable for clinicians in a timely manner. It should include the comprehensive demographic data that we need to understand inequalities in access to care and in outcomes, as well as an expanded range of data to include primary community care, allowing clinicians and system leaders to get hold of the analysis that I think we all want to have. Will the Minister tell us a little more about what is happening on the adequacy of data collection, and whether there are any plans to expand the collection of data across primary community care settings?
As we know, many medical research charities have made dramatic cuts to their research budgets because of fundraising shortfalls in the last year. The Minister will be aware that the medical research charities reacted with some disappointment to the comprehensive spending review, which committed to £14.6 billion in research funding, but failed to ring-fence any of that for medical research charities and did not provide any long-term assurances of funding for the sector. The British Heart Foundation, whose research all Members appreciate and rely on, has had to reduce its spending by half in the last year. Are there plans to support those medical research charities in meeting the shortfall that they will have to find after the last 12 months?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, and for his tenacity in waiting a year before we could be here to discuss what is an incredibly important subject. He is right: it is vital that we keep this serious disease on the agenda.
I was interested in the comments from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who was also in the Chamber with us for the last debate, about his own experience in 2012. I am glad to see that he is a living testament to how well people can recover from heart incidents with the right treatment and in the way they live their lives.
Although in recent years we have made enormous progress in understanding more about heart disease, I acknowledge that it remains high on the list of biggest killers in England, and there is still a lot of work to do. I would like the hon. Member for Strangford to extend my good wishes to his constituent Tara, about whom he spoke. Key to improving the quality of life that we want to see for everybody is ensuring that those who are diagnosed younger and who probably do not have the co-morbidities that we have spoken about in others have access to those good services.
We must, in particular, ensure that we intervene earlier, that we have the right care, and that we have the right rehabilitation services and support. I hope to explain what we are doing, and I am more than happy to have further conversations with the hon. Members for Strangford and for Birmingham, Selly Oak in their capacity as chairs of the APPG, and knowing their keen interest in health matters in particular.
I want to extend my thanks to all those on the frontline who have worked so hard, particularly in the area of cardiac services. They did recover, but they have dropped again during this second wave, so we know there is work to do. Heart failure is a key priority for NHS England and Improvement. One ambition in the NHS long-term plan is to raise awareness of the symptoms of heart failure and to ensure early and rapid access to diagnostic tests and treatments. The British Heart Foundation report found that people are still concerned and worried about coming forward, so if anyone is worried about any symptoms, I very much urge them to come forward. The NHS is open and is here to help.
NHSE has a programme of work to support the ambition, overseen by clinical professionals from across the country. It remained a priority during the covid-19 pandemic. We know that cardiac rehabilitation saves lives. It improves the quality of life and reduces, as several Members have said, the hospital admissions that occur when people do not access services. In scaling up and improving the promotion and awareness of cardiac rehabilitation, we aim to improve quality of life and to reduce hospital admissions.
In the long-term plan we set out steps to ensure that by 2028 the proportion of patients accessing cardiac rehabilitation would be among the best in Europe, with 85% of those eligible accessing care. It is a long way from where we are now and will need a lot of hard work in the intervening years. We estimate, however, that this will prevent up to 23,000 premature deaths and 50,000 acute admissions over a 10-year period. NHS England and NHS Improvement is developing cardiac networks that will support the regional delivery of the long-term plan ambitions and address the regional variations in health inequalities that the hon. Member for Strangford alluded to throughout his speech.
The long-term plan also commits to improving rapid access to heart failure nurses so that more patients with heart failure who are not on a cardiology ward can receive specialist care and advice. Better personalised planning for patients will reduce nights spent in hospital and also reduce drugs spend. NHSE is accelerating some of the positive lessons learnt from the pandemic, such as the enhanced use of digital technology for cardiac rehabilitation and the greater application of remote consultations, enabling us to bring forward the delivery of some of the ambitions for patients with heart disease.
NHSE is working with Health Education England to develop a new e-learning for health course, which aims to support healthcare professionals in learning more about heart failure and heart valve disease so that they can better recognise the symptoms of heart failure and diagnose, manage and support patients further. We anticipate this will be made available on digital platforms in late summer this year, so they are working at pace.
We are also establishing community diagnostic hubs to more rapidly diagnose heart failure patients, which will include echocardiograms, blood tests and NT-proBNP testing, making sure that that NT-proBNP testing is available to all general practices.
Hon. Members will be aware that high blood pressure can often be a component factor of heart failure. To increase support for people at greater risk, NHSE plans to increase the number of people who have access to remote blood pressure monitoring and management. The NHS at home programme remains committed to addressing health inequalities, and we have introduced targeted blood pressure monitoring systems for patients who are clinically extremely vulnerable and have high blood pressure, including individuals from black, Asian or ethnic minority backgrounds in areas of high deprivation. We are making sure that we target communities who are worst affected because, as we know, the statistics are often worse in areas that are socially and economically deprived and where health inequalities are greater.
We are also targeting those aged over 65 because age is a large component here. This intervention will allow people to monitor their blood pressure from their home, which is something that we know they prefer, and to avoid trips to their general practice by communicating results to their primary care clinician via a digital platform or, for those who may not have access, a phone call to the practice. From April 2021, a further 198,000 blood pressure monitors will be available for primary care.
The NHS at Home scheme is a self-management scheme to enable patients with heart failure and heart valve disease to look after themselves in their own home. However, they will work with a specialist clinician, and patients will be supported to understand their medications, how to reduce their salt intake, and how to monitor and record their daily weight and blood pressure, as we know that fluid retention is associated with the disease. They will also be helped to recognise—this is really important—symptoms if their condition is deteriorating, so that they seek help in a timely manner. We know that many people wait too long before they reach out for help and services.
Where patients have suffered heart failure, doctors, nurses, the valuable pharmacists who we spent the previous debate talking about, and allied health professionals can provide support to patients in the multidisciplinary teams that the hon. Member for Strangford spoke about. It is anticipated that this will lead to a reduction in hospital admissions and increased quality of life, which is a key component, with better patient and carer knowledge about how to manage their condition. It will also improve primary, community and specialist team communication.
From 1 July 2019, all patients in England have been covered by a primary care network, and the development of the primary care network directed enhanced service for cardiovascular disease prevention and diagnosis is ongoing, with the phased implementation of new PCN services expected in 2021-22. This emphasises the importance of early diagnosis in the management of patients with heart failure and heart valve disease in primary care, in line with the published NICE guidance.
The quality outcomes framework—QOF—is an annual reward and incentive programme for general practice surgeries in England. Although the specific requirements were stepped down in 2021 to release general practice capacity in order to support the pandemic response, I am pleased that the QOF will be returning later in 2021. This will include the updates that were previously agreed to support moves towards earlier diagnosis and management. GP surgeries are asked to capture data in order to evidence that they have fulfilled the QOF requirements, which encourage the earlier confirmation of heart failure diagnosis and improve pharmacological management.
As several Members have said, data is absolutely key in this space for making sure that we know where patients are and that they are being managed. I am pleased to say that this update also means that patients with heart failure can have an annual review in order to enable better management of their care, which goes to the point about making sure there is sufficient contact. NHS England has had sight of the British Heart Foundation report and thanks it for sharing it, and I have been assured that the national medical director has written back on the matters that were included.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government, the long-term plan and the workforce have a key ambition to improve the lives and health outcomes of people living with heart failure in this country. Everybody has to play a part, including the individual. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, lifestyle plays an important part, so making changes that can help prevent heart failure—healthier eating, reducing salt intake and exercising more—is particularly important. As several hon. Members have said, it is often a disease with comorbidities, and many of those changes will help health overall.
We can all agree that this agenda really matters. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for highlighting this important issue. If we continue to make an impact on the lives of people with heart failure, there will be significant benefits for the NHS and, mostly, enormous benefits for those who are affected. To conclude, I say to people that, if they have any of the signs—breathlessness and so on—or any worries at all, they should come forward to seek help.
Jim Shannon
First, I very much thank the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). The hon. Gentleman in particular referred to the APPG which was started up four or five weeks ago. We look forward to working with many others, and we will probably hold an inquiry about providing a better quality of life.
I am quite friendly with the hon. Lady, but I did not know that her father and stepfather both died from heart failure, which is a very personal thing. She also mentioned poverty and socioeconomic status—to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and I referred, and the Minister responded—and how that can impact on way of life, affecting us all. She also referred to tackling at source inequality and poverty. We all heard the Minister respond and how she understands that.
I thank the shadow Minister very much for his contribution. He, too, referred to the social and economic backgrounds in which people are severely impacted; to the pandemic’s impact on heart failure; and to late diagnosis, which we all realise is an issue.
In particular, I thank the Minister very much. I always do, but I mean it, because that was a very comprehensive response. We are all heartened by that. You would not have given me the time, Mr Mundell, to go through all the things on which the Minister responded, but what she said was marvellous—quickly, the cardiac rehabilitation input, the community diagnostic hubs, the NT-proBNP community specialists, the primary care network NICE guidelines and the GP surgeries gathering the data. As the Minister, the shadow Minister and we all said, data is very important—with the data, we can focus the strategy on where we want to be.
There are life changes to make and so a role for us all to play, including me. I am a diabetic today, because of my lifestyle. I did not know what I was doing—or I did not know until too late—and it was all that Chinese food, plus two bottles of Coca-Cola. I would not recommend it. My sugar levels were extremely high. Add a bit of stress to that, and all of a sudden, someone becomes a diabetic. I am guilty of that, but I am saying that we all therefore have a role to play.
I thank everyone for their contribution, you for your patience, Mr Mundell, and the Minister in particular for a comprehensive and helpful response. We appreciate it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered quality of life for patients with heart failure.
Written Statements
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Restoration and Renewal Programme: Strategic Review Publication
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In May 2020 the sponsor body established a strategic review of the restoration and renewal programme.
The purpose of the review was to consider whether anything had changed so significantly as to warrant a change in the strategy for the restoration and renewal programme. Such reviews are a pillar of established best practice for major projects.
The sponsor body invited views from Members, Members’ staff, parliamentary staff and members of the public. The sponsor body also consulted with the Commissions of both Houses, as well as relevant parliamentary Committees on the draft strategic review recommendations.
The sponsor body’s strategic review was completed in late 2020, and in the early part of 2021 has been going through a period of engagement with the Commissions of both Houses of Parliament. It has been published today.
The review has considered all the evidence available, including previous investigations and reports and new evidence from surveys and submissions to the review. It recommends new approaches to completing the restoration while minimising costs—and provides a clear direction for the next stages of the work.
The review recommends the adoption of a set of “essential” and “stretch” objectives, to be endorsed by the Commissions of both Houses. The essential objectives will form the core deliverables for the programme, to inform a “do essential” option in the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan. The stretch objectives will offer greater ambition.
The review found that by approaching the restoration in a new way, with a phased approach to the delivery of the works to the Palace of Westminster, the time Members and staff would spend in temporary accommodation could be kept to a minimum. While the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will set out specific timescales, the period during which works are taking place in the Palace of Westminster should be thought of in terms of years and not months.
The review found that Parliament’s northern estate, within the secure perimeter, is the best place for temporarily locating MPs. Specific plans for these arrangements will be drawn up in collaboration with Parliament’s in-house team, respecting recent decisions from the House of Commons Commission regarding the sequencing of works on the northern estate and in line with the developing parliamentary masterplan.
Members of the House of Lords will be located in temporary accommodation at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, and proposals for this will have at their heart an objective to minimise costs.
The full text and recommendations of the strategic review can be viewed on the restoration and renewal website: www.restorationandrenewal.uk/resources/ reports/strategic-review
The public want to see this UNESCO world heritage site, in which they have told us they take great pride, protected from damage and decay, and at the same time want to see that money is spent well. Restoring Parliament will create thousands of jobs and apprenticeships in towns, cities and communities across the UK, from engineering and high-tech design to traditional crafts such as carpentry and stonemasonry.
The detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will be focused on delivering value for money and will be informed by around 100 surveys and investigations of the Palace of Westminster.
The review sets out clear proposed objectives for the restoration and the need for clearer governance and closer working with Parliament. Supported by the Delivery Authority, the sponsor body will continue to develop the detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan that will for the first time give an accurate sense of the costs, timescales and full detail of the work needed. The detailed and costed restoration and renewal plan will be put before both Houses for a decision before the parliamentary building works can commence.
[HCWS839]
EU-Great Britain Import Controls
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
On 31 December last year, the UK left the EU’s single market and customs union. This was the biggest change in the UK’s trading relationships for decades. The Government have always been clear that this meant change for business and for citizens, including new processes and requirements.
The first phase of such changes came in on 1 January. The Government have put in place the staffing, infrastructure, and IT to deal with the situation. Thanks to the hard work of traders and hauliers, we have not seen anything like the generalised disruption at our ports which many predicted, and supply chains have shown themselves to be robust.
However, the Government recognise the scale and significance of the challenges businesses have been facing in adjusting to the new requirements, at the same time as dealing with the impacts of covid-19.
Last June, we announced a timetable for the phased introduction of controls on imports from the EU into Great Britain, to ensure businesses could prepare in a phased way. This timetable was based on the impacts of the first wave of covid-19. We know now that the disruption caused by covid-19 has lasted longer and has been deeper than we anticipated. Accordingly, the Government have reviewed these timeframes.
Although we recognise that many in the border industry and many businesses have been investing time and energy to be ready on time, and indeed we in Government were confident of being ready on time, we have listened to businesses that have made a strong case that they need more time to prepare. In reviewing the timeframes, we have given strong weight to the disruption which has been caused, and is still being caused, by covid-19, and the need to ensure that the economy can recover fully.
We are therefore announcing today a clear revised timetable for the introduction of controls, as follows:
Pre-notification requirements for products of animal origin (POAO), certain animal by-products (ABP), and high-risk food not of animal origin (HRFNAO) will not be required until 1 October 2021. Export health certificate requirements for POAO and certain ABP will come into force on the same date.
Customs import declarations will still be required, but the option to use the deferred declaration scheme, including submitting supplementary declarations up to six months after the goods have been imported, has been extended to 1 January 2022.
Safety and security declarations for imports will not be required until 1 January 2022.
Physical sanitary and phytosanitary checks for POAO, certain ABP, and HRFNAO will not be required until 1 January 2022. At that point they will take place at border control posts.
Physical SPS checks on high-risk plants will take place at border control posts, rather than at the place of destination as now, from 1 January 2022.
Pre-notification requirements and documentary checks, including phytosanitary certificates will be required for low-risk plants and plant products, and will be introduced from 1 January 2022.
From March 2022, checks at border control posts will take place on live animals and low-risk plants and plant products.
Traders moving controlled goods into Great Britain will continue to be ineligible for the deferred customs declaration approach. They will therefore be required to complete a full customs declaration when the goods enter Great Britain.
Controls and checks on sanitary and phytosanitary goods are of course a devolved matter and we continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on their implementation, in particular with the Welsh Government on their timetable for completing supporting border control post infrastructure in Wales.
We will continue to engage extensively with businesses to support them to adjust to the new requirements already in place and to prepare for the new requirements set out above so that they can continue to trade successfully under the new arrangements.
[HCWS841]
Independent Investigation into East Kent Maternity Services Trust: Terms of Reference
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
On 13 February 2020 I confirmed in Parliament that, following concerns raised about the quality and outcomes of maternity and neonatal care, NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSEI) have commissioned Dr Bill Kirkup CBE to undertake an independent review into maternity and neonatal services at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (the trust).
The review will be known as the “Independent Investigation into East Kent Maternity Services” (the independent investigation).
We take the patient safety concerns at East Kent maternity services very seriously. The independent investigation will provide an independent assessment of what has happened with East Kent Maternity and Neonatal Services and identify lessons and conclusions.
The terms of reference have been finalised now the views of the families affected have been taken into account and are published today on the independent investigation (Independent Investigation into East Kent Maternity Services: https://iiekms.org.uk/) and NHSE website (www. england.nhs.uk/publication/independent-investigation-into-east-kent-maternity-services-terms-of-reference). The terms of reference include the scope and arrangements that are to be put in place to support its functions and confirm the independent investigation will examine maternity and neonatal services in East Kent, in the period since 2009, when the trust came into being, until 2020. The terms of reference include the scope and arrangements that are to be put in place and confirm the independent investigation will examine maternity and neonatal services in East Kent, in the period since 2009, when the trust came into being, until 2020.
The independent investigation will draw conclusions as to the adequacy of the actions taken at the time by the trust and the wider system and will produce a report to be disclosed first to the affected families and then to NHSEI as the commissioning organisation, and then to the Department of Health and Social Care prior to publication.
The work of the independent investigation is expected to complete by the autumn of 2022 and arrangements will be made for the final report to be presented to the Secretary of State; Ministers will subsequently publish the report to Parliament, and a response will be provided in due course.
A copy of the terms of reference will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS840]
Building Safety
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I have undertaken to provide the House with a monthly building safety update.
On 10 February I announced my five-point plan to bring an end to unsafe cladding:
1. The Government will pay for the removal of unsafe cladding for leaseholders in all residential buildings 18 metres and over (six storeys) in England
2. Generous finance scheme to provide reassurance for leaseholders in buildings between 11 and 18 metres (four to six storeys), ensuring they never pay more than £50 a month for cladding removal
3. An industry levy and tax to ensure developers play their part
4. A world-class new safety regime to ensure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again
5. Providing confidence to this part of the housing market including lenders and surveyors
We have committed an unprecedented £5 billion investment in building safety. This will ensure taxpayer funding is targeted at the highest-risk buildings in line with long-standing independent expert advice.
Remediation statistics
Today we have published the February 2021 data release on the remediation of unsafe cladding and the monthly building safety fund registration statistics.
These data releases show we are continuing to make good progress on the remediation of unsafe cladding, with around 95% of all high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding identified by the beginning of last year now either remediated or started on site. Also, 100% of social sector buildings and 84% of private sector buildings have now started or completed remediation. Overall, 74% of all identified buildings have removed their ACM cladding, an increase of 17 since the end of January.
Our expectation is that unsafe ACM remediation should be completed as soon as possible and by the end of 2021 at the latest. Full details of our progress with cladding remediation can be found in the Department’s monthly building safety data release, which can be accessed here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-safety-programme-monthly-data-release-february-2021.
As at 11 March 2021, the building safety fund registration statistics show that 978 decisions have been made on the basis that sufficient supporting information has now been received. Of these, 624 registered buildings are proceeding with a full application and 354 have been shown to be ineligible. The total amount of funding allocated is £226.8 million (including social sector) correct at 05/03/2021. Full details can be accessed here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/remediation-of-non-acm-buildings#building-safety-fund-registration-statistics.
Enforcement
I am also today informing the House of a change to the contingent liability for the provision of an indemnity for the joint inspection team (JIT), as was previously set out in my Department’s statements and associated departmental minutes, Official Report, 11 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 9-10WS. and Official Report, 25 June 2019; Vol. 662, c. 28-29WS.
The purpose of the JIT has been to provide support to local authorities in making hazard assessments of high-rise residential buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding and then to provide advice to local authorities on enforcement action. The change extends the cover provided by the indemnity to advice to local authorities on high-rise residential buildings with all other types of unsafe cladding too.
I am laying a departmental minute providing further detail of the change to the contingent liability.
[HCWS842]
Commercial Property: Rent Arrears
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
I am today informing the House that I have laid a statutory instrument that will extend the moratorium on commercial landlords’ right to forfeiture for the non-payment of rent (section 82, Coronavirus Act 2020). The moratorium that was due to expire on 31 March 2021 has been extended via statutory instrument by three months and will now expire on 30 June 2021, protecting businesses from eviction. This will protect employment as businesses reopen and many more individuals, including renters, can return to work.
In addition, the Ministry of Justice will also lay a statutory instrument to extend the restriction on the use of the commercial rent arrears process by landlords. This measure will increase the total number of days’ outstanding rent required for the commercial rent arrears process to be used to 457 days between 25 March and 23 June, and 554 days between 24 and 30 June. This measure will continue to provide protection to tenants of commercial leases with rent arrears accumulated during the coronavirus period, while protections from forfeiture for business tenancies are in place under the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Accompanying restrictions on the service of statutory demands and winding-up petitions, implemented through the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, are currently in place until 31 March. We are conscious of the impact of those measures not remaining in place while others are extended; the Government are therefore considering the future of these measures in the light of what has been announced today.
The Government had previously announced that the previous extension until 31 March 2021 would be the final extension to these measures. However, this was before the discovery of the new UK variant of covid-19 and the national restrictions announced by the Prime Minister on 4 January 2021. These restrictions have prevented many tenant businesses from being able to trade normally and have undermined negotiations regarding rent arrears and ongoing lease terms because tenants have lacked certainty regarding when they may be able to resume trading. This has necessitated the introduction of a further extension to give time for the current national restrictions to be relaxed and for tenants to be able to negotiate with their landlords with some certainty over their ability to trade and so pay rent and accumulated rent arrears, given some businesses will only reopen in June at the earliest under the Prime Minister’s road map.
We are aware of concerns that some tenants who could pay rent are refusing to do so, and of the potential impact of this on the commercial landlord and investment sectors, and on specific sectors who receive much of their income via rent, including the ports sector.
However, the Government are clear that this measure is not a rent holiday: where a tenant is unable to pay in full, landlords and tenants should be coming together to negotiate in good faith, using the principles set out in the voluntary code of practice we published in June. This recommends that those tenants who can pay in full should do so, those who cannot should pay what they can, and those landlords who are able to grant concessions should do so. This code of practice and approach was supported by a wide range of sector bodies representing tenants and landlords. The Government will be publishing further guidance to support this code and help facilitate negotiations between landlords and tenants shortly.
Beyond this point, the Government’s current position is to support landlords and tenants to agree their own arrangements for paying or writing off commercial rent debts by 30 June. This is supported by the code of conduct published by the Government last year, setting out best practice for these negotiations. But if these discussions do not happen and there remains a significant risk to jobs, the Government are also prepared to take further steps.
We will therefore launch shortly a call for evidence on commercial rents to help monitor the overall progress of negotiations between tenants and landlords. The call for evidence will also set out potential steps that the Government could take after 30 June, ranging from a phased withdrawal of current protections to legislative options targeted at those businesses most impacted by covid-19. We would welcome a broad range of feedback to this call for evidence.
England, Northern Ireland and Wales are covered by the protection from forfeiture provisions in the Coronavirus Act. Section 82 relates to England and Wales, and the Welsh Government have announced an extension until 30 June 2021. Section 83 relates to Northern Ireland, who are also considering a similar extension. The Scottish Government shall be implementing similar measures under their separate legislation.
If a Member has any further inquiries by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, the Department will be happy to provide a response.
[HCWS844]
Residential Property: Evictions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I wish to update the House on the measures taken to support renters following the Prime Minister’s announcement of the roadmap for national restrictions in England.
To support renters as we move towards the lifting of most restrictions in June, the Government announced yesterday that we will extend the ban on bailiff enforcement of evictions and the requirement for landlords to provide six months’ notice when seeking possession of residential property. These measures will be extended to 31 May, to continue to protect public health and minimise the effect on essential public services. Exemptions will continue to apply to both of these measures in the most serious circumstances.
Ensuring that renters remain protected until the end of May, while national restrictions remain in place, will align with the Government’s broader strategy for protecting public health and will continue to help reduce pressure on essential public services as we start to move out of lockdown.
The ban on bailiff enforcement
Legislation will be brought forward shortly to continue to prevent bailiffs from attending residential premises to enforce a writ or warrant of possession except in the most egregious circumstances.
I am grateful to landlords for their continued forbearance during this unprecedented time. It will remain important for landlords to be able to advance cases in the most serious circumstances, and therefore exemptions will remain for:
cases where the court is satisfied that the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown;
cases where the court is satisfied that the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, nuisance or false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies or substantial rent arrears at least equivalent to six months’ rent; or
where the property is unoccupied and the court is satisfied that the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of death of the tenant.
These measures only apply to England and they are expected to end on 31 May 2021, as we transition out of emergency measures, subject to public health advice and progress of the national road map.
Longer notice periods
A landlord seeking to recover possession of residential property must give notice to the tenant before they start court proceedings. We know that many tenants will leave accommodation at the end of their notice period, before the case reaches court. The Government laid yesterday a statutory instrument to extend measures in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that require landlords to provide tenants with six months’ notice, except in the most serious circumstances. The statutory instrument applies to England only.
This means that most renters served notice during April and May will be able to stay in their homes until October and November, giving them time to find support or alternative accommodation.
Shorter notice periods will continue to apply for egregious cases, recognising the continuing effect these circumstances have on landlords and the broader community. These cases include antisocial behaviour (including rioting), false statement, in certain cases of domestic abuse in the social sector, rent arrears over six months, where the tenant has passed away or where the tenant does not have the right to rent under immigration law. This approach provides balance for both landlords and tenants during the ongoing risk of covid-19, by continuing to provide tenants with enhanced protections while allowing landlords access to justice quicker where proportionate.
The Government will consider the best approach to tapering down notice periods from 1 June, taking into account public health requirements, progress with the road map and the longer-term transition into our broader programme of reform.
Guidance and wider support measures
We will update our covid-19 renting guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities to ensure it reflects the latest information. We will also update our guidance to support landlords and tenants in the social and private rented sectors navigate the possessions process.
The Chancellor has also confirmed that financial support will remain in place, continuing to support renters in paying their living costs. This will include the support for businesses to pay staff salaries through the coronavirus job retention scheme and the boost to universal credit, both of which have been extended until September 2021.
[HCWS843]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair, and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
International Women’s Day
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee takes note of International Women’s Day and the United Kingdom’s role in empowering women in the recovery from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to open this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lady Berridge, but I begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of Sarah Everard at this very difficult time for them. As the Home Secretary said today,
“every woman should feel safe to walk our streets without fear of harassment or violence.”
This Government have committed to protecting women and girls.
It is 110 years since the first International Women’s Day was marked. I am sure that today we will hear many inspiring examples of women who have advocated for gender equality. I thank particularly the many women working tirelessly in the response to Covid-19 around the world. Covid-19 is the biggest challenge that the UK has faced in decades, and everyone across the country has been hit by its impact. We know that much of the extra pressure of balancing work with childcare and home schooling has fallen on women, and we are working to ensure that opportunities such as the increase in flexible working open up new possibilities as we move forward. Women have been at the forefront of the fight against the virus, and we will ensure that they are at the centre of the Covid-19 recovery as we build back better.
Throughout Covid-19, the Government have worked hard to provide a comprehensive package of support to protect businesses and individuals during this unprecedented time. Across almost all areas of economic policy, we are providing comparable or even greater support than all our international peers. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has been extended until the end of September 2021 for all parts of the UK, and the Government have provided generous support to the self-employed during the Covid-19 pandemic through the Self-employment Income Support Scheme.
As I noted, we recognise that this has been a challenging time for parents balancing work, childcare and remote learning. We continue to support families with their childcare costs, and we have set out to spend more than £3.6 billion on early years entitlements in 2020-21. Furthermore, last November the Chancellor announced a £44 million investment in 2021-22 for local authorities to increase hourly rates paid to childcare providers. We have taken action to align key tax-free childcare and 30 hours’ free childcare entitlements with government coronavirus job support schemes, ensuring that parents receiving support through these vital schemes remain eligible for support with childcare costs, even if their income falls below the normal minimum limit.
We have also supported disadvantaged children and young people. The Government are investing over £400 million to support access to remote education and online social care, including securing 1.3 million laptops and tablets. As of 7 March, 1.2 million laptops and tablets have been delivered to schools, trusts, local authorities and further education providers.
We also recognise the hard work of carers, who are continuing their caring responsibilities during these challenging times. We acknowledge that women deliver a greater share of caring in our society. Carer’s allowance is available to provide a measure of financial support and recognition for people who give up the opportunity of full-time employment to provide regular, substantial care for severely disabled people. We have also introduced two important measures until May 2021 to help unpaid carers through the pandemic. The first is the ability to continue to claim carer’s allowance if they have a temporary break in caring because they or the person they care for gets coronavirus, or if either has to isolate because of it. The second is clarification that providing emotional support to a person in need of care can also count towards the carer’s allowance threshold of 35 hours of care a week.
Alongside support for parents, children and carers, the health of women and girls continues to be a priority. It is important to highlight that women have been at the forefront of the fight against the virus, whether that is working to keep people safe in the NHS or keeping the country provided for in the retail sector, with 77% of the NHS workforce and 82% of the social care workforce being female. Throughout the pandemic, women have been at the front line, ensuring that people stay safe and receive the care they need.
As for vaccines, overall, we have been encouraged by the Covid vaccine uptake, with, as of today, 22.8 million people in the UK having now received their first vaccination. We appreciate, however, that work still needs to be done to address the inequalities of take-up, particularly with certain groups around race, religion and sex. As a result, we have developed the UK Covid-19 vaccine plan, which has four key factors to increase uptake: working in partnership; removing barriers; data and information; and, just as important, conversations and engagement.
Alongside this, we are working hard to support pregnant women in the workplace. Employers should regularly review their risk assessments for all pregnant workers and implement any controls needed to support employees. If the employer cannot put in place necessary controls identified by their risk assessment, they should ask the pregnant worker to remain at home on full pay, in line with the long-standing health and safety law. The Covid-19 outbreak has not changed the law on pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and there is no place for it under any circumstances.
We are also aware of the inequalities for women and babies from different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic groups. That is why, in September 2020, the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health established the Maternity Inequalities Oversight Forum, bringing together experts from key stakeholders to address issues such as disparities in maternal mortality. The Race Disparity Unit has also met a number of stakeholders over the past few months, including academics, midwife practitioners from regional trusts and public health experts, to develop joint solutions to this issue.
On women’s mental health, it is okay not to feel okay during this difficult time, and we will support everyone in getting the help they need. We encourage everyone to make use of the resources that are out there; for example, Every Mind Matters. The NHS has worked hard to keep mental health services open throughout the pandemic, using technology where needed, but also face-to-face appointments where appropriate. We have invested over £10 million in supporting national and local mental health charities to continue their vital work in supporting people across the country. The well-being and mental health support plan includes a commitment, backed by £50 million, to ensure good-quality discharge for mental health service users from in-patient settings. We also announced in the spending review that the NHS will receive around an additional £500 million next year to address waiting times for mental health services, giving more people the mental health support they need, and to invest in the NHS workforce.
As we look to build back better, we must consciously reflect how Covid-19 has presented an opportunity to reform and improve our approach to how work is organised and accessed. We must retain the positive cultural shifts around flexible working, including in workforces where it was previously unthinkable. As part of this, we want to see more employers offering measures such as flexible working and returners programmes, which we know can improve career prospects for both women and men.
Our behavioural insights research with Zurich, which made every job available on a flexible or part-time basis, showed a 16% rise in female applicants for all jobs and a 20% rise for senior roles. We will be building on that insight in our further work on women’s economic empowerment. That includes supporting our female entrepreneurs. The Government have set an ambitious target of increasing the number of female entrepreneurs by half by 2030, equivalent to 600,000 new entrepreneurs. When we meet young women in schools around the country, we see aspirational, motivated and hard-working people driven to succeed.
The Government are committed to making the UK the best place for women to start and grow a business. That includes the launch of a new voluntary Investing in Women Code to increase the transparency of support given to female entrepreneurs and expose the gender gap in investment. The Future Fund has committed over £1 billion to supporting 1,055 high-growth companies across the country, of which 77 have mixed-gender management teams, compared with the Female Founders report, which found that only 10% of venture capital was going to mixed-gender teams in 2019. We are continuing to look at ways in which we can reach out to all aspiring female entrepreneurs across the country and provide the support and advice that they need to grow their business.
We are also ensuring that our trade policy addresses the barriers that women face in trading internationally. Central to our approach is co-operating with our trading partners to advance women’s economic empowerment through our free trade agreements and beyond.
We know that there is much more to do to improve the lives of women and girls around the world. That is why we have committed to putting gender equality and fairness at the heart of our G7 presidency, driving progress on educating girls, empowering women and ending violence against women and girls. We will use the G7 presidency to unite leading democracies in helping the world to build back better from coronavirus to create a fairer, greener and more prosperous future for all.
We announced earlier this week that our presidency will also see us convening an independent gender equality advisory council to bring new voices to the heart of the G7 discussions. My honourable friend the Member for South West Norfolk will be the ministerial lead. We want to bring together individuals with diverse experiences and perspectives on gender equality, with a key theme for the council being “women fixing the world”. The G7’s continued global leadership on gender equality is integral to our values at home and is a global force for good. I look forward to the council ensuring that the core principles of freedom, choice, opportunity and individual humanity and dignity are integrated across our international agenda.
Through our COP 26 presidency we will champion inclusivity and amplify the voices of those who are most marginalised, and we will support a green, inclusive and resilient recovery. Our co-leadership on the Generation Equality Action Coalition on Gender-Based Violence will make clear that gender-based violence is both unacceptable and, crucially, preventable, and so we must act with urgency.
I will take a moment to highlight our 12 years of education commitment. Twelve years of quality education for girls around the world is one of the most transformational development interventions, and it is a major priority for this Government. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK supported at least 15.6 million children in gaining a decent education, over half of whom were girls. We will use our G7 presidency this year to rally the international community to step up support for girls’ education, and the UK, along with Kenya, will host the financing summit of the Global Partnership for Education in July.
I say again that I am proud to participate in today’s debate with so many advocates of equality for women. I am proud to be part of this Government. It is an honour to play my part in the work that we are doing to build back better, fighting for equality for women both here in the UK and across the world.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
It is pleasure to follow the Minister who opened the debate, and I am sure that we all associate ourselves with her remarks regarding Sarah Everard. Our thoughts are with her and her family today.
As we mark International Women’s Day, I believe it is crucial that we recognise the contribution of older women and do more to raise awareness of the challenges and issues they face in their daily lives.
The United Nations and the Commonwealth take these matters seriously. The Commonwealth charter commits its members to core principles of mutual respect and inclusiveness and is opposed to all forms of discrimination, including ageism. The United Nations is working towards a convention for older people as a means of strengthening older people’s rights, showing how seriously it regards the matter.
Nearer home, I want to draw attention to the position in Wales, where, thanks to a Welsh Labour Government, we have had a commissioner for older people since 2008. This is a world first. The commissioner, Heléna Herklots, is independent of government and is a strong voice for older people; her voice has been crucial during the pandemic.
Older women make an enormous contribution to our economy as taxpayers, to our communities as volunteers, and to our families by providing much needed unpaid care and childcare, which often goes unheralded. Despite this contribution, many older women continue to live in poor health, in poverty or to experience abuse. In addition to facing discrimination on the basis of their age, many older women continue to face the sexism they have experienced throughout their lives.
Covid has exasperated this state of affairs. Thousands of older women experience abuse: a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, which causes harm or distress. In 2018-19, over 25,000 incidents of suspected abuse or neglect were reported to local authorities in Wales, of which 52% related to people over the age of 65. This data suggests that older people experience higher levels of abuse than other groups.
It is essential that older women at risk of or experiencing abuse can access the support they need to ensure they are safe and protected. However, previous polling undertaken on behalf of the commissioner found that one in five older women would not know where to go to get support if they were being abused.
Lockdown has been a particularly difficult time for older people who experience abuse. The prevalence of abuse has probably increased during this period, as older women have been spending more time confined to their homes and have seen significant changes to their normal routines
I have drawn attention to how older people in Wales benefit from having a commissioner providing a strong, independent voice. Anyone who cares to look can see the advantages of that. Unfortunately, older people in England do not have such a voice. I have asked the Government what plans they have for appointing a commissioner for older people in England. I have been told there are no such plans, and it seems to me that they are not even thinking about it.
I ask the Minister today, as we celebrate International Women’s Day, to do all in her power to inform the Government how beneficial a commissioner for older people would be. It would be such a support, especially for older women during this pandemic, and would empower them in the recovery from the impact of Covid-19.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important International Women’s Day debate, as it comes at a troubling time. I too spare a thought for Sarah Everard’s family and their loss.
When we consider the impact of the pandemic on women, we must also consider the impact on children, because the experiences of children and their mothers are intertwined. As I always say: childhood lasts a lifetime. We women need to nurture and protect children, now more than ever. Yet many vulnerable women are being subjected to exploitation and domestic violence, or suffering from mental health problems which affect their children too. Will the Government create a Cabinet-level Minister for children, because this pandemic will come to define today’s generation of children, just like the Second World War defined an earlier generation?
Even before the pandemic there was a crisis in our children’s mental health. Last year, official figures from NHS England showed that one in six young people had mental health problems. Children have been out of school for many months, away from friends and family, and unable to play or take part in sports. Some children, especially those from black, Asian and minority communities, have suffered bereavement. Many have experienced their parents becoming increasingly anxious about finances, the virus, and balancing work and childcare.
Some 76% of Barnardo’s front-line workers said that they were supporting families who needed to use food banks, community kitchens or welfare. As a vice-president of Barnardo’s—here I declare an interest—I am proud that the charity, along with many others, has played a role in addressing these issues, distributing £350,000-worth of food packages, helping to pay families’ electricity and gas bills, paying for laptops so that children can learn from home, plus providing well-being packs to help with mental health issues.
Another effect of the pandemic on children is the loss of learning and, in particular, the widening of the education gap for the most vulnerable. Home learning is fine if you have your own room and your own computer, with parents who are able to help, but it is very different if you are sharing a room and have one smartphone among three siblings.
There is also a heightened risk of harm to children at home, both online and in the community. Many are trapped at home with adults who are abusive to them or to each other. With both children and predators spending more time online, more children are at risk of grooming or of being coerced into sharing naked images of themselves. On top of this, we have children not feeling safe at home and so hanging out on the streets, at the mercy of gangs looking to exploit them.
During the pandemic, Barnardo’s led a Department for Education-funded programme called See, Hear, Respond. The programme worked with over 80 partners, including small and community-led charities, reaching over 65,000 vulnerable children and young people who do not qualify for statutory support. It carries out vital work: 60% of referrals relate to mental health issues and the focus is on helping children reintegrate into education, keeping them well and safe from gangs. So why have the Government decided not to fund the programme beyond the end of this month? It could play a vital role in helping vulnerable children to adapt back into school and stay safe from harm.
Covid has taken a huge toll on women and the children they love. It is absolutely vital that the Government put families at the heart of the recovery, which must include long-term funding for vital services. It should also mean working differently with partners, including charities, to use our combined resources more effectively to make sure that we deliver the support our communities need to thrive and bring optimism into people’s lives.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, on Sunday I received an email from a young friend to let me know that one of her closest friends from university was missing and asking whether there was anything I could do to help. Tragically, we now know what has happened to that friend and I cannot start my speech without acknowledging the agony that Sarah Everard’s family and friends are experiencing today—and the fear so many more women are now experiencing as a result of this awful tragedy.
I made my maiden speech in the International Women’s Day debate 10 years ago. The Chamber was a very different place—nerve-wracking—but some things do not change. I think I have spoken in every International Women’s Day debate since then: often, depending on the electoral cycle, on women in Parliament; fairly regularly on the struggles faced by women in the developing world; always counting my blessings to have been born a free woman here in this wonderful, generous country.
However, this year’s topic—empowering women in the recovery from the impact of the pandemic—takes me to a different focus. There is no question that women have had a disproportionately difficult time during the pandemic. Many of the household burdens have fallen more heavily on their shoulders, and more of them have lost jobs and taken on additional caring duties. On top of this, the pressures of home schooling have stretched many women to breaking point. The Library briefing for today’s debate paints a gloomy picture. Yet women’s natural resilience will play a valuable role when the bounce-back comes, as it surely will soon.
Many people’s health, both mental and physical, has suffered over the last year, but I will focus my remarks on the particular health issues that women have suffered, largely in silence, for generations, in part because we have lived with a healthcare system designed by men, for men. Women across the country will be delighted by the first government-led health strategy for England, announced on Monday in the other place by the Health Minister. I also welcome plans for a new sexual and reproductive health strategy, to be announced later this year.
Despite women making up 51% of the population, we still know little and talk even less about some female-specific issues. The average woman’s life cycle from birth, through puberty, childbearing and menopause, can include miserable health experiences. An end-to-end look will include, and this list is far from exhaustive: painful and heavy periods; premenstrual stress; cystitis; thrush; endometriosis, which can take up to eight years to diagnose; painful sex; and pregnancy-related and postnatal issues, including the fact that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage—crippling in pain and grief. Then there are the common female cancers such as breast, ovarian and cervical, and then the menopause.
Over 30 years ago, when I was pregnant and my own hormones were in turmoil, I ran a charity focusing on the menopause and research into HRT—such a blessing for so many women whose lives were blighted by the symptoms of the menopause. I was shocked to attend a meeting recently at which it became clear that the situation in terms of knowledge and support is no better today than it was then. The life cycle then moves on to osteoporosis, linked to oestrogen deficiency —a miserable broken-bones end to what can be a horrible life for so many women in terms of their health. This is about not just individual health but the cost to communities and to our economy, which will be so crucial as we move forward out of the pandemic.
The call for evidence for the health strategy, running until 30 May, is based around six core themes, which cut across different areas of women’s health, and seeks to examine women’s experiences of the whole health and care system, including mental health, disabilities and healthy ageing. I think this is a first in my lifetime. The form is easy to fill in. I urge women to do so and to benefit from this very welcome initiative.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will focus on the international dimension of International Women’s Day and talk about the work of the UK development agency Voluntary Service Overseas—VSO—and its work with women and girls in the context of the Covid pandemic. I declare my interest as a former volunteer for VSO’s Parliamentary Volunteering programme, for which I completed a placement in Peru, working with women’s organisations on domestic and sexual violence.
VSO has been working throughout the pandemic to reach marginalised women and girls, ensuring that they are not doubly disadvantaged by the effects of the pandemic and that they are at the centre of Covid response and recovery work. The pandemic has seen an increase in gender-based violence around the world. VSO’s networks of community volunteers have been able to mobilise quickly to raise awareness of the rights of women and girls not to experience such violence, using social media platforms, which also help victims seek access to justice and support. This has led to increased rates of reporting, as well as helping to build their resilience so that they can contribute more broadly to post-Covid recovery.
But VSO faces an immediate, urgent problem, as its funding is now under threat from the aid cuts at the FCDO. Over the past four years, VSO has received a major volunteering for development grant to support work in global health, inclusive education and resilient livelihoods. The current phase ends on 31 March, so noble Lords will appreciate the urgency here. A renewed grant would allow VSO to continue and expand its work supporting girls’ education, sexual and reproductive health rights and building inclusive global health systems, but despite its A+ rating, confirmation from the FCDO on future funding has not yet been forthcoming. This does not seem aligned with the repeated statements we frequently hear from Ministers in the Chamber that girls’ education and combating gender-based violence are of the utmost priority in the FCDO.
VSO is a British institution, embodying the values of UK aid, and UK volunteers showcase the best of UK values. If the grant was not renewed it would mean in practice that the UK Government would, in effect, be closing down their support for international volunteering action, just at the time when volunteering has been shown to be an effective means of enabling highly contextualised local responses to complex global challenges, including the Covid-19 response and the delivery of the sustainable development goals. It would bring to a sudden and abrupt end a 60-year strategic partnership between VSO and the UK Government. Covid-19 response work in 18 countries would have to cease, closing up to 14 country programmes and making nearly 200 staff redundant.
Will the Minister undertake to look at the specific case of VSO’s grant? More broadly, will she set out how the Government intend to support the UK volunteering for development sector in its work to empower women and girls to be part of the Covid recovery and response around the world?
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am really sorry for you all, but I will follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. VSO changed my life. It gave me opportunities to learn about myself and the world, and to commit myself to a lifelong interest in the developing world and how we change things, particularly for girls and women. I went on VSO when I was 21 and spent two years in Kenya. I have subsequently done other things with VSO: I also did the parliamentary scheme in Tanzania in 2008 and I served in VSO’s governance for over 10 years until a couple of years ago.
VSO is the primary development agency used by this Government for volunteering. It is the primary development agency for pushing volunteering around the world. I had the honour to be in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia for the signing of the first memorandum of understanding with the African Union two years ago. The African Union recognised the sustainable development goal on volunteering and saw, with so many young people in Africa without jobs and almost without opportunity, that volunteering was critical.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, despite the pandemic, VSO’s work has continued on tackling Covid and those things that women and girls have been particularly susceptible to in recent months and years. There are some remarkable examples of the work it has done. I have talked to volunteers who were back from the ICS programme but still keeping in contact with people in the developing world, and to some of the national volunteers in those countries where VSO works. Those national volunteers were working in their own communities, reaching out to women and girls about gender-based violence, and reaching out to their local communities about what Covid really meant, trying to demystify all the myths that had grown up. We know about them here too.
The reality is that young national volunteers are transformed by their experience of being trained and supported by VSO to work in their local communities. I have met groups of women, mainly from east Africa, but also from other places in Africa, who are now absolutely determined to make a difference and to be leaders in their own communities and countries. The Government are in danger of throwing this away because they do not recognise the importance of making a decision quickly. This decision has been hanging on for more than a year; VSO was expecting to get approval in January 2020. Now the money will run out at the end of this month—and nothing. There is no commitment, just, “Oh, we don’t want to close you down but we’re not ready to take a decision.”
VSO will go by default if the Government do not take a decision because it needs the money to do the work. That will have enormous consequences for people involved in the developing world who work on this, but also for Britain’s reputation because VSO is, rightly, working with Governments around the Commonwealth: in Africa and India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and elsewhere, including Nepal. It is very well respected and loved there, and the Government are not ensuring its continuation. I suspect they will say, “We are not closing you down, we’re just putting it on pause”—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the four-minute speaking time.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
I am sorry I have gone on. It matters to me; I hope it matters to the Government because they are making a real problem for themselves but they could sort it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords—or should I say “my Ladies and Lords” in this debate?—I feel a little like the forlorn hope on the outside here, being the first of the male of the species to speak. The subject that brings me to this debate is one which I have touched on over many years, and I remind the Committee of my interests. It is those with neurodiverse conditions. These start with dyslexia, which is the biggest group, but there is an impressive list to run down: attention deficit disorder, the various parts of the autism spectrum, dyscalculia, dyspraxia—the list goes on.
What has happened traditionally is that the diagnoses among males were far greater than among females. These were seen in the past to be male-dominated conditions. We now know that this is not true. Indeed, with dyslexia, we have touched a little barrier since we are now getting almost as many females diagnosed as males. The Government might take some pride from that but we should realise that we are still missing the vast majority, even while doing it in a gender-balanced way.
The real problem comes with the other conditions such as autism, dyscalculia and dyspraxia—try saying all of those without stumbling. Many of the conditions and the ways that people express them tend to be more prominent in males, especially when it comes to people who are higher functioning—the condition does not impair them quite so much. We think this is not because of the male or female brain but because that is taught behaviour.
Somebody with ADHD who is male tends to act out; they tend to be seen and will disrupt the classroom, where we would first hope to spot that. It has been said that a girl with this condition has been told, “You don’t—you internalise it and keep things down.” She may express the problem by doing things such as playing with her hair, or little tics such as constantly organising her desk. A boy with autism who puts a train set across the middle of his floor, where everybody can see it, in exactly the right order is obvious; a girl who brushes the hair of her dolls 100 times each and every night, obsessively, is not.
Again, the odd thing about it is that where the condition is milder and intervention can enable them to interact with society better is also where you miss it. This is because we are not training people to spot it, or spot it well enough; they wait until something comes out and shouts at them. It has been described to me as like someone saying “Pick out the equine quadrupeds” when you are trained only to recognise zebras: you only see the obvious.
I can go on about this issue at considerable length but I have only 40 seconds left—less now. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this. During lockdown, restrictions have been placed on education. There will be more, shall we say, misdiagnosis and a greater lack of awareness about this problem than there is now. I hope that the Government will take this on board and start to address it because it is vital, for these people to function in later life and avoid things such as mental health problems, for them to be spotted and told about the condition so that they can put coping strategies in place.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, as we have heard, the Covid-19 pandemic, like all emergencies, has affected women and girls disproportionately. There are worrying signs that the hard-won gains on gender equality we have seen in recent years are being reversed. There has been a huge increase in the burden of unpaid care work. Across the world, millions of girls will not return to school, and we are witnessing a terrible rise in child marriage and gender-based violence. We are seeing this here in the UK and across the world. Today, I will focus my remarks on the UK’s important role in empowering women internationally.
We have seen some good global news for the rights of women and girls in recent months, including the legalisation of abortion in Argentina and, in the US, the swift and welcome progress on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Sadly, however, this progress has not been universal. For example, Poland has seen the imposition of a near-total ban on abortion. We know that making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions—it just makes them less safe. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me what representations the UK has made on this issue to the Polish Government, and what support our embassy in Poland has been giving to the people fighting for their basic right to have control over their own bodies?
The UK has been globally recognised as a development superpower and a strong champion for gender equality in all corners of the world. However, this work and reputation is at risk as the Government plan to cut their aid budget by 30%, breaking our manifesto and legal commitment. The amount being saved is less than 1% of what the Chancellor is rightly spending on the Covid-19 response, but these cuts will cause irrevocable harm to millions of the most marginalised women and girls in the world. Existing projects that have proven effective and excellent value for money face huge cuts or closure. These programmes provide access to life-changing contraception and invest in women’s economic empowerment; we have heard powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Armstrong, on the brilliant work of the VSO for women and girls. Unless it gets an answer soon, VSO could be a terrible victim of these cuts; surely the Government need to react urgently to this.
New initiatives, such as the expansion of the UK’s globally recognised work that proves what ends violence against women, or a desperately needed new fund that would invest directly in women’s rights organisations, may never start. I am pleased that education remains a priority but, unless we continue our investment in the broader policies around gender, we will not achieve the ambitious goals that the Government have set. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether any analysis has been made of the gendered impact of the aid cuts? At the very least, I hope that there has been proper consideration of the impact that these huge cuts will have on the lives of millions of women and girls.
I am pleased to hear the Government confirm their commitment to DfID’s Strategic Vision for Gender Equality, and I warmly welcome the convening of the gender equality advisory council for the G7. We need a similar focus at COP 26. We must ensure that gender policy is at the centre of our efforts.
The rights and the futures of women and girls all around the world are under threat from the pandemic. The Government must seize the opportunity to be a genuine force for good and a key part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. We must keep our promise to women and girls around the world.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, we have heard many complaints this week about the effect of the pandemic on women’s potential. The men who have made the relevant decisions are likely to have non-working wives and nannies, and have been oblivious to the reality. However, there is also much to celebrate. There has been a surprising coming to the fore of women’s skills in science and leadership, previously unseen but present. History may look back on this pandemic era as one that was a turning point for women.
If Captain Tom deserved a knighthood for his support for the NHS then Professor Sarah Gilbert, the Oxford vaccine pioneer, should be beatified. She took up her post in 1994, looking at the genetics of malaria, and became a professor at the Jenner Institute, researched flu, then Ebola, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and now Covid. Her team is two-thirds female and she, a mother of triplets, is now working to understand the barriers to promotion to senior levels that women face at Oxford. I also congratulate Dr Jenny Harries, and Kate Bingham, who was responsible for the great vaccine procurement.
Then there is Özlem Türeci, co-founder of BioNTech, which produced the Pfizer vaccine. Women make up 54% of her total workforce and 45% of top management. She is reported as thinking that being a gender-balanced team has been critical to developing the vaccine so quickly. The WHO chief scientist is a woman, Soumya Swaminathan, and the senior vice-president at Pfizer is Kathrin Jansen, who also worked on an HPV vaccine. Time does not permit me to mention many others who have taken the lead, despite the fact that Covid restrictions have impinged on women’s research and publication time. Happily in this past year more women have applied to take science, technology, engineering and maths courses. The number applying to higher education for health-related courses rose by 27%, mostly women, and it is the same for nursing.
Mostly, but not in every case, countries led by women have handled Covid better than those led by men: Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, PM Jakobsdóttir in Iceland, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen and Prime Minister Marin of Finland. Of course, this is not universal: we have the walking disaster of Ursula von der Leyen, and vaccine has been Mrs Merkel’s nemesis. However, the typical female approach of caution, care for the elderly, empathy, appreciation of schooling and risk aversion have certainly proved winners for some. Those women are in countries that expect women to be independent and to have careers, which has to be contrasted with the default position in this country, especially in family law, that once a woman has found a partner she is exempt for ever more from supporting herself.
In the future we need to highlight how well women scientists have done and that the career is compatible with family life. We need to concentrate on how diseases may affect women differently from men, a topic explored in Criado Perez’s book Invisible Women. We need affordable—ideally free—childcare to be at the top of the list. We must give women free rein, which historically they have been given only when there is a war and they are needed or can work at home. Covid is a war and women have won it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
I have a confession to make: until I came to this place I had never heard of International Women’s Day, but I am now happy to celebrate it each year none the less. Our decisions are based on our experiences, and I want to discuss this issue from a personal perspective. I went to a girls’ grammar school in the Midlands, where most of my teachers were women. I did A-levels in maths and physics and wanted to be an engineer. My teachers were hugely supportive, and it was only last year that I learned that many of them were at Bletchley Park. I was the first in our family to go to university.
After my degree I decided to get a job in engineering, but with a new mortgage there were only so many times I could take, “We do not employ women”, so I trained to teach maths and the new subject of the time, computer studies. After children and a move to Cornwall, I was appointed as a non-executive director of an NHS trust, and I never looked back. I was empowered in one teaching job by a head teacher, a man, who accepted without question my recommendation that we bought 15 mini-computers, which was a huge chunk of his budget at that time, and by another head teacher, a woman, who regularly posted in my pigeon hole ads that she had cut out of the Times Educational Supplement, which was her way of ensuring that we looked to move on. These were all the nudges I needed as a self-starter, and several jobs in the not-for-profit sector later I find myself here.
So how do we best support those who need more than a nudge? I am a great believer in networks, formal and informal. Inviting a young woman where you work to a networking meeting could be all she needs to give herself confidence. With envy, I watch my children, who, thanks to social and professional online networks, have worldwide contacts. Since Covid, as I am briefed via meetings by hugely bright up-and-coming female civil servants sitting in their homes with a laptop on a table, I wonder how I could have coped juggling a job and home-teaching in lockdown. I hope that they keep their contacts as they move from job to job. LinkedIn and similar databases have really taken off in the pandemic, and I know that many young women have found work just that way.
What have we learned from the epidemic about empowering women? What could we do better in the future? We could accommodate flexible working and working from home. We could promote online and in-person networks. We could give start-up grants to female online business and work networks. We could put more women in the boardroom. We need to look at examples from elsewhere—who does it better? We could give young women who are jobseeking a mentor and pay them the same as men doing the same job.
What makes a woman come across as empowered? A sense of self-confidence; holding her own in any situation or in front of any audience; knowing what she is about and what she wants, and doing what she can to achieve it; being approachable and personable; having a presence. We all know that she probably did not get there on her own—behind her was a mentor or two who pointed her in the right direction. I know I valued those who pointed me there, shared a few home truths and watched from afar. I try to do for others what they did for me.
Baroness Brady (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to once again address this House on the subject of International Women’s Day and celebrate the progress that we continue to make on our long march to empowerment and equality.
This year has seen the emergence into the public consciousness of some remarkable female role models for us all to look up to. Take, for example—as so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—Professor Sarah Gilbert, the leading vaccinologist from Oxford University who helped to develop the vaccine that is fast-tracking the UK out of lockdown. I reflected that, while some of us were working out how to sneak into pubs in our misspent youth, Professor Gilbert was at home studying her chemistry books, and we must all be thankful that she was.
In my own industry of sport, this year’s Super Bowl headlines may have been about Tom Brady’s record seventh triumph, but the story that caught my eye was about Sarah Thomas, the first woman to officiate at a Super Bowl. This comes at a time when rewards for participants in sport are finally becoming more equal. A recent BBC study found that, of 37 sports offering prize money, only three did not offer comparable amounts to men and women in major tournaments—progress indeed, but we all need to do more.
In public service, we now have the first ever female director-general of the World Trade Organization, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, alongside Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, and Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President. But what about in business, the heartbeat of our political economy? On 1 March, Jane Fraser became the first female head of a major US bank, Citigroup, and Rosalind Brewer became the third black woman to run a Fortune 500 company, Walgreens Boots Alliance. These are all fantastic role models, and their success must be celebrated. Without their trail-blazing efforts, it would be much harder for other women to aspire and reach their potential.
However, these remarkable exemplars should not lead to any sense of complacency or the conclusion that the job is done. There is mounting evidence that this pandemic is setting back the cause of female economic empowerment. Half of women in the UK do not have sufficient childcare to enable them to work and 70% have had to work fewer hours, according to a recent survey of 20,000 women. Lean In and McKinsey’s recently released annual Women in the Workplace report showed that as many as 2 million women were either deprioritising their careers or exiting the workplace entirely as a result of the pandemic.
Even as we celebrate the ascent of these wonderful women to the highest echelons of public and commercial life, we must make sure that this pandemic does not render them the exception rather than the rule. We must use their success to inspire but also to change policy, culture and attitudes. Many of them are the first to do what they have done, but we must make sure that they are far from the last.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Noble Baronesses and noble Lords, today I wish to pay tribute to the women scientists who literally have saved the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has given me a lead by mentioning two of them.
SARS-CoV-2—a virus and the disease it causes—was first identified in China just over a year ago. The world did not know then how serious a pandemic was about to follow. It is an incredible feat for scientists to have developed vaccines against the virus in less than a year. The story of the science that led to that is remarkable.
While Brenner and Watson—two Nobel Prize winners —and others identified messenger RNA, it was hard to programme it and to get it into human cells. In 2005, Katalin Karikó, a Hungarian émigrée to the USA, showed how to tweak synthetic mRNA and get it into human cells. Her research was not thought important and she was not granted a professorship at the University of Pennsylvania. She was hoping to develop treatments for cancers, and her research excited many to try to develop cancer therapies. Among them was Özlem Türeci, a Turkish émigrée to Germany, a scientist and a doctor who, with her husband, founded the company BioNTech. A young scientist at Stanford University, on hearing of Karikó’s work, founded a company called Moderna—the name says it all—to develop cancer therapies. Karikó’s research also led to gene editing and earned Nobel Prizes for two women, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier.
With the outbreak of Covid-19, Türeci in Germany and Moderna in the USA switched their research to try to develop vaccines using messenger RNA. A young African-American woman scientist, named Kizzmekia “Kizzy” Corbett, working with Dr Fauci at the NIH laboratory, joined the team at Moderna, working to develop a vaccine for Covid-19. Türeci, BioNTech and Pfizer in Germany, and Kizzy and Moderna in the USA, developed the two mRNA vaccines.
As we have heard, before that, Professor Sarah Gilbert at Oxford—mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Brady—with experience of developing vaccines related to Ebola and MERS, started working day and night to develop a vector-based vaccine as soon as the genome of Covid-19 was known. It is said that she worked from 4 am until late at night. Her ambition was to develop a stable and cheap vaccine for Covid-19, so that the poor countries of the world could benefit. She achieved this in record time, with a vaccine now known as the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. I have personally benefitted from it, having had my first dose. Professor Sarah Gilbert is a remarkable scientist.
The science behind the development of these vaccines underpins other vaccines that are developed in other countries. These four women are the saviours of the world through the vaccines they helped develop. I hope they will all share a Nobel Prize.
Of course, there are many other remarkable women who have helped and continue to help the recovery from Covid—Professor Sharon Peacock from the University of Cambridge for one, and I hope she does not mind me calling her the “queen of genomic sequencing”. Her contribution to identifying mutations cannot be overstated. The fact that the UK leads in the genomic sequencing of Covid-19 is thanks to her.
Time does not allow me to speak about the many other women scientists and their contributions. We need more women to do STEM subjects and to go into science research, and more women in leadership positions in research. Currently, the numbers are less than 30%. What plans do the Government have to increase the number of girls doing STEM subjects and to increase the number of women in science research?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I watched the International Women’s Day address to the European Parliament by the New Zealand Prime Minister. She made some very clear points, including that
“Covid makes clear we are interdependent… no country is safe until all are safe…. the team is not five million New Zealanders but 7.8 billion worldwide… the pandemic has exacerbated structural inequalities between men and women”,
and that
“there is a ‘shadow pandemic’ of domestic violence”.
Here in the UK, before Covid, over 4 million children were living in poverty, which is 30%, or nine in a class of 30. The pandemic has caused jobs losses and insecurity. The poorest are suffering the most. Cardiff Women’s Centre reports that there is a clear relationship between gender and poverty, with women overrepresented in the poverty statistics. The Fawcett Society points out that 64% of the low-paid are women, that there are four times more women in part-time work than men, that women are more likely to receive lower rates of pay, that women are more likely to be single parents— that is nine out of 10—and that there are more child responsibilities and less chance of full-time employment. Department of Work and Pensions statistics reveal that 52% of children in single-parent families are poor, and, as the New Zealand Prime Minister stated, there is a shadow pandemic of domestic violence. We know from research by Refuge that an extra 1.6 million women in the UK suffered economic abuse during the pandemic.
During Covid, clearly women are suffering most. Household food insecurity was on the increase before the pandemic, according to the Food Foundation’s report, The Impact of Covid-19 on Household Food Security. Covid has left more struggling to afford or access a nutritious diet. The Food Foundation states:
“Households with children have been hit hard, with many children still falling through the cracks in support.”
The foundation also found evidence that:
“Covid-19 has dramatically widened inequalities in food security”.
The current picture is that 4.7 million adults—9%—experienced food insecurity in the past six months. There are 2.3 million children living in these households, which is 12% of households with children, and 41% of households with children on free school meals have experienced food insecurity in the past six months. From my earlier points it is clear that women are in more than a shadow pandemic of domestic violence; along with their children, they are also in one of food poverty.
The recent report Build Back Fairer: The Covid-19 Marmot Review made the point, in figure 2 on page 13, that the ratio of deaths of those limited due to longstanding health issues compared to those who were not meant that deaths were 2.4 times higher for females and 1.9 times higher for males from 2 March to 15 May 2020. That says an awful lot.
Before I finish, I have two international points regarding women. The Government pulling aid out of Afghanistan will lead to women being denied schooling and careers once the Taliban is back in charge. Is that what the British Armed Forces made sacrifices for? I was also very impressed to see the up-to-date briefing from MAG, the Mines Advisory Group. The effect of landmines on women and girls is catastrophic, be they directly affected or as a result of being widowed or carers. A growing number of MAG staff are women, over 1,000—more than 25%—across 25 countries. Will the Government commit to maintaining their investments in mine action?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I gave the Minister advance notice that I will speak about the need for a feminist UK foreign policy. She may be expecting me to major on the cutting of foreign aid below the 0.7% of GDP that is set in our law, but I assume that the Government will eventually have to stop breaking the law and bring a Bill to the House. While I am often thinking of the desperate women, men, and children of Yemen, pounded by our weapons and denied our aid, for the moment I will put that issue to one side.
Since this is the International Women’s Day debate, I want to think and speak more conceptually, particularly in the light of the announcement from the Biden Administration that their intention is to:
“Protect and empower women around the world”.
Across the channel, the French Government declare explicitly that they have a feminist foreign policy. I am not hearing the same terminology from the UK. But it is not really terminology that I am interested in, but policy and action.
Around the world, women and girls are increasingly using human rights law to try to force climate justice, from the Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection going to the European Court of Human Rights to the case that 16 children are taking to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
However, a feminist foreign policy goes well beyond protective action and positive action. It goes beyond steps such as those outlined to me earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in supporting access to modern methods of contraception. It is about a transformation of our economic and political systems. It is not just a case of doing some positive things but of reversing centuries of damaging choices and policies; millennia of assuming that humans and the natural world exist to serve that creation of a few—mostly male—humans: the market. It means not operating for the military-industrial complex, or the fossil fuel-finance complex, but making a world that creates a decent life for every individual, from every newborn baby to every centenarian, and that allows ecosystems to flourish and wildlife, for a start, to survive. A feminist foreign policy must be guided by Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. It means ending what the academic Karen Warren has called the “logic of domination”.
Some global progress is being made, notably in the increasing operationalisation of the rights to universal healthcare which have long been contained in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights—not, however, in the UK, where access to healthcare has been taken backwards for many non-citizens. But there is a growing understanding that we need to go beyond medicine and talk about the need for care societies—a concept with enormous potential, as demonstrated by the Women’s Budget Group’s plan for a care-led recovery from coronavirus.
I have talked largely in big abstract terms. What does all this mean in practice? It means caring for and welcoming refugees as survivors of our disastrous policies, large parts of their wealth having been robbed from them, rather than treating them as threats. It means stopping pumping vast quantities of arms into a world choked with them. Last year the UK was the world’s second-largest arms exporter: £11 billion of exported destruction. Many women, children and men will die as a result. It means acknowledging the historic and continuing massive damage of colonialism, and paying reparations for it; the frame of “loss and damage” at the COP 26 talks provides an important potential way forward.
What has been called the malestream—millennia of thinking of the planet as a mine and a dumping ground and people as an exploitable asset—has produced a maelstrom of destruction and a world on the edge of disaster. A feminist world can be one that lives within the physical limits of this one fragile planet while caring for all. Caring is key.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Please can you unmute, Lord Bradshaw? We still cannot hear you. I will move on to the next speaker while we try to sort you out. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in this important debate marking International Women’s Day on Monday, focusing particularly on the social and economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. I also thank my noble friend Lady Scott for her introduction.
I want particularly to say something about the challenge that the pandemic has posed to women’s mental health. I hope that, in closing, my noble friend the Minister will have something to say about this, and particularly about the resources that are being made available.
On average, even prior to the pandemic, women were more likely than men to experience mental health challenges. This has of course been accentuated by the pandemic. During the pandemic, woman have been more likely than men to experience being furloughed, which, although often necessary and on occasion welcome, will mean lower earnings than from the job that is furloughed. Women are more likely to have experienced loss of employment during the pandemic, with some sectors particularly vulnerable, such as retail, hospitality and food services. The switch of employment from shops to warehouses is, in practice, something that is unlikely to help women. All this of course contributes to mental health pressures. This is also true of additional caring responsibilities, which are likely to fall on women, whether for children at home or looking after older relatives. Pressures on finances during the pandemic also have to be factored in.
Your Lordships’ House is currently taking great pride, and rightly so, in the pioneering legislation that is making its way through the House, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is truly a remarkable landmark Bill, and it is much needed. Women—and it is generally, though not always, women who are the victims of domestic abuse—suffer horribly, and that situation has got far worse during lockdown and the pandemic. Often, women victims have been obliged to relive their experiences. This too contributes to mental health pressures. In the light of the importance of this legislation and the pioneering work we are doing, I would be grateful if my noble friend could say something about the resources that will be made available to deal with this accentuated problem.
I also want to take this opportunity to say something about the position beyond our shores, where we are committed to certain global challenges—although it has to be said that they are more challenging with reduced aid. One of them is girls’ education, which the Prime Minister has championed, committing our country to preventing exploitation and unlocking potential around the world. Indeed, we are set to co-host a major international summit in June, to seek to provide global action to educate all children. This is very welcome and, again, I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell us something about the preparatory work for this and the international commitments that we hope to get from the conference.
Action at home and abroad to end inequality globally is both necessary and welcome. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call again the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, my association with public transport, road and rail, extends back over nearly 70 years. When I first came to the railway, there were hardly any women employees, except in the roles of clerks and typists. It was the same on the buses, except there were clippies selling tickets. Public transport jobs were very dirty, and often either hot or cold. They were also oily and greasy and, in the case of the railways, sooty. During the past 50 years, there has been an accelerating transformation. That is what I want to celebrate today. There are woman right at the top of the industry and in all areas, such as civil and mechanical engineering. There is a wide range of entry routes, which enable the new entrant to reach the top, if they wish to do so.
Earlier this week, in the papers, we saw a young female train driver set off on her first intercity train, watched by her father, who was also a driver. She can progress, if she wishes, through the industry. The bus industry is the same, with the managing director of Stagecoach, our largest bus company, a female.
When I recently took my granddaughter, who was considering what she wished to do when she left school, to the Siemens training centre, I was amazed by the technology and by the fact that Siemens was prepared to offer her training that could lead her to chartered engineer status and to pay her while she was trained. The industry has wide training schemes at all levels and premises that you would be proud to work in. It has diagnostic tools that are able to spot defects and weaknesses wherever they occur in the track or the rolling stock. It has retained its furloughed staff, who are anxious to welcome passengers back. During the slack time, training and refresher training have continued to make the staff ready—not to welcome foreign visitors, unfortunately, or so many commuters, but for the burst of activity when people are free to travel again. Much effort is also spent by the industry on the recruitment of ethnic minority people.
I wanted to speak today because we should not talk ourselves into the position of believing that nothing can be changed. It can; I have seen it change, and nowhere more so than in the position of women in the transport industry.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
The convention is to address this House collectively as “my Lords”. Given the topic of this debate, in which over 70% of the participants are female, excuse me if I open with “my Ladies”.
Covid-19 has tested our society to its limits. It has closed schools, factories, offices and high streets, and the repeated lockdowns have thrust us all into our homes for month after interminable month. That has placed an enormous additional burden on those who manage the home and those who take the lead in home schooling and other domestic matters. Despite huge advances in equality over recent decades, that burden has unquestionably fallen upon women more than men. Statistically, the Covid-19 virus has afflicted men worse than women. However, the nurses and carers who tend to the sick and the elderly are predominantly female, thus the exhaustion, stress and sheer horror of care in the midst of this terrible pandemic have afflicted women far more than men.
Last week the Chancellor delivered his Budget, reporting the precipitous decline in GDP caused by the pandemic, with economic output collapsing in ways unseen for centuries. In the principal sectors impacted, such as retail and hospitality, most employees are women. There is a dichotomy here. Economic indicators tell of an unprecedented decline in output, yet the output of carers, nurses, mothers, wives and daughters has increased exponentially. Nowhere is that outpouring of love and care found in the Government’s data. Why is that? As a society, we are simply not measuring that output and thus we are not valuing it. In 2019 New Zealand introduced a well-being budget, the first western country to base its entire budget on well-being priorities, with a focus on mental health, family violence and child well-being. Will the UK Government consider the same?
As a lawyer, I have many female colleagues, and I know first-hand that their burden increased much more than that of their male colleagues. It was not lost on me that the return to school coincided with International Women’s Day, and that back-to-school cheers from exhausted parents over social media were predominantly in a feminine voice. What steps are the Government taking to encourage fathers to take a more active role in the home and in childcare? Will the Government increase the availability of paternity leave, allowing fathers to bond better with their children in those crucial early months?
Finally, I turn to equality. This House needs to set the standard but it does not. Only 28% of our membership is female, compared with 34% in the other place. That needs to change. The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act is changing the composition of the Bishops and life peerages are increasingly bestowed on women, but the most shocking gender imbalance is found among us 92 male hereditary Peers. As the youngest child of a youngest child, I am a poster child for patriarchal gender discrimination. I am the 38th Earl of Devon since the title was created by our first female monarch, Empress Matilda, and only one of us has been female—the fiercely independent Countess Isabella de Fortibus, who refused to sell the Isle of Wight to King Edward I until the bishops stole it from her on her deathbed.
This discrimination must cease and eldest children, whatever their gender, must be permitted to inherit hereditary titles. Will Her Majesty’s Government introduce a hereditary titles (female succession) Bill in the forth- coming Queen’s Speech?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
This is the first time I have participated in an International Women’s Day debate, but not the first time I have engaged in supporting international women. International Women’s Day coincides with the Women’s World Day of Prayer, which takes place annually on the first Friday in March. This is a woman-led, global, ecumenical movement organised by a different country each year.
In normal circumstances, a service would be held in churches and benefices up and down the country and over the rest of the world. There is great comfort in knowing that we are engaging in this service with thousands of others all over the world on the same day. I have attended that service for over 30 years, when my commitments have allowed. The collections raised go to the country “hosting” the service and are used to educate many young women and girls. Sadly, the service locally had faltered for lack of someone to do the organising.
Last year, it was the turn of the women of Zimbabwe to organise this service. A small group of us from our benefice of seven parishes decided to revive the custom and organised a very successful service in one of our churches. Last autumn, we met again to start planning for this year. After Christmas, it became clear that Covid was against us. We considered postponing until later in the year, but we wanted to join with other women all over the world on the same day—so we opted to tackle a Zoom service.
This year, the service was planned by Vanuatu. As many will remember, Vanuatu was devastated by Cyclone Pam in March 2015 and again in April 2020 by Cyclone Harold, the latter hitting while the country was in a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite these difficulties, the women were able to organise their service so that, all round the world, women could lead and participate in this important service, which raises much-needed money for their community. Our service was a great success and enjoyed by the women attending, with one even zooming in from Spain. Covid did not defeat us.
The women and girls of Vanuatu, as in many other countries that have met similar challenges, need a ready supply of clean water to prevent the spread of waterborne disease. Many girls and young women do not have access to adequate sanitation and fresh water. As a result, monthly, they feel unable to participate in their education and often drop out altogether. Surely in 2021 we ought to be able to provide fresh water worldwide. Some 80% of people displaced by climate change are women, and therefore more likely to become victims of violence.
Like others, I have received many briefings for today, including some from Zimbabwe, where three women activists have been arrested. Zimbabwe will be one of the countries suffering a cut in UK aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, spoke knowledgably on this aspect. I urge the Minister to do all she can to make representations to her colleagues to reverse many of these aid cuts.
We have had many questions in our Chamber about the plight of Yemen, where, daily, women are watching their children die, as well as battling the spread of Covid. This is a tragedy that, as a country, we could help to alleviate. Covid is affecting women in all countries but it falls the hardest on those living with poverty, famine, and war. Can the Minister give reassurance that she is taking these matters seriously and will speak up for the oppressed?
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too express my condolences to the family of Sarah Everard. I congratulate my noble friend on her powerful introduction to this debate. As we celebrate International Women’s Day, there is still some way to go to create a female-friendly environment where gender discrimination and sexual harassment have been eliminated, and where all women, including those who decide to become mothers, can thrive. I pay tribute to my right honourable and honourable friends Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch, two excellent Ministers who have consistently stood up for women’s rights. I have been very sad to see them facing undeserved threats and intimidation.
Fifty years after it became illegal to pay women less than their male counterparts, it is indeed a sign of progress, but not perfection, that the gender pay gap has reduced to around 17%. However, a far worse gap exists when we reach retirement. Recent NEST research estimates suggest that women’s pensions are worth over £40,000 less than men’s. Other research reports that the gender pensions gap is more than 40%. This significant difference will not go away on its own. There remain nearly 2 million pensioners in poverty in the UK, the majority of whom are women. It is vital that the Government increase their efforts to improve take-up of pension credit.
The reason for the massive gender pensions gap is partly because of the ongoing gender pay gap, which was obviously wider in the past—when today’s pensioners started their careers—but women also have shorter working lives than men, with career breaks, caring responsibilities and part-time work being more prevalent. Some of the lowest-paid occupations are dominated by women: care workers and NHS workers are mostly female. Pay levels in these sectors are much lower than average, as they are in retail, leisure and hospitality, as other noble Lords have said. Even with significant improvements in gender pay gaps, the pandemic has left more women vulnerable to both lower pay than men of the same age and lower pensions.
A related issue is the lingering age discrimination in the labour market, which impacts more on women than on men. Encouraging more flexible working and ensuring that the needs and contributions of older workers are not ignored is vital. Employers should be encouraged to retain, retrain and recruit more older workers, especially women, and offer caring leave so that older women can increase their working lives, otherwise they would have to retire sooner than they should. Of course, women dominate the lower-earning professions. Can my noble friend assure the Committee that even though women may be in lower-earning professions, the programme of auto-enrolment will be extended so that the contribution rules include all workers, and contributions beginning from the first pound of earnings?
Even with the state pension, the UK sees women having much less than men. The state pension is still dependent on how much women earn, or credits received during time off for parenting or caring, with only full years counting. Women often do not know that they needed to claim, rather than it being credited to them automatically. This is not just about gender; it is also about getting more women to feel confident in their own ability and self-worth, including the ability to make financial plans for their future and improve their financial education.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Covid pandemic has highlighted the disadvantage suffered by women in balancing the needs of childcare, home schooling and managing the home while working unsociable hours and contributing to the family income. There seems to be a curious belief that social improvement can be brought about by impressive declarations and by appointing commissions, but such displays of commitment do little to tackle the root causes of social discrimination, including continuing discrimination against women throughout the world.
Before we can cure a malady, we need to look at its cause. We should look particularly at the role of religious texts in putting forward negative attitudes towards women. Eve is blamed for the expulsion of the innocent Adam from the garden of Eden. An ayatollah in Iran suggests that women have smaller brains than men. Marriage vows remind us that women must obey. In other texts, evidence, laws and rights to property disadvantage women. Despite Sikh teachings of the full equality of women, negative subcontinental attitudes towards women percolate into some Sikh homes.
I was over the moon when, while living in India, I became the proud father of a beautiful girl. A Sikh neighbour offered congratulations, adding, “Never mind, it will be a boy next time.” I was not then the mild-mannered individual that I am today and I was almost tempted to punch him in the face. Does the Minister agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, did earlier in the week, that for real progress on gender equality we need to look at attitudes towards women embedded in religious texts in the context of today’s times? Although some of the negative attitudes are a distinct improvement on the society of hundreds of years ago, they are miles from full gender equality.
A Christian verse reminds us:
“New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth”.
In looking at religious texts in the context of today’s times, we should also look at words such as “heathen” or “kaffir”—negative attitudes towards other people and women are not the word of God.
Baroness Nye (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the past 12 months have undoubtedly been difficult for everyone, but women everywhere have shouldered much of the burden and have faced greater difficulties because of the systemic inequality that they face. So, like others who have spoken, I pay tribute to all the women on the front line and to women with caring responsibilities who have home schooled while working or who have lost jobs or opportunities through no fault of their own.
It is critical, therefore, that the Government recognise that in planning for the recovery to build back better, we do as the UN suggests and “plan for equal”. That means attention must be paid to the needs of the vast numbers of women most affected by the economic and social fallout. Covid-19 has shown the importance as well as the fragility of the care economy by exposing how reliant the economy is on women’s unpaid and underpaid labour. I ask the Minister: why have the Government decided not to award a £20 a week supplement, like the universal credit supplement, to carers entitled to the carer’s allowance? That would help them manage both the higher costs of caring and the lack of services available to help them stay in work.
Many reports have highlighted the adverse effects of the pandemic on women but I will mention just one: a report by the Young Women’s Trust, a charity that works with women aged 18 to 30 who are living on low or no pay. Picking Up the Pieces highlights the need to listen to young women, especially those who face additional discrimination and barriers, such as young women of colour and young disabled women. It found that an estimated 1.5 million young women lost income over the past year and over two-thirds of young women claiming benefits said that they did so for the very first time. The findings also show that they are increasingly worried about their mental health, and feel ignored by politicians and that their voice is not heard. For those young women employed in sectors most affected by the pandemic, such as retail and hospitality, the uplift in universal credit and the furlough scheme are important lifelines, but with both schemes coming to an end at the same time in September, many women face an uncertain future. Perhaps the Minister can explain what measures the Government are considering to alleviate that concern.
In a debate on International Women’s Day it is also important, as others have done, to look outside our borders to see what is happening to woman globally. Some of the issues facing women are universal, such as domestic violence, but in fragile economies the life chances of women and girls are being dealt even greater long-term blows. It is estimated that 11 million girls may not return to school due to Covid-19, with huge consequences for wider society. With the UK hosting the G7 and COP 26 summits, we have a unique opportunity to place girls’ education centre stage.
Finally, as we speak in this debate in the mother of all Parliaments, we should also pay tribute to the brave activists who, following the military coup in Burma, are risking their lives to defend their democratic right to have their vote upheld. As tension increases throughout the country following the coup, women of all ages have flooded the streets in major towns and cities across Myanmar to call for the reinstatement of Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected Government. Among the many who have died at the hands of the Tatmadaw, we should remember 20 year-old Mya Thwate Thwate Khaing, and 19 year-old Ma Kyal Sin, known to her friends as “Angel”, who died wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan “Everything will be OK”. As parliamentarians, we should stand with those women and with the brave women fighting for equality everywhere.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nye.
It is the very internationalism of this 2021 International Women’s Day that highlights its significance now. Like Covid-19, women are everywhere in the world. Each individual invaded by Covid is unique but the virus does not discriminate between them. Covid has no national or gender barriers, nor does it favour the wealthiest or the weakest. However, there is a disproportionate impact on BAME communities and those in lower-income groups.
I want to celebrate the women who care—the women who have made such huge sacrifices for their families in the midst of this pandemic. Stress levels for women have soared. So has domestic abuse, with its particular obscenity. Women have had to stop working and have often had to compromise their careers to protect their families and the wider community. However, personal appreciation is not enough. We need the Government to recognise the role of women in the pandemic. Women deserve to be noticed for the immense but silent contribution that they have already made and continue to make. I give notice to the Minister that I would like to see a permanent sculpture to the role of women in the pandemic from across all communities.
From the highest echelons of research to cleaning hospital floors—more meagre, perhaps, but crucial—women contribute to the common weal. Female nurses make up a major section of our caring community. They have been slapped in the face by the government recommendation of a 1% pay rise. Once again, the Government have failed to recognise either the contribution that these professionals make or the public esteem in which they are held. I urge that that independent review be concluded, and that the Government increase the level of the pay rise for nurses.
Research already carried out by academics shows that working-class women endure the greatest impact from Covid. As men had their working hours cut, more female carers increased theirs and exposed themselves more to the virus. Women are more likely to lose their jobs than men in the Covid-19 world. They are taking on more of the home-schooling demands and the needs of elderly parents. It is time for a real root-and-branch review of the whole social security system so that the status of the poorest and most needy in our society is lifted and their incomes made realistic. The £20 uplift in universal credit must be made permanent, for a start. I ask the Minister to talk to her colleagues in the DWP about that.
As we celebrate the role of women across the world today, let us do so meaningfully. Let us move more rapidly to ensure that employment and financial rights are protected, and that dedicated funds are allocated to the enhancement of women’s health and opportunities.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
Colleagues, I would like to use my time to raise how the criminal justice system responds to the needs of women in prison. It is now 14 years since the ground-breaking report by our colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, which called for a distinct, radically different, visibly led, strategic, proportionate, woman-centred, integrated approach to how we treat women offenders. Ten years on from the Corston report, in March 2017, the charity Women in Prison reported only mixed progress. Its report stated:
“What is required is a joined-up approach that takes into account the root causes of women’s offending. This approach must encompass an understanding of the compelling opportunities for change that appropriate housing, mental health support and gender-specific women’s community support services can offer.”
Four years later again, the Prison Reform Trust has recently completed a five-year piece of work entitled Transforming Lives: Reducing Women’s Imprisonment. That report points out that women in prison are highly likely to be victims as well as offenders, with over half of them having experienced domestic violence and many of them having dependent children.
My final quote is from the Ministry of Justice when announcing in January plans to build 500 new cells in women’s prisons. Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at the Howard League, commented at the time that
“today’s announcement shows that ministers are looking at the issue down the wrong end of a telescope.”
I spent seven years at the MoJ, between 2010 and 2017, and must share my part of the responsibility for the glacial progress made in achieving the changes necessary.
I do not expect the Minister to be fully acquainted with the sayings of Aneurin Bevan, but he once said, “Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?”. This is especially true in the case of women in prison. From Corston onwards, there have been reports which point in the right direction of travel but need resources spent in the right way to promote diversionary measures and alternatives to prison, which could create the opportunity to reduce by two-thirds the number of women in our prisons.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]
It is always a privilege and a pleasure to take part in this debate and hear the campaigns and concerns of so many enlightened Peers, and even a number of other Peers as well. Tribute has been paid to the magnificent scientists who have really shown the way during the Covid crisis: Sarah Gilbert and Kate Bingham, and Dr June Raine at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has swiftly, rapidly and effectively approved the new vaccines. Of course, it was the great reputation of the Medicines Control Agency for its work that won us the European Medicines Agency, which we have now had to return. However, Dr Raine’s work suggests that there is hope for the future.
It was not ever thus. I remind noble Lords that James Barry, the first woman doctor, had to pretend that she was a man throughout her career, and had a very good record of clinical work. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson managed to qualify only at a school which later changed its rules to ban women, and found it so difficult to get work. She may have founded a hospital and finally became mayor of Aldeburgh, but her path was difficult. Marie Curie suffered from the Matilda effect—women doing the work, but men taking the glory—and only with great difficulty did she get her work recognised alongside her husband Pierre. More recently, there was the wonderful Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, a fellow of the Royal Society and a declared woman who suffered from impostor syndrome. She found the first radio pulsars in 1967, but the 1974 Nobel Prize in physics did not mention her. The men got the credit, and only with a challenge and a fight was she given her recognition.
So I celebrate the changes in my lifetime, and the global female leaders: Janet Yellen—an LSE graduate, I am pleased to say—was the first female chair of the Fed and is now the first female Treasury Secretary, in President Biden’s Government; Christine Lagarde has been spoken of. And then there is the wonderful Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the first woman and first African DG of the WTO, and a great expert in public health, as well as in development economics. How well does that speak for the future?
I believe that women are changing and challenging stereotypes, and we are seeing change in society and in the workplace. In the past month alone, we have seen the Tokyo Olympics chief resign over patronising, sexist comments that employees found unacceptable. He has been replaced by a female, and 12 women have joined the team. In the past month alone, the UK boss of KPMG resigned over an internal team call in which he made comments to colleagues which they loudly challenged. He was swiftly replaced by two highly respected women, Mary O’Connor and Bina Mehta. UK Athletics made international headlines for the sexist, pervasive, oppressive culture of coaches. The new female CEO demanded a zero-tolerance approach. This is different. It was not like this in the past.
There have been changes in the boardroom. In 2011, 12% of FTSE 100 roles were held by females. Now, as a result of the challenge of the Hampton-Alexander review, and following Mervyn Davies’s work, we are up to 33% of FTSE 100, 250 and 350 boards. My noble friend Lady Brady gave another encouraging example. In the public sector, there are more female judges, bishops, doctors, solicitors and vice-chancellors. Only one in four vice-chancellors are female, and I am pleased that one is at the University of Hull, but 10 years ago it was only one in 12—to go from one in 12 to one in four is progress indeed. And we have seen more female Lords spiritual in our House.
Of course there are areas where there have been difficulties and where women have had the greater burden of Covid. The LSE produced a report the other day. I also hope that people have learned more about flexible working and online working, which will enable women to pursue their career and combine it with their domestic responsibilities.
Internationally, I applaud the work of my noble friend Lady Sugg. Provision for gender equality was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Ahmad only this week as part and parcel of our policy of the combined department—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness about the timing.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]
We celebrate success and ask for more progress.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. Lady Falkner?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, forgive me; I had trouble unmuting. I am more used to physical participation now than to virtual participation. That is my excuse.
In the debate today, we have had powerful testimony about the impact of the pandemic on women. I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. At the commission, we stand not only for women’s rights but for all those who experience discrimination, and with nine protected characteristics, we have a lot on our hands. Today I want to speak specifically to our work on women.
In this House we recently passed the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill, where the drafters of the Bill decided to describe those who benefit from its very welcome provisions as “persons” rather than as “women” or “mothers”. I mention this as it is pertinent to our work at the EHRC. At the commission, it is becoming increasingly clear to us that the most contentious work that we have to do is around the critical issue of balancing different rights. As we seek to reduce discrimination, and sometimes even hate, we do not want to see one group pitted against another, but we are also clear that we must not shy away from difficult judgments of balance in the name of political correctness and must not appear to be in one camp versus another. We stand for all the protected characteristics, but we also judge every policy issue on its merits and with guidance from the Equality Act. Hence we look forward to the review of the guidance on legislative language promised by the Government in this regard, and we were very pleased with the successful amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Winston—I note they are both speaking in the debate today—that got the Bill through this House satisfactorily.
Turning to the impact of the pandemic, evidence so far suggests that the economic impact is likely to be very significant. Women already face a range of inequalities and barriers to work: an overconcentration on low-paid or part-time work, limited flexible working opportunities and responsibility for the majority of unpaid and often undervalued care work. While men have experienced more severe health outcomes and faced greater unemployment, many lockdown restrictions, such as the closure of certain sectors and of schools and childcare settings, have particularly affected women’s equality in the workplace.
The workplace is the area about which I have the greatest concern for the future. If the statistics are correct as to the impact of a loss of women from the workplace, which is what the survey evidence points us to, that has grave implications well into the future. Take key workers: ONS figures show that nearly three-fifths of all key workers in the UK are women, at 58%. The IFS estimates that women were more likely to work across all the sectors that were shut down during the first national lockdown. As of July last year, more women than men had been furloughed; mothers were more likely to ask to be furloughed than men, and found it harder than fathers to work productively at home. A TUC survey indicated that 71% of working mothers were refused furlough. There is evidence of potentially unlawful and discriminatory practices towards pregnant women and those on maternity leave.
Research published on International Women’s Day by the Guardian and Mumsnet found that more than half of women across the UK believe that women’s equality is in danger of going back to the 1970s. In our work as a regulator, we at the EHRC will use our compliance and enforcement powers to carry out strategic as well as specific litigation, to push back against any diminution of women’s equality. As advocates, we will campaign for improvements in women’s welfare. We know that both are critical at this point in time.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure, always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and to be a veteran of these International Women’s Day debates.
We clapped for carers, most of whom of course are women, so perhaps at least this week we can whoop for women. As we all come out from under another Covid lockdown, we know that it is women who have had to shoulder so much of the mental burden over the past 12 months. The ONS confirmed as much this week. As that TUC report of January 2021 put it:
“Working mums … were struggling with the strain of being expected to carry out their jobs as normal, while balancing childcare and home-schooling.”
Nine out of 10 mothers responded to the TUC by saying that
“the disruption had a negative impact on their mental health, with increasing levels of stress and anxiety.”
An earlier IFS report showed that, when it came to home-schooling, mothers were able to do only one hour of uninterrupted work for every three hours done by fathers. How quickly we have reverted to gender stereotypes, as we see women doing more housework and more childcare in all households, except for those in which the man has stopped doing paid work.
The TUC calls on the Government to act to stop the reversal of decades of progress that women have made in the workplace. I am sure we can all amplify that call and, this year, give a big shout-out for women in science and engineering particularly.
This week, we welcome the Government’s Statement on women’s health, and not a moment too soon. I know the Minister does not need me to tell her that the pent-up trauma of women over the past 12 months will have to be faced with unprecedented policy and resources for mental health services, with young women and teenage girls being particularly affected.
Many of us in this debate are also involved in the very important Domestic Abuse Bill. Its coming into law is eagerly awaited by us all, not least by those thousands of women who have been trapped in violent homes during Covid-19. As Women’s Aid puts it in its report A Perfect Storm, abusers have used the pandemic
“as a tool for abuse”.
Calls to women’s specialist services and helplines have surged at times during the pandemic. This is not only the pattern in the UK: the United Nations has described the worldwide increase in domestic abuse as a “shadow pandemic” alongside Covid-19—my noble friend Lord Rooker referred to that. It is thought that, worldwide, cases have increased by at least 20% in lockdowns internationally. I ask the noble Baroness the Minister: how is enfeebling our development budget going to help?
As always, there is so much left to win as far as women’s equality is concerned. The legacy issues of unequal pay and pensions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has set out, have not gone away. British women were paid an average of £25.73 a week less than men in the state pension last year.
For those who might be ambiguous these days about the word “woman”, and believe that it can be replaced by “person”, I whoop for women more than ever this year.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as chairman of the charity Near Neighbours. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and so many eloquent speakers.
The pandemic has certainly provided challenges to individuals, organisations, communities and Governments across the world. Living in a democracy, we are fortunate to be able to see, and challenge where necessary, the responses of our institutions. Our debate today, as we know, focuses on empowering women in the pandemic, and I am pleased to be able to highlight some exceptional activities by women and for women. But, before I do so, I cannot let the opportunity pass without asking all noble Lords to have in their minds the additional suffering felt by women throughout the world who live under repressive regimes.
There is perhaps no better example of the suppression of women than the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has wealth of over $1,000 billion, but only $500 million has been allocated by the mullahs for tackling Covid. Buying American and English vaccines is forbidden—and this at a time when hundreds die each day.
The United Kingdom Government, in addition to its role in managing the health and economic issues associated with Covid, have also recognised the value of the charity sector in helping to improve public health communications to hard-to-reach groups and has provided funding for such projects. Near Neighbours, which I chair, is one such charity and has worked to dispel myths, reduce fear and build confidence among ethnic minorities. Its projects have aimed at rebuilding trust in government messaging, tackling misinformation and anti-vaccination narratives and encouraging engagement with NHS services.
The funding supports practical projects, many designed and delivered by women. Projects vary from support to those suffering isolation and poor mental health to promoting physical activity and tackling domestic violence. Projects such as the Punjabi Theatre Company engage with south Asian women both to take to the vaccine and to encourage those within the communities to do so. The Peterborough Lithuanian Community project plans domestic abuse awareness workshops and buys comfort packs for women fleeing domestic abuse.
As we begin to address the scars of Covid, it must be a priority to integrate disabled women back into society so as to ease higher levels of loneliness and isolation, which in turn would lead to improved health and well-being. One project to be funded by Near Neighbours will provide accessible creative craft work- shops that will engage disabled women alongside other women in the Jewish community so that they benefit from shared experiences.
Women from the refugee and asylum-seeking communities often face the challenge of financial difficulties. One project has three strands of work: first, to relieve isolation and build self-confidence and, secondly, to provide skills training so that, thirdly, women are able to establish a women’s social enterprise.
The pandemic has enabled us to focus on social ills that existed before but were often unnoticed, the sufferers invisible. Regrettably, even in modern democracies we are sometimes guilty of overlooking very marginalised people. Let us hope that the pandemic has made sure that we do not continue to do so.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, this debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on women’s roles in the pandemic as well as on how any recovery must address the injustices and harms that it has revealed. Women make up 82% of care workers, who have played a vital role in caring for the vulnerable, disabled and sick. When I was a council leader I visited care homes in my city, and when I spoke to the staff one of the things they told me was: “Even though we do much of the same work as nurses, they are the angels but we are seen as the skivvies. People only change their minds once they see what we actually do.”
We have seen that lack of value reflected in government attitudes and the lack of wider support for this sector. Has there been weekly clapping for care workers, special arrangements in supermarkets for the social care workforce or outrage that care workers are not receiving a substantial pay increase, like for the nurses? Let us not forget the scandal of hospital discharges to care homes, where patients had not even been tested for the virus before being installed among vulnerable people and their carers, with the catastrophic results that we all know about.
Yet so many people depend on care workers just to be able to live their lives, whether independently or in care homes. Social care is a 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year activity but in return for that level of commitment its workforce receives pretty poor recompense. The latest data shows that in April 2020 the average care worker was paid just £8.50 an hour, the same as most supermarkets pay. Last year there were 112,000 vacancies at any one time, while turnover rates showed 430,000 staff—30.4%—leaving their jobs in any one year. The care sector has been starved of cash through systematic and deep cuts to the local government funding on which it depends. A senior care worker is now paid just 12p more per hour than a new starter.
Proposals for better care worker pay must include practical ways of requiring better pay when commissioning services. Linking training and qualifications to pay and creating proper career pathways across health and care are also well overdue to help much-needed recruitment. Recovering from the pandemic must include a new settlement for a properly resourced and valued care service. It must recognise and value the huge sacrifices made by the social care workforce during the pandemic, caring for elderly and vulnerable people with great professionalism and often at great personal risk, often in a context of desperately stretched services, sometimes in facilities that were not suitable for isolation, sometimes without adequate PPE and, until September, often without proper access to regular testing. There is an urgent need for appropriate pay, professional career structures and parity of esteem with NHS colleagues.
The Government must step up to their responsibilities and create a service that does not depend on the sacrifice of poorly paid and undervalued workers but instead is properly resourced and fit for purpose for ever-growing future needs.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part once again in this debate. I thank the Minister for detailing the work of the Government. I also wish to recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lady Gale, whose long-standing leadership to improve women’s political participation is worth all our salutes.
Alongside other noble Lords, I am indebted to the 70% of the NHS workforce and the 80% of the retail workforce who are women. We are also indebted to the teachers who have kept the schools open. All noble Lords have rightly acknowledged the direct and indirect effect of the Covid pandemic on women. It has brought into sharp focus the regressive impact on gender equality, or the lack of it.
It is also worth reflecting on the women deeply affected, referred to in the reports and surveys by the TUC and Mumsnet. I appreciate the difficult choices some of these women are having to make about leaving the workforce or managing family and caring responsibilities.
Valuing women means that every aspect of the work of Parliament and government must be determined to embed social, cultural, political and economic justice. We are not the best example, as has been stated. All political parties are culpable and need to be more serious about achieving parity. The lack of equal representation in Parliament and in public and private organisations where decisions are made means that women remain largely absent from the decision-making process. Hence the endemic violence against women, which remains a catastrophic shame of our generation.
The Government have announced measures about more listening and reporting, including on the health impact on women and on race disparity. Progress on the devastating impact and the consequences of Islamophobia on Muslim women throughout all parts of society is disappointing, hampering opportunities in employment and public office.
All noble Lords have spoken passionately about inequality and I echo, salute and honour all noble Baronesses, in particular, for their history and contribution as well as their call for a women-centred transformation of our political system and structures. This was so eloquently stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Does the Minister agree that while listening and consulting exercises are very important, it is time for action which empowers half of humanity and ensures that women in this country have the opportunity to fully participate at all levels of decision-making, and that nothing else is good enough for gender justice?
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, today’s debate on International Women’s Day is important and timely. I want to focus on women who have lost their loved ones achieving an equal future in a Covid-19 world.
As I look back, 2020 was an unprecedented, unpredictable and unforgettable year. The Covid-19 pandemic has killed many thousands of people and destroyed economies all over the world. It has spared no country. Sadly, more than 120,000 people have died in the UK as a result of Covid-19. I suspect that more than 50% of those left behind are women, as Covid widows. They are now lonely, insecure and victims of bereavement grief.
The dreadful coronavirus has killed more people from BAME backgrounds. They are poor and face a double burden that is likely to burden their and their children’s lives for years to come. They need financial help and support for their bereavement grief and their unique stories deserve to be heard. It is our moral duty, particularly at this moment when so many women need empowerment and championing. The former UN Secretary-General, His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, has said:
“Despite the many difficulties widows face, many make valuable contributions to their countries and communities … we can reduce the suffering that widows endure by raising their status and helping them in their hour of need. This will contribute to promoting the full and equal participation of all women in society.”
Our Government have left no stone unturned to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. They have invested billions of pounds to support the NHS and research for the vaccine to save lives. The Government have also spent billions more to save jobs and the economy, through furlough for millions of people and through grants to numerous businesses. The vaccine rollout is an exemplary achievement, as more than 20 million people have already received their first dose.
I urge the UK Government to set up a Covid-19 widows support group to provide financial support and practical help to overcome their bereavement grief. By setting up such group, the UK Government will be not only setting an example for other countries to follow, but commemorating International Women’s Day in its truest sense.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, whose work is incredibly wonderful and inspiring for widows, particularly in India but also elsewhere. I am followed by one of the most eminent Members of our House, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, whose speech a week ago on the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas on the maternity Bill was truly outstanding and exceptional. It is a pleasure to speak this afternoon.
I raise the challenge of single-sex wards in hospitals, and specific female-only medical treatment in hospitals, special schools and homes. Sir Simon Stevens’s guidance, now over two years old, wrongly informed hospitals that patients may choose their treatment and wards according to gender self-selection. Annexe B of Sir Simon’s guidance seems to have interpreted the equal opportunities Act incorrectly—one of a raft of government institutional statements that followed the same misunderstanding of the Act. In fact, hospitals are excluded from the Act, as prisons are. Therefore, to attempt enforcing inaccurate guidelines piles Pelion on Ossa, to the serious detriment of the good, professional care for which the NHS is rightly famous.
Natal males demanding, and nurses be threatened with expulsion if they do not carry out, the most intimate female treatments on males—vaginal smears and chestfeeding are just two of the many examples I have been given over the last two years—has led to unacceptable challenges for the medical staff and negative outcomes for females. The reverse is true, of course, for young people who are female. I have had some cases with mental health problems where it is clear that a natal male is deemed to be a female for the purpose of offering the most intimate of personal care relating to periods. It cannot be right.
I ask the Minister to meet me on this unique issue and to agree an assessment of guidance from Sir Simon, which may be flawed. Indeed, I heard on 11 March 2020, exactly one year ago today, from the Minister for Public Health, the Member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds, that there was going to be a review of these guidelines. Has that review happened? I have written a couple of times to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Bethell, and I have not heard that anything has happened—my last letter was in October last year.
We have a wonderful Minister in the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and I was very happy indeed to have read the wonderful statement about her in this week’s Evening Standard outlining the splendid work that she has done. We have two Ministers for Equalities, the Members of Parliament for South West Norfolk and for Saffron Walden, both outstanding people, but perhaps their work should be more supported. This falls fairly and squarely within the Covid debate, since males seem to be more affected than females, and the gender versus sex identification is therefore even more strongly relevant in healthcare than in this week’s census wording judgment, where the judge definitively ruled that sex and gender are not one.
I congratulate all who work in this very difficult area, but I believe the time has come to follow the science. Public health provision must follow the science, a lesson we have all well learned.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not deserve that very kind mention—even a remote mention—by either of the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner or Lady Nicholson. In that debate last week I declared an interest in the Genesis Research Trust, which I am very fortunate to chair. It is a large research organisation that looks at the problems that women face related to reproduction.
I want to draw attention to women who miscarry. Some 880,000 babies are lost by miscarriage annually in the United Kingdom alone. This loss of life within has an impact that is much more serious than is generally understood. There is no funeral. Nobody refers to it or talks about it. Years ago, I remember just how frightened we were when my wife had a small bleed during pregnancy. Fortunately, the baby was safe. Often, women are admitted to hospital, where everybody is preoccupied with a more important medical condition. They are given an anaesthetic, the uterus is scraped out by a junior doctor and, because they are not “urgent” and are usually at the end of a long waiting list, they are alone and starved a long time. Then, sad and worried, they are released from hospital without explanation and told to try again, with no understanding of what has happened and no tests to see what is wrong. So often, I am afraid, general practitioners do not pay enough attention to this very common condition—some, of course, do, but many do not. This, of course, has been a problem during the pandemic, as some women who are greatly worried about their pregnancy get little information about the virus and whether it might affect their baby.
Furthermore, there is an issue with repeated miscarriage. This is more common when people are infertile. So often, little or no serious attempt at a diagnosis is made. Such women have a diagnosis attached to them of “unexplained infertility”, which, of course, is an excuse for no diagnosis at all. This leaves, at best, treatments such as IVF without a diagnosis. As good doctors affirm, treatment without a diagnosis, and no attempt to make one, is or leads to bad medicine. Because miscarriage is so common, pregnant women miscarrying are often treated with what seems like indifference.
All this increases the drive for them to seek private in vitro fertilisation. What women are never told is that even after six cycles of treatment by expensive IVF, the figures show that only 43% of women have a live baby—something never mentioned by the HFEA. That is after six cycles, and they may have had more than one miscarriage during that treatment.
Of course, the pandemic has had another effect. One in 10 couples suffer from infertility, and this is much more likely over the age of 38. Virtually all fertility treatment has been halted and IVF has been impossible in most cases. A crucial year has been lost. As they age, these women face a rapidly decreasing chance of having a baby.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, so it is a pleasure to pay her this tiny compliment. I think that the pandemic offers a real opportunity. When we revisit the structure of the NHS, as has been promised, may we learn from the pandemic and may the Government give much more consideration to the problems—these common, apparently trivial problems—that I emphasised. In view of the extra money that she announced for research, how much will be earmarked for diseases that women commonly experience during pregnancy?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
In following on from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I want to thank him on behalf of so many people for his work on IVF. Women everywhere are in his debt.
It has been stated here as though it is incontestable that Covid has hit women harder than men. However, despite a lifetime of fighting for women’s rights, I wonder how helpful it is to see every issue through the prism of gender. Earlier this week, I reflected on this question in a debate in the House on the women’s health strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that although older men have a higher risk of death from Covid, this unfairly means that older women experience a “higher level of grief”, which affects their mental health. Concentrating on women grieving seems such a perverse way of viewing the issue of more men dying. Women’s rights campaigners must try to avoid putting too much emphasis on victimhood and grievance. I would prefer a more positive approach that emphasises women’s agency and what they can achieve, while avoiding a divisive agenda—particularly one that pits men and women against each other as competitors.
In that context, I was disappointed to read the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee’s complaint that the Government’s
“priorities for recovery are heavily gendered in nature”.
It complained about the investment in
“science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) and construction”
and suggested a more women-friendly investment in the care sector instead. That seems far too fatalistic. I want women to be engineers and builders. We should invest in the care system but as a social priority, not just because women work there. If anything, I want the Government to get on and kick-start more productive economic growth, creating jobs for everyone. Focusing on gender can be a distraction in that instance.
I was disappointed to read some of the “build back better” literature that we were sent for this debate. Again, in the name of gendered employment opportunities, it argued that one silver lining of the pandemic is working from home, which could become normalised. I assume that it was written by researchers with big houses and gardens and the kind of broadband I can only dream of. Here is a warning: women have historically fought long and hard to escape the private sphere and gain the right to work in workplaces and join the public sphere. After all the work done by women and trade unionists to get women into a position of equality at work, I dread us coming out of this pandemic and people saying that being confined to the home is a victory.
Indeed, our coming together today recognises that we stand on the shoulders of those women—those giants—who fought for us in the past. I was really glad to be lobbied on the subject of the matchgirls’ strike. Sarah Chapman and Alice Francis were mentioned. These people in the past were dissident women. They were not victims; they were fighters, campaigners and trade unionists, and we owe so much to them. Long may the dissidents win.
Finally, it is important that we recognise that we are celebrating International Women’s Day as though there are no issues around the fact that you cannot say “I am a woman” without it causing problems. There needed to be a fight in this House to turn “pregnant person” into “mother” as a compromise because “woman” was too radical. If we do not want to look like we are just ticking boxes and going through the motions, we must recognise that the gender-critical debate needs to be had out. I know that many women—we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who has been wonderfully inspiring on this issue—have said that we should do something about this when you have to fight to get women or biological sex mentioned in the census. Let us lead on that rather than just ticking the International Women’s Day box.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am so conscious that Sarah Everard could have been my daughter or, indeed, any of our daughters. To be subject in that way to random male violence is a terrible thing. I recommend to everyone Kate McCann’s short and extremely punchy description of what it is like to be a woman walking home at night.
As Ecclesiastes would doubtless have said if he had been taking part in this debate, “Let us now praise famous women, and our mothers that begot us.” I shall start with Margaret Cavendish—born Lucas, my many times great-aunt—who hammered hard on the doors of the Royal Society and was repelled by the men. When Westminster Abbey celebrated the women who were buried there, her name was left out, but she has the last word: she has been in print ever since she died. There are not many who can say that over 400 years. I also celebrate Olympe de Gouges. To write as she did to Robespierre, with the obvious consequences, is something one should shout out in praise of, as one should for women in Iran today who are doing much the same to the ayatollahs.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I wish to remember the members of the strike and union committees of 1888 matchgirls’ strike, and I will name them all: Eliza Martin, Louisa Beck, Julia Gambleton, Jane Wakeling, Jane Staines, Eliza Price, Mary Naulls, Kate Sclater, Ellen Johnson, Sarah Chapman, Mary Driscoll, Alice Francis and Mary Cummings. I must also mention Annie Besant, a fellow theosophist of my grandmother, who very much supported them and made their victory possible.
Let us all play our part in the cause of equality of women. It has been a long struggle where each grain of progress matters, so today in this cause I make a plea and have a suggestion. My plea is: Stonewall, please climb out of the hole of misogyny and bullying that you have dug for yourself. The needs of trans people, which are pressing, are not best served by adding to the disadvantages of women. Join the conversation. Let us find a way through that works for all of us.
My suggestion is: it is a large impediment to equality that we impose penalties for the time out that women take to have children. In the pandemic, working part-time from home seems to have become common. Many organisations that I speak to expect this to remain a strong feature in future. My local council is selling its offices because people have been so much more productive working from home. Having children and looking after them well is a role that has value to all of us, especially those of us with mothers. We should do our best to make sure that those who fulfil that role are not at a disadvantage when they return to the workforce. We have learned how well part-time at-home work works. It will be easy in a company which maintains that to fit in parents with care and to keep them involved, up to speed and part of the team so that when they return to the world of work they do so without disadvantage and without having missed out on 10 or 15 years. I say to my noble friend the Minister that the place this should start is the Civil Service because so many of the jobs civil servants do are entirely suitable for part-time home working. The Civil Service should take a lead and make this big step forward for women to take advantage of all we have learned in the pandemic.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this year’s International Women’s Day is like no other. As countries and communities start to slowly recover from a devastating pandemic, we have the chance to finally end the exclusion and marginalisation of women and girls. Women must have the possibility to play a full part in shaping the pivotal decisions being made right now, as countries respond to and recover from the pandemic. These choices will affect the well-being of people and the planet for generations to come.
To do this, we must break down the deep-seated historic, cultural and socioeconomic barriers that prevent women taking their seat at the decision-making table, while ensuring that resources and power are more equitably distributed. However, having a seat at the table also leads to problems. The question is whether the women are heard or not. Unless the table has equal numbers of men and women, having a seat will not work.
Different countries have different attitudes to women. Disappointingly, there is a known attitude in some families that, if a girl is born, it is considered as a problem. Science now enables families to find out early in pregnancy whether it is a boy or a girl. The women are often encouraged, and in some cases forced, to abort. I came across an article written by a prominent lady researcher in India. She talked about a family who had a boy and a girl; as they grew up, the girl related to the researcher: “If you look at me or my mother, we are both weak and not in good health. My father and brothers are very healthy. If they are ill, the best doctors or hospitals are used. If I or my mother are ill, only the local untrained person is called in. At mealtimes, my brother and father are served first. My mother and I get the leftovers”.
Unless such attitudes are dealt with, women will always be second-class citizens in their families—and unless legislation is in force, things will not change. I hope that this International Women’s Day will highlight such problems and get Governments to give equal rights to women.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate, which has been very wide-ranging, covering as it has VSO to IVF. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott on introducing it, and for choosing the theme.
I would like to pause for a moment to remember the family and friends of Sarah Everard. I would also like to remember the family and friends of Claudia Lawrence, who was also from York. She went missing in March 2009, and she has never been found. Her mother Joan and the rest of her family live day by day, hoping that she will return, but unsure. Her father’s funeral took place today; he passed away without knowing whether she was alive or not.
I congratulate the Government on the progress made so far, particularly on equality and non-discrimination. Our generation has benefited much more than my mother’s or my grandmother’s generation did, but there is still a long way to go. I recognise that government funds to help during the pandemic have been extremely generous and well received. But if we really are to empower women and enable them to play their part in recovering from the pandemic, we must address one issue as a matter of priority. I invite my noble friend Lady Berridge, when she sums up this debate, to address the gender gap and particularly the position of working women.
Women now have to work until they are 66, or in future 67 and older, before they can claim their state pension, yet it is extremely difficult for older women to find work in the marketplace. The Government must address that as a matter of urgency.
My noble friend Lady Altmann touched on issues regarding pensions, but one that was not addressed was the position of part-time women workers, particularly their inability often to auto-enrol in pensions when they have more than one part-time job but quite possibly are not admitted to an auto-enrolment pension in any of them. That leaves them excluded from a pension that could contribute to keeping them in a comfortable position in later life. I very much support the campaign that Scottish Widows has launched to close a particular gender pay gap: a woman in her 20s starting work today will expect to retire on a pension that is £100,000 less than that of a man of the same age. That is unacceptable and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
So while I recognise that the Government have taken many measures, both during the pandemic and more generally, equality in pensions and regarding women in the workplace, particularly for older women, has a long way to go. I recognise the economic impact that Covid has played, particularly with thousands of jobs being lost in retail, most of them women’s jobs. It will be extremely difficult to place them in the marketplace immediately.
I pay tribute to role models that I have worked with, particularly those I served with in the European Parliament—many noble Lords will know the history of Simone Veil, who suffered under French occupation by the Germans during the Second World War. But perhaps on a more entertaining note, many will not appreciate that Nana Mouskouri served in the European Parliament. And I am fortunate to have served in both Houses with our own inimitable former Speaker of the Commons, Betty, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, if women are to flourish in society, it is essential that they should play a full part in politics. That is as true in our country as in the developing world. Here I pay tribute to—I still think of her as my noble friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, who has worked tirelessly to get more women into Westminster. She has succeeded: the 2019 general election returned a record number of women, 220, to Parliament. However, that still amounts to only 34% of MPs and, sadly, some excellent women MPs decided to leave politics at that election. There is no mistaking that discrimination, both in Westminster and without, was one of the reasons.
Allegations of sexism within Parliament are being addressed, not least in the Valuing Everyone programme. Things have certainly improved since the first female MP to sit in the Chamber, Lady Astor, took her seat in 1919. Sir Winston Churchill is said to have described her arrival as being “as embarrassing as if she had burst into my bathroom when I had nothing with which to defend myself, not even a sponge”. Lady Astor retaliated that he was not handsome enough to have worries of that kind.
However, it is now much harder for women politicians to brush off some of the attacks to which they are regularly subjected. That is the result of technology, both a blessing and a curse. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, when an MP, was told that her days were numbered. Antoinette Sandbach, when an MP, faced such threats that the police advised her no longer to hold open surgeries in her constituency. These were only extreme examples of a common problem. Can the Minister assure me that more will be done to stop female politicians being subjected to such anonymous online threats? It is not impossible to do away with anonymity online; it just takes the will. I believe that doing so would encourage more women not just into politics but into public life generally.
The more women there are in politics, the more policies will take account of their needs—and the Covid pandemic has highlighted that they indeed have special needs. Others have pointed out that women have carried more of the burden of coping with childcare and home-schooling than have men. That generalisation does not give due credit to the many households where there is genuine sharing of care. My older son, for instance, is married to a hospital doctor. We are immensely proud of her hard work during the pandemic, but it was her working-from-home husband who had to become home teacher.
Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence that women around the world have shouldered most of the childcare during Covid. The recent TUC survey, for instance, showed that many women, unable to get furlough, have been forced to use their annual leave in order to cope. They now face the lengthy school holidays that lie ahead without any paid leave to take to look after their children. Germany have decreed an extra 10 weeks of paid leave for parents and 20 weeks for single parents. Italy has a similar scheme. I ask the Minister, how will the UK help working women through this impending crisis? Without extra help during the school holidays, many women may be forced to relinquish their jobs.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is so much to be said about women, here in the UK and globally, in the context of the pandemic. I begin by referring, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, to the TUC report on the impact on women in the recent period. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, as seen in differential job loss, increased levels of maternity and pregnancy discrimination, exposure to unsafe working practices, the stress of home schooling—often juggled with working from home—and, tragically, heightened risk of domestic abuse.
There are so many fronts on which women still need to struggle to make progress towards equality in this society, and if that is the case here in Britain, those struggles are even more urgent globally. An estimated 70% of the global health and social care workforce are women. These frontline workers in many places face increased pressures and exposure to the virus, often with little personal protective equipment, let alone vaccination. Yet they are much less likely to be involved in decision-making about equipment and funding. This global figure of 70% is lower than the 77% of female staff employed in the NHS and the 82% of the adult social care workforce here which is female.
These are the very same women workers whom we have stood applauding week after week for their incredible work during the pandemic, and yet, when it comes to recognising their work, we see them paid, in the case of social care workers, at barely the minimum wage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said. Our nurses—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—were offered a paltry and frankly insulting pay increase of 1%, not an increase at all given how much nurses’ pay has declined in recent years, and this at a time when there are enormous levels of vacancy in the NHS and in social care, frankly imperilling the effective functioning of these services.
Applause for these key workers was great but, as my mother used to say, “You can’t spend ‘Thank you very much’.” She was of course right. Perhaps, given the outcry against this pay proposal for nurses, the Government will think again and perhaps also think about the need—indeed, the requirement—to carry out and take into account gender equality impact assessments, both before the implementation of policies and thereafter.
Perhaps by International Women’s Day 2022 we will be able to celebrate fewer girls out of education globally and a reduction in the gender pay gap here at home or at least, in contradistinction to the ONS report of this week, see fewer women in higher levels of anxiety and depression, and even perhaps more men taking a fairer share of household work and childcare. Finally, but so importantly, let us not wait until International Women’s Day 2022 to see the end of violence against women everywhere. We must act with urgency on this, as the Minister said when opening.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to this important debate, as I believe in gender equality and the empowerment of women in my business, political and social work. International Women’s Day is an important opportunity to highlight the many achievements of women in various fields while paying tribute to the important role they play in society.
I must, however, touch upon some of the challenges still facing women today. A number of experts have stated that the impact of Covid-19 will fall disproportionately on women and the most vulnerable members of our society. The coronavirus pandemic has had an adverse impact on gender equality and threatens to reverse the progress made in this area. Data from the United Nations suggests that approximately 47 million women and girls could fall into poverty as a result of the pandemic. Gender parity is vital to achieving the UN sustainable development goals by 2030. Women are overrepresented in the informal economy, where they tend to have fewer labour rights. Furthermore, mothers and women with caring responsibilities have been disproportionately furloughed or made redundant as a result of the economic downturn.
It is unacceptable that many women in various occupations are still being paid less than their male counterparts. I therefore welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to introducing policies which promote fairness in the workplace and address the gender pay gap.
The importance of addressing the devastating effects of domestic abuse on females in households experiencing prolonged periods of unemployment has become even more urgent. Phone calls to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline increased by 49% during the first national lockdown last year. There is an unfortunate correlation between economic downturns and increases in domestic abuse. The imminent Domestic Abuse Act sends a clear message that this evil will not be tolerated any more.
The pandemic reminds us all of the debt of gratitude that we owe to the women in our families and communities. Women account for approximately 77% of the NHS workforce and are overrepresented in a number of essential areas, including childcare and nursing homes. It is their strength and resilience that makes women such invaluable members of our communities. Every effort must be taken to empower women and ensure that every female is given the opportunity to reach their full potential.
We know that women in developing countries experience many forms of discrimination. However, in conflict-affected countries, they often face additional risks, in some cases from landmines and ordnance. This issue concerns me a great deal, as I have personally seen mine clearance being carried out effectively in two countries. Can my noble friend the Minister explain how the UK will contribute, through both its diplomatic channels and foreign aid, to reducing the awful damage inflicted by these weapons on women and girls globally?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, express my sympathy to the family of Sarah Everard.
I was glad to see that nobody, even Stonewall, suggested that today’s debate should be entitled “International Persons Day”. I congratulate the noble Lords who, during the recent debate on ministerial maternity allowance, exposed the nonsense of “pregnant persons”, getting the Government to accept the amendment to “pregnant mothers”.
Many Peers have rightly paid tribute to women scientists. I want to pay tribute to other women, such as Hibo Wardere, who speaks up for women and girls who, like herself, have suffered and continue to suffer from female genital mutilation and says
“I’m a woman. Get over it”.
Greta Thunberg has shown young people that their voice is important in the biggest challenge we face: saving the planet; while our own Malala Yousafzai, the youngest Nobel Prize winner ever, fights with tremendous courage and determination for young girls’ education.
If you watched the Biden inauguration it gave you tremendous hope to see Kamala Harris, the first black woman Vice-President, who I hope will go on one day to be President, and to see Amanda Gorman, the young black Poet Laureate, deliver her tremendous poem, “The Hill We Climb”. We have a long way to go on equality. My daughter, Laura, a higher-grade nurse in A&E, is twice as qualified as her brother but earns half the pay. That shows us what we think about equal pay for work of equal value. I hope the Government recognise that if we want to create a fairer, equal society post Covid then affordable childcare, as many Peers have said, is essential.
As an apprenticeship ambassador, I am getting more young girls to recognise that careers in engineering, science, construction and IT are worthwhile and necessary for the economy. It is also about getting schools to offer career guidance that shows girls that an apprenticeship is a viable alternative to university.
I want to conclude on the problem of the increased violence towards women and children taking place during Covid. We need to ensure that we protect safe spaces for women in hostels, refuges, hospitals and prisons. Physical threats to women, including rape, by transgender men are a terrible indictment on our society. I want to make it clear that I believe in fair rights for transgender people. I am not transphobic, although no doubt I will be accused of it after this contribution. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, I hope that we will be able to have a reasonable debate on this issue. I hope that in replying, the Minister will recognise the importance of protecting safe spaces for women.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register as chair of UN Women UK, as co-chair of the APPG for UN Women, along with Maria Miller, and as an adult social care provider. I want to focus most of my time on women from the minority communities. Covid has really magnified issues facing women across the country but more so, I believe, it has demonstrated how little we know about accessing those women from the minority communities who have probably faced greater challenges being in communities where there are language constraints, social isolation and often little access to separate disposable income. There is also a general lack of understanding of BAME issues across many agencies.
I have looked at issues concerning women for as long as I can remember but, over this last year or so, some of the phone calls and emails that I have received have really worried me. I have urged the House every time I can to raise the issue of people from minority communities, particularly women, although we all know that the incidence of violence against women has risen during this period. Women who have no voice or do not know how to access services are unreported, so we do not really know the numbers. We do not know how many people from minority communities are going to come out of the pandemic with huge mental health issues, and with huge problems in just readjusting their lives if they have had to try to home-school without being able to understand fully whether they are providing enough support for their children.
I remember a case not that long ago where I saw a couple from a minority community living in a multi- generational household. After the woman had given birth, she unfortunately became very sick and was unable to communicate verbally or to walk and she had uncontrollable movements. That meant that her husband was left to raise their new baby and manage a disabled wife and an elderly mother. This man was carrying his wife up and down the stairs on his back because he did not have the skills to understand how to access services. There are a lot of issues around minority communities that concern me.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for raising the issue of care workers. As an adult social care provider, I want to pay tribute to care workers across the country. They have worked tirelessly and, as often as not, have been the quiet unsung heroes who will continue to work long after this wretched pandemic has gone. We need to facilitate better recognition of care work as a profession rather than looking at it as having a low-paid, unskilled workforce. Care workers are among the most skilled people I know, and I hope that after the pandemic we will have a decent, detailed discussion on how we manage people who work in the care sector.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was going to speak on women prisoners, but the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke on the same subject, so I had to quickly change gear and invent a new speech, but that is no problem. I shall just say one thing about Covid and women prisoners. I tried to put a question, but I did not win the ballot. Pregnant women who are prisoners require early release, if possible, under the current circumstances. If there is still scope for changing the policy, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to think about it, along with the early release of those on the end of custody temporary release scheme or on special purpose licences—that is the detailed description—if it is possible. I have tried to do that.
I want to make one remark on what the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said about women MPs getting anonymous tweets and things on social media. She asked whether anonymity could be dealt with. In the past fortnight, I have read that the Government of India have sent a notification to all providers of social media that if somebody complains, they have to reveal the name—not particularly the message but the name. That is being taken to court in India, so there may be a legal problem. If there is anything that we can do to make these things anonymous, especially when a complaint is received from the recipient of an email, that will be a great step forward.
Lastly, I want to make a suggestion which has been bothering me for all the time I have been a professional economist. It is the injustice of the welfare state. If you are a woman living on your own, you get a certain sum of money from the welfare state. Under the universal credit system it is around £342 if you are under 25 and £409 if you are over 25; but if you are with a man, it is £488 instead of £342 and £594 instead of £409. This means that two people do not get double what one person gets, so the state actively encourages the breaking up of a couple’s relationship. This is a very peculiar thing.
People claim we are a Christian country with the sanctity of marriage and all that, but the welfare state actively discourages people living together, and this injustice has been going on for a long time. One thing that we can do—as far as possible, since money right now is flowing like nothing on earth—would be to correct that anomaly. It would make a lot of women’s and poor men’s lives much better; they would not have to pretend to be living separately just to get £50 more. I suggest that the Chancellor should look at that reform urgently.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a year ago the TUC found that 52% of women had experienced sexual harassment at work. For young women aged between 18 and 24 the figure was 63%, nearly two-thirds. That is disgraceful.
As the UK gets back to work after the ravages of the pandemic, I propose three steps to the Minister for tackling harassment at work. The first is to suggest an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 to impose a duty on every employer to maintain every workplace free from harassment, violence and bullying. Currently an employer may be vicariously liable but the constraints of the law on vicarious liability make that difficult to establish. A duty on the employer would place a responsibility on its shoulders to take positive steps to prevent, investigate and penalise such conduct.
The second step would be for the amendment to broaden Section 26 of the Act to specify bullying as well as harassment as unacceptable conduct. Bullying might be defined as unwanted conduct at or connected to work, whether or not related to a relevant protected characteristic, where the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the victim, and where the perpetrator has or reasonably appears to have a more powerful position than the victim whether by reason of status, authority, apparent capability to harm or reward the victim or otherwise. I appreciate that this issue is not confined only to women but women certainly suffer more bullying than men at work.
Thirdly, on Tuesday I asked the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, if consideration had been given to the UK ratifying the International Labour Organization’s convention 190 on violence and harassment, which was adopted on 21 June 2019. He said that he would write to me about it. The convention is directed against violence and harassment at work, particularly gender-based violence and harassment, and stresses the importance of a work culture based on mutual respect and dignity of the human being. It would be an important symbol of commitment at home and abroad if the UK were to ratify this important convention. Will the Minister bring her pressure to bear?
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in this debate. Harassment at work is a real issue and I hope the Government might consider the three steps that he mentioned. For me, International Women’s Day has taken on a greater significance than ever, and its theme, “Choose to challenge”, resonates very strongly with me.
I was the chair of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review and we spent two and a half years just listening and learning from many hundreds of people who have suffered avoidable harm resulting from medications and one medical device. Those people were overwhelmingly women, and my team and I discovered that, while every story we heard was different and deeply personal, there were some common themes linking them all together. These themes were really disturbing—actually, they were shocking. Women told us that they were not informed about the risks. Without being informed of the risks, they could not actually make informed decisions. That, in turn, meant that they could not give their informed consent and, when problems and painful complications arose, we heard that women were routinely ignored or dismissed.
There are many thousands of these women and they have been feeling powerless, helpless and deeply hurt. Many are in great physical pain and tremendous mental anguish. Too often, they have been treated in a cavalier fashion by a healthcare system that is disjointed and seems to have lost its raison d’être. This is not just a UK phenomenon; it is international. I have been contacted by women as far away as Australia and New Zealand who have been going through the same nightmare. Listening to women is not merely something that is nice to do, it is the starting point for good policy and good care.
Five years ago, I chaired the national maternity review. Our starting point was to listen to women and their families, and our report, Better Births, reflected what we were told. We have been putting these recommendations into being, but listening is only one step in the right direction. The second vital step is to act and, in our report, First Do No Harm, my review team said, “We urgently need an independent patient safety commissioner, someone whose role it is to listen to patients’ views and concerns, and who says, ‘Stop, this does not look right. We need to look into this. We need a pause.’”
We need someone who listens, but also someone who makes things happen. The Government have accepted the need for the commissioner and have legislated to establish the role. That is absolutely great, and I thank Ministers and officials for helping to make this happen. We now need to put this person in place. The need is urgent, because we know that avoidable harm still happens. So, in the spirit of International Women’s Day, I choose to challenge. I choose to challenge the Government: you have made a good decision by legislating to create a patient safety commissioner; for the sake of those who have suffered enough already, and for those who may be at risk right now, let us move at speed. Let us put the commissioner in place. Let us listen to patients, to women. Let us learn. Let us act. Let us improve safety and let us improve the quality of their care. What better commitment, and what better way to mark International Women’s Day?
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate. By this point in the debate. I have listened to many informative, passionate speeches from colleagues. They demonstrate commitment to post-Covid recovery within the UK and globally. I am proud to be part of such debates, and proud to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has done so much work for women and who has listened, learned and made things happen.
The wording in the title of the debate, “empowering women”, is positive and rightly linked to women’s rights. What happens after Covid is of the utmost importance, and we must build on what we have learned. I hope the Government will vigorously promote women’s rights, and not just with rhetoric. Women—and children and men—need to know their rights and how to get support to access those rights. Women’s rights are human rights and contribute to national and global development. Human rights are not just individual, but encourage us to fight for the rights of others, as recently demonstrated in the Black Lives Matter action.
Covid has laid bare inequalities of many kinds, for many people. But the situation before Covid was not satisfactory, especially for women, those with disabilities and mental health problems, those from black and minority-ethnic groups, young people and children, and older people. Some people are of course in more than one of those categories, and women have suffered in disproportionate ways, which have been described by others. Cuts to local authority funding and services such as mental health services were having devastating effects, particularly on young people, long before Covid. It will take huge efforts to reverse a downward spiral.
There are many international conventions on women’s rights. Treaties and conventions are of course useful in their aspirations and practical suggestions, but we know that they must be implemented at a local level. We need countries to react and implement. We need nations to embody these laws and policies in practice. For example, how do local government and the public and private sectors respond? How are grass-roots movements and NGOs supported to add to their knowledge and hands-on capabilities in consolidating the rights of women and girls? Is gender equality really respected?
These rights impinge on all elements of society. We may ask how women are encouraged to stand for office or apply for senior roles. We may ask how many schools have programmes which encourage both girls and boys to examine the issue of human rights and the part that they can play. During the Covid pandemic, citizens have become more aware of rights in general. Wales and Scotland have supported the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into legal frameworks and into school curricula. Will England follow the same path?
Women’s rights begin with girls and boys knowing their rights and responsibilities, having the confidence to stand up for them and learning how to access what they deserve. We must develop a culture where women’s rights and human rights are understood and enacted, and not just for ourselves. Supporting women in other, less developed countries is vital; I am glad that this has been demonstrated so well today. I envisage—and this is beginning to happen—global networks to empower women, not just those who are already powerful but those who could improve their lives with support such as mentoring and role models, becoming successful in whatever way that they choose.
I ask the Government to take a strong lead on human rights and make the direction clear with a high profile. Will they set out a vigorous programme to tackle the problems, identifying rights which are being abused? I ask for a declaration of intent. How does the Minister respond?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. On International Women’s Day we celebrate the numerous achievements and successes of women, but alongside the victories there are countless statistics and reports about the disadvantages, discrimination and gender-based violence that women face around the world. For all the very welcome advances, the pace of change on women’s rights, as enshrined by the UN 73 years ago, is staggeringly slow.
This past year, during the Covid-19 pandemic, women have often been the first to lose their jobs, and they may well be the last to be re-employed once things return to normal. The burden of childcare, home-schooling and domestic chores has all been overwhelmingly borne by women during this crisis, as noble Lords have acknowledged today. Women make up 39% of global employment; they account for 54% of job losses. If no action is taken in this gender-regressive scenario then, according to McKinsey, estimated global GDP could be $1 trillion lower in 2030.
As my noble friend Lord Bourne stated, Prime Minister Johnson has been a strong advocate for the empowerment of women and girls through education. He has demonstrated his commitment by an initiative to get 40 million more girls into primary and secondary school in developing countries by 2025. If they are reading by the age of 10, they are more likely to go to secondary school, marry much later and have financial independence.
Later this year, the UK will co-host with Kenya the Global Partnership for Education summit here in the UK. It is an opportunity to work collaboratively in this post-pandemic world. Kids have been out of school everywhere; it is important to get them back to school, both here and around the world. We are all in this together. Cuts in our aid budget are understandable due to recent challenges but it is vital that we maintain support for lifting countless children around the world out of poverty through education. It is crucial for our own security and is an important aspect of our diplomacy and influence. To honour our commitments, we will have to find new and creative ways of funding large-scale programmes for the delivery of education.
I want to make one further point. The situation of women in the developing world will not change until we tackle the root causes. Poverty is one but it does not explain everything. We agree that education for girls is key but, in addition, a concerted global effort is required to place specific emphasis on educating men to see women as equals. I must qualify that there are many enlightened men across the developing world who do support women and have been instrumental in bringing about progress.
However, a total shift in cultural mindset is needed, and this will not happen of its own accord. It needs a universal curriculum, if you like, led by the UN or the Commonwealth, which will aim to change the attitudes of future generations in a positive way—sustained efforts in getting more girls into school, parallel with educating boys on the very specific subject of gender equality, and so much can be done online. Centuries of cultural history will not be easy to shift, but this is not religious. As the noble Lord, Lord Singh, stated, most religions—whether it is Christianity, Islam or Sikhism—espouse equality. This is about a cultural mindset. It may take a generation or two to bring about the desired result but if we do not act now then, at the current pace, we may achieve our goals in 100 to 150 years’ time. That is simply not acceptable.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register.
Fifty per cent of the world are women. This year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Choose to challenge”. With that in mind, I want to use this opportunity to remind us all of the key areas that cannot slip off the agenda—especially in a year in which the world continues to face so many obstacles.
Included among those forgotten during this pandemic is the Yazidi community. This community, which was subjected to genocide, rape and torture by the Islamic State group, has been forgotten. The Islamic State’s 2014 genocide created adversity long before the pandemic ever did. Many people from the community were displaced and have been living in camps for six years. Can you imagine what it is like for those children and their mothers who are trying to educate them? The aid budget for this desperate group has been cut by not only the United Kingdom but other countries as well. The British Government had promised that 92% of their aid would be spent in Yemen on nutrition, health and education for the Yazidi community. Now we realise that this has been cut back significantly. This community needs our attention consistently. These people deserve justice, jobs and the support to return home. We cannot forget their sacrifices.
Then there is the refugee crisis. Across the world, millions of people have been driven from their homes as a result of climate change, which is not their fault. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, at the end of 2019, around 5.1 million people in 95 countries and territories were living in displacement as a result of disasters that happened not only in 2019 but in previous years. The countries with the highest number of internally displaced persons were Afghanistan, with 1.2 million, India, Ethiopia and the Philippines.
During the pandemic, asylum seekers are also being displaced by war. They are waiting for their cases to be considered, which often takes years, despite the promise of assistance from countries. The pandemic is making this much worse. These families live in barely adequate, unsanitary tent cities, with both elderly family members and young children. In these circumstances, how can they be protected? We must ensure that they get vaccinated as soon as possible. There will be generations of children whose lives were dictated by their lack of education, healthcare and the right nutrition. Despite the pandemic, we cannot turn our backs on these victims. They have found themselves refugees not through any fault of their own but as a result of war and climate change.
At the same time, there is a global human trafficking crisis. The traffickers are having a great time at the moment because nobody is watching what is happening. We have seen cases of human trafficking, particularly in the garment industry, again and again, where many countries, including the UK and US which have legislation in place, turn a blind eye to women producing garments in factories where workers are not paid a decent wage and are working under deplorable conditions. The Government must enforce the law and ensure for consumers that garments and other household goods are from factories with a stamp of approval to ensure that those goods are not developed through human trafficking.
Another problem is the trafficking that exists. Women and young children are often taken by traffickers. What protection is there for them, who will not have the opportunity to have the vaccine, who are being sold as sex slaves and whose babies are sold on the illegal, underground market? I have previously asked the Minister and the Government to follow the money, which is the only long-term way to tackle this. This is the key way to inhibit this. As we come out of the pandemic, this is one of the key issues we must look at.
Time and again we have seen how women have led the charge in successfully navigating challenging situations, especially this year. I take this opportunity to celebrate leading women who are driving us all forward, including Professor Sarah Gilbert, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who I am so proud to know—
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
I thank everybody who has spoken today, including myself, and the Minister. I am sorry I overran.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the role models we have heard about are incredibly powerful for young girls out there, but they are also incredibly powerful role models for young boys. In the past 15 years, the world we live in has been totally transformed. Young boys are not being brought up in the era of surreptitiously passing around dodgy magazines, but are having an extremist male perspective on sex and sexuality thrust upon them in their pockets. We have not adjusted society, our laws or our intervention virtually at all to deal with this situation.
Gender-based violence is about power and its misuse, and power imbalance. The internet gives the additional weapon of revenge porn, but the normality of what the internet is doing is the most insidious of all. With the online harms Bill we will have the opportunity, if we chose, to do something about it. Will we be focused enough to do things that will have an impact and will we be courageous enough to take the necessary step to redress the balance? The time bomb is not to just ticking; it has been ticking. It is enacting.
I have done an awful lot of work representing survivors of child abuse. I still represent men and women who were severely abused. Just one of the conclusions from the significant number who come to me is that men are more comfortable reporting childhood abuse when it is non-sexual but is violent. I have not had a single case where the violence against a girl was not sexual, and often very violent. The level of unreported cases is what really frightens me. I know from the work I did, and from the people who came up to me on doorsteps and in the street and reported things to me, how child abuse is phenomenally unreported.
We have another problem. I also became frighteningly familiar with cases of sexual assaults on young women by their acquaintances. These cases were not being reported—not to the police, not to any authorities, not to family and often not even to partners. The assaults were discussed just within small, tight-knit groups of women. Hence I was able to find the frightening scale. The projections I got are extraordinary.
The world we live in has changed. The internet is a key part of that change but it is more than that, of course. We are not adjusting to it in our own place of work. When I spoke in the Commons about this sort of thing a significant number of men and women came forward with their experiences. Some had complained before and some had not. What was egregious was that, when people complained, the attitudes of the parties and the authorities were excruciating. There has been a slight shift but we have hardly moved on this. Let us get our own back yard in order and let us have courage when it comes to the online harms Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the grandmother of the House in age and coming up to 40 years sitting on the red Benches—more like the virtual Benches this last year—I speak from some years of experience. However, I take this opportunity to praise my colleagues in this House across all Benches for their tireless work, the mentoring offered and the examples set to others, as well as the years of experience to help make others’ lives better. For together we are stronger than individually, and International Women’s Day recognises this on a global scale.
My daughter recently shared with me that I was one of only 27 women Peers out of the 201 Peers made by Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. I am glad to say that our representation has improved significantly since then, but it remains an uphill struggle in this House and the other place. In a world of alleged equals we find that many things are anything but equal. It means that we in this House and those like us need to shout all the louder and make our presence felt in fighting for what is right, or for what others merely take for granted.
From my work as the UK representative on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and later as chairman of Plan International, I saw at first hand how so many countries rely on the women of the family. I saw the success of small loans to women. For example, a woman bought one chicken and from that one chicken grew her business by selling eggs and investing in more chickens. She was able to feed her family and provide a stable income. It may not be much in the western world but it showed me that women, wherever they are, can be wonderfully entrepreneurial.
Covid has had a massive impact on all our lives, most markedly for women. Whether it is juggling working from home with children’s online schoolwork, or housework on being furloughed, women have borne a disproportionate burden of Covid and its impact. Therefore, it is critical that we help women to get back on their feet through employment and restoring their confidence and self-belief. So much of the past year has been spent coping, thinking about others or fretting about finance that we need to empower women, both practically and mentally, for the future.
The ClementJames Centre in north Kensington runs a women’s confidence programme. It is a six-week course that allows local women the opportunity to focus on themselves, their needs, their aspirations and the ways in which they can successfully achieve their goals. It is even more important now, as we gradually come out of lockdown.
Another key aspect, which others may have touched on, is the importance of women in leading by example and encouraging others to have the Covid vaccines. The matriarch in the family sets the tone for the others to follow.
I wish noble Lords well in all that they do for women both now and in the future.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a recent trustee of UNICEF. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, I also made my maiden speech in this debate 10 years ago. She and I have had coffee a few times, discussing how to promote women into winnable seats within our parties, and I am personally delighted that a number of the women on the Lib Dem leadership programme now sit in the House of Commons.
Ten years ago, my disability was much less visible than it is today. I have been privileged to join the excellent Peers on the “mobility Bench”, as my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester describes the wheel- chair spaces. She and I have the privilege of sitting alongside two outstanding disabled women: the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey- Thompson. They are absolutely outstanding disability campaigners—and my personal heroines—giving a voice to disabled women across the country. Their example is significant and historic in a world where women’s voices, let alone disabled women’s voices, are sometimes drowned out.
I also want to mention a young disabled woman who is changing the way in which women with learning disabilities are supported and encouraged to take up the services that they are entitled to. Ciara Lawrence, an ambassador for Mencap, promotes having cervical smear tests to others like herself—but she has done so much more. She is teaching staff in the NHS how to work with learning disabled women like herself, and works closely with the Eve Appeal and Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. She also has her own regular podcast, “Ciara’s Pink Sparkle Pod”.
We heard that, during the pandemic, too many people with learning difficulties had “do not attempt resuscitation” orders put on their files without their or their families’ consent. A very high number have died of Covid because of their underlying health conditions. Despite that, they had to fight to get vaccines along with other clinically vulnerable people; I delight that that has now happened.
I want Ciara’s voice to be heard by more non-learning disabled people, because she is such a brilliant advocate for what those with disabilities can achieve. I ask the Minister: how can the Government encourage more wonderful ambassadors like Ciara?
Other noble Lords have already mentioned access to women’s medical services, but disabled women say that access to family planning services can often be harder too. Will the Government’s review of health inequalities make sure that these issues for disabled women are addressed specifically? They are not “hard to reach” but, unfortunately, they are often at the back of the queue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, talked about some of the medical issues that women face, as highlighted in the women’s health inequality consultation, which launched on Monday. I was diagnosed with endometriosis well over 40 years ago, and I am pleased to say that treatment in hospitals has advanced considerably since those days. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that what seems not to have changed is diagnosis and referral, which is often too slow and dismissive. Can the Minister say what support there is to train all GPs, primary care nurses and even employers to recognise when women have these problems? They should not be dismissed as a bit of a bother because all women have a problem at that time of the month. Endometriosis is agonising.
This is not just an information issue about women themselves recognising it. We need professionals and the business community to understand that endometriosis is a very serious illness and, if not treated early enough, can lead to serious fertility problems. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke movingly of repeated miscarriage; as someone with endometriosis, I also experienced this later on. However, I was extremely lucky 36 years ago to be referred to the wonderful Lesley Regan, who was then starting one of the first research studies into repeat miscarriage. She is now the secretary-general of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and is the immediate past president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. To my astonishment, she is only the second woman to hold that post, and the first in 64 years. I am afraid that the body that looks after women is still too often mainly run by men. I look forward to more women in that role.
My noble friend Lady Benjamin spoke about the importance of a Minister for children. I agree, especially in order to encourage girls to have ambition. My 90 year-old mother-in-law desperately wanted to be a doctor like her brother, but her father said no. I want there to be no cultural barriers for my granddaughters.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke movingly of girls and women with neurodiversity and how they are judged by society. I think we are slowly learning that there are differences and that we need to treat women with neurodiverse issues in a different way from men.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, noted the worrying changes in access to abortion and family planning in Poland at the moment. I admire the many thousands of young women protesting in the streets about the changes in the law there.
My noble friend Lady Janke spoke of 82% of care staff being women and the Government’s catastrophic treatment of care homes during the beginning of the pandemic. The most important issue for our care homes is: where is the White Paper? Will it ensure that the care workforce is valued as much as the NHS one? That is vital. These are not just minor aides; my mother spent her last two years in a home, and I saw the professionalism with which she was looked after.
The health inequality consultation notes that 77% of the NHS workforce is also women. Earlier this week, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to ensure that all hospital trusts and CCGs publish their staff gender ratios and pay gaps at each pay grade on an annual basis, as we ask large companies to do, because, despite women being an overwhelming part of the workforce, the ratios are not so good at the top.
More generally in the workforce, the pandemic seems to have acted as a cover for the furloughing of many more women than men and, worse, the appalling treatment of some pregnant women, including summary dismissal. The charity Pregnant Then Screwed has run an excellent advice hub, but the women who have turned to it are probably only a few of those affected. It was encouraging to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, say that this treatment of pregnant women is dreadful. What steps will the Government take to ensure that companies follow the rules for maternity and parental rights?
A number of noble Lords have spoken of issues around our LGBT community. This week, the focus has been on whether the Government will follow up their strong words condemning conversion therapy and now ban it. In the Commons, the Minister has refused to do so. On top of the concerns about the attacks on trans people, there is now a real concern that the equalities rights granted over many years are being rowed back on. Over the last two days, three government advisers have resigned over this issue, the Conservative LGBT+ organisation is demanding an investigation and many Back-Bench MPs are worried. All major counselling and psychotherapy bodies, as well as the NHS, say that conversion therapy is dangerous but government Ministers will not move to ban it. Will there be a firm statement that there is no place for conversion therapy in the UK? Being LGBT is not a mental illness that can be cured.
I was somewhat surprised by the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Young, that women’s refuges were dangerous places because of the threat of trans women being there. I am not aware of any such cases, and for the Domestic Abuse Bill, a number of women’s refuges and other organisations made it plain that they are trans -inclusive. In fact, a 2017 survey showed that the reality is that one in six trans women experience domestic abuse themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, commented on women in transport, particularly on the growth of the number of women in key roles on the railways. I could not get into the Lords when not shielding without the help of many brilliant women staff on trains and in stations.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville spoke of the Women’s World Day of Prayer. Each year, I find it inspiring to hear of women of faith in another part of the world.
My noble friend Lord McNally spoke—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We seem to have lost the sound of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I am sorry, it muted itself. I have not quite finished.
My noble friend Lord McNally spoke of the Corston review and how progress is slow. Covid has raced through our prisons and work has been done to get prisoners home safely with electronic tags. I hope that this lesson will be used now to reduce the number of women in prison.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also talked about the UK chairing the G7, and making gender equality and building back better from coronavirus an absolute priority. That is good to hear, but I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. How on earth will the cuts to the international development budget help women, given that much aid is targeted at girls and women? We know that women are much more affected by violence, and by domestic violence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, politics is a particularly difficult place for women to be online at the moment. There is an enormous amount of targeting of women on social media at a very high level, but black and ethnic minority women face much higher levels of abuse. Black and ethnic minority MPs, in particular, are highly targeted. What has gone wrong in our society that people, often mainly men, feel it is acceptable to spew out the most hateful statements, day in and day out? I hope that the online harms Bill, when it is published, will address this.
My noble friend Lady Jolly referred to the women at Bletchley Park. I had the privilege of knowing Dr Lucy Slater who, in the early 1950s, having worked throughout the war teaching trigonometry to soldiers, helped devise the precursor to modern computing operating systems. Subsequently, she helped develop computer programmes for econometrics, working for much of the time with UK government officials. I remember her coming to talk to our primary school girls about how exciting maths was. She really challenged girls never to say that maths was not for them. She was a real inspiration.
As a young woman, my noble kinsman Mary Stocks—later Baroness Stocks—sat in the Public Gallery of your Lordships’ House to hear their Lordships attacking the very idea that women should have the vote. She was also one of the early women life Peers and someone who I admired greatly. She spent her life fighting for women’s access to education, family planning and other medical services. She would be horrified that my four year-old twin granddaughters are likely to be in their 80s before the House of Commons becomes 50% women. Today’s wonderful debate has been a chance to celebrate the role of women in our society, but much change is still needed to get the equality that most of us women still aspire to.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I begin by expressing my sincere condolences to Ms Everard’s family and friends, who will be experiencing appalling grief today. No woman should walk home with fear or threat. There must be a recognition of the intimidation and misogyny that women and girls suffer on a daily basis, and until we confront it—unless we speak it out loud—we cannot begin to deal with it.
My noble friend Lady Goudie reminded us that the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Choose to challenge”, and I take up that theme determinedly through my contribution to what has been an excellent debate today from across the Committee. Yesterday, I asked the Minister what steps the Government are taking
“to ensure that … women, and … groups which represent women, are included in the development of their policies responding to the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In her response, the Minister said that the Government
“continue to listen to the experiences of women as we respond to the Covid-19 crisis … and … carefully consider evidence on how different people have been affected by the pandemic”.—[Official Report, 10/3/21; cols. 1606-07.]
I am sure that listening has taken place in this important debate today, and I recommend to the Minister that action upon that listening is translated into workable policies. Clearly, some people working on equalities issues within this Government do not feel listened to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just noted. Three equality advisers quit their roles on the Government’s advisory panel yesterday, accusing Boris Johnson’s Administration of creating a hostile environment for LGBT+ people. Jayne Ozanne said that she resigned over concerns that the Government are backing out of a promise to ban conversion therapy, a range of harmful practices that attempt to reverse someone’s sexual orientation and/or their gender identity. She said that she has been increasingly concerned about what is seen to be a hostile environment for LGBT+ people among this Administration and has seen an increasing lack of engagement. The actions of Ministers have been against their advice, and it felt as if she was dealing with Ministers for inequality, not equality. It does not sound as if a great deal of listening has been going on. The Conservative MP and chair of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes, commented today that after listening to Jayne Ozanne on television this morning talking about her experience of so-called conversion therapy, she was disappointed that the Government were rowing back from legislating to ban it, as last July, they gave the impression that it would be done.
I further informed the Minister that a report published just yesterday morning by the ONS, on the differential impact of the coronavirus pandemic on men and women, said that 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. Women were more likely to be furloughed and to spend significantly less time working from home and more time on unpaid household work and childcare.
In January, the Commons Women and Equalities Committee published its report on the gendered impact of the pandemic and, in doing so, raised concerns that the Government’s priorities for the post-Covid recovery are heavily gendered in nature. It was concerned to hear the Minister for Equalities repeatedly refer to considering the effects of policies “in the round” in response to questions about the gendered impact of the Government’s policies. It went on to say that that it was also concerning that a GEO Minister should appear dismissive of the imperative to consider the effects of policies on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Such consideration is a legal requirement clearly set out in the Act’s public sector equality duty. It acknowledged the Government’s intention to take a
“new approach to tackling inequality”,
but the Government have a continuing legal duty to ensure that their policies and decisions do not adversely affect groups of people with protected characteristics.
The report further noted that investment plans are skewed towards male-dominated sectors, with the potential to create unequal outcomes for men and women, all on top of the fact that the pandemic has intensified existing inequalities in almost all areas of life, negating the hard-won achievements of past decades here in the UK and beyond. The authoritative contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for the continuation of the VSO programme, were admirable. Surely the Government will not let such a successful organisation, and Britain’s wider reputation in the world, simply fold because they have not listened and cannot make a decision. That is one of my choices to challenge.
This week in the Lords, we have started Report on the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill. During the debates, speaker after speaker has commented on the significant increase in domestic violence during the pandemic, referring to multiple reports from charities and campaigners of a surge in calls to helplines and online services since the first lockdown, a sobering insight into the levels of abuse that some people live with daily. The pandemic and its related restrictions have clearly closed off access to support or escape. It may also have curtailed measures that some abusers take to keep their violence under control.
When it comes to the workplace, much of the UK’s front-line response to tackling Covid has fallen upon women, including 76% of those employed in health and social care and 86% of those delivering personal care. These sectors have, of course, seen an unprecedented rise in workload, health risks and challenges for work-life balance.
The Women’s Budget Group provided an excellent report prior to the recent Budget highlighting that 46% of mothers who have been made redundant during the pandemic cite lack of adequate childcare provision as the cause, while 70% of women with caring responsibilities who requested furlough following school closures had their request denied. This has led to almost half being worried about negative treatment from an employer because of childcare responsibilities. During the first national lockdown, those in low-paid work were twice as likely to be on furlough, or to have their hours reduced, than those in higher-income jobs, hitting women in particular, as there are twice as many women as men in the bottom 10% of earners.
The TUC research found that job losses have been most acute in three industries—accommodation and food, wholesale and retail, and manufacturing—accounting for 70% of job losses overall. Women are the majority of employees in accommodation and food, as well as in retail. Employment for disabled people has fallen more rapidly during the crisis than for non-disabled people, and disabled people are currently two and a half times more likely to be out of work than non-disabled people.
Gender inequalities are exacerbated by race. Black, Asian and minority ethnic women began the pandemic from a place of disadvantage, with one of the lowest rates of employment. In 2020 that was still the case, with BAME employment at just 62.5%, and the highest rate of unemployment, at 8.8%, compared with 4.5% for white people.
It is well documented that women earn less and are more likely to work in insecure jobs, often in the informal sector, with less access to social protections. They run most single-parent households, which further limits their capacity to absorb economic shocks. Prolonged lockdowns and school closures have seen women’s access to paid work diminish but an increase in unpaid labour. Domestic duties, including preparing food for home-schooled children and looking after ill family members, have all fallen disproportionately on women. It is therefore crucial that women’s voices are at the core of policy development and decision-making on how the UK and the wider world move beyond Covid. The participation of women and girls is necessary and vital at every level and in every arena. Without equal participation, pandemic responses will be less effective at meeting their needs and will lead to negative consequences.
As my noble friend Lady Massey so powerfully said, the empowerment of women is key at whatever level of society. During the pandemic, populations have become more aware of rights in general. I am pleased that the Governments in Wales and Scotland have supported the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into legal frameworks as well as into the school curriculum. I urge the UK Government to do the same.
Similarly, my noble friend Lady Gale, when talking about the important contribution that older women make to society as taxpayers, care workers, child carers and volunteers, mentioned that since 2008 we have had the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales, who is indeed a strong voice and independent of government. I agree with her that there should be a similar provision in England.
Research published last summer noted that around the world women leaders have been more successful than their male counterparts at reducing Covid transmission in their countries. My noble friend Lord Rooker has already noted the inspirational leader, Jacinda Ardern. When she outlined her approach to dealing with the pandemic, she said:
“The worst-case scenario is simply intolerable. It would represent the greatest loss of New Zealanders’ lives in our country’s history. I will not take that chance … the government will do all it can to protect you. None of us can do this alone.”
So what can and should we be doing together in the UK? Statutory sick pay must be increased to the real living wage, and those who have symptoms of Covid or are awaiting test results should not be forced to go to work. The majority of public sector workers are women, so the public sector pay freeze announced in the one-year 2020 spending review should be lifted in order to support public sector workers through the Covid-19 recovery. During the pandemic, society would not have coped without our nurses and healthcare workers, who have been central to dealing with it. We should pay them appropriately for their dedication and skill, and I choose to challenge the Prime Minister to increase the current offer of a 1% pay rise.
The Government should immediately reinstate gender pay gap reporting and must use the upcoming employment Bill to reduce insecurity for low-paid workers by extending employment rights and investing in strong and effective enforcement. Women, and the views of women, must be included as a matter of course in current and future policy development. I choose to challenge this Government to move from appointing Ministers of inequality to appointing Ministers of equality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. I know that, for many, these speeches have represented the focus of their life’s work. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and thank all those women and Peers who have gone before me and broken down the barriers to enable me to stand today at this Dispatch Box. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, outlining the history of female participation in science.
While we want to celebrate the examples of extraordinary women, I also want to express my sadness to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. My thoughts and prayers are with them. I, too, noticed that I took a taxi instead of walking home as I planned a few days ago.
In line with the Choose to Challenge theme this year for International Women’s Day, I want to share the stories of two inspirational young women who have challenged stereotypes and their circumstances, like Ciara, who was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Amelia, a care leaver I spoke to as part of the recent national apprenticeship week, took on the challenge of a level 3 apprenticeship in business to open up opportunities for her future and now leads the Institute for Apprenticeships apprentice panel and directly influences how apprenticeships are developed. Grace Vella, a former Manchester City and Liverpool player, has launched what I believe to be the first clothing brand for female footballers in the UK, which now sells into Europe.
I assure the noble Lords that the Government are committed to empowering women and girls across the country, and indeed around the world. Noble Lords have clearly taken the theme very much to heart and outlined many challenges for this Government, probably across every Cabinet role, which I will now seek to address in the time remaining. I hope to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that this is action, not just words.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Deech, for raising the issue of girls in STEM subjects. We have programmes such as STEM Ambassadors raising awareness of STEM careers and inspiring girls to follow the admirable Professor Sarah Gilbert. Last summer we saw 44% of STEM A-levels taken by girls. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, mentioned computer science, and I am pleased to say that we are now testing how to increase the number of girls taking computer science through the gender balance in computing programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, highlighted the changing transport sector. Apprenticeships are now offering an excellent route to higher-paid jobs in this sector, allowing women to earn while they learn.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Benjamin, mentioned the creation of a Cabinet role of Minister for Children. I assure them that policy is being driven from within the Department for Education by the Secretary of State and that in the three currently open maths schools, which are selective sixth-form colleges that offer maths, further maths and physics, part of the outreach is specifically for girls to ensure that they are taking these A-levels and are therefore able to access higher-paid employment.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Uddin, spoke passionately about balancing work, childcare and home schooling. In recognition of this, of course, we introduced childcare bubbles, and I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that employers were able to furlough parents who were unable to work due to the former closure of schools and childcare services. Although we have statistics on the number of women who requested furlough and were turned down, it was still the case that more women were being furloughed than men. We expect to spend £3.6 billion on early years entitlements in 2020-21, and we are establishing a £1 billion fund to support high-quality, affordable childcare before, after and during the holidays, reflecting the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft—and of course we pay credit to her son for his role in home schooling.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and many other noble Lords raised the important issue of children’s mental health. Only last Friday, a further £79 million of investment was given to boost mental health support. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that there is funding of £11 million for Barnardo’s See, Hear, Respond programme. Its work has been so important in highlighting the issue of children who are not yet known to children’s social care, which has obviously become more difficult during the lockdown.
As many noble Lords set out, women have been at the forefront of the fight against Covid, and the Government have given unprecedented financial support to sustain businesses, jobs and livelihoods. This contribution has been recognised by the OBR, the Bank of England and the IMF.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised the need to protect jobs, particularly in sectors such as retail and hospitality that include high numbers of women. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme until the end of September.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised concerns around the welfare system and the support it offers to families. The Covid winter support grant has been delivering £170 million to local authorities in England from December to the end of March to support children and families, and 80% of that fund has been ring-fenced for bills and food.
As noted by my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady McIntosh, it is important that we address the pensions gap. We are committed to providing a financial safety net for those who need it, including when they are close to or reach retirement. The Government are trying to increase the take-up of pension credit, which is a particular issue that the House has considered this week. More than 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 a year each by 2030 as a result of the recent reforms to the state pension. In addition, state pension outcomes are being equalised for men and women, or should equalise by the early 2040s, over a decade earlier than they would have done under the old system. Noble Lords raised particular queries about auto-enrolment, which I will address separately in a letter.
Although the pandemic has clearly brought hardship, it has also provided us with an opportunity to challenge our work environments and, as noted by my noble friend Lord Lucas, to promote the benefits of flexible working. The Government’s behavioural insights research with the jobs board has shown that offering flexible working increases job applications by 20% to 30%. We want to make it easier for people to work flexibly, and in our manifesto we committed to encouraging such working by consulting on making it the default unless employers have good reasons not to. However, we must be mindful of the caution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to ensure that women do not become trapped at home with forced flexible working; it should be by request.
I welcome the contributions made by my noble friends Lady Bottomley and Lady Brady about the need to challenge discrimination in the workplace. Since 2016, we have been supporting the business-led and voluntary Hampton-Alexander review to increase the number of female leaders in the UK’s top-listed companies. The goal of the review—for 33% women board members across the FTSE 350—has been exceeded, and the number of women on boards increased by 50% over the five years of the review. It has been great to see year-on-year improvements, but we know that much more needs to be done, especially to increase the number of women on executive committees. I want to add my congratulations to Amanda Blanc, Alison Rose and Milena Mondini de Focatiis as some of the newer leaders of FTSE 100 companies at Admiral, NatWest and Aviva.
I want to draw attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and my noble friend Lady Mobarik that these attitudes are not based on the tenets of religious faith. Some of the attitudes that prevail in our businesses and workplaces are cultural. I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bakewell, in welcoming the celebration of the Women’s World Day of Prayer, which was such a feature for me, given that I grew up as part of a church in Oakham, in Rutland.
I agree with the important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, about the value of networking among women, both within the workplace and for budding entrepreneurs. The Government have provided unprecedented support to the self-employed during the crisis, not just through the income support scheme but with bounce-back loans, mortgage holidays, self-isolation support payments and a range of other business support grants. We are determined to unleash the potential of women across the country by encouraging female-led start-ups, such as that of Grace Vella, which I mentioned earlier, and supporting more women into STEM.
On health issues, many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Blower, and my noble friend Lady Verma, talked about women being on the front line in the fight against Covid, from social workers to care workers to nurses. We all want to pay tribute to all their work during the pandemic.
There are also important health issues that predate Covid, and tackling them remains vital. I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for her inspirational work, and in particular for drawing attention in this debate to the women’s health strategy, where we aim to improve the health and well-being of women across the country. There is currently a call for evidence out for this. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, there are often unknown stories of women who have had miscarriages. We hope that women will respond to the call for evidence and tell us about their experiences, and that they will talk about the need for understanding in the workplace.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, talked about women’s mental health. The Government have responded by creating the rollout of a 24/7 mental health helpline and £10 million for the voluntary sector. I encourage women to reach out to our mental health services for support.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who I think made the first male contribution to the debate, in promoting the early diagnosis of neuro-diverse conditions. Our refreshed autism strategy, which is due to be published in the spring, will help to ensure that autistic people receive the right support, including timely diagnosis in early years, and for the first time it will include children and young people. I can assure him that, as in my other role in the education department for the capital, I always ask whether we have thought about autism in girls when looking at provision, whether in mainstream or special schools.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, let me first thank her for all her years of work on her independent review. We will appoint an independent patient safety commissioner, and I can confirm that work is under way to allow the appointment process to begin.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned single-sex spaces in hospitals. We understand from NHS England that its National Advisor for LGBT Health, Dr Michael Brady, is currently reviewing the guidance on same-sex accommodation to provide further clarity to patients and NHS organisations.
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for raising the important issue of IVF. I assure him that, post the first lockdown, those services were open during the subsequent lockdowns. Although I struggled to hear all of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, I assure him that sex-selective abortions are of course unlawful in the UK.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her appointment as chair of the EHRC. In response to her comments and the representations of the noble Lord, Lord Young, the recently passed Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act is an important piece of legislation making changes so that senior Ministers can take maternity leave. Since 2007, legislative drafting guidance has encouraged avoiding the use of gender-specific pronouns to avoid stereotypes and assumptions that constrain women. However, we listened to the strength of feeling in the House and agreed to amend the wording from pregnant “person” to “mother”.
I pay tribute to the many speeches from noble Lords about violence against women and girls, particularly surrounding domestic abuse. It is the shadow pandemic, and we must maintain and enhance our efforts to prevent it and support victims. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, noted, lockdown has been especially hard for some. Home should be a safe place, but clearly it is not for those confined with an abuser. The Government continue to work closely with the designate domestic abuse commissioner and domestic abuse organisations to assess ongoing trends and support needs throughout our response to the pandemic.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, noted in opening the debate, the abuse of older women is unacceptable. Although there are no current plans to appoint a dedicated commissioner for older people, we take this issue seriously through our work on tackling abuse. It will obviously be part of the role of the domestic abuse commissioner.
The noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Desai, raised the issue of women in the prison system. The 2020 White Paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, announced a number of proposals, including measures to divert women from custody. Noble Lords will be aware that there has been a decline in the number of young people in custody, which will of course include some young girls.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for her challenge on the need to reflect the requirements of disabled, refugee and asylum-seeking women in policy-making. I also thank her for her practical work with Near Neighbours. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for her insight on the importance of women in decision-making and of reflecting the needs of Muslim women.
Similarly, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, who highlighted the plight of widows during the Covid crisis. I will take away his idea about having a specific response for widows in our Covid response.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, for his further comments on the need to increase the equal representation of women across society.
My noble friend Lady Verma reminded us of the importance of access to services for hard-to-reach communities. This is particularly critical. I very much appreciated meeting her and a round table from the Leicester Listening Project. It has been particularly illuminating, when we are not able to meet people physically, to hear from women about their difficulties in accessing the support that is available.
I welcome the challenge from many noble Lords on the role of the UK in fighting for women’s rights across the globe. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Armstrong, Lady Sugg and Lady Bakewell, spoke about aid funding and VSO. Covid’s impact on the UK economy has forced us to make tough but necessary decisions to temporarily reduce our aid budget. We know the unique contribution volunteers can make to sustainable development and we are now working through the implications of these changes for individual programmes, including for the volunteering for development grant. No decisions have currently been made but I will ensure that noble Lords are kept up to date. In the wake of the pandemic, we are very proud that the FCDO and VSO were able to work together to pivot over 80% of programming to pandemic response in just 10 days.
We will continue to drive equality and fairness through the heart of our G7 presidency, bringing together the leading democracies around educating girls, empowering women and ending violence against women and girls. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on a feminist foreign policy and gender-inclusive environmental work. Our COP 26 presidency will support a green, inclusive and resilient recovery and we will continue to champion gender equality.
In response to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Sheikh, on landmines, I can assure them that the UK is committed to the anti-personnel mine ban convention. Since 2018 we have invested £124 million in clearing landmines and explosive ordnance through the global mine action programmes. I can ensure the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, that with regard to overseas vaccines we have given £250 million to the COVAX project.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on online harms and abuse, which was a theme throughout many speeches, the online harms Bill will consider the role, if any, for anonymity in relation to the internet.
I will follow up the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and will request a reply from my noble friend Lord Ahmad with regard to that particular convention.
I conclude by once again thanking all those who contributed today. It is not possible for me in the time allowed to cover every question that noble Lords raised, but I shall write to your Lordships to cover the remaining issues. After a challenging year, it is important that we reflect on the strides we have made while continuing to consider what more can be done to empower women and girls in the recovery and beyond. While using our G7 presidency, we will ensure that gender equality is at the centre of our recovery, and we have many new female heroes to celebrate. The majority, however, will remain known only to those whose lives they touched, such as the NHS staff whose kindness reassured the patient coming out of a coma, or the staff in essential shops who may be the only person an elderly person sees in the day. However, we also want to celebrate the likes of Professor Sarah Gilbert and Kate Bingham for their role in the teams which delivered the vaccine programme.
I am sure that noble Lords are also looking forward as I am to welcoming the new Bishop of Chelmsford to the House, the Right Reverend Guli Francis-Dehqani, who is the first bishop of any gender of Persian heritage. It seemed most appropriate to mention her after the comments a number of noble Lords made about the situation for women in Iran. Her family came to this country during the Iranian revolution and fled to the UK, so it is amazing to see, when we challenge, what change is possible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
That completes the business before Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Global Population Growth
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether issues relating to global population growth will be on the agenda for COP 26; and if so, what proposals they have to address any such issues.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, at COP 26 we will seek to address the steps needed to reduce emissions in line with the Paris agreement. The UK presidency will focus on five campaigns in the areas of energy, transport, nature, finance and adaptation and resilience. Population growth is not an explicit focus for the COP. At the Climate Ambition Summit in December, the COP 26 president-designate set out four strategic aims for COP 26: a step change in mitigation; a strengthening of adaptation; getting finance flowing; and enhancing international collaboration.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Did the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, have a supplementary question? No.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the Government not recognise that the pressures of increasing global population lead to cut and burn of vegetation and a number of other pressures, including, of course, drought and conflict? The question is what the Government are going to do about it. If they fail to raise it at COP, will they do something more and raise it, for example, at the UN Security Council? Will they encourage by their development policies family spacing, which is very much a women’s issue and could lead to a more acceptable population movement globally?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, population growth is clearly an issue, but the bigger factor by far is consumption levels. The average UK citizen, for instance, has significantly higher levels of consumption and CO2 production than the average beneficiary of any UK aid. For example, it takes the average UK citizen just five days to emit the same amount of carbon as the average Rwandan does in a full year. The challenge is to move towards an economic system that recognises the value of nature and understands the cost of waste, pollution and the use of scarce resources.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I have to agree with and commend the Minister’s comments just now. However, given the announcement from the Biden Administration that their intention is to protect and empower women around the world, will the Government follow suit and, as chair of COP, acknowledge that climate justice demands that women have free reproductive choices, including access to contraception, abortion and treatments to addressing fertility?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Voluntary family planning programmes undoubtedly empower women and girls to choose whether and when to have children and this in turn supports the health, prosperity and resilience of their communities and countries. Where population projections show continued rapid growth, effective family planning programmes can change that trajectory. Voluntary family planning is one of the most powerful drivers of sustainable development and prosperity. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK reached an average of 25.3 million women and girls per year with modern methods of family planning and we continue to ramp up our efforts in that area.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has just acknowledged, it is well accepted that access to contraception should be prioritised in development spending, because it is the right thing for women to choose their birth spacing, leading to empowerment and enrichment of families, communities and countries. I wonder whether my noble friend agrees with me and Sir David Attenborough, who said:
“Today we’re living in an era in which the biggest threat to human well-being, to other species and to the Earth as we know it might well be ourselves. The issue of population size is always controversial because it touches on the most personal decisions we make, but we ignore it at our peril.”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I certainly agree, as do the Government, that the greatest challenge that we face is the broken relationship between our species and the natural world around us. The statistics and facts are virtually unarguable, so I certainly would not take issue with anything that my noble friend has said. On population growth, in addition to the answer that I just gave on family planning, we also know that quality girls’ education, especially at secondary level, in combination with voluntary family planning, can help girls to assert their fundamental reproductive right to choose the number and spacing of their children. At the same time, smaller family size can reduce demand on natural resources—food and water and so on—and help to limit environmental degradation.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, ensuring that women and girls around the world have access to reproductive and sexual health services is not only the right thing to do but is also important for global sustainability. What does the Minister have to say to the millions of women and girls in Sierra Leone, where one in 17 women die in pregnancy or childbirth, who rely on such services from the International Rescue Committee, whose programme now faces 60% cuts as a result of the Government’s unlawful reduction in the aid budget? When will the Government reverse this immoral and unlawful decision?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, like any normal person, I look at the situation in places such as Sierra Leone with horror. I remind the noble Lord of the answers that I have just given about the UK’s contribution to supporting quality girls’ education and its contribution to family planning for empowerment and sustainable population. We are among the world’s most generous donors across the board. While we are ramping up our support for action to tackle climate change and to try to reverse nature loss, this is not happening at the expense of the intensity of our support for the issues that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend said in his initial Answer that population was not an explicit theme of COP 26. Do the Government accept that the fundamental reason for global warming is human activity? More humans, wherever they appear, mean more human activity and more global warming. In the light of this, will he expand on his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, by telling the House what proportion of our aid budget is targeted at educating women and helping them to control their fertility and by how much that is planned to be cut?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the education of women and girls is a personal priority of the Prime Minister. It is a top international priority in relation to our spending of overseas development assistance. I cannot give the noble Lord figures going forward, because these decisions are still being taken, but I can absolutely assure him that the education of women and girls will remain a top priority, alongside climate change and tackling nature destruction. We will continue under all and any circumstances to be among the world’s most generous supporters of the kind of initiatives that the noble Lord has just cited.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Following the helpful proposal over the five priorities, how will the Government encourage others to increase aid for the education of women and girls in a sustainable way, including sustainable energy production and sustainable agriculture and public health measures, in order to create sustainable education programmes in the long term?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The principal goal of COP 26—our job, in a sense—is to make real the commitments that were made in Paris under the Paris Agreement. We want countries cumulatively to bring emissions down in line with those commitments and that means all countries coming forward with realistic plans for 2030—improved nationally determined contributions and long-term strategies to reach net zero as soon as possible. Part of that involves increasing finance, so we are putting a lot of pressure on other donor countries to increase the finance that they make available for climate change and for nature-based solutions to climate change.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
The Minister has mentioned nature a number of times. Scientists tell us that nature can provide us with almost 40% of our climate solution through forest and woodland conservation, restoration, sustainable land management and improved agriculture working that supports our climate. However, OECD data shows that investments that harm nature come to well over $500 billion per year. What action are the Government taking in preparation for COP 26 to put investment in nature and a reduction of these damaging economic impacts at the heart of tackling climate change internationally?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness raises perhaps the most important issue of all. There is no pathway to net zero without massive increase in our support for protecting and restoring nature. Nature-based solutions could contribute a very significant proportion of the solution in the most cost-effective manner. Only about 3% of global climate finance goes on nature, which is madness. We are challenging that and attempting to change it. The Prime Minister committed last year to doubling our climate finance to £11.6 billion. Since then, he has also committed that £3 billion of that, nearly 30%, will be spent on nature-based solutions. We are asking other donor countries to do the same. But we need to go beyond public money, so we are attempting to build a coalition of countries committed to shifting land-use subsidies, so that instead of incentivising destruction, they incentivise protection, and much more besides.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, addressing population growth through much greater support for family planning is one of the key solutions to climate change and biodiversity loss, as proposed by the Dasgupta review. Why will the Government not use COP 26 to call on the world’s leaders to fund family planning?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, COP 26 is just one staging post this year. It is a significant and major event, but we also have the Convention on Biological Diversity, we are presidents of the G7 and we will have the G20 as well. We have a number of events hosted, for example, by the new US President to raise these issues up the agenda. We will be using all these events to do all that we can to push for a coherent approach to tackling climate change and nature destruction. That of course includes increasing support for initiatives around family planning and the education of women and girls.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, although the screen has become a little eccentric in its recording of that. We come now to the second Oral Question.
Music and Performing Arts Students: Visas and Work Permits
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the visa and work permit requirements for touring in the European Union on music and performing arts students in the United Kingdom.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as chairman of the Royal College of Music.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of international touring for UK cultural and creative practitioners. British music and performing arts students seeking to tour within the EU are now required to check domestic immigration and visitor rules for individual member states. The DCMS-led working group on creative and cultural touring, involving sector representatives and other key government departments, is working to assess the impacts and ensure that the sector gets the clarity and support it needs.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are all aware of the damage to the creative economy from the new visa and work permit requirements for EU touring, with jobs lost and tours cancelled, but perhaps hardest hit are students in music and the performing arts. Does my noble friend acknowledge that students need to perform in Europe to progress their careers and enrich their education, but now cannot because the cost of work permits and the bureaucracy of multiple visa applications are prohibitive? It is essential we reach bilateral agreements on work permits with member states urgently if we are not to blight a generation of students, so can my noble friend tell the House what progress has been made on that front?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely agree with my noble friend about the importance of touring for students, both within the EU and more broadly around the world. He will be aware that our rules for touring creative professionals are more generous than those of many EU member states. The working group to which I referred met for the first time on 5 February to try to get clarity on the issues impacting creative professionals and how best to support them. I reassure my noble friend that we are working across government to address the important issues he raises.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con) [V]
I strongly support my noble friend Lord Black. This could and should have been resolved by now, for it is self-evidently in the interests of all concerned that frictionless visa-free arrangements—[Connection lost.]
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend kindly shared his question with me ahead of time so, despite the technological glitches, I will endeavour to answer. First, we remain disappointed that the deal we proposed in this area, which met the needs of our extraordinary creative industries, was not agreed by the EU. We understand the concerns of the sector and we are working at pace to address them so that touring can resume as soon as it is safe.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are a number of testimonies from musicians who are already losing work in Europe because it is no longer financially viable to tour. EU promoters and venues are no longer hiring UK passport holders. While the proposal for a cultural export office is welcome as a long-term measure, what are the Government doing right now to unravel the huge bureaucratic and regulatory challenges facing touring musicians?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are talking to the sector about an export office, as the noble Baroness mentioned, but the real focus of the working group to which I referred is getting as much evidence as possible of the impact on the sector, some of which the noble Baroness referred to, providing clarity about the steps needed to tour more seamlessly and exploring with the sector the options to support our wonderful practitioners.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the Government’s offer during the Brexit negotiations to incorporate the music industry into short-term business agreements, but this had precious little chance of success given the WTO most favoured nation rules. UK musicians now face not just inconvenience but an impossible and overwhelming array of obstacles. Have the Government ruled out what the vast majority of people in the music industry consider the only sustainable solution—a visa waiver agreement covering our world-leading musical and creative sector?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the issue is more complex than simply visas; work permits also play an important part. As I mentioned, our original offer worked for our creative professionals and we will continue to try to streamline their ability to tour.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
My Lords, post-Brexit mobility regulations are a problem not just for students but for those who teach them, many of whom come from the EU. What is being done to make teaching in the UK cost effective for them, and less of an administrative and financial burden for British institutions? Without access to such culturally diverse teachers and training, our future talent pipeline will be seriously disadvantaged.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a very specific question. As I mentioned, our rules around visiting this country for creative professionals, which would include teachers, are more generous than in the vast majority of EU member states. If there is further to add on that, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before this year, music and performing arts students participated in study or cultural exchanges under Erasmus. This allowed them to develop the skills and build the networks that bring success in the creative industries sector. Published details of the Government’s Turing replacement scheme suggest no tuition fee support and significantly lower cost of living grants. Does the Minister believe that this meets the test of rewarding raw talent rather than financial background, and will she agree to talk to her DfE counterparts and discuss the double whammy these proposals represent as a barrier to UK cultural engagement in Europe?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to talk to my DfE counterparts. I do not think we accept the suggestion that the noble Lord makes. The Turing scheme is going to be open to about 35,000 students in universities, colleges and schools to allow them to go on placements and exchanges overseas, starting this September. He is right that we will also seek to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am sure he agrees with me that that is also an important priority.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords,
“I learned by touring Europe in the 60s. Young artists need the same chance”.
Those are the words of Elton John. Would my noble friend agree that the Rocket Man is right? We need a long-term, sustainable solution, but we also need a short-term fix. Would the Minister agree that the department could put in place such a short-term fix, particularly when it comes to legals and logistics, to help all musicians? Otherwise, it will just be a guttering candle in the wind.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thought for a second that my noble friend had a previous musical touring career he had not told us about. We are working closely with those in the sector on exactly the sort of practical issues my noble friend refers to in terms of legals and logistics, to make sure that everything works for them once they can start touring again safely.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned work permits, but work permits and visas are two very different things. As the noble Lord, Lord Wood, said, the performing arts are as one in asking for a bespoke visa waiver agreement as a matter of urgency—this can be an agreement that does not cross the Government’s red lines on free movement. As such, will the Government and department have discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, about this, and does the Minister know what plans there might be to talk to Maroš Šefčovič on this matter in the future?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot speculate about the future, but I can reassure the noble Lord that we work closely with both the FCDO and the Cabinet Office on these issues.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is it not clear that the Government’s EU deal has severely penalised one of the most successful parts of our economy, putting it at a huge competitive disadvantage? On 20 January, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara asked about publishing
“all correspondence between the EU and UK on this issue”.—[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1166.]
Has this correspondence now been published in the House of Lords Library? If not, is it intended that it will be?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In relation to the publication of that documentation, my understanding is that it was legal text that was shared in confidence and that there are no current plans to publish it further.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Offshore Gas Rigs
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to prohibit the flaring of gas on offshore gas rigs within the United Kingdom’s exclusive economic zone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in our recently published energy White Paper, the UK has committed to the World Bank’s “Zero Routine Flaring by 2030” initiative. We are working with regulators towards eliminating routine flaring as soon as possible in advance of this date. Furthermore, we are working with the sector to transform the UK continental shelf into a net-zero basin by 2050.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the intent, but could we please have a timetable for this? The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway not only signed up to that initiative but actually practise it at the moment. At the moment, we are the dirty man of the North Sea; when will that end?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, the circumstances and timescale of those other countries are, depending on their operations, different from ours. However, I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to work with the industry, through the North Sea transition deal, and regulators, drawing on their range of powers to drive down this practice as soon as possible.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
We have already been reminded today of the United Kingdom’s hosting of COP 26 later this year, so will my noble friend join me in congratulating and further encouraging the engineers and academics, part-funded by Innovate UK, who have designed a new geo-engine that can neutralise sour gas from oil rigs and produce clean electrical energy as a by-product. Is this not a better approach than immediate prohibition?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes some very good points, and we are open to processes that can drive down emissions from offshore operations. As I know my noble friend is aware, sour gas contains significant amounts of hydrogen sulphide and would need, of course, to meet the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations before it could be used to supply industrial and domestic consumers.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, flaring produces 1% of total UK annual CO2 emissions, and venting produces 1% of annual methane emissions. Worryingly, Oil & Gas UK reports that, in 2019, the number of oil and gas leaks in the North Sea rose to 130, including 48 significant and three major releases, one of which was 900% greater than the release that caused the Piper Alpha disaster. Why on earth do we allow flaring in such circumstances, when, for both climate change and safety reasons, a ban on flaring and venting must surely be a priority?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Health and Safety Executive will continue to hold operators to account to investigate any gas leaks, given that this is, as the noble Lord says, a significant safety concern. The industry actively works to reduce any opportunity for a leak where possible, and there is an ongoing initiative between the industry and regulators to reduce the number of hydrocarbon releases in the offshore sector.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare that a family member works in the oil and gas industry. The Oil and Gas Authority’s policy on flaring is to ensure that the flare and vent volume requested for permission is at a level where it is “technically and economically justified”. Why is the word “environment” not included in this policy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The environment is clearly very important in this matter; I agree with the noble Baroness about that. However, our revised Oil and Gas Authority strategy came into force last month and features a range of net-zero obligations for the oil and gas industry.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a council member of the RSPB. Although I fear that this is probably not in my noble friend’s remit, have Her Majesty’s Government undertaken any research into the effect of flaring gas from offshore gas rigs on wildlife, particularly birds?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right that that is not in my remit, but I am happy to tell him that my department has not undertaken any research in this area because, to date, there is no known evidence of significant impacts identified. Some species of birds migrating across the North Sea may become attracted to offshore light sources. To this extent, the 2015 OSPAR convention developed guidelines to reduce the impact of offshore installations on birds in the OSPAR maritime area.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Besides the philosophical objections for the Government, what are the difficulties for introducing a Norway-type zero-flare policy? Could the Government bring flaring into the emissions trading scheme and make it subject to carbon taxation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are significant practical and operational difficulties, which the noble Lord alludes to. However, I am happy to tell him that flaring intensity decreased by 22% in 2020 from 2019 levels, as production facilities cut the overall volume to 33 billion cubic feet.
Lord German (LD)
Despite what the noble Lord just said, the portion of flaring due to what I would loosely call economic reasons has been rising over the last three years—that portion is economic. Given that Norway has now found ways of reinjecting this waste back in, and that there are other solutions as well, what are the Government fearful of in trying to tackle this rising problem?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The data that I have just quoted shows that it actually fell last year. However, the noble Lord makes a good point; we should try to reuse these gases as much as possible. A number of companies are working on solutions, such as generating electricity on platforms et cetera. However, there are significant practical difficulties.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend the Minister accept that, given the excellent work being undertaken on net zero by the OGA, it is certainly conceivable that the UK can meet the zero routine flaring goal by 2030? If so, given that environmental and sustainability technology is increasingly being deployed in the gas industry, gas should and must remain an important part of the energy mix as we progress through energy transition?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Absolutely—my noble friend makes some very good points. Oil and gas are expected to remain a vital part of the UK’s energy mix as we move towards net zero, and maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas need not be in conflict with the transition to net zero—a point that my noble friend understands well.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
While I welcome that a target has been set, can my noble friend reassure us that the essential flaring and venting for operational and safety reasons will be allowed to continue? How can this be accommodated within a net-zero approach?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have set out that, where it continues for operational reasons, we want to reduce it as much as possible, and we are committed to the World Bank initiative to eliminate it completely by 2030.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, with UK oil rigs being the most polluting in Europe and North Sea oil producing 21 kilograms of CO2 per barrel, compared with 8 kilograms for Norway, could my noble friend tell the House what further measures the Government might consider introducing to ensure that oil companies phase out this flaring much faster than planned—and well before 2030?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Transforming the UK continental shelf into a net zero basin will be achieved through a combination of energy efficiency, electrification from alternative, decarbonised energy, and the use of carbon-capture technology. There are a range of policies that we can bring into play to try and bring these practices to an end.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the vast amounts of carbon dioxide emitted directly into the air due to gas flaring, can the Minister set out how, as part of the Government’s green industrial revolution, we can capture this carbon and put it to good use, while removing these harmful emissions from the atmosphere?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We do encourage companies to capture as much of it as possible and, as the noble Baroness said, put it to good use on the platforms or pipe it to shore and use it, where possible, in domestic gas transmissions. The Government’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, announced in 2020, stated our ambition to capture 10 megatonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2030—the equivalent of 4 million cars worth. Where possible, we can use it; if not, we can store it safely underground.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move, therefore, to the fourth Oral Question.
Northern Ireland Protocol
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards resolving issues resulting from the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we want to continue work in the joint committee to address outstanding concerns, to provide space for those discussions without the threat of significant disruption. We have taken several temporary, operational measures to provide more time for businesses to adapt to the new requirements, consistent with our pragmatic and proportionate implementation of the protocol.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What has been the reaction of the business community in Northern Ireland to the strenuous and welcome efforts that the Government are making to diminish the problems that they face as a result of the protocol? Do the Government have a plan—a road map even—to replace the protocol with a set of arrangements capable of commanding the confidence of a majority of our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland, whose faith in the union has been shaken by the Government’s departure from the commitment, on which Ministers set such store, to restore full sovereignty in every part of our country?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have been in close contact with the business community across Northern Ireland as we have announced these measures, and there have been several expressions of support. That is because we are focused, as everybody should be, on avoiding unacceptable disruption to day-to-day lives and ensuring an effective flow of trade from east to west. On my noble friend’s other point, the protocol is explicit that it rests on democratic consent across Northern Ireland; all sides need to work to sustain it. That is why we are committed to giving effect to the protocol in the pragmatic and proportionate way that was intended, taking account of the Belfast agreement in all its dimensions: north-south and east-west. That is why we want to work with the EU on a durable and pragmatic arrangement for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the long term.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that, in the EU, we are thought to be in breach of our legal obligations, no matter how much the Government deny that that is the case? What do the Government propose to do to repair the damage to this country’s reputation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we do not agree that we are in breach of our legal obligations. The steps that we took are lawful and consistent with the progressive and good-faith implementation of the protocol. They are temporary, operational steps where additional delivery time is needed, consistent with the common practice internationally of temporarily delayed implementation for operational and delivery reasons.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, since sanitary and phytosanitary checks are a major problem in trade across the Irish Sea, and since the Government have now made it clear that they do not intend to lower such standards in negotiations with the United States, do the Government have any current plans to diverge from EU SPS regulations in the next four to five years? If there are no plans for significant divergence, could Her Majesty’s Government not declare that we will continue to adhere to EU standards until the next major review, as we are, in effect, doing on data regulation? Or is the principle of sovereignty more important here than the practice of food imports and exports?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we indicated in last year’s negotiations that we were interested in an equivalence mechanism covering agri-foods, and the EU was not. We continue to be interested in such discussions if the EU is open to them. We will not agree to arrangements based on dynamic alignment, as this could compromise our future SPS rules and our trade agreements.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in the course of the vaccine rollout, Northern Ireland has benefited hugely from its place as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Will my noble friend confirm that, from 31 December this year, all medicines, including vaccines and any necessary Covid boosters, entering Northern Ireland will fall under the regulation of the European Union and will need to be batch-tested in the EEA? Does she agree that, if the Government allow this to happen, it will be a risk and a detriment to all the people of Northern Ireland and will call into question the very concept of a national health service?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the arrangements we have in place this year are to provide time for us to work with the industry. We are doing this intensively, to ensure that there is no disruption to medicine supplies in Northern Ireland from 2022 and beyond. In any case, UK authorities will remain the responsible regulators and so Northern Ireland will continue to be able to benefit from the vaccine rollout in the same way as the rest of the UK.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, Northern Ireland now has one of the most unique trading positions in the world. We know that the protocol is not perfect, yet at the CBI—of which I am president—our members tell us that they want to make it work. It is still not plain sailing, including issues around goods at risk, rules of origin, SPS checks and controls. Following the recent events over Article 16, does the Minister agree that we need to see calm and confidence restored through extensions to existing grace periods being promptly agreed between the EU and the UK working together with business? Does she also agree that we need to reduce complexity, which is creating barriers to trade and investment?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is right in everything he says. We need to continue to support—as we have extensively supported—all businesses in Northern Ireland, particularly those moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have provided them with over £200 million of support through our trader support service, which has processed over 200,000 declarations. Noble Lords might like to know that 98% of those declarations have been handled within 15 minutes and calls to the centre are answered within six seconds. This is the way we are supporting those businesses in Northern Ireland and the trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, whatever views are held on the Northern Ireland protocol, which was created by this Government—and there are problems—does the Minister not agree the only permanent way to resolve these issues is through proper discussion and negotiation between the Government, the European Union, Ireland and the political parties in Northern Ireland? That is how we have achieved progress over the last 25 years.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right, and we want to continue discussions with the EU through the Joint Committee to address the outstanding concerns and establish arrangements that can provide durable, pragmatic and proportionate spaces for the east-west trade in particular. The steps we took were simply to provide the space for those discussions without undue disruption.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is hard to see how the Government’s current unilateral approach is going to lead to positive results. One area where working productively with our European partners would make a real, positive difference to UK food producers is agreeing an EU-UK veterinary agreement. Can the Minister say what progress has been made on negotiating that agreement?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are continuing to discuss many things, including the veterinary agreement. I will write to the noble Baroness with a fuller response.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
The Government and the European Union say the protocol is designed to support the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As one of those who negotiated the agreement, I can confirm the protocol is the very antithesis of it and is deeply damaging to the union. Will my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will be prepared to meet with some of us to discuss the many viable alternatives to this damaging treaty, which is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and deals with less than one-tenth of 1% of European trade flows?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree. The protocol is a unique solution to the complex challenges we were confronted with. We are committed to implementing it, but in a pragmatic and proportionate way, as I have said. I will take back the noble Lord’s offer to the department and see what we can arrange.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, is it not a fact that when the EU suspended Article 16, it immediately recognised its profound and, frankly, stupid mistake? Should we not be doing everything possible to calm and improve relations with our former partners in the EU, and not take measures that could jeopardise the chances of the European Parliament ratifying an agreement which brought a degree of stability, and much relief, at the beginning of this year?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Indeed, my Lords. We need to proceed carefully as part of our progressive and good faith implementation of the protocol. Our focus is on minimising the impact on everyday lives in Northern Ireland, and we are committed to working with the EU to do that, addressing outstanding concerns and restoring confidence on the ground. The steps we took were simply temporary operational steps to avoid unacceptable disruption as those discussions proceeded.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and it brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That, in the event of the Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Friday 12 March to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Covid-19: Government’s Publication of Contracts
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 100 contracts remain unpublished, while those that have been published are so heavily redacted that it is impossible to ascertain whether the orders reflect value for money for the taxpayer. Procurement guidance, which is still in force, says that once the contract is commenced, most of the contact details should be released and that only detailed pricing arrangements should be redacted and not much else. Indeed, Cabinet Office guidelines say:
“The government is committed to greater transparency across its operations … This includes commitments relating to public procurement.”
Can the Minister explain to the House and propose how meaningful transparency can be achieved to give effect to the Government’s stated policy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, with regard to the publication of contracts, the number of contract award notices that have been published is 609 out of 609. For contract finder notices, it is 892 out of 913—97.7%—and of the redacted contracts to which the noble Baroness refers, it is 792 out of 913, which is 86.7%. That is an enormous proportion of the contracts that exist that have already been published. The redaction is utterly according to Cabinet Office guidelines. I encourage the noble Baroness to have a look at them; it is remarkable how much detail there is in those contracts as they are published.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the inevitable public inquiry will eventually set out the truth of what has happened with contracts during the Covid pandemic. In the meantime, given that the Urgent Question Statement says that the Government
“have always been clear that transparency is vital”,
can the Minister say how many of the private meetings that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, held on test and trace matters were with companies or their directors or staff who won contracts subsequently?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I do not know about a public inquiry; that will be for others to decide. I absolutely re-emphasise the Government’s commitment to transparency. As for my noble friend Lady Harding’s meetings, I do not have a full account of them in front of me, but I remind the noble Baroness that of course she met suppliers of test and trace. That is part of her role and that has been an important part of the engagement necessary to put together a very large organisation from scratch, and she has done a terrific job in the way that she has done it.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, crisis situations such as the present pandemic require action, not paper. Does the Minister agree that, during a national emergency, the British people want a Government who focus resources on saving lives over prioritising red tape?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s remarks. Absolutely—the public expected us to act, not to push paper. I pay tribute to officials from the Department of Health and in particular from the Crown Commercial Service and the MoD who stepped forward in unbelievably difficult circumstances, particularly around PPE, to transact on a very large amount of extremely complicated and very difficult procurements that ensured that our front-line healthcare workers were safe.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am on the advisory board of a local clothing manufacturing company in Haringey in an unremunerated capacity. Can the Minister explain why a high-quality SME capable of supplying reusable, RFID-tagged PPE gowns which can be laundered 70 times at a cost of 80p per wash—compared to disposable gowns which cost £10—and which are better for the environment and support local employment has not been given a contract?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I personally share the noble Lord’s frustration over the subject of reusable gowns. It strikes me as sensible and good for the environment for us to be able to use reusable gowns wherever we can. However, those who do the procurement understand fully what is required of a fully sterile gown and, unfortunately, with the amount of moisture and liquids that are involved in operations and in the front-line healthcare service, quite often it is not possible to have reusable protocols in place. That is why we use so much disposable PPE kit. It is a huge regret to me, and I share the noble Lord’s frustration. If he would like to write to me with details, I would be glad to pass them to the right people.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My noble friend will recall the large number of offers made last year to assist the Government to respond to the pandemic, and he will be familiar in particular with the high- priority lane that was established for offers that came as recommendations from Ministers, officials and parliamentarians. This is not a party-political issue but, quite rightly, questions have been raised about the way in which the process gave preferential treatment to those connected to Ministers and indeed the Conservative Party, and about the quality of products contracted for. Can my noble friend therefore commit to an independent inquiry to ensure that public trust in public procurement using public funds is not severely damaged?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely and utterly reject the suggestion that priority was given to people who had connections in the right place. Priority was given to those who had plausible products that they were able to sell to us. I take this opportunity to thank in particular Ian McKee, the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Hunt, and Richard Baker for their recommendations, which were picked up by the procurement team, put into the high-priority lane and made a valuable contribution to our efforts to get PPE.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
The noble Lord told the House on 1 March that he was content to be in legal breach, as the ends justified the means. That is a very slippery slope for a Government. Was it acceptable for Sitel to ignore GDPR by instructing staff to put patients’ personal details on their private emails because their computer systems could not cope? If that was not justified, the implication is that it is only Ministers who are above the law. But if it was okay, does he accept that it gives a green light to every dodgy or crony contractor to enrich themselves by breaking or bending the law?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s imaginative reach is to be applauded. I will be absolutely categorical about what I said on 1 March. I never said that the ends justified the means or that I thought that Ministers were above the law. I always said that this Government champion transparency and that we would try to be within the law wherever we could be. I do not wish to make this point too many times: the public expect us to deliver safety for front-line workers, and that meant securing PPE. If we were a few days late on the publication of some contracts, then I think the public would definitely take our side in that decision.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the fundamental aim of government has been to save lives and to do whatever is necessary to continue saving them. At the beginning of the pandemic, only 1% of PPE was produced here, whereas nearly 70% is produced here now. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will do all they can to support this newly acquired manufacturing base for PPE and not return to relying totally on imports?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: it has been the most amazing turnaround—an achievement that has surprised me. This has absolutely turned on its head some of the assumptions about what Britain’s manufacturing base can achieve in terms of affordability, technical ability and return on investment. I am enormously proud of that achievement, and I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are absolutely doubling down on it. It has made us rethink our entire manufacturing strategy for medicinal, pharmaceutical and health products and medical devices.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, given that we are not now in an unpredictable emergency situation but in a long-term continuing pandemic, can the Minister reassure me that all treatments of future contracts will meet the legal reporting requirements and that the Government might even eventually publish the full structure of test and trace?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We absolutely endeavour to fulfil the Cabinet Office guidelines on the publication of contracts, and I can provide that reassurance to the noble Baroness. It is my understanding that the structure of test and trace has been published. I will look into finding a link to that and would be glad to send it to her.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, it feels a bit like déjà vu. The Minister complained on Tuesday about my use of rhetoric. At the end of this, he might wish that I had stuck to rhetoric rather than moving on to facts, so here are some facts. Fifty million facemasks could not be used as they did not meet the specifications: fact. Britain’s safety watchdog felt political pressure to approve the use of PPE suits: fact. One million hybrid masks were withdrawn as unusable: fact. There was contract inflation of 1,392% for the same product: fact. The Government have got this wrong, and I would simply ask: if they have nothing to hide, will they put all the facts about the contracts into the public domain?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there was a global epidemic: fact. There was a breakdown in the global supply chains: fact. There was a need for PPE on the front line of healthcare: fact. We were prepared to do whatever it took to make people safe: fact.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this morning Dominic Raab said that the action of the Chinese National People’s Congress would further undermine trust in China. Earlier this week, I asked the Minister about Five Eyes co-operation. Since their November statement, the Chinese Government have rewritten Hong Kong’s electoral law and arrested politicians under the national security law, and the police have continued to respond brutally to peaceful protests. The UK needs to lead a co-ordinated strategic response with our allies, so will the Government now call a new meeting of Five Eyes leaders to match words with action?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I, of course, take note of the suggestion of the noble Lord. Let me assure him and all noble Lords that the United Kingdom is working in a very co-ordinated fashion with our Five Eyes partners. I am sure that the noble Lord will note the statements we have previously made on these issues together with key Five Eyes partners, including the United States, Canada and Australia, the most recent being a joint statement in January of this year. Of course, following the announcement this morning, we will be looking to further strengthen our response to the continued dilution of, challenges to and suppression of democracy in Hong Kong.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, did the Minister hear the Chinese chargé d’affaires on the “Today” programme this morning describing the nem. con. vote in China’s National People’s Congress as
“improving the democratic system in Hong Kong”?
Are we now in too weak a position to be able to sanction those who have undermined the international agreement in Hong Kong committing it to “one country, two systems”, which includes a proper democratic system in Hong Kong? If we are not, why are we not doing this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s point about sanctions, of course, that is one of several tools at our disposal in taking action against those who continue to suppress democracy and the rights of democracy. I did indeed hear the “Today” programme and the description of the congress’s decision. The best thing that I can say from the Dispatch Box about that decision is that it is anything but democracy: it is the continuing saga of further suppression of the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong and of their right to choose their own representatives. We will continue to use all channels to ensure that China looks again very carefully at the situation in Hong Kong. On the issue of sanctions, as well as other tools at our disposal, I assure the noble Baroness that we are giving full consideration to everything available to us.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. Given that BNO is not an accountability measure, what single action have we taken to hold the Chinese Communist Party to account for breaching the internationally binding Sino-British joint declaration? What cross-government assessment is being made of the CCP’s involvement in our critical national infrastructure? One example is the China General Nuclear Power Group, which is blacklisted in the US for stealing nuclear secrets, but which owns one-third of Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, I can assure him that we take a very robust attitude to the operation of Chinese firms and companies within the United Kingdom. Of course, when there was a big challenge concerning the issue of 5G, we reflected on the provisions for that. I can point the noble Lord to several specific actions that we have taken, including those at the UN, dating back to May 2020. Most recently, on 22 February, the Foreign Secretary directly addressed the UN Human Rights Council, calling out the systematic violation of the rights and people of Hong Kong.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be aware that on Monday, foreign diplomats in Hong Kong were summoned to meet the head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s office in the territory who, it is reported, warned them not to retaliate against changes to Hong Kong’s election system. That is evidence, I suggest, that there is no hope of persuading Chinese and Hong Kong authorities through diplomatic means to step back from further actions to restrict the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, or to uphold Beijing’s commitment to the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration. Is it not time for the UK, together with key partners, to flex their muscles more persuasively, possibly through the financial sector, to make Beijing sit up, take notice and abide by its democratic commitment to Hong Kong?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note my noble friend’s suggestions, but I assure him that officials have raised these concerns directly. Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Beijing raised them with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 4 March; our acting consul-general in Hong Kong raised them with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2 March; and London-based officials raised them with the Chinese Embassy here on 5 March. Let me assure my noble friend that we are also in close contact with like-minded partners regarding further action that can be taken.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I would like to pick up on the Minister’s last remarks. Given our close historical connections with Hong Kong, the international community will be looking to the UK to take the lead in defending democracy there. Can he therefore tell the House in more detail than in the Written Answer what discussions the Government have had with the US, the EU and other democracies in the Asia-Pacific region, and what response they have had with respect to the actions to be taken?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already indicated, we are in constant contact with our partners, whether it is the Five Eyes partners that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to, our colleagues within the European Union, or other allies for calling out the continuing suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. We are in very close contact with all of them. This includes action that we have taken at the UN and, specifically, working with close allies on the Human Rights Council, such as Germany and others. That will continue to be the case. However, the issue is for China to take a long, hard look at itself. It is not standing by international agreements that it has signed. It needs to reflect very carefully, because we are seeing the continuing suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, but we are working with partners to ensure that we call it out as regularly as we can.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord stated, democracy is being stifled in Hong Kong. As a guarantor of the joint declaration, the UK has a legal and moral duty to stand up for the people there. China should be continuously called out for this egregious breach of international law. Does the Minister agree with me that the true patriots in Hong Kong are those who support the joint declaration, and that, surely, Magnitsky sanctions are now inevitable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord when he rightly describes those who stand up as true patriots who stand up for freedom, democracy and the will of the people. I have already addressed the issue of sanctions; as I said, it is one of the tools available to us, and we are leaving all the tools very much on the table.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s response to the Urgent Question says:
“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.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/21; col. 881.]
I know that my noble friend the Minister heard Nick Robinson’s interview this morning on the “Today” programme with the Minister from the Chinese embassy. Would he agree that Mr Robinson was a model of restraint as he listened to the risibly incredible answers to his questions? Does my noble friend agree that the Government of China could not care less about what the rest of the world thinks, and that they will pay attention only when we actually do something, as opposed to wringing our hands and saying, “It’s all dreadful but we’d quite like their trade”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
In terms of what we say publicly in strengthening diplomacy, restraint is very much a description of British diplomacy at its best. But I assure my noble and learned friend that the restraint is not demonstrated in any way through the options that we consider—as we have done in calling out the issue in Hong Kong—and we are not wringing our hands. We regard China as an important international player, and it is important that it seeks to remain, and retain its place, within the international community. Everyone is looking at China and at what is happening not just in Hong Kong but in China itself, particularly in Xinjiang. It is important that we continue to call that out in international fora and, as I have said, together with international partners.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
Could I press the Minister on one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made? Are we actually holding hands with the Biden Administration to put pressure on China? That would clearly strengthen our hand considerably. Secondly, given how we cannot really trust what assurances were given by the Chinese, how are we going to approach future negotiations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, of course what is happening in Hong Kong and the continued suppression of the human rights of people within China are important considerations in any future discussions we have with the Chinese authorities. On his first issue about our links and discussions with the Biden Administration, I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are engaging with the United States, as well as all members of the team. Indeed, as I have said before, I look forward to talking quite directly with the Assistant Secretary responsible for human rights after the appropriate confirmation hearings, and I assure the noble Lord that this will be one of the key priority issues on our agenda.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 169-I Marshalled list for Report - (26 Feb 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, as the UK Government have made clear throughout all stages of the Bill, we are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations on this legislation to ensure that the important changes made by the Bill will make the UK as safe as possible from the threats posed by terrorism.
While terrorism and national security are reserved matters, some of the provisions of this legislation engage the Sewel convention, both in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the Scottish Parliament, on the advice of the Scottish Government, has passed a legislative consent Motion in support of the Bill. However, despite lengthy and continued engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive, it has decided not to proceed with recommending that legislative consent be given for the Bill by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I am grateful for the collaborative engagement from officials in both the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive’s Department of Justice, which has provided essential support in the development of this legislation. While on this occasion legislative consent has not been secured from the Northern Ireland Assembly, I reassure noble Lords that the UK Government will continue, as they always have done, to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive and seek legislative consent support for all future Bills which engage the LCM process in the Northern Ireland Assembly. On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I would like to take a brief opportunity to thank noble Lords. We have limited time, but I want to give some thanks for their interest and contributions thus far to the progress of the Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords across the House who have contributed eloquently to the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report.
Some strong and differing opinions have been expressed on certain provisions in this legislation. I am grateful for the scrutiny that that has brought, and especially for the co-operative and constructive spirit in which the debates have taken place. I am equally grateful for the broad support that most of the measures in the Bill have received so far.
I particularly thank, at this point, noble Lords from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, who contributed a number of important interventions to debates on measures in the Bill, particularly on polygraph examinations and the work to deradicalise and rehabilitate terrorist offenders in the prison estate. I am especially pleased that so many noble Lords found the discussion in the House, and the complementary briefing sessions on these subjects, both thought-provoking and helpful. I hope that the House is now confident of the intention behind these measures and is reassured that the Government keep this important work under continuous review.
Noble Lords have contributed to a rich discussion on the changes being made to terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs, as we usually call them. The Government remain clear on the importance of strengthening this vital risk management tool, and we are grateful to all Peers who have spoken on the issue, especially those on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Front Benches, and also the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for their thoughtful contributions to debate.
The amendments made in this House to the TPIMs provisions, tabled by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, will now be considered by the other place, and I look forward to returning to this matter when the Bill comes back to this House. Members of this House have recognised its importance, and we have discussed openly the complexity and challenges that dealing with terrorism poses.
The Government are confident that the Bill will strengthen the approach taken to the sentencing and release of terrorist offenders, by ensuring that serious and dangerous terrorist offenders will spend longer in custody, properly reflecting the seriousness of the offences they have committed. Crucially, it will improve the Government’s ability to manage and monitor terrorist offenders when they are released. This will ultimately provide better protection for the public and keep our country safe. For all these reasons, I hope that the Bill will progress quickly through the other place, and I look forward to discussing it further on its return to this House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
First, I thank the Government Front Bench, whose approach to this very serious Bill has been measured and appropriate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, and the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, have been incredibly open with the House, and we are very grateful for that. I cannot remember whether this is their first Bill, but they have conducted it incredibly well. May I particularly mention the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who ended up having to take this Bill when, I think, the person originally nominated left in somewhat of a hurry? He did an incredibly good job.
We have had very open and co-operative help from the Front Bench. It is clear that we on this side of the House strongly support many of the measures. We did not reach agreement on TPIMs or polygraphs, but we have made changes, particularly in relation to TPIMs. Some were agreed by the Government, but they did not agree to all of them. I very much hope that those in the other place will consider very seriously the changes that we have made, which have focused mostly on TPIMs, and will perhaps think that we have provided appropriate protection, but in a more nuanced and better way.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches want to do everything we can to make the UK safer. What we sought to do in the Bill was to protect civil liberties and the rule of law. We have questioned the presumption that longer sentences, and people spending more time in prison, will make UK citizens safer. Instead, we have been trying to create a system in which prisoners stand the best chance of being deradicalised and rehabilitated.
As the noble Lord has said, terrorism prevention and investigation measures are supposed to do exactly what it says on the tin—to prevent terrorism while an investigation takes place. The changes the Government sought to bring about would have made it possible to extend TPIMs indefinitely, including what could amount to house arrest, by removing the overnight restrictions on curfews. Unless the compromise amendment forced on the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, survives ping-pong, indefinite detention without trial beckons.
The Bill extends compulsory lie detector—polygraph —tests not only to convicted terrorists on licence from prison, but to subjects of TPIMs orders who are not convicted, and should have the right to silence. Instead, those unconvicted suspects face a term of imprisonment for not answering questions. The long-established right to silence has been eroded.
It is not all bad. As a result of the briefings arranged by the Government, as the Minister said, I am now convinced of the benefits of the limited use of polygraph tests for those released on licence from prison and I am reassured by the efforts being made to manage the risks presented by terrorist offenders on release from prison, although I still believe that they could be enhanced by extending the remit of the Parole Board, as sensibly proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. On a personal level, I am very grateful for the open and engaging way in which both Ministers have interacted with us, for the engagement with like-minded noble Lords across the House and to our own and Labour’s staff members, Sarah and Grace, for the considerable help and assistance they have provided.
Finally, I would be lost without the help and support of my noble friends, in particular my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, whose contributions in the Chamber are just the tip of an iceberg of dedication, superhuman effort and selfless support for others.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I echo the verbal applause given so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the contribution and consultation given by Ministers. I have one regret about the Bill, which is that the potential role of the Parole Board is not recognised properly in it. However, with some confidence I express the hope that, outside the time pressures to complete the Bill in this Session of Parliament, Her Majesty’s Government will talk to the Parole Board at the most senior levels to ensure that best use is made of the board’s skills and of its long and successful rollout of relevant training on terrorism matters to its members. The Government should not forget that the Parole Board holds a high degree of accountability in public confidence.
I support the proportionate use of polygraphs, and I am heartened to hear that the Liberal Democrats have become converted to that use. I support it as one, but only one, of a larger set of psychological and neurological tools in assessing the risks presented by terrorist prisoners if they are released. I support the extension of TPIMs to the standard formerly available through control orders. When I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, I repeatedly opposed the dilution of those orders in 2010-11 by the coalition Government, and I only regret the passage of 10 years to reach today’s position. I recognise with acclaim the work of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich on raising the length and standard of proof of TPIMs to a sound and realistic level. What I believe is the now achieved compromise, the limit of five years, is acceptable, but as long as prosecution always remains the preferred option.
I could but will not say much more, other than recognising that your Lordships’ House has left a better Bill than we started with. Of course, in the years to come, we shall scrutinise the operability of the Act and not hesitate to suggest further changes.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the words expressed by all the speakers. First, I in particular thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He is right that I am something of a neophyte when it comes to the work of this House, so thanks from him, with his extensive experience, is especially well received. He was also correct to draw attention and pay tribute to the other two members of the ministerial team and the officials who worked on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay did a lot of the heavy lifting, and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton was, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew put it once in Committee, the other half of the Government’s twin strike force. I am very grateful to both my colleagues for everything they have done.
As I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I benefited personally—I know we all did—from his experience, both in this Chamber and in our discussions outside, and I am confident that they will continue on other legislative matters.
Finally, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his comments. Of course, we had some differences on certain issues in the Bill, but they were differences of principle; both sides were, I hope, well and fairly argued; and I am sure that those discussions and debates also led to a better Bill in the end. The noble Lord was part of a triple strike force, and he was right to mention his colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who also did a lot of work in this regard. I see the time, and therefore conclude my remarks there.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. During consideration of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a 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 the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147-II(Rev) Revised Second marshalled list for Committee - (9 Mar 2021)
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a further consideration to which UK courts must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard HRA limitation period of one year so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not subordinated.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will start with a quote on how the court approaches the extinction of the limitation period in any category of case:
“It is for the court to examine in the circumstances of each case all the relevant factors and then decide whether it is equitable to provide for a longer period. It may be necessary in the circumstances of a particular case to look at objective and subjective factors; proportionality will generally be taken into account. It is not in my view appropriate to say that one particular factor has as a matter of general approach a greater weight than others. The court should look at the matter broadly and attach such weight as is appropriate in each given case.”
I am quoting from the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in the case of Dunn v Parole Board in 2008.
The standard limitation period is three years for tortious claims for personal injury and wrongful death, and one year for claims under the Human Rights Act. The limitation periods can be extended by an application to the court on the principles I have quoted.
This Bill introduces factors in Clause 8(1)(b) and in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 and—in relation to Human Rights Act claims—in Clause 11(2), which inserts new Section 7A into the Human Rights Act. The purpose of introducing these additional factors that a court must take into account in claims arising from overseas operations is to introduce a degree of bias into the equation. The Bill requires that the court pay “particular regard” to the impact of the operational context on the ability of members of HM Forces to fully or accurately recall events and the degree of
“dependence on the memory of such individuals”
for the cogency of the evidence, as well as the impact on the mental health of Her Majesty’s Forces witnesses caused by the proceedings.
Over the past 20 years, in the field of criminal law and procedure, the victim has been put at the forefront. I think it was the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who emphasised that, in particular when she was Attorney-General. Everything has been done to try to make it easy for victims in criminal courts to complain in the first place—not least in cases involving sexual offences. Special measures have been introduced to that end.
In dealing with civil claims by victims, the thrust of this Bill is entirely to reverse that position. The concentration is now on fairness to the alleged perpetrators of the acts from which the victims suffered and which are the foundation of their claims. Special weight must be given to a declaration by a serving soldier or veteran of the possibility that his memory will be affected and his comfort zone invaded by the stresses and strains of giving evidence about things he would prefer to forget. This is so even if the victim happens to be a fellow service man or woman. It is not even as if this hurdle is placed on people because they are foreigners whose country we have invaded in order to save them from the particular regime under which they are suffering. It would of course be disgraceful if such a distinction were ever made between service victims and foreign victims. So what is the rationale for these provisions which introduce factors to alter the balance of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke, and weigh down in favour of the MoD?
On Tuesday, I spoke about vexatious claims. I pointed out that I witnessed an Iraqi woman withdrawing her claims of sexual assault and admitting in court that they were false. There were vexatious claims, stirred up by English lawyers for their own gain. Our legal system is robust and it dealt with the claims by striking them out and by disciplinary actions against the lawyers concerned which effectively removed them from circulation.
But not every claim brought by a victim is vexatious. We have to face the fact that some are legitimate. As I said on Tuesday, my Written Questions to the Minister on 2 June 2020 revealed that, since 2003, 1,330 claims arising from the treatment of foreign victims by British personnel had been accepted and £32 million paid in compensation. The Answer to my Questions also revealed that not a single serviceman, however responsible he might have been for the victim’s claim, has had to pay damages or compensation out of his own resources. The MoD has covered them all—and it claims that it does not settle claims which it does not believe to be meritorious.
If we look elsewhere for confirmation, in its final report published on 9 December 2020 entitled Situation in Iraq/UK, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court concluded that the information available provides
“a reasonable basis to believe that … members of UK armed forces in Iraq committed the war crime of wilful killing/murder … at a minimum, against seven persons in their custody. The information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that … members of UK armed forces committed the war crime of torture and inhuman/cruel treatment … and the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity …against at least 54 persons in their custody.”
The prosecutor also found that there was a reasonable basis to believe that there were seven victims of sexual violence. It is impossible, regrettable as it may be, to dismiss the claims brought by victims as being vexatious. As a civilised country, we must face up to that fact and ensure as far as we can that the disciplines are in place which prevent these things happening.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I cannot hope to improve on the powerful and compelling forensic critique of Part 2 that has just been offered by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but perhaps I may lend my support to his general approach and that of his noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham in these amendments. They probe and highlight the problems with interfering with judicial discretion in the manner proposed in Part 2.
A lot has been said about the Bill in general being about providing reassurance to our veterans. Reassurance can be important, particularly where it is a practical improvement on problematic law. But when reassurance is more political and is provided against a false problem that has been raised in political rhetoric, we all need to be far more concerned about interfering with judicial discretion. In the other place—although not so much in this place the last time we met—there has sometimes been the language of claims being used in relation to Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 is about prosecution which, understandably, veterans will fear in certain difficult contexts. However, this is about civil claims, where the presumption of innocence that must and should apply in criminal proceedings does not apply. This ought to be as fair a contest as possible between two civil parties.
Invariably in the context of these claims, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has set out so clearly, we are talking about the MoD, a great and well-resourced department of state which is the defendant. Sometimes claimants will claim to be the victims of war crimes, but there will also be no small number of veterans themselves. That has been lost in parts of the public discourse and certainly in the debate in the other place. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for bringing this forward.
The false war between veterans on the one hand and lawyers on the other is particularly pernicious in the context of Part 2 when veterans’ groups and the lawyers who represent them are in concert in their concerns about the way that Part 2 protects the MoD not from false claims, against which the department is well protected, but from genuine claims where, sometimes because of the problems of overseas conflict and the difficulties that veterans themselves have faced in those dangerous situations, six years is too short a time. Some open and well-applied judicial discretion is what is required.
Without further ado, I shall make way for my noble friend Lord Hendy, who I understand has direct experience of representing at least one veteran’s mother.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I cannot improve on the powerful contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. However, perhaps I may add one point of legal detail which might assist. If I make the point now, I will not need to do it in my later contributions.
Section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to which these amendments relate provides a one-year time limit or
“such longer period as the court … considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances”.
As regards any application to extend that time period, Clause 11 of this Bill seeks to require the court to have regard to the ability of witnesses in Her Majesty’s forces to remember or to have recorded events and to the impact of the litigation on the mental health of any HM forces witness.
Amendment 21 merely seeks to redress the balance by reference also to the interests of the claimant. It is a modest amendment. The movers might have gone a lot further and brought limitation under the Human Rights Act into line with the parallel provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 in civil cases. I will remind the House briefly of those provisions. They impose a limit of six years for claims in tort or contract, but in Section 3 this is reduced to three years for personal injury claims; that is, three years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of knowledge if later. There is much jurisprudence on the date of knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, alluded to on Tuesday. However, the period can be extended. This is an area of law that is very familiar to anyone who has practised in the field of personal injuries.
Section 33(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 permits a court to allow an action to proceed out of time, if it
“appears … that it would be equitable”,
having regard to the prejudice if it were to do so to the defendant and to the claimant. In addition, Section 33(3) specifies that the court, in making a determination,
“shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case”.
In particular, it must have regard to certain specified factors:
“(a) the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintiff; (b) the extent to which, having regard to the delay, the evidence adduced or likely to be adduced by the plaintiff or the defendant is or is likely to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the time”
limits set out in the Act;
“(c) the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action arose, including the extent (if any) to which he responded to requests reasonably made by the plaintiff for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to the plaintiff’s cause of action … (d) the duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising after the date of the accrual of the cause of action; (e) the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew”
he might have a claim; and, finally,
“(f) the steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice and the nature of any such advice”.
If the Minister is not minded to concede the modest amendments sought, I commend to him altering the Bill to incorporate these familiar provisions of the Limitation Act, which has worked well in all manner of cases over the last 40 years. No justification appears for imposing harsher limitation provisions for actions in respect of personal injuries or death that relate to overseas operations of the Armed Forces.
This provision in the Bill may save the MoD a few bob, but it will give no reassurance to military personnel who are claimants or to members of their families, such as the lady for whom I acted some years ago, as I explained at Second Reading. Her son had been killed by a shell fired at his tank by another British tank outside Basra. The claim was based on the MoD’s failure to fit the tanks with adequate and available identification kit and to adequately train tank commanders. The case was ultimately settled by the MoD, after many years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, kindly wrote to me after Second Reading to explain the time limits proposed in the Bill for cases such as this, but I regret to say that, in spite of her clarity in elucidating the Bill, I was not reassured. Military personnel on overseas operations need to know that they—and, if they die, their mums, dads and children—can make a claim against the MoD, if it turns out to be at fault. They should not be subject to hurdles to which other claimants are not subject. The Government need not fear vexatious claims. Anyone who has practised law in this field from bench or bar knows that the courts are astute enough not to permit vexatious claims. The Bill, unamended, will time-bar some vexatious claims, but it will equally time-bar meritorious claims. That is not forgivable. It is no answer to say that there will be few of them; there should be none.
A final point arises from an argument advanced by the Minister in response to Amendment 29, moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, late on Tuesday night. The Minister suggested that the amendment would result in an unjustifiable difference in treatment between different categories of claimants and that this, therefore, would offend against the European convention. Presumably he had Article 14 in mind, which prohibits discrimination on grounds including “other status”.
Yet these provisions in the Bill impose a difference in treatment between those making a claim for personal injuries or death that relate to overseas operations of the Armed Forces and those who make such a claim that does not relate to overseas operations of the Armed Forces. I and, it appears, many Members of your Lordships’ House regard that as unjustifiable. I would be interested to hear how the Minister justifies that difference in treatment under Article 14 or, indeed, Article 2, which protects life by law.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, not least because he has helpfully set out the provisions in the Limitation Act to which I would have made reference. He also made reference to Section 7(5)(a) of the Human Rights Act, which deals with the limitation period for human rights claims.
The purpose of limitation periods is to provide that it is public policy that there should be an end to litigation, but some people have perfectly good reasons to delay bringing cases. It is important that any limitation period strikes an appropriate balance between those who bring claims and those who are the recipient of or witnesses to claims. There is plainly an interest in bringing an end to cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggests that there is a degree of bias as a result of the amendments to the limitation periods provided for by the Bill. I hope that that is not the case, because it is clearly not desirable. The additional provisions that are written into limitation periods specifically for our Armed Forces are questionable. The existing limitation periods under the Limitation Act and Human Rights Act are perfectly adequate to deal with the considerations that are specifically averted to in the Bill.
For example, Section 33 of the Limitation Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred, recites various matters that should be taken into consideration. He helpfully drew the House’s attention to them. The relevant subsection begins,
“the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—”
and then the various factors are listed. There is a slight difference between having regard to all the circumstances, which is a general discretion, and identifying particular factors. The Bill superimposes factors, as it says that the courts must have “particular regard”. There is a difference between “particular regard” and “regard in particular”. I do not think that that is merely a lawyer’s point because, as I said during the debate late on Tuesday, it is important that, although these factors may reasonably be taken into consideration, there should not be any form of trump.
My view is that these additional provisions do not provide a bias, but it is important to allay even the risk of them seeming to provide a bias. With respect, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, about amending the Human Rights Act on discretion. In fact, in the London Borough of Hackney v Williams in 2017, the Supreme Court said that the court should not rewrite the statute. The words of the statute, in both the Human Rights Act and the Limitation Act, give the court a broad discretion. That will inevitably include these matters—the importance of securing a claim, from the claimant’s point of view, being one of them. All the others set out in both the Limitation Act and the additions provided by the Bill should also be taken into consideration. It is not a trump card, but I understand the noble Lord’s concerns.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I enter this set of amendments as a lead signatory but as somewhat of an interloper, being the only speaker in this set of amendments and the subsequent two who is not a lawyer and does not have legal training. I will defer to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and his excellent opening remarks, but I want to add a couple of points and reasons why this set of amendments is so important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, pointed out, this is a minor amendment—essentially, the four amendments are doing the same thing in the various parts of the United Kingdom—but I believe that it is a necessary amendment. That is precisely because Her Majesty’s Government have spent a lot of time telling us that this Bill is about the interests of service men and women and veterans, and yet, if one looks at the briefing, which I suspect other noble Lords have received, from the Royal British Legion, there is particular concern about Part 2 of the Bill. There is a whole set of representations that has been sent to me, and I assume to other noble Lords who are participating—for example, from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which is urging Peers to accept the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend to Clause 11 and Schedules 12 and 13.
Also, this is very much in line with the evidence received by an inquiry undertaken by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Rule of Law and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones. I declare a prospective future interest in that my name has been put forward to become a vice-chair of the APPG on Drones. I took no part in the work that it has been doing, but it has produced an excellent briefing. It is important to reiterate from that evidence that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, in Part 2 we are talking about claims brought against the MoD. This looks as if it is a protection for the MoD rather than supporting claimants. I believe very strongly that, if our concern is to support our Armed Forces and veterans, then we should be looking to protect them and not the MoD. That point was also made by Emma Norton, the director of the Centre for Military Justice, in her briefing:
“In terms of impact on soldiers which the MOD states it wants to minimise, it is worth remembering that all of these civil claims – whether brought by a civilian or a soldier - are brought against the MOD as defendant, not individual soldiers, though of course soldiers may have to give evidence.”
Our modest amendment is very much about securing the rights of claimants, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, pointed out, there should be no cases where service men and women and veterans are being disadvantaged, and yet as the Royal British Legion pointed out, even in the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill, a minimum of 19 injured and bereaved members of the Armed Forces communities would have had their claims blocked if the limit being proposed had been in place. And that is just for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore I would like the Minister in his response to consider whether it would not be appropriate to balance the two subsections already proposed for “particular regard” for our amendment to be added as paragraph (c).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
This has been a very significant debate, and one should not lose sight of the important changes that will take place in the ability of people to sue the MoD in respect of human rights claims, tort claims and contract claims arising out of overseas operations. The underlying problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, identified in his very clear and effective opening remarks, is that you do not want a situation where, when a court is considering whether to extend the limitation period beyond the primary limitation period, there is a bias in favour of the defendant, the Ministry of Defence.
What the noble Lord is saying, in effect, is that it should be approached in the way that these cases are approached in every other piece of civil litigation where there is an application to extend a period of limitation beyond the primary limitation period: the judge comes to a conclusion as to what he or she thinks—this is not quite the line in the statute—is just and equitable in all the circumstances. One of the really important things that one is looking at is the fact that the claimant will have a claim, and the claimant may be losing what would otherwise be a just claim because of the passage of time—and it may well be in particular that the passage of time beyond the primary limitation period could not properly be described as the fault of the claimant.
Over the years, the courts have become quite expert at exercising a discretion in relation to this, both under the Limitation Act 1980 and under the Human Rights Act 1998. My noble friend Lord Hendy, in his very helpful and compelling remarks about how the limitation period works, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, were basically in the same place. They were both saying that we should strike the balance in an even-handed way. I hope that it is not the case that there is going to be a bias in favour of the MoD, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, that is not desirable. My noble friend Lord Hendy said that there should not be bias. I completely agree with that. The purpose of this first group of amendments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is to make sure that there is not such a bias. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hendy and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that it has to be clear that there is not going to be a bias.
I believe, therefore, that amendments to the Bill are required. Whether or not the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, are the best way to do it in group 1—there might be another way of doing it—the sentiment that underlies these amendments and the fact that they have been supported by both my noble friend Lord Hendy and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is significant. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, will have listened and may perhaps reassure us that he will come back with some amendments to make sure that there is not that undesirable bias.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with care to the remarks advanced by noble Lords in relation to this proposed amendment. At the outset, may I note and associate myself with remarks made by noble Lords as to the tenor of the speech introducing this part of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. This seems to me, drawing on my short experience in your Lordships’ House, to be of a kind with contributions which we hear from that source, from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, concerned as it was that the principles which underpin the legal systems in the jurisdictions of our United Kingdom should apply universally, irrespective of whether claimants are British subjects or not—underpinned also by that confidence in the ability of our courts and our system to do justice among all forms and manners of people.
In considering this amendment, I note that we have already discussed first of all the three factors that this Bill is introducing which the courts must consider and to which they must have particular regard when deciding whether to allow claims connected with overseas operations to proceed after the primary limitation periods have expired. I will not rehearse the arguments that I have already made as to why we are introducing these new factors, though I will necessarily, in answering your Lordships’ points, touch upon them.
However, the additional factor that these amendments propose to add is not, I submit, necessary. That is not because it is not right for the courts to consider the importance of proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant—of course it is—but because this is already something that the courts will take into account when they consider whether it is equitable in all the circumstances to allow a claim to proceed. The court would inevitably be assessing the right of the claimant in determining whether or not an extension to the time limit should be granted. The additional factor in terms of the amendment proposed does not enhance the policy aim of the Bill, which is to help provide service personnel with greater certainty. It would however, I submit, increase legal complexity in a way that is unnecessary.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. This is one of those unusual situations where I can thank every single Lord, including him, who has spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in particular, gave very interesting support in spirit to what we seek to do. We just do not want these additional factors to be given statutory force. It undoubtedly gives the impression of bias to pay “particular regard” to matters in favour of only one party, the Ministry of Defence. I do not want to see those there, and if they are not there, there is no need for the amendment I am putting forward in an attempt to balance the biased effect of what is in the Bill.
It is extremely important that we should not pay “particular regard” to matters in the interests of one party. If we think about an application to extend the limitation period brought to the court, the claimant would be represented and would argue the reasons for delay. As I said on Tuesday, it is not a foregone conclusion that their argument will be accepted but, on the other hand, the Ministry would be entitled to put forward: “Well, it’s been such a long time, nobody can remember anything.” That might be right in a particular case, but it is not right as a matter of principle that should appear as a factor to which particular regard must be given in this statute. An important point of principle is involved in this and I shall certainly return to the issue on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 22
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—that date will be either the date on which the act complained of took place or, alternatively, the date of knowledge of the cause of the action; for example, where a person is unaware of his right to sue or of the negligence which caused his injuries. Clause 11 introduces the concept of a cut-off date, whereby the judge loses any power to extend and the cause of action is extinguished for good.
This will be unique in the British system of justice, as we have discussed. A new category of claims arising out of overseas operations will be created. The rule set out in the Bill is that proceedings must be brought before the later of
“the end of a period of six years beginning on the date on which the act complained of took place”
or
“the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of knowledge”.
Whatever the cause of delay in starting proceedings may be, such as brain injury received by an injured serviceman, or the inherent problems that would face a victim living in some dusty village in Iraq or Afghanistan, about which I spoke at length on Tuesday and will not repeat, the rule is to apply not only in the courts of England and Wales, but in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
Remember that the judge has power to strike out vexatious claims and that we are talking about claims against the Ministry of Defence, not the individual serviceman, who will never be called upon, whatever he has done, to pay the damages awarded. The worst that can happen to him is that, in the event of non-settlement of the case—I believe that over 90% of claims regarded as valid are settled—he might have to give evidence in the witness box and recall what he has done.
Amendment 24 refers to the definition of the date of knowledge. The Bill says that
“the ‘date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known, both … of the act complained of, and … that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence”.
Our amendment adds further definitions of the date of knowledge—first, the date of
“the manifestation of the harm resulting from that act”,
and secondly, the knowledge that the claimant was eligible to bring a claim under the Human Rights Act in the courts of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 47 and the other amendments in this group are consequential or extend that principle to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have little to add to the brief but very pertinent analysis in the most persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I support Amendment 22 in particular as one of a series of amendments that change the relevant date from which the longstop starts to run to account for explicable delays commonly experienced by bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.
I shall be brief. My experience of overseas operations in the Cold War was limited. As an infantry subaltern, my tour of duty in Germany was very brief, taking part in exercises over German planes and Gatow airport in Berlin and being in charge of the overnight train from Hanover to Berlin to emphasise our rights to go through the Russian zone to the British sector in Berlin.
Given my very limited experience, which I emphasise, I can quite see the circumstances for delay when advice and witness are not readily available. When active service is involved, in very different and hazardous conditions overseas, the timing of knowledge that is the basis of this amendment goes to the heart of the matter. The mover of Amendment 22, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, seeks to put into the Bill some statutory flexibility around the date of knowledge. There is nothing that I can usefully add, but I support with great pleasure this amendment, because knowledge is vital.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, who is ever youthful and eloquent, but of course it is the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who is on a particular roll with these amendments, one that I do not want to impede for too long—save to say that Amendment 22 in particular reveals and reflects what a terrible disservice Part 2 does to veterans in the context of difficult and complex overseas operations. In particular, it highlights that it is not just the date of the harm that is an issue but the date of knowledge of causation, which can be so complex in the course of overseas operations. In the practical reality of a legal aid landscape, where most people including, tragically, veterans, have no ready access to advice and representation, it could be a very long time before a troubled veteran even knows that they had the right to bring a claim. That is a problem for everyone in a legal aid landscape that has been virtually decimated, but it is particularly shameful for any Government to be making it harder for their own veterans to claim redress against the MoD where appropriate and put an absolute bar up at six years.
The point about causation is so important; the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, describes it as
“the manifestation of the harm resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim”.
A veteran may well know that they are injured and know that they have, for example, experienced a number of different traumatic and potentially harming events in a complex situation of warfare, but causation can be a very difficult thing to discover. This will be even more problematic in the context of psychological harm and, possibly, other physical harms—to hearing, for example. It may be very difficult to learn, let alone to prove, that it was friendly fire and not enemy fire, or that it was negligence in provision of equipment that caused the harm.
The absolute six-year bar put up in relation to veterans against their former employer would be shocking enough in the context of factory workers domestically. Given the Minister’s remarks on the previous groups, that we should be particularly sensitive to the difference between what he described as domestic litigation and the special issues around overseas operations, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has really hit the nail on the head in this group and some of those that follow.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have practically nothing to add to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. Their arguments are powerful and appear irresistible.
I just add one small point. I mentioned a case in which I was involved for the mother of a serviceman killed in a tank because of friendly fire. That case in fact took more than 12 years from his death until the payment of an award by way of settlement by the Ministry of Defence. There was no delay on any side; there was litigation in the meanwhile, and the test case went to the Supreme Court, and so on. But there were inordinate difficulties in pursuing that claim—in finding out what had happened, what the MoD record was on the fitting of identification kit, what the training programmes were and whether they were defective, obtaining expert evidence on these points, and so on—to know whether the case was meritorious, as it turned out to be.
These cases are not easy. As I say, the logic of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is irresistible.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, once again, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. In considering all these amendments, we should bear in mind that not all the claims that this legislation is concerned with—in fact, only a small proportion—are actually brought by veterans. The majority of the claims that have given rise to this litigation are brought by those who allege that they have been the victims of wrongs done to them by the military. One advantage of trying to put an end finally to litigation is that those members of the military who might be involved in this litigation, potentially as witnesses for the defendant or, indeed, for the claimant, can put an end to the matter in their minds. Nobody would be concealing anything deliberately but, once you have left theatre—overseas operations come to an end—it is a considerable burden to be troubled by some incident, about which there may be little corroboration or evidence, and to have to go to court, if necessary, to deal with allegations more than six years after the event.
These amendments are, of course, concerned with date of knowledge, and the legislation provides for an extension from the six-year long-stop period for date of knowledge. Incidentally, long-stop periods are not only in this Bill; they exist in other fields of law—for example, in the Latent Damage Act. As I said previously, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, acknowledged, the date of knowledge is a difficult matter for courts, but they have shown themselves—helped by provisions in Sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act—able to find a proper response to difficulties that individuals may have in being aware that they have a cause of action.
The real issue is when the clock starts ticking. In the normal event, it starts ticking when the incident that gives rise to the claim occurs; in these cases, the possibility for litigation will end after six years, unless there is an extension of one year because of an extended date of knowledge. The provisions in the Limitation Act dealing with personal injury claims do not actually provide for a six-year period from the date of knowledge, as these amendments do; they provide at the maximum for three years. In other words, the clock starts ticking for three years after the incident occurs, in the normal case, and three years if there is a postponed date of knowledge. So this six-year extension is in fact wider than exists in conventional limitation periods for negligence cases. There is no equivalent of a date-of-knowledge provision in Human Rights Act cases; it is all dealt with under the provisions of Section 7 of the Human Rights Act.
One must be careful not to make too close a comparison between claims in negligence and claims under the Human Rights Act. As Lord Bingham said in a famous case, the Human Rights Act is not a tort statute. For the most part, these claims for personal injuries are much better brought in negligence. In fact, the claims under the Human Rights Act were usually advanced on the basis of an investigative duty that tends to be attached to these claims, which is one of the reasons why they were relied upon.
I respectfully suggest, although I understand what lies behind them, that these amendments go into territory that they should not go into and extend the period longer than it is desirable that anybody concerned in these types of cases should have to endure.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, in this suite of amendments we are focusing on a relatively narrow area. On this occasion, I should be slightly relived that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, does not entirely agree with the movers of the amendment, because at least it gives me some additional points to respond to.
I take the point that there might be a shorter period within civil law and domestically, but there is a very clear difference between overseas operations and the civilians and military who might have to bring claims, and what might happen in a civilian context in the United Kingdom. As Emma Norton pointed out in her evidence to the All- Party Groups on Drones and on the Rule of Law, if something happened
“within the UK more than 6 years ago, courts would remain able to extend time limits”,
but if something happened overseas the courts would not have that right. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, what is being proposed is unique in the British justice system—a new category of claims arising from overseas operations in respect of which the courts would have no right to give an extension.
It is clearly right that claims should be brought expeditiously and dealt with expeditiously, but sometimes it will not be possible for cases to be brought within the time limits the Government are suggesting. It is surely right to look for ways to ensure that claimants who may have not been in a position to bring a claim within a year of date of knowledge can bring the claim, and further discretion can be brought.
As with amendments in the previous and subsequent groups, if the Minister does not feel able to accept the language of our amendments, perhaps he might suggest how claimants who have cases arising from overseas operations will not be disadvantaged by Part 2 of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I will first pick up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Hendy in the last group, which in fact relates to a group debated on Tuesday. It concerns the validity or otherwise of the point advanced by the Government: that they cannot make special exceptions for military personnel only suing the Ministry of Defence—in other words, treat them as if they are governed by the normal limitation periods—because there would be discriminatory concerns under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As I indicated on Tuesday, I disagree with that proposition, as does my noble friend Lord Hendy. It is significant for this group of amendments because real concern is being expressed by practically all of your Lordships—I say practically because the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is not—about members of the military not being able to bring claims in accordance with what I describe as the “normal law”. I do not ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, to respond to the legal point now, but I ask him to write to us indicating the legal basis for the proposition that you cannot have a provision stating that military personnel suing the Ministry of Defence will be governed by the ordinary rules of limitation.
The amendments in this group do two important things. First, the current proposal in the Bill is that the limitation period on civil claims should be
“the later of … the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place”,
or
“the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of knowledge”.
The position is that the claimant who discovers that they have a claim only at the end of six years has only 12 months to make that claim. The first amendment in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says that it should not be 12 months from the date of knowledge, but six years. I am sympathetic to that idea and I would like to know why a period of 12 months was chosen in relation to service personnel. I would be interested to know why, having regard to the circumstances that arise on overseas operations, the Government thought it appropriate to have what might be seen as a very short period.
The second significant amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would add certain additional elements to what is meant by the “date of knowledge”. At the moment, the Bill treats you as knowing if you knew of the act complained of and that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, proposes amending Clause 11, so that you also have to know of the harm you suffered as a result of the act complained of. If, for example, the harm was mental illness, you might not know for some considerable time. In addition, the amendment says that you do not have to know only that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence, but that you might have a legal right to bring a claim too.
Taking the example given by my noble friend Lord Hendy, if you knew that your son was killed because of an act of the Ministry of Defence—friendly fire—but you did not know there was negligence and that you had a right to bring a claim, then knowing of the act complained of and that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence does not do you much good. These additional factors seem legitimate ones to take into account when considering what is meant by “date of knowledge”. These are important amendments and I am interested to hear the Minister’s answer.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
These amendments relate to the date of knowledge provisions in Part 2 of the Bill. Before I address the substance of the amendments, I wish to issue a clarification regarding a statement I made in the previous sitting on Tuesday evening. I said that, while 94% of service personnel already bring their claims within the relevant time,
“it must be the case that many of the remaining 6% will come under the state of knowledge provisions”—[Official Report, 9/3/21; col. 1596.]
Your Lordships may recollect that that issue came up in the course of submissions by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. In fact, we assessed that the 94% figure relates to claims brought by service personnel and veterans within six years of either the date of incident or the date of knowledge. We will endeavour to educate service personnel and veterans about these new provisions to ensure that more, if not all, claims are made within the new time limits in future.
I now move to the amendments in this group, which would increase the time period which runs from the date of knowledge for Human Rights Act claims from 12 months to six years. They would also change how limitation time periods are calculated by allowing claims to run only from the date of knowledge and not also from the date of the act or incident.
The date of knowledge provisions in Part 2 are an important aspect of the Bill. Because we are introducing hard time limits for certain claims, it is right that the longstop period can start from the date of knowledge. Of course, the Limitation Act 1980 already includes a date of knowledge provision which works, and we should not be amending that in this instance. However, the Human Rights Act does not have such a provision. We are therefore seeking to mitigate any unfairness that might arise from the imposition of a hard time limit by allowing claims to be brought late if the date of knowledge is later than the date of the incident.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting and important debate. I cannot help taking myself back to RAF Gatow, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred, because I once stayed there on a rugby tour and subsequently played rugby for the combined clubs of Berlin. I need not go into the circumstances, but it was in the 1938 Olympic stadium. I thank him for reminding me of that.
Finality is an important principle, but it is not a principle that should work in the interests of only one party; I am yet to see it discussed or suggested, in relation to this Bill, that finality is for anyone other than the Ministry of Defence. Of course, references are made to the stress of giving evidence and so on, but I have already commented on that and will not repeat my comments. I do not think the principle of finality in favour of one party does anything more than increase the feeling of bias in favour of the Ministry of Defence which runs through this Bill, and that is what makes it so very objectionable. I heard the Minister refer to the fact the Human Rights Act is not affected but would not be involved in one of my amendments. These are not intended to be cumulative but to be considered separately; the date of knowledge can vary depending upon the circumstances of the case.
I simply adopt the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for whose speech I am grateful, when he said these amendments are “irresistible.” I agree, and I shall pursue them on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 23. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 23
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4A) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1)(b) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—(a) the nature of the injuries,(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a discretion for UK courts to allow a HRA claim arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, this group is concerned with the total cut-off of the right to bring proceedings, as contained in the Bill. As I have said, this is unique in the British justice system and limited to claims arising from overseas operations. You could call it the cliff edge, the blank wall, or hitting the buffers. We are dealing not with vexatious claims but all claims brought against the Ministry of Defence, whether by members of Her Majesty’s Forces, by victims whose claims arise by breaches of the Human Rights Act, such as torture, or by families whose claims arise because someone has been killed or injured. What is the policy behind this blank wall?
It is noticeable that this Bill does not cover Northern Ireland. I should be very interested and surprised if, when a Bill involving Northern Ireland appears, there was such a cut-off—such a blank wall—in relation to claims arising out of those deployments. I imagine that there might be considerable controversy. If it would not apply in Northern Ireland, why should a soldier suffering from long-term trauma as a result of service there be able to apply to extend the limitation period, in an appropriate case, but a soldier deployed to Iraq should not? What difference could be drawn between innocent victims of brutality in Northern Ireland or in Iraq? Their ethnicity? Is this not where Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention would bite?
I cannot believe that this is a policy to save the MoD money. What Liberal Democrat would ever make the bold statement of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, that it is to save “a few bob”? What worries me is whether it is fuelled by a concern to prevent reputational damage. British forces have an admirable reputation worldwide for fairness and exemplary behaviour. Allegations of brutal conduct aired in the courts would not help, but it is essential to our reputation that, where there is wrongdoing, it is confronted and punished. There should be no suggestion that we sweep things under the carpet. I hope that that is not what lies behind this blank wall preventing claims after six years.
There is certainly a public interest in finality, but there is also a public interest in justice. These amendments are brought forward to get rid of the blank wall and to put claims from overseas operations on the same footing as all other claims brought before the British courts and tribunals. I ask again: what is the policy behind these unique, blank-wall provisions? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, once more I can only speak in complete support and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and what he is trying to express in these amendments. The Minister pointed out that there is considerable consensus in this debate on the value of limitation periods and of finality. That is right, but he went on to say that the only difference between us is where the limitation lines should be drawn. That is, of course, not quite right. There is also an important difference of principle between us about whether there should be any residual discretion at all for the courts, in the interests of justice and to avoid terrible injustice, particularly in relation to these dangerous, complex, messy overseas operations.
Other noble and noble and learned Lords eloquently set out all the reasons why sometimes an absolute bar of six years, or even longer, would just not be enough. This is not necessarily because of the act itself, but because of causation, or because the condition means that someone has not been able to think about advice or damages, or, in the current landscape, they have not been able to get access to advice.
In the debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I think, said that we should not worry too much because there must be finality, that we are really trying to bar these overseas victims and that a much smaller number of veterans would be barred. The first answer to the noble Lord is that there is no finality for someone suffering terrible and life-changing injuries or bereavement, who has had no access to justice because of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, described as “a blank wall” or an absolute time bar. For someone suffering in that way, be they a victim of torture or a brave veteran put in harm’s way by the very Ministers and department that now bar their access to justice, there will be no finality, just a great deal of continued pain and suffering.
The second point that I make to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is from the perspective of Article 14 and of human decency. It is particularly pernicious for a Government to send veterans to war and then to bar them from compensation after a particular, absolute point with no judicial discretion. In the case of terrible abuses of power, it is also wrong to have an absolute bar with no discretion for victims of torture or other abuses that sometimes take place in periods of conflict. Absolute rules without discretion, especially when they are imposed by Governments to protect government departments, are particularly unjust. Let us not continue with the canard that this is just about protecting veterans from the anxieties of giving evidence. It is not just about that. This is barring, in absolute terms, claims against the MoD from people who will, inevitably, include some veterans or people such as my noble friend Lord Hendy’s client, the bereaved mother of a veteran.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I make it clear that I do not take the view, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, seemed to suggest, that we should not worry too much about limitation periods because this would impact more on victims who were not in the military. That is not my view at all and I do not think that I expressed it. I do not believe that there should be any distinction between categories of claimants on what the limitation period should be.
The question is whether, as a matter of public policy, whoever is the claimant, there is a public interest in litigation coming to an end. That is what underlies all limitation periods in all sorts of circumstances. Six years, which at the moment is the longstop, has been taken as reasonable, having regard to all the difficulties that may exist in bringing claims. However, the particular challenges of overseas operations, for whoever the claimant is, are such that that is a fairly lengthy period.
I do not believe that many of the claims that have been brought would in any way fall foul of either the primary period in negligence of three years or even the one-year period under the Human Rights Act. Six years is quite a long period. In my experience of personal injury actions in other fields, it is very unusual for a court, in its discretion under Section 33, to disapply limitation for such a long period, except in very unusual circumstances. Those circumstances tend to be in cases that are, in any event, covered by date- of-knowledge provisions—for example, latent disease or something of that sort. I am absolutely not concerned to bias anyone, but simply ask whether there is a public interest in there being an end to litigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised a good question about Northern Ireland. As I understand it, there is likely to be a separate piece of legislation dealing with Northern Ireland in due course and I wait with interest to see what that is. My feeling about the provisions on limitation remains the same. I am not entirely sure that they are necessary, because the existing limitation periods are sufficiently sensitive to deal with some of the injustices that could arise from late claims. This is part of the agenda that the Government have to reassure veterans. The idea that it is entirely designed to protect the MoD is a somewhat cynical response. Reassurance for the veterans is a not unworthy aim but not, I entirely accept, if it runs the risk of causing injustice. For the moment, I am not convinced that it does.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, does not want to bias anyone; I am sure that is absolutely right and we are all on the same page on that. However, he talked of a public interest in having a period of limitation. Clearly, there is a public interest here, but there is also a private, individual one. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, try to get that balance right. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, put the point very well by saying that we should not be talking about taking the role of the courts out of this entirely: there needs to be some discretion. Amendment 23 begins to rebalance this.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is right that, clearly, there is a period in which people can bring cases but, if our previous set of amendments, which would extend the point from one to six years after the date of knowledge, were not accepted, we would need some mechanism that allowed a bit of discretion because, at the moment, there would be none for the courts. As such, Amendment 23 is desirable in its own right, but it is even more important if other amendments are not accepted, either now or when they are put forward by the Government, or when they are moved on Report.
Could the Minister give a further response on the date of knowledge? In opening his remarks on the previous set of amendments, clarifying a point he made on Tuesday, he said that the 94% of cases that were brought within—or what would be within—time were within six years not just of the incident but of the date of knowledge. If that is the case, does that not make it even more incumbent on the Government to look again at the date of knowledge as a relevant time point to have in the Bill—and not one but six years?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
In effect, these amendments once again reintroduce the normal approach to limitation, which is that if you do not bring your claim within 12 months under the Human Rights Act or, if it is a personal injuries claim, within three years—based on tort or a breach of an implied contract—then the court can extend indefinitely, in effect, if it is just and equitable to do so. The courts have applied sensible approaches to those issues, and the longer you are away from the primary limitation period expiring, the better the reason you must have for extending the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made a very powerful point, asking why there should be special rules for the Ministry of Defence in relation to overseas operations. The answer that the Ministry of Defence gives is that military personnel involved in overseas operations should know—indirectly, because they will not normally be sued personally—that no litigation will arise from their conduct after a specified period, which is six years or one year from the date of knowledge, whichever is later.
That approach does not seem to me or veterans’ organisations to be legitimate in relation to claims being brought by soldiers or veterans in respect of negligence or breaches of human rights by the Ministry of Defence. Military veterans or existing soldiers should be subject to the same rules in relation to limitation as apply in any other claims. There is no evidence that the reassurance that individual members of the military are looking for—in relation to ongoing litigation out of overseas operations—is coming from fear of claims being brought by veterans against the Ministry of Defence for personal injuries caused normally by negligence on its part.
As such, in so far as the new rule about limitation in respect of overseas operations applies to prevent claims being brought by veterans or existing soldiers, I am against it. The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which, in effect, applies the normal rules, should be applied to veterans and existing soldiers who want to bring claims arising out of negligence or breaches of human rights in an overseas operation, just as much as if they bring a claim with the normal rules applying if the injury had occurred to them in the UK. The soldier injured by the provision of a negligent piece of equipment—body armour or a vehicle—can bring a claim with the normal rules applying if it happened on Salisbury Plain, but he or she cannot if the same act of negligence had occurred in an overseas operation. That is profoundly wrong.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the limitation longstops provide service personnel with a greater level of certainty that they will not be called on to give evidence in court many years after an event. The uncertainty that the Bill proposes to address can have a significant effect on service personnel and veterans. It prevents them from drawing a line under certain traumatic experiences, always knowing that there is a possibility that the events of the past may be dug up again. This is why it is important to have finality and why the limitation longstops need to have a clear end.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asks for the policy that underlies this measure; that is the policy. For the reasons that I have discussed, it is important that limitation longstops have a clear end, one that cannot be overcome. Were it to be overcome by the existence of some residual discretion, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would seek to have imposed, that would negate the benefits to service personnel of greater certainty that they will not be called on to give evidence many years after the event. Let us remember that, in claims such as can be anticipated, it will most likely not be Ministers standing in the witness box and accounting for decisions taken; it is likely to be the very comrades of service personnel themselves.
Six years provides enough time to bring a claim: to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, it is a fairly lengthy period. The vast majority of service personnel and veterans already bring relevant claims within six years of the date either of the incident or of knowledge. As I say, giving discretion to the courts to allow claims after the expiry of the longstops will negate the benefits, and we want to provide service personnel and veterans with those benefits which flow from greater certainty.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Faulks, adverted to a contrast with the situation that may arise in relation to Northern Ireland. That is indeed a special context, and, echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, this is a matter to be dealt with in separate legislation.
The longstops apply to all Human Rights Act and death and personal injury claims connected with overseas operations. We believe that six years is a sufficient period to commence proceedings, regardless of who is bringing the claim. Where claims cannot be brought within the relevant timeframe because the claimant was not aware that their injuries were caused by the actions of UK Armed Forces, the date-of-knowledge provisions help to mitigate any unfairness that might otherwise be caused.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his definition of the policy behind these provisions in the Bill. He said that we have a blank wall in the Bill because of concern for witnesses. Let us just pause for a moment and think about that. The prime witness is the person who perpetrated the act that is the cause of the claim. I refer to the reversal of the victim and perpetrator situation that I mentioned earlier this afternoon. The perpetrator must be protected from having to relive the violence that he inflicted on the claimant. What about witnesses—his “comrades”, the noble and learned Lord described them as? I am in a rugby mood at the moment, and I cannot help thinking of the out of order principle on the rugby field. A degree of violence is accepted, but when you see a member of the team stamping on the face of a person in the opposition, yards away from the ball, the out of order principle comes into effect. So the policy behind these provisions is so that the comrade, who may very well think that it was all out of order—that is why he is giving evidence—must be protected in case he suffers stress. It is a topsy-turvy world, it is not? Surely it is the victim’s interest that is the most important thing.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his contribution. He is a former Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice and he said, in terms, “I don’t really see the purpose of these provisions”. I agree with him. All the provisions relating to limitation are unnecessary, and the Limitation Act, with all those particular matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred in reminding us of its contents, is quite sufficient to deal with all the problems. What is not acceptable is the blank wall which prevents, in this single category, the continuation of proceedings if the six-year limitation period is attained. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, war is dangerous, complex and messy, as are the situations around it. What we should not have, in particular where it is complex and messy, are barriers to justice, and that is what these provisions do. Why? To prevent people going into the witness box. The whole concept of justice is turned topsy-turvy.
I hope I will return to this, with the support of other noble Lords—I welcome that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in particular—on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this introduces a new topic, namely the purpose of Clause 12. Its effect is to impose, in relation to
“any overseas operations that the Secretary of State considers are or would be significant”,
that
“the Secretary of State must keep under consideration whether it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1)”
of the European Convention on Human Rights. Why has that been introduced? Is it worthwhile? As noble Lords will know, when states sign up to the human rights convention they agree not to violate or take any steps in breach of it. States are entitled to derogate from the human rights convention:
“In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.
That is Article 15.1. No state has derogated from the convention due to war with another state. Most derogations have been in response to internal conflicts and terrorism. In these cases, states relying on the power to derogate have tended to rely on a
“public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.
The courts will give states a wide margin of appreciation when it comes to deciding whether there is a public emergency. The UK derogated from the human rights convention in 1970 following terrorist attacks relating to Northern Ireland, and in 2001 after 9/11.
As noble Lords will know, there are very considerable limits on derogating measures. First, states can take measures derogating from the human rights convention only
“to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”.
That is in the article itself. Secondly, states can never derogate from non-derogable rights; that is in Article 15.2. That means they can never derogate from Article 2 or Article 3, from the articles that prohibit slavery, or from the right not to be convicted of a criminal offence for acts which were not criminalised at the time, and nor can they subject people to greater penalties for a criminal act than existed at the time the offence was committed. What is more, derogations must be consistent with the state’s other obligations under international law. In the context of overseas operations, that means that we in the United Kingdom could never derogate from international humanitarian law.
To some people, new Section 14A might seem a recipe for the state to get away, in relation to overseas operations, from human rights obligations that have been unpopular in some quarters—absolutely not. In effect, all that the right to derogate does is to allow the state—in certain, very unusual circumstances—in practice to detain people without what would otherwise be regarded as a due process, because of the public emergency. Although there are other rights that could be derogated from, in practice that is the only one that would ever genuinely be in consideration in relation to the sort of situation we are dealing with in this Bill.
My concern is that Clause 12, which would add Section 14A to the Human Rights Act, is a totally phoney piece of human rights bashing by the Government, put in only to try to say that we are really “taking on the Human Rights Act” in relation to overseas operations. The only effect of this clause is that consideration would have to be given to the question of whether there should be detentions without trial. I cannot imagine circumstances in which a Government, if that was a possibility, would not consider it without the need for this clause.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this is not a completely phoney and empty provision made for bad reasons. On any basis, if a derogation is considered and given effect to because of this clause, an explanation should be given immediately to Parliament, and it should be given effect to only with the approval of Parliament. That is why I put my name to the first of the amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the then Human Rights Bill came to Parliament without a Green Paper or a White Paper or any consultation paper preceding it. It did so shortly after the Labour Government came to power in 1997. Although there were no detailed debates in Parliament about the extraterritorial reach of the then Human Rights Bill, a number of concerns were expressed at the time about whether the convention —the ECHR—was really appropriate in the case of armed conflict abroad. There were those who took the view that there should be an express carveout in those circumstances, but that is not what happened. There was, however, a power in the HRA 1998—as it became—which permitted the Government to derogate from the European convention. It is important to note that the power was not used in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The inclusion in this Bill of an obligation to consider derogation might be regarded as rather unnecessary, since the power exists anyway. I suppose it might be considered to be part of the reassurance agenda vis-à-vis our Armed Forces. In any event, I respectfully ask the Minister about the Government’s interpretation of Article 15. I find it hard to disagree with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said about the right to derogate, and I ask her to clarify for the Committee the relevance of this obligation vis-à-vis overseas operations. My Amendment 27, which is supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is an attempt to grasp a nettle. He would have liked to address the Committee but unfortunately is unable to do so.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Before I say a word or two in the light of what he just said, I should explain that I put my name to Amendment 26 and support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said about it, but I also have my name to the Motion to oppose Clause 12—in other words, to propose that it should not stand part of the Bill.
I add just a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about the al-Skeini decision. As he will appreciate, if the decision of the Appellate Committee over which Lord Bingham presided had remained without further recourse to Strasbourg, we would not be discussing Clause 12 at all. I did not sit on al-Skeini, but I sat on a later case called Smith, which I know the noble Lord is aware of, where we had to consider a decision by the Strasbourg court in effect to reverse Lord Bingham’s decision. Indeed, the noble Lord referred to it. It was a very difficult decision for us because we had to analyse exactly what the Strasbourg court was talking about. One thing that emerged from our study of that decision was that it did not really believe that the whole of the convention rights could apply in a situation such as arose in Iraq. There were rights there that simply have no point whatever. It talked about it being a slightly tailored approach to the convention for the particular situation in which our Armed Forces were placed.
We considered the matter very carefully, and one of the features of Smith is that, although we were divided on the issue as to the application of the Human Rights Act invoked by relatives of deceased servicemen, we were unanimous in the view that we could not escape the decision of the Strasbourg court. The current state of play, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, very rightly calls in question, is that, for the moment, there is a decision by the Supreme Court that we must follow the al-Skeini decision in Strasbourg and the Human Rights Act—the convention rights, in effect—so far as relevant, applies in the case of operations offshore.
I cannot escape from the fact that in the other part of the Smith decision, we, by a majority, declined to strike out the claims of the servicemen, one of which was referred to earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and, eventually, those claims were settled. Had we struck them out, we probably would not be as troubled by Clause 12 as we are now, but Clause 12 is there, so we must address it.
That brings me to my real point. I find it hard to know what to make of Clause 12. At first sight it is simply unnecessary. As has been mentioned, the power to derogate from our obligations under the European convention by means of a derogation order under Section 14(1) and (6) of the Human Rights Act 1998 already exists. It has been exercised from time to time, notably in 2001, by an order which would have allowed the indefinite detention of non-national suspected terrorists who could not be deported.
I use the words “would have allowed” because that order was set aside on an appeal to this House. That was because it unjustifiably discriminated against non-nationals on nationality grounds in comparison with UK nationals who were suspected of terrorism. We did not think it right in any way to interfere with the Secretary of State’s decision that the overall test of a state of an emergency affecting the life of the nation was set aside, but we did think that it was a disproportionate exercise of the power.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the analysis of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. I am very impressed by his view, and I agree with him. I have written extensively and admiringly about the first Earl of Minto—a significant but forgotten governor-general of India in Napoleonic times. He oversaw overseas operations in 1811, he drove the French out of the Indian Ocean at Martinique and Reunion and captured Java from the Dutch at the Battle of Cornelis. He could boast to Spencer Perceval, the Prime Minister, that the French and their allies had been banished all the way from the Cape of Good Hope eastwards to Cape Horn. He abolished slavery wherever he found it, and cast instruments of torture into the sea.
The radical MP and pamphleteer William Cobbett was not enthusiastic. Writing from prison, where he spent more time than he did in the House of Commons, he warned that the conquest of Java was of no value. It was a country of the same extent as Britain but with 30 million people—nearly twice the population of this country at the time. He said that it placed upon the British
“the trouble of governing, especially in those two important particulars, the administration of justice and the collection and disposal of the revenues; that is to say, the absolute power over men’s lives and purses.”
So it was in Basra and in Helmand Province. It was precisely those considerations—power over men’s lives—that caused the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously to conclude that one of the exceptional circumstances in which the European Convention on Human Rights would apply extraterritorially was when a state bound by the ECHR exercised public powers on the territory of another state. In Iraq the UK had assumed the powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign Government—in particular, responsibility for the maintenance of security in south-east Iraq.
In a later case, in 2011, the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK’s power to detain prisoners in Iraq gave jurisdiction to a finding that the UK had violated Article 5 of the ECHR, the right to liberty and security. In July 2013 the Supreme Court here upheld a claim on behalf of British service personnel who were killed as a result of friendly fire—the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred. The claim was founded on both a violation of human rights and civil liability for negligence in the provision of training and equipment.
The Supreme Court held that a soldier had the protection of Article 2 of the ECHR, the right to life. The Equality and Human Rights Commission commented that the ruling of the Supreme Court had provided
“a reasonable balance between the operational needs of our armed forces and the rights of those serving in our armed forces to be protected in the same way as we expect them to protect the rights of civilians abroad”.
This upset Conservative elements in the coalition Government, but they could do nothing with their Liberal Democrat colleagues at their side. However, in March 2016, when the Liberal Democrats had gone, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, then Minister of State for Justice, said that the Defence and Justice Secretaries were preparing a legislative package to “redress the balance”.
Indeed, in the 2016 Conservative Party general election campaign, a strident call was put out to scrap the Human Rights Act. That had been watered down by the 2019 election manifesto into a call for a committee —chaired, I thought, by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but perhaps there is another chairman now. We await the committee’s deliberations breathlessly.
I was, therefore, rather surprised to observe the cautious nature of Clause 12. It imposes statutory duties on the Secretary of State to “consider” whether to derogate under Article 15. One would expect him to consider that when deploying forces in overseas operations. The problem is that Article 15 gives power to derogate only
“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
The power to derogate may be exercised only where strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. As noble Lords have said, it is not possible to derogate from Article 2—the right to life,
“except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war.”
It is also not possible to derogate from Article 3, on the prohibition of torture; Article 4, on the prohibition of servitude or forced labour; or Article 7, on no punishment without law. I realise that I am repeating what has already been said.
The UK gave notice of derogation in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, so that it could take powers of arrest, detention and internment without trial. In 2001, following 9/11, we issued a notice of derogation concerning the power to detain foreign nationals without trial. France similarly exercised the power to derogate following the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015. Other countries, such as Ukraine, have also done so when the life of the nation was threatened.
On investigating Clause 12 of the Bill, however, one sees that the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider derogation are not at all those as set out in Article 15. The clause provides for a scenario for operations
“outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance”.
Of course, those circumstances do not, of themselves, give rise to a power to derogate. Can the Minister please explain why the preconditions in Article 15(1) do not appear in the Bill as the trigger for the Minister’s consideration of whether to derogate?
One academic lawyer described the cry in the 2016 Conservative manifesto to scrap the Human Rights Act as clickbait. That is all this clause amounts to. If your Lordships require confirmation, they have only to turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. For them, the trumpet sounds with an uncertain note in the Bill as promoted. In their amendment we see the red meat. “Do not bother about derogating from the ECHR, just say ‘No claim can be brought under the Human Rights Act, derogation or no derogation’—that’s it.” I can only assume that the clarion call of Mrs May to scrap the Human Rights Act is about to emerge from the independent commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.
If the two leading lawyers on the Conservative Benches think this is a useless provision, perhaps they will join the rest of us in throwing it out.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, once more I have the daunting privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I will avoid repetition and begin by dealing briefly with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.
First, I will deal with my own moral position in relation to human rights in overseas operations. I am quite clear that, in a wartime situation, in the heat of conflict, there will and must be a very tailored and limited application of rights and freedoms as we normally understand them domestically, in peacetime. However, the Bill covers all overseas operations, such as peacekeeping, covert operations and the policing and rule of law-establishing operations of an occupying force.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak on this Bill for the first time in Committee. The Bill seems so far to have divided the House into at least two camps: those who oppose the Bill altogether and those who seek to amend it radically. I am of the latter camp. Amendment 26, to which I have attached my name, introduces yet another safeguard, one that upholds and supports the UK’s human rights obligations under the two main conventions on human rights. Briefly, as has been said time and again, the Government should not be further enabled to derogate significantly from these conventions in the absence of parliamentary approval.
The emptiness of this clause has already been addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I would support the removal of the clause altogether. In case that does not happen, however, Amendment 26 serves as an important safeguard and should prevail. The question of derogation in this context, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is somewhat contradictory. We all know that torture is a grave breach of the Geneva conventions, with corresponding obligations and sanctions, and, as we have learned, commission of the act of torture in any shape or form is a non-derogable offence.
By including this clause, the Government are acknowledging the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights, something that they have hitherto declined to acknowledge. If the clause is included, there will be those who will welcome it precisely due to its support of the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. That said, its inclusion in its current form appears to go against the absolute prohibition on torture and is therefore a dangerous hostage to fortune and should not be in the Bill.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 26 and against Clause 12 stand part. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and all who have spoken have set out the case exactly with force and clarity, so I will just add that clearing with Parliament any proposal to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights makes proper acknowledgment of the role of Parliament in such a serious decision, although it is not always honoured in the same way by this Government. In any case, the idea of derogation in the circumstances posited by the Bill is not only misconceived and ineffectual, as noble and noble and learned Lords have said, it undermines the basis of our standing in the world as advocates and practitioners of an international order.
The international rule of law is not the same creature as the national one. Enforcement comes up against sovereignty and is not strong. This is reflected in the part played by the veto, so it depends even more on consent, and it is that consent which is sabotaged by the multiple breaches of international law on torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in a set of national legislative proposals as unfocused as this provision. The Bill’s aim of clarity, fairness, certainty and speed of judicial action for our Armed Forces is admirable; the blunderbuss means of ineffective and probably unachievable derogation from the ECHR is not. It betrays our long and distinguished role as one of the founders in creating the instruments for the international rule of law.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, suggested that this Bill divides your Lordships’ House into two parts: those who wish to see the Bill disappear in its entirety and those who wish to amend it substantially. I think that the situation might be a little more nuanced than that, but like the noble Baroness, I would place myself in the camp who believe that the Bill should probably go through, but heavily amended.
On this occasion, I want to associate myself with the suggestion that Clause 12 should not stand part. Obviously, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has signed that he will suggest that it should not stand part, alongside the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. On Tuesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rather hoped to kill the Bill. I think that removing this clause is important. It is neither necessary nor desirable, as almost all noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken already have pointed out.
Some severe issues are raised by this clause, in part about what message we are sending internationally. The United Kingdom left the European Union last year. We have said that, as a country, we still respect human rights and the rule of law and that we wish to play a global role. We are still an active player in NATO and in the United Nations, but what message are we sending if we say, “We might want to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights”? Do we really want to derogate from human rights laws? Is this not a siren call? Is there not a danger that this is trying to speak to a domestic audience? I know that the Minister does not like the concept of lawfare and that she does not care for the term. However, in some ways, the clause as it stands and the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seem to suggest that this is about speaking to an audience that wants to say, “We should not be too worried about human rights. Let us strike down some of these rules.” Surely our role in the international arena should be precisely that of supporting human rights. We will not do that by derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights.
As various noble and noble and learned Lords have already pointed out, in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Hope of Craighead, this clause is unnecessary because it is already possible to derogate. Can the Minister explain why she feels that it is necessary? If there is no good reason, the Liberal Democrat Benches will certainly not support the clause.
However, there is always a danger that, however much we might want to remove a clause, it cannot be done and amendment to it might be more appropriate or feasible. To that end, it is clear that Amendment 26 tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Falconer and Lord Hope, my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is important. If derogations were to be proposed, it is clear that the appropriate people to make that decision are parliamentarians. It is hugely important that the Government should remember the appropriate relations between the institutions of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. At times over recent months and years, it has appeared that Her Majesty’s Government seem to think that only the Government should make decisions. If any derogations were to take place, they should be brought forward for a decision on an affirmative vote by both Houses of Parliament. I strongly support Amendment 26.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the informed proposal in his amendment and other noble Lords for their genuinely thought-provoking contributions. I will try to address them in detail, although I realise that to the perception of some I may do so inadequately.
Amendment 26 would require designated derogation orders proposed by the Government in relation to overseas operations to be approved by Parliament before being made. It is important to begin by repeating the fact that, as some noble Lords have noted, the Government already have the power to derogate some aspects of the ECHR without reference to this Bill, and the Bill will not change that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is correct that the bar is set high to justify derogation, but it can still be done. It is important to remind noble Lords that Parliament already has a crucial role in approving any derogation decision. It is not the intention of this Bill to change the existing robust processes which the Government and Parliament follow if and when a decision to derogate has been made.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and my noble friend Lord Faulks asked why we have Clause 12. The clause merely ensures that all future Governments will be compelled to consider derogating from the ECHR for the purpose of a specific military operation. There is no sinister or malign agenda here, as was implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This does not create new law in relation to the ECHR or the procedures for designating a derogation order. In effect, it puts the intent of the 2016 Written Ministerial Statement on to a statutory footing and it will ensure that operational effectiveness can be maintained, for example, by enabling detention where appropriate for imperative reasons of security in a time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nations.
It is worth reflecting on the procedure that attends a derogation from the ECHR. If such a decision is ever made, the Human Rights Act requires that the Secretary of State must make an order designating any derogation by the UK from an article or a protocol of the ECHR. The Secretary of State must also make an order amending Schedule 3 to the Human Rights Act to reflect the designation order or any amendment to, replacement of or withdrawal from that order. Crucially, for those concerned that Parliament does not have a say in the process, I would remind noble Lords of the procedures that are already in place. A designation order to derogate ceases to have effect—it evaporates effectively—if a resolution approving the order is not passed by each House of Parliament within 40 days of the order being made. This means that both Houses will always be able to approve or reject any derogation order within 40 days of a decision. That is the process and these are the procedures.
In addition to the requirements laid out in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government must also communicate a decision to derogate to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. This should include details of the measures taken and the reasons for taking them. The Secretary-General should also be informed when derogations have ceased. These existing measures provide for the appropriate level of parliamentary debate and approval of a decision to derogate. To the best of my knowledge, successive Governments have not sought to change that. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will correct me if I am mistaken.
However, requiring a parliamentary debate on a decision to derogate ahead of time, instead of after it is made, as Amendment 26 proposes, could undermine the operational effectiveness of MoD activity or compromise covert activity that we would not wish hostile operators to be aware of. It is generally accepted, without reference to derogation powers, that military action must at times be taken without gaining the prior consent of Parliament—for example, in situations where the Government’s ability to protect the security interests of the UK must be maintained, and in instances when prior debate and disclosure of information could compromise the effectiveness of our operations and the safety of British service personnel. I submit that the same principles apply here: requiring a debate before an order is made could, similarly, have a detrimental impact upon operational effectiveness. It would effectively shackle the MoD, preventing it from doing what it needs to do, when it needs to do it. It would defeat the purpose of derogation in relation to overseas military operations, which should enhance operational effectiveness. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would wish to impose that stricture. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Although I have argued against the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill, it has more logic than Amendment 26. I wonder if it is a mischievous stratagem to make the Government look at Clause 12 again. I listened to the noble and learned Lord with great care and I will look at his arguments again. When they are advanced with the lucidity with which he is rightly associated, they have an allure.
Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulks, is intended to prevent claims connected with overseas operations being brought in England and Wales under the Human Rights Act, whether from service personnel, local nationals or any other claimant. I thank my noble friend for an incisive analysis of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. He rightly identified the need to bring clarity to an issue that has been dogged by uncertainty and the divided opinion of senior legal personnel. His analysis and conclusions richly inform the debate around the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, but I will comment on his amendment, which I thought was unfairly characterised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was a little more charitable. I detect that she is warming to the Bill, albeit with reservations.
In relation to Amendment 27, the Human Rights Act’s extraterritorial application mirrors the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction under the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it is important to note that, whatever the position under domestic legislation, as a signatory to the ECHR, to which the UK remains committed, we would still be under an obligation to ensure compatibility with the convention. My noble friend acknowledged that. We would still need to provide an effective route for people to bring claims in the United Kingdom in relation to any alleged breach of their convention rights. This was recognised by Professor Ekins during the House of Commons committee’s evidence-gathering session for this Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, one from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the other from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I will call them in that order.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has reminded us that, when Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon said:
“before embarking on significant future military operations, this government intends derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights, where this is appropriate in the precise circumstances of the operation in question.”
In her letter of 26 February, the Minister indicated that Clause 12 was included to reflect this undertaking. Significantly, Clause 12 does not give the same weight to a decision to derogate as was indicated by Mr Fallon. If that is what is intended, should it not say so in words that reflect the commitment explained by Mr Fallon? What is the Government’s intention? Is it to seek to have in place an effective form of combat immunity for active operations overseas? That would be welcome but, at present, as many noble Lords have said, Clause 12 seems worthless and should not form part of the Bill.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The Bill has been drafted to reflect the overall policy intentions to try to reassure our service personnel that, before overseas operations are committed to, careful thought is given to them. As the noble and gallant Lord understands, because of the deliberate way that the Bill is drafted, the impact of Clause 12 is merely to consider, not to compel, derogation. I simply repeat my undertaking to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead: I will look very carefully at these arguments.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not putting this short question clearly enough in my earlier remarks. Do the Government agree that the new duty in Clause 12, which would become the new Section 14A of the Human Rights Act, on the Secretary of State to consider derogation a judicially reviewable duty? Will it be, as I suspect it will, open to challenge in relation to the Secretary of State’s considerations, so that litigants will be able to judicially review the adequacy of the considerations, whether or not the operations were significant, and the Secretary of State’s decision not to derogate—or, indeed, to derogate—in relation to every single potential overseas operation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The way in which I anticipate Clause 12 operating is that it is simply an ex facie reminder on the face of the Bill that a Secretary of State, if he were contemplating an overseas operation, should consider derogation. I suggest to the noble Baroness that thereafter, the existing law would govern whatever subsequent activity took place and whether or not the designated derogation order was deployed. The law is there and it is clear as to what is to be done. I think the acceptance of ministerial power to make these decisions is understood. As I have said before, that is with reference to parliamentary scrutiny, which has a very public capacity to call Ministers to account. I therefore merely ascribe to Clause 12 a reassurance that a Minister will give thought to this, but is not obliged to derogate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible.] The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked an incredibly clear question and I think the House is entitled to an answer. Would an exercise of the power to derogate in accordance with this new section of the Human Rights Act be judicially reviewable? Although the Minister gave a long answer, she did not answer the question directly. I can understand why she feels uneasy about answering it without a clear steer from officials, but I think it would be appropriate if she wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the rest of us with the answer to that very important question.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Smith of Newnham, for their support for Amendment 26 or for the clause not standing part. I also note that the Minister said on behalf of the Government that they would consider the allure of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this clause should not be part of the Bill at all. I am grateful for that and I think the House will be interested to hear her conclusions.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was interesting but broadly irrelevant to Amendment 26 and whether the clause should stand part. I understood him to say that actually, the problems that have arisen in relation to overseas operations will never be addressed in any real form by any sort of possible derogation under the Human Rights Act, and that he could not therefore see what derogation has to do with the problems the overseas operations Bill is addressing. He then went on, in an interesting speech which I profoundly disagree with, to say that the problem is not whether or not derogation is possible but whether or not the Human Rights Act should extend to overseas operations generally.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, absolutely put his finger on it when he asked the Minister, if derogations are not intended—if derogations cannot give combat immunity—what is the point of them? As the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, it is plain from what the Government are accepting has been said in this debate that combat immunity is not on offer from derogation. I strongly urge the Minister to drop this clause, because it is a pretend clause. It pretends that derogations can help with the problem this Bill seeks to address, when they plainly cannot.
I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before we do that, does the Minister wish to respond?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment. When I responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I did not have before me specific information relating to her question. I am now informed by my officials that if there were a derogation under Clause 12—or, presumably, a decline to derogate—this could be subject to a judicial review. I thought it preferable to share that with the House at this stage. That is without prejudice to my previous remarks that I undertake to consider everything that has been said in the debate, perhaps most significantly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 30
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Access to legal aid for service personnel in criminal proceedings
Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of access to legal aid for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (members of British overseas territories' forces serving with UK forces) applies, in relation to criminal legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, and lay a copy of the evaluation report before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of service personnel’s access to legal aid in relation to the criminal proceedings covered by the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 30 in my name asks the Government to commission an independent evaluation of access to legal aid for members and former members of the Regular Forces and Reserve Forces and lay a report before Parliament. This important amendment is a result of the evidence given in Committee in the other place, which repeatedly demonstrated the lack of proper support and advice personnel have received when seeking justice.
This evidence was not only from outside contributors. Johnny Mercer himself said that the MoD has a policy whereby,
“where a service person or veteran faces criminal allegations in relation to incidents arising from his or her duty, they may receive full public funding for legal support.”
However, also he said:
“That was not the case when I first came here”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 22/10/20; col.351.]
We are a country of fairness, with a legal justice system founded on the right to a fair trial. But I wonder how many men and women have struggled to get the justice they deserve. There have been serious cracks in the system, and people have not got the right support and guidance in accessing the right to due process and a fair hearing.
Major Campbell raised the importance of having access to legal aid and advice and the importance of wider pastoral support, both for dealing with things when they happen and to ensure that cases such as his never happen again. When asked if the MoD had offered him any support when he was facing the eight criminal investigations that he was subjected to, Major Campbell said:
“No, there was none…in the early investigations under the Royal Military Police we were told just not to think about it and to get on with stuff. No concession was given to us in our day-to-day duties.”
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
I am speaking in support of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and his amendment. Of course, it would be open to the Minister not just to embrace this amendment but to go further; and not to wait for 12 months, but assure your Lordships that the Government will provide legal advice and support and, if necessary, representation to any member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces who has need of it as a result of an overseas operation—whether they are an anxious suspect, an anxious defendant, an anxious witness to civil proceedings or, indeed, whether they are suing the MoD. It seems an absolute no-brainer, given speech after speech in both Houses about the anxiety that the interaction between law and war is causing our personnel. Why would the Government bring forward a Bill that causes such controversy and restricts the reach of the law without first giving the assurance that we would all like to hear from the Minister? Can the Government do this? Can the Government honour our existing service personnel and veterans with an automatic right to advice and representation, whenever they have need of it, as a result—from whatever perspectives I have described—of serving the Crown?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important amendment and I support it thoroughly. I should declare to your Lordships that I am still chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates. Although I am not in receipt of legal aid in respect of any case at the moment, I have received legal aid on many occasions in the past. In my experience, the legal aid authority was excellent, probably ahead of its civil counterparts in supporting counsel and solicitors who were defending servicemen, whether in this country or abroad.
There are particular circumstances that apply in this field which do not apply in ordinary civil practice. First, there are a limited number of military court advocates, mostly people who have some experience of the service. Secondly, the courts are at a distance. Catterick and Bulford—or occasionally Colchester—are at opposite ends of the country. There is also a very experienced military lawyer in Northern Ireland who deals with issues that derive there. In addition to court appearances, it is necessary to give protection to soldiers facing charges and to Air Force and Navy personnel. It is necessary to be in at the beginning, which requires driving long miles to various bases to be present at interviews, to be present when a person is charged and to give advice. There are particular exigencies in this type of practice. Full support from legal aid, which in my experience has been given in the past, is essential for the system to work well. As in every part of the justice system where people are properly represented, a fair result is likely to be arrived at.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising this issue. I have looked at his proposed new clause in Amendment 30, which would indeed require the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of legal aid for service personnel and veterans in relation to the criminal legal proceedings covered by the Bill. I repeat the assertion to which the noble Lord himself referred: the MoD has a long-standing policy that, where a serviceperson or veteran faces criminal allegations in relation to incidents arising from his or her duty on operations, the MoD may fund their legal support and provide pastoral support for as long as necessary. We offer this because it is right that we look after our Armed Forces, both in the battlefield, where they face the traditional risk of death or injury, as well as in the courts, particularly if they face the risk of a conviction and a possible prison sentence. Because of the risks our service personnel and veterans face, our legal support offer is very thorough. I will set out some of its provisions.
The legal aid provided by the Armed Forces legal aid scheme provides publicly funded financial assistance for some or all of the costs of legal representation for defendants and appellants who, first, appeal against findings and/or punishment following summary hearings at unit level, including applications for extensions of the appeal period by the Summary Appeal Court, for leave to appeal out of time. Secondly, it covers those who have a case referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions for a decision on whether the charges will result in a prosecution. This includes offences under Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 referred directly to the Director of Service Prosecutions by the service police, as well as matters referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions by the commanding officer. Thirdly, it covers those who are to be tried in the court martial of the Service Civilian Court; fourthly, those who wish to appeal in the court martial against the finding and/or sentence after trial in the Service Civilian Court; and, fifthly, those to be tried in a criminal court outside the UK.
If I have not responded to all the questions asked by the noble Lord, I apologise, and I shall look at Hansard and attempt to respond further. I will explain that the legal aid scheme applies equally to all members of the Armed Forces, including the Reserve Forces when they are subject to service law, as well as to civilians who are or were subject to service discipline at the time of an alleged incident. Importantly, this system is based upon the same basic principles as the civilian criminal legal aid scheme in England and Wales. The Armed Forces scheme is designed to mirror the civilian scheme while making necessary adjustments to take into account the specific circumstances and needs of defendants and appellants in the service justice system.
As a result of that system, I am confident we already ensure service personnel and veterans are properly supported when they are affected by criminal legal proceedings. A review of legal aid, as proposed by the amendment, is unnecessary, given how comprehensive our legal support package is. In these circumstances, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support in this area. Turning to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which I shall read with care, it seems we are not grasping the circumstances of this Bill. The situation is about overseas operations and the problems of defending oneself against criminal action in some overseas theatre—vastly more difficult than in the parallel civilian situation in the UK. I note she said the support “may” be provided. The Minister may mean “always”, but for servicemen that word sounds like “perhaps,” like some or all of the necessary support only “may” be provided.
We should think back to who we are talking about. Service personnel are different from ordinary citizens. I was involved, when Labour was in power, with drawing up the first statutes to cover slavery. When we had got over the shock that we had to try and define slavery, we suddenly realised that we had to have some exceptions. One of them was the Armed Forces, because we expect absolute loyalty from our Armed Forces, including to the point of dying. That is a very special loyalty. Surely, when they are caught up in difficult situations, there should be almost absolute support in defence of them to make sure, in all the subsequent legal action and the necessary support—which will be coming in the next group—that they lack for nothing, ensuring both that they are pastorally supported and that there is sufficient legal support for there to be a genuine equality of arms.
I will look at the noble Baroness’s response with care and listen to her response to the next group. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 31. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 31
Lord Dannatt
“Duty of care to service personnel
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—(a) prepare a duty of care report, and(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.(5) In preparing a duty of care report the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury; (c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;(c) former members of any of Her Majesty's forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations, and to report annually on their application of this standard.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, in seeking to move Amendment 31, I pay tribute to the tireless and detailed way in which the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, have been responding to the extensive and detailed sequence of amendments to this Bill in the last two days in Committee.
That the list of proposed amendments is so lengthy indicates a considerable degree of concern about the Bill as drafted, but my concern does not extend as far as the concerns of those who would wish to see this Bill thrown out completely. Many noble Lords, myself among them, have been arguing for some years to have a Bill introduced that would provide better protection for serving and veteran soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from vexatious, extensive and recurrent investigations arising from their actions in past operations. This Bill seeks to meet that aim, so I do not want to see it fail, but I do want to see it meet that honourable objective more effectively.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dannatt, whom I greatly respect. He has raised some of the issues that we have been discussing over the last two days. I have made my views well known on those aspects, and I do not propose to challenge what he has just said. He is absolutely right in requiring there to be a duty of care set out in statute—a touchstone whereby the ways in which service personnel are dealt with can be tested.
In our own way, those who have practised in courts martial have seen the sort of improvements to which the noble and gallant Lord referred. I recall that, at the first court martial that I went to, there was a lot of swishing of swords—swords pointed at the guilty man when the decision was announced, and so on. Also, I think I played some part in the abolition of the process whereby an accused in a Navy court martial was marched into the court with a cutlass at his back. I put down a Question questioning that particular practice and, when I got up to hear the Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, he announced that the practice had been abolished. But that is only symbolic of the very considerable changes that have taken place in the court martial system, which I believe have brought greater fairness and fewer problems of what one might call “shock and awe”—of a soldier going in to stand trial before a court martial of senior officers. In that way, we have sought I think to modernise the old court martial system, and we have been successful in that. If that sort of movement could be applied generally and not just in the very narrow area to which I have referred, it would be a very good thing. I wholly support the noble and gallant Lord in his amendment.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment, to which I have attached my name. In doing so, I convey the apologies of my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce, whose name is also on the amendment but who is prevented by a medical issue from speaking this afternoon.
To explain why my noble and gallant friend and I support the amendment, it is necessary for me to go back to the very purpose of the Bill. It is in the Minister’s own words to reassure service personnel and veterans that the Government have their back and that they will be offered a degree of protection from the pressures and strains of malicious prosecutions. But the Government know that prosecutions are not the issue; that much has been widely acknowledged during debates on the Bill to this point. It is the seemingly endless cycle of accusations and investigations that is casting such a shadow over our service personnel and veterans, not the prospect of being brought to trial.
It is a principle of our legal system that an accused person is innocent until proved guilty—but this is true only in a narrow legal sense. It simply means that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defender; it does not mean that an accused person is treated as innocent. For example, they may be held in detention. They are certainly subject to the wondering if not outright suspicion of observers, and they certainly suffer the agonies of uncertainty and the mortification of being suspected of and, in the minds of some, guilty of a criminal offence. The strain on them and their families is immense. Can anyone doubt the anguish that assailed those accused as a result of Operation Midland, despite the fact that not only were there no prosecutions but their accuser was shown to be lying? Can anyone deny that they suffered acutely—and in some cases still do?
Accusations must certainly be investigated, but such investigations will bring pain to guilty and innocent alike. How much more is this the case when the investigations are repeated and protracted? That is the evil that this Bill should address. The Government’s view seems to be that it is not possible to legislate on investigations since that would almost certainly increase the risk of UK service personnel and veterans coming under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court. They have therefore taken an indirect approach to the problem, in the hope that codifying the factors that must be considered by a prosecutor will discourage speculative and malicious accusations. Of course, this is a wholly untested thesis; it may work to an extent, but equally it may have little impact.
For my part, I believe that the Government have by their own lights set themselves an impossible task in this Bill. They have recognised that they cannot address the real problem directly, so has come at it obliquely with a proposition that will have dubious benefits and poses real presentational risks—risks that could harm the reputation of our Armed Forces. Meanwhile, the underlying issue remains: the pressure of investigations. If that cannot be addressed legislatively, it is surely incumbent on the Government to ensure that those accused are supported appropriately during their ordeal—hence this amendment.
If we cannot entirely prevent the suffering, at least let us do all that we can to ameliorate it. The Government may say that they do so already, and there is no need to legislate on the matter, but I would find such a view puzzling. The Government have accepted that prosecutors already take into account the considerations set out in the Bill, but they regard their codification in law as necessary for the reassurance of our military personnel. If they take that view on something that they admit is not the real problem, how can they take a contrary view on something that is? That would seem to me to be an extraordinary contradiction.
The many amendments proposed to this Bill so far have sought largely to ameliorate the harmful effects that it might have. This amendment, on the other hand, seeks to tackle as far as possible the root of the problem that the Bill is intended to address, and I commend it to the Government.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a privilege to have heard, let alone to follow, the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, so much of which I completely agreed with. One thing I would say is that, while legislators are limited in what they can do in this regard—and he and his noble friends have had a very good go at using a probing amendment to try to get the Government to stand by veterans and service personnel in real terms—the Government can actually do more.
They could do more even now to address the problem of investigations. Of course, they could not do so by legislation alone, but they could throw resources at it and redesign the nature of investigations, and they could include the noble and gallant Lord and his colleagues, among others, in creating a new investigation system that would inspire the confidence of the public at large, of wretched human rights lawyers like me and, crucially, of veterans and personnel. They could do what we have said in recent days is essential, which is to ensure that investigations are robust, independent and speedy, and not repeated. That could do a great deal to avoid the kind of anxiety that we have heard so much about in consideration of this Bill.
That is not something that any mere legislators can do, so we have to probe in this way and table amendments, such as the previous one from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe about laying reports, and this more extensive one from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Boyce, and my noble friend. These amendments are, of course, necessarily limited by the scope of the Bill. I therefore understand why, for example, the noble Lord could not include in the duty of care to service personnel chronic issues of housing and of mental health problems beyond just those caused by litigation.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests. I had the honour to serve in the Royal Marines, during which time I served on overseas operations. I support the thrust of this proposed new clause and congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and others for tabling it.
The new clause would provide for the establishment of
“a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations”.
It also provides for an annual report on the duty of care to be laid before Parliament. This is a satisfactory solution to some of the matters I raised at Second Reading, when I stated that
“when charges such as these are contemplated, no expense should be spared in mentoring and assisting a defendant, who will need an experienced individual to guide him through the maze of criminal law and procedure. The defendant should have access to the very best legal team available and be able to access medical assistance to engage with the effect of the stress of operations, including being in mortal danger most of the time, and often in searing heat. This should all be at public expense.”
As soon as an individual comes under investigation, it appears that his colleagues are forbidden to contact him and he starts to feel isolated and abandoned. The defendant should have someone of experience from his own corps, regiment or service as a supporter he can rely upon. That supporter should be properly trained, independent and have access to the defendant at all times. As I said at Second Reading, the defendant will need the best legal team available. The Bar Council and the Law Society should be asked to co-operate with the Ministry of Defence in providing a list of suitably qualified and experienced barristers and solicitors, with their curricula vitae, to assist the defendant in his decision on who is going to represent him. The Ministry of Defence should liaise with the appropriate professional body to provide a list of experienced mental health professionals. These are just some of the steps that should be taken; others have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and other speakers. There will be more.
The Committee should bear in mind that these matters of culpability and responsibility are riven with difficulty. Soldiers engage in warfare not only for their country but for their comrades. They fight for their comrades and their comrades fight for them, often in the most appalling and hazardous conditions. Matters such as provocation should be gone into in great detail. We rightly respect, and have to comply with, the laws and conventions of war. Regrettably, some of our enemies do not. It would serve no useful purpose for me to give examples of some of the terrible atrocities that our troops have had to suffer. Suffice to say that the bonds between comrades forged by and in war are immensely strong.
Provocation is not the only factor to be borne in mind when determining culpability and responsibility. An individual’s state of mind will change when he is deployed on operation. He will have to be alert at all conscious times. He is in mortal danger most of the time and sleep is light and constantly disturbed. Sleep deprivation is one of the most mentally and physically debilitating conditions. The individual knows that he must keep going at all costs—he owes it to his comrades, and they owe it to him. The foregoing is the reason why I stated, at Second Reading, that I believed that
“there should be a duty on the Judge Advocate-General to bring the possibility of battle fatigue and diminished responsibility to the attention of the panel.” —[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1191.]
I look forward to hearing from the Minister in response to this debate, and in relation to matters I raised at Second Reading when I outlined changes that should be made to the system of courts martial. I appreciate that, on the latter matter, I will have to wait for a letter.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and others for bringing forward Amendment 31 which would require the Government to
“establish a duty of care standard in relation to … support provided to service personnel”.
I believe that one of the most important duties of the state is to ensure that we do everything in our power to provide for the welfare and well-being of those who serve us all in the military and those who have served us in the past. That obligation also extends, of course, to their families. The recent move to give much greater statutory standing to the Armed Forces covenant, across the whole of the United Kingdom, is very welcome in that respect.
The amendment would create specific duties on the Government in relation to service personnel caught up in investigations and litigation on overseas operations. I have had the opportunity in recent times, in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, to meet with some of the ex-service men and women who have been involved in this type of case. Some of them spoke to me in the context of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. This Bill clearly does not extend to that operation or to Northern Ireland and some of the issues relating to that were explored at Second Reading. We obviously listened carefully to the Minister’s comments during the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place and we look forward to legislation covering Northern Ireland very soon. I hope that the Minister can confirm that again today.
The experiences and feelings of the veterans that I spoke to in the context of Northern Ireland will mirror in many respects the concerns and anxieties of those who will be subject to investigation and litigation in respect of theatres overseas. It is the long process of investigation which causes most problems—a point that has been made by other noble Lords. Very often, those being investigated are elderly. The knock on the door, or the fear of the knock on the door, after many years out of service can be extremely upsetting and difficult to cope with. One spoke to me about his feelings of being very much alone, abandoned to his fate with no one to turn to, no one to whom he could really express his feelings or from whom he could seek sound advice. Those being investigated are suddenly plunged into a legal nightmare, with the potential for years of long, drawn out legal process.
I very much welcome the fact that the amendment talks about the duty of care standard in relation to legal as well as pastoral and mental health support. This is an extremely important aspect given the complexity of these cases and the passage of time. I also welcome the fact that the amendment covers civil as well as criminal claims and, for that matter, proceedings to do with judicial review. It is important that all these aspects are covered. There is a feeling that things are being looked at now with the benefit of hindsight and with the application of standards which were not applicable at the time.
There are often big financial implications. One person I spoke to cited a total lack of resources or capacity, compounded by ill-health, exacerbating the enormous stress and strain that had been inflicted on them and their family. One man who was undergoing very serious medical treatment was finding the financial as well as the medical implications very hard to bear. People feel extremely frustrated. There is understandable anger at the fact that they are being picked out or targeted in some way while, certainly in the case of Northern Ireland, many of those political voices championing prosecutions and investigations were themselves some of the biggest supporters of the abuse of human rights by terrorists and do not want any investigation into their nefarious activities.
Finally, the fact that the amendment covers the family of ex-servicemen and women and serving members of the military is also important. The families are vital and often feel the same level of stress and strain when such investigations are launched. I wish the amendment well and it has my full support.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with what lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I cannot help thinking that it is a great pity that it was felt necessary to table the amendment at all. The reason for it, however, is the way in which we as parliamentarians and the law generally have let the military down; that is, after all, what this legislation as a whole is about. For there to be an obligation to state a duty of care standard of the sort envisaged by the amendment is a woeful acknowledgement of that. I do not think there is any equivalent in relation to our duty towards the fire brigade, the police or the NHS. Things have come to a pretty poor pass where we as a House can find so much to sympathise with in this amendment.
However, a statement to the House about the duty of care and how the standard of that duty should be reflected can do no more than state what the law is. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, just pointed out, there are specific provisions to deal with litigation and investigation, civil as well as criminal, and judicial reviews. But all a statement would do was say what the state of the law was. Depending on the passage of this Bill, there may be some, little or no change to the existing state of the law. What has repeatedly come through our debates is what lies behind so much of the understandable discontent: these repeated and late investigations.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords—and noble and gallant Lords—across the Chamber, I welcome the amendment, even if, like the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I regret that it is necessary. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, it is in many ways necessary to try to deliver what the Minister said the Bill was intended to do, which is to demonstrate to all our service men and women, and veterans, that the MoD and the Government have their backs. The amendment seems to be delivering on the stated aims of the Bill in a way that much of the content of the Bill does not quite seem to do.
Perhaps I have misread the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has read it perfectly, but my reading of it is a little different from his. The first point is:
“The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard”.
It does not say, “The only purpose of this amendment is to write a report”; the report comes later. The really crucial thing is that the Secretary of State is to establish the “duty of care”; the annual reports are then supposed to look at certain things, but it is the duty of care itself that matters.
So the amendment does not say, “There’s got to be a report every year”—which, I agree, might look a bit like window-dressing. This really gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State—hopefully with advice from the leading members of the military and taking into consideration the evidence from the many organisations that have been lobbying the Government and Parliament over this Bill—to begin to ensure that we have an appropriate duty of care and that support is given to service men and women under investigation. As my noble friend Lord Burnett said in his powerful speech, there is a whole set of issues that might affect people acting overseas on operations that would not necessarily be the case when people are in normal circumstances.
So this is an important amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will be able, for once, to consider supporting an amendment. If she cannot, I hope that she can look for ways of delivering in the Bill the sort of support for our service men and women that is the intention of this amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we stand four-square behind our troops and, therefore, four-square behind Amendment 31. We want to work with government and colleagues from across the House to get this legislation right. Our country owes a huge debt to our service personnel, yet many have not got the pastoral, mental and well-being support that they require when it is most needed.
Troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations have too often felt cut adrift from their chain of command and the Ministry of Defence. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, this gap was clearly identified by multiple people in Committee in the other place, but it has not been identified in the Bill.
When asked if the MoD had offered any support when he was facing eight criminal charges, Major Campbell said: “No, there was none”. General Sir Nick Parker said that
“one of the key things that we have to do is to produce mechanisms that establish a really effective duty of care for those who are placed under the spotlight by malicious claims.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 96.]
He stated that, as drafted, the Bill does not do this.
When asked if the MoD does enough to provide a duty of care to those service personnel who go through investigations and litigations, BAFF executive council member Douglas Young said:
“In our opinion, the answer is no ... we are simply appalled by the experiences of some people who have absolutely been through the wringer for many years.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 5.]
Lieutenant Colonel Chris Parker said that there was certainly a need for
“a broad duty of care with some resourcing for the impact on families and the individuals themselves … It is something that the MoD would have to bring in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 108.]
The MoD has let down too many personnel with a lack of pastoral, mental health and legal support when they face investigations and pursue rightful compensation. For every member of the Armed Forces who does not receive the proper support and advice during an investigation or litigation, it is not only sad but a failure of the MoD’s responsibility to its employees. We cannot deny that the MoD has lost trust among our brave service personnel, and a statutory duty of care, with regular reporting to Parliament, is a key step in rebuilding that trust. Only then will personnel have the confidence that the MoD will be on their side and support them through the difficulties and stress of an investigation or litigation.
We owe it to our excellent Armed Forces to do better. The MoD owes it to them to provide a statutory duty of care standard for legal, pastoral and mental health support, and that is why we strongly support this amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important debate, and I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his careful presentation of his amendment, which covers a very important issue. I also thank him for his supportive commentary on the Bill.
Amendment 31 proposes that the Ministry of Defence should establish a “duty of care standard” for current and former service personnel and, where appropriate, their families, and that the Secretary of State should be required to report on this annually. I have looked at the specific components of the amendment, and I hope that I may be able to provide some reassurance to the noble Lord and those other noble Lords who raised genuine concerns.
I start by saying that we take extremely seriously our duty of care; the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, rightly identified that important component of how the MoD deals with its personnel. We do take it extremely seriously; we have a duty of care to our personnel, and pastoral and practical support will always be available to them. In particular, veterans of events that happened a long time ago may have particular support requirements and concerns, in which case we can put in place special arrangements for them.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke eloquently about the effect on personnel of repeated investigations and accusations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, my noble friend Lord Faulks and, just recently, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. We have a responsibility to take reasonable care to ensure the safety and well-being of our personnel.
I covered the comprehensive legal support that we already provide to service personnel and veterans in relation to legal proceedings during our previous debate, so I will not repeat them here. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, was rightly concerned about such provision, but I trust that, if he looks at the remarks that I made in the earlier debate, he may feel reassured.
In terms of mental health, welfare and pastoral care, a range of organisations are involved in fulfilling the needs of personnel, which will vary according to individual need and circumstance. The potential impact of operations on a serviceperson’s mental health is well recognised; the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, spoke powerfully about that. There are policies and procedures in place to help manage and mitigate these impacts as far as possible.
Despite the clear processes for categorising personnel as medically suitable for deployment, it is recognised that an operational deployment can result in the development of a medical or psychiatric condition. Therefore, specific policy and mandated processes exist for the management of mental health and well-being before, during and after deployment. These provide overarching direction on the provision of deployment-related mental health and well-being, with briefings designed to provide enough information about deployment-related mental ill-health to allow individuals, peers and family members to take steps to avoid such an outcome, to recognise the early signs of mental ill-health and to facilitate help-seeking from the right source at the right time.
We also regularly seek opinions from Armed Forces personnel and their families about the level of support. It is important to refer to that, because the MoD is not operating in some kind of vacuum; we actually have very good communication strands with our Armed Forces personnel, and I will cover a number of them. The Armed Forces continuous attitude survey—AFCAS—is an annual survey of a random sample of service personnel. The 2021 survey was conducted from September 2020 to February of this year, and the results are due to be published in May. There are no specific questions relating to legal proceedings, but questions related to welfare support are asked.
Within the welfare section of the survey, questions are asked on satisfaction with the welfare support provided by the service for both the serviceperson and their family, as well as the support that the serviceperson’s spouse or partner receives while the serviceperson is absent. Questions are also asked about operational deployment welfare package for service personnel.
Questions on satisfaction levels with the variety of welfare support systems in place are also asked, with the list unique to each service—for example, families federations, welfare teams, officers, community support teams, et cetera. Further questions within the deployment section ask for satisfaction levels with welfare support received by both service personnel and their families when the serviceperson returns from their last operational deployment. We also have the annual families continuous attitudes survey—FAMCAS—for the spouses and civil partners of service personnel. It is in field from January to April and the 2021 report is scheduled for release in July. Again, there are no specific questions on legal support.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who have taken part in this debate for their helpful contributions. At the heart of Amendment 31 is a simple issue: to get back to the original purpose of the overseas operations Bill, which is to better protect our servicepeople against a recurrent, extensive and vexatious series of investigations. The intent behind the amendment to ask the Secretary of State to lay down a duty of care is to answer some of the questions that I put in my opening speech. How many times is it reasonable for someone to be investigated and over what period? What should the attitude of the chain of command be?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her response to the debate but, with the greatest respect to her, its principal part was to list the wider welfare provision for the Armed Forces provided by the Ministry of Defence and service charities. I know all that; I was head of my service through difficult times. With Bryn Parry, I co-founded Help for Heroes. I know what we are trying to do but, with the greatest respect, that part of the speech of the noble Baroness, whom I admire enormously, misses the point behind this amendment, which is simply to lay down a duty of care to bring to an end these recurrent, vexatious and almost unending—in Major Campbell’s case, there were eight—investigations.
I am grateful for the support that has been voiced for this amendment by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and on behalf of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. Both are former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and each is a former head of the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. Bear in mind that I am a former head of the Army. I am grateful for the support that has come from Members of all political parties in this House, but I am deeply disappointed that the Minister does not see the opportunity that this amendment poses. It gives the Ministry of Defence an opportunity to say, in simple and plain terms, how it can solve the problem of incessant vexatious investigations.
I regret that I decided not to press this amendment to a Division at this stage. I note that the Minister did not invite me to have further conversations with her, with her officials or with Johnny Mercer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. If she wishes to extend that invitation, I will gladly accept it. But I am quite certain that, with the support of the representatives of the armed services who have spoken and from all political parties, we will return to this on Report. If I do not feel that we have reached satisfaction in getting to the nub of the purpose of the Bill, which I have repeated several times, we will press this to a Division on Report. In advance of that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment at this stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 32. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 32
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“Liability for using novel technologies: review
(1) Within 3 months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, including in weapons systems, for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for UK armed forces operating overseas, including instilling domestic processes and engaging in the shaping of international agreements and institutions.(2) The review must consider—(a) what protection and guidance armed forces personnel need to minimise the risk of legal proceedings being brought against them which relate to overseas operations in response to novel technologies,(b) how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies, and(c) what novel technologies could emerge from the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom's allies, and from the private sector, which could be used in overseas operations.(3) Within the period of one year beginning on the day on which the review is commissioned, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament of its findings and recommendations.”
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 32 stands in my name and in the names of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It raises a very different matter from those with which we have been dealing until now in Committee. At first sight, the amendment may appear out of place in this Bill. I hope, however, to persuade your Lordships that, far from being irrelevant, it is directly relevant to many personnel who are, or will be, engaged in overseas operations, and that the numbers of those to whom it is relevant will only increase.
The amendment focuses on the protection and guidance that Armed Forces personnel need to ensure that they comply with the law, including international humanitarian law; the best way of minimising the risk of legal proceedings being brought against them; and explaining how international and domestic legal frameworks need to be updated. These are all as a consequence of the use of novel technologies which could emerge from or be deployed by the Ministry of Defence, UK allies or the private sector. In this day and age, the private sector is often deployed with our Armed Forces in overseas operations as part of a multinational force.
The amendment imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State, within three months of the passing of this Act, to commission a review of the relevant issues; sets out what that review must consider; and obliges the Secretary of State, within a year of the date from which it is commissioned, to lay a report before Parliament of its findings and recommendations.
It is remarkable that almost all the debate in Committee so far—both on the first day and today—has been about deployment of military force and the risk to which it exposes our forces, based on past experience. Little or no mention has been made of the changing face of war. I may have missed it, but I cannot recollect any mention being made of that element.
We often criticise armies who train “to fight the last war”. The real problem, however, is that training is based on mistaken notions of what the next war will be like. We have a fair idea of what a future conflict will be like, so we should not be a victim to that mistaken notion. I can easily think of a relatively straightforward current example of modern warfare which encapsulates the challenges that will be generated for our military.
The provisions of Clause 1(3) set out that the presumption against prosecution applies only in respect of alleged conduct which took place outside the British Isles and when the accused was deployed in overseas operations. If a UAV operator works from a control room here in the UK, in support of troops on the ground in a country beyond the British Isles, are they deployed on overseas operations for the purposes of this legislation? Is their conduct taking place beyond the British Isles? Consequently, are the protections afforded by this legislation offered to them? How can this legislation for overseas operations be kept up to date with the blurring of lines between what is and is not the battlefield, without provisions of this nature being made in the Bill?
On the face of it, these may appear simple questions, but I expect the answers are complex. At some time in the future, it is at least possible that a court will disagree with an answer given by a Minister today.
Next week, the integrated review will finally be published. This is the third defence and security review since 2010. It promises to be forward facing, recognising both current and future threats against the UK and describing the capabilities that will need to be developed to deter or engage them.
When the Prime Minister made his Statement on the review last November, he said that
“now is the right time to press ahead”—
with a modernisation of the Armed Forces, because of
“emerging technologies, visible on the horizon.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]
The CGS, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, recently said that he foresees the army of the future as an integration of “boots and bots”. The Prime Minister has said that the UK will invest another £1.5 billion in military research and development designed to master the new technologies of warfare, and establish a new centre dedicated to AI. He rightly stated that these technologies would revolutionise warfare, but the Government have not yet explained how legal frameworks and support for personnel engaged in operations will also change—because change they must.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, in supporting his Amendment 32, which he introduced so persuasively and expertly. A few years ago, I chaired the House of Lords Select Committee on AI, which considered the economic, ethical and social implications of advances in artificial intelligence. In our report published in April 2018, entitled AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able?, we addressed the issue of military use of AI and stated:
“Perhaps the most emotive and high-stakes area of AI development today is its use for military purposes”,
recommending that this area merited a “full inquiry” on its own. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, made plain, regrettably, it seems not yet to have attracted such an inquiry or even any serious examination. I am therefore extremely grateful to the noble Lord for creating the opportunity to follow up on some of the issues we raised in connection with the deployment of AI and some of the challenges we outlined. It is also a privilege to be a co-signatory with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, who too has thought so carefully about issues involving the human interface with technology.
The broad context, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has said, is the unknowns and uncertainties in policy, legal and regulatory terms that new technology in military use can generate. His concerns about complications and the personal liabilities to which it exposes deployed forces are widely shared by those who understand the capabilities of new technology. That is all the more so in a multilateral context where other countries may be using technologies that we would either not deploy or the use of which could create potential vulnerabilities for our troops.
Looking back to our report, one of the things that concerned us more than anything else was the grey area surrounding the definition of lethal autonomous weapon systems—LAWS. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, set out, when the committee explored the issue, we discovered that the UK’s then definition, which included the phrase
“An autonomous system is capable of understanding higher-level intent and direction”,
was clearly out of step with the definitions used by most other Governments and imposed a much higher threshold on what might be considered autonomous. This allowed the Government to say:
“the UK does not possess fully autonomous weapon systems and has no intention of developing them. Such systems are not yet in existence and are not likely to be for many years, if at all.”
Our committee concluded that, in practice,
“this lack of semantic clarity could lead the UK towards an ill-considered drift into increasingly autonomous weaponry.”
This was particularly in light of the fact that, at the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons group of governmental experts in 2017, the UK opposed the proposed international ban on the development and use of autonomous weapons. We therefore recommended that the UK’s definition of autonomous weapons should be realigned to be the same or similar with that being used by the rest of the world. The Government, in their response to the report of the committee in June 2018, replied that:
“The Ministry of Defence has no plans to change the definition of an autonomous system.”
They did say, however,
“The UK will continue to actively participate in future GGE meetings, trying to reach agreement at the earliest possible stage.”
Later, thanks to the Liaison Committee, we were able on two occasions last year to follow up on progress in this area. On the first occasion, in reply to the Liaison Committee letter of last January which asked,
“What discussions have the Government had with international partners about the definition of an autonomous weapons system, and what representations have they received about the issues presented with their current definition?”
The Government replied:
“There is no international agreement on the definition or characteristics of autonomous weapons systems. Her Majesty’s Government has received some representations on this subject from Parliamentarians”.
They went on to say:
“The GGE is yet to achieve consensus on an internationally accepted definition and there is therefore no common standard against which to align. As such, the UK does not intend to change its definition.”
So, no change there until later in the year in December 2020, when the Prime Minister announced the creation of the autonomy development centre to,
“accelerate the research, development, testing, integration and deployment of world-leading AI,”
and the development of autonomous systems.
In our follow-up report, AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency, which was published in the same month, we concluded:
“We believe that the work of the Autonomy Development Centre will be inhibited by the failure to align the UK’s definition of autonomous weapons with international partners: doing so must be a first priority for the Centre once established.”
The response to this last month was a complete about-turn by the Government, who said:
“We agree that the UK must be able to participate in international debates on autonomous weapons, taking an active role as moral and ethical leader on the global stage, and we further agree the importance of ensuring that official definitions do not undermine our arguments or diverge from our allies.”
They go on to say:
“the MOD has subscribed to a number of definitions of autonomous systems, principally to distinguish them from unmanned or automated systems, and not specifically as the foundation for an ethical framework. On this aspect, we are aligned with our key allies. Most recently, the UK accepted NATO’s latest definitions of ‘autonomous’ and ‘autonomy’, which are now in working use within the Alliance. The Committee should note that these definitions refer to broad categories of autonomous systems, and not specifically to LAWS. To assist the Committee we have provided a table setting out UK and some international definitions of key terms.”
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can only commend my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on two of the most powerful, if terrifying, contributions to this Bill’s proceedings so far. In particular, I shall be having nightmares about their projections for the potential dissonance between varying international approaches to the definition of autonomous weapons and the way in which their deployment and development matches, or does not match, traditional approaches to humanitarian law.
Regarding the Bill, my noble friend has a very good point. He makes a specific observation about the fact that a drone operator in the UK will suffer many of the traumas and risks of a traditional soldier in the field but, on the face of it, that is not covered by this legislation at all. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that in particular, but also to the broader questions of risk—not just legal risk in a defensive way to our personnel but ethical and moral risk to all of us. In this area of life, like every other, the technology moves apace, but the law, politics, transparency, public discourse and even ethics seem to be a few paces behind.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who always seems to be a great source of common sense on complex moral issues. I am similarly delighted to support the amendment in the name of my one-time boss, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I will not seek to repeat his arguments as to why this amendment is important, but rather to complement his very strong justification with my own specific thoughts and nuances.
I will start with some general comments on the Bill, as this is my only contribution at this stage. At Second Reading I made my own views on this Bill quite clear. I felt that it missed the main issues regarding the challenges of Lawfare. Specifically, I felt that the better route to reducing the problem of vexatious claims was not through resort to legal exceptionalism, but rather rested on a series of more practical measures relating to such things as investigative capacity, quality and speed; better training; improved operational record keeping; more focused leadership, especially in the critical area of command oversight; and a greater duty of care by the chain of command. On this latter, I wholly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dannatt.
Having listened to the arguments deployed in Committee, I am struck by the seeming inability of even this sophisticated Chamber to reach a common view as to whether the many provisions of this Bill offer enhanced protections or increased perils for our servicemen and women. This causes me grave concern. How much more likely is it that our servicemen and women—those whose primary desire is to operate within the law—will be confused; and how much more likely is it that are our enemies—those who want to exploit the law for mischief—will be encouraged?
I hold to the view that the law, in any formulation, cannot be fashioned into a weapon of decisive advantage in our bid to rid our people of vexatious claims. Rather, the law will increasingly be exploited by our enemies as a vector of attack, both to frustrate our ability to use appropriate force and to find novel ways of accusing our servicemen and women of committing illegal acts. The solution to this problem is a mixture of functional palliatives and better legal preparedness. This amendment addresses one element of this preparedness.
As we have already heard, one area of new legal challenge will undoubtedly be in the realm of novel technologies, particularly those which employ both artificial intelligence and machine learning to give bounded autonomy to unmanned platforms, which in turn have the ability to employ lethal force. We are currently awaiting the imminent outcome of the integrated review, and we understand that a defence command paper will herald a new era of technological investment and advancement: one that will enable a significant reduction in manned platforms as technology permits elements of conflict to be subordinated to intelligent drones and armed autonomous platforms.
However—and this is the basic argument for this amendment—the personal liability for action in conflict to be legal will not cease, although it may become considerably more opaque. We must therefore ask whether we have yet assessed the moral, legal, ethical and alliance framework and protocols within which these new systems will operate. Have we yet considered and agreed the command and control relationships, authorities and delegations on which will rest the legal accountability for much new operational activity?
Personally, I have a separate and deep-seated concern that a fascination with what is technically feasible is being deployed by the Government, consciously or unconsciously, primarily as the latest alchemy by which defence can be made affordable. It is being deployed without properly understanding whether its true utility will survive the moral and legal context in which it will have to operate. I therefore offer my full support to this amendment, in the hope that it will assist us in getting ahead of the problem. The alternative is suddenly waking up to the fact that we have created Armed Forces that are both exquisite and unusable in equal measure.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, for bringing forward this important amendment and debate. I understand my noble friend Lord Browne’s concerns about the mismatch between the future-focused integrated review, which has had long delays but will be hopefully published next week, and the legislation we have in front of us.
Technology is not only changing the kinds of threats we face but changing warfare and overseas operations in general. In Committee in the other place, Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch neatly summed this up by suggesting that
“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country … The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 67.]
How is this reflected in the Bill?
When the Prime Minister gave his speech on the integrated review last year, he rightly said that “technologies …will revolutionise warfare” and announced a new centre dedicated to AI and an RAF fighter system that will harness AI and drone technology. This sounds impressive but, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, as military equipment gets upgraded, we do not know how the Government plan to upgrade legal frameworks for warfare and what this means in terms of legal protection for our troops.
We must absolutely tackle vexatious claims and stop the cycle of reinvestigations, but how will claims against drone operators or personnel operating new technology be handled? Do those service personnel who operate UAVs not deserve to be protected? And how will legal jeopardy for our troops be avoided?
As new technology develops, so too must our domestic and international frameworks. The final report of the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence stated that the US commitment to international humanitarian law
“is longstanding, and AI-enabled and autonomous weapon systems will not change this commitment.”
Do the Government believe the same?
I would also like to highlight the serious impact on troops who might not be overseas, but who are operating drones abroad. A former drone pilot told the Daily Mirror:
“The days are long and hard and can be mentally exhausting. And although UAV pilots are detached from the real battle, it can still be traumatic, especially if you are conducting after-action surveillance.”
The RUSI research fellow Justin Bronk also said that, as drone operators switched daily between potentially lethal operations and family life, this could be extremely draining and psychologically taxing. What mental health and pastoral support is given to these troops currently? Drone operators may not be physically overseas, but they are very much taking part in overseas operations. With unmanned warfare more common in future conflicts, I would argue that failing to include those operations in the Bill may cause service personnel issues down the line.
I would like to hear from the Minister how this legislation will keep up to date with how overseas operations operate, and whether she is supportive of a review along the lines of Amendment 32—and, if not, why not?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for tabling this amendment, which is fascinating and raises substantial issues. One only had to listen to the informed but very different contributions from the noble Lord himself, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, then to a different perspective from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, and, finally, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to get a flavour of both the depth and the technical complexity of these issues.
There is no doubt that the increasing adoption of new and innovative technologies on the battlefield is changing how military operations are conducted. Gone are the three domains; we are now in the five domains. Military effects can now be delivered in cyberspace, and precision weapons systems can now be operated remotely from the UK and from third countries. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is motivated by a genuine interest in these new technologies, how they influence military operations and the implications for our Armed Forces personnel involved in overseas operations—and that is an important question to ask.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister, for whom I have as much respect and regard as anyone else in this debate. She has been showered with this compliment throughout the whole course of this Committee—quite rightly, in my view. I welcome her invitation to a meeting as much as I welcome the undertaking she has given to write to answer the many questions that have been posed to her. I look forward to all of that information.
I say at the outset that whether it is appropriate for this Bill to contain a provision of this nature should be tested against the proxy question I asked, which is whether a UAV operator in this country controlling a UAV or a drone over another country in an overseas operation is covered by the provisions of this Bill. If that cannot be answered in the affirmative, it is appropriate to do exactly what has been proposed in Amendment 32, if not in this fashion then somehow before this Bill becomes law, because we are asking and will continue to ask people to operate machinery in that way and we should not expose them to risks that others are not exposed to. This amendment seeks to future-proof this Bill. It expects the Government not to have all the answers now but to carry out a review of the implications of the increasing autonomy associated with AI and machine learning for legal proceedings against Armed Forces personnel arising from overseas operations.
I thank all noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who spoke in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has an enviable reputation, well deserved, for understanding one of the most difficult issues that face our country for the future, and in the security and military environment in particular; that is, artificial intelligence and autonomous weapon systems of machine learning. His contribution was full of rich information about the nature of the challenges we face, and I thank him for his support for this amendment.
I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her support, and I am grateful that she suggested, or perhaps implied, that my interpretation of the Bill as it stands is probably correct. I am reinforced in my desire to see this through because of her support. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, in his own characteristic way, made a clear argument for engagement with these issues. He has a record of service to our country, an experience which has informed his advice to your Lordships’ House. I would be interested to explore further with him his conclusion that we may end up with forces that are exquisite and unusable in equal measure.
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe clearly understands this issue and shared with the Committee on a human level why this matter is important. In a sense, the test that he set for the Minister is a test that she has set herself: that this legislation must deliver on the Government’s policy intention to reassure service personnel in the event they are deployed. It will not do so unless these issues are dealt with properly and openly, so that those whom we send on these operations and engage with understand our appreciation of the legal implications.
I will seek leave to withdraw this amendment, but I warn the Minister that it may come back again—maybe in a slightly different form—at the later stages of this Bill. I also warn her this is but a preface to an issue that will come back before the Government in this form and other forms—that is, debates in this House—because this is going to be the reality of our security and military operations of the future. I say as a caution to her that the committee report that both I and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to is almost 800 pages long. This is a complicated and difficult subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 34. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 13: Power to make consequential provision
Amendment 34
Lord Craig of Radley
“( ) In particular, regulations may amend the Armed Forces Act 2006 for the purpose of consolidating the provisions of Part 1 and this section in that Act.”
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 34. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, is a co-signatory and supporter of this amendment, but he had a clinical appointment that could not be changed.
What is immediately striking about the Bill is that it is an amending Bill to others for limitations and for the Human Rights Act, but it does not attempt to amend the overarching Armed Forces Act, though I believe that with a little ingenuity in drafting it could be done. In my amendment, I have suggested a post-enactment approach, because it would have been complicated to attempt to rewrite the first part of the Bill in a series of amendments. The reason for my approach is, of course, to bring all legislative matters of direct import for, and impact on, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces under the cover of the Armed Forces Act.
I have been advocating this approach for many years, going back to the problems that have arisen of conflicting legislation for the Armed Forces in their Acts and the Human Rights Act 1998. When that was being debated, I urged, without success, that human rights matters that the Armed Forces must follow were spelled out in their own legislation. Subsequently, I ensured that the Armed Forces covenant received its own part in the Armed Forces Act. Other legislation of direct impact on the Armed Forces and their discipline has been incorporated, in addition to the melding together of the three single-service discipline Acts into the current Armed Forces Act 2006.
As the services get smaller and are liable to be engaged in operations, their legislation under the umbrella of one Act not only makes for tidier legislation but enables those who have to live under and operate the laws that govern the Armed Forces, and to produce manuals of service law to guide individual commanders, to have a much easier task. Certainly for the particular topic of overseas operations, there is a cast-iron case for the relevant content of this Bill to be part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, just as the clauses on limitations and human rights are transcribed to the appropriate Acts.
This a probing amendment, but I am hoping for an acknowledgment of the benefit that this would bring. I beg to move.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of course of my interests and say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. He makes a very important point, which is tied to some of the points I am making, about how there has been, at times, an inconsistency in the way that we have dealt with defence matters through a series of different Acts. He made the powerful point that potentially it would help if we were to bring them together into a single Act.
I will speak to the very simple amendment in my name, which seeks to extend the territorial application of the Bill to include the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. In much the same vein as the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, this would align the Bill with the Armed Forces Act, which this Bill references throughout. The Bill currently applies to a member of the regular or reserve forces, or a member of a British Overseas Territory force, as defined by Section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, but it does not extend to the territories themselves. This creates ambiguity in its application and my amendment seeks to remove this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for writing to me since I tabled this amendment. Her letter, a copy of which she has placed in the Library, addresses some, but not all, of my concerns.
I will take a moment to explain why this inconsistency concerns me. It stems, frankly, from a mistake I made as the Minister responsible for taking the last update of the Armed Forces Act through Parliament in 2016. At the time, I questioned why the territorial extent of the Bill applied to all overseas territories and Crown dependencies with the exception of Gibraltar. I was told that Gibraltar wanted to pass its own mirroring legislation and that officials did not anticipate a problem.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
Noble Lords will forgive me for not having discovered the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, just referred. My only brief observation on his concerns is my own concern that the Bill relates to access to justice in the courts of the jurisdictions to which it extends. I ask only that perhaps the Minister might, in her reply, indicate the extent to which the jurisdictions to which the amendment refers—the overseas territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—have been consulted about their wishes with regard to these significant changes to the rule of law extending to their legal systems as well. As this is, I believe and hope, the last group today, I want to record my thanks to all noble Lords but to the Minister in particular for her patience and forbearance in the lengthy but important consideration of all these amendments.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, both these amendments are important but quite different. They come together as a final hurrah for the Committee stage of the Bill. Amendment 34, in the names of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Boyce, makes perfect sense as a tidying-up measure. As I understand it, we are expecting the next Armed Forces Bill after Prorogation, which would become the 2021 Armed Forces Act. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate whether that would be the time to bring together all relevant legislation on the Armed Forces. Assuming that the Bill that we are debating at the moment is passed—I hope, in a seriously amended form—it may be appropriate to put it within the purview of the 2021 Armed Forces Act.
Beyond that, I had initially thought that the British Overseas Territories, the Isle of Man and other places seemed slightly tangential. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made it absolutely clear why that amendment is so important. On Monday evening, I was speaking to officer cadets at Sandhurst about the challenges of leadership in civilian life. I cited, from my time in local government, the dangers of being a new executive officeholder—equivalent to being a Minister—listening to what officials say. Saying “We consider this situation very unlikely to arise” is not something that a Minister or elected politician should necessarily listen to. I hope that the Minister listens to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and considers this amendment carefully.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, this appears to be the last group of amendments in Committee. Like her, I thank the Minister, her noble and learned colleague on the Front Bench and other noble Lords for participating. I look forward to the next stages of the Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not know whether it was a sense of exhaustion but, until the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, set out what their amendments meant, I did not fully understand them. I understand them a little better now, and we will give them consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, said that they may find a better home in the 2021 Armed Forces Act. The Minister may give an indication of whether that is sensible.
As this is the last group, I will use it to ask this of the Minister. She has committed to writing a positive library of letters; it would help if she could copy them electronically to all noble Lords who have taken part in Committee so that we can all share her wisdom. With that, I thank her and her colleagues, and all noble Lords, for making this a civilised and thoughtful debate over the last two days.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank your Lordships for your kind comments and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his helpful and kind observation. Yes, I will undertake to distribute electronically any letters that have been copied to the Library. I am sorry if that was overlooked and it would have helped him and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to be aware of the correspondence that I have entered into.
The amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, seeks to consolidate the provisions found in Part 1 of the Bill into the Armed Forces Act 2006. I quite accept that, while consolidation can have real and practical benefits for those who work with the law by making the statute book more accessible, there are many significant factors to consider before drawing together different legislation into a single Act.
One of the principle considerations has to be whether the law concerned is suitable for consolidation into a particular Act. The Armed Forces Act 2006 established a single system of service law that applies to the personnel of all three services, wherever in the world they are operating. It covers matters such as offences, the powers of the service police and the jurisdiction and powers of commanding officers and the service courts, particularly the courts martial.
In contrast to the Armed Forces Act 2006, Part 1 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill covers matters relating to the wider civilian criminal justice system and is about decisions made by territorial prosecutors. As we are all now aware, the intent of the Bill is to bring in measures to help reduce the uncertainty faced by our service personnel and veterans in relation to historic allegations and claims arising from overseas operations. For that reason, it is more appropriate to have it as a standalone Act; I feel that that makes clearer the issues to which it is directed and that it seeks to address.
I also observe that, as we are aware, the procedure for the Armed Forces Act is one of regular renewal: a quinquennial renewal by Parliament and, in the interim years, a renewal by a statutory instrument. A consolidation of Bills could make that renewal much more complex, and we have to be cognisant of the implications of that because the last thing that any of us wants is to obstruct or make more obtuse, in any sense, legislation that we believe in—I know that there is universal support for the Armed Forces Act, and I have always enjoyed the renewal debates. We want to make sure that we are keeping our issues clearly distinct and encompassed within appropriate statutes, so that there is a clear identification of what it is that these individual Acts are trying to do.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has been committed to this objective, and he has been very determined in bringing the matter before your Lordships’ House. I hope that, by my explaining the genuine difficulties and challenges that I anticipate would accompany such consolidation, he will understand that there is more to this than meets the eye. In these circumstances, I trust that he would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I will move on to Amendment 35, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton. It seeks to extend the territorial extent of the Bill to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and overseas territories, thereby mirroring the territorial extent of the Armed Forces Act 2006. I know that this is a matter of some importance to my noble friend, and, as he indicated, I have written to him to respond to his concerns about the territorial extent of the Bill. However, I am grateful that he has tabled this amendment because it gives me the opportunity to address this issue with your Lordships.
I say to my noble friend and, in turn, reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Smith—whom I thank for their very kind comments; at this stage in the day, the Minister gets weary and such encouragement is very much appreciated—and all noble Lords that careful consideration has been given to the ways in which the Bill will impact on the British Overseas Territory forces. Some legal background might assist with this.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their support for my probing amendment. At the close of two heavy days in Committee, this is not of prime importance in the spread of amendments, but the Bill does offer an opportunity to press for this as a default approach to legislation for the Armed Forces.
I also thank the Minister and will look very closely at what she said in defence of the current arrangements. She raised one point which could be argued both ways when she referred to the fact that the Armed Forces Act has a quinquennial review. It seems to me that these overseas operations would very much benefit from some form of review. Several amendments in the course of the last two days have suggested a review process for this Bill, however it eventually turns into legislation.
I conclude by thanking the Minister again for her considered approach, which I will study very closely. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 11th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Contingencies Fund Act 2021 View all Contingencies Fund Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 March 2021 - (11 Mar 2021)