Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for this debate is five hours.
Net-Zero Carbon Emissions
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That the Grand Committee takes note of the case for the integration of policy-making in (1) national, and (2) local, government to achieve net zero carbon emissions in the United Kingdom.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of Aldustria Ltd, a trustee of the Green Purposes Company that holds the green share in the Green Investment Bank, and an honorary president of the Major Energy Users’ Council.
Beyond the pandemic, two emergencies confront us: climate change and biodiversity loss. Both are real and, like Covid, both can be fatal to our economy and society. Members and Ministers in this House are all good at fine words when it comes to these crises, and I am sure there will be many admirable ones in this debate, but what counts is action. This debate should focus on how we deliver our climate goals most effectively and certainly. To do that, almost before anything else, we have to closely co-ordinate work between government departments and between Whitehall and our devolved nations, combined authorities and local authorities. With climate change, there is no room for silos in decision-making or inaction—if there is, we lose.
I will concentrate on the word “action”. The Government have just accepted the Climate Change Committee’s recommended sixth carbon budget—I think that legislation is being laid before Parliament today. I welcome that, as I am sure we all do. I also welcomed the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, but without a route map—I have not seen one yet—it is a 10-pointless plan. We are still waiting for a net zero road map, the Treasury’s review of the costs of decarbonisation and the strategy for heat in homes and buildings, and whatever happened to the task force net zero? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Did the Cabinet committee on climate change that the Prime Minister announced at the beginning of his premiership ever get past its first meeting?
Despite our strong past performance on carbon reductions in the UK—we are all proud of that—we were on track to miss our fourth and fifth carbon budgets even when our 2050 target was still only an 80% emission reduction. We have become complacent. No wonder the reception of these new targets was muted. It is easy to set targets into the future—in this case 2035, 14 years away—making it happen now is the test of our sincerity.
To quote Alok Sharma, COP 26 president and Cabinet member, on the announcement of the sixth carbon budget decision:
“Long term targets must be backed up with credible delivery plans”—
how much I agree with Mr Sharma. Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, stated:
“This target means every choice we make from now must be the right one for our climate.”
That means the choices made by the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign Office and all the rest, not just BEIS and Defra.
How successful are we at Whitehall co-ordination? Back in ancient history, under Gordon Brown as Chancellor, the Treasury produced the Stern report and acted on it. The result was the Climate Change Act. But this year’s Budget was judged “climate-lite”. There were some good announcements, including green bonds—though late and long resisted by the Treasury—and the UK Infrastructure Bank, but no mechanism to ensure net zero- compliant investments and no big push of retrofit; in fact, there was a retreat on this. The Government backed away from green taxation, despite having previously trailed it in the press.
Let us be clear: if we are to win the climate change challenge, two departments have to be at the centre of it, and they are not BEIS and Defra but the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. There has to be a senior Minister in the Treasury whose sole focus is the climate change agenda. In the Cabinet Office there should be created a Minister for the climate emergency, who is a full member of Cabinet. That is the practical demand of the Government’s rhetoric and our desire to succeed.
There is one other department that I want to put in the spotlight when it comes to silos, yet it also is at the heart of climate change policy. That is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It scrapped the 2016 zero-carbon homes deadline and did the same for the 2019 commercial buildings target. It rules the roost on building regulations, but I get no impression from it of a desperation to urgently uprate standards, let alone inspection rates. The Conservative manifesto pledged over £9 billion for retrofitting buildings, which I welcomed, but, a quarter of the way into this term of office, very little has been committed. I shall come on to the green homes grant later.
Then we had the Cumbria coal mine. It somehow did not seem to occur to the department or the Secretary of State that a brand spanking new coal mine being approved in the year of our COP 26 presidency, when the UK was internationally the co-founder of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, might just be seen as a little off-message by the rest of the world. It is amazing—and amazing too, apparently, to COP president Alok Sharma.
Whitehall silos are a challenge to all Governments—I understand that—but when it comes to climate change, we just cannot afford that luxury, or that inefficiency. As part of removing the climate silo, investment appraisal in all departments must be subject to a “route to net zero” test. That financial rigour is really important in all departmental investment.
I turn to local authorities. The great news is that more than 300 local authorities have declared a climate change emergency. That is brilliant. They are of all political persuasions, and for most it is not just a declaration but a genuine call to action. Two-thirds intend to be carbon neutral by 2030. One reason that this is good news is that some 50% of the carbon reductions we will need in the future are strongly influenced by local policy-making. But when it comes to achieving net zero as a nation, central and local government are like two ships passing in the night.
The next stage of decarbonisation will be far more difficult than what we have experienced so far. Unlike when coal was removed from power generation, our fellow citizens will notice the differences in the way they live. Local authorities are trusted by 80% of their citizens—a far higher percentage than trust, say, the electricity suppliers or even central government—so local authorities are essential to the delivery of the net zero route map. This is the case especially in such areas as the energy efficiency of homes and buildings, transport, waste, planning and the often neglected area of enforcement.
What better example is there of local doing it better than retrofit and home insulation? The fiasco of the green homes grant illustrates all too well that in this area top-down does not work. Local or combined authorities should spearhead retrofit, preferably on a street-by-street basis. To me, that is utterly obvious. Frankly, they should also be delivering the ECO—energy company obligation—programme rather than the energy supply companies. But of course, dumb Treasury definitions of public expenditure get in the way of serious delivery.
Transport is the one growing area of emissions in the UK and, with the rise of white vans and SUVs, it is not just air travel and shipping. Again, local authorities are clearly the best at delivering co-ordinated low-carbon transport plans. Only they can ensure that all citizens have access to charging points for EVs at or by their homes, not least when they do not have a parking space except on the road. Only in that way can we ensure a just transition, which we all want. Moving from landfill and energy from waste to recycling and reuse is a core local activity as well. The enforcement of planning conditions, building regulations and trading standards on energy efficiency is local but hugely underfunded, making prosecution unlikely. That under- funding of enforcement really must change.
Among all their other strategies and route maps, the Government must publish a specific plan or concordat for how they will engage fully with local authorities in the delivery of climate change goals. As part of that, there must also be a grown-up fiscal settlement between the two—difficult, I know, but it has to be done.
As part of my preparations for this debate, I decided to speak to a number of local government officers on the ground in the climate change area to understand their experience of working with Whitehall. I will give five short quotes, which all relate specifically to climate change. Here we go—in their words rather than mine. First, when it comes to climate change, government is divided on the issues at departmental level, and there is no core ethos that drives conversations down a clear pathway. Secondly, we still get pushed towards a more traditional economic justification for projects and initiatives by many departments, and the climate change agenda is too big for that. Thirdly, we have to deal with a multitude of funding streams that are complex, short-term and never allow for strategic-level planning and, equally importantly, do not allow for supply chain development, market confidence and skills development —a reflection of those short-term government policies that change so quickly, so that once you have built up the skills and the organisation, the programme ends and everything stops. Fourthly, there needs to be much greater co-ordination between the climate and ecological emergency agendas within government, as talking to Defra and BEIS is like speaking to completely different organisations. Lastly, we need some form of concordat where there is an honest discussion of what local areas can and cannot do, charting a strategic pathway linked to long-term funding. Those are their words and their experiences, not mine.
Whether it is co-ordination and unity of purpose between Whitehall departments, or central and local government, this has to work. I have made many recommendations, but I ask the Minister specifically: will he ensure that a route map is published, in full consultation with local authorities, that paves the way for close and mandatory co-operation and co-ordination between central and local government? If so, we can achieve so much more, better and at greater speed. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start with some congratulations. I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on picking out this debate and on his masterly coverage of the issues in his opening statement. This is a vital point; we need to make sure that government not only is not prone to complacency—as has been the case hitherto—but is getting itself into a position where it is capable of delivering what it promises and its stated intentions. I also briefly congratulate the Government, who yesterday produced on paper a pretty coherent response to the Climate Change Committee’s latest carbon budget, increasing the ambition of the timescale for delivery of our pathway to net zero.
That was positive. It was also positive that, for the first time, they included figures for the UK’s contribution to the cost of shipping and aviation, which the British economy imposes on international transportation. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked, however, where are the means of delivery? We have already failed—or are likely to fail—to meet the previous CCC carbon budget, and there is no reason to think that the Government are in better shape to deliver on the subsequent stages. The work of the Climate Change Committee has been vital. It has spelled out across the board what we need to do nationally, locally and internationally. Everybody—apart from a few climate change deniers, whom we still have in this House—has agreed that this is a good and clear road map. In theory, so it is, but it is the practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has drawn to our attention.
I draw the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We need in charge of this process a senior Minister at least equivalent in status to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The appointment of Alok Sharma, capable man though he is, is not what I mean. I mean someone who has command over other departments, whose name resounds around Whitehall, and who can give a lead to other parts of the public and private sector.
We also need to engage all departments in a high-level Cabinet committee, probably led by that same Minister, if not the Prime Minister himself. In different circumstances, I might have suggested the Prime Minister, but I am not entirely sure that, in the present circumstances, that would be wise. We need somebody specifically focused on this task. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, says, the departments largely in charge of delivery at the moment are not particularly highly rated within Whitehall or, indeed, in the country as a whole. Moreover, their climate change commitments are only part of their responsibilities, so BEIS’s responsibility for climate change is often swamped by its industrial and energy responsibilities. Even Defra, which is still in charge of mitigation and various other aspects of climate change, is swamped by rural and agricultural requirements. They are not departments that can deliver. We need a new department for climate change.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. There is a Division in the Chamber, so we shall adjourn for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee will now resume and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to continue his speech.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
I apologise for the interruption; I have slightly lost my place. My original intention in looking at this was to go through all 10 points of the Prime Minister’s commitment to creating a green industrial society and strategy. That was probably too much and, in any case, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already covered a few of them.
However, under each point, it is clear that is not just central government and a particular department that is responsible for delivery, but a whole range of departments; that was pretty clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about transport, buildings and so forth. Even the things that appear to be the purview of one department are affected by the position of other departments. Take the first: quadrupling offshore wind power. This involves BEIS, obviously, as the sponsoring department in energy policy, but we are proposing quadrupling wind power, which means that we will have to bring more of that power ashore. It means that the current situation, where individual turbines in arrays have their own point of contact to the shoreline, will increase a hundredfold if we allow every single instance of a turbine in an array to have its own point of contact. That is ridiculous.
We need to ensure that there is a network at sea before we bring it on land so that we reduce those hundreds of points to a few score. That requires planning permission from the local authority; environmental controls from the Environment Agency; and Defra and the marine authorities to look at the effects on marine life and fisheries. And all that needs to be brought together to deliver what seems to be a simple quadrupling of what has been a very successful commitment to offshore wind.
The same will apply in other areas, even in nuclear power, which seems very much a central, single government interest. That will also require huge commitments on the environmental, planning and construction side. It will require an integration of the delivery of new nuclear power with other aspects of the delivery of greener energy and heating, such as the creation of hydrogen and, indeed, carbon capture and storage.
I have decided not to go through all 10 points so I will not do so. However, in addition to the changes in central government that the noble Lord referred to, as have I, we will need local government to become more coherent, we need relations between the central Administration and the devolved Administrations to work more effectively on this, and we will need to ensure that there is clarity in reporting to Parliament.
That is my last point. I was a member of the Joint Committee of the House of Commons which preceded the Climate Change Act 2008. I now seem to have gone full circle: as of last week, I have become a member of the Lords new Committee on Environment and Climate Change, and I am very grateful to your Lordships for putting me there. However, some things have not improved, and cohesion in government is one of them. If that is not achieved by government itself, perhaps parliamentary pressure through our committees and the Commons committees will ensure that the fine words and the very clear policy direction is delivered by an interlocking and clear commitment from government. The clear strategy, some of which was announced yesterday, the fine words, the individual commitments, and the fact that we have most of business and much of the public on side, will not deliver of itself. It would be a serious problem if we were to screw all this up due to institutional inflexibility and a lack of interlocking government.
I support this Motion and I hope the Government take serious notice of what has been said.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s radical new climate change commitments announced yesterday, which will set the UK on course to cut carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. For the first time, climate law will be extended to cover international aviation and shipping. That commitment, which is to become law, brings forward the current target for reducing carbon emissions by 15 years and confirms the UK’s world-leading position. That is also the easy bit. The challenge now is to have policies to realise the targets, and that will not be possible without a more joined-up approach both at the departmental level and between government and local authorities. That is the subject of this timely debate, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for choosing the date so successfully.
There is no shortage of advice for the Prime Minister and the Government. In its report to Parliament in June 2020, the Committee on Climate Change—the CCC—argued that the scale of the net-zero goal required it to be
“embedded and integrated across all departments, at all levels of Government and in all major decisions that impact on emissions.”
It has also recommended steps to improve integration in net zero policy-making. Similarly, the National Audit Office stated that
“all government bodies, including departments, arm’s-length bodies and executive agencies have a role to play.”
It also recommended a cross-government plan, as well as regular reviews of the effectiveness of current oversight arrangements. In August 2020, the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology published advice to the Government on using a whole-systems approach to the transition to net zero.
The Government agreed that net zero should be a core government goal integrated into all policy-making where appropriate. The overall responsibility for the net-zero target rests with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but every other department is involved. The USA is doing well on a joined-up approach, particularly since President Biden took office, and all departments and federal agencies there have been directed to focus their efforts on tackling climate issues. Can we learn anything from them? In the UK, there is currently a Cabinet-level committee on climate change, but I understand that it has not met very often. Can my noble friend tell me how often it has met in the last year? Is part of the problem that everyone on it has other compelling priorities?
Beyond that committee there are few formalised mechanisms within the machinery of national and local government to ensure joined-up, consistent and prioritised consideration of the delivery of net zero. As this is such an important matter, does my noble friend the Minister agree with the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Whitty, and me that a Minister who sits in Cabinet should be tasked with overseeing different departments’ work on both climate change and biodiversity loss, with the ability to act as a central point in government for the net zero programme? This would allow different departments to continue the work they are doing: BEIS on the decarbonisation of energy in the economy, Defra on land use and ELMS, the Department for Transport on electric vehicles, et cetera. Perhaps there could be a team—in the Cabinet Office, say—whose sole focus is ensuring that work is integrated, complementary and, crucially, deliverable at local level.
I understand there are great challenges at the local authority level. Some 96% of local authorities surveyed said that funding was a barrier to them tackling climate change; 93% cited legislation or regulation, 88% a lack of workforce capacity and 78% a lack of skills. The Government and local authorities have a huge amount still to do. But the Government are doing things, which is good news. The Environment Bill, which we will discuss when Parliament reassembles, includes a requirement that the Government should prepare a policy statement to set environmental principles. One principle is how environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies. The Bill would require Ministers to have due regard to the policy statement when making policy. I have no doubt that all noble Lords speaking in today’s debate will take part in the Environment Bill and I expect it to emerge a stronger and better Bill when it leaves our House.
HM Treasury has revised the Green Book to place a greater emphasis on environmental considerations. The Treasury is also carrying out a further review of the current approach to valuing future benefits adequately and accounting for environmental effects. The Dasgupta review is a promising start but it is not the end of the road; it is merely the beginning.
What has not been mentioned so far is that it is not just local government in England that matters. The CCC said that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland account for around one-fifth of the UK’s emissions for environmental effects. Therefore, they will have to play an integral role in reaching the net zero target and there will have to be great co-operation between Westminster and the devolved assemblies.
At the end of the day, all of us will be involved in climate change. All our lifestyles are going to change. We are going to need to be involved as individuals. But in order to feel that involvement and to take part in the changes that are ahead, we need to be able to understand and be sympathetic to the policies that the Government announce. Therefore, I implore my noble friend the Minister to use the KISS principle—keep it simple, stupid. If he tries to make it complicated, we, the public, will not understand. I give as an example recycling, which is a fearful mess. It is getting better slowly but it is an area where there has been misunderstanding and, as a result, great damage to the environment. We need to be part of what the Government are going to do. We need to learn, we need to be educated, and that will be a huge task for the Government.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a co-chair of Peers for the Planet and echo the words of previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his compelling introductory speech, on the work that he did for many years on the EU Environment Sub-Committee and on his impeccable timing in allowing us to debate this subject in the week of the Government’s commitment to the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget targets.
I suspect that the themes running through this debate will be echoed by many speakers. I, too, want to focus on the transition from rhetoric to reality. There is that beautiful phrase from Mario Cuomo:
“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”
The Government so far have been very good about the poetry of commitment on climate, but the prose of delivery has not been so good. As others will, I want to focus today on how we achieve the emissions reductions needed to achieve the targets that we have adopted, and on how delivery is the challenge now.
While the scale of action needed at every level—national, regional, local government, industry, science and technology and individual behaviour change—is huge, it is important to remember that there are tremendous benefits as well as costs in taking the opportunities offered by setting sustainability as our guiding principle. As the Foreign Affairs Committee said this week in its report A Climate for Ambition: Diplomatic Preparations for COP 26:
“The recovery from covid-19 will require a Marshall Plan-scale commitment from many and the UK should ensure that this aligns with environmental ambitions, embedding a green outlook into a new economy. The FCDO should communicate to its partners that environmental agendas are not in competition but integral to health, development, and security policies.”
I want to argue that central to achieving our targets, as well as a whole range of specific initiatives and investments in the areas that we know are critical, will be a whole-systems approach to integrated climate considerations into policy-making in every aspect of national life. While success will not come from government action alone, government has a central role in leading, facilitating, stimulating and providing the regulatory and taxation frameworks for success, as well as investing and working, as others have said, constructively with local government and devolved Administrations.
I shall not focus today on policy areas where net zero needs to be embedded or the various sector strategies needed, particularly in relation to energy, buildings, planning, housing, transport, industry, skills and education. I am sure that other noble Lords will focus on those topics, along with the investment challenge, to ensure that there is the right balance between direct government funding and private investment and that the transition is just. Instead, I want to address the governance of policy.
The Council for Science and Technology, in its 2020 report Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions through a Whole Systems Approach, emphasised:
“Achieving net zero by 2050 is a system transformation challenge … Policy areas that have previously been managed separately or in isolation will need to be brought together. They should be developed as an interconnected programme of work, driven by data and analytics, with responsibilities, funding and accountability aligned behind a single goal”.
To put it simply: no more silos.
We need to adopt the standpoint articulated by the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who said this week that the US State Department would “weave” the climate crisis into the fabric of everything that it did. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and other speakers illustrated, we are not doing that weaving very well at the moment; we need radically to improve the machinery of government and the coherence of policy-making if we are to achieve an integrated approach.
Others have mentioned the Cabinet committee on climate change. We are told that it was established in October 2019, but there has been little indication of progress or activity, and there are few formalised mechanisms within the government machine to ensure joined-up, consistent and prioritised consideration for delivery of net zero targets. The Government’s 10-point plan promised a net zero task force, but when will it be set up, who will comprise the membership, how will it report to Parliament and the public, and will departments such as housing and transport, responsible for high volumes of emissions, be included in a way they are not on the current Cabinet sub-committee for strategy? The absence of such cross-cutting mechanisms and of a determinedly coherent approach at the highest level of government cascades down into inconsistent policy- and decision-making that is either contrary to or fails to take advantage of opportunities to achieve progress towards our net zero targets, so legislation is still introduced with no mention or understanding of the relevance of our domestic and international responsibility on climate, as seen recently in Bills on pensions and finance, when action had to be taken in your Lordships’ House to include provisions on climate.
Then there are decisions such as that on the Cumbria coal mine, road building programmes, airport expansion, air passenger duty, the freezing of fuel duty and bailouts without strings for high-carbon sectors, which run contrary to our commitment to net zero and undermine our position as a global climate leader. As others have said, cancellation of zero-carbon homes standards and the green homes grant has slowed down the decarbonisation of housing and has pushed the costs of retrofit on to home owners.
How can we achieve this systemic integrated approach? First and foremost, I would suggest a mindset and leadership at the highest level of government, and this is where the argument for there being a Cabinet Minister in charge comes. That would ensure that a climate lens is applied to all policies and legislation and that the elusive ideal of joined-up government is actually put into practice.
We need to look at some other specific approaches, some of which have already been adopted in other countries. One of the most important would be for all proposed legislation and policy initiatives coming to Cabinet to have a climate impact assessment to show whether or not they align with net zero. This is already being done in New Zealand and Sweden. We could place a statutory duty on departments and Ministers to further climate change goals. The new US climate Bill directs federal agencies to
“use all existing authorities to put the US on a path towards meeting this net-zero emissions target.”
Just as the Bank of England has been given a remit to take climate risk considerations into account, so could other regulators and public bodies. National planning policy statements should all be aligned with net zero, not be incoherent, as they are at the moment.
Given the critical role of local government, which others have stressed, we could follow the example of Ireland, which has set up a network of four local authority climate action regional offices to support co-ordination and learning and address mitigation and adaptation.
There is an argument for the Government to consider setting up a delivery body, along the lines of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to drive forward the huge systemic change needed. Given that transition will entail change for individual citizens, are the Government going to build on the very successful climate citizens’ assembly held by Parliament last year?
Before I conclude, I will deal with one question that is often raised: is there any value in the UK taking effective action to reduce domestic emissions, given that we are, as some would say, small fry compared with other nations in the league table of emitters? In the year when we are hosting both the G7 and COP 26, we have both enormous opportunities and enormous responsibilities to influence other countries, including those with greater emissions than our own, to take radical action to halt climate change and reverse bio- diversity loss. We will not have the credibility to lead in those fora unless we have ourselves walked the walk, not just talked the talk.
There is much talk of global Britain post Brexit. To achieve that ambition, what we do at home will directly influence levels of climate ambition across the world. In the words of the Foreign Affairs Committee report I quoted earlier:
“The UK has the chance to lead and set ambitious domestic climate policies, alongside credible plans to deliver them … It is essential that domestic policy decisions support rather than undermine diplomatic efforts. We recommend that the UK leads by example and sets ambitious domestic climate policies.”
We need to achieve those ambitious domestic policies. If we do so, and achieve the integrated and whole-system approach necessary to do so, we will not only have strengthened our economy, created sustainable jobs for the future, improved our nation’s health, and protected the future and our grandchildren, but genuinely led the world.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with her every word. In doing so, I pay tribute to her foresight and determination in creating a forum for Peers who are interested in tackling the climate emergency but rather bemused by its urgent complexity by setting up Peers for the Planet.
The complexity of the climate emergency is that the science and evidence before us are telling us with increasing urgency that climate change cannot be tackled issue by issue in silos. It is evident that our natural planetary systems inextricably link humans, animals, microorganisms—including viruses, the skies, the oceans and all land and its features, such as glaciers, forests, mangroves, coral reefs, peatbogs, mountains, lakes, farms and cities. That complexity is encompassed in many ways by this timely debate, tabled by my noble friend Lord Teverson, because it asks us to focus on the need for an integrated government approach if we are to successfully meet the interlinked challenges needed to get to net zero.
This is an important issue, and I thank my noble friend for bringing it to your Lordships’ House via Grand Committee. Declaring a climate emergency, setting a net zero target and even agreeing to the agenda for the sixth carbon budget, as set out by the Climate Change Committee, are, quite frankly, meaningless unless accompanied by meaty government processes that cover all arms of government, including its agencies, and all levels of government, especially those such as local authorities, which are rooted in their place and in touch and in tune with their communities.
The fact that my noble friend intimates in the title of his debate that the case for joined-up government needs to be made tells us that the Government’s words are just that: words. To date there has been little commensurate action to underpin their stated ambitions and intentions. I totally agree with the urgent need for a Cabinet Minister responsible for tackling the climate and biodiversity emergency, which many previous speakers have called for.
I will divide the rest of my contribution into two parts, the first focusing on local government and the second on one of the more egregious examples of unjoined-up, incoherent national policy-making by the Government. I very proudly served as a councillor for Kew ward in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. My roles for four consecutive years included that of assistant cabinet member for environment and climate change, and sitting on the planning committee, which was an interesting and fascinating experience. It will be crystal clear to anyone who has been a councillor that local government is key to success in reaching net zero targets.
I will pick out just a few of the myriad ways in which local government is essential to realising the CCC’s agenda for achieving net zero by 2050. Behavioural change is identified as a crucial component of success. A top-down approach will not on its own effect that; psychologists will tell you that peer pressure from friends, family and neighbours will have the biggest impact. We need to work from the ground up, and local authorities are well placed to do just that. They have the power to influence how residents use their local spaces; they can tweak local road schemes, encourage more walking and cycling and better eating habits and, crucially, put in place measures to increase energy efficiency in their local housing stock.
According to the CCC, local authorities have powers or influence over a third of emissions in local areas, much of which come from housing. To meet net zero, virtually all heat in buildings will need to be decarbonised and heat in industry reduced to almost zero carbon emissions. Given the importance of achieving success in this area, it is extremely frustrating that the green homes grant has been such an abysmal failure—cut in just six short months. Can the Minister say why the scheme, for which there was great demand, was cancelled? Can he also say why no notice was given and what will replace it?
I turn to local authority funding. The UK, despite its size, is one of the most centralised countries in the world; only about 5% to 6% of all tax revenue is raised by local government. However, it has not always been this way. In the 19th century, local government in Britain was as decentralised as Germany is today. It was only in the post-First World War era that Whitehall gradually accrued the spending power that previously lay with town halls. Given the growing inequality among the regions of the UK, I do not think that change has been an unqualified success.
To play their essential role in meeting the net-zero target, local authorities must be adequately funded. When grant schemes such as the green homes grant are suddenly cut off, that really hurts not just local authorities but local businesses and jobs. With £2.1 billion of EU structural funds cut off after Brexit, it behoves the Government to seamlessly put in place their successor scheme. We are heading towards the end of April 2021, and still there is no sign of the promised consultation on the shared prosperity fund. When can we expect it? Also, when will the Government issue the sovereign green bond, announced by the Chancellor in the House of Commons last November? Can the Minister confirm that, when set up, it will be able to make loans to local authorities?
I have just one other question for the Minister on funding for local authorities. Do the Government have a view on the new report from the London School of Economics and Leeds University, produced in association with the All-Party Group on Sustainable Finance, UK100 and HSBC? The report assesses how UK policymakers can engage the financial sector to meet the net-zero target and its commitment to the levelling up of regional economies in the context of Covid-19 and Brexit. Its authors and supporters would like to see Ministers make a strategic commitment to a just transition for jobs, including plans for mobilising public and private sector finance to deliver place-based projects which tackle both environment and social challenges. Will the Government respond to the report and put their response in the public domain?
I want to dwell on jobs for a moment. Maybe the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the green homes grant scheme, in large part, fell because of a lack of skilled people to carry out the installations and the complete lack of an efficient process to administer the scheme. Local authorities know their workforce. They know where they are; they know what they do. They will be invaluable in helping to get people reskilled and ready for new jobs in the greening of various sectors of our economy. The only way that communities will be ready to take advantage of the new jobs that green investment will bring is if there is strategic planning for the right sort of skills training and knowledge base that will be needed in the local neighbourhood. Central government does not have that knowledge—which, by the way, is not the same as data. If we are to reach our net-zero targets, local authorities will be key to successful transitions to new industries and new ways of doing things. We must value them, and we must fund them.
In conclusion, I will say a few words on the incongruity of the Oil and Gas Authority’s policy of maximising economic revenue and the legally binding target of net zero by 2050 both sitting within the same legislature. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade, oil and gas production around the world needs to decline by an average of 6% per year between now and 2030, according to the UN Environment Programme 2020 Production Gap report. Instead, current global plans to increase production would lead to 120% more fossil fuels extracted by 2030 than would align with the Paris Agreement. Here in the UK, under the recently announced North Sea transition deal, the Government plan to continue to issue new licences to explore for and extract oil and gas. How is the MER—maximising economic revenue—policy compatible with our leadership of the climate emergency agenda and our standing on the global stage for COP 26 in November this year?
It is clear from our continuing MER policy and, indeed, the fiasco around the controversial Cumbrian coal mine that our legislation is not fit for the purpose of meeting the net-zero targets, and legislative alignment is sorely needed on our national planning regime. My final question to the Minister is: will we get our domestic legislation in order before COP 26? It would at least give departments a fighting chance of pulling in the right direction at all levels of government.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Given that I will focus on education throughout much of my speech, I remind the Committee of my education interests in the register, particularly relating to my work with Purpose on climate education.
I also welcome yesterday’s government announcement of putting into law the target to cut emissions by 78% by 2035, as recommended by the Climate Change Committee. This morning I read with interest the news of the Mark Carney-led initiative to bring together 160 firms from the global finance sector—including Barclays, HSBC and Axa—with over $70 trillion in assets to meet new targets to cut the carbon content of those assets by 2030. It occurred to me: if the finance sector can come up with a plan, what is the plan for the public sector?
Clearly, we need leadership from central government and, as others have said, this year is a great opportunity. Tomorrow is Biden’s summit; the biodiversity COP is next month in China; the G7 is in Cornwall in June; there is the G20 meeting in Italy; and COP 26 is in November in Glasgow. This is the time to set an aggressive, ambitious course with such a focus on climate change to drive national momentum and public opinion.
The cynic in me, as with others, warns that this is a Government who love an announcement and a Prime Minister who craves the attention and will glory in the UK’s leadership role this year. But do they have a delivery plan to make this happen? Will the Chancellor change the Treasury’s long-standing hostility to green spending and fund a road map to carbon zero? Incidentally, rather than a separate Cabinet Minister for climate change, I would prefer to make the Chancellor accountable for the delivery of climate change plans, as part of a shift of emphasis in the Treasury from money to well-being.
Fundamental to that is investment in local government-led projects to enable place-based change. This is not just about the obvious local authority functions of housing, transport or waste. These are crucial, but we also need to see beyond a transactional approach of investment in X technology to achieve Y reduction in carbon emissions. That will not always deal with the ingrained political problem of there being parts of the population who are not ready for the change.
The importance of a place-based approach is that success is first and foremost about behaviour change in the whole population. We have seen how hard that is through the pandemic. Despite the best efforts of “hands, space, face” as a slogan, and billions in spending, plenty are still struggling to shift their behaviour to make our communities safe from the virus. How then will we get the whole population to change the food we eat, how we move around, how we dress and how we fuel our lives so that they are sustainable and affordable?
I believe that one of the biggest mistakes in the Government’s thinking in their handling of the virus is that they have not sufficiently engaged local government as an ally. Localities are different and need different solutions to create behaviour change. A national approach will always struggle to account for the rich diversity of our nation. Our impoverished councils urgently need more resources to invest in climate change mitigation projects that will effect the behaviour change we need.
The place I would start is in schools and colleges. Almost half of all households in this country contain school-age children. Children and young people are already engaged with this issue. We saw that with the Friday school strikes. According to the OECD, 78% of students in its member countries agree that the global environment is important to them and want to do something about it. The opportunity is to stand alongside those children and young people to shift our behaviour at a household and community level. The majority of schools in this country are still local authority schools, either directly or in partnership with faith groups. There is an urgent need to enable and empower local authorities to take a leadership role on this.
I commend to your Lordships the work of the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. It recently published a powerful analysis by Christina Kwauk and Rebecca Winthrop, which says:
“Recent research shows that if only 16 percent of high school students in high- and middle-income countries were to receive climate change education, we could see a nearly 19 gigaton reduction of carbon dioxide by 2050. When education helps students develop a strong personal connection to climate solutions, as well as a sense of personal agency and empowerment, it can have consequential impact on students’ daily behaviors and decisionmaking that reduces their overall lifetime carbon footprint. Imagine if 100 percent of students in the world received such an education. New evidence also shows that the combination of women’s empowerment and education that includes everyone—especially the 132 million out-of-school girls across the developing world—could result in an 85 gigaton reduction of carbon dioxide by 2050. By these estimates, leveraging the power of education is potentially more powerful than solely increasing investments in onshore wind turbines … or concentrated solar power”.
It goes on to say:
“Emerging research suggests the ‘sweet spot’ for climate action is at the scale of 10,000-100,000 people. This is not only because the collective ability to make meaningful action is rooted in local relevance, but also because we reach a certain degree of cost-benefit optimization when it comes to the global impact of our local actions. If we apply this to the education system, this is equivalent to focusing efforts at the school district level—or the equivalent school administrative cluster, depending on the population size of cities and counties. School districts are the perfect network of institutions that exist in every country in the world that has enough community connection potential to effectively scale green civic learning. Focusing efforts at the local level enables educational interventions to be community-driven, which is aligned to what we know about effective climate action and effective climate change education: that is, it needs to be locally-relevant, tied to local environmental justice issues, tied to local community challenges with climate change, and it needs to be tied to action and ownership at community level.”
Here I commend the work of Ashden’s Let’s Go Zero campaign, which a sixth of county councils are supporting, along with the Anglican Church. So far it has got more than 200 schools to pledge to be carbon zero by 2030. The smart thing about this campaign is not just the carbon impact but the educational one. It aims to get school and college leaders to stand alongside their students and pupils in making this pledge one institution at a time.
It is critical for the behaviour change for this to be owned by the school itself and to have the work to move to zero led by young people. That way, they learn about the consumption of energy and water on the site, the carbon impacts of the food they consume in school, the carbon capture of what they can grow on the estate, and the importance of the choices they make when they travel to and from the school or college. They can then apply that knowledge with the skills they need and, most importantly, develop the carbon-zero mindset we need in the whole population if we are serious about the 2050 net-zero target, let alone the new 2035 one.
This is because, of course, we want schools to reflect the future we want for our communities. That has to be a carbon-zero future. By starting with schools and colleges, we are nurturing the skills and mindsets needed in the labour force as we shift to the sustainable future we all want. Young people need a strong knowledge base in the causes of a warming climate, but also a strong set of skills that will allow them to apply their knowledge in the real world, including problem-solving, critical thinking, teamwork, coping with uncertainty, empathy and negotiation. Indeed, these very transferable skills are needed equally to thrive in the world of work and to be constructive citizens. There is such a win-win to be had here.
In this country, 77% of adults support teaching about climate change in schools and 69% of teachers agree that there should be more teaching on this subject than what is focused on in the non-compulsory subject of geography. My ask, therefore, is for central government to prioritise climate education in schools. Would the Minister like to join me in visiting a school to meet its school council, and to lobby it to make the Let’s Go Zero pledge? The Minister should be inspired by Italy, where every school-age child, by law, must have an hour each week of sustainable citizenship education. Here, we should mandate time, resources and training for teachers in this area, and then work closely with local authorities on the delivery of all our schools becoming carbon zero by 2030.
This is our chance to move on from children and climate strikes to children leading climate action. We can use our leadership position at COP to get others to do the same and, in doing so, drive the behaviour shift across the population that the world needs.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the next two speakers have withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I must first declare my interests on the register as a director of SECR Reporting Ltd and Climate Change Professionals, and as a board member of the Energy Managers Association. As part of the work I undertake I advise companies and local authorities on net-zero targets, the policies they would need to put in place to achieve that, and the strategies they would have to undertake. Unfortunately, it is very clear from this work that there is a massive difference between aspiration and reality. A lot of greenwash is going on as well. One local authority I spoke to came up with a 2038 target. I asked how it came up with that. It said, “Well, the authority next door made a 2040 target, so we thought we’d go with 2038.” On digging into the details, it had no idea how it was going to achieve that. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, set out, a large number of local authorities have made this pledge, but from the work that I have done very few know how they will achieve it.
I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for bringing this debate forward. It is usually at this point that I go into a great deal of detail on what the Government are getting wrong. However, I have a solution that the Minister could take on board. He might be interested in it because—and I never thought I would say this—it would be based on the Conservative Government’s own policy and would be Brexit-friendly, but I will go into that a bit later. It could have a major effect on how companies understand their carbon targets.
I know from working with companies that there is a problem, because the net zero carbon targets are quite complicated. They are based on reducing emissions in scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3, based on the GHG protocol. I will run through them.
A lot of companies understand their scope 1 emissions to a degree—obviously, that is their electricity use—and if you have half-hourly data, that can be useful. However, I have been utterly amazed at how even large companies do not have a handle on how much energy they use. Gas is fairly simple, as it is based on therms. Transport fuel, however, is not simple to work out; most of the energy managers I work with have never had to deal with transport before. I was talking to a company—a call centre—which had 140 spaces in its car park and which was looking at the energy used in the building. I said, “The energy used in the building is actually a fraction of what is being used in your transport requirement to get everybody into the office at any time.” Of course, understanding how you calculate transport fuel is difficult, because you could do it on mileage, litres or cost of fuel, and a number of calculations need to take place. Many organisations have left transport out.
Scope 2 emissions are those that you have bought on behalf of another company or organisation, and some companies are getting that under way, especially with grey fleet. I have been amazed by how local authorities do not understand the emissions from grey fleet; that is, cars that are used as company cars. Of course, that is a very large emission factor that often does not get added to the emissions of the company itself.
On scope 3, which is the supply chain, very few apart from the largest companies have an understanding of the emissions from their supply chain, and of course that supply chain could dwarf any emissions they have taken out. When you work with companies it is often interesting to realise that we really do not understand our scope 3 emissions. One of the areas that is of particular interest is IT. I was talking to a company which was marketing and which had worked out how much electricity it was using on its computers, but it then proudly told me that it had sent 1 million emails that month, which of course has a massive effect on servers around the world. Gaming is horrendous for that, as is the mining of Bitcoin. However, many companies just do not understand the cost of computing, which is a real issue because it is very difficult to get that information. Amazon will give it to you, while Microsoft will not, so companies have a difficulty in understanding their emissions.
Once you have understood the emissions, that is not the problem; the problem is then building policies around them and understanding what those policies should be. A lot of companies and local authorities have made blank commitments to go to net zero by 2030, 2040 or 2050, but that policy is not linked to any deliverable outcomes. Obviously, the next step is to develop a strategy for going forward from that. We also talk to companies about responsibility: who in the company is responsible for delivering those directives? This seems to be a problem not only for companies and local authorities but for government. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that perhaps we should have a Minister in charge of climate change, but we had that and then DECC was taken out, which was short-sighted. Perhaps we should look at reinstating a department on that basis.
Once you have a policy strategy and somebody responsible, companies need to understand that getting to net zero will have costs, so they will have to look at a CapEx solution. A lot of companies are just not prepared to spend money, even though they realise that in the longer term this could save them in energy savings. They also need to look at OpEx. Companies need to start understanding that what they are responsible for in managing their organisations has often been farmed out to third parties, especially in facilities management areas. Therefore, you might be running buildings, the contracts for which are based on a like- for-like replacement rather than replacing old equipment for more energy-efficient equipment.
We also look at transport, where there is of course the Government’s target to move to electrification. This is a major area of greenwash in a way, because there is, I think, a lack of understanding of how significant this will be for our electrical infrastructure. I talked to one company that had 100 car parking spaces and which said, “We’re going to electrify our fleet and we’re putting in three charging points.” I said, “That means you could probably charge nine cars during the working day—and you have 100 cars out there.” They then said that they would put in a lot of charging points. But, of course, if you put in more charging points you need a bigger transformer, and you need more electrical supply. At a lecture recently, I was interested to learn that those fast-charging points on motorways have an energy use equivalent to 250 houses. We realised that when we put them in, we were talking about a small village’s energy supply just for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, talked about behaviour change. One area where we have been trying to work with companies is in getting people to realise that this is not just a policy. If we are to hit net zero, everybody in the company has to understand how they have to change their energy usage.
I have set out these small problems—slight mountains to climb—but I did say that I would suggest a solution to the Minister that could be helpful, which is to change the SECR reporting regime. In 2019, the Government brought forward a new GHG reporting regime: streamlined energy and carbon reporting, or SECR—it does not really roll off the tongue. It basically means that large companies—large as defined under the Companies Act—must report all their energy data, show which metric they have used and do an intensity metric. They also then have to list all their principal energy-efficiency measures and whether any are not undertaken. Each company has to do this by law and then report it to Companies House, with the information made available in its company report.
A very simple change that could be done very quickly through a statutory instrument—I know that PwC is doing some work for BEIS at the moment looking at whether this could be brought forward—would be to make it an obligation on companies to put their net zero plan into their company reports. It could be done in a way that was not very expensive. To make it Brexit-friendly, ESOS—the energy savings opportunity scheme—which was part of the European directive, could be scrapped, which would create a saving to companies. Some of the information that was needed for ESOS could then be incorporated into SECR, which is a second obligation on companies.
If companies were required to put their net zero plans into their company reports, it would allow stakeholders to understand where they are going forward. One area that we found most interesting is that companies are finding that their stakeholders are not just their shareholders any more but their employees, their customers and, interestingly, their banks, finance companies and insurers, which look very carefully at sustainability and climate change criteria when they are looking at investment opportunities.
Would the Minister be open to talking to his officials about whether SECR could be changed to include the net zero target and looking at whether we could introduce a statutory instrument to achieve this? If a statutory instrument were brought forward, it would mean that companies—before COP 26—would start having to set out their net zero plans. The cost would not be high, but it would mean that Britain would be a world leader in moving forward on how companies can adapt to climate change.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not on the call, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by reminding noble Lords that I am the honorary president of the National Home Improvement Council and an honorary fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
I intend in my contribution to highlight the urgent need for the Government to set out a coherent plan to make our built environment zero carbon by 2050. Debates about reducing carbon emissions often focus on fuel substitution—let us stop burning coal to generate electricity, for instance. When the debate moves on to talk about the necessary infrastructure to deliver those things, the discussion tends to focus on how to get more vehicle charging points, what technology to use for charging for road use, building more cycleways and putting in showers and bike stores at workplaces. That is all good stuff, but one basic fact about climate change policy is often overlooked: that noble Lords’ houses emit more carbon dioxide each year than noble Lords’ cars.
The built environment as it exists now is responsible for at least 30% of the United Kingdom’s emissions each year, twice as much as the whole transport sector, road, rail and air combined. Every year we are building more homes that actually make it worse. Each new school, hospital, factory and office block makes it worse, making reaching the target of zero carbon by 2050 harder, not easier. Noble Lords might expect, in a rational world of evidence-led policy making, that here in your Lordships’ House, and along the road in Whitehall, we would see carbon reduction of the built environment getting twice as much attention as all that expended on the transport sector, with twice as much spent on research and twice as much invested in cutting emissions. Noble Lords would expect a laser-like focus on delivery on that by any Government aiming to meet their statutory zero-carbon deadline by 2050, let alone trying to meet an 80% reduction by 2035. In fact that is not what is happening, despite Ministers setting out to turn the UK into the pre-eminent soft power of the world, sailing on an independent course as global Britain.
This November the Government will host the one international forum where they might be able to demonstrate genuine world leadership, COP 26. Surely the Minister can see the value of demonstrating at that conference that they have a credible plan to decarbonise the built environment. All the participants at that conference will be looking to the UK to see what world leadership on climate change really means. They will surely see through an empty promise for 2038 that is not backed by a credible delivery strategy for carbon reductions from existing buildings, especially homes.
Let me chart a course for the Minister to follow on that perilous journey to super soft power status at COP 26. First, he should stop building stuff badly. Back in 2015, the incoming Conservatives scrapped the plan for all new homes to be zero carbon. Since then 800,000 homes have been deliberately built to a lower standard, which means they all face the need for upgrading before 2050. That was an environmental scandal, and it remains a continuing wasted opportunity. Today the Minister should announce that all new homes started on site from April 2022 must be zero carbon. Let us stop building stuff badly. That surely is a policy no-brainer. And, yes, of course, he should also require all new publicly funded buildings of every type to be zero carbon from the same date, with a firm timetable for the private sector to be zero carbon too.
But all that zero-carbon new build will still be only a small fraction of the built environment when we get to 2050. There are 24 million homes now and it is likely that 20 million of them will still be standing in 2050. They all have to be massively upgraded if there is to be any chance of reaching zero carbon by then. In that context, the announcement of the green homes grant last year sounded very promising: a 600,000 home programme to be completed by this March. If we kept going at that rate, 33 years later all homes would be upgraded—a three-year overshoot on 2050, but a promising start. However, as of this week the Government have set themselves the new target of an 80% reduction by 2035. I say to the Minister that even had the green homes grant delivered 600,000 home upgrades a year as originally planned, the scheme would have reached only 8.4 million homes by 2035, with only 40% of existing homes upgraded, not the 80% targeted.
But, as your Lordships know, sounding promising was as good as it ever got with the green homes grant. I hope the Minister will not use any of his time to tell your Lordships how nearly successful it was. The fact is that it did not deliver any extra jobs—the key reason given at the time of the scheme’s launch; it delivered less than 10% of the planned improvements to homes; it completely disillusioned the home improvement industry; it deeply frustrated a large pool of willing home owners who have been turned away from making improvements; and it enriched an incompetent IT company in Virginia, USA. Now, finally, it has been cancelled. The very small slice of the unspent money rolled over into this year has now been slashed as well, with an announcement this week—the first sign, perhaps, of ministerial understanding of real life—of £300 million being redirected instead to local housing providers for use in upgrading homes in the low-income housing sector.
The green homes grant was not world beating, nor will it be a soft power enhancer at COP 26. In fact, it was a perfect working example of what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to as silo policy-making by people who took no advice from anyone.
Therefore, the second step for the Minister to announce today is a completely fresh start to upgrading all of England’s homes in a steady multiyear programme. It will need innovation and investment in capacity building. It will need to be driven by regulatory changes and supported by serious workforce planning, with recruitment and retraining in the skills needed. Essential to all that is a shelf life not of the laughable 26 weeks offered by the green homes grant but more like 26 years. It will need to work and build with trusted partners. The one undoubtedly successful outcome from the green homes grant was the demonstration that local authorities, given their head, can deliver in this area, as they have done with the low-income owners scheme.
To get 80% of our homes upgraded by 2035, an average of 1 million homes a year will need work done. That is not as daunting as it may sound: nearly twice that number of central heating boilers are replaced each year without any drama at all. That is done because there are skilled installers in place all over the country, a marketplace that functions well, and a regulatory system that underpins safe and efficient schemes. But to deliver that for home energy upgrades will take a serious level of long-term commitment by this Government to lay sound foundations for establishing a capable delivery programme.
The Government will need to work very closely with the construction industry on to deliver the work. The great majority of those 1.6 million central heating boilers installed each year are put in by small and micro-businesses, not by mega construction firms. In the future, home energy upgrades will be done best when they are delivered through small companies and businesses. With those things in place, success can certainly follow.
In summary, the Government need to stop making it worse with new build and make zero-carbon infrastructure the new normal; to tackle the backlog of energy wastage and carbon emissions in our existing building stock; and to plan ahead and plan long term. They need to learn from the green homes grant experience that a press release is not a policy nor a delivery plan—and that Rome was not built in 26 weeks. The Government need to work with trusted partners in local government, empowering them to supervise and deliver, and give confidence to the construction industry that it is safe and indeed profitable for it to invest in the skills and capacity building needed.
My question to the Minister is: does he take to heart the urgent need to cut carbon in construction and to upgrade the country’s 24 million homes? If so, what is the plan, when will it start, who will deliver it and what are the milestones on the journey? Does he not, at the least, accept that answers to those questions that are provided before COP 26 starts will have a double value in giving leadership at that conference on the urgently needed international framework of climate change mitigation?
My noble friend Lord Teverson has set the Minister the exam question today. I have done my best to prep the Minister on what he might best say in response, at least in regard to the 30% of our carbon output that comes from buildings. I am looking forward with great interest to hearing from the Minister later whether or not my coaching has borne fruit.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing this debate and for his clear and powerful introduction to it. I particularly welcome those telling quotes from local government officials. I have enjoyed many of the contributions that we have heard already from all sides of your Lordships’ Committee. I particularly appreciated the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Her phrases “from rhetoric to reality” and “from poetry to prose” are being reflected in the speeches of most other noble Lords. If this Committee were marking the Government’s work on integration of policy-making and the climate emergency, the result would surely not rise above D-minus.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whose 2004 Private Member’s Bill, which became an Act, on sustainable and secure buildings was ground-breaking at the time. It is such a tragedy that we have made so little progress on energy efficiency in the past two decades and we are still building dreadful-quality new homes, immediately in need of extensive retrofitting. That is a far more expensive process than building them right in the first place in our lax regulatory environment. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, beautifully summed up what was needed in new homes in a slogan that would even fit on the side of a bus: “Stop Building Badly”. I will not even start today on the green homes fund. Even the Government have admitted that that was a disastrous, ill-delivered policy and another outsourcing disaster. The terrible quality of our housing is a tragedy for the planet and for the households that have to live in such uncomfortable, inadequate environments and pay the heating bills for them.
As I turn directly to the Motion before the Committee, I should declare my position as a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. Reaching net zero emissions is a necessary condition to playing the UK’s essential part as an historically massive contributor to the climate emergency—as a former colonial power that destroyed much of the earth, leaving nations ill- equipped to deal with it. It is not, however, a sufficient condition: our current rate of progress is far too slow, as are our targets. We should be aiming for net zero by 2030.
Climate is only one of our problems. We also have the crisis in our state of nature: our soil is in disastrous condition and the world is choked with plastic waste. This is an appropriate time to mention that this is Reusable Nappy Week. An attempt to initiate it was made many years ago by the excellent Women’s Environmental Network to highlight the social and environmental damage posed by single-use nappies—a major source of plastic waste—but there has been no effective government action. I mention that specifically because this Motion focuses on the need for the integration of the efforts of national and local government. Here is one good example of excellent things happening piecemeal at a local level, often relying on volunteer-led approaches, such as nappy libraries. However, austerity-crippled local governments, with their powers stripped away in our incredibly centralised political system, have little capacity to deliver the consistently complete services—nappy libraries, support groups, centralised laundry provision—needed to make reusable nappies, which are better for parents, babies and the environment, the standard for all. What a criminal waste for the climate and for people to cut down a tree, pump up oil and turn it into plastic to produce an object used for a few hours at most before it becomes noxious waste set to remain in landfill for centuries or produce polluting gases in an incinerator—that it is if it does not end up littering the local park.
While we are on the interlinked issues of climate and plastics, where is England’s bottle deposit scheme? Not world-leading, not even world-trailing, but so far behind the arrangements in most comparable countries that we are on another planet.
Talking about the climate emergency and local government, it was striking this morning to see an article on Bloomberg News headlined “Cities are our best hope of surviving climate change”, which notes that cities consume two-thirds of the global energy supply and generate three-quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. As the headline’s wording suggests, this was a positive article. Top billing went to the globally fast-spreading 15-minute city proposal: the idea that what you need daily, for work, leisure, education and shopping, should all be within a 15-minute cycle ride of your home. The article notes:
“Paris has gone the furthest toward realizing this urban ideal citywide”.
It also notes that Barcelona has freed up entire swathes of its street grid to make pedestrian “superblocks”. That is something I was working on with campaigners to try to get going in central London, around Bloomsbury, back around 2008. Progress in the UK on this essential action for climate, for clean air, for cutting congestion and freeing the streets for people? Zilch.
In the Bloomberg article, what other places get mentioned for city action? Chicago, where
“rooftop vegetation proliferated after a 2004 mandate required private developments to include sustainable elements”.
The article notes:
“Bogotá’s whole public transit system—including its nearly 1,500 buses—is on track to be fully electric by mid-2022”.
I contrast that with figures I came across this morning for the entirety of South Yorkshire, which has 36 electric buses, all in Sheffield.
Back to the Bloomberg article and the good news: Izmir in Turkey gets a mention for heating an entire district using geothermal energy since 1996, with savings of 35% on heating costs for residents. There are so many good examples around the world. Great progress is being made, often led by local and city governments and delivering, in the jargon, real co-benefits, improving the lives of households and reducing poverty and inequality. That is the climate good news. But positive mentions of UK cities in this Bloomberg story? There are none.
When I sat down to think about this speech this morning, I realised with a sinking heart that I would inevitably be hearing that favourite government phrase, “world-leading”. So I have a question, a challenge, if you like, to the Minister: show one significant area where the UK is world-leading in action, not words, not targets, not meaningless “legally binding rules” that are nothing of the sort—for, as the independent Committee on Climate Change points out, we are not on track for the fourth or fifth carbon budgets, not even those target levels below what has been set now—but action on tackling the climate emergency.
Before the Minister brandishes the purely statistical accounting of our territorial carbon emissions, let us note that that figure ignores consumption emissions. The emissions associated with a washing machine made in China but sold and used in the UK are our responsibility. Offshoring emissions is not cutting them—is not climate action.
However, I always try to come back to the positive, so let us look at some positive things that are happening around the UK. Sitting in the other place, oven-ready—a phrase with which the Government used to be so enamoured—is the Climate and Ecology Bill. The last time I looked, it has the support of 118 MPs and Peers, yet the Government are denying the Commons parliamentary time to discuss it. A letter signed by 100 climate experts and environmentalists calls for the Government to back the Bill. Commenting on that, one of the signers, and designers, of the Bill, Professor Haigh, told the Independent that the law would replace “sorely lacking” mechanisms to turn ambition into reality. We have, the professor said,
“a hotchpotch of green initiatives, with no apparent joined-up thinking, while the Earth’s temperature continues to rise”.
But I am being positive. The Scottish Government published a draft public engagement strategy in December for a “net-zero nation”—an excellent model for Westminster to follow. If that seems politically unpalatable, call it something different. I really do not mind. The people of the devolved nations know that they are far ahead of Westminster on climate action, if still far from adequately advanced. That is one more reason why they are moving, at varying rates, in one direction across the range from “indy-curious” to “indy-convinced”. They can see their nations’ Governments delivering when Westminster is not, pushed by Parliaments truly representative of their people.
That is not to say that there are not lots of good things happening in England at the local level. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to, after Bristol Council led the way, pushed by the brilliant councillor Carla Denyer, 300 of the 404 district, county, unitary and metropolitan councils have now declared a climate emergency. Eight combined authorities and city regions have done likewise. Some are developing plans on that, but we need integration and joined-up thinking— the Government working co-operatively with local government and not looking down on it.
But, again, I am trying to be positive. Since I focused on cities earlier, I mention just one example of the many thousands of smaller communities up and down the land that are taking action for themselves: the village of Ashton Hayes in Cheshire, a pioneering community of around 1,000 people, adopted the idea of being carbon-neutral long before it was a catchphrase. It has led in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Yet when I visited years ago, while admiring the efforts, I did have to look pointedly at the numbers and level of private car usage. Those leading the charge could only agree with me but, while public transport provision was so poor, people had no alternative. This was not something that a village of 1,000 people could fix.
We are back to the need for integrated policy-making and the provision of resources to bodies at the relevant level, not trickled out in tiny sums through government-controlled bidding processes but shared around the country to allow local decision-making, co-ordination and planning, based on local knowledge and conditions. Democracy would be a really good idea, as noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, reflected earlier.
To return to my list of positives, some of this would be really simple. One starting point would be within the ability range even of this Government: stop doing the wrong things. Fixing some of our mistakes would be easy; the Government could implement a net-zero test to ensure that all new policies and existing action support the 2050 target and give the Climate Change Committee more powers to hold the Government to account. That would kill stone-dead obviously indefensible government projects such as new roads and expanding airports.
The Government could also simply create the bodies and structures already announced. We were told back on 18 November that the 10-point plan would establish a “task force net zero”. That was 123 days ago. Those were words—literally hot air. Where is the action? As many noble Lords have asked, where is the Cabinet committee on climate change?
Finally, we have a new COP 26 spokesperson—even if we have fallen into having one—but, however brilliant they might be at delivering words and however shiny and new their backdrop, they cannot do anything about delivering action. The climate emergency is a scientific fact. It does not respond to rhetoric or bullying. It cannot be laughed off with a Latin quip. It demands action.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of Peers for the Planet and the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate and on his powerful and persuasive introduction.
I also congratulate the Government on the work that they have already done to help us achieve net zero: their 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, their determination to be a leader in the global transition to net zero, their pledge to use the Covid recovery to build green infrastructure and jobs and the £12 billion infrastructure bank project to support private sector and local authority schemes. How are plans progressing for publishing the Government’s net-zero strategy implementation proposals? I was delighted to hear the commitment to bring forward our goals to 2035. However, that brings it into what I consider the short term rather than the longer term, and we do not yet have a road map for reaching that goal.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and all other noble Lords who have spoken mentioned the need for a cross-government approach and for integration across all parts of government. I fully support that. I understand that the Government are already working with the devolved authorities on issues such as carbon pricing and industrial decarbonisation strategies. Could my noble friend the Minister comment on further plans to work with regional and local government on these issues?
The Climate Change Committee points out that local authorities can impact more than one-third of all our emissions, and the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales account for one-fifth, so a national and local strategy to integrate policies is clearly needed to avoid conflicts between different parts of policy-making. For example, reducing traffic congestion could conflict with expanding cycle lanes, and a desire to build new homes or expand conductivity could undermine emission reductions. As other noble Lords have said, integrated policy-making on transport, electric vehicle charging networks, home heating efficiency and even carbon trading are urgently required. I therefore support the idea of a Cabinet Minister responsible for integrating all these policies and bringing in expertise across government who understands the impact of policies on emissions, and indeed on biodiversity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, stressed, to align policy objectives.
Another clear area where there seems to be a disconnect between one arm of government and the aims of net zero relates to cryptocurrency trading, which has been alluded to by others, and the mining and increasing expansion of bitcoin, for example, into regulated firms. I was delighted that the Government listened to the concerns of this House expressed in the Financial Services Bill and overcame their initial reluctance to agree that the FCA, the PRA and the Pensions Regulator should have regard to net-zero aims when making their rules. That is something this House can be proud of. Financial institutions at the Bank of England now have an expanded remit to reflect environmental sustainability and the net-zero transition.
But how does that fit with increasing penetration of cryptocurrency trading and use in transactions by regulated firms? The carbon emissions involved in mining bitcoin, for example, exceed the entire emissions of a country such as the Netherlands and it adds no discernible benefit to society. Indeed, it might encourage fraudulent trading and facilitate money laundering, as well as enticing people into speculative gambling on something that does not exist. This seems rather like the tulip bulb mania, but without any tulips.
The higher the price of bitcoin, the greater the energy emissions involved in the whole market. If our financial regulators want to control the risks and help to meet net-zero targets this would seem to be relatively low-hanging fruit, but the longer it takes to wake up to these risks, the more embedded and financially risky it becomes to remove trading in currencies such as bitcoin from regulated activities, and the greater the danger to the Paris climate change ambitions. If the Government really aim to make the UK the number one centre for green tech and finance, should they now consider a ban on this type of activity?
It feels to me like the debate on climate change is still classified as a long-term problem, but the climate emergency is already with us and requires short-term action, not just intentions. One of the challenges, of course, is to develop clear data and metrics to measure progress on reducing emissions, and to institute regular reporting and correction mechanisms. However, there are still opportunities for the Government to join up and embed a process into policy-making across departments in the shorter term.
On a related subject, what consideration is being given to devising a cross-government, cross-industry taxation strategy which supports net zero and increases the incentives for emission reduction while subsidising investments that will achieve, or help to achieve, climate goals? For example, finance will be essential for decarbonising the UK’s energy sector, as it is for most economic activities. But as a major global financial centre and with one of the biggest oil and gas sectors in Europe, the UK could play a leading role in attracting private finance into renewables projects and other net- zero technologies.
We also need plans to encourage large companies with assets under threat from climate change or climate policies to plan now for the net-zero transition so that they can protect not just their investors but their workers and other businesses in their supply chain. Again, that is where taxation policy could drive positive change.
The production gap already exists, yet our major oil and gas companies and those in other countries have policies that are not compatible with the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to an increase of 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. Fossil fuel production is still increasing, which means that either we will miss the carbon budgets or the financing of oil and gas infrastructure in the North Sea will become increasingly risky as those assets are more likely to become stranded, risking the financial stability and viability of companies involved and consequent job losses.
As the host of COP 26 and a country with relatively low economic dependency on fossil fuel production, I hope that the UK will address our own production gap, as well as rethinking the new proposed coal mine. As an example of the disjointed policy which this debate is all about, this is clearly incompatible with the Government’s foreign policy priority, expressed in their integrated review, to lead the world on climate change, and their aims of achieving net zero more rapidly.
I congratulate the Chancellor on announcing the UK’s intention to be the first G20 country to mandate climate disclosures by large companies and financial institutions across our economy by 2025, with many coming into force by 2023 and going beyond the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. All of the UK’s principal financial regulators have explicit mandates to consider climate risks. These trail-blazing measures may set an example for other countries to follow, and we can be proud of them, but they are just the first steps. For example, mandatory climate risk disclosure improves the information available to investors and shareholders but does not deliver the investment required for net-zero projects on the ground. It will be important to move rapidly from climate risk disclosure to mandatory climate transition plans, explaining clearly how these will align businesses’ activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
What plans are there to utilise the hundreds of billions of pounds of pension assets to support the aims of net-zero infrastructure, housing and other investments across government? Long-term investors are most at risk from climate change. There is a huge amount of money waiting but, so far, the Pensions Regulator seems to have focused on asking defined contribution pension funds to aim to use those assets and all pension schemes to disclose their plans. Once again, that does not deliver on the ground.
Defined benefit pensions have more money than defined contribution and do not have the constraints of daily pricing and rapid access, so I hope that there will be increased joined-up thinking that draws together, for example, the funding for local authority pensions and other long-term investments into net-zero investing, rather than just focusing on the new defined contribution schemes. That would be popular; the Make My Money Matter campaign caught people’s attention because the public increasingly care about how their savings are invested and their environmental impact. I declare an interest as an adviser to Cushon, a pension provider that has introduced pension investment funds that are net zero now, with carbon off-sets designed to deliver a net-zero impact straightaway, rather than waiting more years, as other firms have proposed.
I hope that my noble friend will take the sentiments expressed by noble Lords in this debate, which seek to ensure that policy-making is integrated across government, and is consistent and not constantly changing, and reflect on the support from this Committee for the measures introduced so far and on the proposals for a Cabinet Minister responsible for integrating policy in national, regional and local government.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a central concern of my remarks will be related to the growing divergence that can be seen on this chart produced last June. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and I expect that he will confirm there will be another chart in June 2021. There seems to be a divergence between the target for reduction graph and the actual outcome; one is going down, and the other one has now levelled off. We do not have a Gosplan—even if we did, it would not work—so the question is how we do it. We can add up the numbers on paper but it is more difficult in practice and, as a number of noble Lords have said, there are no longer any low-hanging fruit.
If I specify the coefficient of reduction of greenhouse gases as a coefficient of productivity growth, that is not output as such but what drives the economy forward—and we do not actually want to reduce productivity growth, do we? We want to increase it against the background of global competition and world market share. So how do we square the circle? It will not be done just by virtue signalling and lecturing people at work.
I come from the TUC, which I was with for 35 years. I was a member of the UK delegation at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and on the original committee on sustainable development. I set up that committee in the TUC, and it has done some very useful work. But it is not straightforward, when you get down to brass tacks. I am 100% along the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the practical side; he was a trade union person in the same era as me. But why is there such a difference of opinion about where we are and where we should be going? There should be no need for a difference of opinion. We have all agreed the target. The Green Party, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Lib Dems and so on have all agreed that is the line that we have to be on—but we are diverging from it. So although we cannot have a Gosplan, we need something that adds up to have a reasonable chance of not only turning back the divergence but getting back on to the line we need to be on.
The former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said yesterday that this subject has to be approached in “50 shades of green”—ha ha. He does know a thing about this and the politics of it. It is a way of saying that we cannot be too simplistic, but equally we have to make sure that we have a methodology to see how the greenhouse gas coefficient versus productivity curve can be brought nearer and then in line with the dotted line of aspiration and government policy. It has all been agreed.
I say once again to people on the green side of politics, in the broadest sense: please do not think that there is nothing we agree on, because this is something we have all agreed on. The issue is how to implement it. We are all on the same side and we have to find out what is needed to achieve it. This has to include some mathematics. I do not think that the Minister, given his political background, will be attracted to Gosplan any more than my side is, but what will the methodology be to see how the gap can be reversed and brought back into line? We do not want constant lecturing at each other. That would not work.
Is there some means by which we can get the breakdown everyone has asked for—the engineering industry, local government, you name it—to add up to some figure that will reduce the divergence? We need to be honest with people that that is the object of the exercise: we have to gradually reduce the divergence. I think 100% of people in this country ought to be able to agree that that is what we have to try to do. We cannot shut down the economy, et cetera. It is a difficult period for statistical measurement and finesse with Covid, but it is pretty obvious that that analysis is where we will wind up.
I will give one example from the engineering industry. In the world today, how we can remove plastic is, to some extent, an engineering issue—all those plastic bottles that we drink water from. There are water purification methods. Britain has industries, large and small, that can do water purification with new technology, which we are good at in some fields, to have a world market share in those contraptions you put on an older bottle so that the water is purified as you drink it. There is no doubt that that would save many zillions of tonnes of plastic. I am a bit interested in the industrial policy aspects of this. It might not be Gosplan, but those sorts of companies say that they find it very hard to figure out how to work the Government’s financial system as to what they can apply for in grants and so on.
Can the Minister say that he will make it his mission statement to go round and find how true what I have said is—that people are finding it very difficult to work the government schemes on finance for engineering projects such as this? He would have some degree of authority from No. 10 to do something about it, and I think this is something that everybody could applaud. If people say that the Government have not quite done what they said they would be able to do a year ago, at least the road map and political administrative methodology would be fit for purpose.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Teverson for giving us the opportunity today to discuss such an important issue and for his excellent and inspiring speech.
Transport is a vital part of the jigsaw in the attempt to reach net zero. It is responsible for about a third of our CO2 emissions and, most significantly, while other sectors have seen significant reductions in total emissions, those from transport have hardly changed, despite significant advances in technology. The legacy of Covid should be that we can build back better but, frustratingly, so far, despite all the talk of how wonderful it is to be able to work efficiently from home, as people return to the office or to the shops, the fear of the disease has meant that they are slow to return to public transport and have gone back to car travel in a big way. This is a crucial period, when we need central and local government leadership working together.
With local elections coming up in England, and general elections for the devolved Parliaments in Wales and Scotland, this debate provides a very timely opportunity to look at the urgent need for a more effective partnership between the various tiers of government in the UK—because the UK Government cannot do it all. Their favoured model of providing some pump-priming money and holding a competition where local authorities are asked to bid for it is of only limited use. Too often, the money goes to the local authorities that are bigger and most geared up to write a good bid; thus the funding goes to the stronger, rather than to support the weaker ones. And, of course, government criteria are often hazy and the money goes disproportionately to those local authorities whose political faces fit. I fear that the Government look as though they will do the same thing in future with money that is currently part of the devolved Governments’ budgets and that the Government intend to apply the same centralisation process.
The Government have plenty of targets on reducing emissions. Some could be a lot more ambitious but that is not the main problem; it is the lack of stepping stones towards meeting those targets. That is not just my view. The National Audit Office recently reported on the Government’s actions in relation to ultra-low emission vehicles. It pointed out that, despite the Government spending over £1 billion of public money over 10 years to incentivise ultra-low emission vehicles, overall carbon emissions from cars have not reduced. It concluded:
“The lack of an integrated plan with specific milestones for carbon reductions from cars has resulted in a lack of clarity over what value the public money should be delivering … departments have not been able to demonstrate value for money.”
It also concluded that there was a need for a clearer plan and a more targeted approach, not just based on EV sales.
It is not just the lack of specific milestones: sometimes the Government seem to be marching entirely in the wrong direction. This self-harm can be inexplicable. For instance, in the last few months, this Government—who say that they are proud to host COP 26 this year—have increased rail fares above inflation while continuing to freeze fuel duty, hence encouraging car travel and deterring rail travel. What did rail passengers do wrong? Why are they worth less than the car drivers? At the same time, the Government have cut grants to encourage purchases of EVs, just when they are beginning to gather momentum and long before the strategic network of charging points is strong enough for EV owners to still be regarded as anything other than pioneers.
When two or three EV owners gather together—usually in the queue for the charging point—they swap horror stories of broken equipment, sparsity of charge points and so on. I have owned an EV for four years, and ever since then I have taken part in debates here, in APPGs, in round tables and so on. The complaints and problems have not changed. The Government have legislative powers to ensure that there is standardisation of equipment and that existing petrol stations modernise and cater for EVs too. They have powers to ensure easier payment systems and so on, but they have not used those powers. To make progress, they need to work more closely with local authorities so that they all come up to the standard of the best. My noble friend Lord Newby, earlier today, was praising the number and quality of charge points in north Norfolk, where council car parks are very well set up to attract EV drivers. He contrasted this with the low numbers of charging points on motorways, where so many are out of service. This problem has existed for years: motorways are the Government’s responsibility, so why has there not been any central government action?
Sometimes government transport policy seems to march in exactly the opposite direction from net zero. Take their policy on their roads plan for England—the second roads investment strategy—worth £27 billion. This is currently being challenged in the courts by the Transport Action Network. The Government have said that the additional CO emissions from this road-building programme would be negligible. Academics giving evidence in court say that the real impact will be 100 times greater, because the Government have not taken into account new traffic, the building process or the true long-term impact. If we cannot trust the Government to do the sums honestly on a subject such as the climate crisis, what can we trust them on?
Historically, most of our air quality regulations owe their origins to the EU, and we have had a poor record as a nation for achieving them. In the post-Brexit world, the Government have to decide to be much more rigorous with themselves and to take real leadership on climate change issues. That means much more than proudly announcing new targets for a time so far ahead that it always seems easy to put it off until tomorrow.
Central government must set the structure within which local authorities operate. Two years ago, the Liberal Democrats produced a strategy for improving air quality, and some of the points from that help to explain what I mean. We need government leadership via a new clean air Act and a statutory independent air quality agency. We need obligations on local authorities, including ones to test and monitor emissions. Central government must invest in research. It should structure vehicle taxation and fuel taxation to discourage use of the most polluting vehicles. Will the Minister tell us why it currently does not cost more in tax to drive a highly polluting SUV than to drive a low-emission vehicle?
The Local Government Association asks for an overarching transport settlement, with control by local authorities of all transport funding, to create unified sustainable travel plans suitable for the characteristics of their areas. It wants a guarantee of a five-year infrastructure budget, because you need long-term investment and planning to make major changes to transport networks.
Our Liberal Democrat strategy had a host of actions which, to be most effective, should lie with local authorities—everything from enforcing legislation needed to make it illegal to idle your car outside schools, to creating and enforcing local taxi licensing regulations which encourage the switch to low-emission vehicles, to an obligation to encourage active travel and provide safe routes to school.
Most prominent among local authority powers should be the creation of an efficient public transport network, with green buses, trams and electrified railways. The Government have recently announced an ambitious bus strategy, and last year they announced an ambitious plan to purchase hundreds of zero-carbon buses made in UK. But time has ticked away and there has been relatively little progress on this so far. To deliver on these promises, the Government have to fill in the detail very soon. They need to trust local authorities and work properly with them.
Railway building and longer-distance buses need co-operation on a wider regional basis. One of the longest established of these wider regional organisations is Transport for the North, a legacy of George Osborne. But here we see a pattern repeated so often by the UK Government: to establish a locally based organisation and then to undermine it when it does not do exactly what central government wants. Transport for the North lost a lot of its funding and its project on smart ticketing, which has been taken back into a new centralised government committee.
The Government have to learn that to reach zero carbon in the UK, we have to reach zero carbon everywhere in the UK: north and south; town and country; whichever political party runs the council; and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England. Solutions have to be tapered to the local circumstances using local authority and devolved government knowledge. To do this, central government must trust devolved Administrations and local authorities with long-term budgets and give them the advice, skills and support they need to deliver.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, a whole-system approach enables decision-makers to understand the complex challenges posed by the net zero target and to devise solutions and innovations that are more likely to succeed. It is a discovery process combining structured approaches to understanding and managing physical factors—such as infrastructure and novel and advanced technologies—with broader perspectives on economic, behavioural and other issues, taking into account complex interactions. This systematic approach will help to manage the associated uncertainties, including technical and behavioural factors, and will require the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, including systems engineering.
Achieving net zero by 2050 is a system transformation challenge. A clear understanding of the entirety—[Inaudible]—an interconnected programme of work, driven by data and analytics, with responsibility aligned behind a single goal. A number of steps have to be taken to develop the analytical capabilities, flow of information and reporting needed to inform decisions, as follows.
First, the Government should require all regulators to develop an explicit first-order objective to support the transition to net zero by 2050. Secondly, to enable transparency and accountability across government, the Government should undertake and publish carbon emissions assessments for all public sector policies, including major infrastructure projects or investments.
Thirdly, the Government should bring together public sector funders to develop a bold, coherent, mission-driven programme of public sector research and innovation investment to achieve net zero. This body should have the level of authority to influence spending decisions across departments, influence the strategic direction of UKRI programmes and set out opportunities for leveraging business activity.
Fourthly, to support the development of decarbonisation technology and infrastructure, the Government should consider establishing a national infrastructure investment plan, with an explicit mandate to support the transition to net zero, to help manage risk, partner with the private sector and bring down the cost of finance. Fifthly, to help households, businesses and public service providers make the investment needed to deliver the transition to net zero, the Government should work with private sector financial institutions to establish frameworks and instruments to give them access to the required finance and support.
Sixthly, the Government should announce a clear, credible domestic plan for achieving net zero, to set an example that could help inspire international action and commitment under their presidency of COP 26 in Glasgow. They should build into their work the objective of fostering international action and international collaborations on trade, investment, finance, technology, capacity building and R&D.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The proceedings will be adjourned for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we are ready to resume our debate. We return to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, getting to net zero will be a big challenge but will create millions of new jobs and improve the UK economy, which suffered huge job losses due to Covid-19.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This very timely debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson is about integration of policy-making in national and local government to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in the UK.
First, now the Government have resolved to reduce our carbon emissions even more quickly, the means of delivering their targets will require a genuine partnership between national and local government. Central government simply cannot run England out of a Whitehall which has so many silos. Effective delivery will require joined-up, local leadership and co-ordination.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Government’s announcement this week. It is the right thing to do, and it explains to some degree the absence of much detail in the Budget, which at the time seemed a missed opportunity to put a green recovery and a sustainable economy at the heart of post-Covid thinking. If the Government are serious about climate change, they need to produce a clear action plan for the next decade.
We need much more new investment in green industries. For that reason, I welcome the new infrastructure bank, with its commitment to climate action as a core investment priority, the requirement on the Bank of England to have the further aim of creating a sustainable economy aligned with the objective of net zero, and the proposals for green gilts and green savings bonds. Local councils in particular will welcome these. Some have already issued green bonds to local people to help increase solar installations and biodiversity improvements, so I hope we can build on that willingness to take practical action.
However, it is not always going to be easy, as the Government found out with the green homes grant scheme, about which we have heard a lot this afternoon. It was a disaster, to put it mildly. It was complex to understand, had to contend with a lack of trained workers to implement, which was not unexpected, and suffered from far too short a planned timeframe to deliver. Despite being announced last year to such a fanfare, it reached only 8% of its target, yet domestic homes contribute around a fifth of our carbon dioxide emissions. So what plans are there for its replacement, as we have too many homes that are poorly insulated? Will there be something else in its place? It would help in achieving our objectives and could remediate poor-quality housing, particularly in the private rented sector. There is also a huge opportunity for jobs generation, as the Government must realise, having promised 100,000 new jobs are recently as last September when the flagship scheme rolled out.
It has been claimed that a quarter of homes in the UK are in places with dangerous levels of pollution and that 8 million homes exceed at least one of the World Health Organization’s recommended limits for particulate matter or nitrogen dioxide. Too often, local residents do not know what the levels of pollution are near them. I suggest that councils need to publish much more data and need to have action plans to eliminate dangerous levels where those are found.
Three-quarters of local councils have now declared a climate emergency, and most are taking very seriously their responsibilities to reach carbon neutrality. That is to be commended. But in the year when our country hosts COP 26, we are in the strange position that not many local authorities have withdrawn their investments from fossil fuel companies. Many of those investments are in pension funds—and I declare at this point that I have a small pension from the Tyne & Wear Pension Fund.
Pension funds have a legal duty to maximise income. In 2015, there was a significant divestment campaign, but it was said that non-financial issues could be taken into account only if there was considered to be no financial disadvantage or material risk of financial disadvantage from doing so. In other words, income for the pension fund was the primary concern. But today, six years later, it seems to be the case that local authority pension funds can take into account broader issues in so far as those issues may become a greater risk to the income of the fund in future—so climate change and the direction of travel of policy are important considerations which may impact on the value of a pension fund. Thus, green investment funds can now be seen as safer investments than they were. That should be the direction of travel for local authorities. It needs discussion with the Government, but there should be a date agreed publicly for local authority disinvestment from fossil fuels.
In this context, I draw the Minister’s attention to a recent University of Oxford report which says that, as the world generally moves to cleaner energy, the cost of investing in renewable energy sources has dropped as they prove to be safer investments than previously thought. The Government have to lead thinking here; they must force the pace to make sure that public investment ties in with public policy objectives.
My noble friend Lady Randerson has said a great deal about public transport, but nevertheless I want to add something about it. I share her concerns about the budget cuts to Transport for the North—for example, in smart ticketing, which has been available in London for many years but is not available yet in the north of England. Currently, 10% of all journeys in the UK are made by rail but only 1.4% of emissions come from rail.
Secondly, the Government have announced plans for major investment in buses, as we have heard, which is welcome. However, they have just spent the last year telling passengers—understandably—to keep safe and avoid public transport, so people have either stayed at home or have gone by car. Now the Government must say the opposite as soon as they can, because compared to pre-pandemic levels, bus usage is now at only 55% of those levels, rail and tube usage is only at around 30%, but road traffic is back to 90% of pre-pandemic levels. This means that we could end up with a car-based recovery. If so, that would represent a massive failure of policy. Instead, green investment is essential in the transport fleet. For example, only 2% of the bus fleet is zero emission and there are 32,000 buses. My noble friend Lord Teverson talked about the need for a route map for net zero, and here is a good example of why one is necessary. What is the Government’s plan for greening our transport system over the next decade?
In conclusion, it is no longer enough to get other countries to plant trees to solve the climate crisis. As my noble friend said, we face an emergency and what counts in dealing with it is action. His proposal—supported by many others—for a Cabinet Minister for the climate emergency and, crucially, for a senior Minister in the Treasury, are both essential recommendations which should command broad support. If that happened, it would give local authorities a single route into Whitehall.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate and to have heard the many insightful contributions from across the Grand Committee. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Teverson, who opened the debate so eloquently and powerfully. As my noble friend told the Grand Committee, joined-up thinking across Whitehall departments is critical and integrated planning with local government is essential if we are to meet our net-zero target. He also reminded us that while long-term targets unnecessary and welcome, they are meaningless unless they are backed up with credible action plans to deliver them.
Back in October, at Question Time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, agreed that the Government’s net-zero target needed to be backed up by a credible short-term action plan for achieving it. When I asked him when we could expect one, he said:
“we will be setting this out in due course”.—[Official Report, 6/10/20; col. 517.]
I hope that in his response he will update us on when we can expect that plan, because we do not have time to waste.
In so many areas, the lack of a plan or even of any joined-up thinking is painfully evident: whether on decarbonising our buildings, transforming our transport system, protecting local ecology, tackling air pollution, reducing energy consumption or preparing the grid for a net-zero future. Just as the Government failed at the beginning of the pandemic to co-ordinate effectively across government or to understand that local government was a vital partner for effective public health interventions, so they are failing in the same way on climate change, where co-ordination in government is crucial and where local authorities have an essential role to play on the ground. The Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution failed to recognise that important role, mentioning local government just once.
We have also heard from many noble Lords about the silo approach that has been taken in government, which is a big concern to many of us. We have heard about incidences where the Department for Transport and BEIS pursue conflicting goals on decarbonising transport; the Department for Education throws obstacles in the way of the deployment of solar in schools; Defra, as my noble friend Lord Teverson reminds us, seems like it is on another planet from BEIS; MHCLG seems like it is on a different planet from all of us; and all the while, the Treasury continues to exert a negative influence over climate policy as a whole.
I was taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, that the Chancellor should be made responsible for meeting our climate targets. Certainly, without Treasury help to drive policy, we cannot hope to be successful. Instead of fostering co-operation and integrated approaches with local government, however, more often than not the Government seem determined to frustrate the efforts that local authorities are making.
Planning is a key example where the Government’s policy stance is completely at odds with their net-zero objectives. First, they scrapped zero-carbon home standards, which the coalition had established. As a result, 800,000 homes have been built since then which will now have to be retrofitted, at much greater expense than if they been built to a decent standard in the first place. Now the Government aim to take planning powers away from local authorities—the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is to enhance the local authorities’ ability to tackle climate change through the planning system, and to introduce a requirement that all planning decisions must have regard not just to the 2050 net-zero target but to the intermediate nationally defined target of a 68% reduction by 2030 and the sixth carbon budget’s 78% reduction target by 2035. How can we believe that the Government are serious about these targets when their policies point in the opposite direction?
Then we have decarbonisation of our housing stock. This is really where the rubber hits the road, because the changes required will reach into almost every home in the country and impact people in a way that is far more profound than the decarbonisation of the economy that has taken place to date. We have zero chance of success if local authorities are not intimately involved. My noble friend Lord Stunell gave a comprehensive and powerful overview of some of the challenges in delivering in this area. They involve overcoming consumer resistance, developing a local skills base, co-ordinating decarbonised heating schemes and providing information and reassurance to the public. That cannot be done from Whitehall alone, and any Government who try will fail, as the green homes grant has shown.
I will not repeat the points that have already been made about the shambles of the green homes grant, but I remind the Minister that, many months ago, I suggested that he consult my noble friend Lord Stunell so that the Government could avoid making the mistakes that they subsequently made. I suspect that the Minister, having heard my noble friend’s forensic speech on this issue, wishes that he had taken up my suggestion. However, to be fair to the Minister, I have always got the idea that he agreed with many of the criticisms that we made about the design of the scheme, and I suspect that it was the Treasury, as usual, that got in the way of sensible policy. I will take his nod as assent.
If we are to succeed in this area, local authorities need to be given targets and resources for driving this work forward. They are the only agents on the ground with the ability to co-ordinate change on this scale and the trust of the public to do it. As my noble friend said, they have proved that they can do it, but it will not happen unless the Government provide the right resources and incentives, and long-term funding that allows local governments to plan and work with local businesses to develop the skills base that would be required to deliver on decarbonising 28 million homes.
Our electricity grid will also face huge challenges as we continue to decarbonise our economy. We will have to hugely strengthen the grid if we are to sustain a switch from predominantly petrol vehicles to EVs and from fossil fuel to electricity in home heating. Yet the constraints on investment in the grid as a result of the Ofgem settlement make it seem not up to the task. Again, we seem to be failing to join up the various government agencies and departments and the private sector in a co-ordinated way. Can the Minister confirm that he believes that the level of investment is sufficient for what we need to do?
My noble friend Lady Randerson drew our attention to a wide range of contradictions between government transport policy and our net-zero policy, whether in the Government’s roads plan or in above-inflation rail fare rises while fuel duty is frozen. We heard yesterday that international aviation and shipping will be included in the 78% target for reducing emissions, although just last month the Government announced plans to reduce air passenger duty. There just seems to be no joined-up thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly drew attention to the need for co-ordination in bringing renewable electricity onshore. The current situation is a mess. It is another good example of the failure of BEIS and MHCLG to co-ordinate effectively with each other and with local government. This must be fixed.
My noble friend Lady Sheehan highlighted the insanity of the maximising economic recovery policy in the North Sea sitting in the same department that is supposed to be responsible for our net-zero policy. That makes absolutely no sense.
We saw a similar lack of joined-up thinking in the Treasury’s approach to the Financial Services Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about. Despite the fact that the way the financial services industry allocates capital will be critical to whether we will be able to tackle the climate crisis, there was no reference in the Bill to climate change, and it was only thanks to the noble Baroness’s leadership that a cross-party group managed to persuade the Government that they had to amend the Bill so that regulators had to have regard to the net-zero target. Sadly, we were not successful in pressing an amendment that would have required the regulators to review the risk ratings applied under the capital requirements regulation to lend into fossil fuel activities, but this is another area where we will need a joined-up approach at national and international levels.
This has been an important and informative debate. We have learned much from noble Lords about the gap between commitments and delivery. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, made the point that the Prime Minister often seems keen on making big announcements, but the noble Lord asked—I think rhetorically—whether the Government actually have a delivery plan for net zero. The answer, sadly, is no.
I have a bigger worry about the Prime Minister’s approach: he is very happy to make categorical commitments one day and to betray them the next. We saw that on the 0.7% commitment and the promises made to Northern Ireland over Brexit. I have a real fear that, after COP 26, we may well see it on climate change. I hope it will not prove to be the case and that cynicism has momentarily got the better of me. However, even if the Prime Minister does not plan to abandon these targets, without a credible plan to meet them the effect will be the same.
When I spoke in the debate on the energy White Paper, the Minister was, dare I say it, a bit grouchy that I was not as positive as he would have liked. I therefore draw my remarks to a close by welcoming the leadership shown by the Government in committing us to a nationally determined contribution of a 68% reduction in emissions under the Paris Agreement by 2030 and their commitment, announced yesterday, to adopt the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035.
There are many challenges but, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there are many opportunities for our economy as well, if we have a clear action plan from the Government. I finish by quoting an Arab proverb, which warns: “Commitments are clouds. Implementation is rain.” The earth is crying out for the rain.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for initiating such a thoughtful consideration of a key aspect of achieving urgent coherency on carbon emission reductions. I thank all noble Lords for all their contributions, all with clear challenges for improvements.
Universal throughout the debate was the fact that a credible, job-rich green recovery requires better co-ordinated action across all levels of government, harnessing investment and regulation and working across public/private interfaces to deliver system-wide change across all parts of the UK. Labour agrees, and believes that together we can harness the opportunities for green growth, but only if the Government, as the lead, take the right decisions right now. All speakers asked, in their own ways, whether the Government have a credible delivery plan. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, clarified how difficult this is even for one private organisation.
With the pandemic shock felt throughout the world, global emissions fell by a record 7% last year. However, by the end of the year, emissions were already rebounding and this year are forecast to jump by 5%, this being the second biggest annual rise ever, second only to the 2010 rise of 6% after the financial crisis. Emissions need to be cut by 45% this decade. Clear and imminent action demands quicker response times if we are going to achieve necessary emission reductions. The UK already has a target of 68% reductions by 2030. Ahead of COP 26, the Government need to set a nationally determined target for the UK. Announcing the target further ahead, such as 78% by 2035, while welcome, nevertheless does not impart the urgency that more must be done sooner. This is targets without delivery and rhetoric without achievement; there has to be ambition meeting reality, and the Government need to treat the climate emergency with urgency.
The UK is not yet on track to meet even the fifth carbon budget; instead, we are veering ever further off track, even before any meaningful return of international aviation. With the success of the NHS rolling out the vaccine, the UK is now in a position to build towards recovery with investments right now in the jobs, infrastructure and skills needed for the future. The whole country is calling for the Government to confront the combined challenges of the pandemic, unemployment and the climate crisis by accelerating investment in clean projects such as energy efficiency, especially in housing, flood prevention and climate mitigation measures, offshore wind and renewables, and cycling and walking infrastructure, as well as the electric vehicle charging network. This investment programme will lay the groundwork for secondary markets when based on national supply chains, thereby securing regional employment opportunities in every part of the UK with procurement linked to upskilling and education.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Knight for starting with schools and arguing for embedding a zero-carbon mindset for the future. Labour calls for a national retraining strategy as part of the green recovery and pathway to net zero; this would boost apprenticeships and give people the necessary skills by supporting workplace learning and other forms of education and training, which can lead to better access to work. This would reach across the local providers and co-ordinating institutions, including local authorities, further education colleges, local enterprise partnerships and business leader groups. It also needs to be coupled with increased ambitions in bus and rail to develop better mobility plans, together with powers for local and mayoral authorities and devolved Administrations to implement innovative schemes that match local needs.
Many speakers have addressed the process of engagement between central and local government to enable councils to fulfil their role to translate a national framework into transformative local plans to deliver on net zero and their local communities. Local government is well placed to take on this role and lead net zero agendas in local areas. Government must ensure that councils are properly resourced to be able to do this, considering necessary finance to set multiannual growth plans. In December 2020, the Climate Change Committee set out a clear agenda in its report, Local Authorities and the Sixth Carbon Budget, identifying that more than half the emission reductions needed will rely on people and businesses taking up low-carbon solutions, with decisions made at a local and individual level. These decisions will depend on central government having supportive mechanisms in place.
Local authorities have powers and influence over roughly one-third of existing emissions already in their area; they can meet central government policies through local knowledge and networks. The Government have responded with a scattergun 10-point plan, listing 10 strategies but lacking a more comprehensive approach. The Government need to move with pace and bring forward more detailed sector strategies in addition to the energy White Paper now released.
On energy efficiency, the Government have already abandoned the green homes grant scheme and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, was most concerned at the cancellation with regard to housing. The heat and building strategy is urgently needed to provide a long-term approach with new measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, concentrated his remarks on housing and the built environment. The Government have recognised the need for co-ordination across departments, with BEIS taking overall responsibility. It is to set up two ministerial Cabinet committees—one on the climate action strategy and the other on policy implementation. The National Audit Office commented that that approach may show “collective ownership” but argues that the split gives rise to the risk that goals could have insufficient priority without a single central body with overall responsibility and levers to achieve change.
The scattergun 10-point plan mentions in its introduction the net zero task force as putting a systems approach at the heart of government thinking. Yet, there is no further mention of this task force. Can the Minister tell the Committee what has happened to it, what is it and could it be the driving force to provide that central cross-government plan that the National Audit Office also identified as missing from the Government’s muddled approach?
Decision-makers need to understand how different policies interact and influence the progress of the whole economy towards net zero. Does the Minister recognise that stronger oversight across departments and institutions is urgent, with strong governance and leadership structures? Will the Government appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for delivering net zero, emphasising delivery of all the milestones along the pathway? As my noble friend Lord Whitty asked, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Altmann, do the Government recognise the importance of that being a Cabinet post?
The Government need to avoid the embarrassment of agreeing and implementing fossil fuel developments such as the new coal mine in Cumbria. Will the Government now introduce a new net zero test for all policies and decisions to avoid mixed messages in the future? The challenge was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This new net zero test could provide the necessary consistent, predictable and stable policy environments. Complementary to this test, the Treasury needs to finance its net zero review. Will the Minister say how the Government envisage the final report to be produced? Will it inform and cement this needed cross-departmental net zero strategy for the net zero task force that I have identified? The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, also asked about a net zero taxation policy and identified that pensions could play a vital part in leading investments.
For all the Government’s rhetoric for the future, does the Minister’s department realise that it still needs to deal with the identified shortfall in meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets? The Government finally announced in their statement on the COP 26 NDC that international aviation and shipping will be brought into consideration. Given the diminishing time before the conference, can the Minister outline plans on how that will work and translate across airports and fleets throughout the UK? Decarbonising transport gives rise to co-ordination across regions, boundaries and authorities, given that different places have widely different options and opportunities. Transport for the North has already begun to cut through the bureaucracy and provide better solutions across the challenging terrain and economies of the north. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, commented, it is regrettable that it has not been supported adequately by central government. The stability of delivery organisations is vital to provide certainty in the planning system.
The scope of the issues covered by this debate are enormous, as local government covers all areas of the economy, including housing and energy efficiency, which I have already mentioned in terms of the green homes grant. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned household waste and plastics, emphasising how widespread the challenge is in everyday life.
The devolved Administrations have been identified by the Climate Change Committee as accounting for 20% of emissions and having an integral role to play. Powers are fully or partially devolved in most key areas, yet integration of policy delivery is also vital, as can easily be identified from thinking about plans to phase out petrol and diesel car sales.
Similarly, cross-authority working has already taken place in areas such as the north-west, where Cheshire and Warrington, working with Manchester and Liverpool, have initiated the Net Zero North West project to produce a decarbonisation plan for the region. Investment opportunities have been identified, such as biorefining for waste, CCUS, wave power, HyNet and nuclear research at Urenco, all taking place along the Atlantic Gateway, which is at the forefront of the green industrial revolution as a renewable-powered “super place”. Manchester has also set up a low-carbon hydrogen hub across multiple agencies and organisations, with the potential to set the standard for decarbonised energy generation across the north-west.
The final challenge is for the Government to invest in widespread public communications alongside regulatory and policy change. Will the Minister say in his remarks how the Government might take forward the experience of Climate Assembly UK to expand engagement with the public and provide coherent dialogue on this important subject?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
First, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate this afternoon. We have had some excellent contributions from all parts of the House, highlighting what is one of the most important issues of our time. Of course, while we presently find ourselves in the middle of a health pandemic which has to be our top priority, we also need to give this issue all the attention that it so dearly warrants. The Government absolutely accept and are determined that the UK will play its part in upholding the Paris Agreement and driving down our greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the considerable challenges we face, we can leverage our strengths to deliver a better and greener economy and go further and faster to accelerate the transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
We need look only at what has happened with coal and wind in the last few decades, or the political consensus that has formed around reducing our emissions, to see that this is something that the whole nation is embracing. We were the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to reach net zero across our economy by 2050. As many noble Lords have pointed out, today marks another important step forward as we lay legislation for the UK’s sixth carbon budget, proposing a target which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
To respond directly to the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on where the UK is leading on action, I am sure she has noticed that we are achieving extremely rapid progress on decarbonisation. We have shown that it is possible alongside a thriving economy. Our emissions are down by almost 44% across the past 30 years, and our economy has grown by 78% in the same period.
Under the Climate Change Act 2008, we have made significant progress in meeting our climate targets. We confidently met our first two carbon budgets and we are projected to meet the third out to 2022. We exceeded the required emissions reduction in the first carbon budget by 1.2% and in the second by nearly 14%. Now is the time to double down and decrease our emissions further and faster.
To do this, the Prime Minister has set out his 10-point plan for the UK to lead the world into a new green industrial revolution. This innovative programme sets out ambitious policies backed by £12 billion of government investment. The plan will support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs across the UK, accelerate our path to achieving net zero by 2050 and lay the foundations for building back greener.
The 10-point plan will also help to develop the cutting-edge technologies that will be needed to drive down emissions in industry across the UK, such as through our significant investment into hydrogen and carbon capture technologies through our £1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio. This will provide support to sectors which are some of the toughest to decarbonise. The Government recognise the significant advantages that the net-zero transition can bring in addition to the essential benefit of ending our contribution to global warming.
In response to my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I can say that ahead of COP 26 we will bring forward an ambitious net-zero strategy to cut emissions and create new jobs and industries across the whole country. This will go further and faster towards building a stronger, more resilient future and protecting our planet for this generation and those to come. It will build on today’s announcement on the level of carbon budget 6 and ambitious plans across key sectors of the economy, including the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan and the heat and buildings strategy. The strategy will set out more clearly our plans and proposals for delivering the historic commitments that we have made.
The noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Shipley and Lord Oates, and my noble friend Lady Altmann, all drew attention to the importance of government working closely with local government to help deliver net zero. It is fair to point out that a significant amount of support has already been made available to councils to act on climate change, from heat networks to cycle paths to flood defences. Councils are uniquely positioned to align local needs, local opportunities and local resources to deliver strategic intervention at all scales.
For those who recognise the urgency of the climate crisis, a great deal of funding is available. In the current financial year, the Government have provided several targeted funding schemes, including the £1 billion public sector decarbonisation fund. BEIS and the Government more widely also work with local authorities across a broad range of net-zero policies. For many of these policies, such as heat networks, EV charging and retrofit, local authorities are some of our key delivery partners. As part of developing these projects, BEIS will consult stakeholders either formally or informally, and ideally both. Local authorities and community groups are important stakeholders and, as such, we have a local energy contact group specifically set up to discuss policy with them. Furthermore, the BEIS local energy programme, set up in 2017, provides capacity and capability support to local authorities through the five local energy hubs.
In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked whether the Government would consider a road map for working with local authorities towards net zero. The net-zero strategy will indeed look at this issue further. It will specifically include a focus on place-based approaches and we will continue to stay closely engaged with local partners through forums such as the ADEPT Energy Working Group and the Core Cities sustainability sub-group, and of course the LGA itself, as we develop this strategy.
Further on local authorities, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about plans to decarbonise local authority pension fund assets. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consult later this year on requiring the Local Government Pension Scheme fund to manage and to report on climate risks. On private sector pensions, Parliament has now approved the Pension Schemes Act to allow us to require more effective governance of climate risk and disclosure in line with the task force on climate-related financial disclosures.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about plans for integrating policy across Whitehall. He was right to point out that it is a considerable challenge; I think the noble Lord, Lord Oates, also highlighted some of the difficulties that we face in working with some other government departments. The Government aim to take a whole-systems approach to reaching net zero by 2050. This means considering policy areas and economic sectors as part of an interconnected system where changes to one area directly or indirectly impact others.
The National Audit Office has acknowledged that there has been significant progress on net-zero governance and that this reflects the high priority the Government give to the issue. That includes two Cabinet committees dedicated to climate change—one focused on strategy, chaired by the Prime Minister, and the other on implementation, chaired by the president of COP 26.
My noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Redesdale, all asked whether there should be a dedicated Minister for the climate and biodiversity. It is not unusual for government agendas to span many departments. The answer is rarely to move it all into the Cabinet Office or to make all departments have similar responsibilities. The Prime Minister has shown his commitment to net zero by taking the chair of the CAS. The Cabinet committees hold Secretaries of State to collective responsibility for delivery. The focus on net zero is borne out by results of government action, including of course the 10-point plan.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked how often these committees have met. I am afraid I can tell my noble friend only that Cabinet committees meet as and when required. He will be aware from his time that there is a long-standing convention that the frequency, attendance list and minutes of Cabinet and its committees are not made public. The release of that information could undermine the principle of collective agreement and the ability of Ministers to openly debate policy in a confidential manner.
The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, all asked for an update on the net-zero task force announced through the 10-point plan. I can tell noble Lords that a further announcement will be made in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, asked, correctly, about plans to decarbonise the built environment in the light of developments that noble Lords will be aware of regarding the green homes grant voucher scheme. I can tell the Committee that we are firmly committed to decarbonising the UK’s homes and buildings, and that emissions from public buildings have come down by 42% since 1990. As has been stated, meeting our net-zero target will require virtually all heated buildings to be decarbonised.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is resumed. Lord Callanan?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government are planning to publish a heat and buildings strategy in due course. This will set out the immediate actions that we will take to reduce emissions from buildings. These actions will include the deployment of energy-efficiency measures and low-carbon heating, as part of an ambitious programme of work required to enable key strategic decisions on how we achieve the mass transition to low-carbon heat, setting us on a path to decarbonising all homes and buildings.
The green homes grant voucher scheme, referred to by many noble Lords, made significant strides—although not enough—with over 49,000 vouchers worth £208 million issued. To ensure that we continue to deliver on our net-zero ambitions, the Government have expanded their commitment to the green homes grant local authority delivery scheme and the social housing decarbonisation fund, with an extra £300 million of additional funding delivered across these schemes in 2021-22. That will bring the total spending on energy- efficiency measures to £1.3 billion, exceeding the Government’s manifesto commitment of £1 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about the decarbonising of the transport system. The Government recognise the urgency of stepping up the pace of progress to ensure that the transport sector plays its part in supporting the delivery of the UK’s emissions reduction targets. We have recently announced that the UK is embarking on a comprehensive transport decarbonisation plan, which will be a bold and ambitious programme of co-ordinated action needed to end the UK’s transport greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and at the same time ensure that the transport sector plays its part in delivering our legally binding carbon budgets. The plan will think in terms not only of modes of transport but of technology and places. Part 1 of this plan was published in March 2020, with part 2, containing policies and proposals, expected shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, described an aversion to green spending. The outcome of the 2020 spending review counters this impression: in order to ensure that net zero remained a priority within a one-year spending review, the Treasury made exceptions on measures that are critical to meeting net zero by providing some multiyear settlements. SR20 committed £12 billion to green measures, boosting the UK’s global leadership on green infrastructure and technologies, ahead of COP 26 next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about the alignment between revenue and net zero. Government cannot simply spend its way to net zero, not only because bearing the cost alone is simply unaffordable for current and future taxpayers but because spending is often not the most effective way to reduce emissions. It also risks crowding out private investment in the green industries of tomorrow: for example, while the 10-point plan will mobilise £12 billion of government funding directly, it will potentially drive three times as much from the private sector to create and support up to 250,000 green jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the Treasury’s net-zero review. The Government have announced that the review report will be published in spring this year, instead of its originally intended target date of autumn 2020. In the meantime, Her Majesty’s Treasury published an interim report this autumn, which sets out our approach to the review and analysis, which will inform the final report.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, asked about our plans for the public sector. I can tell him that phase 2 of the public sector decarbonisation scheme has now been launched and has a stronger focus on heat decarbonisation, as this is what we need to reduce direct emissions from public sector buildings. Phase 2 of the scheme supports the transition to low-carbon heating in public buildings by providing funding to replace end-of-life fossil fuel systems, such as gas boilers, with low-carbon heat sources. The funding can be used to deliver projects that combine low-carbon heating measures, such as heat pumps, with energy-efficiency measures, such as insulation and LED lighting. Phase 2 of the public sector decarbonisation scheme has now closed to applications, and those that we received are being assessed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised the interesting issue of the Government’s plans for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. As always, the Government stand ready to respond to emerging risks or changes in the market and will continue to monitor how cryptoassets are being used in the UK, specifically with regard to the emissions that they create. This is an important point, but it is also vital to consider this in the context of the UK’s success in decarbonising the power sector. Between 1990 and 2019, the sector saw a reduction of emissions of 71%.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made some good points and asked about the potential to include a requirement for companies that fall within streamlined energy and carbon reporting to include an outline of their net-zero plans. It is important to note that, for most organisations in scope, this will be the first time that they will be reporting this information in company reports on a mandatory basis. We will therefore keep under review whether to mandate other types of disclosures, such as those that address the net-zero target, as we continue to evaluate the impact of these regulations and how the new reporting practices are being embedded.
In response to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, I can say that the Government already publish estimates of historic and projected UK emissions annually. Later this year, we will publish a net-zero strategy that will consider what metrics are needed to monitor delivery of our emissions targets, and will take the noble Lord’s helpful suggestion into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, asked how the Government could elicit the behaviour change necessary to meet net zero. Reaching net zero requires not only changes to our energy systems and substantial new low-carbon infrastructure, but shifts in how we, as individuals, travel, what we buy and how we use energy in our homes. In many areas, delivering net zero will require the uptake of new lower-carbon technologies, such as electric vehicles or heat pumps. The Government are supporting people to adapt to these new technologies, with initiatives such as Go Ultra Low and the Simple Energy Advice service. We are also exploring how we could go further and support individuals to make green choices, as part of the development of our net- zero strategy.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, regarding the Climate Assembly UK, I can tell her that the right honourable Alok Sharma as BEIS Secretary of State spoke at the report launch and welcomed the report. Its findings will help to shape the work that the Government are doing over the next year in the run-up to COP 26 and as we develop our plans for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, I can say that the Government have committed to issuing their first sovereign green bond. Subject to market conditions, this will be done this summer. Reflecting our long-term commitment to the green finance sector, we intend to follow up with a further issuance in 2021 to start to build out a green gilt yield curve.
On how to finance local authorities, the UK Infrastructure Bank has £4 billion set aside for local authority lending at very favourable rates. Furthermore, the Government launched the Green Finance Institute in July 2019, alongside the City of London Corporation. The GFI’s overarching mission is to accelerate the domestic and global transition to a clean, resilient and environmentally sustainable economy through accelerating UK leadership in green finance. Since its inception, the GFI has progressed significantly with initiatives and coalitions established on the built environment, transport, supply chains, and using finance to deliver nature-based solutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked what could be done to encourage sustainable investments. Our new and ambitious UK ETS came into force on 1 January and will promote cost-effective decarbonisation in industry, power and aviation, allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheapest to do so. It will help to mobilise the scale of capital investment necessary, deploy clean energy technologies and capture new trade opportunities on the back of the energy transition.
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I can tell her that the Government are currently consulting on a bottle deposit return scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With regard to the UK shared prosperity fund, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, I can say that the 2020 spending review sets out the main strategic elements of the UK SPF in the heads of terms, and the Government will shortly publish a UK-wide investment framework later this year and confirm the multiyear spending profiles at the next spending review.
As we develop our plans for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, we will of course continue to engage with local authorities, devolved Administrations, businesses and the public on the changes needed to develop our ambitions to reach net zero. I know that I can speak for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when I say that significant work is under way to engage with stakeholders across society at pace to understand how the transition can best work for the whole country.
This year we find ourselves in the extremely privileged position of being both president of the G7 and host of COP 26, and we are determined to use both those key international moments to promote ambitious action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris agreement. Ahead of COP 26, we will bring forward further bold proposals, including a net-zero strategy to cut emissions and create new jobs and industries across the whole country, going further and faster towards building a stronger, more resilient future and protecting our planet for this generation and those to come.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank everybody for their excellent contributions. We did not manage to stretch the debate out to five hours—perhaps thankfully—but we have had some really excellent subjects covered, from international comparisons to fossil fuels, education, housing, bitcoin, transport and others.
I also thank the Minister for his reply and for mainly looking to the future, rather than the usual thing that happens, when Ministers say how good we have been in the past. I am glad to hear that there will be—what I specifically wanted to see—further thought and action on co-ordination with local government in the road map to net zero. I would like something that was substantial in itself, but that is clearly not going to be the case. I just hope that it is a whole chapter rather than a page or a paragraph.
There are still lots of things to be done to get rid of those silos that we have talked about. Only by closing those gaps—whether they are between government departments and devolved Parliaments and Assemblies or between central government and local authorities—will we have any chance of meeting those targets, which we all welcome but feel slightly sceptical about at this time. I will feel secure only when I see the Prime Minister driving an electric forklift truck through a wall that says, “Getting Decarbonisation Done”. At that point, I will know that we have got it in the bag. Until then, however, we are going to keep the pressure on the Government. We will applaud their good intentions, but we will much more strongly applaud their plan to actually achieve what we all want to achieve.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
That completes the business before the 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. Incidentally, today marks the first anniversary of virtual proceedings. I would like to thank the House and all the staff who have made proceedings over the last year possible.
Election of Lord Speaker
Message from the Queen
The Lord Chamberlain (Lord Parker of Minsmere)
My Lords, I have the honour to notify your Lordships that Her Majesty the Queen, having been informed that your Lordships have elected the Lord McFall of Alcluith to be Lord Speaker, has pleasure in confirming your Lordships’ choice.
Furthermore, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
“I thank you most sincerely for your expression of sympathy in the great loss which I have sustained by the death of my beloved husband, the Duke of Edinburgh. I am greatly moved by your kind comments and by your sincere condolences, which bring me comfort at this time”.
Election of Lord Speaker
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, on being elected Lord Speaker, and I look forward to working with him in his new role. I also offer our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for standing in this election. As with everything else over the last year, this election was impacted by Covid, but all three candidates rose admirably to the challenge of remote campaigning.
I also take the opportunity on behalf of the House to thank all members of staff, and the Hansard Society, who made the election possible and ran the process so smoothly. There will be a proper occasion for tributes to be made to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, after he retires as Lord Speaker, so I will save mine until that time. But on behalf of the House, I would like to thank him for all his service to this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the comments of the Lord Privy Seal and offer our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, on his election as the next Lord Speaker of your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, may recall that, when he was newly elected, we congratulated the Lord Speaker on breaking through the glass ceiling as the first male occupant of that post —there are very few times that us women can say that. There will be time later to pay proper tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but at this stage I want to thank him for his service to this House. We look forward to the opportunity to pay tribute to his work.
This was an unusual election and I think that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, the whole House will want to thank the officials of the House, the Hansard Society, and Mark D’Arcy and Jackie Ashley for hosting the hustings. I also want to thank the other candidates; I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will join me in this and has probably been in touch already. It was a difficult election and all the candidates showed the best of your Lordships’ House. As those of us who have done so in other lives know, standing for election is always difficult; you want to win and need to be prepared to lose. They all showed this House at its best and showed themselves at their best. They gave us an excellent and difficult choice, but from these Benches we send our warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I have worked with him for many years already, but look forward to working with him in his new role.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, if I may add this briefly, I first met the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in the House of Commons when he came up to congratulate me on a political book that I had written. I of course immediately recognised him as a man of sound judgment and discernment. But over almost the last five years, I have recognised him as a man of action who brings forward his plans to completion and success. No Lord Speaker could have had a better or more loyal deputy, and no Lord Speaker has ever had a better preparation for the Woolsack as the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I congratulate all three candidates on the way that they have conducted their campaigns but, today, I congratulate him most sincerely and wish him the very best of luck for the future.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points, and I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Mobile Telephones: Public Emergency Alert System
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in introducing a public emergency alert system using mobile telephones.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are developing a cell broadcast alert system to enable people whose lives are at risk in an emergency to be rapidly contacted via their mobile phone. We are currently at the testing phase and, subject to successful progress, we hope to launch a service soon.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office successfully tested the use of emergency text alerts in 2013. Last month, according to the Daily Telegraph, a cell broadcasting system was trialled in Reading, 12 years after the technology was adopted in Australia and subsequently by many other countries. Can the noble Lord tell us whether this long-awaited further trial, which surprisingly he did not mention, was regarded as a success? Progress in rolling out a cell broadcast system nationwide is welcome but is not flexible enough for every emergency. France is to have a hybrid system using locality-based SMS as well. This would, for example, have better protected residents of Grenfell Tower and told them that the evacuation advice had changed. The successful tenderer to roll out a nationwide service could provide a hybrid system. Is that under consideration?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I gave the noble Lord a brief response and will reiterate the point. The project is at the stage where plans for public trials are now being drawn up. We are ensuring that the timing is carefully aligned with the Covid-19 strategy, to avoid any confusion.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for pursuing with such vigour the recommendations of his report published nearly five years ago. I recall some difficult times at the Dispatch Box trying to answer his questions. Since the report, we have had 4G, and now 5G, more people have mobile phones, the terrorist threat has not gone away, and the pandemic has identified new uses for this initiative. Can my noble friend give us a target date for when it will be rolled out in this country?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give a specific target date, for the reasons I have given. I said that we are ensuring the timing is carefully aligned with the Covid-19 strategy to avoid confusion. However, my noble friend is absolutely correct: technology advances. Our anticipation is that somewhere between 60% and 80% of phones may be contactable by this system when it comes in. As he and the noble Lord opposite said, we also have to be aware that anything which is broadcast is also able to be received by terrorists.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the imminent obsolescence of the country’s analogue PSTN system, what assessment have the Government made of the impact their plans will have on the rollout of a voice over internet protocol technology and other communication systems, such as the red button alarm which is relied on by so many elderly people?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the system that is envisaged would be complementary to, and would not eliminate, other existing means of contacting people in danger and emergencies.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, of course a public emergency alert system is very important, but so too is a prompt response from the ground to any crisis. In the light of the pandemic, has the time come to update the national community resilience framework, which is, after all, just a framework, to a proper network, perhaps with the creation of a civilian reserve?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I again agree with those who have spoken that the ongoing response to Covid-19 demonstrates the value of a whole-community approach when responding to emergencies. As envisaged in the framework, to which my noble friend referred, we have seen how collaboration between local government and central government, statutory responders, businesses, volunteers and community networks have all been critical to the response. While there are no current plans to review the 2019 framework, we continue to learn lessons and evolve processes and guidance as appropriate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
But, my Lords, as we have heard, this has been going on for years. Meanwhile, the Government have been caught unaware by Russian poisoners, by floods and by the Grenfell disaster, not to mention the pandemic. What is causing the dithering and delay?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not acknowledge myself to be a ditherer or a delayer. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that progress is being made, since I am answering to your Lordships. I repeat what I have said: we hope to make an announcement on public trials very soon.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I was the telecoms Minister when this issue was first raised, so I am delighted to see the Cabinet Office take all the blame for the dither and delay. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who has indeed campaigned on this issue for many years. I am delighted to hear that we are making progress. Does my noble friend agree that it is very important that we get the protocols right for when this system is used? It is a concern of the operators that it is not used with gay abandon, but assiduously and carefully.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with my noble friend and pay tribute to him, and all those who have spoken, for their interest in nudging—I guess that is the word—this forward. My noble friend is quite right to say that alerts must not scare or alarm people. The Government intend to launch a nationwide public information campaign to support the rollout of the service, to familiarise people with the look, sound and feel of the alert, and to inform them when it will be used and how it works.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is great to have a public information system, but we do not know what it is for. This issue is so important because it is about managing risk. One of the problems at the moment is that it is not always clear where, in government, that responsibility lies. On 3 March, the Government said that they were actively
“reviewing where responsibility for biological security and the strategy sits within Government.”
The Minister said today that he understands the seriousness and urgency of these issues, and that he is satisfied with the progress, so can he update the House now, or write to me if he does not know, on whether a decision has been made and where that issue sits within the Government? If not, when can they tell us?
Lord True (Con)
I will have to write to the noble Baroness on biological security; I undertake to do so.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
Will the Government provide free phones to those who cannot afford to buy them?
Lord True (Con)
The intention is for this to be a cell notice. There will be no charges for receipt of this service. The noble Lord makes a point about penetration and the capabilities of different telephones, and some people do not have or want a telephone at all. I assure him that the Government are taking all those matters into account.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, in light of the recent record, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will now proceed with the implementation of a public alert system for mobile phones, which could have an important use in any pandemic and emergency, now that we have 4G and will soon have 5G technology?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have given that assurance to the House. As I said in my Answer, the timing has to be carefully aligned with the Covid-19 strategy to avoid confusion. The proposition is for a cell message that drops down and does not collect any personal information from those who receive it. It is a specific approach.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is extremely important, if we have a public emergency alert system, that it works in rural and upland areas, as well as elsewhere. I am excited that we can now piggyback mobile phones on to emergency services. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to ensure that mobile phone connectivity is improved by, for example, piggybacking on North Yorkshire Police and other emergency services, so that such a system of using emergency alerts works across the country, in rural as well as urban areas?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is slightly wider than my responsibility, but the Government are committed to extending coverage as far and as fast as they possibly can. On the specific question, emergency alerts will be available for the whole United Kingdom. Telecoms is a reserved matter, but the Government intend to work with the DAs to enable them to use this new capability within their own jurisdictions to save lives in an emergency.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, so we now move to the second Oral Question.
Latin America: Future Foreign Policy
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the need for, and (2) the benefits of, engaging with countries in Latin America as part of the United Kingdom’s future foreign policy.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, Latin America is an increasingly important partner for the UK’s global ambitions. It is one of the regions most aligned to UK values. Our relationships are based on democratic values, sustainable, inclusive and resilient economic growth, and the championing of free trade. We also have strong people-to-people links and effective co-operation on innovation, health and climate change.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, despite the Minister’s positive words, Latin America gets just two brief paragraphs in the recent integrated review. As well as the scope for export growth, there is huge potential for UK influence and global leadership on climate change and human rights, not least in Colombia, where the UK is the UN penholder for the peace process. Will the Minister ensure that future FCDO policy does not short-change itself by ignoring Latin America?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the work that the noble Baroness does in this region. I reassure her and your Lordships’ House that Latin America continues to be an important partner for the UK. The priorities set out in the integrated review, such as climate change, trade, supporting open societies and human rights, are all relevant to the region. It has three countries in the G20, more than 400 million inhabitants and strong commercial and cultural links across the globe, so I assure her that Latin America is a region where we have strategic allies on issues that matter most to us.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and urge the Minister to work with the new US Administration and our partners in the Commonwealth on relations with Latin America, including on trade, the environment, security and foreign policy. Will the Minister also confirm that the Government are not involved in some zero-sum game here and are fully committed to facilitating, not hampering, trade and foreign policy co-operation with our nearest European neighbours?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that the essence of the integrated review is to lay out the strategy of the United Kingdom post our exit from the European Union. In doing so, a number of our key priorities remain closely aligned with those of our European Union neighbours and partners, as they are with those of other countries, including those in Latin America.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, with vaccine diplomacy tipping Latin American countries further into China’s influence, is the Minister concerned about the current Peruvian elections, where the far-left front-runner admires Venezuela; that Chile may soon have a leader who favours China; and that Brazil’s climate and Covid crises threaten world stability? To follow up on the previous question, is this not a strange time to reduce our influence by disconnecting from our European allies? There is an EU-shaped hole in the integrated review.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, let me correct the noble Baroness. As I am sure she appreciates, on a number of occasions I have stressed the importance of engagement with the European Union to our future, whether on human rights or climate change. Many issues that impact those within the European continent impact the United Kingdom, and we will continue to have a strong relationship with our EU partners. On her other point on the context of Latin America, we have strong relationships with different countries and will continue to explore trade opportunities and the challenges of climate change across Latin America, but will continue to be a strong advocate for human rights.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that demands on the world’s supply of lithium and copper will increase with our dependence on digital and battery technology? Given that Latin American countries, especially Chile, Peru and Bolivia, have some of the world’s greatest resources of these precious metals, does he also agree that we should nurture our relationships with them, based on our historic links and the huge good will there, just as how in the past our relations with oil-rich countries were built up because of our oil energy needs?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and assure her about the agreements being signed. The full implementation of trade agreements with Andean countries and central America, Chile, CARIFORUM and Mexico, and the negotiation of new agreements with CPTPP and Mexico this year, have paved the way for a UK-Mercosur FTA in the future. We will continue to work closely with the region.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to economic growth and trade opportunities. Some say, I think rightly, that prioritising a trade-corridor strategy is optimum. As it has the current presidency of the Pacific Alliance, have we sat with Colombia to determine how best to maximise opportunities for the UK? If so, what might they be and what is the best mechanism to achieve them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we work very closely with Colombia on a range of priorities, as we do with other Latin American countries and partners. We are looking to strengthen our ties across the region, as he rightly points out, by creating the trade corridors that we require and are in the interests of the region, as well as the United Kingdom.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on 29 March, Carlos Vidal became the latest trade unionist to be killed in Colombia. At least 18 trade unionists were killed in 2020 and, according to the UN verification mission, a total of 133 human rights defenders were murdered. So what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Minister’s Colombian counterparts address this issue with a public policy to dismantle criminal organisations, including paramilitary successor groups, as stipulated by the peace agreement? Also, what is the Minister’s response to the call for the Security Council, which is today considering Colombia, to create a group of technical experts to assist in that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out the challenges that remain within Colombia, which is an FCDO human rights priority country. Indeed, in my virtual visit, the issues that he raised were raised directly by myself with the Justice Minister of Colombia. In terms of the UN Security Council, the noble Lord is again correct. It is meeting today and will be hearing from the UN Secretary-General’s special rapporteur, who will present her quarterly report. We will remain invested in Colombia, both in the peace process and in the defence of human rights.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as president of the Peru Support Group. Given the serious misjudgment by the Blair Administration when they withdrew interest, involvement and resources from Latin America in favour of building up a friendship with China, is it not disappointing that, further to the increasing influence of China, there is so little mention of the region in the integrated review? The Minister has said that there is a real commitment to relationships with Latin America, so how does he explain to the House this minimalist comment in the integrated review on our strategic interests in Latin America?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the responses that I have given already, including today, will address some of those concerns. The noble Lord mentioned Peru among other South American countries, and I shall give him a practical example. The United Kingdom recently signed a second Government-to-Government contract with Peru worth over £100 million, which is helping to rebuild schools and hospitals in that country that were damaged back in the 2017 flooding. That is just one practical example of the strengthening relationship between the UK and Latin America.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, as chairman of the UK branch of Plan International, a charity, for about 20 years, I have regularly visited most of the countries in Latin America. The major problem always was that people obtained all sorts of wonderful things and shelves were stocked but no one knew how to use them. That was rather wasteful and we wanted to do something about that. Can the Government, given that development is now included in the Minister’s portfolio, assure me that the experience of non-governmental bodies that already work in Latin America will be involved in any plans, as their experience is invaluable in providing insight into opportunities and areas of need? The lesson that I learned was that it was important to have someone explain how to use things, not just to present them and then hope that people would be able to put together a prefab school or all sorts of things for educational use. In the light of the—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I picked up the gist of my noble friend’s question when she began and can give her a very to-the-point response. Of course, the importance of civil society remains part and parcel of the delivery of our programme. As regards my portfolio on human rights, we work closely across the regions, particularly in countries such as Colombia.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question, from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.
Covid-19: Obesity
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the World Obesity Federation COVID-19 and Obesity: The 2021 Atlas, published on 4 March, which shows a correlation between obesity rates and COVID-19 death rates; and what steps they intend to take in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the World Obesity Federation’s Covid-19 report makes stark reading for us all. It is clear that excess weight is one of the few modifiable factors that contribute to severe symptoms of Covid and, very sadly in some cases, to death. This is a wake-up call. Britain is clearly carrying too much weight. That is why the Government are committed to helping the country reduce obesity and get fit and healthy.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to hear my noble friend’s response because this research shows that being obese is a huge factor in deaths from Covid, second only to old age. It was described as a wake-up call to Governments by the head of the WHO, and last week the British Heart Foundation published research that showed that 31,000 deaths per year from heart conditions are caused by excess weight. The Prime Minister has said that it was obesity that nearly killed him with Covid last year. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking over junk food, but what further action can they take so that everyone, especially those in leadership roles—be it in schools, the NHS or, indeed, Parliament—understands that being obese should not be socially acceptable, because obesity is killing people?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend that obesity has been a sad and tragic driver of death from Covid. Overweight people are 67% more likely to need intensive care from Covid than those who are not overweight. The list of the measures that we have in place is extensive—there are 17 in number before me—and we are not going to stop there. This is a really important project for the Government. It is not our business to shame those who are overweight, but it is our business to enable those who seek to lead fit and healthy lives to take the necessary steps to reach that objective.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the reduced use of school space during lockdown highlighted an opportunity for us to make use of school kitchens as community kitchens. This holds real potential for addressing multiple issues such as poverty, obesity, lack of food or loneliness, all at one time. Will the Government consider supporting school kitchens to become community kitchens when not in use by students in order to tackle obesity in underserved neighbourhoods where people often have limited choices in their nutritional options?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The right reverend Prelate puts the case extremely well. The community kitchen measures she describes are beyond my brief. I do not have the details to hand, but I should be glad to follow this up and write to her.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, as we know, there are no real redeeming features to Covid but, my goodness, it has managed to magnify the obesity problem in this country. As my noble friend said, it is a real wake-up call. Does the Minister feel, like me, that we have had enough initiatives that last for a period and then disappear without any real success? Is it time to put someone in charge of this serious health problem who has time and real clout to take on the food industry, tackle the root causes and work with all government departments to deliver change?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I do agree with my noble friend that the answer to this issue is sustained action. This is not something where snazzy initiatives are going to have the necessary impact. But the key to our efforts is creating cross-governmental co-ordination—that very difficult thing to achieve. We are working extremely hard with other departments, particularly with DCMS and DCLG, in order to address the kind of housing, cultural, advertising and nutritional issues at the heart of this problem.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK has among the highest rates of obesity in the whole world— 28% compared with the benchmark, Japan, at 4%. We know, however, that payback on public health investment is high—witness our historic success with cigarettes, safety belts and AIDS. All of us are painfully aware of how difficult it is to control our weight, but does the Minister not agree that we need a massive and truly transformative programme of public health and education to reverse this deadly trend?
Lord Bethell (Con)
As the noble Lord rightly points out, the cost is enormous: £27 billion is the estimated cost to society, and 64% of people are classified as overweight. The challenge is enormous. We have to strike the right balance between government action and personal agency. The noble Lord is right that the return on investment is huge, but the Government cannot lose weight for people on their behalf. No amount of government initiative will shed the pounds. We have to get people to change their behaviours. We are trying to understand what the right measures are to give people the inspiration and information they need to take the right steps.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this Government’s proposal is the 14th government obesity strategy since 1992. Despite 689 policies having been introduced in the past 29 years, obesity rates have increased. Another major indicator is deprivation. Children from deprived areas are twice as likely to be obese as children from the richest areas, as acknowledged by the Government’s strategy. However, the strategy was criticised for not going far enough on poverty. Healthy foods are three times more expensive per calorie than less healthy foods. Can the Minister address this grave and vital matter of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds not having access to, and being unable to afford, healthy and nutritious food?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the correlation pointed out by the noble Baroness. We must acknowledge and address the fact that areas of deprivation undoubtedly have higher levels of obesity. However, we have to be careful about taking away people’s sense of agency. It is possible to buy affordable healthy foods at any price point. Food has never been cheaper than it is today. We must put into people’s hands the knowledge and inspiration to take the steps necessary to shed the pounds that need to be shed.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister assure me that the Government will not renege on their promise to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt foods online? Will he ignore the objections of junk food producers and advertisers, and remind them of the similar ban on Transport for London when the amount of advertising actually went up? Reformulated and low-calorie options generate revenue too.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Government take the advertising of unhealthy foods seriously, which is why we have commissioned this consultation. It has not finished yet so it is not possible for me to pronounce on its findings, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are looking at this issue extremely carefully indeed.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the determination of the opposition parties and much of the media to pin the blame for the high level of deaths in this country from Covid on the Government has obscured the fact that the major reason why we suffer from a high mortality rate, compared with other countries, is that we are fatter than other countries? Nearly two-thirds of adults in this country are overweight, and the number of obese people in this country is six times the proportion of obese people in Japan. Can we give those facts to people? They can then make their own decision on whether to take this risk or not.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. It is for others in the post-mortem process to pronounce on the exact cause of deaths during Covid, but it is an unavoidable fact that, of the 2.5 million Covid deaths reported by the end of February, 2.2 million were in countries where more than half of the population is classified as overweight; that includes Britain. This is a stark fact that, as my noble friend rightly points out, is sinking in among the British public. We want to use this fact as an inflection point—it is an opportunity —to give people the inspiration they need to take the necessary steps towards healthy and fit living.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is it not important to bear in mind the fact that people who are poor and obese are living in a permanent emergency? That emergency starts in the early years of their lives and carries on; they take food and do many short-term things. We must break this emergency and remove the poor from it through education, social opportunity and giving people jobs that raise their wages. Also, social security is often used as a way of saying, “Go over there and we’ll forget about you for a certain period of time.” It is the emergency that they live in that we have to challenge.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord’s expertise and authority in speaking on behalf of those who live in deprivation. He is a valued spokesman for people in such conditions. However, on his analysis, I do not think that poor people cannot lead healthy and fit lives. I do not believe that they cannot make the right decisions for their futures. I have the utmost respect for those who live in poverty; it is for us to give them the inspiration and knowledge that they need to make the right decisions.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Care Homes: Guidance
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their guidance Visits out of care homes, last updated on 7 April, and in particular the requirement that residents making a visit out of a care home should isolate for 14 days on their return.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not underestimate the heavy burden of infection protocols on those who live in social care and on their loved ones. However, the public health advice is clear: once an infection enters a closed environment such as a social care home, it spreads far and fast, as we found out last year. We hope that the vaccines will change this and we keep the policy under review but, until the evidence is conclusive, the safety of residents remains our priority.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, care home residents have been cooped up for more than a year. Most of them have received two doses of the vaccine and many are becoming depressed at not being allowed to go for a walk with a family member, or even to vote in person at the polls. At a recent sitting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the pressure group Rights for Residents told the committee that
“the Government’s guidance on visiting out of care homes … is blatant human rights abuse”.
As the situation is easing somewhat, when do the Government expect to reassess that guidance?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness puts the case extremely well. I do not deny her suggestion that this is a huge burden on those involved. However, data from the ONS makes it clear that, across care homes, when one case of coronavirus is reported, an estimated 20% of residents typically subsequently test positive for Covid—even under the current state of the vaccine rollout. We remember Holmesley care home in Sidford, Devon, where there were 11 deaths because of a major outbreak. We are still in the middle of the pandemic. The vaccine is making progress, but we have to take things one step at a time.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why the visiting out guidance is not aligned with the road map for the national lockdown? Is there not a gaping discrepancy between the advice for care home residents, who are advised to keep the number of contacts to a minimum, and the advice for care workers, who can go to the hairdresser’s, sit outside a pub, meet up in groups of six and then go back into a care home to provide personal care?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, these protocols are not tied to the road map because we hold them under constant review. We hear loud and clear the case made by the noble Baroness and others who make the case for change. We are open to making that change when the evidence says that the situation is ready. We expect care home workers to behave in a way that is responsible and keeps infections to a minimum, but we cannot have protocols for every aspect of their lives.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest: I have a close family member who is a care home resident. People living in care have endured over a year of rules keeping them separated from family and friends, with the double isolation of relatives being unable to go into the home and residents being unable to leave. Although I welcome the recent relaxation of the rules on visiting out of care homes, the guidance states that the requirement for a 14-day isolation period on return
“is likely to mean that many residents will not wish to make a visit out of the home.”
What is the point of pretending that it is being allowed? Does the Minister understand why imposing a blanket quarantine on visits out feels to many arbitrary, unfair and as though it is interfering with their liberty? Can he explain why it is not possible for a resident who has been outside for visits to be tested on return and again after a specified number of days, rather than enduring a 14-day isolation during which they are often confined to a small room?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I can only express complete sympathy for the noble Baroness’s points. She puts them extremely well. Undoubtedly, the pressure put on residents and their family members is profound and I regret it enormously. However, this is not an arbitrary or thoughtless measure from the Government; it is to protect residents who have shown themselves to be highly susceptible to the disease. We have instances of serious illness and death to remind us how important these measures are. The noble Baroness is entirely right that the protocols are in place in order to deter external visits. In terms of testing, the unfortunate truth is that the virus can harbour in someone’s body, undetectable, for days. We know from protocols around international travel that pre-travel testing catches only about 15% or 20% of those with the disease and it is for that reason that we cannot turn to testing as an alternative.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, grass-roots relatives’ campaigns such as Rights for Residents, John’s Campaign and Care Unlocked describe this guidance as “false imprisonment”, “barbaric”, “cruel”, “treating residents as second-class citizens” and “more scandalous than any Greensill revelations”. I want to press the Minister. Can he really explain from a virus control point of view, as the noble Baroness asked, what the risk difference is between care home workers who leave those care homes, go about their business and then return and give personal care in the same home and a vaccinated care home resident who, after a family day out to the seaside, has to endure 14 days of solitary confinement? From a risk point of view, it makes no sense.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there are two points of difference. One is that we can take certain measures to guide the behaviours of care home workers but we cannot mandate for every aspect of their lives. Secondly, care home workers wear PPE and that significantly reduces their infectiousness. We do not ask care home residents to wear PPE. Were we to do so, I think it would provoke suitable concern among residents and their families. As a result, we have to have these isolation protocols in place to avoid the spread of the virus.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has been concerned about the treatment of care home residents over the past year. It is continuing its inquiry with an evidence session this afternoon. As colleagues have asked, are not the Government sabotaging the chance for care home residents to have a trip outside, especially given that staff are coming and going without quarantine? The Government’s guidance says that they “recognise how important” outside trips are
“for residents’ health and well-being”.
At the same time, and as the Minister has affirmed in his answers today, they recognise that their requirement for a 14-day isolation period
“is likely to mean that many residents will not wish to make a visit out of the home.”
This is insulting and treats care home residents and their families like children, not as responsible adults.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s point. She is right: this puts huge pressure on residents and their families. I am heartfelt when I say that I completely agree with her that this has an impact on the mental health and well-being of residents. However, their health, their safety and their actual lives take priority, I am afraid. We are at a moment where, even with the rollout of the vaccine, there is still a high infection rate in the country. If the virus gets into a home it has a potentially devasting effect, spreading very quickly within the confined spaces of the home among people who, typically, are highly vulnerable. That is why we have to put in place these serious protocols. This is done with huge regret and we review it constantly. It is my sincere hope that we can lift these protocols as soon as we possibly can, but until the day when the evidence is conclusive, we have to have them in place in order to protect lives.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and that brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Afghanistan
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join Ministers in paying tribute to the British Armed Forces who have served in Afghanistan, and especially to the 454 personnel who have lost their lives. We honour their service and their sacrifice. With the full withdrawal of NATO troops, it is hard to see a future without bloodier conflict, wider Taliban control and greater jeopardy for former interpreters and women. The Chief of the Defence Staff said that this was
“not a decision we had hoped for”.
Did the UK try to stop the US taking this decision? What steps will NATO allies now take to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a breeding ground for terrorism, and what ongoing support will the Government provide to personnel and veterans who have been injured in Afghanistan?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his tribute to our Armed Forces and particularly for his acknowledgement of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I entirely endorse his welcome and kind remarks. In response to his question, the United Kingdom has regular conversations with US counterparts on a range of issues, and we consult closely. As the noble Lord is aware, this is a NATO mission in Afghanistan and we were always clear that we would proceed in concert with our NATO allies and partners, which we have done. Regarding the noble Lord’s apprehensions, our support of the NATO mission has brought Afghanistan to a much better place than it was in 2001.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too pay tribute to our service personnel who have served in Afghanistan, particularly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. In his Answer, the Secretary of State said that we could not stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, but are there ways in which the MoD would envisage supporting the Afghan national security forces going forward, perhaps in the sense of training or other forms of co-operation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We are looking at the start of a new chapter for Afghanistan. We look forward to consulting closely our NATO allies and partners on the way forward. Afghanistan is now shifting the focus to the political process, which is an important component in its journey forwards, hopefully towards peace.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the brave contribution and sacrifices made by our British forces in Afghanistan. I would question the evidence of the Taliban changing its stance. One has only to consider the escalating violence in the country in recent months, and in areas where it holds control, girls’ schools are already closing. How will we ensure that human rights, and particularly women’s rights, are protected? If we do not, all those women who have stepped forward to take part in public life will be left at risk.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We will continue to stand with the people of Afghanistan to support a more stable, peaceful future for the country, and we wholeheartedly support the United States-led efforts to energise the peace process. We have been clear that the Taliban must engage meaningfully in a dialogue with the Afghan Government. We have been equally clear that, in going forward, the Afghan Government must respect and protect the advances which have been made in respect of women and children.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, troop withdrawal is guaranteed to exacerbate the danger to Afghan interpreters who have helped our Armed Forces. The new relocation and assistance policy is welcome, but can the Minister reassure the House that the embassy staff administering it will proactively identify interpreters needing protection who could be in danger if they approach the embassy for help? Can she also confirm that the new scheme covers family members and that it will absolutely not be contracted out to a private company?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I have paid tribute before and do so again to her enduring interest in this issue. The relocations and assistance policy, which as she knows was updated last year and launched at the beginning of this month, is open to all our current and former locally employed staff in Afghanistan, irrespective of date, role or length of service. As she is aware, they must satisfy certain criteria, but it is important that any of these staff feeling anxious should contact the embassy in Kabul however they can. I also assure her that eligible locally employed staff can bring certain family members with them to the UK.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I salute the efforts of our Armed Forces and of those development and humanitarian workers who have been injured or have lost their lives doing dangerous work in Afghanistan over these past 20 years. That work will become even more vital as NATO troops leave the country. How then can the Government justify the reduction in overseas development assistance? By how much will programmes in Afghanistan be cut and what analysis has been carried out to support the decision to reduce such programmes at this critical time?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome tribute to humanitarian relief workers, who have indeed made huge sacrifices. I am sure that the Chamber would absolutely endorse his remarks. As I indicated earlier, what is currently happening in Afghanistan is predicated on a wider NATO allies and partners collaboration to assess the situation and to look to the future. We are committed to continuing to work together in NATO to support Afghanistan during and beyond withdrawal. The noble Lord is correct that much of the UK’s support for sustaining the Afghan national security forces is provided as ODA. Ministers are currently finalising the allocation of ODA for 2021-22, so decisions on individual budget allocations have not yet been taken. I think that he will acknowledge that much excellent work has been achieved by the United Kingdom in concert with our other NATO partners.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
Like many who served in Afghanistan, it is impossible not to have mixed feelings about this week’s news. However, it is nearly seven years since UK forces engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan. I feel that their departure is less of a question than the sustainability of the legacy of the institutions that we have tried to build there. On paper—I emphasise, on paper—the Afghan national army is 185,000 strong and funded almost entirely to date by the US. Is my noble friend confident that the structure, size and capability of the Afghan national army are sustainable in the long run?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated earlier, this is the start of a new chapter. The focus now will be on the political process within Afghanistan. The responsibility to take all necessary decisions to support the journey towards peace will rest with the Afghan Government, including whatever decisions they feel they need to take in relation to their defence and security measures.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, President Biden inherited a decision to reduce US forces in theatre. Either that process had to continue or force levels had to be increased with no end date in sight. Would sustaining increased force levels indefinitely in theatre have been a viable option for the UK, given our other overseas commitments and the decision to reduce the current combat strength of our Armed Forces?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The United Kingdom was always clear that we went into Afghanistan alongside our NATO allies. We have adjusted together, and now we will leave together. This has not been a unilateral United Kingdom decision. As I said to my noble friend Lord Lancaster, alongside our NATO allies and partners, we shall consult closely on the way forward as the focus turns to Afghanistan itself, the Afghan Government and the political journey forwards.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join my noble friends in paying tribute to our Armed Forces and remembering those who paid the ultimate price. My noble friend said that the Taliban have no appetite to be an international pariah, yet in the past year they have waged a campaign of targeted assassinations against journalists, judges, doctors and health workers and have targeted women in public life in particular. Do we not see that as the act of pariahs? Do these killings not warn against any idea that we can rely on the Taliban to keep its promises and not roll back human rights or maintain links with terrorist organisations?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The Taliban, if it seeks to realise its political goals, has to play a political role in a more stable and secure Afghanistan. It must meaningfully engage in that process. It seeks international recognition, and the only way it can achieve that is through following through on its commitment to engage with peace. That is what we shall look to it to do and hold it to account on.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has now passed. My apologies to the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Loomba. We will take a moment to allow the pieces on the board to be reshuffled.
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
President Joe Biden said today that the conviction of a former police office in the killing of George Floyd can be a giant step forward in the march towards justice in America, but he warned, “We can’t stop here”. I would add that neither can the United Kingdom.
Following the Black Lives Matter movement, the commission that produced this report had an opportunity meaningfully to engage with structural inequality and racism in the UK. Disappointingly, and incredulously, they have produced a divisive and downright offensive piece of material. It seems to glorify slavery and within the underplay of institutional racism appears to blame ethnic minorities for their own disadvantage. This report must be rigorously challenged to prevent the decades of progress that we have made in our efforts to develop race equality in the UK. Since its publication, the report has garnered widespread criticism from groups and individuals such as the BMA, Professor Michael Marmot, all of our major trade unions, which represent over five million workers, and human rights experts at the UN who state that the report has misrepresented data, shoe-horned conclusions and misquoted academics. My noble friend Lady Lawrence said it gave
“a green light to racists.”
The data is misleading and incoherent, and its conclusions are ideologically motivated and divisive. I have many questions to ask the Minister in my speech, and I will be content to receive written responses from her, as it may be difficult to answer every one I pose in the Chamber today. These questions need resolution and reflection on this highly contentious government report.
Despite the overwhelming body of evidence, why does this report seek to downplay the role of institutional and structural racism in the UK? Does the Government share its view? It was reported that a number of commissioners say that No. 10 intervened in the writing of the report and failed to give them sight of the final copy. These are serious accusations that call into question the credibility and independence of the report. Can the Minister whether her Government intervened in the work of the independent commission and rewrote any part of the final report?
Does the Minister agree with the foreword by the chair of the report? There he remarks:
“There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”
Will her Government reject these abhorrent remarks? The report attempts to construct a false binary between socio-economic inequality and racial inequality, suggesting that racism has less of a role than class to play in producing inequalities. Does the Minister agree this is disingenuous and divisive given that so many ethnic minority people are part of the working class struggling after more than a decade of Tory austerity?
The report appears to soften the role of structural racism in the labour market, but the latest ONS unemployment figures show that the unemployment rate for ethnic minorities is more than 9.5%—more than double the rate for white people at 4.5%. What steps, therefore, will the Government take to address structural racism in the labour market? Will the Minister commit to publishing equality impact assessments of job creation schemes?
Many of the recommendations in this report lack teeth. They are repetitions or rely too much on individual discretion. Some simply ask the Government to undo the damage they have done since 2010. Proposals to fund the EHRC and to establish an office for health disparities are particularly ironic, given that the Conservatives have slashed EHRC funding by £43 million since 2010 and abolished Public Health England. Does the Minister regret these cuts, and does she have any plans to restore this funding?
The report appeared to downplay the role of structural racism in health inequalities despite the hugely disproportionate number of deaths of black and Asian people from Covid-19 over the past year and is out of step with the analysis of the ONS. Does the Minister agree that this section is an insult to black, Asian and ethnic minority people who have suffered the worst fatal and financial consequences of the pandemic?
The report also downplays the role of structural inequalities in our education system, despite very recent data that shows that black Caribbean children are more than five times more likely to be excluded from school in parts of the UK. There have been 60,000 racist incidents in schools in the past five years. What steps will the Minister take to address the deep-rooted, structural racial inequalities within the education system?
The report contained minimal information and recommendations on social security, despite this being a key mechanism to end socio-economic and racial inequalities. What steps is the Minister taking to address structural inequalities of race and ethnicity in the social security system?
Finally, the language in the report appears to regress to blame black, Asian and ethnic minority people for their own disadvantage. Mentions of family structure and culture misrepresent the reality of structural racism and turn back the clock on how we talk about race and structural inequality. Will the Minister reject this report before us today in this Chamber?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I am afraid the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, is not present in the Chamber or in the ether, so we will not be able to hear from her and we will go straight to the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will not be rejecting this report outright. When I began to read this report, it did not match, in my view, what had been reported in some parts of the media about it. I commend it to noble Lords to read. It is 258 pages long, so it will take a bit of diary time to do that. It is an evidence-based report; it is our first official attempt to look at ethnic disadvantages and advantages. First, dealing with the theme of the noble Baroness’s speech regarding structural racism, the report commends and stands by the Macpherson definition of institutional racism. As we stand here, the day before Stephen Lawrence Day, I think it is important to recognise that. It has stood the test of time.
In the areas the commission was reporting on, the evidence base did not support structural racism findings. However, the report is incredibly clear that racist incidents, racist prejudice and racism exist today in this country and should be dealt with and condemned wherever they are found. It is not an offensive report. It does not glorify racism but stands against it. The noble Baroness recognised that we are not the Britain of the 1950s and 1960s. That is not to say we are a perfect country. As the report outlines, the commission hopes that it is
“a road map for racial fairness.”
We are still on a journey in relation to this.
The 10 commissioners did this report as volunteers. They were not paid to do it and are all present, as commissioners, standing by the report. They did not seek to blame ethnic-minority individuals for their lot in life. I regret to say that that is a misrepresentation of the report.
In relation to the criticism that the United Nations has made of the report, unusually, the UK Government have responded to say that, again, that is a misrepresentation of the report. I do not mean to do a disservice to the report but, compared with the media reporting, it is a tad dull in the way its narrative is written. It is not the stuff of the headlines. The UN response has misrepresented it. It is not a matter of disagreement here, which we all welcome around reports put into the public domain, but when that strays into the line of misrepresenting the evidence and the findings, we have to speak out. The Minister for Equalities in the other place will write to the United Nations group to outline what we believe is a misrepresentation of this report.
I can quite categorically say to the noble Baroness that no, No. 10 Downing Street did not write the report. The communication strategy was by an independent person not connected to No. 10. There is no false binary here in the report. It is evidence based. It commissioned research from the University of Oxford. It included the white-majority population for the first time in a report such as this. Within our population, it attempted to separate out different groups with different experiences.
The noble Baroness is, though, right to draw attention to the fact that, unfortunately, Covid has led to a recent increase in young, black unemployment. We are looking at the response to that. There are various initiatives, funded particularly with some London boroughs, trying to redress that. With Brent and Newham, we are looking at the Black Training and Enterprise Group and the Moving Up programme. There are also, of course, some geographical disparities in where job losses have been, so we have to look at the granular data as to why that has been an outcome at the moment, and at the causes of that, to redress it. Obviously, across the whole population of this country, we are trying to drive up the skills base and increase the profile of apprenticeships in order for people to get the skills that they need.
It is important to outline the commission’s response to the criticism of its remarks about slavery. It says this:
“There has … been a wilful misrepresentation by some people of the Commission’s view on the history of slavery. The idea that the Commission would downplay the atrocities of slavery is as absurd as it is offensive to every one of us. The report merely says that in the face of the inhumanity of slavery, African people preserved their humanity and culture. The Commission’s recommendation for Government to create inclusive curriculum resources is about teaching these histories which often do not get the attention they deserve.”
It is important to put accurate comments on the record in relation to the commission’s remarks on slavery.
We are looking seriously at the 24 recommendations. A group has been formed within the Cabinet Office, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to look at the recommendations put forward.
In relation to the role of the family, the commission is very clear:
“We reject both the stigmatisation of single mothers and the turning of a blind eye to the impact of family breakdown on the life chances of children.”
That is a balanced statement. This is the first commission to look at the effect of family structure. Like me, many noble Lords will know of families who have lost the other parent due to death. To suggest that we would say to them that there is not a huge impact on their children puts the matter in a less political context.
I have to disagree with the noble Baroness. As noble Lords will be aware, I often stand at this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Department for Education. There have been incredible achievements across education among certain ethnic groups. We have seen an incredible rise in particular in the number of black African boys going on to higher education at the moment. I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s characterisation of structural racism across our system. That is not to say that there are not incidents within our schools that need to be dealt with as and when they happen, and we would of course expect any member of teaching staff treating any pupil in that way to be subject to disciplinary measures.
The report is a careful, evidence-based piece of work that we will look at. It is very illustrative of the different achievements in different sectors of ethnic-minority groups—for instance, the incredible educational performance of some second-generation British south-east Asian communities—but that is not to say that we do not have issues to deal with around educational participation in, for instance, the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. It is a complex and nuanced picture that is Britain and England today, and we will look at the recommendations carefully.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we come to the 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions. There are 16 Back-Bench speakers, so noble Lords can do the arithmetic; if they can keep questions focused, we would be very much obliged.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in thanking all those millions of people who, over the last 50 years that I have been politically conscious, have made this country a much friendlier place for ethnic minorities? The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, reports that, on average, there is one report of a racial incident at a school every two and a half years—it would have been more like every two and a half hours when I was young. Does my noble friend share my commitment to living up to the commission’s vision of how Britain can continue to do better—a vision of unity and equity, and of shared values, history, culture and future? Will she look carefully at all the ways in which the state is supporting the philosophies that seek to set us against each other?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes, the Government commend the ambition of this report, which is for us to use it as
“a road map for racial fairness.”
I hope noble Lords have understood that, although we are not the country we were, and we are not in a perfect place—the commission does not say that—we want to work together. We applaud all those people who have stood against the injustices that we have seen decline over the years. We recognise that anywhere racist incidents exist, we all have a responsibility. It is not just government; wherever we see such incidents—many of us will have seen them in our own lives on public transport and places such as that—we must all speak up. We all have a responsibility to get to a racially fair society.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the CBI, of which I am president, recently launched Change the Race Ratio, an initiative to promote ethnic-minority participation in business. The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities made 24 recommendations. However, the disclosure of the ethnicity pay gap—one of the most transformative steps a company can take to address race inequality at work—was not one of them. Surely this should be a recommendation, as closing the UK’s ethnicity pay gap is about making our society fairer and more inclusive. Do the Government not agree that diverse companies perform better on every metric and that transparency should be the watch- word? While progress has been made on race inequality over the past few decades, there is still a long way to go.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes, diversity of governing boards and businesses is indeed a strength. We obviously agree that people should be paid in accordance with their work and that there should not be an ethnic pay gap. However, it is the mechanism by which we get there that I believe we are in disagreement on. The report states that, when companies publish ethnicity pay gaps, they should also publish action plans and diagnoses as to how they are going to close that gap.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister recognises that the ideology that puts race and gender as always subservient to economics and class, which seems to underlie this report, was developed in the now discredited and defunct Revolutionary Communist Party. Given that the commission was appointed by No. 10, is the Minister proud that it is the ideology of the RCP that is now driving social policy at the centre of this Government? It does not understand what is going on in our society and people are rather offended by that.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, there will be detailed analysis of the recommendations that are given. The methodology that the noble Baroness outlines is not one that I recognise from the parts of the report that I have read. It is an evidence-based piece of work that looks at the causes of disparity and at other factors such as cultural issues, family, social class and geography. I will pass on her comments to the commission about the methodology.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the Statement does nothing to allay the fears of the black and ethnic minority community about this report. We seem to have come full circle from the report on the Brixton disorders by Lord Scarman. A lot of research has been done since then that clearly identifies that racism and racial discrimination are a daily reality in the lives of the black and ethnic minority community in Britain. Socially and economically they occupy the same place that was allocated to them in the earlier days, and institutions and organisations have little awareness of our culturally different communities. Will the Minister examine some of the reports by the Commission for Racial Equality, which was responsible for issuing legally enforceable non-discrimination notices to some of our institutions? Equality has no meaning unless it is properly and ethnically monitored. I want to see the day when black and brown faces in this country do not have to look over their shoulder to see if they are welcome.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I can allay the fears that the noble Lord outlines, as the report recognises that:
“Outright racism still exists in the UK”.
It does not detract from that. I will ask officials to look at the reports that the noble Lord has outlined. One report that has been drawn to my attention and that is in a similar vein was by the Runnymede Trust in the early 2000s; the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was involved in writing it. We need to look at the causes of these disparities. We will not change the outcomes for people if we do not diagnose the causes properly. Then, we can get the right solution and change the outcomes. That is what we are passionate to do for better outcomes for all the communities that the noble Lord outlines.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I must commend the Government on their considered response to this careful and measured report. I have two questions. First, will sufficient time be given here to debate the issues that it raises, and early enough to inform the Government’s deliberations? Secondly, will the Government emulate the commissioners’ courage by acting on evidence about the benefits of stable family structures and being proactive about preventing family breakdown where possible, because of its myriad contributions to poor outcomes for children?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it will be a matter for the parliamentary authorities and the usual channels as to whether time is allowed for debate, but of course, noble Lords have that opportunity as well. Yes, the response will take seriously the recommendation —I think it is framed as a “Support for Families” review—to look in more detail at the effect that family structure can have on someone’s outcomes, particularly educationally and economically.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, yesterday was a momentous day. Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd. President Biden responded by stating that we must acknowledge and confront systemic racism. In spite of the overwhelming evidence from many, including the medical association, representing 150,000 doctors, Dr Sewell’s report stated that the evidence they found did not show systemic racism. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of black and white young people who took to the streets to protest for Black Lives Matter were dismissed in the report as well-meaning idealists but wrong in their assertion of systemic racism.
Yesterday the government Minister Kemi Badenoch, who seemed to attack anyone who did not agree with her, including the excellent race equality organisation the Runnymede Trust, none the less stated, to my great relief, that no one, not least the Government, is denying institutional racism as distinct from verbal racism. She went on to say that it is not everywhere, and I think we can all agree with that. But the report said, and the Minister confirmed, that Dr Sewell and his commissioners did not find systemic racism in this report from the deluge of evidence, including from myself. Given that dramatic but welcome U-turn in acknowledging systemic race inequalities, were the commissioners incompetent or in wilful denial?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, the evidence that was considered by the commissioners, as we understand it, is that they did not find institutional racism in any of the sectors. I will come back to the specific comments from the other place that the noble Lord has raised but I understand that context to be, as I have outlined, that institutional racism is a concept that we respect and understand, and the commission stood by the Macpherson definition, but there was not the evidence base here. Of course it is difficult when feelings are running high—obviously, I note that it is an important day today, particularly for the criminal justice system in America—but when the evidence does not lead you to that conclusion then we have to respect that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, a critique of the methodology may be wanted, but these are the conclusions of 10 respected commissioners: that the evidence did not lead to that conclusion, as uncomfortable as that can sometimes be.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in this report of over 250 pages I read two perfunctory narrative mentions of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller ethnic minority groups—arguably the most discriminated against in the UK—and a few insertions in the Department for Education tables. They are absent from the sections on health, employment and criminal justice, where data exists, often explicitly racist. The report’s conclusions ignore their situation. Did the commissioners speak to anyone, or take any evidence, from these communities? Does the Minister concede that this kind of omission can only, sadly, reinforce the superficial and unscholarly aspects of the report?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, with regard to Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, the report makes the specific recommendation that the Government should improve the way in which they collect ethnicity data. As I understand it, and I will write if I am incorrect in saying this, the commission worked with MHCLG, which, as the noble Baroness is aware, is working on a strategy that is soon to be launched in relation to GRT. That will be the main government action on GRT. I know from past experience that the noble Baroness will welcome the action that we need to take on GRT, particularly on educational underperformance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the report cites the evidence that you are six times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police if you are black than if you are white; that the vast majority of stop and searches are for drugs, not weapons; and that as a result class B drug offences amount to nearly half of prosecutions of all ethnic minority groups. This evidence gives rise to the perception, which the report fails to mention or address, that the police are there to target black people, not protect them. As the Minister mentioned, Stephen Lawrence Day is tomorrow. A witness to the Macpherson inquiry into his tragic death 20 years ago said that the black community felt overpoliced and underprotected. What has changed? How can progress be made if black people do not have confidence in the report?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in the report there are a number of recommendations in relation to crime and policing. One is about setting up independent safeguarding partnerships locally. There is also, obviously, the recommendation that police forces should reflect the communities they serve. On the point specifically raised by the noble Lord, there is an innovative recommendation that exposed the commissioners to an allegation that they supported the legalisation of drugs because they wanted to see the increased use of out-of-court penalties for the kind of class B possession that they outlined in the report. We are looking seriously at those recommendations but obviously, we know that our police forces should reflect the communities that they serve and that everyone should have confidence that the police are there to protect them, not target them.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important to consistently measure progress, or the lack of it, as we do with gender? This Government have been at the forefront of challenging companies and public sector organisations on gender issues. The report agrees that racism is still deeply imbedded and, exists across many sectors of life, and that the colour of your skin remains a big issue. I have grown up in this country; I know what it feels like to be discriminated against and called names. It is important that we start by examining how employment across Whitehall is monitored and ensure that career support is provided for people entering with non-traditional qualifications. Will she look at why, in authorities like mine in Leicester city where more than 50% of the population is non-white, there seems to be not one person of colour in a director role at the local authority offices?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for outlining the non-traditional qualifications route to a career in Whitehall. We have recently announced the delivery of 30,000 apprenticeships by next April, and we will look seriously at the commission’s recommendation to have a targeted campaign or initiative in relation to the take-up of apprenticeships. There is a consultation out currently—I think it was launched only yesterday—on flexible apprenticeships, to try and make those more available. I cannot comment on the employment statistics of a local authority.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2020 the big four accountancy firms had 11 black partners out of a total of 3,000. Deloitte had one, Ernst & Young and KPMG had two each and PricewaterhouseCoopers had 6. The big eight accountancy firms have only 17 black partners out of a total of 4,000. There is also an ethnicity pay gap of up to 37%. Is the noble Baroness concerned? If so, will she order an independent investigation into big accountancy firms?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes, of course I am concerned about figures showing a lack of representation like that. There have been various initiatives such as the Parker review and the review conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith. We have been working closely in government on the Hampton-Alexander review and are looking at that piece of work. I will note the statistics the noble Lord outlines when we are looking at that review.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, to an extraordinary degree we see racial questions in this country through the prism of the American south—a subculture anomalous within North America, let alone within the wider English-speaking world. We saw that in some of the atrocious and shocking language directed at the authors of this report. One MP posted a picture of a Klansman and the authors were called “Uncle Toms” and worse. These are not words with cultural resonance in this country. Will the Minister join me in thanking the authors for giving up their time from a sheer sense of service and patriotism to produce this forensic and factual paper? Will she add her voice to mine in saying how important it is that these issues are not be left to race professionals, but should allow people like the authors of this report—who have distinguished themselves as scientists, educators, economists, and in all the fields that enrich our national life—to have their voices heard?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, robust disagreements in this scenario sadly descended into abuse of the commissioners, which is not acceptable. The first recommendation ironically outlines more work needing to be done on online abuse. I am concerned that the treatment of these commissioners may mean we see people less likely to come forward to volunteer for public services, if that is the treatment that they expect.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Woolley. Since Scarman, again and again reports have reiterated that we live in an inherently unequal society predicated on race, gender, religion and socioeconomic conditions such as class and wealth, as well as access. Work undertaken by the right honourable David Lammy and recently by my noble friend Lady Lawrence directly challenges the Government’s assessment and findings, and asks for immediate long-term action to address structural discrimination and inequalities as they impact our citizens of minority heritage. I join my colleagues in this House and the other place, alongside thousands of British experts, including highly respected academics, in making clear that this shocking attempt to misrepresent and deny experiences of racism and islamophobia will be challenged so that justice prevails. Will the Minister consider urgently meeting Members of this House as a way forward?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the commission outlined a number of reviews, including those that the noble Baroness outlined, and they were broadly in agreement with many of them. They took the recommendations of the Lammy review seriously, many of which have already been put into effect and others are in train. I shall come back to her on her kind offer of a meeting.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will go back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. Do the Government regret the manner in which this report was pre-briefed by No. 10 in what looked like a deliberate attempt to stir up controversy with independent scholars and lifelong campaigners who have worked to eradicate the scourge of racism from our society? What is to be gained by pursuing these culture wars? Should action in future not be based on objective evidence? If that is the case and we are basing action on objective evidence, why did the Minister not welcome the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for companies to be required to publish data on ethnic-minority pay gaps between people with equivalent qualifications and abilities? Surely we have to make progress this way.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is deeply regrettable, as I have outlined, that reading many of the media reports and the commission’s report is like moving from one planet to another. The commission had its own independent communications advice and no one wants to see an issue go from robust disagreement —which is what we have always had a strong history of in this country—to personal abuse directed at various individuals who have given their time for nothing. As I have outlined, we agree that there should not be an ethnicity pay gap, but we disagree about the mechanism to change that. The history of our politics is that we agree on the ends, but disagree on the means to get there.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Statement has now elapsed. My apologies to the three noble Lords who were not called.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
For the consideration of the Commons reasons and amendments on the Domestic Abuse Bill, proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Where there are no counter- propositions, as for Motion A, the only speakers will be those listed, who may be in the Chamber or participating remotely. When there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Anyone intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members who are not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who are. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. A participant, whether present or participating remotely, who might wish to press a proposition other than the lead counter- proposition to a Division must give notice to the Chair, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk—this arises only on Motion F. 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. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email. The way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Domestic Abuse Bill
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:47 - Division conducted remotely on Motion B1 - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 240 - Motion B1 agreed.
16:51 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 253 - Motion E1 agreed.
17:41 - Division conducted remotely on Motion F1 - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 233 - Motion F1 agreed.
19:01 - Division conducted remotely on Motion G1 - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 228 - Motion G1 agreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 1A, 2A and 3A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the House will recall that these amendments sought to bring all carers within the definition of domestic abuse that applies for the purposes of the Bill. This would include carers who are unpaid, such as neighbours and friends, as well as paid-for carers and people in a position of trust who care for disabled people. The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and others were right to bring the issue of carer abuse to the attention of the House, and I was most grateful to have a discussion with both of them this morning. I just hope that, this afternoon, the tech of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, works so that we all have the benefit of her quite considerable expertise.
I fully accept that disabled people who are abused by a paid or volunteer carer are just as in need of effective protection and support as someone who is abused by an intimate partner or family member. We remain firmly of the view that the focus of the Bill should continue to be on domestic abuse as the term is internationally recognised in the Istanbul convention and elsewhere. The elected House has agreed that we need to maintain this focus and disagreed with Amendment 1 by a substantial majority of 139.
None the less, the Government have reflected carefully on the earlier debates in this House, and we want to ensure that the justice system and social care sector deal with carer abuse effectively, while preserving the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill as originally introduced. The Government are therefore committing to a review of the protections and support available to victims of carer abuse. The review will access existing criminal laws, safeguarding legislation, regulation by the Care Quality Commission, the protections available for non-regulated care and the support available for victims of carer abuse, including local authority and voluntary sector support. We would aim to complete the review within 12 months.
Of course, there will be an opportunity—we discussed this this morning—for organisations representing disabled people and others to engage in the review, and naturally we will want to discuss the details of the review with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I will confirm something that I said this morning: we will not just do a series of round tables. I agree with her that data is absolutely key to underpinning some of the work that might need to go forward. The review’s intention is to address the concerns raised regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the current protections and the support for victims of carer abuse. I hope that, with the discussion that we had this morning and the undertakings this afternoon, the noble Baroness and indeed the House will be content to support the Motion and not insist on the amendments.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Lords Amendments 1, 2 and 3 and Motion A, moved by the Minister. As I have stated, I will not oppose the Motion.
First, I thank the Minister for our helpful meeting today; despite the technological challenges, we had a very good exchange. At that meeting, I explained why I have decided not to pursue further attempts to incorporate carer abuse of disabled people in the Bill. Although I think we all agree that the abuse of disabled people frequently takes place within a domestic setting, it has become clear that the Bill is confined to abuse by an intimate partner or family member. There is no appetite to widen its scope at this stage.
In addition, this long-awaited Bill, with its multi- functional role, will demand a great deal of resources to change the domestic abuse culture. I would not wish to hold up the task of addressing the horrendous domestic abuse experienced by thousands of adults and children every day—no way.
I am currently confident—especially after our conversation this morning—that the Government have taken on board the deep concerns expressed across this House at the exclusion of disabled people from the Bill. I believe that they are committed to finding alternative means to address carer abuse, as the current protections are clearly inadequate.
I was therefore very pleased that, in the consideration of Lords Amendments in another place, the Minister, Victoria Atkins, announced in response to my amendments that
“the Government abhor all abuse, and we have every sympathy for the spirit of these amendments”
in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell.
“Abuse of disabled people by their carers must be called out and acted upon ... we have listened carefully to the experiences and concerns raised in this House and the other place ... That is why the Government intend to carry out a review of the protections for people at risk of carer abuse. We will engage with ... the disabled sector on the scope of the review, but it would broadly seek to examine the protections offered against carer abuse and the support available to victims. We have listened and we will act.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 519.]
I should be grateful if all sides of the House would strongly support and engage with this review. I hope it will not keep anything off the table, including further legislative protections if necessary. I hope that the review will commence as soon as possible. Of course, I shall be chasing it and look forward to working with the Government and especially with disabled people’s organisations.
Carer abuse—as evidenced throughout the pandemic and during earlier debates and pre-legislative scrutiny—must not continue unchecked. Disabled people deserve to have equivalent protection—no less.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very disappointed at the outcome of this amendment. I pay tribute to the hard work of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and many others in bringing it forward.
In the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Atkins, said:
“We should steer away from diluting the purpose of the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col 519.]
She has promised a government review, pledging to engage with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and the disabled sector to examine the protections offered and support available for this kind of domestic abuse.
Abuse by a paid or unpaid carer in the home constitutes domestic abuse. If it is not domestic abuse, then what is it? In responding to Victoria Atkins, Jess Phillips said that
“abuse of trust and power is experienced in exactly the same way as that perpetrated by a mother, a father or a partner”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 526.]
If it looks like domestic abuse and it takes place in the home by an individual—paid or unpaid—who is intimately involved with the victim, what else is it if not domestic abuse?
I sincerely hope that the promised review is not a sop to enable the Government to kick this really important issue into the long grass. I appreciate all the Minister’s efforts—even this morning. I welcome any assurances that she can give as to how and when this review will take place. Some of the most vulnerable people in this country are depending on it.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am disappointed that these amendments will not remain in the Bill, despite the tremendous work initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. She has worked tirelessly to bring these issues to the forefront during the debate on this landmark Bill. In mitigation, however, I welcome the Government’s commitment to conduct a review.
Trusting someone enough to let them provide either personal care, or support with day-to-day tasks or communication, is in itself an emotionally intimate act which creates a close bond but also the risk of abuse. It is not infrequent for abusers to target the disabled person and befriend them. They persuade the disabled person that this is done for altruistic motives while, at the same time, they exploit and abuse them. The victim will experience the same ambiguity about power and control versus emotional attachment as any other victim of domestic abuse.
I should stress that we will expect everything that is usually asked for in such a review. The Government must get on with it. They must ensure they are led by experts in the field—including engaging with services such as Stay Safe East which work with victims on the front line. The authentic voices of disabled victims must be heard. It is vital that carer abuse is recognised and tackled, and that no victim of abuse is left without support. We therefore support the Motion and the review.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, for her words. This morning, I stressed that I was concerned about all the abuse taking place behind closed doors throughout the pandemic. Carer abuse is not exempt from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked, “what else is it, if not domestic abuse”? It is abuse which happens and about which we have been very concerned during the last 12 months. With the lifting of restrictions, this is a timely opportunity to look into carer abuse.
Noble Lords have asked about timings. These will be announced shortly. As we undertake the review, we intend to engage with the disability sector about its scope. If it is to be meaningful, we must listen to those who have lived experiences. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked if we shall talk to experts such as Stay Safe East. Yes, we will. The review will be open, with no preconceived outcomes. The Government will await its findings before deciding next steps. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and other noble Lords that we will keep all options under review.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the elected House has disagreed with Amendment 9 by a substantial majority of 130. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has subsequently tabled Amendment 9B. While removing the requirement for accreditation of child contact centres and services in relation to public and private family law cases, it still requires the Government to introduce a set of national standards to which organisations and individuals would be required to adhere—in effect, a form of indirect accreditation.
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt of Solihull, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for taking the time yesterday to speak with me about the revised amendment. While the Government recognise that the provision of child contact centres and services is vital in supporting families and enabling parents to have contact with their children, this amendment remains problematic for a number of reasons.
First, there is not an issue in relation to private law cases of parties being referred to non-accredited child contact centres. That is because there are protocols in place, involving the judiciary, magistrates and Cafcass family court advisers, which require them only to refer parties in private law cases to NACCC-accredited child contact centres when referring parties in those private law proceedings for supported, supervised contact and handover contact. That protocol has been in place with the NACCC since 2000 and was revised a few years ago, in 2017. The memorandum of understanding between Cafcass and the NACCC has been in place since 2018. Cafcass has assured the Government, as well as NACCC, that it is compliant with that memorandum of understanding.
However, in light of what was said on Report, I have written to the President of the Family Division and to the CEO of Cafcass requesting that they raise awareness amongst their colleagues and officials of the judicial protocol and memorandum of understanding which has been agreed. I understand that the NACCC is updating that judicial protocol. It will be agreed with the President of the Family Division and reissued to the judiciary and magistrates.
Further to that, Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of Cafcass, has responded to my letter to her confirming that she will write to all Cafcass operational managers and family court advisers, reminding them of the importance of the memorandum of understanding. While she is unaware of any evidence to suggest that Cafcass staff are not complying with the requirements, she emphasised that Cafcass is committed to working effectively with the NACCC to ensure that every child receives the best possible service.
That is in relation to private family law. I turn now to public law family cases where children are in the care of the local authority. Comprehensive statutory provisions are already in place determining how local authorities should discharge their duties, including in relation to meeting statutory requirements to maintain contact between a child and their family.
In that context, Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 places a general statutory duty on the local authority in relation to children looked after by it to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. Section 34 of that Act establishes the presumption that there should be continued contact between the child and their family while the child is in the care of the local authority. It places a duty on local authorities, subject to certain provisions and to their duty to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, to allow contact between a child in care and their parents. Details of contact are set out in a child’s care plan, which is governed by the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. Those regulations set out the role of independent review officers to ensure that contact is supported. They will consider whether contact commitments in care plans have been implemented and whether the child is happy. In 2015, the Department for Education published guidance on care planning, placement and case review; further statutory guidance was published in 2018. That is the statutory architecture.
I turn now to the safeguards in place before each contact between a looked-after child and a parent is made. Whenever contact is arranged by a local authority, the social worker should undertake a full safeguarding risk assessment, meeting the requirements of the guidance for the assessment of contact produced by each local authority. A broad range of factors is looked at: the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including domestic abuse, and neglect; the risk of abduction; whether there is a history of violent or aggressive behaviour and whether the child or supervisor is at risk; and the parent’s ability to prioritise the children’s needs above their own. In outlining all that, I seek to reassure the House that there is already adequate statutory and regulatory provision in place.
I have spoken about private and public law proceedings. In addition, I should mention that parents can self-refer to contact centre services. NACCC officials themselves have suggested that very few parents actually do that, so any concerns that parents may be self-referring to non-accredited centres are not borne out by the evidence, and certainly not to any significant scale.
What is the essential argument behind the amendment? Those supporting it argue that there are large numbers of unaccredited child contact centres and services, posing significant risk to children and parents around safeguarding and the risk of domestic abuse. The NACCC provided some initial data on the number of unaccredited contact centres, but the current evidence base is insufficiently robust to support legislating on the issue. While I am grateful to the NACCC for compiling the data, I have to note that some of the “unaccredited” contact centres initially identified by it in fact turned out to be regulated by Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission. There is plainly more work to be done to understand the issue. The Government remain ready to work with the NACCC in this regard, but outside this Bill. In particular, I am ready to explore further whether there is a case for ensuring that there are appropriate arrangements in place for anyone who seeks to set themselves up as a provider of child contact services to be subject to criminal record checks.
I can therefore assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are committed to ensuring the highest levels of care and safeguarding where circumstances have necessitated involvement with the family justice system. However, given existing mechanisms within private and public family law, and the extensive regulatory environment which I have set out, without further evidence of a problem we do not believe that this amendment is warranted at this time.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 9B in lieu of Amendment 9—
“( ) ensure all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services regularly check their employees, agency workers and volunteers for compliance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.””
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the amendment I have tabled is a modified and simplified version of the previous amendment regarding child contact centres. I am most grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for meeting the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Burt of Solihull, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and me yesterday. We were hopeful that the Government would want to commit to making regulations rapidly, but, alas, no.
In redrafting I have taken into account the concern expressed by the Minister in the other place that a statutory framework governing local authorities could be costly and bureaucratic. However, I take issue with the statement that the Government have not seen evidence to suggest that the framework used by the National Association of Child Contact Centres—or NACCC, as I will call it for short—and agreed with Cafcass through a memorandum of understanding, is not needed. A lack of evidence being brought forward does not mean that a problem does not exist; it simply means that it is currently going undetected.
I share with the House the words of our previous Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May, who said on this issue in the other place:
“May I say to the Minister that from my experience of more than 20 years as a constituency MP, telling me that CAFCASS has an involvement in something does not necessarily fill me with reassurance?”
She went on to say that
“it is important to make sure that those protocols are sufficient and that they are doing the job that needs to be done.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 531.]
Unfortunately, because there is no statutory requirement, such monitoring is left to voluntary sector services such as the NACCC.
There are individual cases of concern, but it is not appropriate to go into such details at this stage. Yet the Government’s own recent harm report, which assessed the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases, identified that professionals involved in child arrangement cases show a
“lack of understanding of the different forms that domestic abuse takes, and of the ongoing impacts of abuse on children and victim parents”.
The report identified systematic minimisation of abuse and unsightly, unsafe child arrangements in an adversarial system with silo working. Some respondents felt the risk-assessment processes to be inadequate, providing examples of courts bypassing risk assessments altogether and simply ordering contact without assessing the ongoing risk for the non-abusive parent, without considering the risk of potential future harm and without consultation with the child. Surely the Government can see that their own report highlights that staff need specific training on domestic abuse.
That is why I find the Government’s email to me today about my amendment deeply worrying. In it, the Government recognise that individuals can set themselves up outside NACCC-regulated or Ofsted-regulated activities such as childminding. These people are not even eligible to seek such a certificate on criminal record should they wish to demonstrate their commitment to the welfare of those for whom they are providing a contact service. Parents using such contact services have no assurance that these people, who have not been screened by enhanced criminal record disclosure and barring service checks, do not have unspent or spent convictions and cautions. Those of malintent towards children and others who are vulnerable can hide.
The Government said that local authority arrangements safeguard public law cases, and in private law cases they did show that protocols are in place—but, again, there is anecdotal evidence that some parts of the judiciary are unaware off the full content of the judicial protocol and the memorandum of understanding between NACCC and Cafcass. In some communities where there is greatest suspicion of statutory bodies, child contact services may be harder to monitor and are not necessarily focused on a child contact centre. An individual may be complicit in abusive behaviours being perpetrated or have a history of inappropriate behaviour towards children that has gone unnoticed.
My amendment simply gives the Government powers to make regulation as they wish to ensure that all child contact centres and organisations offering child contact services regularly check for employees’, agency workers’ and volunteers’ full compliance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse. At a minimum it is essential so that these vulnerable children are not exposed to further danger. All the personnel involved should have, as a minimum, the enhanced disclosure and barring service checks, and I hope the Government would also require them to have up-to-date specialist domestic violence training to be able to detect and appropriately manage situations of ongoing abuse.
We must not let domestic abuse legislation go through and leave a loophole in our protection of children who are victims. It is consistent with the approach in the Department for Education document Working Together to Safeguard Children and with the welcome given by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill, debated last Friday in the House. The Minister said then that
“the provisions in the Bill will ensure that young people are accorded the highest protections to safeguard their physical and psychological health.”—[Official Report, 16/4/21; col. 1579.]
In January 2021, the Government published their tackling child sexual abuse strategy. So, I ask, when will the Government make sure that all those working with children and vulnerable people are subject to enhanced DBS checks? Can the Minister explain why the Government are resistant to providing the highest protections to children who are victims of domestic abuse and potentially open to ongoing abuse or even predatory activities from people with criminal intent who could masquerade as providing child contact services?
Unless I have a firm and comprehensive assurance from the Government that this loophole will be closed, and of when it will be closed, I will seek the opinion of the House, as I believe this House is committed to the welfare of children. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I congratulate her on the work she has done in this regard and on bringing forward a revised amendment at this stage. I declare my interests: I am vice-president of the National Association of Child Contact Centres; I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Child Contact Centres; and I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, so I did have some limited experience of family case law at the Scottish Bar.
I thank the Minister for meeting us on a number of occasions—most recently yesterday. I took great heart from his confirmation, which his official gave us on the call, that the Government indeed have the power to make the regulations we are requesting, so that this amendment would not be needed. I draw attention to the letter sent by email today following the meeting yesterday, which states:
“At the meeting yesterday I indicated that my officials would look at the DBS regulations, to assess whether these could be amended to apply to individuals setting up contact centres and services, outside of the NACCC accredited services, in order to provide a level of safeguarding for both children and parents.”
I would like to know why the Minister has drawn back from what I understood was a clear commitment to make these regulations.
I remind the Minister that this is my second attempt at supporting this amendment. I had a Private Member’s Bill some two Parliaments ago as a relatively new Member of this House on this precise point. I welcome the fact that the Minister and others spoke in previous stages in support of this amendment, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Our starting point is simply, as the Minister explained, that we want to ensure that in a family breakdown, the break-up of a marriage or any other relationship, the absent parent—normally the father, but possibly the mother—will continue to have contact with the child. It is extremely important for both the family and society that that is the case. I care passionately about families, and family law is at the heart of British society.
I will put a point to the Minister today that he has not answered to my satisfaction. GOV.UK states:
“You will need to have an enhanced check with barred lists from the Disclosure and Barring Service, if you want to look after children for a living … Who needs to be checked …You may need to go through a DBS check if you work directly with children or run the childcare organisation, for example as a … childminder … childminding assistant … nanny … playgroup owner … children’s home director”.
So I ask my noble friend a very simple, direct and straight question: why are those either working at child contact centres or offering services of contact being put in a less safe situation in relation to the children they are going to be dealing with than every other person working with children?
Let me remind the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has a Private Member’s Bill going through this House at the moment looking to close a similar loophole in the provision of education to children aged between 16 and 19, and I support that Bill. That loophole shows that safeguarding should extend to 16 to 19 year-olds, and the Government are seeking to close that loophole for a very good reason: nobody wants a terrible incident to happen, leading to a potential court case and huge trauma for all concerned, not least the Government, whose responsibility it is to protect 16 to 19 year-olds in education or enjoying educational services in any setting. So for what reason, as we seek to close that loophole for 16 to 19 year-olds, is a child or family in this case not enjoying the same level of protection as they do with every other category of a person providing a service?
I would like to humbly correct the Minister on one point. He stated that those supporting the amendment were claiming that there are large numbers of unaccredited centres at risk of domestic abuse. That has never been our claim. Our claim is that this small category is unacceptable because it is putting children at risk, and they are the most vulnerable in society. I would just like to correct my noble friend on that single point.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, particularly Lady McIntosh in what she has said about child contact centres and organisations offering child contact which are not accredited. It seems to me, as a matter of principle, that all contact centres and organisations involved in providing this crucial service should be accredited in some way or another. As for the idea that they can set up without anybody having to check, it seems blindingly obvious that this should not happen.
As a judge, I used to be very involved with the National Association of Child Contact Centres, and with individual contact centres. I was a patron of several of them, so I have some knowledge of the importance of child contact centres as places where children can meet their parents or parent. It is crucial that the safeguarding issue be recognised in such a way that no one can fall through the gap, so I support this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
Before we come to the winding-up speakers, does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak who is not on the list? If not, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to others whose knowledge far exceeds my own, for all their efforts to bring this amendment forward. I have to join my cross-party colleagues in expressing disappointment at the Government’s eventual response to this amendment, despite the undoubted work and good will of the Minister.
The Minister in the Commons, Victoria Atkins, seemed to consider that a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to the President of the Family Division and the chief officer of Cafcass requesting that they “raise awareness” would resolve the issue. It will not. The problem here is that the Government are talking about one thing, the formal requests from the family courts—not that they are all up to speed in using registered child contact centres—while the main problem lies elsewhere, in less formally constituted organisations sent by local authorities and other cash-strapped bodies. The Government seem to think that the existing guidelines will filter through by osmosis to everyone who is commissioning a child contact. There is a lack of awareness on the part of courts and local authorities and, if an unfortunate incident occurs because centre staff have not been trained properly and a child suffers or is put in jeopardy, the likely outcome is that the matter will be hushed up. We will not hear about it in the public domain, which is why it is difficult to provide evidence on the extent of the problem.
The revised amendment we are discussing today is far less prescriptive than its predecessor previously discussed by your Lordships. As noble Lords have said, it simply applies the same criteria to child contact centre staff as to anyone working with children— for example, a DBS check. The requirement for a register is gone. No protocol and no policies are being stipulated: that will be down to the Government themselves. A child minder or a nursery assistant will have the same requirement imposed on them. These are national standards for anyone working with children, so who could argue that this bare minimum should not be applied to child contact centre staff, volunteers or agency workers? The national standards and regulations would be for the Government to determine.
For goodness’ sake, let us at least weed out the bad people, so that we do not expose our children to them at arguably the most vulnerable time of their lives. For that reason, if the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, decides to test the opinion of the House, I and my party will support her.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, as is often the case, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put the point simply and persuasively: that there should be common standards for all those who provide services under child contact centres.
We have heard about the welcome exchange of views between the signatories to this amendment and the Minister. In the email we received from him, he seemed to acknowledge that the DBS regulations should be assessed, and potentially amended, to see whether they apply to individuals setting up contact centres—so, he has acknowledged that deficiency in the existing arrangements. Further to that, in the concluding paragraph of the Minister’s email he undertakes to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place for anyone who seeks to set up as a provider, and to explore further whether that is indeed the case.
The starting point is that there are uneven levels of regulation across the network of child contact centre providers. I accept what the Minister has said regarding private law in our courts and that the existing memorandum of understanding is going to be updated and revised, but that very fact may be an acknowledgement that improvements are needed. I have to say, speaking as a family magistrate, that all the child contact centres I have ever referred children to have been accredited by the NACCC. The Minister also set out the existing public law statutory architecture, which is more complex, but as so many speakers have said in this debate, we are talking about private providers—providers who may come and go and may come from particular communities which do not trust existing services. Those are the difficult cases that we are seeking to include in this extension of regulation.
As the Minister will be aware, we are talking about some very difficult cases—cases which are difficult to put in the public domain—and a few cases, not the many cases which he claimed. The Bill is an opportunity to close this loophole. We on the Labour Benches will support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, if she chooses to press it to a vote.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am mindful of the views which have been expressed across the House. I start with a point on behalf of the Government and of myself. So far as the Government are concerned, like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, they are committed to the welfare of children—that is not a phrase with which any of us would disagree. For myself, if I may accept the point put by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I do have a human side. Notwithstanding that I am a lawyer and a Government Minister, something of a human side still pokes through occasionally.
There is nothing between us on the aim; what is between us is the means. I therefore remind the House of two points. First, of course anything said by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in this area has to be heard with care and listened to diligently, but it is the case already that the vast majority of people in child contact centres will have to have certain checks through NACCC accreditation and because of the local authority obligations. That is the first general point.
The second general point in response to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is that the fact that the memorandum of understanding is being updated and revised is no indication whatever that there is a problem with it. For example, one of the revisions which is being made is to substitute the name of the previous President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, with the name of the new president, Sir Andrew McFarlane. Updating and revision of an MoU does not indicate that there is a problem. A lot of very good documents are continually updated and revised.
One is therefore back to the essential point, which is: what is the evidence which underpins the proposed amendment? It is all very well to talk of a loophole, but the real question is whether there is an underlying problem. It is the evidence base with which we have concerns. I say with genuine respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that anecdotal evidence is not a sufficient basis in this area on which we should be legislating. Of course, staff must be trained and we must look to see whether there are legislative gaps, but we have to proceed on proper evidence.
So far as my email is concerned, I do not pull back from that at all; I stand by every single word of it. In particular, with regard to DBS checks, I am happy to repeat from the Dispatch Box precisely what I said in the email: “I am ready to explore whether there is a case for ensuring that there are appropriate arrangements in place for anyone who seeks to set themselves up as a provider of child contact centres to be subject to criminal record checks. The issue is that the regulations with regard to DBS are about eligibility for DBS checks, not whether they are mandatory.”
I suspect that where we end up is on the question of whether there is a proper basis to legislate in this space, given my assurances that we would be looking at the DBS point and that there is no cogent evidence that the current system is not working. The protocol is in place and has been endorsed at the highest level by the judiciary and Cafcass. There are statutory and regulatory requirements in the public law cases. Indeed, the only first-hand evidence which we have heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has been that the matter is working well. As he confirmed, he sends his cases to an accredited centre only.
That is the position. Even at this late stage, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have spoken, and particularly to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for her support, which I view as weighty. I stress to the House that a call for common standards seems to have come through in all the speeches in support of my amendment. I am slightly concerned that the Government decry an evidence base because I have seen no evidence that they have undertaken a systematic review of the standards of all the child contact centres and services around, nor have they looked at them systematically. When they asked for evidence, we brought it, and did what we could in the time available, and now it is being dismissed as anecdotal. We have gone round in circles and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the elected House has disagreed with Amendment 33 and by a substantial majority, in this case of 143. In inviting this House not to insist on the amendment, I first take the opportunity to underline the Government’s recognition that comprehensive, high-quality and up-to-date training on domestic abuse is of critical importance for judges and magistrates involved in family proceedings.
Perhaps I may also take a moment again to record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and other noble Lords who have taken time to discuss this matter with me, including most recently on a call to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was also party. While the Government recognise that victims and survivors of domestic abuse can face difficulty in the family justice system, especially during proceedings and in particular when giving evidence in them, there are serious and fundamental concerns with regard to the substance of Amendment 33.
The first point is a constitutional one, which I have made on previous occasions but reiterate today. Training for the judiciary is the responsibility not of the Government but of the Lord Chief Justice—not the Lord Chancellor. The elected House disagreed with this amendment on the basis—correctly, I would submit—that it fundamentally undermines the important constitutional principle of judicial independence. We have a number of constitutional principles in this country; some have been debated in your Lordships’ House in the last several months. But perhaps I may venture that judicial independence is among the most important principles, if not the most important.
The statutory responsibility for ensuring that the judiciary in England and Wales is properly trained rightly sits with the Lord Chief Justice and is exercised by way of the Judicial College. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor does not have a role beyond providing the resources required by the judiciary, through which the Judicial College is funded. As such, the Lord Chancellor simply cannot direct the judiciary on training with either a strategy or timetable, as would be required by this amendment.
Amendment 33B would therefore replace the reference to the Secretary of State in the original amendment with one to the Lord Chancellor. That correctly reflects the constitutional role of the Lord Chancellor, who, as opposed to the Secretary of State, has duties in respect of the judiciary. The amendment also adds the Lord Chief Justice to the list of those who must be consulted before the strategy and timetable are published. However, it does not alter the fundamental way in which these amendments impinge, I suggest, on the independence of the judiciary. That is the first point and it is an important constitutional proposition.
The second is a practical point. It is already mandatory for any judge or magistrate to have training in domestic abuse before they hear cases in the family court. More than 50% of the content of private law induction training for judges is now focused on domestic abuse, such is the judiciary’s recognition of its importance. There is not only induction training but ongoing training as well. Continuation training annually is compulsory for judges and any judge authorised to hear public family law cases must also attend the appropriate seminar for that authorisation at least once every three years.
Domestic abuse is covered in all family law cases run by the Judicial College, and training reflects the wide nature of domestic abuse. Therefore, it covers all areas recognised by the Government as abuse, ranging from serious sexual and other assaults, emotional abuse to coercive or controlling behaviour, including financial coercion and control. Let me explain what the training includes. This is not just one judge talking to other judges. The training includes practical exercises and role play and is delivered by a wide range of experts, including academics and experts in psychiatry, psychology and other professions and agencies working in this area, as well as victims. The Judicial College also advocates the use of specialists to co-train and provide an annexe of specialist organisations. In the e-learning, SafeLives, Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru and IDVAs have all contributed to the films provided to the Judicial College.
Thirdly—and importantly going forward—the Judicial College is committed to reviewing and improving training on domestic abuse for both the judiciary and the magistracy. The senior judiciary, including both the President of the Family Division and Lady Justice King, the chair of the Judicial College, both acting on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, are working to further develop domestic abuse training.
As part of my departmental responsibilities, I meet regularly—albeit at the moment virtually—with the President of the Family Division. My last such meeting was, in fact, yesterday and we discussed judicial training on domestic abuse in the context of this amendment. He has given me his categoric assurance about the importance he places on effective training in the area of domestic abuse. He has said that the training will continue and, importantly, that it will be updated in light of the Bill, the harm panel, and the recent Court of Appeal judgments in four conjoined domestic abuse cases. Lady Justice King has given me the same assurances. Specifically, I have been assured that the Judicial College already has in hand the training that will be required as a result of this Bill, which is a landmark piece of legislation, as we all agree.
While I respectfully commend my noble friend Lady Helic for raising this important issue, for the reasons I have set out, specifically the constitutional and practical reasons, I respectfully ask her and all noble Lords not to insist on Amendment 33 or to press new Amendment 33B in its stead. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Helic
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 33B in lieu of Amendment 33—
“Training
(1) The Lord Chancellor must within six months of the passage of this Act publish—
(a) a strategy for providing specialist training for all magistrates and judges hearing cases in family proceedings in the Family Courts concerning rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control; and
(b) a timetable for the delivery of the training mentioned in subsection (1)(a), to include the training of all judges and magistrates who are already hearing or who are to be appointed to hear Family cases and to include continuing professional development training for all such judges and magistrates.
(2) The training mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must include but is not limited to training concerning—
(a) the impact upon victims and witnesses, both adults and children, of the trauma of rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control;
(b) the risks and difficulties for victims and witnesses in giving evidence and taking part in proceedings concerning rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control;
(c) the risks and difficulties for victims and witnesses of being involved in proceedings where one or more other parties may be the perpetrators of rape, sexual and domestic abuse and coercive control or persons connected to such perpetrators.
(3) Before publishing the strategy and timetable mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) the Lord Chancellor must consult—
(a) the Lord Chief Justice;
(b) the Chairman of the Board of the Judicial College;
(c) the President of the Family Division;
(d) the Chief Executive of the Magistrates Association; and
(e) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.
(4) After commencement of this subsection, which must be not more than two years after the passing of this Act, the Lord Chancellor must ensure that no Family cases are heard by judges or magistrates who have not successfully completed the training mentioned in subsection (1).””
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I express my thanks to everyone who has supported this amendment in its previous guises, especially the noble Lord, Lord Marks, my co-sponsor; the London Victims’ Commissioner, who played an instrumental role in its early stages; and the domestic abuse commissioner-designate.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me several times and engaging with what I have had to say, even if he does not agree with it. He raised two fundamental objections: that the amendment is unnecessary, and that it is contrary to the principle of judicial independence. I am yet to be convinced of either of those points. We are assured that all judges and magistrates already undergo training on domestic abuse, but there is very little transparency around the form of the existing training. I am grateful to my noble friend for offering more detail than we have previously heard on this point.
I am pleased that domestic abuse makes up more than 50% of the content of private law induction training. However, I am afraid, that makes the case for this amendment only stronger. Based on the real evidence that comes out of the family courts day in, day out, the existing training is simply not working. Judges and magistrates do not have the necessary understanding of domestic abuse. We still hear of judges who do not believe in coercive control, do not recognise domestic abuse unless it leaves physical injury, and say that there was no conviction for abuse so therefore there was no abuse. Survivors—both men and women—are unable to trust the courts and are afraid to go to them. Abusers know that they can use the courts to continue their abuse.
If the existing training is not working, we must reform and improve it. That is why the requirement to consult the domestic abuse commissioner is so important. I am pleased to hear that the senior judiciary takes this issue seriously but, when the system is so flawed, it is hard for effective change to come from within it. If the Judicial College could open itself up to and work with experts such as the domestic abuse commissioner, that would make a real difference. It is the sort of commitment that we need but which we have not yet heard. It is worth stressing this point: without specific detail on the nature of training, it is hard for specialist organisations to assess whether it is up to date and appropriate. I hope that my noble friend, and indeed the senior judiciary, will look hard for ways to improve the transparency around training and engage with a wider range of experts and organisations in providing that training.
On the question of judicial independence, of course I recognise that my noble friend is right to be cautious. Judicial independence is hugely important and I would not want to suggest anything to undermine it. However, I do not accept that this amendment does that; I hope that I have made this even clearer in its revised version in Motion C1. The Lord Chancellor is sworn to defend the independence of the judiciary. In drawing up a strategy for training, he would have to act within the terms of that oath. The amendment also makes clear the important roles of the Lord Chief Justice, the chairman of the board of the Judicial College, the President of the Family Division and the chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association. That is a powerful judicial voice in the process.
I know that my noble friend the Minister recognises that training is necessary to make all the provisions in the Bill work as they ought to—as we hope they will. I am grateful to him for raising this with the President of the Family Division and the head of the Judicial College, and I am pleased to hear their assurances on reform. I note, however, that we have heard similar assurances for some time now without seeing real change. For example, the harm panel implementation plan made commitments on training that we have not yet seen implemented. This is why I still believe that legislation is an appropriate and necessary route in delivering the improved training that we both think is required. If my noble friend cannot accept this, I hope that he will prove me wrong. Perhaps he could play a convening role, bringing together judges and domestic abuse experts. I hope that he will continue to make the views of your Lordships’ House, which contains eminent lawyers and former judges who support this amendment, very clear to the senior judiciary.
The current training is not working. Reform is desperately needed. If we hope to build a system that works for victims and survivors—not their abusers—we must not forget that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this Motion because we are well on course to achieve what we set out to do. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for the commitment and assiduity with which she has pursued this topic in the face of assurances that, at times, have seemed to her complacent and misplaced. The seriousness with which this topic is now being addressed is a credit to her and many others.
I understand and accept entirely the Government’s concerns about judicial independence. Indeed, noble Lords will know that I have argued the case for it on any number of occasions in this House. I am not sure that either the amendment we put forward or the Motion that is now there in its place would have compromised judicial independence to the extent that the Government thought. However, we accept that judicial training is a matter for the judiciary. We also accept that, for many years, judicial training has been mandatory on induction and on a continuing basis for judges sitting in family cases, but it is important to ensure that such training is comprehensive, up to date and, above all, successful. That, I believe, is an objective we all share.
It is also important to recognise that there has been a problem with domestic violence victims feeling that they have been treated unsympathetically by the courts in the past. There is a deeply held feeling that the trauma that they have suffered has been insufficiently recognised, and that the particular trauma involved in court processes and reliving the violence that they have suffered has not been properly addressed. A great deal of evidence to that effect has been given in speeches to this House during the passage of the Bill.
We have made significant progress with the Bill towards making the courts more humane places for domestic violence victims. We have been assisted enormously by the many groups and individuals who have briefed us, particularly Women’s Aid, Claire Waxman —the Victims’ Commissioner for London—and many others. We are very grateful to all of them for their insights and suggestions.
There is room for much more progress. I am particularly concerned to see faster progress towards more judicial diversity. Throughout the debates on this Bill, it has been clear to all of us that ethnic-minority victims and parties to proceedings have suffered unduly from the difficulties and hardships caused by domestic violence. I believe that many share my view that a judiciary that more clearly represents the people who appear before it—in colour, background, age and gender—would appear, and be, more attuned to the challenges and traumas that victims face.
Throughout this process the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has been ready to meet us and listen to the concerns expressed. I am extremely grateful to him for all his help. We are particularly heartened by his assurances today, passed on through him from the senior judiciary, not only to the effect that there is a strong commitment to improved judicial training but also to the effect that considerable emphasis is placed on domestic abuse training. Particularly important is his telling us that the Judicial College already has in hand arrangements for judicial training in the light of both the provisions of the Bill and, no doubt, the discussions in this House and the other place concerning them.
In the clear expectation that judicial training directed at addressing the particular difficulties facing domestic violence victims is a high priority, I welcome the progress that we have made and agree with the decision made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, not to divide the House on this Motion.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is understandable but misconceived and I am relieved that it will not be put to a vote. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Family Committee of the Judicial Studies Board, which was the forerunner of the Judicial College.
I have recently been in touch with the Judicial College to find out what training there is at the moment and what is intended when the Bill becomes law. I hope that the House will bear with me as I bring noble Lords up to date. I propose to say quite a lot, despite noble Lords having heard from the Minister. I do not accept that the current training is not working. The Judicial College trains all judges at every level and all magistrates sitting in the criminal and civil courts. Judges and magistrates are identified as appropriate to sit in particular work such as domestic abuse, and they are ticketed to do so only after they have had sufficient training. They are not allowed to sit until they have had that training. The training involves a three-day induction course in a residential setting, followed by continual professional residential training throughout their time as a magistrate or judge.
The training in domestic abuse includes hearing from victims and victim organisations. A lot of online extra information and advice is also sent to judges and magistrates. However, the Judicial College is only part of the training. The president sets out instructions to judges in practice directions. PD12J, updated in 2017, which I have no doubt will be updated again, sets out how family cases involving domestic abuse should be tried. The Court of Appeal sets out instructions and advice on how to approach and try domestic abuse cases. An important judgment for the Court of Appeal, Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings), was given earlier this year. The three members of the court were the President of the Family Division, the chairman of the Judicial College and a member of the criminal sentencing panel, all of whom are involved in the training of family and criminal judges and magistrates. The president himself takes a personal interest in the training of family judges.
The House may be interested to know that in the H-N case, the Court of Appeal invited the various victims’ organisations, such as Women’s Aid, to be represented at the court and to give their views, which were carefully listened to by the court—and that was shown in the judgments. In the H-N case, the president set out some statistics which showed that 1,582 full-time family judges, some part-time family judges and 2,744 family magistrates sat in family cases in England and Wales. The president said that it is thought that domestic abuse allegations are raised in at least 40% of cases in which parents dispute the future of their children. That means that domestic abuse issues are raised in about 22,000 child cases each year. In addition, the courts received last year 29,285 applications for injunction orders seeking protection from domestic abuse.
It is obvious, as we have heard during proceedings on the Bill, that some judges get it wrong. That is obvious from the H-N case, where in four cases things went wrong. It is helpful that the Court of Appeal saw that and put it right. However, from the large number of cases tried by the courts, there are very few appeals to the Court of Appeal and I would suggest, despite what has been said—particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, who said that the training is not working—that only a comparatively small number of people have in fact had bad experiences and that most judges have got it right.
I am told by the Judicial College that the domestic abuse training is being updated in the light of the forthcoming Act and instructions from the most recent Court of Appeal cases such as H-N and several others. The new Act will become an integral part of the family training of judges at every level, and of magistrates. It will form part of the courses taken by the judges and magistrates trying criminal cases as well. It is across the board. The president has also set up a private law working group which includes domestic abuse. There is, therefore, a great deal of information, guidance and instruction to judges and magistrates on how to try domestic abuse cases, which it is their duty to follow, and they are given the training to do so.
It is not in my view that there is a lack of good training; it is that some judges do not seem to have benefited from it. I cannot see how any statutory guidance from the Lord Chancellor will improve how judges deal with such cases. It is a matter of trying to make sure that the limited number of judges who do not do well enough will do better. Much of that comes from appeals to the Court of Appeal, which can put the matter right and give sensible and helpful advice.
I am relieved that this matter will not go to a vote because, although I have not dealt with it, this is also, as the Minister has said, a constitutional issue of judicial independence. I hope that the House will now be satisfied that the Judicial College is doing the best job that it possibly can and will, with the new Act, do somewhat better.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has said, with the best will in the world, much of the legislation that this House passes will be ineffective if judges do not understand the issues. Sadly, in some cases—albeit a limited number—it is clear that they do not understand the issues surrounding domestic abuse, in particular, coercive control, rape and sexual abuse, despite current training.
To the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I would say that there is a difference between outputs and outcomes. I am not sure whether this is an appropriate analogy, but I know from my own experience of race relations training, for example, that the cultural shift needed is difficult to achieve. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and, at times, the training of the judiciary has failed the test. Despite the Minister’s assertion, I fail to understand how mandating such training without dictating the specific content can be contrary to the principle of judicial independence, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has said.
However, we are grateful for the reassurances that the Government have given as a result of the concerted efforts by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. The case for improved training is well made. The amendment’s wording does not dictate what the training should be but puts the requirement for it in the Bill. Around the House, I think that we can all agree on the need for updated, quality training and to ensure that it happens.
I have said many times that this is a good Bill and will be a good Act of Parliament, but it is important that everything is done to ensure that all aspects of the law are correct. That includes ensuring that our judges and magistrates are properly trained. We owe that to victims, because domestic abuse is something that we now talk about in the country and in the House. That was not the case many years ago and we should not just assume that judges and magistrates completely understand the issues. That is why it is important that we get the training right.
I accept entirely the point the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, makes about judicial independence. I think we all support that, but there have been one or two occasions at the other end of the building when other parts of the Conservative Party were not so keen on judicial independence, when the judge made a decision that they did not like—we should get that on the record. It is not always the case that there is a great call of support for judicial independence, but I will leave the point there. I do not in any way bring the noble Lord into that; I have the highest respect for him.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am again grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I first pick up the contribution from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. On the previous Motion I respectfully commended her experience. Even though I lost that vote, I do so again, because she has given the House a lot of detail as to the training that is actually provided. The House now ought to be reassured that, right from the top of the judiciary through to the Judicial College, there is a commitment to the importance of training, to ongoing training, to training from a variety of providers and not just judges, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, picked up, to specific training on the Domestic Abuse Bill—or, as I hope it will soon be, the Domestic Abuse Act. I hope that that level of detail has been helpful to the House and, in particular, helpful and reassuring to my noble friend Lady Helic.
I also tried—I hope I succeeded, to an extent—to reassure my noble friend as to the extent and content of the judicial training. I repeat the constitutional point that we cannot force the judiciary on the nature, content or extent of that training. But there is, as I have said, commitment from the very top to make sure that the Judicial College fulfils its role and that all judges and magistrates are properly trained on domestic abuse generally, and specifically on this Act. The House can be assured that in my ongoing discussions and meetings with senior judiciary, including the President of the Family Division, I will keep the question of training on domestic abuse on the agenda. Even if I did not, the President of the Family Division would be totally focused on it anyway, but none the less I will ensure that it is part of our discussions.
I also respectfully agree with the point make by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that we must remember the particular difficulties—and the judiciary is increasingly aware of this—that victims of domestic abuse have in court proceedings. The House will be aware that we have made a number of other provisions in this Bill to do with witnesses, parties and cross-examination that will improve the lot of victims of domestic abuse in our courts. That is something I personally am very conscious of and focused on. Courts can be intimidating places at the best of times, and if you are a victim you can double, quadruple or quintuple the amount of intimidation you feel merely from the process. We have made some good improvements there.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, correctly says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The danger with metaphors is stretching them too far, but in this context we are all committed to making the best possible pudding. The way you do that, if I can stretch the metaphor, is to have the best set of ingredients. That is why the Judicial College, in its training, has already engaged, and will continue to engage, training from a wide variety of providers—though the decision as to who those providers are has to be ultimately that of the Judicial College.
I hope I have dealt with all the points raised in this debate. I will take literally 30 seconds to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on the judicial independence point. It is such an important point that I must not let it go past, if the House will indulge me. My approach to judicial independence is really very simple: you can disagree with the decision but you respect the decision-maker. It really is as simple as that. I fear that, for the second time this afternoon, I have touched on points of important constitutional principle. I will not continue the lecture any further. I hope that my noble friend Lady Helic will indeed withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed and agree with a great deal of what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has been an invaluable support throughout this process, not least on navigating the constitutional issues, and I commend his words on the feelings of survivors and the importance of up-to-date training.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has been a powerful voice on training across all stages of this Bill. I am pleased we agree on the importance of training, even if we do not agree on the mechanism for reform. Her update on the specifics of training is very interesting. It is reassuring that the courts are at least heading in the right direction, even if I believe that there is still some way to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, makes the important point that not all training is equal. It is not enough to have training; it needs to be good training. That is why reform is important. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, adds his support for updated, quality training. This really is a cross-party issue, and I hope that this will be noted by the judiciary, which I hope is following these debates.
My noble friend the Minister has been generous with his time and in his response. I also value his role as an intermediary with the judiciary. It is very good to hear from him that reform is under way. I hope he will continue to raise this issue in his meetings with the President of the Family Division and others, and to keep an eye on training, even if the Government will not direct it. I am certainly grateful for the assurances he has offered us today.
I hope that, in debating judicial training, we have helped raise its status as an issue and made clear to the Government and the judiciary how important it is in tackling domestic abuse. The greater detail on existing training that my noble friend offered was important. The assurances and commitments we are hearing from him, and from the judiciary via him, are very welcome. There is much more work to be done. I hope that this can be the beginning of a process, rather than the end. For now, I will withdraw the Motion.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A, and do not insist on its Amendments 38 and 83, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 38A and 83A.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the elected House disagreed with these amendments by a substantial majority. In inviting this House not to insist on these amendments, I remind noble Lords that the amendments seek to create two new statutory defences. Although the Government are sympathetic to the aims behind the new defences, we were, and we remain, entirely unconvinced of their necessity.
Amendment 37 sought to extend the provisions contained in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In effect, if I can shorten what is a bit of lengthy law, the amendment essentially seeks to extend the special householder defence, where force is used for the purposes of self-defence. Amendment 37 sought to extend those provisions to any person who is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse and who has been accused of a crime involving the use of force against their abuser. The current householder defence in Section 76 recognises the acute circumstances of dealing with an unexpected intruder and makes it lawful to use disproportionate force. Amendment 37, however, made the disproportionate use of force defence available at any time and any place if the person accused has suffered domestic abuse at the hands of the person they assaulted.
Although the Government are sympathetic to the aim behind Amendment 37, we remain unpersuaded of its necessity. We are not aware of any significant evidence that demonstrates that the panoply of the current full and partial legal defences available are failing those accused of crimes where being a victim of domestic abuse is a factor to be taken into consideration. Full defences, such as the defence of self-defence, are defences to any crime and, if pleaded successfully, result in an acquittal. In the circumstances of domestic abuse, there are partial defences available relating to loss of control or diminished responsibility that can be argued. Additionally, the fact that an accused is also a victim of domestic abuse will be considered throughout the criminal justice system process, from the police investigation through to any CPS charging decision, down to defences deployed at trial under the existing law and, if relevant, as a mitigating factor in sentencing. We are also concerned that the proposed defence could, because it provides a full defence to murder, be open to misuse, potentially even by an abuser who sought to claim that they were the victim of domestic abuse—which is very widely defined in this Bill, which is a very good thing—rather than the actual victim.
Turning to Lords Amendment 38, I remind the House this sought to create a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who, by reference to a reasonable person in the same situation as the victim and having the victim’s relevant characteristics, are compelled to commit certain crimes on the basis of having no realistic alternative. Amendment 83, which would insert a rather long and somewhat intimidating schedule, set out the offences to which this proposed defence would not be available, but even though that schedule is long, it would still mean that the defence would be available for many serious criminal offences, such as drug dealing, serious assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and most non-fatal driving offences. Although, again, the Government absolutely understand that victims of domestic abuse may also be compelled to resort to crime, we are not persuaded that the model on which this amendment is based, which is Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, is either apt or effective with regard to domestic abuse. As I have stated previously, we have several concerns in relation to this amendment in terms of the nature of the defence itself and the nature of the offences for which this would be a defence. I will not detain the House by setting them out again, especially as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has now put forward an alternative amendment, Amendment 37B. It instead calls for independent review of the defences available to the victims of domestic abuse. However, I thought was worth briefly restating our arguments against the original Lords amendments because we contend that the existing full and partial defences are up to the task, and because of that, we have significant doubts about the case for a review of the kind proposed in Amendment 37B.
We are of course aware of the horrific impact and often devastation posed by domestic abuse, not only for direct victims but also indirect victims, such as children and the wider family and the House has noted the way the early clauses of the Bill have been drafted with that in mind.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
As tabled, this new amendment, is in lieu of my earlier amendments which sought to create statutory defences for survivors who offend due to their experience of domestic abuse. One of the devasting impacts of domestic abuse is the unjust criminalisation of the victim. This is a landmark Bill, and I pay tribute to all who have been perfecting it and adding to it. I think it will be a hugely important piece of legislation, but I am afraid it does not prevent this criminalisation of victims.
I am not resisting the Motion, but my new amendment would commit the Government to establishing an independent review of the effectiveness of self-defence. It is my view, as a barrister in the courts who has done homicide cases involving domestic violence where the victim has killed her abuser, that there is need for legislative reform. A great deal of research has now been done. A study recently conducted by the Centre for Women’s Justice has produced a very persuasive report concerning the limitations of the defences available to women and, particularly, how self-defence fails women because often, in circumstance where their abuser is not using a weapon, they reach for a weapon. This is then deemed to be disproportionate to the threat, but in the circumstances, and the fear created in her is so great, and she is so unmatched physically with abuser, that she will often reach for a weapon where others might not. The report produced by the Centre for Women’s Justice calls into question the ability of self-defence to cover many of the women, and it provides serious evidence of that.
Equally, the Prison Reform Trust has done a great deal of research into women in custody, serving sentences in our prison estate, many of whom have been forced to commit crimes by their abusers.
We hope that this review might be added to the review that has just been mentioned by the Minister. The fact that sentencing is being looked at is welcome, but that does not deal with the fact that women unable to avail themselves of self-defence are often being left with a conviction. This has serious consequences for people’s lives, even if they are dealt with more compassionately by a court because of their history of abuse that the court has heard.
I ask that this review be undertaken in conjunction with the review on sentencing in homicide cases. I remind the House that the Lord Chancellor is contemplating such a review on homicide cases because, having spoken to the Victims’ Commissioner and the domestic violence commissioner, who explained to him the ways in which women might seem to take disproportionate action because of their physical disadvantage, he felt compelled to. I would not have thought that it was particularly complicated to add to the review the issue of whether the matter of self-defence and duress works for women and men experiencing domestic violence.
My amendment seeks a formal response from the Minister to my suggestion. I will not be pushing the amendment to a vote. My earlier amendments would have provided effective defences for survivors of domestic abuse who, as a result of the appalling experience, are driven to use force in self-defence or are coerced by their abuser into offending. The amendments were based on legal precedents already in place to protect other groups. Since we already make this special concession for householders facing an intruder, I cannot understand why the same kind of concession in seeking proper justice cannot be made available to victims of domestic abuse.
One might also look at how victims of trafficking who are compelled to offend are dealt with, as suggested by the statutory defence in the second of the two propositions that I put before the House. They would have provided equivalent protection to survivors who, far from receiving protection and support, as this Bill seeks to ensure, find themselves in the dock for offences that they had no realistic alternative but to commit.
When the Minister and I met last week to discuss these proposals with members of the Centre for Women’s Justice, we were joined by a survivor who spoke powerfully of her experience of terrible abuse, including how she was coerced by her terrifying abuser into handling stolen goods. I feel sure that the Minister would agree that there is no material difference between the circumstances that led her to offend and the way in which victims of trafficking are coerced into offending. Yet, had she been caught, it is highly likely that she would have received a caution or conviction, given the impossibly high threshold required for the defence of duress, and that she would have gone to prison.
This is far from being an isolated case. Many other examples, including cases in which self-defence has failed, have been collated and presented to the Government. The misery and injustice faced by victims in these cases will simply go on and on until reforms are implemented. Other common-law jurisdictions have dealt with these challenges through legislation, and I have never been more convinced than now that we need legislation in this jurisdiction to ensure that these cases are dealt with justly. I know that the Minister disagrees, but I also know that he sympathises with our aims. I hope therefore that he will take action today by confirming that the Government will hold an independent review of this matter, and do so in conjunction with the review of sentencing, as he has already outlined.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 37B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, having supported her in earlier amendments on Report.
I always think that it is a danger for a non-lawyer to get involved in some of these discussions. I remember that very often people asked why we had so many lawyers in the House of Commons, and when I got there I realised that it was because we make laws. This of course is a good example of why we need the great legal brains that this Chamber has in plenty. So I feel a little in awe not only of the noble Baroness but of my noble friend the Minister.
I declare an interest as the deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. There is a similarity with the Modern Slavery Act, which covers people who commit crimes under duress because they have been trafficked or are enslaved, although my noble friend the Minister does not think so. I find it difficult not to see it, and it is a shame. The last thing we need is to fill up our prisons with people who should not be there and who committed a crime only because they were forced to. I heard what the Minister said, and what the noble Baroness said. It would be very useful if he could move a little more and extend that review to look at the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. I heard what the noble Baroness said about the meeting that she had with my noble friend and the fact that there was a survivor there. I have always believed that listening to survivors, whether of domestic abuse or modern slavery, normally for me swings the balance in favour of the victims. Those poor, innocent people who have had to endure so much should not have to face criminal proceedings as a result of their abuse.
I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says in winding up this debate. I fear that I may be disappointed, but I hope that perhaps at the last minute there will be a glimmer of hope.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. In Committee and on Report, I spoke in favour of amendments to this Bill that proposed a statutory defence of domestic abuse, recognising the significant number of women coming into contact with the criminal justice system who have experienced domestic abuse and previous trauma, and how that becomes a driver for their offending. I do not want to repeat all that the noble Baroness has said, but I will highlight again the statistic of almost 60% of women supervised in the community or in custody who have an assessment have experienced domestic abuse—and the true figure is likely to be much higher.
Regrettably, these amendments have not been included in the Bill, and I therefore strongly support the call to hold an independent review of the effectiveness of existing defences, as proposed by this amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I had a few calm sentences worked out in response to this Motion, and completely scrapped them once I read the Commons disagreement amendments in lieu and reasons, because the reasons that the Commons have given for rejecting our amendments are absolutely pathetic.
I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of whom I am very fond, when he says that non-lawyers should not get involved in lawyerly debates. Here in your Lordships’ House I see lawyers arguing ferociously about tiny issues on opposite sides of the Chamber. Lawyers often do not agree, and therefore at times we have to have some common sense.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I must ask at this point: does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? No? In that case it is over to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it really is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for reasons that will become apparent, not least because we are three non-lawyers in a row.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, wondered whether I was accusing the Government of being misogynistic, following on from what the noble Baroness has just said. I say very clearly that that is not what I said or intended to say. I shall clarify. The essence of misogyny, as I understand it, is hatred of women who fail to comply with the sexist stereotype of a compliant, subordinate woman—hatred of women who stand up for themselves. I am not accusing the Government of hating women, but in my opinion there are echoes of that view of women being subordinate in their approach to this issue.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has said, on the face of it the Government’s refusal to extend the so-called householder defence to victims of domestic abuse who use disproportionate force against their abusers in self-defence in the same way that a householder is allowed to use disproportionate force against an intruder appears to smack of the view that men should stand and fight but women should run away.
I do not intend to go over the arguments that I made at previous stages of the Bill; suffice it to say that I do not believe the Government’s arguments hold water. As a result, I am led to the conclusions that I have expressed. I would not be averse to the Government repealing the so-called householder defence, but I believe that to allow predominantly male householders to avail themselves of such a defence while not extending it to predominantly women victims of domestic abuse is inconsistent and incompatible.
While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, about Lords Amendment 38, in my view the Government’s approach is again inconsistent. The law specifically provides a statutory defence to victims of modern slavery when those victims are compelled to commit an offence, even though there is an existing common-law defence of duress. When it comes to victims of domestic abuse who are compelled to commit an offence as a result of such abuse, the Government argue that the existing common-law defence of duress is sufficient. Either the existing common-law defence of duress is sufficient for both victims of domestic abuse and victims of modern slavery or it is not. In my view, the Government should not be able to have it both ways.
Clearly, these anomalies need to be addressed. Motion D1 provides for an independent review of defences for those who offend due to domestic abuse, which we support. The review of sentencing as suggested by the Government does not appear to us to go far enough.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws set out in detail the case for her amendments in Committee and on Report, and it is disappointing that they have been rejected by the other place. In response, she has tabled Motion D1 in her name. As we have heard, she is seeking an independent review to look at the issues that we have been talking about throughout our consideration of these matters. I think that is the right way forward.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, is resisting the new Motion from my noble friend, but she made the point, as have others, that if the Government are resisting the issues raised in the amendment, he ought to address the question of whether they could be looked at by the review of sentencing—or is that a step too far for the Government?
There is a huge issue here. I recall the debates that we had when my noble friend and others presented harrowing cases. There is a real point here: if there is an intruder in someone’s house then, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, often a male can defend himself there and has a defence, but a woman attacked by her partner in her own home, which should be a place of safety, cannot rely on such a defence. That cannot be right.
The Bill is seeking to address the whole issue of domestic abuse in all its various facets. It is a good Bill, but it would be an even better one if we could make sure that all the gaps were plugged here. The fact is that women in their own homes, their place of safety, can often find themselves in very dangerous situations. If they have to defend themselves and end up injuring or killing their partner, we should understand that and ensure that they have the proper defences to take account of the difficult situation that they have found themselves in, often over many years. After all, these things escalate; they do not happen overnight.
My noble friend has identified an important point here, and I hope that when the Minister responds he can address it. We need to find a way to look at the issues that my noble friend raised in the review of sentencing, as he referred to in his earlier remarks.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am again grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to these exchanges. Right at the start, I say that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was spot on when she characterised my position as disagreeing but sympathising—that is absolutely right. For the reasons that I have set out, I disagree but sympathise with the aims of the amendments.
Like the noble Baroness, I found the meeting with the representatives from the Centre for Women’s Justice extremely helpful. I have read a lot of material that they have produced, and, in particular, like her, I found the conversation with the survivor who joined us extremely powerful. Like my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, we have to remember that, while we may be debating what sometimes seem here to be quite dry and technical issues of law, there are real people—if I may use that terrible phrase—and, in this case, real victims of domestic abuse, who are affected. The House can be assured that I have that at the very front of my thinking.
I will not go over the substantive points that I made—I hope I am excused for that. As I explained, the review is of sentencing in domestic homicide cases, but it is a broad review. The terms of reference are still being developed, but it will look at the impact of defences on sentencing, and, while I appreciate that that is not as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, would like me to go, I hope that it is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government take this matter and, in particular, the review of sentencing.
I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. We respectfully disagree that there is a read-over to either the householder or the trafficking issue. As to the latter, I have made clear on previous occasions that we have concerns with the way that that defence is used in practice. Indeed, if I remember correctly, one of Her Majesty’s judges recently explained that in a case that he was hearing in, I think, Bradford—I may be misremembering that. As such, there is an issue as to how that trafficking offence is applied in practice.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, I am well aware that there is a substantial proportion of women in prison who have themselves been victims of domestic abuse—that is of course why a review of sentencing is so important. Without being trite, they are in prison because they were given a prison sentence; therefore, a focus on sentencing in the review is entirely appropriate.
I do not know whether there is anything I can do to help the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her apparent dichotomy between lawyers on the one hand and common sense on the other. The point I was making about the majority in the other place was actually that it was not the standard government majority, so to speak: it was a significant majority—with the greatest respect, that is something that this House ought to bear in mind. However, my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge did perhaps solve an age-old conundrum about a justification for the existence of lawyers, particularly in Parliament. He even came close to giving an explanation for their possible utility, so I am grateful to him for that.
My noble friend was also right when he said that people should not go to prison if they have been convicted of a crime that they were forced to commit—“forced” is a critical word, and that is where you get into the defence of duress. However, as I said, it is not only the question of the defence of duress: if there is a conviction, the nature of the force—if it does not amount to a defence—would still be relevant to sentencing and to mitigation.
As such, I hope that I have set out the reasons why the Government disagree. I hope that I have also responded to the particular point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on the scope of the review. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, will indeed not press her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I beg your pardon; I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wishes to speak.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
As I explained, the review’s terms of reference are being set out. The date will depend on how broad the review is, which will obviously affect the date by which it reports. Certainly, as soon as there is a date fixed or anticipated, I can perhaps write to the noble Baroness to inform her of it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am of course disappointed that there has not been any movement—because the suggestion of there being a review in relation to the defences was posited last week, and I had hoped that, in the interim, we might have heard that some movement had taken place behind the scenes. Given that the terms of reference have not been finalised, I will write to the Lord Chancellor and seek to persuade him that the terms of reference might extend to a look at the defences as well as the sentencing in homicide cases where there is a background of domestic violence or abuse.
As I indicated, I will not press this Motion. I beg leave to withdraw it, but I ask that the good offices of the Lord Chancellor’s Department might be open to some reconsideration.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, I beg to move Motion E—that this House does not insist on its Amendment 40. Noble Lords will recall that this amendment seeks to establish a firewall so that the personal data of victims of domestic abuse that are given or used for the purposes of their seeking or receiving support are not used for immigration control purposes.
While we appreciate the case that noble Lords have made throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government remain of the view that what is provided for in Amendment 40 would actually be detrimental to the safeguarding of victims of domestic abuse—and that it is premature, given the process set out by the policing inspectorate, following its report in December on the super-complaint made by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters. This view was shared in another place, where your Lordships’ amendment was disagreed by a majority of 80.
None the less, the Government have of course reflected carefully on our earlier debates on this issue. We want to ensure that all victims of crime are able to come forward to report such crimes to the police, regardless of their immigration status, and that they are not deterred from doing so because of concerns that immigration enforcement action may be taken against them. As I have previously made clear, our overriding priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. Guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which was updated last year, makes clear that victims of domestic abuse should be treated as victims first and foremost.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council remains clear in its view that information-sharing between the police and Immigration Enforcement is in the interest of the victim. Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe, the national policing lead on domestic abuse, concurred with this view when she gave oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place.
There can be many benefits to sharing information, as it can establish whether a victim has a status of which they are unaware. It can also help to prevent perpetrators of abuse from coercing or controlling their victims because of their insecure immigration status. In cases like these, bringing the victim into the immigration system and providing them with a clearer understanding of their status can only help them, enabling them to obtain appropriate legal advice to regularise their stay if necessary.
I hope that noble Lords will also appreciate that the Government are duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system, to protect our public services and safeguard the most vulnerable people from exploitation due to their immigration status. The public rightly expect that everyone in this country should be subject to our laws. It is right that, when people with an irregular immigration status are identified, they should be supported to come under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. Immigration Enforcement staff routinely help migrant victims of crime by directing them to legal advice to help them regularise their stay.
Since April 2020, Immigration Enforcement has improved its data collection and has recorded crime type on all victim referrals from the police. Between April and December last year, 128 victims of domestic abuse were referred to Immigration Enforcement. Of those 128, 75—just under 60%—already had legal status in the UK, of which some of them may have been unaware. Only 32 of these referrals—25% of them—had enforcement action taken in the form of the serving of papers to notify them of their immigration status. This was often days after the initial referral and once the individual had been safeguarded by police officers. Records show that none of the individuals has been detained and none has been removed from the United Kingdom. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these findings demonstrate some of the misconceptions which have arisen regarding the actions that Immigration Enforcement takes with migrant victims of abuse.
We understand the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about migrant victims who do not feel safe reporting their abusers to the authorities for fear of enforcement action being taken. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the time she made yesterday to discuss this, and her amendments, with me. As part of our review, we will engage with domestic abuse sector organisations better to understand those concerns and assess what more we can do to allay such fears. We are also engaging closely with the domestic abuse commissioner’s office throughout the review.
The amendment would also have wider-reaching impacts on domestic abuse victims receiving the NHS treatment they are entitled to. The NHS can seek information from the Home Office about a person’s immigration status to inform its assessment of their eligibility for free treatment. Data sharing of this kind may help some victims of domestic abuse to establish their eligibility for free NHS treatment when seeking treatment not covered already covered by the exemption for medical conditions caused by domestic violence.
Finally, and perhaps most pertinently, as the Commons set out in their reason for disagreeing with your Lordships, this amendment is pre-empting the super-complaint process. The outcome of the super-complaint was published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services in December last year and made eight recommendations. It is only right that we properly take account of the recommendations in this report, not least as this is the first ever super-complaint made under the provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which were supported on all sides of your Lordships’ House.
In response to the report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, we have committed to review the current arrangements. We remain on track to publish the outcome of that review by the end of June, as I previously set out. To legislate now would pre-empt the outcome of that review. Moreover, it is highly probable that the outcome of the review can be implemented through further updates to the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance or other non-legislative means. If legislation is needed, there will be other opportunities, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has already been introduced to Parliament.
I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and indeed the whole of your Lordships’ House, to support Motion E so that we can complete the review in line with the inspectorate’s findings and recommendations. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Baroness Meacher
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 40B and 40C in lieu of Amendment 40—
“Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes
(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse is not used for any immigration control purpose.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of a witness to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of that abuse, or to assist the victim of that abuse in any legal proceedings, is not used for any immigration control purpose.
(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) or (2) applies.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to—
(a) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom;
(b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and
(c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“immigration control purpose” means any purpose of the functions to which subsection (4)(b) and (c) refers;
“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services; and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;
“victim” includes any dependent of a person, at whom the domestic abuse is directed, where that dependent is affected by that abuse.”
“(7A) Regulations under this section bringing section (Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes) into force may not be made until both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution to the effect that it should be brought into force, moved either after debate in that House of any publication of the outcome of a review by the Secretary of State of existing data-sharing procedures in relation to victims of domestic abuse for purposes of immigration control, or after 1 July 2021, whichever is the sooner.””
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to move Amendments 40B and 40C, which need to be taken together. Again, I thank supporters across the House, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, for their support and I thank the Minister for our very helpful meeting yesterday. I was very grateful for a very open discussion about the issues.
The purpose of our original Amendment 40 was to protect victims of domestic abuse whose migration status is uncertain. About half of these victims are too afraid to report the crimes committed against them. Their perpetrators threaten that the victim will be detained or deported if they report the abuse. Irrespective of what their immigration status is, it is a very useful threat for perpetrators to use. The victims have good reason to be afraid because, at present, if the victim reports a crime of domestic abuse to the police, there is every reason the police may pass that information along to the immigration authorities. This is at a moment of crisis for the victim, when they have quite likely been made homeless, they may have been thrown out of their home and are completely vulnerable. The idea that the immigration authorities begin to look for them at that point is utterly inappropriate.
To make clear what we were trying to achieve: our amendment was intended to prevent information about the victim, or any witnesses, being passed from the police to the immigration services. I understand the reasons for the Commons’ rejection of the amendment. They argue that the Government have committed to the review that the Minister has referred to about the processing of migrant victims’ personal data for the purposes of immigration control and that the amendment would pre-empt the outcome of that review. I totally understand that.
Incidentally, the Minister referred to the need for information to be passed to the NHS. We agree with that and we are not talking about blocking the sharing of information with the NHS; we are simply talking about the police passing information to the immigration services, which is a completely different issue.
Our compromise amendment fully respects the Government’s position and takes account of it. The only reason given by the Commons for rejecting the amendment was the fact that the review is ongoing. Amendment 40C, linked with Amendment 40B, makes clear that regulations under this section will not come into force
“until both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution to the effect … after … any publication of the outcome of a review … or after 1 July 2021, whichever is the sooner.”
As the Minister has explained, it is expected that the review will be published in June. Therefore, the review will need to be completed, and it will need resolutions from both Houses before these protections could be introduced. So we are allowing time for the review to be completed and also putting quite an onerous block in the way of this reform by saying “we need a resolution from both Houses.”
The Minister referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance, but I am told that the guidance is implemented very unevenly across the country. If we simply enhance the guidance, that is no guarantee that these victims of domestic abuse will be protected. It simply is not sufficient or strong enough.
The Minister explained to me that, if protection of domestic abuse victims is needed, there may be a Bill in the next Session. However, these things are very uncertain, and all we are doing is leaving open the option of resolutions of both Houses. If there is an alternative Bill, then clearly this matter could be picked up in that Bill. The Government rightly said that the original amendment was not acceptable because it pre-empted the review, so we have taken that on board fully.
One of the issues is that the review will need to illustrate that there is a problem with these victims of domestic abuse having such fear that they do not report the crimes committed against them. I worry that the review sounds as though it will be focusing on the positive experiences of some domestic abuse victims whose immigration status is settled or quite straight- forward.
In our meeting the Minister referred, as he did today, to the 128 domestic abuse victims who are in touch with immigration officials. About 60% of them have settled status and the remaining 30%-plus have not been detained or deported. This is welcome information, but we have no idea whether those 128 represent 1% or 10% of these migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse. It would be extremely helpful if the review tried to identify this cohort of about half of domestic abuse victims who have an immigration status issue to find out exactly what is happening to them. I ask the Minister to make sure that the review adequately covers that half of the cohort about which we are talking.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for sponsoring this amendment, my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and everyone who has faithfully backed the inclusion of migrant women in this Bill. As we already know, the Government voted against the amendment, which would have improved access to justice for migrant women. The Commons outcome does not secure any long-term legislative protection for migrant women. That is a shame.
We have seen some great breakthroughs in this Bill, some of which I have had the honour of co-sponsoring and which the Government have warmly supported, but their response on migrant women is quite glaring. Stuart McDonald of the SNP said it best when he asked:
“what is more important, protecting and supporting victims, or protecting Home Office powers over migration?”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 533.]
The Commons vote on 16 April has given us the answer.
The #MeToo movement caught on in waves in 2017 because many people across countries, societies and cultures could say that they too had experienced some form of sexual violence. We cannot in all good faith leave the outcome for migrant women to a principle that undoes the very aspiration of this Bill, which was to be ground-breaking.
We have heard women campaigners speak loudly about how abusers can turn to using a woman’s insecure immigration status as a tool to deter them from reporting abuse and to oppress them with the fear of deportation. Women’s rights campaigners have said that the Government’s policy is creating an enabling environment for abuse against women. We know that, because reports have shown that some 92% of migrant women have reported threats of deportation from their perpetrator. While I understand that the Government’s response to data sharing is still under review and that the outcome will be published in June, if we do not accept these amendments we miss the opportunity to enshrine in legislation protection for migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse.
It is my faith that has driven me to speak today. It is my faith that drives me to stand alongside the marginalised and to ensure that we design together spaces in which they can flourish. The original precedent for this Bill, which set out to treat victims as victims first and foremost, is what drew me to it. Will the Government believe migrant women? Will they partner with them so that they can be safer? Will they hear what the campaigners have been saying and write into law safety for migrant women, or will they wait to hear other choruses of women’s voices saying, “Me too”? We must ensure safe reporting for migrant women who experience domestic abuse so that they can be assured that, if they approach the police, they will be treated as victims first and foremost and given the right form of support to protect them from abuse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. It seems perfectly sensible that we should all wait until the report has come out. What worries me is what appears to be a lack of understanding by the Government. It is perfectly obvious that if a victim thinks that she—particularly she, but sometimes he—will be subject to immigration control, she is not going to come forward and say that she has been abused. It is an obvious way for a victim to be kept under the control of the abuser. I worry that, in looking at this, the Government have not taken into account the obvious dangers to a victim of the use of their data by immigration control.
I am also concerned about the DDVC. A number of victims of domestic abuse do not manage to come within its rules and are therefore in danger of being deported despite being sufferers from domestic abuse.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak at this point? No? I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Commons reason for disagreeing with Lords Amendment 40 relies on a government review of a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. In light of the two recent reports by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary on the policing of protests, I now have serious concerns about HMIC’s political independence. As a result, any Commons disagreement based on a government review of immigration control, let alone one based on an HMIC report, provides me with no reassurance whatever.
Motion E1 would ensure that the personal details of victims and witnesses of domestic abuse were not used for immigration control purposes. Victims of rape or sexual assault, as well as victims of domestic abuse, who have gone to the police have been deported as a result of coming forward as vulnerable victims of serious crime. Perpetrators of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence threaten victims that, if they go to the police, they will be deported.
Can the Government help with what I understand to be their position on how the sharing of information between police and immigration enforcement can benefit victims of domestic abuse? Is it their position that were a victim to be subject to coercive control on the basis of their immigration status, sharing information with immigration enforcement could establish that the victim’s immigration status was in fact compliant, removing the mechanism of coercive control? If that is the Government’s argument, how is that sharing of personal information without consent compliant with GDPR? It is outside the exemption provided by paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018, which provides an exemption only for the maintenance of effective immigration control, or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control.
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has just said, it matters not what a victim’s immigration status is, if the victim fears that the consequences of reporting a crime of which they are the victim or witness might be their deportation. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said, there is one other question for the Government: what is more important, ending violence against women, girls and other vulnerable victims of serious crime, or immigration control? If the Government oppose Motion E1, they are sending a very clear message that they care more about immigration control than protecting vulnerable victims of crime. We on these Benches will always put ending violence against women, girls and other vulnerable victims first, by voting with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, if she divides the House. The noble Baroness has taken full account of the concerns of the other place and there appears to us to be no reason not to support her alternative amendments.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, divides the House then the Opposition Benches will strongly support her. This amendment would provide for the circumstances where victims’ data cannot be shared for immigration purposes if they come forward to report abuse. However, and importantly, it provides that, for this section to come into force, there must be a vote in both Houses to approve it, after either the Government have published their review and Parliament has debated it, or after 1 July if the Government have regrettably not lived up to their word and published their review by then. This amendment rightly and democratically gives Parliament the ability to hold the Government to account on taking action after they publish their review. It is needed to allow victims to feel able to report abuse without fear, so that dangerous perpetrators are reported and stopped.
One of the consequences of putting immigration control above the safety of victims is that perpetrators can commit these crimes with impunity—a risk not only for survivors but for wider communities. Better trust in the police to protect victims of abuse and investigate crime for migrant women will improve responses for all survivors, and indeed the public.
This revised amendment is a thoroughly reasonable backstop. It gives the Government the time they have asked for to publish their review, but it gives Parliament the power, and indeed the responsibility, to hold the Government to account and to demand action on this issue if there is no subsequent implementation. I wholly recommend the amendment to the Minister and to the Government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for setting out the case for her revised amendments and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Amendments 40B and 40C seek, in essence, to make the same provision as her original Amendment 40 but add a mechanism for deferred commencement. I certainly appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness has tried to seek a helpful middle course by adding this deferred commencement and engaging with the reasons given in another place for rejecting Amendment 40. However, I am afraid that we still do not think that her amendments quite solve the problem.
Until we have completed the review which I spoke about, we do not want to prejudge the outcome by writing into law the provisions of Amendment 40. The noble Baroness’s amendment provides for one outcome only, namely a blanket prohibition on the sharing of the personal data of victims of domestic abuse for immigration control purposes. To write this on to the face of the Bill, even with her suggested deferred commencement procedure, would still be prejudicial to what needs to be an open review, without any predetermined outcome. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London spoke of her anxiety about missing the opportunity of doing something in this Bill, but we could be left with a provision which is simply not the right way of addressing the issue noble Lords are concerned about. As I set out earlier, the outcome of the review can, in all likelihood, be given effect through non-statutory means, such as revised NPCC guidance, but we want to complete that review and make a decision once that has been done properly.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I express my sincere and deep thanks to those who have spoken so powerfully and eloquently in support of this amendment—my heartfelt thanks to all of them. I know that those who represent these very vulnerable women will also be extremely grateful.
I also want to thank the Minister for his response, but my greatest disappointment is that he misrepresents our amendment. He talked about a “deferred commencement”. The whole point about this revised, compromised amendment is that it provides very clear provisions which leave it to the Government, first, to complete their review but, secondly, to decide whether they want this to go through both Houses of Parliament. The Government have a huge majority in the Commons and can certainly prevent a resolution going through. This is not a deferred commencement, it is a conditional commencement: conditional on the outcome of the review and on support from the Government, to be perfectly frank about it. It is not exactly a wild amendment at all; it is very, very modest.
I welcome that the review will be talking to the relevant organisations to try to understand the appalling consequences of this sharing of information with the Immigration Service. I hope they get at that information and publish it in the review, because it is there, we know it is—I have heard lots of information about these appalling cases. We depend on the review being thorough—we do not know whether it will be—and on the Government supporting the protections this amendment seeks to provide. On that basis, I want to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 41 and 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 41A and 43A
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall that Amendment 41 sought to provide at least six months of leave to remain and access to public funds to all migrant victims of domestic abuse and provide them with a route to apply for settlement. In so doing, this amendment effectively sought to expand the existing destitution domestic violence concession so that it made provision for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of the wide range of circumstances represented in this group. The underlying objective of Amendment 43 was similar in kind to Amendment 41; that is, to secure equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, as provided for in the Istanbul convention. The Commons disagreed with these amendments on the basis that they gave rise to a charge on public funds.
Given the Commons’ reason, I welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic have come forward with substantially different amendments. I will take the new Amendments 41B and 43B in turn. Amendment 41B, in essence, seeks to lift the no recourse to public funds condition for migrant victims of domestic abuse until the conclusion of the support for migrant victims scheme. The amendment also provides that within two months of the scheme’s conclusion the Secretary of State must consult the domestic abuse commissioner and specialist sector and publish a strategy for the long-term provision for victims who do not have leave or have leave subject to the no recourse to public funds condition.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her careful consideration of debate thus far and acknowledge the effort she has made to separate out the immediate needs of victims from their immigration status in the revised amendment. However, the Government still do not think that this amendment would provide an appropriate way forward. The notion of an automatic waiver of the no recourse to public funds condition raises some concerns. Furthermore, I highlight to noble Lords that, like its predecessor, this revised amendment will inevitably also involve a significant charge on public funds.
Our concerns about Amendment 41B are practical and principled. Perhaps I may deal with the practical difficulties first. The support for migrant victims scheme will commence imminently—by which point, under the terms of this amendment, a process by which to lift the no recourse to public funds condition for migrant victims of domestic abuse would need to be operating. This would carry with it both considerable cost and logistical difficulty. It is not a change that could be delivered in time for the start of the scheme. Even assuming such practical difficulties could be overcome, we have, as I have said, more fundamental concerns about implications of this amendment.
Broadly speaking, successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly-funded benefits and services should normally reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK. We think that such access should become available to migrants only when they have settled here. These restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy, operated, as I have said, by successive Governments, and they are applicable to all migrants until they qualify for indefinite leave to remain. The policy is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK but does not lead to excessive demands on the UK’s finite resources, and that public funds are protected for permanent residents of the UK. Automatically waiving the no recourse to public funds conditions for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their diverse financial circumstances and needs, would not seem to be an appropriate course of action.
What is more, to provide access to public funds one must also necessarily confer leave. The two cannot be disaggregated in the manner suggested by the amendment. It is for this reason that we have launched the support for migrant victims scheme, which can provide support for migrant victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds. We think the support that will be available through the scheme will, in practice, ensure that the majority of migrant victims without recourse to public funds will receive the support they need directly from the support organisation, without the need to access those funds.
As I have pointed out during earlier debates on the Bill, we still need more information and evidence to inform longer-term policy decisions and to ensure that funding is appropriately targeted to meet the needs of migrant victims. I am therefore very happy to inform the House that we have now awarded the funding for the £1.5 million support for migrant victims scheme to Southall Black Sisters. We will work together with Southall Black Sisters and an independent external evaluator to ensure that this scheme provides protection and support for migrant victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds, as well as supplying the evidence that we need to inform subsequent policy.
The scheme is designed to provide support to those individuals who fall through the gaps of other support mechanisms, such as the destitution domestic violence concession. It provides a safety net of support through provision of accommodation in a refuge or other relevant safe accommodation. Also, the scheme can offer wraparound provision, including emotional support and more practical support such as immigration advice to aid victims in their recovery and in navigating the options available to them to move on from that support. In that sense, it already goes further than the rather blunt mechanism of simply granting access to public funds; the support that it provides can be tailored to the needs of individual victims.
Amendment 43B was put forward by my noble friend Lady Helic. I assure her that the Government remain committed to ratifying the Istanbul convention as soon as practicable, and the swift enactment of this Bill will be a significant milestone in enabling that to happen. I welcome how her revised amendment now focuses on the provision of accommodation-based support under Part 4, but I contend that it is not needed because the duty on tier 1 local authorities operates in respect of all victims of domestic abuse and their children in need of accommodation-based support in their area. We will make clear through the statutory guidance under Part 4 that local authorities and local partnership boards will be required to take steps to understand the additional barriers that may prevent victims with protected characteristics accessing support in safe accommodation services. Local strategies will also need to set out clearly how tier 1 authorities, working with and through the board, will address the barriers identified.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are to be commended for championing the cause of migrant victims. We all broadly want to achieve the same outcome, albeit that we have different views on how best to achieve it. I hope that in the light of the votes in the elected House and the reasons that it has given for disagreeing with these amendments they and all noble Lords will be content to agree Motion F. As I have indicated, the support for migrant victims scheme will soon be up and running. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and others will be as keen as me to see the outcome of the scheme and will, quite properly, continue to press the Government to act on its conclusions. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 41B in lieu of Amendment 41—
“Recourse to public funds for duration of pilot scheme
(1) For the duration of the pilot Support for Migrant Victims Scheme announced by the Government on 14 April 2021, the Secretary of State must make provision that a person who—
(a) is a victim of domestic abuse; and
(b) provides evidence in one or more of the forms in subsection (3); shall not be subject to restrictions on recourse to public funds, due to their immigration status, provided for in the provisions listed in subsection (2).
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) section (3)(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(c) Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(d) section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014.
(3) For the purposes of this section, evidence that a person is a victim of domestic abuse may consist of one or more of the following—
(a) a relevant conviction, police caution or protection notice;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, domestic abuse protection order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic abuse;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic abuse;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic abuse;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she is satisfied on the basis of an examination that a person had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic abuse;
(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to a person in respect of allegations of domestic abuse;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic abuse support organisation; or
(k) other evidence of domestic abuse, including from a counsellor, midwife, school, witness or the victim.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 2 months of the completion of the pilot Support for Migrant Victims Scheme announced by the Government on 14 April 2021—
(a) consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and specialist organisations that work with victims of abuse on the impact of this section on victims;
(b) publish a strategy for the long-term provision of support for victims of domestic abuse who do not have leave to remain or have leave to remain subject to a condition under section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971.””
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I will listen carefully to what the Government say in response but, as things stand, I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I draw attention to my interests as stated in the register. I thank the Minister for her work and thank the team of Ministers who have remained so committed to this Bill and have listened deeply. I am grateful for all the time that I have been given to discuss this, but I remain hugely frustrated.
I listened very carefully last week as the other place considered the amendments that we made to the Bill. The Government’s solution to this issue, as we have just heard, is the pilot support for migrant victims scheme. This is insufficient. Although the Minister has just spoken warmly of what it will provide, it is for a limited number of people only. It is estimated that the pilot project will not be able to provide the holistic wraparound support needed to aid recovery, even by those women who access it. It is likely that organisations will need to provide extra support, using donations and other funds, to cover services such as counselling and therapeutic support and medical, travel and legal costs. The pilot project will therefore remain an inadequate means to assess needs.
I remain committed, as I know others do, to ensuring that the Bill is as good as it can be for all victims of domestic abuse. Amid all the debate and discussion, I return again and again to the people—the men, women and children—behind the words and policies. No person should be subject to the horrors of domestic violence, coercion and control. The degradation of humanity in this manner is an evil, and we must do all that we can to stamp it out.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I know how hard she and the other noble Lords who have backed amendments on support for migrant victims have been working on this issue. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support on Report. I am also tremendously grateful to End Violence Against Women for its assistance; I would like to take one last opportunity to praise it and organisations such as Southall Black Sisters and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service for the extremely important work they do.
My noble friend the Minister has been generous with her time and has worked tremendously hard on this Bill, and I recognise that the Government have made some very important concessions elsewhere. I am sorry that we have not yet been able to put in better protection and support for the migrant victims who so desperately need it. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment on the statutory guidance just offered.
Of the various amendments relating to migrant victims, the original Amendment 43 passed with the largest majority in your Lordships’ House. I believe that this in part reflects the strength of feeling around the Istanbul convention. Since we last debated this amendment on Report, Turkey has withdrawn from the convention—a serious backward step for millions of women. It is one that makes our own failure, or inability, to ratify almost nine years after we signed all the less excusable. We should be leading the charge for women’s rights around the world, yet we cannot get our own house in order.
Motion F2 is a significant concession. It would not create any additional financial duties. It is much more limited in scope than its predecessor, dealing only with local authority strategies—not with all aspects of support and protection—and making non-discrimination a consideration rather than an absolute requirement. I am glad that my noble friend recognised that this amendment does not pre-empt the pilot project and reviews currently under way but could still improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse. It could make all the difference for them between getting the support that they need to escape to build a new life and remaining trapped, stuck with abusers who use immigration status as one more weapon in their arsenal.
I fear that we will have missed an important opportunity if we do not manage to embed greater protection and support for migrant victims in the Bill. I know that the demands on the Government are many and varied, and that future action, though promised, can easily slip. We have before us legislation and a ready opportunity to improve the lives of desperate, vulnerable victims and give them some protection, support and dignity, and a chance to become something more than victims. The various amendments being proposed—Motion F2, Motion F1 and, earlier, Motion E1—are chances to act. They are more limited in scope and ambition than earlier amendments, but they could still make real improvements to the lives of women and men experiencing abuse. I am sorry that the Government have not embraced them.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to offer us some prospect of progress on the Istanbul convention. She said “as soon as practicable”, but I am afraid that that is still indefinite. A timetable for ratification—a yardstick by which we could monitor and observe progress in the future—would be very welcome. If we cannot legislate, at least we can scrutinise. A firmer commitment to full ratification without any reservations, sooner rather than later, would be a point of light in a world where women’s rights are slipping backwards as often as they are marching forwards.
I do not want to hold up this Bill. I know that timing is tight, and the last thing anyone wants is for it to fail. I am grateful to have taken this issue this far and to have had such resounding cross-party support for both the Istanbul convention and the important issue of non-discrimination—which, I should note, goes much wider than just migrant victims, although they have been my main focus in your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Government will not forget the strong arguments that have been heard across all stages of the Bill. Above all, I hope that they will not forget the powerful testimonies of survivors that have featured. Their voices are our inspiration and courage. I hope that we can give them the support and protection they deserve.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has withdrawn. I have no notification of unlisted speakers, but does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I start by joining other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has been a passionate campaigner on these issues. I was going to say that she had stepped down from the Front Bench, but she has stepped up to bigger and better things in the House, and I personally will miss her greatly.
Lords Amendment 41 would have provided a route for victims of domestic abuse who are subject to immigration control to be given the opportunity to apply for leave to remain—not given leave to remain but given the opportunity to apply—by allowing them to stay in the UK pending the outcome of their application and to be supported financially during this time. Many of these victims are reliant on their abusive partner for support, making escape from domestic abuse almost impossible. Initially, the Government said the reason they objected was that they thought people might falsely claim to be victims of domestic abuse in order to seek leave to remain in the UK. Again, we have to ask: what is more important, protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse or immigration control? The Commons reason is simply
“Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds”.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has presented an alternative amendment, a very modest amendment, that seeks to address all the concerns the Government have previously expressed. There is a £1.5 million 12-month pilot supporting such victims of domestic abuse, and the amendment simply ensures that, during the pilot period, victims are not turned down because of a lack of funds. It then sets a timetable for the introduction of a permanent solution once the results of the pilot have been evaluated. The amendment comprehensively sets out the evidence necessary to show that someone is a genuine victim of domestic abuse. This alternative amendment is the very least the Government should do for these particularly vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and we would support the right reverend Prelate were she to divide the House.
Lords Amendment 43 would have ensured that all victims of domestic abuse received equal protection and support irrespective of their status, including their immigration status. The Commons reason for disagreeing was that it would
“involve a charge on public funds”.
Indeed it might—but it would also have been a significant step towards the UK finally being able to ratify the Istanbul convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has proposed an alternative amendment that would at least ensure that local authorities consider the needs of all victims, including migrant women, when they make strategic decisions about tackling domestic abuse. This cannot be the landmark Bill the Government intend it to be unless it puts the final pieces into place to enable the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention. I recall an expression my mother was fond of: “Don’t spoil the ship for a ha’porth of tar.”
I was hoping that this Bill could be, like the Modern Slavery Act, a magnificent piece of legislation of which all sides of the House could be justifiably proud. We have already vastly improved the Bill in this House; it would be a shame if we now left it less than watertight.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
As we have heard, Lords Amendments 41 and 43 were both disagreed by the Commons because they would involve a charge on public funds. The Commons did not offer any further reason. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, have now tabled Amendments F1 and F2. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, provides that local authorities “must have regard” to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention when they are preparing their strategy for accommodation-based services under the Bill. Article 4(3) of the convention provides that protection for victims must be secured without discrimination based on any ground such as race, religion or migrant status. We support the aim of this amendment, which also serves to remind the Government of their commitment to ratify the vital Istanbul convention, for which they have not yet set a timeframe. Perhaps we will hear something definite on this point in the Government’s response to this amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I start by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who said that this should be a “magnificent” Bill of which we can be rightly proud. Some of the work that noble Lords have done is turning the Bill into a magnificent Bill of which we can be rightly proud, and the Government have gone some way in meeting the concerns of your Lordships’ House. A significant number of amendments from the Government and from noble Lords have been accepted. The Bill is well on its way to being a magnificent Bill and this has been a good debate.
We all agree that all victims of domestic abuse should be treated first and foremost as victims and have access to the support that they need. I welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate’s revised amendment now seeks to draw a distinction between the issue of leave to remain and the provision of support. As I said, her Amendment 41B does not quite achieve that, in that the no recourse to public funds condition is intrinsically bound up with a person’s immigration status. In any event, we continue to believe that the Support for Migrant Victims scheme, together with other existing arrangements such as the destitute domestic violence concession, are the right mechanisms to ensure that victims of domestic abuse who are subject to immigration control get the support they need.
On costs, the revised amendment lifts the no recourse to public funds conditions for the duration of the scheme—that is, for 12 months. Even under the DDVC, leave is granted for three months, so waiving the NRPF condition for a year incurs significant new costs. My noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about progress towards ratifying the Istanbul convention. We are already under a statutory duty to report annually on that progress towards ratification and the next report is due in October.
In conclusion, I welcome this constructive debate and the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend to find alternative legislative solutions. However, Amendment 43B will still result in a significant call on public funds and I suspect will invite the same response from the Commons as Amendment 43. In the context of Part 4 of the Bill, my noble friend’s Amendment 43B is unnecessary, as the duty in Part 4 will operate in respect of all victims of domestic abuse and their children. As I have indicated, we remain firmly of the view that the Support for Migrant Victims scheme is the way forward. It will provide access to safe accommodation for migrant victims who need it and the evidence that we need to take decisions for the long term about how best to support this group of victims. On that basis I invite the House to agree to Motion F.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
I thank the Minister for her words and I thank deeply all noble Lords who have spoken so passionately in this debate and really added extra substance to my arguments. I am left still feeling very frustrated. I hear the Minister talk about the support that is available, but I still feel that what is not being named is all the people for whom the support is not available while this pilot happens.
With all due respect, the Minister has not answered my questions about the inconsistency in the Bill regarding the sharing of intimate sexual images and the Government recognising that there is a case for immediate action there, despite the fact that there is an ongoing Law Commission review—so we already have that situation happening in a different part of the Bill.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for quoting Jess Phillips MP in the other House, who raised that really important question: what happens when the 501st victim comes forward? There will not be anything. There seems to be a lot of fear going on here, and a lot of assumptions. The whole point of this amendment is that it is time limited and not risking the immigration system being exploited, because it will be subject to a review at the end of 12 months.
So I do feel frustrated. I hear what is being said, but I want to seek the opinion of the House because I believe that this amendment would improve what is already a good Bill. This would make it really good. I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 42A, 42B and 42C in lieu.
“Strategy for prosecution and management of offenders
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for—
(a) detecting, investigating and prosecuting offences involving domestic abuse,
(b) assessing and managing the risks posed by individuals who commit offences involving domestic abuse, and
(c) reducing the risk that such individuals commit further offences involving domestic abuse.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may revise it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises the strategy, the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the revised strategy.
(4) In preparing or revising a strategy under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the strategy if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the strategy are insubstantial.”
“( ) section (Strategy for prosecution and management of offenders);”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords know that Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and provide for a new category of offender to be managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, otherwise known as MAPPA. The intention is that such offenders are recorded on ViSOR, the dangerous persons database. The new category would cover perpetrators who had either been convicted on two or more occasions of a relevant domestic abuse-related or stalking offence or who had been convicted of a single such offence and had been assessed as presenting a risk of serious harm. Those features are retained in exactly the same form in Amendment 42D.
The noble Baroness’s original amendment would also place a duty on the Government to issue a report on these changes 12 months after Royal Assent. The amendment specifies that the report would need to include a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers. The noble Baroness’s new Amendment 42D modifies this aspect of her original amendment by incorporating the provisions of government Amendment 42A but with the key difference that Amendment 42D would provide for a strategy to tackle domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators.
Following the decision by this House to agree Amendment 42, we have once again reviewed the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and others in favour of her amendment. I will now outline our thinking and detail the conclusion that we have reached.
It was impossible not to be moved by the many personal accounts that were shared during the course of debates in Committee and on Report. However, I think there has been some misunderstanding of what the amendment would actually achieve, and that is worthy of clarification. An example of this concerns the report that has been circulated, which many noble Lords have raised, that outlines 30 harrowing and extremely distressing cases of women and children who have been murdered or seriously injured by violent perpetrators. Based on the information provided in the report, in many of these examples the perpetrator would already have been eligible for management under the current MAPPA provisions or the proposed amendment would not have made a difference because the perpetrator had not been previously convicted.
What is clear from those examples is that the systems were not always working as they should and victims were let down. Those cases illustrate the need for a changed agency response to perpetrators so that they are brought to justice earlier and agencies work together to reduce the risk that perpetrators will commit future offences that might lead to death or serious injuries of women and children. That is why we have continued to argue that simply providing for a separate MAPPA category covering serial domestic abuse or stalking offenders, as Amendment 42D seeks to do, would not strengthen the way in which MAPPA operates or indeed address the underlying issues.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Leave out from “Amendment 42” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 42A, 42B and 42C and do propose Amendments 42D, 42E and 42F in lieu—
“Identification, monitoring and management of serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 325 (arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—
(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327;” insert ““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;
(b) in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.
(3) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—
“327ZA Section 325: interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator
(1) For the purposes of section 325, a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or subsection (2)(b).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—
(a) P is a relevant serial offender; or
(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.
(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.
(4) In this section—
“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;
“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.”
(4) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) commission a review into the operation of the provisions in this section;
(b) prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for the prosecution and management of domestic abuse and stalking offenders.
(5) A strategy under subsection (4)(b) must include provisions for—
(a) detecting, investigating and prosecuting offences involving domestic abuse or stalking,
(b) assessing and managing the risks posed by individuals who commit offences involving domestic abuse or stalking, and
(c) reducing the risk that such individuals commit further offences involving domestic abuse or stalking.
(6) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may revise it.
(7) If the Secretary of State revises the strategy, the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the revised strategy.
(8) In preparing or revising a strategy under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(9) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the strategy if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the strategy are insubstantial.”
“( ) section (Identification, monitoring and management of serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators);””
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it has rightly been said many times that this is an excellent Bill of which we can be proud. However, in this National Stalking Awareness Week, we have an opportunity to make a further change that would demonstrate that the Government really have listened to the outpouring of anger and grief following the murder of Sarah Everard.
Since 15 March, when your Lordships last considered the Bill, 16 more women have been murdered—most of them as a consequence of domestic abuse, with many of them undoubtedly having suffered coercive control and stalking. If the perpetrators had been proactively identified, assessed and managed by police, prison and probation services, using the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements and the violent and sex offender register—ViSOR—many of these women would still be alive. These victims are not just numbers or even names: they were mothers, sisters and daughters who were loved and whose murder will have torn families apart with pain.
For nearly 20 years, evidence has been provided by Laura Richards, charities, HMIC and others that the current system is not working, and that serious and serial stalkers and domestic abusers are treated with impunity. The Minister is right that more good practice is needed, but we have been told that for the last 10 or 12 years and little has changed. I know that there are many things in train, but women are dying. The answer from government has always been, “The current system is adequate. We acknowledge that there are problems, but it is the practice not the process that is the problem. We will issue more guidance and lessons will be learned”. The lesson that has been learned is that guidance is not enough. Real change will be effected only through statute.
After 15 March, there was a flurry of press coverage and we were told that domestic abusers, stalkers and sex offenders will be registered on a super-database under plans being drawn up by the Government. Some of that press coverage came from briefings. Survivors, the families of victims, charities and hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country were elated, relieved that women were no longer going to live in fear. Their hopes, however, were dashed when the Minister responded in the Commons last week and when the Government whipped against my amendment. Why is the Government so against this simple amendment that would make such a profound difference?
I beg to differ with the Minister. Minister Atkins reiterated that the current system was adequate. All that was needed was the
“strengthening of MAPPA statutory guidance to include sections on domestic abuse.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 522.]
Ministers say that the real issue was not the statutory framework but how it is applied in practice. The statutory framework must be amended, otherwise the relevant authorities will continue, as they have done for 20 years, to ignore patterns of behaviour that end in murder. The Minister said that a new category of MAPPA, as proposed by my amendment, is
“not needed … because these … people can be included in the existing category 3.” —[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 534.]
However, this category has historically been interpreted very narrowly, which means that police, probation and other agencies are not treating repeat perpetrators as high-risk offenders. Yet they are high risk.
The Minister added:
“Creating a new MAPPA category for high-harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators would bring added complexity to the MAPPA framework without compensating benefits.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 522.]
This was an affront in the Commons. We are striving to save women’s lives and the excuse for inaction is “added complexity”. The compensatory benefit would be to include more people in the system who are high-risk and endanger women’s lives. We were informed in a meeting yesterday by an official that it would trigger bureaucratic processes; I take that to mean that it would lead to effective action which they do not wish to take or in which they do not wish invest. Yes, more resources would be required, but women’s lives would be saved and the cost would be far outweighed by the cost of murder inquiries, each of which costs £2 million.
It is no wonder that among the people who felt let down and wept with anger when they heard the Minister last week were 17-year-old Georgia Gabriel-Hooper, whose mum was killed by an ex-partner in front of her; Zoe Dronfield, who was almost murdered by a man who had stalked some 13 other women; John Clough, father of Jane Clough, who was stalked and murdered by a violent ex-partner even though he had a history of abusing other women; and Nick Gazzard, father of Hollie, who was murdered by her stalker, who was involved in 24 previous violent offences. None of the perpetrators were on a high-risk offenders’ register, and the police were not monitoring them. Zoe lives in constant fear, as do many other survivors, especially when those that attacked them leave prison and are not on a register. We know of many survivors and their families who are literally living in hiding—hiding from men who should be on a database so that they can be managed and police can be accountable for the management of their behaviour.
Why are the Government so against including serial domestic abusers and stalking perpetrators on a database? I heard what the Minister said, however, and I am pleased to learn that they recognise that ViSOR is not working and that a new system, the multiagency public protection system, will be introduced. The Minister said that this would include perpetrators of domestic abuse, but she did not mention stalking. Will the new system include perpetrators of stalking? If not, why not? I think we must insist that it does.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly echo all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but am profoundly upset that Ministers seem to have gone backwards since we last debated this matter in the Lords on Report. The Minister referred to the 30 deaths that we reported at that time, but at least 16 further women have been murdered since Report on 15 March—a mere 36 days ago. This is deeply shocking evidence of the current failures.
As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, I was invited to join the independent parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform chaired by Elfyn Llwyd MP. At the start of its report, there is a quotation that is important in the context of Amendment G1 today. Tracey Morgan, a victim and now a supporter of many other victims, said to us then,
“The victims I hear from are saying the same things I was 15 years ago—what’s changed? We need to do more. This is about murder prevention.”
Ten years on, nothing has changed. That is 25 years of Tracey’s experience and hundreds of murders. One key perpetrator recommendation from our stalking inquiry remains outstanding, which is having a register of serial stalking perpetrators. Why are they not mentioned in the Government’s amendment?
The Minister insists that Motion G1 is not needed because the problem is one of better management to make the various parts of the multiagency system work better everywhere. We all know that there are pockets of excellent practice, but the safety of victims and the de-escalation of the behaviour of these dangerous perpetrators should not be a postcode lottery. It should be consistent and should give confidence to victims and all those working with them. It should save lives.
I think we all agree that the current MAPPA arrangements need to improve. In 2017, HMICFRS inspected a number of MAPPA cases; this resulted in its report, Living in Fear. The headlines in that report are deeply shocking, with 100% failure in 112 cases inspected across six police force and CPS areas. Victims were left at risk and let down by under-recording and inconsistent services, with patterns missed and incidents being treated as isolated. Victims said that they wanted the police to understand the bigger picture and to receive specialist-led training. There was often no risk identification, assessment or management of stalkers.
In Committee, I talked about the need for a golden thread to run through all interactions with victims and perpetrators. This is particularly vital for perpetrators because we know that their behaviour escalates and becomes more obsessive and violent as time goes on. Only by getting them into the MAPPA process can we achieve that and ensure that this golden thread provides an oversight of behaviour.
Last week, Channel 4’s excellent documentary “24 Hours in Police Custody” had an episode called “Death Us Do Part”. It focused on the 2019 Bedfordshire Police investigation into a severe attack by a female perpetrator on her male partner. She gave him two bleeds on his brain and a fractured eye socket. We saw the frustration that the excellent police domestic violence team faced. The attack on Paul Jenner came just two days after his partner’s early release from prison after a previous serious attack on him. It was evident that there was no contact with HM Prison and Probation Service. The custody sergeant even commented that they knew her well and that it is as if a switch gets turned on and she cannot stop herself attacking him. The investigating officer was struck that after she was arrested, she was already texting her partner, who became frightened and unwilling to co-operate. The officer and her team finally persuaded him that they could help him, but their efforts were constantly undermined by the coercive control that the perpetrator had over him. Sadly, he died a few days later. Given the number of attacks she had made on him over many years and the increasing severity of those attacks, she was well known to everyone in the system. That is why serious and serial domestic violence perpetrators need to be on the register and why there needs to be a duty for all the multiagency partners to work together. If that had happened, this “never event”—a predictable event that should never have been able to happen but did—could have prevented because that golden thread would have prepared and supported Paul Jenner and his partner on her release from prison.
Stalking Awareness Week started on Monday. Robert Buckland QC—incidentally, he was a member of the stalking law reform inquiry with me a decade ago—made a moving video as Secretary of State for Justice, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that he has been a champion for getting on top of stalking. He said of stalking: “We need to call it out. We need to stamp it out. We need to do all we can to deal with the menace of stalking in our society.” I agree. However, that will never happen until a duty for multiagency response is enshrined in legislation, with a database and register to provide that golden thread to identify and stop stalking and domestic abuse perpetrators and save lives. I beg the Government to reconsider.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am not a fan of acronyms at the best of times, but I feel that this evening does call for one, and it is DVAOA—which, as everybody will know, stands for “déjà vu all over again”. So here we are again.
Last Thursday, in another place, there was a lamentable performance by the Government, I must say. For those who have not watched it, I suggest you take a stiff gin and tonic and then sit back and enjoy it. Particularly if you are of the Government’s persuasion, it is not very nice to watch. To her credit, the noble Baroness the Minister, as one might have expected, has performed immeasurably better, and I am very grateful to her for the opening speech, which I thought contained some very positive elements. Because of that, I will rein in the rant that I was going to deliver and make it a rather smaller rant than I would have delivered otherwise.
Why am I and others on our feet again? Some of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, have said very comprehensively has already covered that, but I was going to wave three exhibits. The first was the report that Robert Buckland, our Justice Minister, undertook about stalking and the recommendations that he made. The second, exhibit B, would be one of a certain Alex Chalk, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, who, in his own stalking review, which he did with a fellow Gloucestershire MP, strangely used exactly the same wording as Robert Buckland’s report, basically saying
“Consideration should be given to the production of a register of serial perpetrators”.
Last but not least, exhibit C is from our Home Secretary herself, Priti Patel, who in 2013 edited a report called Rebalancing the Scales for victims. One of the contributions, which she was responsible for editing, said very clearly that a database should be established comprehensively to cover all perpetrators and stalkers.
On Thursday in another place, the Government effectively admitted that the current system is not working as it should, that the current database is out of date and is not working as it should, and the Minister in the Commons, in a much more pared-down way, indicated some of what the Minister said earlier this evening. But what we are really talking about, and this goes back certainly as far as 2004, is a fundamental failure of management and leadership.
I do not have a background in government or public service; I have a background in business, and where I come from, over all those years, the sort of failure of management and leadership that has been consistent through changes in government, changes in Minister, changes in special adviser, would be regarded as a sacking offence, and certainly as a career-limiting offence. Given the awful, relentless toll of women dying, week in and week out, I think that, in the world I come from, it would also be regarded potentially as corporate manslaughter. Noble Lords know what the penalties are for corporate manslaughter: they are considerable. But because this is a Government, and because we are dealing with statutory agencies, that is not an option—but it really is not far off, and it is shameful. And the death toll relentlessly keeps going up, and will keep going up, whatever fine words we say.
As I said, the Minister has been very helpful. I was going to say that, until the point she spoke, I was much clearer about what the Government did not want to do than about what they do want to do, and I am very grateful that she has given some clear indications about the direction they want to go in. We have had, as I am sure the Minister has, some fairly intensive conversations with the domestic abuse commissioner’s office about how she sees things, going forward. She too knows and admits that the current system is not working, but, naturally, given her role and the nature of her relationship with government, she wants to be positive and to try to make it work. I am very keen to be positive, too, and to try to make this work.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received requests to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. I call first the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who I have had the pleasure of working with on different areas of the Bill. He is very wise.
Let me congratulate the Government on reaching this important moment, as the Bill will soon finally become law. I pay tribute to so many people who have made this happen, in particular my noble friend Lady Williams, who as the Minister has dealt with such sensitive and important issues in a sensitive and caring manner. In fact, she seems to have been surgically attached to the Dispatch Box for months. I will always be grateful to my noble friend for her help and advice on the specific areas that are of concern to me in relation to children and the importance of the provision for community-based services. Let me also pay tribute to Claire Stewart of Barnardo’s for her help and professionalism.
As we have been told, we are in the middle of National Stalking Awareness Week and I was pleased to see the video message from the right honourable Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor, which has been mentioned. He said in that video:
“Our job is to raise awareness of this wicked crime, to increase support for victims”
and address the perpetrators. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, he ended by saying:
“We need to call it out. We need to stamp it out. We need to do all we can to deal with the menace of stalking in our society.”
The Lord Chancellor is right and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, make strong arguments that I will not repeat.
I have had discussions with my noble friend Lady Newlove, who is unable to be in the Chamber. She asked me to convey the following message: “Sadly, the Government voted for Amendment 42 to be quashed out of the Bill. I am ashamed. Why? Because, despite many conversations through the usual channels, MAPPA category 3 will still have so many gaps it resembles a string vest. The response from the Government of proposing more guidance is not worth the paper it is written on. Treating those families whose loved ones have been needlessly taken with lack of respect and dignity—the Government is proposing more guidance—has not worked over the years. What is it going to take in order for Government to stop this pattern of behaviour in order to protect innocent lives taken by the hands of offenders of coercive controlling and stalking? Government rhetoric serves only to shamefully value human life after the horse has bolted and to protect those accountable by these two insensitive words ‘lessons learned’, instead of saying ‘enough is enough’.”
We can all understand my noble friend’s frustration. While it is clear that Nicole Jacobs supports the principle of this amendment, she also understands that ViSOR and MAPPA are overloaded systems. I seek the Minister’s help. We are all on the same side and we all know where we want to reach. As the Lord Chancellor said about stalking, we all want to call it out and we all want to stamp it out.
I noted the welcome announcement in the Minister’s speech about the upgrading of ViSOR and MAPPA. On the one hand we are told that putting stalkers on to a register is problematic but, on the other, we are told that putting them on to a register can save lives. Can the Minister persuade me why I should not vote for this amendment?
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I understand the strength of feeling on this issue. I completely agree on the need to do more to stop serial offenders. Too often in the worst cases we discover that the perpetrator has had a long and shocking history of previous abuse. I am not clear about how a register or, effectively, a new category under MAPPA would improve the situation.
Members in this House and in the other place have said that new guidance is not enough to deal with the problem. I can understand why there might be some scepticism on that front. The truth is that this comes down to better guidance, proper training and more effective information sharing about the worst offenders.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have heard distressing details of what some of those offenders have done. But the fact remains that the vast majority were already covered by current MAPPA categories. Merely shifting their names into a new category or on to a new register will not change matters. If anything, it could make the situation even more difficult, for this is not straightforward. Working through the finer details of this so-called super-database as to exactly who will be on it and for how long they will remain there will take time, which we have all agreed we do not have. How do we avoid ending up with something so unwieldy that it inhibits the process of tracking and managing these people?
While I understand why a new category or database might seem appealing, I genuinely believe that in practice it will not deliver what we want. Surely it is better to focus our energies on improving the system that we have. We all agree that it is not working as it should, but the Government are investing in improvements to the ViSOR database that will enable better risk assessment and information sharing. I really believe that this, together with the new guidance and frameworks which have already been promised, will be more effective in dealing with the very real problem before us.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we have had some immensely knowledgeable, cogent and passionate contributions tonight, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and my noble friend Lady Brinton.
Several noble Lords have referred to National Stalking Awareness Week and, like others, I was greatly heartened to hear the Secretary of State, Robert Buckland, say that he would do what he could to address this issue. He has campaigned for years on stalking so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said: why vote against the amendment considering what would be achieved by it?
There is a well-known saying—I am not the only one who can trot out the old things—which is, “Do what you’ve always done, and you’ll get what you’ve always got.” In 2012, the stalking law inquiry report recommended exactly what this amendment, retabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, would do. Since 2012, the Government have insisted time after time that the implementation of the rules is the issue, not making recording mandatory. Victoria Atkins said last week:
“The real issue … is not the statutory framework but how it is applied”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 522.]
In this case, doing “what you’ve always done” has not even got us to where we used to get, as the harrowing figures given to us have demonstrated. Clearly, from the testimonies of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, my noble friend Lady Brinton and others, what we have now is worse than ever. From a pre-pandemic level of about two women being murdered per week, that number has more than doubled—with 16 since the Report stage of this Bill. You can be sure that all the gradations of fear, pain and misery proportionately cascaded all the way down the line. Why will the Government not be brave enough to do something different with the changes contained in these amendments?
We know that the danger comes with an escalation from minor offences to major ones. Stalkers can be helped, but, without a co-ordinated effort to identify them at an early stage, the real danger they pose may come too late. The Government’s alternative is not strong enough, although I acknowledge they are trying hard to do something with their own amendment and that is greatly appreciated.
We have heard many harrowing testimonies over the course of these amendments. No one in your Lordships’ House wants to have to hear the sickening details of another one—no “DVAOA”, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said—no “déjà vu all over again”. While I welcome the government amendments, including MAPPS as opposed to MAPPA, my party and I are fully behind the amendment put by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. We will support her if she sees fit to push it to a vote.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Government have accepted that a perpetrator strategy should be in the Bill and have brought forward their own amendment. As far as it goes, it is pleasing to see that and I am happy to welcome it—but their amendment completely ignores the key provisions of my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon’s amendment: that there must be concrete plans for the management and monitoring of serial domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers. I am pleased that my noble friend has tabled Motion G1, and these Benches will support her if she decides to divide the House.
My noble friend’s amendment is clear, simple and effective. It would add serial abusers and perpetrators to the existing MAPPA system. My noble friend has made a compelling case today and on previous occasions. I agree that this amendment would provide further protection to victims living in fear and having to hide away. It is outrageous that people have to hide away from abusive partners or ex-partners, at risk of attack, and we must do everything we possibly can to ensure that these perpetrators are effectively managed and controlled. That is what we need to do today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, rather than going over the arguments about why we do not agree with the amendment, perhaps I might stress that we all seek the same ends. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I am at risk of repeating myself.
My noble friend asked, quite logically, why putting offenders on a register was problematic. It is not problematic. So many noble Lords made the point about improving things in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would ask, I am sure—although I do not want to think for him—what we will do now to make things any different from how they were before, and that is a totally reasonable question, particularly in National Stalking Awareness Week. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is right to say that some of the stories we have heard have been absolutely horrific. Noble Lords may recall that I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointing out that these stories were horrendous. Would they have fared any differently with this additional category? I contended that they would not, but said that I felt we could all agree that the current arrangements had to be improved.
I will address what I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell, would ask, which is, “What are we going to do that will make a difference?” The answer is: several things. We will revisit and refresh the statutory guidance to include sections on domestic abuse. It will ensure that all agencies involved take steps to identify domestic abuse perpetrators whose risk requires active multiagency management, and to put in place a plan of action which reflects the risk, no matter what the category. We are legislating in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to clarify the information-sharing powers under MAPPA.
Noble Lords who know me know that I am very supportive of multiagency information sharing, and that Bill puts beyond doubt that the information-sharing powers of those agencies are subject to the duty to co-operate under MAPPA. That is absolutely crucial. It will also explicitly clarify these information-sharing powers for those agencies or individuals who can contribute to the assessment and management of risk: for example, GPs. It will give greater confidence to these agencies when sharing information and will support more effective risk management. So, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in terms of the statutory duty to co-operate with the aims of the DA strategy, the Bill makes provision for statutory guidance that bodies exercising public functions must have regard to offenders convicted of a stalking offence who are managed under level 2 or level 3 of MAPPA having to be on ViSOR. The guidance is not voluntary. That is a very important practical step.
HM Prison and Probation Service will issue a policy framework setting out clear expectations for the management of all cases at MAPPA level 1 by the National Probation Service, including domestic abuse perpetrators. This will further help improve the quality of information sharing, the consistency and regularity of reviews and the identification of cases where additional risk-management activity is required.
We will decommission ViSOR, which is now almost 20 years old, and bring in the new MAPP system, which will be piloted from next year. As I have said, we will also bring forward a new statutory domestic abuse perpetrator strategy as part of a holistic domestic abuse strategy, to be published later this year. In terms of resources, I totally concur with the noble Baroness. We are investing in new resources, with an additional £25 million committed this year, but she is absolutely right that we need ongoing certainty in funding, and I give a personal guarantee to her that both Victoria Atkins and I will be lobbying the Chancellor as we head towards the next SR period—because she is right; we absolutely need sustainable funding.
We do want to be held to account on our commitment to do more. I started trying to deal with the perennial problem of getting huge improvements in our response to domestic abuse when I was at MHCLG, and I continue to do so through this Bill. We brought forward Amendments 42A to 42C, which the Commons have agreed, and I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has incorporated Amendment 42D into her amendment. I hope that I have outlined the tangible action that we are taking and that the House will support our Motion and reject the noble Baroness’s. However, in rejecting it we are not, ultimately, on a different page in what we are seeking to achieve.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister, who has outlined many tangible actions. We all agree that the current system is not working, and many of the actions which she outlined are indeed going to improve things. I am delighted by her announcement that ViSOR does not work and is therefore going to be replaced; that is great. As she mentioned earlier, the perpetrators of domestic abuse are going to be part of the new data system, but I do not think that she said that the perpetrators of stalking are going to be included on that register. I feel extremely passionate about that because stalking and domestic abuse are inextricably linked. There is a pattern of behaviour: one thing leads to another and, ultimately, women are murdered. I therefore think it extremely important that the perpetrators of domestic abuse and of stalking be dealt with in the same way.
The noble Baroness mentioned many things about the perpetrator strategy, and I will have to look carefully at what she said. As I understand it, there are going to be two distinct strategies, one for stalkers and the one covered by Amendment 42. There, again, I do not understand why there would be two strategies when the perpetrators of both offences need to be dealt with in the same way. If I am wrong, and there are not going to be two strategies, please tell me. But as it is, I find the solution to some of these problems quite confusing and frustrating.
I think—I know—we are all willing the same end. I do not yet agree with the means by which we are getting to that end, but I am confident we can agree in due course. There are more conversations to be had, and I would like more conversations following this evening and before we get to the next stage of this Bill, which I very much want to reach the statute book, and of course it will. Because I still have questions and there are things I wish to insist on, I am going to test the opinion of the House. But with that, I thank the Minister very much. I look forward to our conversations, and I am sure we will find a way through in the coming days.