House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
We are providing support for the delivery of renewable energy projects within rural communities in England through the £10 million rural community energy fund programme.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that the production of electricity locally could help a great deal towards our net zero target? Will he also look at the situation in my constituency of Tewkesbury, where two rivers, the Avon and the Severn, join? The Severn would, I think, be particularly useful in producing electricity if we could get the schemes in place. Will he look at that and perhaps explore the possibilities?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend correctly observes that there are two major rivers in Tewkesbury, the Avon and the Severn—very beautiful rivers, I might add. As far as hydroelectric power on rivers is concerned, we would have to look at the hydraulics and the power that can be generated, but we clearly appreciate that there is potential there, and we want to explore any ideas that can bring those projects to fruition. Having said that, there is a limit to the capacity that such rivers can generate, unfortunately.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Just last week, the Secretary of State accepted that the inexcusable costs facing Scottish renewables projects trying to access the electricity grid had been an issue for a long time, notwithstanding the 11 years that his party has been in government. The Government continue to blame Ofgem while at the same time refusing to accept that they are the ones who set Ofgem’s strategy and policy statement. On that point, can the Secretary of State outline when the consultation detailed in his energy White Paper will begin, when it will end and when we will see real change—or are UK Energy Ministers simply among the worst idlers in the world?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a pointed and unfair observation at the end of his remarks, which I think is beneath his dignity. I know that he is referring to “Britannia Unchained”, a classic work published 10 years ago, but 10 years is a very long time and I do not want to revisit those battles. I will say what I have said to him before: this is an issue for Ofgem and we are discussing how to seek to make progress on that important subject.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
We have made a commitment to level up all areas of the country. The plan for growth is a critical part of that, and we will go further with the publication of a levelling-up White Paper, led ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), later this year.
Jason McCartney
I fully welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution as we build back greener. Green eco-businesses in my Colne Valley constituency are ready to play their part, so can I please suggest to the Secretary of State that if the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or any other Government Department is looking to relocate to the north, towns such as Slaithwaite and Marsden, with their mills and their direct rail links to the likes of Manchester and Leeds on the trans-Pennine line, would be ideal locations?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we are looking at many ideal locations at the moment. I was pleased to make an announcement last week about Darlington; that is a really good move for the Department. We are always looking at ways to create more employment and recruit really great talent for our Department across the country, and I am sure that his constituency will also—perhaps—be among those considered for such expansion.
Tom Hunt
My constituents are very proud of the north of England and the midlands, even though we are in East Anglia, but they want a firm commitment from the Government—it cannot be stressed enough—that the levelling-up agenda also covers Ipswich. Of course, we have the £25 million from the town deal, which goes some way to assuaging these concerns. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the skills improvement plan pilot bid from Norfolk and Suffolk could be a fantastic example to prove to the people of Ipswich that we are in fact at the heart of the levelling-up agenda? Will he engage in discussions with the Department for Education about the possibility of that pilot scheme, which would also feed the new freeport east in Felixstowe, which already employs 6,000 of my constituents but could employ many more?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is quite right. He was good enough to mention the fact that Ipswich has indeed been selected for a £25 million town deal, and he suggested that that was as a matter of course, but I think it is due to his keen advocacy and his eloquent and persuasive powers that the Government can provide help in that way. Clearly, skills are at the core of any levelling-up agenda, and I know that there are great ideas in Ipswich and great things being promoted in East Anglia. I look forward to engaging with him on that.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Department engaged with ACAS to hold discussions in order to generate evidence about the use of fire and rehire. ACAS officials have shared their findings with BEIS officials. It is right and proper that we give this evidence full consideration, and we will communicate our next steps in due course.
Judith Cummins
Mr Speaker, I am sure you will join me in welcoming the return of the Bradford Bulls to their iconic home of Odsal Stadium in Bradford.
A recent Survation poll found that 76% of those asked said that they think fire and rehire should be against the law. The Prime Minister has said that fire and rehire is “unacceptable”. The time to act is now. With no mention of it in the Queen’s Speech, when will the Minister legislate to make this practice illegal?
Paul Scully
I congratulate the Bradford Bulls on their return.
We have always been clear that using the threats of fire and rehire as a tactic to put undue pressure on workers during negotiations is completely unacceptable, but we need to tread carefully when considering Government intervention in commercial contractual matters between employers and employees. That is why we are now carefully considering, with the evidence, our next steps.
Grahame Morris
May I first congratulate members of my union, Unite, at Go North West buses in Manchester who, after an incredible 85 days of continuous strike action, have now won a landmark victory against appalling fire and rehire abuses? My question to the Minister is straightforward: does he condemn rogue bosses such as Go North West or coffee producers Jacobs Douwe Egberts, which, despite record profits during lockdown, has provoked strike action by firing and rehiring more than 300 loyal staff on worse pay and conditions? Will the Minister wake up, smell the coffee and agree that this disgraceful behaviour leaves a bitter taste in the mouth?
Paul Scully
I see what the hon. Gentleman has done there. His coffee-based puns belie the fact that this is an incredibly serious situation. As I was saying, if those companies or any others are using such a practice for bully-boy tactics, that is completely unacceptable. We need to look at the evidence before we intervene on the flexibility of the workforce, but clearly we do not want bully-boy tactics to be used for negotiations.
James Murray
Thousands of workers at British Airways and Heathrow, including many of my constituents, have been at the sharp end of fire and rehire tactics during the covid outbreak. Across the country, one in 10 workers have been subject to such tactics since last March—that is almost 3 million people who have been forced to accept lower wages and longer hours or be sacked. How many more millions of workers will the Minister allow to be fired and rehired before the Government decide to outlaw the practice?
Paul Scully
There is a distinct difference if the practice is used as a negotiation tactic: as I have said, if it is being used as a bully-boy tactic, that is completely unacceptable. However, there is an element of flexibility in our labour market, which we need to base on evidence. That is what the ACAS report is there to do. We are considering the evidence, and I am looking forward to coming back to this place to outline our actions in due course.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
Fire and rehire is illegal in countries such as Germany and Spain. In 2019, the Government promised an employment Bill to make Britain the best place in the world to work, which could have outlawed the practice, but the Bill has been ditched. Given that the Government have looked the other way as fire and rehire has become endemic, can the Minister seriously claim to be committed to making Britain the best place in the world to work?
Paul Scully
There is a huge difference between our employment law and that of Germany and Spain, in so much as theirs is very much more rigid—it lacks flexibility and that is reflected in the job figures and the job growth we have had in this country. The Government remain committed to bringing forward the employment Bill, where parliamentary time allows. We want to protect and enhance workers’ rights as we build back better from the pandemic.
Stephen Kinnock [V]
Fire and rehire has been used against supermarket staff who worked through lockdown to keep our country running, and the practice has now spread into schools, with teachers being threatened with the sack unless they agree to worse terms and conditions. Does the Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable that our key workers, who have sacrificed the most in our national effort against covid, are the very people now being threatened by these bully-boy fire and rehire tactics?
Paul Scully
I have said repeatedly that bully-boy tactics are absolutely unacceptable, but if it is a matter of a choice over protecting jobs in the first place, that is the flexibility that we need to check, based on the evidence, and ACAS has gone a long way to providing that evidence.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Why is it that fire and rehire has spread like wildfire across our country? Trade unions are shackled to prevent them from defending their members; employers have free rein to terminate workers’ contracts; and protections for workers are woefully weak. Opposition Members know how to outlaw fire and rehire, and I am more than happy to meet the Minister and show him how, but is not the truth that this Government are content with millions of workers being bullied into accepting low wages and worse terms and conditions or facing the sack, because it is in the Tories’ DNA to side with bad employers rather than to protect working people?
Paul Scully
It is in the Tories’ DNA to create jobs and opportunities. After the previous recession, we were creating more jobs than the whole of Europe put together, and we will continue to do so as we build back better after this pandemic. ACAS has provided the evidence for us to consider; we are doing that in due course, and I look forward to coming back to this place. The TUC reported back in January on a survey of its members, but it has not shared its methodology; we cannot use that as substantial evidence unless the TUC shares that with us.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The second point of the 10-point plan was all about hydrogen. The forthcoming hydrogen strategy will set out clearly what we hope to see and are committed to seeing for the hydrogen economy in 2030.
Ian Paisley [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he go a little further and explain how, and commit that the strategy will actually deliver specific jobs in Northern Ireland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he continue to agree to meet me and other parliamentary colleagues to ensure that Northern Ireland gets a fair share of the hydrogen strategy as it is rolled out? As he knows, this is so important to the future economy of Northern Ireland.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will certainly continue to agree to meet the hon. Gentleman at any time. There are very important hydrogen projects in Northern Ireland. I speak to Mr Bamford and others, particularly in relation to Wrightbus, which I understand is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. There is a huge opportunity, and I would be happy to meet him and others to discuss the prospects at any time.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to Parliament the Budget, which sets out an additional £65 billion to support people and businesses. We have hit every road map commitment at every stage so far, and no one can doubt that we are leading in our support to businesses. We have even taken the total cumulative cost of support to £352 billion.
Owen Thompson
ExcludedUK is set to reach its first birthday soon, which must be a bittersweet moment for many of my constituents. It is frankly a disgrace that the campaign has had to continue in the face of the Government rejecting the calls to support the 3 million who have been ignored and denied covid support. Does the Minister not agree that the self-employed and others denied support now deserve to have funds backdated so that they can rescue their livelihoods and contribute to the economic recovery, rather than simply adding to online dole queues?
Amanda Solloway
Throughout the covid-19 pandemic the Government have supported people and businesses across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Budget extends the UK job retention and self-employment income support schemes and the VAT cut to support the tourism, leisure and hospitality sectors. To date, businesses in Midlothian have benefited from more than 1,500 loans and £56 million, with more than 16,000 jobs supported through furlough.
Dean Russell [V]
I recently introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on making mental health, or psychological, first aid a legislative requirement for workplace first aid, going beyond its recent positive inclusion in Health and Safety Executive guidelines. Will my hon. Friend please meet me to explore my proposals, which make a very small change to make a very big difference?
Amanda Solloway
I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about mental health and this campaign. I myself am dedicated to supporting campaigning and advocating for mental health, and I care passionately about mental health in the workplace. Indeed, we are working on a people and culture strategy for research and development. We will ensure that my hon. Friend has the opportunity to discuss the matter further with relevant Ministers.
Steven Bonnar
The Chancellor has announced that the job retention scheme must end in September, yet thousands of workers in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill remain on furlough, with their industries required still to close. While the vaccine roll-out gives us real optimism, the world remains firmly in the grip of this pandemic. It is unacceptable to leave workers and businesses with only four months before they face this cliff edge and are cut off from this vital lifeline. Other European nations, such as Germany, have already committed to continue with their equivalent scheme until 2022. With that in mind, will the Minister join me in imploring the Chancellor to do the right thing for workers and businesses in my constituency and across the UK by extending the retention scheme for as long as it is required?
Amanda Solloway
The Government have provided unprecedented support to business sectors throughout the pandemic, including the hospitality and retail sectors. In addition to the job retention scheme and cuts to business rates and VAT, we have provided one-off restart grants of up to £18,000, which are available to businesses in the non-essential retail, hospitality, leisure and personal sectors to support them to reopen as restrictions are relaxed. To date, businesses in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill have benefited from more than 1,500 loans and £59 million, with 70,800 jobs supported through furlough.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
This week marks English Tourism Week, but the UK’s tourist destinations have been hit hard, with a much higher than average increase in people who are now out of work, including in places such as Scarborough and Whitby. Many tourism businesses, such as hotels and cafés, have taken on debt to stay afloat, and one in five hospitality businesses now says that it is at moderate risk of insolvency. Yet the Government’s pay as you grow scheme does nothing to solve the underlying long-term issue of business debt, which means that businesses will have to repay whether or not they are making a profit. Does the Minister agree that, if we want to give businesses the time to build up their trade and resilience, and also protect jobs and not let debt stifle the recovery, we need a genuinely flexible repayment scheme such as the one Labour has called for.
Amanda Solloway
We care passionately about businesses in this Government, and our support package includes the job retention scheme, generous grants and cuts to business rates. Pay as you grow measures will allow 1.5 million bounce back loan borrowers to extend payment terms and to benefit from a further repayment holiday. Our plans to support economic recovery and pursue growth through significant investment in infrastructure skills and innovation will help us to build back better and level up across the United Kingdom.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government are committed to protecting and enhancing workers’ rights. The Uber Supreme Court judgment was clear that those who qualify as workers under employment law are entitled to rights such as the national minimum wage, and all gig economy businesses should ensure that they are fulfilling their legal responsibilities.
Kate Osamor [V]
Does the Secretary of State recognise that, by ditching the employment Bill and, with it, the opportunity to strengthen the rights of gig economy workers, he has abandoned millions of precarious and low-paid workers to fight through the courts for fair pay and job security?
Paul Scully
The Secretary of State and I believe that workers’ rights should be enhanced and protected, so we are absolutely committed to bringing forward an employment Bill that will help us to build back better and to protect vulnerable workers, delivering on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world in which to work and grow a business. While we are waiting for the employment Bill to come forward in parliamentary time, we will continue in that way.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
In December, the Government aim to deliver their biggest auction for renewables yet through the contracts for difference scheme. Our £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and forthcoming hydrogen business model will enable us to deliver our 5 GW low-carbon hydrogen production ambition to use across the economy. We have also announced the clean heat grant and the green heat network fund, and will launch the green gas support scheme later this year.
Sir Desmond Swayne
How good are we actually going to be at the production of green hydrogen?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
There is a short answer, or I could give my right hon. Friend a longer one. Brilliant. [Laughter.]
Andrew Griffith
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the many natural advantages we are blessed with is the tide around the shores of the United Kingdom, and will she bring forward at the earliest opportunity the Government’s proposals to unleash tidal power?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as a net zero business champion for COP26; he is doing an extraordinary amount of work, and has been tireless in his efforts to support the country’s business community to showcase its extraordinary leadership in tackling climate change and heading to net zero.
Tidal generation does indeed have a potentially important role in the long-term decarbonisation of the UK. Projects will need to demonstrate value for money to compete with other renewables over the long term. The Secretary of State and I are very keen to hear from those who want to progress such projects.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
In terms of increasing the production of renewable energy, does the Minister feel rather embarrassed about the deep neglect that there has been of the development of deep geothermal energy in the UK over recent years? Is she aware of a report published on 19 May suggesting a new future for deep geothermal energy, and particularly a mechanism for supporting deep geothermal through a successor to the renewable heat incentive? Does she intend to respond positively to that report and its proposals, and will she acknowledge that deep geothermal is indeed one of the cleanest and most efficient renewable energy sources that we can have in the UK?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I have not had a chance to look at the report, but I absolutely commit to doing so. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been doing a lot of work with local communities where there are geothermal projects, and we will continue to look at them and see how we can help to support them. It will be, as ever, one of those ongoing areas of policy; in the long term, we want to use all the renewable resources available to us as a country to ensure that we maximise their use, while, as I said earlier, ensuring that they also provide value for money for the taxpayer.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Renewable electricity will be key for the decarbonisation required for carbon budget 6. Therefore, we have set an ambitious target to deliver 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030 and announced our aim to up to double the capacity of this year’s contracts for difference auction, as well as extending eligibility to a wider range of technologies.
Alexander Stafford
The Minister will be aware of my long-standing interest in environmental, social and governance, as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the matter. How will her Department ensure that the Government’s sixth carbon budget is delivered with ESG at its heart, and what are the plans for engagement with Government Departments and corporations to ensure that all targets set out in the carbon budget are viewed through an ESG lens?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend’s passion for, and commitment to, this subject since he arrived in the House have been unstinting. I have been more than impressed by his determination to ensure that we do not, at any turn, miss the opportunity to raise it; he has been particularly determined to ensure that we look at the role of critical materials in renewables. They will continue to be an important part of how we are able to develop our renewables capacity. I hope that he is reassured that we continue to work across Departments to maximise those outcomes.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Government are committed to a UK steel industry. I mentioned this repeatedly in my session with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee this morning.
Nick Smith
Sanjeev Gupta promised that none of our steel plants would close on his watch, but after the Serious Fraud Office descended on his empire, the workforce became afraid for their future. The Liberty Steel plant in Tredegar puts food on the table and pays the mortgages of my constituents, and across the country 5,000 families rely on the company. We now need the Government to ensure that these plants remain open, and, crucially, to provide the finance to bridge any transition period should a new buyer or stake purchase be necessary—and, of course, to work with the trade unions to test the commitment of any new buyers. If promises are broken, will the Secretary of State step in with the finance to support our steel communities?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will remember that Mr Gupta asked me and the Department for £170 million. Many Labour Members—dare I say it?—were hollering and screaming and saying we should nationalise. In fact, I would say that my actions and those of officials have been vindicated. There were serious concerns about corporate governance with this company, and Labour Members would do well to understand how to manage public finances with care. Having said all that, I am monitoring the situation closely and I remain strategically committed to the steel industry and this sector.
Jessica Morden
On behalf of workers at Liberty Steel in Newport, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith): the Government must do all they can to protect these strategic businesses that are very important to our communities. Because of that, and because of global overcapacity in steel, it is also critical and very urgent that Ministers work with Cabinet colleagues to prevent the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate from slashing our steel safeguards in half, so please will the Government act on that?
Kwasi Kwarteng
With regard to TRID, the hon. Lady will know that the consultation on that closes tomorrow. I would urge all interested parties to feed into that consultation so that we can reach a good decision. She knows that I am on record as having committed to a strategic presence of steel in the UK . I think that is vital and as Secretary of State I will always promote it within Government.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The crisis at Liberty Steel is yet further evidence of the need to break the cycle of crisis management that has defined the approach of successive Governments to this critical sector. The Secretary of State knows full well that there is a global race under way to green the steel industry and that our country is currently at the back of the pack, with no concrete plans for trialling hydrogen-based primary production and only vague plans for a single carbon capture-based project. With its long-term survival at stake, can he explain why the Government believe that the UK steel industry can afford to wait a further two years for the limited clean steel fund to even begin distributing investment?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I completely reject the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The idea that we are at the back of the pack in decarbonisation is complete nonsense. We are the first country in the G7 to have come up with an industrial decarbonisation strategy. He and his Labour colleagues were saying, “Secretary of State, why don’t you nationalise Liberty? Why don’t you give Mr Gupta £170 million?”, and we made absolutely the right call. We showed judgment and restraint. Going forward, he will appreciate that I was the Secretary of State who resuscitated the Steel Council. We have had constructive conversations across unions and employers to work out a decarbonised future for the industry.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government are striving to decarbonise transport by phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, and from 2035 all new cars and vans must be zero emissions at the tailpipe. The plug-in van grant will support businesses to reach net zero by reducing the purchase price of new zero emission vans up to £3,000 for small vans and up to £6,000 for large vans. The plug-in truck grant also provides up to £25,000 of funding for the largest HGVs.
Mr Sheerman [V]
I thank the Minister, and I have a lot of time for her, but she must realise that these heavy goods vehicles—these trucks—are poisoning our atmosphere and poisoning children, pregnant women and elderly people. All of us are being poisoned by these emissions. Can we not move much more quickly to encourage things? There are some really good British manufacturers such as Electra Commercial Vehicles in the north of England, which is doing wonderful work, guided by Sid Sadique, one of our new entrepreneurs. There is a capacity to switch to electric vehicles to deliver all the stuff that we get in this country, and we could do it much faster. Can I beg her to move faster for the environment, for children, for the air that we breathe, and for our commercial industries?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. We are working to ensure that the transport decarbonisation plan is as ambitious as possible, and we plan to publish in the very near future. It will set out how we incentivise operators and industry to transition to zero emission HGVs and manage emissions from the existing fleet. We are also investing £20 million this year in planning for zero emission road freight trials, which will support UK industry to develop cost-effective, zero emission HGVs and their refuelling infrastructure in the UK.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government have laid legislation for the UK’s sixth carbon budget, proposing a target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels, marking another ambitious and decisive step towards net zero by 2050. Our 10-point plan will bring together £12 billion of Government investment, unlocking three times as much private sector investment by 2030 and supporting up to 250,000 green jobs.
Aaron Bell [V]
I thank the Energy Minister for her answer. I know she will have been as disappointed as I was that we were not able to visit the Ibstock Brick factory in Chesterton yesterday, and I look forward to welcoming her up to Newcastle-under-Lyme soon. In the meantime, will she say what the Government are doing to support our vital manufacturers, such as Ibstock Brick, to decarbonise and at the same time support jobs?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Yes, I was very sad not to get there. Sadly a cow on the line caused a level of disruption to LNER services yesterday, which delayed my always relatively long journey from the north further south. However, I hope to be able to visit before too long. In March, the Government published the UK’s first ever net zero strategy for industry. It is the first strategy published by a major economy that sets out how industry can decarbonise while remaining competitive and without pushing emissions abroad. Our £350 million industrial energy transformation fund will support businesses with high energy use to cut their bills and reduce carbon emissions.
Laura Trott [V]
Consumer awareness of the environmental impact of the actions they take, the things they buy and the food they eat will be key to helping us achieve net zero. Can the Minister set out what steps the Department is taking to help consumers make more informed environmental choices?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Last November, we unveiled the brand Together for Our Planet to raise awareness of climate issues and support the public in making those important green choices. In parallel, we have funded several digital tools that can help people reduce their carbon footprint, including the Simple Energy Advice service on how to reduce energy use in the home and the Go Ultra Low website, which provides information on electric cars and vans. Our upcoming net zero strategy will set out our approach to supporting the general public to make green choices, which will be a critically important part of our journey.
Dehenna Davison
A key part of achieving net zero will be exploring alternative energy sources. One of those that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) was deep geothermal. I am working with stakeholders across Bishop Auckland to explore making Bishop Auckland a centre of excellence for geothermal energy. Will my right hon. Friend visit me in Bishop Auckland to discuss that in much more detail?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I hope to be able to reach Bishop Auckland with speed, as it is just round the corner, and I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss new energy projects. Compared with many countries, high geothermal temperatures are found at a much deeper depth in the UK, but we recognise, as I said earlier, that geothermal could indeed form part of our solution to decarbonise our heating. I welcome the opportunity to discuss energy opportunities in this area and look forward to meeting her and her constituents.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Our comprehensive economic response to business is worth £385 billion, including grants, the furlough scheme, tax deferrals and business rates relief. We are providing a £56 million welcome back fund, helping councils to prepare for the safe reopening of our high streets and seaside resorts.
Cat Smith
High street businesses on Lord Street in Fleetwood tell me that one of their biggest concerns is empty shop units that have fallen into disrepair. They are dangerous for people who are out shopping and make the high street very unattractive. What support can the Government give councils such as Wyre Council to ensure that these shops are made safe and, ideally, tenanted?
Amanda Solloway
The Government are committed to unleashing enterprise and growth across all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will go even further with the publication of our levelling-up White Paper this autumn. The hon. Member will welcome the news that Lancaster and Fleetwood have been awarded funding under the high streets heritage action zones cultural programme. Our £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the United Kingdom. We have protected 14 million jobs through the comprehensive package we have put in place. Our plan for jobs is creating, supporting and protecting jobs, and our £2 billion kickstart scheme has helped 16,500 young people to start paid jobs.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
This Government are committed to supporting the transition to net zero for all the United Kingdom. Our landmark North sea transition deal will support Scotland’s offshore oil and gas workers, businesses and the supply chain to exploit technologies such as low-carbon hydrogen production and carbon capture usage and storage. In March, we announced £9 million to help Scotland’s world-famous whisky distilleries get into the spirit of going green, cutting emissions and supporting green jobs.
Gavin Newlands
I am sure that if we could capture energy and store it, Scotland’s entire energy needs would have been met on Saturday by clean blue energy from St Johnstone fans celebrating their historic cup double. Now that I have shoehorned that in, here is my question. Despite meeting after meeting in which Minister after Minister, including the current Secretary of State, have said that HELMS—Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems—customers under the green deal have been, at best, mis-sold products and that it would be fixed, hundreds of my constituents and others right across Scotland and the UK remain swindled by Robert Skillen and his company. I am happy to have another meeting, but I would be even happier with swift and appropriate action.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents and to work with officials to make progress.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Workplace health and safety is of critical importance, and I am in regular discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on this and other issues.
Tonia Antoniazzi
If the Government are so committed to keeping workers safe throughout the pandemic, can the Secretary of State explain why they have not been able to protect workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea by putting in measures to keep them safe from covid-19?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Member will appreciate that public health and guidance for safer working in Wales is a devolved matter, so she should certainly bring this up with her colleagues in the Welsh Government. Public Health Wales and the local authority, supported by the Health and Safety Executive, are working with the DVLA to ensure that there is appropriate protection.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Having worked in manufacturing for over 20 years, I know the challenges, and I thank those in the manufacturing sector for the brilliant work they have done to support the economy, including the way they came together for the ventilator challenge, and for manufacturing all our vaccines. We are committed to supporting UK manufacturers to build back better by taking advantage of innovative technology and through measures such as the super deduction capital allowance rate of 130%, to turbocharge business investment.
James Sunderland
Following Brexit, it is more important than ever that we incentivise the best possible commercial, manufacturing and industrial base in the UK. What is BEIS doing to support the Department for International Trade and other Departments in bringing foreign businesses to our shores?
Amanda Solloway
BEIS is working with Departments across Government to implement the plan for growth, with its focus on infrastructure, innovation and skills. That will have the effect of making the UK more attractive in terms of inward investment, cementing our place as a global science superpower and potentially increasing investment in areas such as Thames valley, which already boasts a number of world-class manufacturing companies.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Our start-up loans programme has a phenomenal track record of backing budding entrepreneurs. We have supported more than 83,000 people across the UK with £733.5 million in loans. The British Business Bank’s new “UK Unlocked” campaign supports all entrepreneurs to access the right finance to start and grow.
Dr Evans [V]
I am really pleased to hear the Minister’s response, and I am grateful for the financial backing the Government give, but for someone sat in Bosworth with a great idea, one of the hardest things they struggle to come up with is where to start, so what are the Government doing to signpost people who want to start a business who are asking exactly that question?
Paul Scully
The answer to this question is to go to the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership growth hub. There are 38 growth hubs around the country that are one-stop shops to get access to that. We are helping SMEs navigate the business finance landscape through those growth hub networks as well. Our detailed business support webpages provide advice for businesses of all sizes across the UK.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I would like to say that over the last few weeks I think we have gone through a trying time, but two things have really stood out as remarkable successes. The vaccine roll-out continues to go from strength to strength. Something like 60 million jabs have been administered across this country, which I am pleased to say is a world-beating target to have reached for a country of our size. On the back of that, we have managed to hit the dates in the road map. On 12 April, we opened up in the way we said we would, and then we looked at the data and we were able to do so again on 17 May. This has provided business with a huge degree of support and a measure of certainty ahead of a summer reopening.
Elliot Colburn [V]
Carshalton and Wallington residents, particularly those living in New Mill Quarter in Hackbridge, have been suffering at the hands of the Lib Dem-run council-owned district energy network called SDEN—Sutton Decentralised Energy Network—leaving residents without heating and hot water, some more than a dozen times in just six months. I know BEIS is keen to ensure that residents such as these are not victims of shoddy operations, so following the closure of its consultation last year, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that district energy networks are regulated?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is an excellent question. My hon. Friend and I corresponded about this and spoke directly about this when I was the Minister of State for Energy. I am very pleased to tell him that we are committed to regulating the heat networks market within this Parliament, and we will bring legislation forward at the earliest possible opportunity. It is clearly a really important thing to be doing, and he and his constituents can rest assured that we are acting with due speed.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I want to return to fire and rehire. Chris is a British Gas engineer who lives in Spelthorne, the Secretary of State’s constituency. Chris says:
“Working under fire and rehire has been horrific. It has caused stress and anxiety not just for me, but my family. I can’t overstate the effect that it has on mental wellbeing. And the Government and the Business Secretary, who is supposed to represent me…in parliament is doing absolutely nothing about it. I voted for Kwasi Kwarteng in 2019, but he’s failed us on this. A total let down.”
Chris met the Business Secretary recently and asked him why he had not acted on fire and rehire. What did he tell him?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I remember the meeting well. I met Chris, I think on the Avenue in Sunbury, and I said very clearly to him that we had an ACAS report that we hoped to publish in due course, and that once we published that we would set out further action, as the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), very ably mentioned earlier.
Edward Miliband
The problem is that the right hon. Member is the Business Secretary. He is in charge. He promised an employment Bill two years ago. He has had the ACAS report for three months. He is not even telling us what is in the ACAS report. Maybe he can satisfy Chris and millions of people around this country by saying from the Dispatch Box today that he agrees with the principle that we should legislate to outlaw fire and rehire, and he will bring forward an employment Bill to do it. If he does not do that, people will suspect that the truth is not that he is not acting because he cannot act, but that he is not acting because he does not want to act, because he thinks this kind of one-sided power for employers is necessary for our economy to succeed.
Kwasi Kwarteng
We all know the Marxist trope of the employers versus the workers, and we have moved on from that—most of us. There are two issues there. One was related to the employment Bill, which we are committed to introducing to this House when we can, and that has always been our position. The second is that the whole point of having an ACAS independent report was to allow it to happen and then we would consider, after publication, the steps forward. I know the right hon. Member is impatient, and I know he is probably wishing that there was a leadership change in his party, but we have to stay focused on delivery.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about seizing the broader benefits of the green economy, which are integral to our industrial decarbonisation strategy. We will continue to work closely with all those helping us to meet our net zero commitments, from 40 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2030, to the Government’s commitments to deliver at least one more gigawatt nuclear power station, and substantial commitments to the next generation of nuclear. For all that, infrastructure investment and growing the skills base will be vital across the country, including in Lowestoft. We have set up the green jobs taskforce, which will report to the Government this summer and inform the next stages of our green skills plans going forward.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Stats released by the Office for National Statistics this morning show that trade with the European Union has fallen by 23% in the first quarter. In the meantime, Scottish farmers are facing up to the reality of a trade deal with the Australians that threatens their very future. The Scottish Parliament—it has no say; the Scottish Government—ignored. What exactly will the UK Business Secretary do about that, and how much damage are his Government willing to cause?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the ONS data, but he will appreciate that that is comparing quarter 1 this year with quarter 1 last year. [Interruption.] Of course it does. January was exceptionally bad—I fully admit that—because there was uncertainty about how the new deal would operate. Subsequent data from Q2 and from March was much better, The next quarter will have better results, and I am sure that quarters after that will show proportionate improvement. The Australian trade deal is a fundamental issue for us. If we cannot make a trade deal with a country that has shared legislation, shared history, and shared traditions, we will not get anywhere with any of these trade deals. I think this is an excellent opportunity for the UK.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Just yesterday, the energy regulator, Ofgem, announced that it has approved a £300 million investment to help triple the number of ultrarapid electric car charging points across the country. That will give a green light for energy network companies to invest in more than 200 low-carbon projects across the country over the next two years, including the installation of 1,800 new ultrarapid car charge points for motorway service stations, and a further 1,750 charge points in towns and cities.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will appreciate that the green homes grant initially had three elements: the first dealt with owner-occupier houses, the second was distributed by local authorities in the way she describes, and the third was about public sector building decarbonisation. Two of those elements were successful. The third was a short-term stimulus, which we have closed and are looking to replace.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
We have done a number of things that I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate. I was very pleased, with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, to appoint Emma Gilthorpe as chief executive officer of the Jet Zero Council, which brings together considerable industry expertise to drive sustainable aviation fuel. Electric aeroplanes may be a thing of the future, but clearly, we have the technology today to innovate and to use things such as hydrogen and sustainable fuels to power a net zero aviation sector.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Kwasi Kwarteng
In my business engagement, I have been lucky enough, I suppose, to meet the CEO of pladis, the McVitie’s operator. I am not particularly aware of the specifics of what the hon. Gentleman has just informed the House, but I would be very happy to speak to him and others to see what we can do to ensure that the situation is improved. The business seems open; I had a good conversation with the CEO, but I would like to hear more about the specific details of that plant.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I thank my hon. Friend, and I wish I’m Lucky all the best for the future. Over the past year, I have met a number of businesses that have opened either at an unfortunate time—just going into a lockdown—or possibly at a fortunate time, as they steal a march and pivot into new business areas. Growing those small and medium-sized enterprises is really important to levelling up. We have already provided over 1,000 start-up loans worth £11.8 million this year. We are reducing employment costs by up to £4,000 through the employment allowance and supporting skills through apprenticeships. The strengthened prompt payment code ensures that those small businesses will get paid within 30 days.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a huge opportunity. I was delighted to see him in his constituency only a couple of weeks ago. I was very pleased to see the photograph that was taken of us looking like an advert for “Reservoir Dogs”. BEIS is absolutely committed to recruiting excellent staff in Darlington, among other places around the UK.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will know that that was a very difficult decision. The Treasury and the Government made a decision to reduce ODA spending from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5%. In the integrated review, we said that we would get it back to 0.7% when we could. We are fully appreciative that it was a difficult decision, and we want to get back to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
Paul Scully
The Federation of Small Businesses does a great job across the country, including in Hastings and Rye, and, as I said, it is very important that SMEs play a massive role in levelling up around the country. I have talked about the fact that strengthening the prompt payment code will ensure that small businesses get paid within 30 days. We will always do more to make sure that we can support small businesses, because we know that cash flow is king, and they will be a major part of building back better.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are continuing to work with the regulators and to look at how smart meters are rolling out. We continue to encourage people to do so, if they have not done so yet, but as the technology changes, we will obviously make sure that regulations afford those adaptations.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is really important that he stands up for the furniture industry, as he does. The BSI has informed the Department of its intention to retain its membership to continue to influence the development of standards for the benefit of UK businesses. The Government support that position.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
There are two issues there. On fracking, I was very pleased, as Minister of State, to impose a moratorium on it. The language that we used at the time was that it was going to be evidence-focused and scientifically based. There is no new evidence to suggest that we should end the moratorium, so it stays—no more fracking. On coal mines, I have said specifically that this is a judicial issue, in terms of the west Cumbrian coal mine, and that has to go through the planning process.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As the Minister knows, I am passionate about inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers. Will she tell the House what plans her Department has to build on the previous good work in this field, such as the Year of Engineering?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
We have committed to investing £14.9 billion in R&D in 2021-22, meaning that Government R&D spending is now at its highest level for decades. We have our ambitious road map. We have our innovation strategy that we will be launching. We have our R&D place strategy, and we are working to ensure that the benefits are felt nationwide.
Mr Speaker
I suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Covid-19
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on covid-19.
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
Our race between the vaccine and the virus continues. As a nation, we have taken some huge strides forward: there are now 908 people in hospital with coronavirus, a fall of 9% in the past week, and the average number of daily deaths is now six, the lowest number since the middle of March. On top of this positive news, our vaccination programme is accelerating at pace. Over 72% of all adults have now been given their first dose, and 43% of all adults have the protection of two doses.
This weekend, we reached the milestone of 60 million vaccines administered across the United Kingdom, and Public Health England also published new research showing that the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease from the variant first discovered in India is similar after two doses when compared to the B117 variant dominant in our country. As with other variants, even higher levels of effectiveness are expected against hospitalisation and death. This is encouraging data, and it reinforces once again the importance of our vaccination programme in giving us a path out of this pandemic, as well as showing just how important it is that everyone comes forward for both jabs when the call comes through. It is the progress made by the British people in following the rules, and in taking up the protection offered through our vaccination programme, that means we were able to take step 3 in our road map last week.
However, we take these steps with vigilance and caution, staying alert to new variants that can jeopardise the advances we have made. We have come down really hard on the variant first identified in India wherever we have found it, surging in testing capacity and vaccines for those who are eligible. Over the past few days, we have extended this rapid approach to even more areas: as well as Bolton and Blackburn with Darwen, which the Prime Minister spoke about at his press conference on the 14th of this month, we are taking rapid action in Bedford, Hounslow, Burnley, Leicester, Kirklees and North Tyneside. As the Prime Minister set out two weeks ago, we are urging people in these areas to take extra caution when meeting anyone outside their household or support bubble, including meeting outside rather than inside where possible; keeping 2 metres apart from people they do not live with; and trying to avoid travelling in and out of the affected areas unless it is essential, for example for work—if a person cannot work from home—or for education.
As the Prime Minister said, we want the whole country to move out of these restrictions together. We are trusting people to be responsible and to act with caution and common sense, as they have done throughout this pandemic, and to make decisions about how best to protect themselves and their loved ones that are informed by the risks. That is exactly what we should be doing. We are always looking to see how we can communicate more effectively with local authorities, and we will of course take on board the views expressed by the House over the course of this debate. By acting quickly whenever the virus flares up and protecting people through our vaccination programme, we can guard the incredible gains we have all made, and get ourselves on the road to recovery.
Jonathan Ashworth
Does the Minister appreciate that cities such as mine, Leicester, or towns and boroughs such as Burnley, Bolton, Batley and Blackburn, have borne the brunt of this crisis over these past 15 months? We have often been in lockdown for longer than elsewhere. At times, we have felt abandoned. We did not have adequate financial support: families did their best, but they struggled. Can the Minister understand how upsetting, how insulting, it is to have new restrictions imposed on us—local lockdowns by stealth, by the back door—without the Secretary of State even having the courtesy to come and tell us?
Why was the guidance plonked on a website on Friday night and not communicated to everyone? Why were local directors of public health and local authority leaders not consulted? Why were MPs not informed? What does it now mean for our constituents? What does it mean for the family in Leicester who have booked a few days next week by the coast for the school half-term? Do they have to cancel that break? What does it mean for university students in Leicester when they have finished their exams? Do they have to go home—or can they go home? Can prospective students come and look at the campuses?
What does the guidance mean for the parents in Bolton who are planning to take their children to see grandparents on the other side of Greater Manchester this bank holiday Monday? Should they rearrange their plans? What does it mean for the young couple in Burnley, Blackburn or Batley, who have postponed their wedding for over a year and invited friends and family from across the country to come and celebrate their special day with them? Is the message to them that they have to delay their wedding again?
Can the Minister answer these questions today? Can he take a message from me, as the Member of Parliament for Leicester South, back to the Secretary of State—“Withdraw this guidance now and convene a meeting this afternoon of the relevant directors of public health to produce a plan involving isolation support and enhanced contact tracing”? As the hon. Gentleman knows from his work as vaccines Minister, a single dose of the vaccine is less effective against this particular variant. Will he produce a plan with local directors of public health to roll out vaccinations to everybody and consider including bringing forward a second dose for a larger cohort of people?
A year ago, Ministers such as the hon. Gentleman were defending Dominic Cummings on Twitter. Now, Mr Cummings tweets about the lack of competent people in charge. Many of our constituents, looking at this latest lockdown fiasco, will think that Mr Cummings has a point.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for, I hope, his equally supportive comments when it comes to supporting his constituents and others around the country—in Bedford, Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Kirklees and Leicester, his own patch, as well as Hounslow and north Tyneside.
I spoke to the M10 metro Mayors this morning, and the one thing I would urge is that we all work together and take the politics out of this. Our constituents deserve that. Essentially, as I said in my opening statement, we are asking people in the affected areas to be cautious and careful. The right hon. Gentleman asked about visiting family: people should meet outside rather than inside, where possible. Meeting indoors is still allowed, in a group of six or as two households, but meeting outdoors is safer. People should meet 2 metres apart from those they do not live with unless they have formed a support bubble; that obviously includes friends and family they do not live with. So yes, people can visit family in half-term if they follow social distancing guidelines. The guidelines include specific sections on meeting friends and family. Avoid travelling in and out of the affected areas, as the Prime Minister said on 14 May, unless it is essential—for work purposes, for example.
The whole principle is that we need to work together. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility, as do I and the metro Mayors, to communicate to our residents and constituents that this is a time to be vigilant and careful. We are putting more surge testing and turbocharging vaccinations in those areas, to make sure that we do the work with local directors of public health. I hope he will agree that we have had that plan in place and seen it operate in Bolton and Blackburn; we will see it operate in his constituency and other parts of the country as well.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the outstanding roll-out of the vaccine programme, which is a source of enormous pride to all of us, on all sides of the House. As we emerge from lockdown, we all want it to be a permanent change. For most families, the biggest priority is to make sure that schools remain open, even if we find that new variants arrive in the UK in the course of the autumn. We know that children do not tend to get bad symptoms, but they can spread the virus, so is it time to look at vaccinating the over-12s, as they are doing in the United States? Is it time to look at whether we can use some of the US Food and Drug Administration analysis to speed up that decision-making process, so that by the time children come back in the autumn, schools are protected and we can be confident that they will be able to stay open?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. He is absolutely right to focus on the protection of children but also of families and their community. That clinical decision has not been taken in the United Kingdom. He will be aware that, as well as the US regulator, the Canadian regulator has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds. Operationally, we will be ready, but ultimately the decision has to be a clinical one and our regulator will have to be satisfied that the vaccines are extremely safe. When you are vaccinating children, essentially, you are offering some protection to them—children can be infected with covid and there is some evidence of long covid among children—but on the whole it is to protect their families and to protect against transmission in communities. Vaccines have to be incredibly safe before we administer them to children, but we have the infrastructure in place to be able to do that, as and when the regulatory and clinical decision is made.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Can the Minister explain if the new restrictions for areas such as Bolton are only advisory? Will hospitality companies affected still be eligible for financial support? Why was the Public Health England report on variants snuck out at 11 pm on Saturday, during the Eurovision final and minus the promised data on school outbreaks? The B.1.617.2 or April 02 variant appears to be 50% more infectious and is affecting even younger children, so can the Minister explain why on earth the Government have ended the wearing of face coverings in schools? It is good that two doses of the vaccines still provide good protection from the variant, but testing shows that one dose is only 33% effective. The gap between doses has been shortened from 12 to eight weeks, but with less than half of those between 50 and 65 years of age having had their second dose, are there plans to close the gap further?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and just remind her that Public Health England makes those decisions for itself: it is not up to the Minister when it releases its data.
On pubs and hospitality, indoor areas of venues—cafés, restaurants, bars and so on—can reopen. In any premises serving alcohol, customers will still be required to order, to be served and to eat and drink while seated. Venues are obviously prohibited from providing smoking equipment such as shisha pipes. It is just to make sure that we do everything we can to limit the ability of the virus to infect others. Within that, reducing social contact is incredibly important. Some businesses, such as nightclubs, must remain closed and follow the restrictions. It is very much about making sure that we work together to control the B.1.617.2 variant, exercising the common sense that the Prime Minister spoke about. The guidance is there to do that. People on the whole have been following the guidance.
On transmission and the effectiveness of the two doses—the hon. Lady’s question on accelerating the vaccination programme—the whole idea of us following the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidelines and advice on vaccination is to be able to vaccinate at scale. We have two big weeks ahead of us and we will continue to focus on the second dose. When people get that text message or the call to bring forward their second dose, they should please take that up, because it is incredibly important in controlling the variant.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is tremendous news that the vaccines that are being so successfully rolled out across our United Kingdom are highly effective against the variant first identified in India, but many businesses continue to be delicately balanced on a cliff edge of either a successful summer or bankruptcy. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a positive message of hope and certainty that all the evidence continues to back up the complete end of all restrictions and social distancing by 21 June?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is good news from Public Health England on the B.1.617 variant that two doses of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca-Oxford are as effective on infection and are very likely to be even more effective on serious illness and hospitalisation in real-world circumstances. Ultimately, we are effectively pursuing an evidence-led strategy. The four weeks plus one—the five-week interval—are for us to be able to assess the data and share it with Parliament and the nation. At the moment, I am cautiously optimistic that we are in a good place. We have to remain vigilant and we have to work together. As I said earlier, let us take the politics out of this and make sure that all our constituents are careful, and we will get there together.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will agree that throughout the pandemic our community pharmacies have performed magnificently on the frontline of the health service, but unfortunately there still seems to be institutionalised bias against them in the Department of Health and Social Care, even now. Only a couple of pharmacies in Sandwell have been authorised for the covid vaccine. I urge the Minister to get a grip on his bureaucrats and get vaccines rolling in our Sandwell pharmacies before the bank holiday.
Nadhim Zahawi
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a passionate advocate for community pharmacies; he and I have discussed them in the past. I do not recognise his characterisation of the NHS team, who I absolutely know work every day with community pharmacies. I think that just over 500 community pharmacies and independent pharmacies are now part of the vaccine deployment. In phase 1, they have proved themselves to be excellent at reaching out and giving confidence to their communities and at getting people vaccinated; where primary care has decided not to carry on with phase 2, they have also stepped up to fill the gaps so that we keep going. I will absolutely look at the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see whether we can do more.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The record vaccine roll-out has absolutely vindicated the decision of my constituents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton to believe that this country can succeed in standing on its own two feet. Vaccination is going to form a really big part of our lives. What work is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that, as we continue our vaccination roll-out, we have the localised infrastructure to ensure that our great progress is not hindered?
Nadhim Zahawi
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If the virus were designed to test liberal democracies, because the only way we could combat it was to withdraw people’s freedoms with the dreaded non-pharmaceutical interventions, the vaccine has played to the real strengths of the four nations that make up the peoples of these isles. We have had that Dunkirk spirit of coming together as 1,000 flotillas: the 80,000 volunteer vaccinators, the doctors, the nurses, the pharmacists and, of course, our armed forces and local government colleagues, who have stepped up not only to identify communities that we need to protect, but to find sites.
We are already making plans for the booster jab to be ready by September. I remind the House that the clinical decision has not yet been made, but when it is—whether that is in September, in October, in November or early in the new year—we will be ready to go. We are also planning how it will dovetail with our flu vaccination programme and seeing how we can increase the uptake in flu vaccination, because the worst of all worlds would be to do well against covid and then be hit by a heavy flu season in the autumn.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
Last evening, I learned that the Government had sneaked Bedford borough into local lockdown without even bothering to warn the public health team. The Minister knows that for almost two weeks I have been calling for surge vaccines in Bedford for all over-16s, yet until last Friday many of my constituents were forced to travel miles to access the Pfizer vaccine. The variant first identified in India has been imported here because of the Government’s lax approach to border control. Why are the people of Bedford paying for the Government’s gross negligence and incompetence once again?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman and I discussed the turbocharging of the vaccination programme in Bedford, which I know he appreciates. The real difficulty is that, if we now begin to vaccinate people who are 18, outside the JCVI’s advice, we are taking vaccine away from others who are eligible and need that protection. So the strategy we are pursuing is to turbocharge. I need to explain that a little. We are effectively putting in more resource, later opening and mobile vaccination centres and we are expanding vaccination centres, so that those who are already eligible and, for whatever reason, have been unable to access the vaccine or have been waiting to see, can get the protection of the first dose. Of course then we get the second dose into all those over the age of 50, because we know that the two doses in those areas, against the B.1.617.2 variant, make a huge difference.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the success of the vaccine roll-out and the rate at which the age limit is dropping. At the age of 28, I am regularly checking the NHS website to see when it is my turn. However, those who are a little older than me are trying to get their first jab at the Riverside Stadium in Middlesbrough but struggling to do so, reportedly because only the AstraZeneca jab is being stocked at the vaccine centre there. Will he use his office to try to find out what the problem is and resolve it, so that people are not having to travel unnecessarily to get their first jab?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will absolutely look at what the issue is. The good news we have had recently from our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, is that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can now be stored for up to a month—it used to be only five days from once it was thawed from minus 70° C—which means it is much more versatile and less challenging than it used to be. So I will absolutely look at that and contact my hon. Friend.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
One area of concern for which new restrictions have been published but no advice has been communicated is the London Borough of Hounslow, which shares a boundary with Whitton, Hampton and St Margarets in my constituency. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people go back and forth every day, for school, for work, to get food and other essential supplies and for medical appointments. So, first, could the Minister advise my constituents whether they should be getting on buses and trains that cross the borough boundary and whether they should be going to supermarkets and accessing medical services over the borough boundary? Secondly, will he consider vaccinating, as a priority, people, such as teachers, key workers and airport staff, who have to go to work in Hounslow but live outside the borough?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and I discussed this with the Mayor of London this morning. Of course Hounslow is on the list of affected areas and we are turbocharging the vaccination programme, as well as doing the surge testing and the sequencing and isolation. But as I have outlined in response to others, people need to exercise caution and common sense, and travel outside of the area only if it is essential. That is important. The right thing to do is for us to work together to make sure we deliver that message, as I did this morning with the Mayor of London.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
In The Telegraph story this morning about what the rules for self-isolation might be post 21 June, a Government source was quoted as saying, in response to the suggestion that they will not change:
“There is still a risk of getting the virus and spreading it on,”
That is of course true—there is a risk—but of course once people have been vaccinated the risk is much lower and, importantly, the vaccines are very effective at stopping serious disease, hospitalisation and death. So may I say to the Minister that post 21 June it is important not only that legal restrictions and social distancing go, but that all the remaining rules are adjusted to reflect the much lower risk that exists once we have vaccinated the population? Otherwise, we are going to have those rules in place forever.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is worth waiting for 14 June, when we will be saying more on this, but suffice it to say two things: first, even if someone has had two doses of either vaccine —I have had this experience in my own family—they can still contract covid and should therefore be isolating and quarantining; secondly, we are also looking at ways in which contacts of people who may have contracted covid can be regularly tested instead of isolating.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses so far and for the magnificent effort. I had my second vaccine yesterday, and just to show how national that was, the person who gave me the injection was a doctor from Lincolnshire. I believe that this very much shows that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland works better together, and that this is a supreme example of that.
We understand that things will change depending on the circumstances and that localised lockdowns may be the way to ensure that areas with low numbers are able to allow people to live safely. Can the Minister outline what parameters will establish localised lockdowns and tell us whether the same approach will be taken UK-wide by the devolved regions?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend has had his second dose; when people get that text message, they should please come forward and have their second dose. We are looking to ensure that the whole country comes out of this together, hence the advice being very much about exercising caution and self-responsibility. People actually get this; we see in much of the research data that they know the things that can add to the risk and that they should therefore abstain from doing those things while we vaccinate at scale to get to the place where we can all hopefully get our lives back.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Some of us will be viscerally opposed to the use of covid passports in the domestic economy. When will the Government set out their proposals in some detail?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are considering a range of evidence around covid status certification and whether it may have a role in opening up higher-risk settings, so it would be remiss of a Government Minister or a Government not to look at technologies around the world that would allow us to open up not 20% of Wembley stadium but the whole of Wembley stadium for the FA cup final. No final decisions have been made, and we are of course committed to setting out our conclusions on the review ahead of step 4.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Some people have been making a lot of money from Government-approved quarantine hotels, but many of my Slough constituents are continuing to suffer during their stays. Their long list of angry complaints includes a lack of water, with people being told to drink from the bathroom tap; poor food standards often not meeting dietary or religious requirements, with people having to fork out for takeaways; poor ventilation with no chance of opening a window; and I have not even started yet on the shambolic state of mixing in hours-long airport queues so that even if somebody does not have coronavirus, they soon will have. Why are the Government failing to get a grip of the situation, despite repeated requests from right hon. and hon. Members of this House?
Nadhim Zahawi
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of the way the system is working. There were some distressing videos posted online of people in airports, but we work with the airports and require them to ensure that social distancing protocols are followed. Indeed, at Heathrow, we recently looked at people from red list countries arriving at a particular terminal. I will take away his point about particular hotels, and if he lets me have the exact details I can look at what is happening, because it is wrong and distressing if people cannot have fresh drinking water.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
In Suffolk and north-east Essex, 97% of the over-80s have now had two jabs, which I think puts it at the top of the league table. I predict that, as a 32-year-old, I am on the cusp of being offered my jab, but I will wait for my contact to confirm that. Huge thanks should also go to BSC Multicultural Services, which has worked incredibly hard with hard-to-reach groups to get the vaccine out, and I also want to give a special mention to community pharmacies, which the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned. It seems like a long time since the Aqua Pharmacy on Duke Street approached me, but it has gone on to deliver 15,000 doses. I sometimes feel that community pharmacies do not always get the attention they deserve. Can the Minister assure me that in the NHS White Paper community pharmacies will be at the heart of what we are doing to recover from this pandemic?
Nadhim Zahawi
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Community pharmacies are an incredibly important part of our deployment infrastructure.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Like everybody else, I pay tribute to those who are delivering the vaccine and those who have developed it. I am not quite at the age to have been offered my first dose yet, but I am hoping that it will be soon. When I get that blue envelope through the door, I will go to get my jab. The Minister will be aware that there are a number of people who have a phobia of needles. Is he in a position to update the House on the development of a nasal vaccine?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am glad the hon. Member will get his jab when the call comes. We are obviously working with a number of manufacturers, who are looking at different delivery technologies for vaccines in the future. It is still some way off, I am afraid. At the moment, the needle dominates the vaccination deployment technologies, but I know that a number of manufacturers are working on other ways of delivering vaccines, including through pills.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Seventy per cent of my constituents have now had one vaccine. I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating and thanking all those people in Warrington who have played such an important part in this incredible vaccination programme. As he will know, vaccines are one part of the solution. Can he give us an update on drugs and research into treatment for those who find themselves in hospital suffering from covid?
Nadhim Zahawi
I join my hon. Friend in thanking the local team for going above and beyond, and, as I said earlier, it is all about that spirit of Dunkirk and the coming together of the nation to deliver the vaccination programme. A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced the therapeutics taskforce, which is moving at pace to identify therapeutics and antivirals to help people who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated and to give us a greater arsenal in our armoury against this pandemic.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) [V]
I get my second vaccine tomorrow, so I would also like to thank all of the NHS staff and other staff who have made this possible in such a quick turnaround. However, all of that cannot conceal the opacity of the UK Government’s position on accusations of cronyism and corruption, but, thanks to the Good Law Project, that is finally being challenged in the High Court this week. I have been attempting to get to the heart of the procurement of unlicensed lateral flow tests and been met with glib obfuscation from the Department. Can the Minister therefore tell me: when was the contract for these devices signed; was it known at the time that these tests were not licensed by the MHRA for asymptomatic testing; which Minister approved this contract; and if the Government really have nothing to hide, why do they just not come clean?
Nadhim Zahawi
I just remind the hon. Member that, at this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister announced a full inquiry that will take place in the spring of 2022, where we can learn all the lessons of the covid pandemic and the Government’s response to it. Suffice to say that all contracting is published in the appropriate way, and civil servants follow the exact rules around contracting.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Fifty-seven thousand people in North West Durham have had their first jab and 34,000 the second, so we are doing really well and progressing excellently. I have my first jab this Saturday. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) that he is 32, so he can also get his jab now. Anybody else in my constituency or across the country can book now through the app. There are concerns, though, about the vaccine. Can the Minister ensure that all the possible issues and side effects are constantly monitored and published so that people can make informed positive choices to get the vaccine, especially in the younger age groups, to ensure that everyone is protected as much as possible, especially from the new variants?
Nadhim Zahawi
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have an independent regulator here in the MHRA and, of course, Public Health England, and we have a yellow card system where adverse incidents are recorded—they can be reported directly by a GP, a clinician or the person themselves. All that data is published and people can access it on their MHRA website, or google it and see it. An incredible part of the success story of the vaccination programme is that sharing of data, which has led to the highest level of vaccine acceptance among adults in the world. The figures suggest that about 90% of all adults say that they will take the vaccine, or are very likely to take the vaccine.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UK is a leader in the global response to tackling covid-19, especially given the fact that we are not safe until everyone is safe?
Nadhim Zahawi
When the Prime Minister set up the vaccines taskforce he gave it two priorities: first, to discover the vaccines that would work, in order to contract for them or to manufacture them in the UK; and secondly, to work out how to help the rest of the world, which is why we were the first country to put £548 million into COVAX and very much establish COVAX, which now has more than 450 million doses, the bulk of which are Oxford-AstraZeneca, which is our gift to the world. Some 98% of the COVAX jabs that have been delivered and have protected people have come from Oxford-AstraZeneca. Pfizer has also been doing the same thing: from day one its chief executive, Albert Bourla, spoke about vaccine equality, and Pfizer is offering vaccines at cost to low and middle-income countries.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is simply unacceptable that my constituents in Luton South found out about the changed advice on travel to Bedford through the back door, via the media last night. They need thorough clarity and formal information to be provided through our local authorities.
On local authorities, what steps are the Government taking for the prioritisation of turbocharged vaccinations, not just for areas with the new variant but for areas with enduring transmission?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think I have dealt with the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, in the sense that the guidance and information was shared with the country on 14 May. We continue to endeavour to improve our communications, in partnership with local government and by addressing local health systems.
On vaccine turbocharging, the hon. Lady will know that we are looking at mobile vaccination sites, increasing sites’ opening hours and putting in more resource so that we can vaccinate the people who are eligible to be vaccinated—it is important to make that distinction. We will continue to do all that in Bedford to make sure that the people of Bedford are protected and we get the variant under control.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Over the weekend I was contacted about two instances of people having difficulties getting the access that they wanted to their frail relatives in Barnet Hospital. It was particularly distressing because in both instances the patients had difficulties communicating with and understanding hospital staff. I appreciate that hospitals have a paramount duty to ensure proper infection control, but will the Minister encourage hospitals throughout the country to facilitate visits so that relatives can support the frail elderly while they are in hospital?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will certainly take my right hon. Friend’s constituents’ details and look into that. We urge all hospitals to make sure that when the frail elderly need social contact, they are able to get it.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
No one is safe from covid-19 until we all are, but the UK continues to stubbornly resist calls for a waiver of covid-19 vaccine patents. Given that people in many of the world’s poorest countries cannot expect to be vaccinated until 2023, and given the failure of the COVAX initiative to distribute vaccines at the volume and speed that is needed, will the Government now follow the lead of the Biden Administration and reverse their position on a patent waiver?
Nadhim Zahawi
That is a really important question. Let me share with the hon. Member a little about the operational challenges around vaccine manufacture. We will of course look at any text that our US colleagues put forward on the intellectual property issue, but in reality if the exam question is to get more jabs in the arms of those who live in low and middle-income countries, the bottleneck is not the IP but the transfer of technology to manufacturers around the world. What Oxford-AstraZeneca has done incredibly well is to transfer that technology to 20 sites that can manufacture at scale. We have already delivered 450 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. The hon. Gentleman might recall that Pfizer did the same thing; it actually paused its manufacturing in Europe and expanded it, to go from 1.2 billion doses a year for 2021 to almost 3 billion doses. If the exam question is to get more jabs in arms, we need that technology transfer. It is not easy, as we saw in Halix in Europe, which had great difficulty operationalising the manufacturing, as did Catalent in the US. That is the real effort that needs to go in—as well, of course, as helping other countries with deployment. It is only one part of the jigsaw to get the vaccine into warehouses in those countries; those countries have to be able to get it out and into people’s arms.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The experience over the last year has shown that local lockdowns are not effective, because cases simply rocket in the areas immediately outside the local restrictions. With that in mind and to get ahead of the curve, this morning I have been in discussions with Derbyshire County Council and my local director of public health to establish a pop-up vaccination site at Gamesley, where there has been a high number of new cases, so that we can deliver surge vaccination. Will the Minister work with me, my local director of public health and the NHS to ensure that we get the doses we need to get everyone in the High Peak vaccinated as soon as possible?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The important thing is to get those who are eligible vaccinated and for those who need their second dose to get that second dose within the eight-week period. That is the way we control this variant. I will happily work with him on any local initiative that he is working on.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The evidence is clear: women who are pregnant who get covid are twice as likely to have a premature birth and twice as likely to experience stillbirth. Other countries have recognised this and have ensured that pregnant women of any age are a priority for vaccination, but in this country the conversation about the data has not even happened yet, despite months of asking. There will be thousands of pregnant women in the areas where the variant is on the rise, and across the country, terrified about what might happen if they get covid. What can we do to help them get hold of the vaccine, regardless of age, so that we are protecting the youngest members of our community?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady will know, because she is on the weekly MPs’ call that I host, that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is looking at this data. In the meantime, because of data provided by the United States of America, we have made the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines available to all pregnant women who are in the eligible cohort. That is happening as we speak. I know that Professor Anthony Harnden, who is the deputy chair of the JCVI, has promised the hon. Lady that the JCVI is looking at the data; when it delivers the advice to us, the system will follow that advice.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The scale and pace with which we are delivering our vaccine programme is a marvellous achievement and a testament to everybody involved. It is how we are able gradually and safely to come out of the restrictions. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we will always be following the science and the data, so that activities can resume as safely and as soon as possible? I am particularly thinking about indoor gatherings for groups such as community choirs, and other events that bring people together. Such activities are so needed to combat the isolation that has hit so many people during the lockdown.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend will know that the reason for restrictions on activities such as choirs and singing is the added transmission through aerosols or droplets. The faster that we can move the vaccination programme, the sooner we can end those restrictions. Therefore, my absolute focus—and my commitment to him—is that we continue at pace. We have a big week this week and a big week next week.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his weekly updates, which I have found really helpful, and for his work on vaccine hesitancy across the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. I had my vaccine on 14 May at St Thomas’ Hospital—the same hospital that cared really well for our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister thanked those nurses, including Luis, who gave me my vaccine. But we saw that Jenny resigned from the NHS last week, so will the Minister use his will and his power to speak to the Treasury to get our hard-working nurses the pay they deserve?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s commitment in ensuring that we get the vaccine message out to harder-to-reach communities and for her work with me on the weekly meetings. We have delivered an increase to nurses. We await the outcome of the deliberations of the panel that will look at nurses’ pay, and then the Treasury will make an announcement in the usual way
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his assistance in ensuring continuity of supply to the Baths Hall in Scunthorpe and our other vaccination hubs. Over 71% of our adult population in North Lincolnshire have received their first vaccine and almost 50% have had their second vaccine. Will he join me in thanking the fantastic volunteers who I see outside in all weathers at the Baths Hall, welcoming patients to receive their vaccination? We quite simply could not have done it without them.
Nadhim Zahawi
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that, because I see it up and down the country all the time. I spoke earlier about the Dunkirk spirit, with people coming up and saying, “I want to be counted. I want to be part of this.” We demonstrated it to the world a little bit in the 2012 Olympics. This is a whole other scale of operation. Nevertheless, we have delivered on it and will continue to deliver on it, and I stand on the shoulders of the real heroes and heroines of the NHS family, our armed forces and local government.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The vaccine works—it prevents serious illness and helps to prevent transmission—but I read in the papers this morning that even if someone has had two jabs, if they come into contact with someone who is positive after 21 June, they will still have to isolate for 10 days. Could my hon. Friend confirm whether or not that is correct?
Nadhim Zahawi
I answered a question on this issue earlier. Obviously if someone contracts covid, they have to isolate and quarantine, but in terms of their contacts, we are looking at regular testing to see whether there is an alternative. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait a little longer before step four, and we will say more on this on 14 June.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber, but for many like me who are immunocompromised, returning in person to the workplace is concerning, as we do not yet know how effective the vaccines are for us. Will the Minister consider allowing immunocompromised people to have access to antibody testing, thereby giving us some idea of the vaccines’ efficacy and some knowledge of our level of protection from the virus?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady asked a similar question last week, and Professor Harnden of the JCVI said that the problem with antibody testing is what it really tells us. I will happily ask the question again on her behalf of the JCVI. Suffice it to say that on 17 May we put out guidance to employers saying that those who are shielding and immunocompromised should be allowed to work from home if they need to.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s position on the coronavirus pandemic is that it is still a question of life and death, that communications are vital in this effort and that compliance follows confidence, which in turn follows competence? Will he confirm when these local lockdown measures were agreed with the leadership at Bolton Council and when the Prime Minister formally agreed to this updated guidance being imposed?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend will recall that the Prime Minister addressed this issue on 14 May.
Nadhim Zahawi
Yes, he did address this issue in his press conference. I can read the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) the words from that press conference, because he says from a sedentary position, “He did not.” The Prime Minister said, speaking about Bolton:
“given the caution that I think we have to exercise with this new variant, the risk of extra transmissibility, I would urge people just to think twice about that. That’s what we’re saying. I think that we want people in those areas to recognise that there is extra risk, an extra disruption, a threat of disruption to progress caused by this new variant and just to exercise their discretion and judgment, in a way I’m sure that they have been throughout this pandemic and will continue to do so, I hope very much.”
Those were his words, and the guidance was in place.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister has done a good job on the vaccines, but this statement is utterly chaotic and completely confused. What advice is he actually giving to people in the north-west or in West Yorkshire about going to the pub, about weddings and about travel—even about whether, if they are allowed to travel out of Bolton, they are allowed to travel to Portugal, on the green list, for holidays? Is not the reality that he is so uncomfortable about giving any advice because he knows the reason he is putting these people in Bolton, in West Yorkshire and in other places in this position is that the Government failed to put India on the red list earlier? Over 400 people from India came into the country with the Indian variant, and putting India on the red list would have prevented it from spreading to thousands of other people in the community. Will he apologise to people in the areas that are affected with the additional restrictions he is advising because of the Government’s failure?
Nadhim Zahawi
I do not agree with the right hon. Lady, as she will not be surprised to hear. I have already talked about how visiting families are impacted and pubs and hospitality are affected, and about the exercise of caution and being careful. She will recall that when India was put on the red list on 23 April, it was a full six days later that this particular variant was identified by the experts—the virologists—as a variant of interest, and a full two weeks later before it became a variant of concern. So her point, actually, is made unfairly.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
When does my hon. Friend anticipate that the NHS smartphone app will be enabled to allow those in Wales to demonstrate their covid vaccination status? Further to that, does he expect that other features of the app, such as the ability to book GP appointments, to order prescriptions and to view notes will also be enabled in Wales?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are working closely with the Welsh Government to enable the integration of Welsh citizens’ data with the NHS app, NHS.uk, for the purpose of covid status certification, including undertaking the required scoping and impact assessment that will enable us to set out a detailed timeline for the delivery of that integration.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
The people of Bosworth are a pragmatic bunch, as are the people of Leicestershire. Leicestershire surrounds Leicester. What advice does the Minister give to those people who are in Leicestershire who send their kids to school in Leicester, who work in Leicester, and who are thinking of having bank holiday time with family in Leicester?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Member for Leicester South saying “Good question.” He is absolutely right. We have to exercise caution and common sense, as I described earlier, around visiting. People absolutely can visit family and friends at half-term if they follow social distancing guidelines. I think people absolutely will exercise that personal responsibility and common sense when they go about their family time or school time.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Last year the Prime Minister gave in to pressure from trade unions and cross-party opposition and announced refunds for health and care workers from overseas for the £624 charge they are paying to use the NHS. Yesterday the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) could not tell me how many healthcare workers had been refunded, and in Committee earlier, the Care Minister did not know either. Does this Minister know how many, if any, healthcare heroes have had their NHS charges refunded, or was it just another empty promise from this Government?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with the answer to her question. Suffice it to say that this is an important amount of money to those people and I do not think we should be playing politics with it in a sort of “gotcha” moment.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Minister will recall that we were told that the first lockdown was required to give time to build capacity in the NHS. Can he therefore tell us how many more hospital beds are available now than in March last year?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will write to my right hon. Friend with that detail. Suffice it to say that we now have 908 people with covid, as I said in my statement—the lowest number since lockdown.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
South Shields and North Tyneside are interconnected. Today, my community and businesses are incredibly anxious. We know that local lockdowns do not work and inevitably lead to national ones. We know that it is likely that there will be other variants of this virus, which may well be with us for ever. Lockdowns break our economy and society, cause mental distress, delay vital cancer treatments, lead to further unemployment and exacerbate inequalities. Can the Minister explain why the Government’s response—instead of fixing test, trace and isolate, for example—is always more restrictions and endless cycles of lockdown?
Nadhim Zahawi
I hope the hon. Lady agrees that the vaccination programme has given us a way out of non-pharmaceutical interventions, which were the only thing we had at our disposal to try to slow down the pandemic and the virus. As we transition from pandemic to endemic, we are planning for a booster shot in the autumn to protect the most vulnerable or all people in phase 1—that clinical decision has yet to be made. We are already making plans for next year to deal with covid, as we deal with seasonal flu, through annual vaccination programmes. By next year, this country will be able to manufacture 700 million doses of vaccine, not just for the UK but to help the rest of the world.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My constituency is in Kirklees. I could ask about how the new travel advice for Kirklees was communicated to my constituents, but instead I want to clarify three things with the Minister. The first is travel advice. It is half-term next week, and families will be visiting and going on short breaks. Should they now cancel those trips? Secondly, hotels, bed and breakfasts, and restaurants are getting cancellations. What support will hospitality get? Finally, my constituents can see the data on where the hotspots are. When will we start using granular data to tackle the outbreaks, rather than lumping whole council areas into these advised restrictions?
Nadhim Zahawi
Let me take those questions in reverse. On granular data, we already have the capability in the vaccination programme to see by postcode area where the uptake is at. That is how we can focus our resources to turbocharge the programme, as we have done and will continue to do, including in Kirklees.
On pubs and hospitality, indoor areas and hospitality venues can continue to serve seated clientele, diners and drinkers, as I described earlier. If people have booked visits to their families, they are absolutely able to have them as long as they follow social distancing guidelines and common sense.
We need to make sure that we are vigilant, because the B1617.2 variant is concerning, and we have to bring it under control by turbocharging vaccinations, surge testing, isolating and genome sequencing.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney): what we need now more than ever before is clear communication from the Government, so that residents of Burnley, Blackburn and Bolton know exactly what is expected of them. Will the Minister confirm that this guidance is guidance and that my constituents can still exercise the freedoms that they reclaimed last Monday? Will he meet me and other colleagues to talk through what more we can do to make sure that communication is clear in the areas where we need it most?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. On the guidance, as I have made clear on a number of occasions at the Dispatch Box, people have to be careful and vigilant, as they have been already.
A number of colleagues have asked about the Batley and Spen by-election. We have just demonstrated in the local elections that we can conduct elections safely; we will be able to conduct that by-election safely, too. People just need to be sensible. Let us work together, bring this together and take the politics out of it.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Criminal Justice Review: Response to Rape
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney General if he will make a statement on when the Government’s end-to-end review of the criminal justice system response to rape will be published.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her continued interest in the Government’s work in this area. Rape and sexual violence are devastating crimes that impact on victims for the rest of their life. When victims take the brave step of reporting the crime, they expose their deep personal trauma in the interests of justice. The criminal justice system needs to support those victims, believe them and ensure that their needs are met at the heart of the criminal investigation.
The Government have long recognised that the decline in the number of effective trials for rape and serious sexual offences in England and Wales is a cause of significant concern. As a result, we commissioned the end-to-end rape review in March 2019 to look at evidence across the system, from reporting to the police to outcomes in court, in order to understand what is happening in cases of adult rape and serious sexual offences being charged, prosecuted and convicted in England and Wales.
Our review represents a serious commitment to change by the Government and our partners. At its heart will be a set of actions that will drive system and culture change to ensure that the victims feel supported and able to stay engaged with their case. That, combined with updated and stronger case preparation methods, as well as increased communication between all those involved in the prosecution and new charge mechanisms, should lead to more cases reaching court and, we hope, defendants pleading guilty.
To ensure that that happens, I have been tasked by the Prime Minister to take personal leadership of the actions from the review, working with colleagues across Government to ensure accountability of operational partners for delivery. I will of course regularly update the House on our progress.
On the substantive question, I was keen to publish the rape review last year. However, following extensive feedback from the Victims’ Commissioner and the victim sector that we needed to take account of the End Violence Against Women Coalition’s “The Decriminalisation of Rape” report and the pending judicial review judgment, we took the decision to delay publication. We have used the time since that delay to carry out further research and engage with stakeholders in order to formulate an ambitious and wide-reaching action plan, which we will be publishing shortly after recess. When we publish the report, I will present it to Parliament and write to colleagues across the House to outline our approach. I look forward to working with the hon. Member and, indeed, all Members across the House to ensure that this action plan drives the substantial change we need to see.
Alex Davies-Jones
The failings of the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving violence against women and girls, have been well documented in this place, yet victims of rape continue to be a last priority for this Government. Yesterday, The Guardian’s analysis of Home Office figures for rape prosecutions was published, and it makes for truly appalling reading. Fewer than one in 60 rape cases reported to the police last year resulted in a suspect being charged. In 2020, more than 52,000 rapes were reported in England and Wales, yet only 843 resulted in a charge or summons. That figure translates to a shocking rate of just 1.6%.
Like many others, I initially welcomed the Government’s commitment to an end-to-end rape review of the criminal justice system, yet we are now more than two years down the line and, after a number of delays, that vital review is still nowhere to be seen. The Justice Secretary recently announced that it would be published before the end of the spring, yet the stakeholder reference group that the Minister alluded to has not been consulted on what is in the rape review action plan. Enough is enough.
The Government have repeatedly acknowledged that they have not been robust enough in their efforts to tackle gender-based violence, but it does not have to be this way. The Labour Government in Wales passed the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which set out 10 national indicators of progress in tackling violence against women and girls by which the Government can be held to account. By contrast, the UK Government cannot even commit to publishing their own review in good time.
So I ask the Minister: will he now take this opportunity to apologise for this delay to thousands of rape victims, and particularly the 40% who are rapidly losing faith in the justice system and withdrawing from prosecutions? Will he support Labour’s call to introduce a similar indicator to that seen in Wales, to facilitate a transparent approach to tackling violence against women and girls? Lastly, will he once and for all confirm an exact date for when this review will be published?
Kit Malthouse
I completely appreciate the hon. Lady’s righteous anger about this situation. As I said in my statement, this is not a matter about which any of us are particularly pleased or proud, and it is a source of regret that the investigation and conviction of rape has been declining for some years. It is a difficult offence to deal with at the best of times, but the significant declines that we have seen in the past few years are absolutely what we wish to address.
However, against that background, I am sorry that the hon. Lady seeks to politicise what should be a cross-party issue, not a Labour/Conservative issue. There are many Members on the Government Benches for whom this has been a significant issue for some time. As Mayor of London, the Prime Minister himself published the first ever violence against women and girls strategy in this country and, indeed, in any major city around the world. This is an issue that has been close to his heart, and indeed mine, for some time.
I should also point out to the hon. Lady that, notwithstanding the fact that there is a document that requires publishing—as I say, that will be published shortly after recess—she should not mistake that for the beginning of the work. Much work has been done thus far, and we are engaged closely with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other partners to make sure that the action plan and the work we need to do to get more cases from report into court has begun already. As the hon. Lady will know, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council launched their joint action plan in January this year, and I am pleased that that progress is being made as well.
That is against a background of significant action by the Government over the past decade in various areas of violence against women and girls, which I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate and applaud, ranging from creating the offence of coercive control to outlawing upskirting, stalking, and revenge porn and the threat thereof. We have just passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 with great support across both Houses. Alongside that, we have the information and support campaigns the Government have been running, along with the very significant financial support that has gone into support for victims and witnesses of rape and sexual violence.
The document is important, and it was important to get it right—as I say, we delayed it at the request of the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims sector. Please be under no illusion: we are working extremely hard to try to correct what, as the hon. Lady points out, is an injustice.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
As somebody who both prosecuted and defended probably dozens of rape cases in the course of my career at the Bar, I can say that the Minister is certainly right to recognise that these are always complex and demanding cases. The difficulty of securing the same level of convictions as there is for other types of serious offence has been around for many years—it is not a recent one.
It is also right, of course, to have delayed publication until the decision of the Court of Appeal in the judicial review; otherwise, it might have materially altered the review’s conclusions. However, now that all the challenges have been dismissed on all grounds and the judgment has been handed down, on 14 May, will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that not only is the document published but that there is proper resourcing to support the joint national plan of action between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police? Doing the same is starting to make a difference in relation to the problems experienced in the past with disclosure. Getting the thing working on the ground, surely, is what we must now tackle very urgently.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. He is quite right that to get this complicated and difficult piece of work correct, it was appropriate for us to delay. I have to confess that I was pretty gung-ho —anxious to get it out before Christmas. But as I say, the intervention of the sector and the judicial review meant that we had to hold off because of the implications.
My hon. Friend is quite right that the key issue is not so much the document, which is an important statement and political moment, but the operationalisation of what is within it. While we are dealing with a police service of tens of thousands of individuals, a prosecution service with many people involved, and lots of other parties that take a case from report to court, getting them all to both act and think differently—the culture change as well as the operational change—will be an enormous challenge. That is what we are focused on. He will be pleased to know that I have convened a Criminal Justice Board taskforce of key individuals in the organisations involved to try to drive that operational challenge of embedding change.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government are letting down victims of rape and serious sexual violence on every front. Victims are being left waiting years for their day in court, with no support, no communication and no action from the Government. When I have spoken to victims, they tell me that they often feel as though they are on trial and how being left to wait years for their day in court leaves them in a form of purgatory, unable to move on from what has happened to them. Many feel that the justice system is working against them, not for them. That is a complete and utter failing of this Government.
We have been waiting for over two years for the rape review. The Minister refers to the court judgment, but that was handed down weeks ago—again, the date of publication has been kicked into the long grass, with no action from the Government. In that time, another 100,000 rapes are reported to have taken place.
Victims cannot wait any longer for action. The Government must urgently publish their review, which must include hard-hitting recommendations and root-and-branch reform to the CPS, Ministry of Justice and Home Office. We need to see how the Government intend to reverse the shocking deterioration of rape prosecutions they have allowed to happen under their watch and how they intend to improve the criminal justice system for victims of rape and sexual violence. What we do not need are slapdash briefings to the press about what is potentially in the review. No more pilots, no more consultations—what we need is action. We need a plan, and Labour has one. We have set out what we would do in our survivors’ support plan and in our Green Paper, “Ending violence against women and girls”. So today, I ask the Minister: will he commit to backing Labour’s survivors’ support plan? Will he introduce indicators across the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice and police to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system, as set out in our Green Paper? Will he finally commit to a date for the publication of the review, or will he continue to watch the effective decriminalisation of rape?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, we have committed that the review will be published shortly after the recess, but as I said in answer to an earlier question, please do not believe that we are waiting for the production of the plan to start the work. Indeed, much of the work has been done already. The hon. Lady will know, for example, that Project Bluestone in Avon and Somerset police is doing fantastic work at the moment on a new model of operation for this kind of investigation and on joint close working between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They have a joint operational improvement board. They have launched their action plan. There was significant support for that and a massive mobilisation across policing to deal with, in particular, the new disclosure guidelines that the Attorney General’s Office has issued in response to the growth in the use of mobile phones in the investigation of crime, particularly in this area.
I would be more than happy to look at the Labour Green Paper, because I do not think there is any monopoly on good ideas in this area, as I hope that my opposite number will look with an open mind at the plan that we publish and the work we intend to do. We all have a shared desire here to see better outcomes and more justice for victims in court, and we will have to stand shoulder to shoulder if we are going to make that happen.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The devastating impact on victims from rape, sexual exploitation, sexual violence and grooming is shattering and long-lasting, and every victim must feel able to come forward with confidence that their complaint will be fully investigated and, where evidence supports, that charges and prosecutions will follow. However, not all victims have confidence in the criminal justice system, so can my hon. Friend outline what steps the Government are taking to support those victims and provide reassurance that any complaint will be taken seriously?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right that we have to make sure in all we do that victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system, and he will have seen in the recent Queen’s Speech that we have made a commitment to bring in a new victims law. It will put the victims code, which has 12 strong rights for victims in the criminal justice system, into law and ensure that all the operational partners—the police, the CPS and the courts, which are all rightly independent of Government—see the need to take up the challenge of putting victims at the heart of the system.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The statistics are frankly lamentable, and behind each one is a victim. There were 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in 2020. Only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons—a rate of 1.6%. For every 10 cases the CPS prosecuted in 2016-17, it now pursues only three. We know what failure looks like: it is this. What should the figures look like to be acceptable to the Minister? How long does he think we should have to wait to get to that point?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Member is quite right. As I have said, the numbers are deeply, deeply regrettable, and he is correct that not enough victims are getting justice in court. There have obviously been significant changes in technology, not least the advent of the mobile phone and the critical part it plays in so many of these investigations. We need to get ourselves in shape, both in terms of capacity and capability, and we need the right framework around inquiry and disclosure for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. That work is ongoing. We have ambitions, obviously, to raise the number very significantly, but I would not underestimate the operational challenge in embedding this across 43 police forces. The hon. Gentleman will know that creating the structural change alongside the cultural change in two operationally independent organisations, as well as in the court system, will take time and a foundational approach to change, which we are committed to and on which the work has started already.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
What is being done to improve the collaboration between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that more cases are actually charged?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as usual, puts her finger on the key issue—the relationship between the police and the CPS, in their collaboration to get a case to court, is absolutely critical. I hope she saw that, in January, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service launched their joint national action plan, with five themed areas of work that are designed to do exactly that. Those are on support for victims; casework quality and progression; digital capability and disclosure, including looking at mobile phones, as I mentioned earlier; people and expertise—critically, building knowledge and expertise—and engaging properly with stakeholders. I know that Deputy Chief Constable Sarah Crew, with whom I have met many times, and Baljit Ubhey and Sue Hemming from the CPS are leading the charge on this. They form part of the criminal justice support taskforce, which I lead, to try to drive the kind of results that we want to see.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. The shocking drop in rape convictions demonstrates the need for urgent, radical, systemic change. Welsh Women’s Aid has stressed to me the importance of accurate, disaggregated data for Wales in its monitoring of the current duty to prevent crime and protect victims under the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. Will the Minister commit to a regular publication of Wales-specific data relating to cases of rape, and will he acknowledge that prosecution support services will work effectively for rape survivors only when justice powers are devolved to Wales, as they are to Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Kit Malthouse
Data and transparency is one of the key themes that we have been looking at as part of the rape review. There will be an announcement, when the plan comes, about what we intend to do in terms of reporting. I am afraid that I do not support her call for more devolution. I think that England and Wales are stronger together on this issue, as on so many others.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
The vast majority of rape victims know the perpetrator in the first place, and the vast majority are in relationships with them, or historically have been. The key here is ensuring that once a victim of rape reports it to the police, they are dealt with not only sympathetically, but supported all the way along the line to court. This is a structural and cultural change that needs to take place. What effort is my hon. Friend making to ensure that cultural change, as well as structural change, is actually implemented?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the key issues that we have to address is what they call “victim attrition”, which is a slightly depersonalised, desensitised phrase for victims not feeling that they are going to get justice and giving up along the way. I was very pleased that the Government announced a massive increase in the amount of money being given to create the posts of independent sexual violence advisers and domestic abuse advisers, who will help to support victims through the criminal justice system to make sure that they get to court in good shape and able to give the evidence that they wish to give. There will be more about this issue in the review and I hope that, when it comes, he will welcome it.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Despite the reasoning, the long delay in publishing the Government’s review of rape cases is emblematic of the chronic delays throughout the criminal justice system that are denying survivors justice and allowing rapists to walk free. The results of the analysis initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) are shocking. As a former sexual offences trained police officer, I think that what these statistics make clear is that police and prosecutors need more resources and training to bring perpetrators to justice, whether that means supporting survivors, handling investigations sensitively, analysing digital evidence or countering damaging stereotypes. The Minister talked in his response about this being part of ongoing work, so what are the Government doing now to deliver?
Kit Malthouse
I agree with the hon. Lady about resources and training. The development of expertise, which she obviously had in her career, is a key part of the Crown Prosecution Service and National Police Chiefs’ Council joint national action plan. We see better results from specialist teams, and often those structural issues that allow police officers to stay in post for longer, and develop an expertise in what my hon. Friend will know is a difficult and sensitive area of investigation, are critical. We must also ensure that the CPS is able to develop that specialism, and that will be a critical part of the joint national action plan.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In South Yorkshire just 24 people were charged, despite nearly 1,600 reports of rape being made in 2019. The Minister says that the Government have taken action, but their recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill does not mention women once. Will he admit that through their lack of action, this Government have effectively decriminalised rape?
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry to hear the numbers from South Yorkshire, and I know the hon. Lady will address them with the police and crime commissioner there, who is responsible for the performance of the police. He also chairs the local criminal justice board, which is designed to bring partners together in that area to work on exactly these issues. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill includes provisions that will focus on offences that largely impact women, not least the end of the halfway release for serious sexual offenders, including rapists who, when the Bill goes through, will have to serve two-thirds of their sentence, providing greater protection and justice for their victims.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
Because the majority of rapes take place behind closed doors, where the victim knows the perpetrator, and in circumstances that are incredibly difficult to prove afterwards, it has always been a difficult crime for which to get a conviction. The most striking features of the current rate are the high rate of attrition, and the fact that the CPS has seen fit to update the rape and serious sexual offences guidance all the way through the year on victim behaviour. Does my hon. Friend think there is a case for specialised prosecutors, and a specialist sexual offences court to deal with such crimes?
Kit Malthouse
I had the pleasure of watching a talk that my hon. Friend gave last night to a think-tank about these issues, and she was very thoughtful and interesting on this subject. Across all crime types we see that specialism pays, both in apprehending the perpetrator, but also in getting a conviction. We must ensure that the police and CPS can develop those specialisms. All prosecutions are currently charged by specialist RASSO prosecutors, but a collective expertise must be a key mission for us. Alongside that, we must ensure that victims have specialist support, and expertise is key to that.
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a particularly difficult, evidential situation, where often it is one word against another, and other circumstantial evidence may or may not lead to a conviction. I want to concentrate on the key area of recent reporting, and on encouraging people to report as soon as possible. As she will know, there is a short forensic window in such situations—normally 7 to 10 days—and there are sensitive forensic facilities where evidence can be gathered. We know that in such circumstances, the likelihood of conviction is much greater. For historical offenders it is even more difficult, which is why expertise is even more important.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Government know that rape prosecution and conviction rates have always been too low,
but they have plummeted over the last four years, dropping by 60% to 70%. Ministers were warned several years ago about the impact of cuts to specialist rape prosecutors and to specialist sexual violence teams in the police. Has the Minister done an assessment of what the reduction in some of those specialist policing teams has been, what the impact has been, and what additional capacity is now needed in those specialist teams, in both the CPS and the police, to turn this awful situation around?
Kit Malthouse
I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her question, but it would be a mistake to point to one particular issue driving the drop. We know, for example, that the significant fall from 2016-17 was down to difficulties with disclosure that arose from particular cases, and the impact that that has had on both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
I think it is sometimes a mistake to give the impression that somehow a decision was made that this should happen. It was not. There has been a pattern of decline over a number of years. Part of the reason that we instituted the rape review, admittedly 24 months ago, was to try to diagnose exactly what has gone wrong—exactly why these cases are failing to get to court, why so many witnesses are falling out before they get to court, why we are seeing difficulties with disclosure, and what we can do to improve, for example, our operation of digital forensics, in terms of both capacity and capability. All that will be contained in the review. I understand people’s impatience; there is not much longer to wait now.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I commend the Government for the work that has already been put in hand to improve support for rape complainants. Will my hon. Friend give an update on when the new 2017 guidance on achieving best evidence—ABE—will be published and set out how the use of recorded pre-trial evidence and the specialist input of the Criminal Bar Association are informing the Government’s next steps?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s constructive question. He is right; we do think that the use of section 28, as it is called—giving recorded evidence—will have a role to play. As he will know, we have rolled it out for vulnerable victims across all Crown courts, and we now have a number of pathfinder courts—in Liverpool and, I think, Leeds—where we are using it in cases of intimidated witnesses, not least in cases of rape and sexual violence. As for the guidance that he points towards, that is a police-owned document, and I know that they are collaborating closely with the CPS and the Criminal Bar Association to get it right. We stand ready to help them with publication once their work is finished.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
I have heard harrowing testimony from a number of my constituents about their experience of seeking justice after rape and sexual violence. The majority felt that they had been further traumatised by the process and felt like they were the ones on trial, whether because they were required to hand over their digital devices, because they were not able to access pre-trial therapy, or because of the myths and stereotypes that abound.
Listening to that testimony, I felt vindicated in my own decision not to go to the police—a decision that thousands of women sadly take because they understandably feel like their trauma will only be compounded by the process, with a minuscule likelihood of securing a conviction. Will the Minister therefore please commit to supporting Labour’s call for the establishment of a pre and post-trial survivor support package, including a full legal advocacy scheme for victims and better training for professionals around myths and stereotypes, so that survivors can finally have some confidence in this process?
Kit Malthouse
It is obviously a matter of deep regret that anybody feels prevented from coming forward to report a rape, or indeed a sexual assault, to the police. That is one of the issues that we need to address—building confidence among victims that they should and could step forward, recognising at all times that it takes enormous courage to do so. Like the hon. Lady, I have sat with victims of this particularly appalling and intimate crime over the years, so I recognise the devastating impact that it can have. As to the measures that she calls for, I obviously cannot make an announcement today, but I recommend that, when the review is published, she reads it from cover to cover.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Being believed is one of the most important things for a rape victim’s confidence. Being able to come forward and report the rape in the first instance is not easy, especially when sexual abuse survivors really fear that if they were to report the crime no one would believe them, when victims know that society can blame them for the aggression or, as is often the case, when the rape victim was known by the perpetrator. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for his assurance today that the voices of victims are at the heart of the review, but will he assure me that rape victims going forward will have confidence in the criminal justice system’s handling of rape complaints?
Kit Malthouse
While my primary objective will be to get more cases into court—that, fundamentally, is the problem we are trying to address—my hon. Friend is quite right that, alongside that, it is completely critical that we build confidence among victims in the criminal justice system. We have seen an increase in reported rape over the last few years, and it is quite a significant increase, so more people are confident to come forward. However, given the performance figures so far, that could easily slip away, so making sure they are at the heart of decision making—that they know when they come forward that they can access the support they need, and can get the guidance and indeed the advocacy they need; that they will be received by police officers and prosecutors who are invested properly in and are looking dispassionately at the investigation; and that the natural inquiries required as part of this sort of offence investigation are proportionate and do not invade privacy in a disproportionate way—will be critical to the mission, and I hope that that is what she will find in the report.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister has rightly highlighted the importance of data and transparency in the rape review. With some police forces reporting a rapid rise in sexual offending by women, what steps is he taking to ensure that all police forces accurately record and collect data on the sex of both the victims and the perpetrators in all cases of rape and sexual violence? Does he agree with me that, when it comes to recording crime, sex does matter?
Kit Malthouse
I agree with the hon. Lady that demographics of all types matter. Indeed, I forget who it was, but someone said, “If you can’t measure something, you don’t know how to change it”. One of the first questions I have asked in my initial meetings in this job, when officials come in with a particular area of policy to deal with, is: do we actually know what is happening—do we have a clear picture of what is happening out there on the streets and communities we serve? I am more than happy to go back and have a look at the particular issue she has raised to make sure that we are getting the recording right.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Government’s support for independent sexual violence advisers, who we know have a profound effect in helping victims to get through the court process. However, we know that there is an issue in convictions versus acquittals in the court process as well. Could my hon. Friend please assure me that this will be thoroughly investigated in the rape review, but also that we will be looking at how we communicate the changes on a national level, so that people who might not otherwise be engaged in the political stories of the day will learn about these changes and have confidence in the system going forward?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to create a self-reinforcing story of success, where the support we give to victims and the changes in our methodology and indeed practices between the police and the CPS lead to a greater number of cases going into court, and that in turn leads to a greater number of convictions, which should build confidence among victims. I hope that is exactly the kind of spiral of success that the report will produce.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
Seven in 10 women say the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are lacking. Does the Minister back Labour’s Bill to end violence against women and girls, and if not, does he believe seven in 10 women are wrong?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, one of the key themes that we wanted to address as a Government is a general sense of safety in the public realm. That is why we are recruiting 20,000 more police officers and working day and night to drive performance on all crime types to create a greater sense of safety and security on our streets for men and women.
I do not accept necessarily, however, that we need a Bill as the hon. Lady has outlined, not least because we have managed to do a fair amount—a huge amount, actually—on violence against women and girls over the past few years through other means, as I set out earlier. We have new offences of coercive control, upskirting and stalking, and on revenge porn. The rough sex defence has been dealt with, and we have introduced modern slavery offences, when women are often trafficked for sex. We have even campaigned on rape being used as a weapon of war around the world. Alongside that are the report we have made on refuges, the domestic abuse helplines and work that we are doing now on the rape review.
That huge package points towards the safety of women and girls. While there is much to be proud of in that, there is still a lot more to do, which is why later this year we will publish a violence against women and girls strategy alongside a complementary domestic abuse strategy.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The justice system is in meltdown and the victims of all crime are having their justice delayed and subsequently denied, but survivors of rape and sexual violence are also being denied vital psychological therapy and counselling, since to seek such lifesaving support can be deemed to interfere with the validity of their evidence. Will the Minister adopt Labour’s survivors’ support package as a first and immediate step to ensure that survivors may have their evidence pre-recorded and their cross-examination pre-trial, so that they may access the very help that they need?
Kit Malthouse
The pandemic has been extremely challenging for the court system over the past year or so, but we all have a duty not to be hyperbolic in our language—it is not in meltdown. Justice is still being dispensed in the courts, and while delay built up naturally during the pandemic, an enormous amount of work has been done to deal with it, with the opening of Nightingale courts and a massive expansion of capacity. We are seeing progress, so I hope that the hon. Lady will focus on the work that needs to be done to recover from the pandemic. We will see more positive outcomes in the months to come.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The military conviction rate is far lower than that in the civil system. Service personnel and veterans’ representatives are all calling for military rape to be heard in civilian courts. Will my right hon. Friend agree to discuss with his Ministry of Defence counterpart that all victims, regardless of where the assault took place, should receive the justice that they deserve?
Kit Malthouse
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the low figures in military courts as well, and I will of course discuss that with the Secretary of State for Defence or my ministerial counterpart. I know that my hon. Friend is authoring, or leading on, a report on women in the armed forces at the moment. I shall look forward to reading that as well and drawing some conclusions from it for my work.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Violence against women and girls starts really young. I do not know whether the Minister saw the news today about the research done by Radio 4 and the NASUWT into sexual violence and harassment in schools, but a third of teachers had witnessed peer-on-peer sexual harassment or abuse and one in 10 see this happening on a weekly basis.
The problem we have with violence against women and girls in this country starts young and it never ends. We have a real problem, so as well as no more delays to the publication of the end-to-end rape review, will the Minister commit to talking seriously to his colleagues in the Department for Education about addressing the need for education on consent for boys and girls in schools and through youth work?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady makes an important point which, as I am sure she appreciates, is not within my ministerial ambit to comment on. However, through the work of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the online harms Bill and of the Department for Education, we are all very much aware that young people take their signals and learn their behaviour from the adults around them. We all have a duty to ensure that they grow up as right-thinking members of society.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
It is a fact that victims of rape and sexual assault are deterred from reporting these crimes. The combination of very low conviction rates, reporting requirements and a societal view of victim blaming combine to contribute against these feelings of deterrence. What can the Government do to ensure that the voices of victims are right at the heart of the review?
Kit Malthouse
I hope that, given his obvious conviction and commitment to this issue, my hon. Friend will volunteer to be on the Committee that considers the victims’ Bill when it enters the House. It will be a critical part of the architecture of ensuring that we build confidence in the system among victims, and I look forward to its passage through the House.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Minister says that justice is being dispensed in our courts. Well, in April this year a convicted rapist who named and blamed his victim on Facebook got a paltry £120 fine. We rightly give victims of rape anonymity for life. What message does he think it sends to victims when this important protection is being abused and the penalty for it is less than someone would get for fly-tipping? And if he agrees that it is not acceptable, what is he doing about it?
Kit Malthouse
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, victims of these kinds of offences do have a right to lifetime anonymity. Although I have to admit that that penalty standing alone does seem derisory, the hon. Lady will know that the particular individual—I think we are talking about the same case—received a very significant sentence for the substantive offence. This is an issue that we will be keeping under review, but for the purposes of the rape review my job is to get more cases into court, and that is what I will be focusing on.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
One of the issues in securing convictions is proving lack of consent. As my hon. Friend has said, it is often one person’s word against the other person’s. Would he consider working with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to establish guidelines as to how to prove consent or lack thereof?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises a critical issue, which, as she says, is at the heart of so many of these investigations. I know that, as part of their joint action plan, the police and the CPS will be looking at exactly such issues to ensure that there is consistency and, frankly, that they can get the right kind of result in court.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister tell the House whether the rape review looks at the shockingly low figures for convictions of men who rape women and girls who have been trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation; and will this be addressed in any action plan, including the need for new legislation to protect women and girls, and to hold men accountable for their actions?
Kit Malthouse
As the right hon. Lady will know, thanks to this Government there are now significant penalties under the modern slavery legislation for those who traffic individuals. However, I hope she will forgive me if I do not necessarily reveal what is in the review. I hope that she will see that, whatever the circumstances of that particular offence, once the work starts—the work has started, but once we get going on the work that sits behind the rape review—we will see perpetrators of all kinds of these offences in court, where justice can be dispensed.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Last month, a constituent of mine sent me a very powerful account of how her case has taken nearly three years to reach court. During that time, she has been told not to have therapy; that she could have therapy as long as the notes were shared with the defence; that she should not claim compensation; that she should not speak about it; and, at one point, that she would not be able to watch the trial. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the review will look both at how we can get cases to court more quickly, but at how victims can feel more supported, rather than feeling as my constituent has felt—inadvertently silenced?
Kit Malthouse
I am very distressed to hear the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent; it sounds like a dreadful case. On the therapy issue, the guidelines in place say that pre-trial therapy is absolutely allowed and appropriate, and nobody should be steered away from it. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that particular case, because it sounds like one from which we can learn some lessons.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner, has stated that the Government’s rape review team
“took the surprising decision not to seek the views of those who really matter—rape survivors.”
Will the Minister confirm today that the upcoming end-to-end review did consult survivors of rape and sexual violence? If it did not, how can he assure the House that the review is in fact end-to-end without its speaking to those directly impacted?
Kit Malthouse
Of course we consulted survivors, and a number of organisations that represent survivors were represented on the engagement panel as part of the development of the review. Indeed, more than that, the Government appointed Emily Hunt, a high-profile campaigner on this issue and herself a survivor, as an expert adviser.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
There is a benefit to being last to ask a question: one gets to see the whole debate. Throughout these exchanges there has been one common theme, which is trust. Only this month I have written to the Minister about harassment cases, but at its worst it is rape cases. People need to believe that when they come forward they will be trusted, that the police can be trusted to do their jobs, that they can trust sentences to be punishment and, finally, that we in this House are implementing the right laws. I am not asking the Minister to comment specifically on whether this review will deliver that, but overall does he think that it will bring trust into the system so that more convictions will go forward?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that trust in the police, the prosecution service and the courts is critical to building the confidence and legitimacy on which our law-enforcement system rests. Having been involved in the development of the plan, I hope and believe that it will do two things: first, address that particular issue in what is a complex environment; and secondly, bring justice for individual victims, absent the general confidence that we should all try to instil in the system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Points of Order
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced, without making a separate statement, that Hounslow and other local authority areas would be added to the new surge areas, rolling that announcement into his response to the Queen’s Speech debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and I appreciated a call from the Secretary of State’s Minister while the Secretary of State was in the Chamber, but we were subsequently shocked to find out that Hounslow Council had not been directly contacted about the statement at all. The council found out about it when it was phoned by the Evening Standard at lunchtime, ahead of the Secretary of State’s statement. The tone of the conversation sounded not like a journalist fishing but that a journalist knew what was coming.
Today, Hounslow residents have woken up to see the news that the guidance on the Department of Health and Social Care’s website was updated without announcement, causing confusion, and again without communication to the council. One playgroup found out when the staff went to a hall and set everything up and then had to shut it down after 10 minutes. The council leader has said that the
“current communication from Government on our national covid response is woefully lacking”
and impacting on the council’s work to inform and protect local residents. That is despite the Minister saying today, at least twice, that communication between health leaders and councils is essential in keeping people safe and tackling the spread of the virus.
This is no way to treat our constituents. Could you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how MPs can have a proper chance to ask questions on behalf of their constituencies if the Secretary of State is not making statements on significant changes in policy to this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. While the Chair is not responsible for the content of statements, Mr Speaker has made it clear that important announcements should be made to the Chamber first. Clearly, what constitutes an important announcement is a matter of judgment, but the hon. Lady has placed her views on the record, and I am sure that Ministers and Whips on the Treasury Bench will have heard her concerns. As she said, Mr Speaker did grant an urgent question earlier today in which similar points were made, but her points will have been added to those, and I am sure she will find other ways to make her concerns known.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, I asked the Health Secretary a very simple and honest question about a matter that is of national importance but also of local concern to my constituents, and that is the opening of the Leamington Spa mega-laboratory, a testing facility. The Secretary of State did not give me any answer to that question. I have written many times to his Department asking what is going on. Could you advise how on earth my constituents and all of us are supposed to know what is going on with that project?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice that he wanted to raise that point. Of course, I am not responsible for Ministers’ answers in the Chamber, but again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his point. I suggest that he pursues the factual answers he seeks through other methods, such as written questions. I am sure that those in the Table Office and other Clerks would be happy to give him advice on the other ways in which he might get the information he seeks.
I am now suspending the House for three minutes, to enable arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Tuesday 25th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Amendments as at 25 May 2021 - large print - (25 May 2021)
16:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 365 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 363 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 357 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Provision of information to the Intelligence and Security Committee—
“The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable with a copy of—
(a) any direction or notice (or part thereof) that is withheld from publication by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z11(2) or (3) of the Communications Act 2003;
(b) any notification of contravention given by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 105Z18(1) of the Communications Act 2003;
(c) any confirmation decision given by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 105Z20(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003;
(d) any reasons for making an urgent enforcement direction that are withheld by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in the accordance with section 105Z22(5) of the Communications Act 2003; and
(e) any reasons for confirming or modifying an urgent enforcement direction that are withheld by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z23(6) of the Communications Act 2003.”
This new clause would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction, notification of contravention, urgent enforcement action or modifications to an enforcement direction made on grounds of national security.
New clause 3—Network diversification—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communication networks and services.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include an assessment of the effect on the security of those networks and services of—
(a) progress in network diversification set against the most recent telecommunications diversification strategy presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State;
(b) likely changes in ownership or trading position of existing market players;
(c) changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment;
(d) new areas of market consolidation and diversification risk including the cloud computing sector;
(e) progress made in any aspects of the implementation of the diversification strategy not covered by subsection (a);
(f) the public funding which is available for diversification.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.
(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than two months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s diversification strategy on the security of telecommunication networks and services, and allow for a debate in the House of Commons on the report.
Amendment 1, in clause 14, page 21, line 27, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must, in the process of carrying out reviews and drafting subsequent reports, consult the appropriate ministers from the devolved governments.”
Chi Onwurah
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on Report. As I may have mentioned before, I am a chartered electrical engineer; before I entered Parliament, I worked for 20 years helping to build out the networks—fixed wireless and mobile—that became the internet. I am proud of that work and of the immense contribution that the telecommunications sector makes to our society, our economy and our security.
I am very pleased that today we are dedicating parliamentary time to our telecommunications sector. I thank all Members across the House who served on the Bill Committee for our many hours of fruitful debate as we strove to secure improvements to the Bill. I also thank the officials of this House, particularly in the Public Bill Office and the Library, who have provided such excellent support.
I declare an interest: many provisions in the Bill deal with the regulator Ofcom, and my last telecommunications role was with Ofcom. I joined it in 2004 just a few weeks after it was born, when it was to be a light-touch regulator, small and nimble. As a consequence of my time in the sector, I have been calling for greater security, particularly for our mobile networks, since I first entered this place in 2010.
The Labour party and I welcome the intention behind the Bill, but a number of areas in it need to be addressed. We are here today because of the Huawei debacle of the Government’s making. The Government have been forced to require the removal of Huawei, at an estimated cost of £2 billion and a delay of two to three years to our 5G roll-out, after overseeing Huawei’s rapid rise to be the foremost supplier to the telecoms company that carries our country’s name and universal service obligation: British Telecom.
The telecoms supply chain review found that there were no incentives for our mobile network operators to provide secure networks. Moreover, successive Tory Governments have squandered the world-leading position on broadband infrastructure left to them by Labour in 2010, as the United Kingdom has fallen down the league table from 27th to 47th in the world for average internet speeds. This lack of sovereign capability and absence of an effective telecoms strategy has resulted in our dependency on high-risk vendors, which the Bill seeks to address.
I am sure that you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not repeat the same arguments on Huawei that have dominated the debate over recent years. Given where we are now, we support the aims of the Bill. National security is the first duty of any Government, and Labour will always put national security first. Our telecoms infrastructure is clearly critical to our defence and security, as well as our economic prosperity.
We agree that, as the Bill sets out, the Secretary of State should have powers to designate vendors of concern and require mobile network operators to take appropriate action, and that Ofcom should have the power to monitor and enforce those directions. However, we wish to improve the Bill in three key areas, which our new clauses 1, 2 and 3 seek to address.
The first area is national security. Labour prioritises national security, and the sweeping powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State must be used in the interests of securing our critical national infrastructure. Removing Huawei does not, in and of itself, make our networks secure now or protect them against future threats; that requires a number of additional measures, some of which are in the Bill and some of which are not. For a start, if our telecoms network is to be secure, there must be expert democratic oversight of the measures that make it secure—yet the Bill makes no provision for Parliament’s experts, the Intelligence and Security Committee, to be informed or consulted. We want to fix that.
Secondly, the security of our network depends on an effective plan to diversify the supply chain. We are very concerned that the Bill does not even mention diversification and thus risks short-changing our national security, our technological sovereignty and our telecoms infrastructure. We want to ensure that progress is made in diversification as a prerequisite for the security of the telecoms network and a UK sovereign capability should be a part of that.
Thirdly, the Bill gives many new responsibilities and powers to Ofcom. That follows a vast expansion of Ofcom’s remit over the past 10 years. We want to make sure that Ofcom is appropriately resourced to carry out its duties and to be forward looking, not simply looking back.
One of the great failings of the Bill is that the Government are so fixated on fighting the last battle—the Huawei battle—they are not looking to the future. That is, in part, because various Government Back-Bench Members have very real concerns about the rise of China and its influence on our infrastructure. But these concerns, however well justified, seem to be blinding the Government to threats that are not Chinese in origin. We want to fix that. We want Ofcom to have the resources and the will to monitor the evolution of our telecoms networks, so that future threats, wherever they come from, can be identified and we do not find ourselves forced, as we are now, to make a huge change to our networks, at a huge cost to our economy.
I turn to new clause 1. As I said in my opening remarks, I joined Ofcom in 2004 when it was in its infancy as a slimline regulator. I kept a copy of the Communications Act 2003 on my desk. Since then, that Act has already doubled in size as Ofcom has acquired responsibility for critical national infrastructure: the BBC; the Post Office; online harms—that Bill is coming down the road; and, in this Bill, parts of national security as well. This latest expansion of Ofcom duties will necessarily add a strain not only to its budget, but to its resources. In January, in response to my written question, the Government stated that Ofcom would have the resources that it needs to do the job, in which case the Minister should be keen to support new clause 1, which requires Ofcom to report on the adequacy of its resources in fulfilling its functions under the amendments made in the Bill.
Ofcom lacks experience in national security measures—this was discussed during the evidence stage—and the expansion of duties will require the recruitment of people with the required level of security clearance and experience. That is not going to be easy, as we heard during the evidence sessions. Emily Taylor of Oxford Information Labs said that Ofcom
“will have to acquire a very specific set of skills and capabilities and that will require substantial investment and learning as an organisation”.––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 72, Q84.]
These skills are rare. The memo from the Minister, for which I am grateful, sets out how Ofcom and the National Cyber Security Centre will work. While it is welcome that they will work together, it did not provide the reassurance that we need. Indeed, it suggests that Ofcom will be entirely dependent on the NCSC for cyber skills and therefore, presumably, unable to understand the advice that it receives from the organisation.
New clause 1 requires Ofcom to report annually on the adequacy of measures taken by network providers to comply with changes introduced in the Bill, empowering the Government to track the effectiveness of the legislation. However, new clause 1 does more than that. It ensures that Ofcom has the human and informational resources to be forward looking. As I said, we are concerned that the Bill is backward looking and does not look to future threats. New clause 1 requires Ofcom to provide an assessment of emerging or future security risks based on its interrogation of network providers’ asset registers.
I am pleased that the Government are taking steps—as I understand it from the Minister—to formalise existing best practice in the telecoms sector and ensure that national providers maintain asset registers. I can tell Members that that has not always been the case. As the Minister said during the Committee stage, asset registers are an
“important part of the existing landscape”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2021; c. 162.]
But I ask him: why does he not take this further? We need to ensure that we have a good understanding of our national assets and so can assess emerging threats. Doing so would have made Huawei’s dominance visible earlier and it would now enable warning signs of future concerns—and there are future concerns. Again, Emily Taylor said:
“I feel a little like we have been fetishising 5G and a single company for the last two years, perhaps at the expense of a more holistic awareness of systemic cyber-security risks… Healthcare systems probably would not have been top of the list two years ago, but now they are. The SolarWinds attack shows that the identity of the vendor is not always the key risk point. SolarWinds is a very trusted vendor from a like-minded, close ally country, and yet it turns out to be a critical single point of failure across key, very sensitive Government Departments, both in the US and the UK.––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2021; c. 74, Q88.]
So I want the Minister to consider that in his response on this proposal.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The shadow Minister is a considerable specialist in this field; I particularly endorse what she says about the importance of a non-partisan approach to national security in this and other legislation. As noted on Second Reading, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has long been concerned about the security of the UK’s telecommunications networks. Our 2013 report “Foreign Involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure” identified serious failings in the way that successive Governments had managed the entry of foreign telecommunications companies into the UK market—Huawei especially—and we urged the Government not to sacrifice security in the pursuit of investment when it came to our critical national infrastructure.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, once again, to follow the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), as I did during the passage of the National Security and Investment Bill. He speaks with great wisdom and experience on these matters, and the Minister would do well to heed such advice from his Back Benches. It is also a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who also speaks with great experience in this field. I have been fortunate enough to sit on a number of Bill Committees with her, and it is clear that telecommunications is very much her forte.
Let us consider the Bill in a wider context, before I drill down on the new clauses. We are essentially looking at foreign investment in our critical, national infrastructure. In real terms this is not a new thing. We are all aware, I hope, of the ISC report from 2013 on that very matter, and Huawei, and its role within our infrastructure, did not necessarily come as a surprise to anyone. I read the Bill’s Second Reading with much interest. The Labour party was trying extremely hard to absolve itself of any blame in that regard, which made for light entertainment over the past evenings. Of course, the Government are just as complicit in that regard, and complicit with a small c, because they were not necessarily looking at things with the view that they have now.
From my experience in this House, the Government have not covered themselves in glory when it comes to this topic. When I came into this place in 2019, one of the first key issues that was talked about—aside from Brexit, of course—was Huawei’s role within the UK, and we have seen the Government flip-flop from one view to another. It is testament to the hard work of many Government Members that they got the Government to realise just how serious this topic is and, indeed, was in years gone by.
Although there are concerns, the only thing that has really changed in the many years since 2013 is the seriousness with which the Government are treating this matter, and that seriousness extends to my colleagues and me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, we are supportive of the Government’s efforts in this regard, as we were with the National Security and Investment Bill, but there are a couple of areas where the Government still need to provide a level of assurance. Notwithstanding the remarks that have rightly been made in relation to scrutiny by the ISC, importantly we need to be clear that the Government are going to pick up the tab in Scotland for all the equipment that will now be made surplus to requirements. We cannot have a situation where that is not the case, because it is their actions that have led to the situation we are in. We also need to ensure that the replacement strategy is both safe and secure, so that we do not find ourselves in a situation such as this ever again.
Notwithstanding the justified security concerns that we all have, perhaps the key thing lies in and around the issue of telecommunications. As was referenced by the shadow Minister, although not in the same detail, there are around 1 million people in rural Scotland who do not even have access to 4G. Of course, telecommunications is reserved to the UK Government—it is the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), and he will be cognisant of the fact that the 4G roll-out has not been as good as it should be. We all want to see the 5G roll-out, to ensure that we are in as advanced a position as possible, but we must ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated. I would certainly welcome assurances from the Minister in that regard.
That leads me to the SNP’s amendment 1, which seeks to ensure that the Government consult in full with the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is vital that we have that link and that, while we remain a part of the United Kingdom, the UK Government work in partnership with the Scottish Government on such serious matters.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we are supportive of the new clauses tabled by Labour on ensuring that there is diversification, that there is parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, and that the ISC plays a key role. I would like to hear from its Members that they are equally supportive of the view that the devolved Administrations should play a key role in telecommunications.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to return to old arguments and ensure that they are still live, and I intend to do just that. From the beginning, I have supported the process and initiative taken by the Government; it was not without struggles early on. I do not intend to go into the details, but I will refer to them. Back in 2019 and early 2020, it became quite a battle over whose advice was better. It seemed to me at the time—and, in a way, I do not blame the Government for this—that the National Cyber Security Centre gave the Government poor advice about the security risk, which was tempered by the Government’s need to go ahead and get 5G moving.
That is always the problem that we face. If organisations are to give Government advice on security risks, it must be completely separated on the basis that that is their advice; they must not temper it to suit the Government. We have seen that happen all the way through—it is not just this particular Government. They have made the right decision, and I will come back to that, but if we go back, this has happened also with Labour Governments and Conservative Governments of the past. Successive Governments have underestimated the growing risk that is coming particularly from China, but also from other countries. They were already aware of the risk from Russia.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
No, but I will never waste an opportunity, as it is obviously a joy to intervene on my right hon. Friend, who was asking how much deeper our relationship can go with a country that has sanctioned parliamentarians in this House for basically raising human rights abuses and security concerns.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am getting so used to just doing what I am told by my hon. Friend when it is necessary that she only has to look in this direction and I give way to her—my apologies.
What I was really trying to get to the bottom of is that I do not think that this is feasible any longer. The Bill illustrates the dichotomy that lies at the heart of the Government’s position. We are trying constantly to talk about these trade relationships, but at the same time we recognise that the country that we are discussing them with is a totalitarian state that is guilty of what many, including myself, believe is a genocide of a whole ethnic group—more than one ethnic group. It is a state that is intolerant, that is suppressing democracy and free speech in Hong Kong, that is threatening Taiwan and India, and that has said that it is in possession of the South China sea. I could go on with that list. We can recognise the compilation of all those things and that there is a security risk, and yet at the same time in the other place we are told, “Don’t worry. We are still trying to do trade deals.”
It is quite interesting that we have reopened an economic and financial dialogue under a JETCO—a joint economic and trade committee—which was originally paused because of the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. The discussions have now restarted, although we did not hear much fanfare. We sort of discovered that they had restarted, but there was no announcement from the Dispatch Box that we were restarting them. There are no dates involved, but the discussions are restarting, despite the sanctions against individuals and so on, and despite our sanctions against Chinese officials—although I still wish that we could do more.
I note also that the European Union was heading in the same direction with its agreement, only now, because of the sanctions on its MEPs and so on, it has decided that it is not going to do that. I simply raise the question: if we think that this country and this Government —the Chinese Communist party, the Government of China—are such a potential threat, should we really be trying to reopen those doors, despite the sanctions that we have in place, the sanctions that they have put in place, and the very clear threat that they now pose to our security?
I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I was going to move my amendment, which would have said that the Government should immediately declare many of these companies high-risk vendors by the very nature of the security law that exists in China. However, I would also say, in support of what has been said already, that the Government need to use the internal possibilities in our Parliament. We have a Committee that is cleared to the highest level of security in these areas, and it is important that we use that Committee. If the Government get private advice from the Committee about what it thinks is going wrong with their position, I think that will benefit and improve them.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to take my amendment into consideration and to answer that point, to think seriously about how we can strengthen the Bill further and, if he can, to make the reservations of this place felt to his colleagues in Government. We are deeply concerned about trying to ride two bicycles at the same time: recognising a deep and growing threat to democracy not just here but around the world from the Chinese Communist party, while trying to beg China to do trade deals with us, notwithstanding the fact that it behaves so badly.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the far north of Scotland. Before I make two points that will be familiar to the House, may I compliment the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on a most interesting speech? I afford myself a wry smile; we are where we are today, which is rather different from where we were when I attended the Westminster Hall debate in which he made the same point. I think that he would be allowed some quiet satisfaction at having changed the Government’s course as significantly as he has, because—I shall return to this point—this is about the defence of the realm.
Let me make a second initial remark, with reference to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). As a former Member of a place based in Holyrood, in Edinburgh, I wholeheartedly support the notion of working with the devolved Administrations. It makes absolute sense. If we believe in the security of the realm, we all have to work together for the better good.
As I have said already, my two points will be familiar to the House. The first is that, having done the armed forces scheme, I know it is very useful in bringing elected Members face to face with the realities of the defence of this country. For me, it was something of a wake-up call. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, that there are nations out there—Russia, China, North Korea and others—that do not concern themselves with the good health of the United Kingdom. We have only to look at the hijacking of the Ryanair airliner in recent days, or indeed the crime that was committed in Salisbury, to see that the actions of states can be very bad indeed for us as a country, so in some ways this whole debate is a bit of a wake-up call. We have to ask ourselves where we stand in the world, what we can do and whether we are going to stand up for what we believe is right.
The Bill has the support of my party, in that it helps to protect the vital interests of the United Kingdom and the people who live in and love our country, as we all do. The key point emerging from that is that, as others have said, there will have to be an element of co-operation with other countries that share our ideals and interests. We think of the Five Eyes countries, of our European friends and of other countries all over the globe—perhaps India, perhaps South Korea, perhaps Japan—that we could work with more closely to further the best interests of us all.
My second point—yes, I am going to talk about this yet again, so perhaps I should offer an apology to the Chamber—is on something that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South referred to: we talk about 5G in the UK, but there are parts of Scotland that do not have 4G. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), said, there are bits of Scotland where connectivity is very poor indeed. In the past, I have made the perhaps not very clever joke that in parts of my constituency, we might even be better off with two tin cans and a length of string, so there is a lot of work to be done, to say the least.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
It is an honour to contribute to this measured debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am fearful of lowering the tone, but I have been speaking to the Minister—I congratulate him on the amount of communication he has had with us Back Benchers about our concerns—and when I was thinking about how best I could sum up our dialogue, I recalled that Ronald Reagan once said:
“The…most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
I think that, for a Minister, the most terrifying words are: “I’m a Back Bencher and I really am just here to help”. So without our removing the momentum, we really are here to help.
First, I need to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for tabling the amendment, which, unfortunately, was not selected today. I also put on record my support for what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has proposed, with the support and expertise that he can bring to the debate and legislation, and I hope that the Minister can reflect on both those opportunities down the line. There is much to welcome in the Bill, but I fear that technology can sometimes move faster than we can legislate in this country. I want to touch on two issues: one is national security and the other is resilience and diversifying our supply chain.
I will start by being very helpful as a Back Bencher. I know that the Minister may have cast his eyes on a report that I recently produced for NATO. I sit on the Science and Technology Committee and I was tasked to put together a report on science and technology threats, looking particularly at east Asia. In the report, there is a puff box that he may want to reflect on; it talks about South Korea and the amount of work that it has done in innovating and developing new technology so that it is truly resilient in its national 5G infrastructure. I believe that 85 cities will have coverage by the end of 2021, and they are not reliant on any external Government to provide them with that service, so I urge him to go away and look at what South Korea is doing and possibly see how we can become more resilient in this country.
I want to raise the subject of resilience and security because I sit on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and we have been undertaking a report on links back to Xinjiang. However, companies also gave evidence to us that should cause some concern for the Minister, and with regard to this piece of legislation. This is basically about companies headquartered in China that have access to data we are using or manipulating, and to algorithms we are creating here in the UK.
In particular, I want to reflect on the evidence given to the Select Committee from TikTok. We invited TikTok to come in and give evidence about its algorithms and whether it is distorting them to stop information about Xinjiang and Uyghur being out on the platform. Unfortunately, the more we dug into TikTok, the more complex and concerning it got for us.
TikTok is a media company and a platform. Most kids will have access to it, and most people here may have access to it as well. However, it has a very complex ownership structure, which is why it is important that it is reflected somewhere in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill. It is important because TikTok is a subsidiary of a global parent company, ByteDance Ltd, which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, but there is a China-based subsidiary of the same global parent company called ByteDance (HK) Ltd.
The reason why this should be of some concern is that when we took evidence from TikTok UK’s branch, we were told that ByteDance could in no way have access to UK data and that the two things were completely separate. However, the problem is that we can legislate in this country for what we want to do to keep our country and our people’s data safe, but when a company we are working with has headquarters in China, it has to abide by completely separate sets of rules and regulations, so we end up in a two-tier system.
Let me just reflect on what a company such as ByteDance has to adhere to. I am talking about China’s National Intelligence Law 2017. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about article 9, and I want to reflect on article 7. It states, and this has been translated into English so it may not be perfect:
“Any organization or citizen shall, in accordance with the law”—
the Chinese National Intelligence Law 2017—
“support, provide assistance and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work they are aware of.”
Fundamentally, companies have to hand over data when they are asked, but when they are asked by another Government—say, our Government—they have to deny that they are doing it. I am concerned about how robust our legislation is today or how robust our legislation will be going forward if companies are abiding by separate sets of intelligence laws based in China.
On a similar theme, let us take a closer look at Hikvision in particular. There was a very good recent report by Reuters, which basically states that half of London councils are using Hikvision, even though Hikvision is banned in the United States. Last week, Italian media reported that Hikvision equipment in the country was “communicating with servers” in China despite being on a supposedly closed network. I am not quite sure what “communicating with servers” means, but for me alarm bells are ringing.
The points I want to land with the Minister are: how robust is the legislation we have in place for today, let alone tomorrow, and how can we ensure that the processes to legislate in this country keep pace with the threats we are facing? I suppose the fundamental point is that China has its own National Intelligence Law, which completely contradicts what we are trying to do here in the UK. Does the Minister have any thoughts about how we can ensure that our security is not undermined by China’s National Intelligence Law? What guarantees can the Government give to constantly look at, review and update this, and also to hold to account the companies we may be anxious about?
We seem to be setting up a two-tier system: one for us in the west with the countries we work with, and a completely separate system for China and the companies it wishes to work with. I fear that, unless we put down a marker, we are going to lose out to a country such as China, and I hope that the Minister can comment on that when he comes to the Dispatch Box at the end of the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow all the right hon. and hon. Members who have made contributions.
First, new clause 1 is designed to ensure that there is an obligation on Ofcom, in legislation, to report on the adequacy of its resources and assess the adequacy of the measures taken annually by telecommunications providers to comply with their duty to take the necessary security measures. The hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) referred to security, and I will speak briefly about that shortly. It also requires Ofcom to assess future areas of security risk based on its interrogation of network providers’ asset registries. That does seem to me to be standard, but it is essential that there is regulation and control of these providers, on which so many of us—indeed, probably all of us—rely so heavily. The Minister may well believe that this obligation is already included in the Government’s Bill, and if that is the case, perhaps he will confirm that that is the position. If that is the case, I am sure that that will highlighted subsequently.
I have seen, during the privatisation of water services and other public bodies, that private companies have little desire to provide any more information than is legally required. They just give us the basics of what they want us to know. I believe that there is an obligation for Ofcom to actively regulate, and to do this we must provide adequate funding. To make this happen, is it a funding issue or can we legislate to ensure that they tell us all we need to know? I will consider the words of the Minister on this imperative regulatory function.
I want to echo the concerns of the hon. Member for Wealden, who comprehensively addressed the issues that concern us all. She referred to companies that have their headquarters in China and how that impacts on us here in the United Kingdom. Our duty in this House is to our citizens: to the citizens of Strangford, to the citizens of Wealden and to everyone across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we probably all seek assurances on these matters. Again I look to the Minister to do that in his summing up.
New clause 2 relates to the provision of information to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that the appropriate Committees have the right information on security matters? I am a firm believer in the need for information share. It has always been my policy to ensure that those around me in my political life, my social life and my personal life are aware of all the issues that concern them. It is also important that MPs have all the information on board. I am also a firm believer in the chain of command. This may well be due to years of part-time service in uniform; I spent 14 years as a part-time soldier. It is really important that the chain of command is in place. However, there are also times when it is in the interests of the nation that not all is revealed, and there will be a reason for some things being classified as top level only. I understand that; I often ask the police about things that have happened back home, and I say, “Don’t tell me anything I don’t need to know, but if you can tell me, and I can tell others, let me know that.”
Our job as parliamentarians is to scrutinise the Government, to hold Ministers to account and to strive for the good of the nation, and I ask the Minister to clarify why the Government do not feel that new clause 2 is necessary. Does he, for instance, believe that this is already accounted for? If it is, perhaps he could tell us the position on that. I would like to understand the rationale behind withholding information from a regulated Committee and what constitutes high-level information that should be withheld. Again I look to the Minister, as I often do in debates in this House, for a response to satisfy me that new clause 2 is not needed.
My final point relates to amendment 1 to clause 14, which proposes:
“The Secretary of State must, in the process of carrying out reviews and drafting subsequent reports, consult the appropriate ministers from the devolved governments.”
As a Member of Parliament, I have always wished to know what the devolved Administrations are doing. In my case, that relates to the Northern Ireland Assembly. When I saw the amendments and new clauses, I assumed that this provision would have been included as a matter of course. Surely it is a matter of the greatest importance—especially in Northern Ireland, which is fast becoming the capital of Europe’s cyber- security—that the devolved Administrations, and in this case the Northern Ireland Assembly, should have a full understanding of any emerging cases. I say with great respect to everyone else in this Chamber that the cyber sector in Northern Ireland is leaps and bounds ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom. Maybe only the south-east of England can match our level of advancement. We have incredible skills and staff available in Northern Ireland, and the cyber-security sector has grown greatly. So can the Minister reference the mechanism by which this information share can take place without any amendment? Can the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have a key role to play in this, and tell us how that will work within the legislation before us today?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Chillingly, the head of military intelligence recently concluded that the difference between being at war and being at peace is becoming increasingly blurred. In short, Britain is under perpetual attack.
Dr Lewis
In support of what my right hon. Friend says, he will recall that one of the main reasons why the Government felt it so difficult to rid themselves of Huawei was that there would then be only two remaining possible suppliers, and if one of them got into difficulty, we would have total dependence on a single supplier. If we do not diversify, it really has knock-on effects: we sometimes have to improperly consider using suppliers that are really a risk to our security.
Sir John Hayes
As my right hon. Friend knows, it is not only the Committee on which he and I serve that has highlighted that point; other Committees of this House have, too, and the Government themselves have acknowledged it. We really need to look at how, having accepted the thrust of his argument, the Government intend to respond. What is the action plan? I know that the Minister will have much to say about this, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
This is part of a wider problem of the concentration of power in the hands of what I described earlier as a handful of unaccountable corporate monopolies. There is a curious assumption that somehow those organisations will be intrinsically virtuous, but that is simply not the case. Commercial organisations are just that: they are interested in commerce. They are not there to do what Governments and this Parliament exist for, which is protecting the interests of the whole of the people.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
One thing that worries me a little is that Huawei is Chinese-owned. Nokia and Ericsson are not, but they get a lot of their kit from China, so they are not pure either. That is a worry for diversification.
Sir John Hayes
It is. I referred a moment or two ago to the provisions of the Bill that extend existing powers to take account of supply chains, so the point is acknowledged in the legislation. It brings me neatly—it was not scripted, I hasten to add—to the next part of my speech, because in that process much powerful regulation is put into the hands of Ofcom. I have questions about that for the Minister as this is not territory that traditionally Ofcom has navigated. It will require a step change in Ofcom’s capability and approach to manage the additional responsibilities.
Ofcom was previously responsible solely for assuring the resilience of networks. No list of mandatory standards has previously existed and historically Ofcom produced guidance that merely directed communication service providers towards the main source of advice and best practice. The responsibilities to ensure that providers comply with the new security duties will, as I said, require a step change in what Ofcom does, given that it will now have the authority to practically assess the security practices of large telecom providers, take action where security is at risk of being compromised, and make information available to the Government and provide annual security reports to Ministers.
That brings me to the issue of scrutiny, which has been addressed with by various contributors to the debate so far. Given Ofcom’s new powers, the means by which it can be held to account becomes salient. Of course, Ofcom is accountable to Ministers, but we need Ministers to be accountable, in an effective way, to this House. There is a long debate to be had about the role of various Select Committees in that regard, and it is a debate to which I have contributed previously and the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), has already spoken eloquently. I simply say to the Minister that there needs to be a well-established and rigorous process by which the new powers can be assessed and checked not only by Ministers of the Crown but by those to whom Ministers of the Crown are accountable. Confusing accountability and scrutiny risks weakening both by obscuring the first and diluting the second.
I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to conclude any speech without some literary reference. C. S. Lewis said: “Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.” The experience that I have had over 25 years in the House—of being a shadow Minister trying to hold Ministers to account, a Minister being held to account and now a Back Bencher trying hold both to account—is that unless the process is right, scrutiny simply will not be effective.
I have talked about vulnerability and the recognition of the need for greater regulation. By the way, if anything, the Bill does too little. It is a good Bill and it does a great deal that I welcome, but over time we probably need to go further. I have previously drawn the House’s attention to the history of legislation affecting security here: it has typically been periodic with few big Bills having been brought to the House that became Acts concerning matters of security. But I repeat what I have said before: I suspect that over the coming years we will have more and more legislation to ensure that our country remains secure, given the dynamism and character of the threats we now face.
I end simply with this. The Bill is good work, but it is—if I might put it as generously as I possibly can to the Minister—work in progress, and I hope that during that progress we see further attention given to the issues of both diversity in the marketplace and scrutiny by this House. A fundamental requirement of Government is to protect our infrastructure and economy and, by doing so, protect our people, for in doing that we protect all our futures.
Bob Stewart
It is a real pleasure to follow some of the speeches we have heard, particularly those from the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
I rise to support the Government, but I do so with some reservations, which largely reflect concerns that I still have as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am concerned about oversight and the scrutiny of decisions made by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that will have an impact on national security. The issue is growing as commercial companies get more and more involved in such matters. The Government’s current view is that DCMS, Ofcom and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee could probably watch over these matters. Yes, they probably can, but I am not so sure.
Bob Stewart
Good. When my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Chingford and Woodford Green start talking, I know I am in trouble.
So we on the ISC are subject to section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and, whatever side of the House we sit on, we have all been appointed to the Committee by the Prime Minister with that in mind. However, not every Member of Parliament or Clerk has signed the Official Secrets Act—some have, but many have not. Obviously, I am not being personal about colleagues because a lot of them can keep secrets far better than I can: as my wife says, I have a big mouth. Okay—but I do keep secrets of the state, Minister.
ISC Clerks have something called developed vetting security clearances, but not all DCMS Committee Clerks would. Developed vetting security clearances require the individual concerned to undergo a lengthy and somewhat intrusive investigation—some of the questions are appalling. Assuming that DCMS Clerks were to have such developed credentials and were able to handle top secret material in hard copy, such as documents that need to be secured in security-accredited lockable cabinets within a security- accredited office, anything with a top secret grading on it or an IT system with such grading would need to be accredited and checked out very carefully.
May I also raise the matter of meetings where top secret material is discussed? I may be wrong, but I do not think there is such a meeting room in the Palace or in Norman Shaw—[Interruption.] Sorry, I meant Portcullis House—I have only been here 11 years. A room with clearance would be required even for us to be able to look these documents, store them or discuss them. I do not think it is a secret that the ISC cannot meet here—we have to meet somewhere else. We go to a place that is accredited and checked, where documents can be stored and to which our Clerks have ready and easy access. All discussions concerning such a level of security take place in that room. We are not allowed to write something down and walk it out—everything has to be left there, unless it is specifically on a certain kind of paper and we are informed of that very strictly.
The product of ISC investigations can be laid before Parliament only after a redaction process with the intelligence agencies and confirmation from the Prime Minister that nothing in them might breach national security, so I think it would be rather difficult for the DCMS, Ofcom or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to be able to oversee top secret material produced by the Department and still obey national security rules. In short, we parliamentarians might not have oversight of some key decisions made by Ofcom and DCMS. That can work—I have no doubt the Minister will say that—but we could be blindsided. The Government think otherwise at this stage, and I am prepared to accept that promise, but this might quickly run into difficulties when classified material has to be examined by people from Parliament who are specially selected to do it.
In summary, I repeat that I will be supporting the Minister—of course I will, as I am loyal, just like a dog—but it does not stop me raising a flag of concern. There will always be problems around these matters. I hope that that will not be the case but I would not be surprised if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said, we are only at the start of a process and we have to revisit this shortly.
Finally, may I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do not feel great and I am a bit dizzy, so my voice is not the usual? I am going to sit down now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We heard you loud and clear, Colonel Bob.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my eminent right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—if only I were as good.
As the final Back-Bench speaker this afternoon, it is incumbent on me to be supportive of the Government, which of course I am, and this excellent Bill. We are where we are today for two reasons. First, it shows that the Government do listen to Back Benchers. Secondly, the Bill is a pretty good bit of work and it ticks the box, as indeed it should. As defence and national security become ever more virtual and online, it has never been more important to secure our lines of communication, both domestically and internationally, with our allies. I urge all Members to consider the notion of strategic independence, which we have spoken a lot about during the covid crisis. As we go forward, it is really important that we aspire to be able to operate autonomously as a global nation alongside our allies.
I believe that the Bill is important for three reasons. First, it will allow for better security both domestically and internationally. It kicks out the high-risk vendors from our network—what’s not to like? Secondly, it placates our allies. New Zealand, Australia, the USA, Canada and others were quite noisy when Huawei was originally admitted to our network, so let us hope that this will placate them, cement that relationship and, perhaps in time, even enable us to admit Japan and other close allies. Thirdly, it opens the door for other 5G providers to come in, which is a good thing, and I support the UK’s diversification strategy.
Having sat on the Committee for this excellent Bill, it is a pleasure to see it back here on Report. The Bill takes forward the Government’s commitment to the UK telecoms supply chain review, introduces a new security framework, amends the Communications Act 2003, introduces new security duties, brings new powers to the Secretary of State and strengthens Ofcom’s regulatory powers, allowing it to enforce the new framework. That is all very positive. It also introduces new national security powers for the Government to impose, monitor and enforce controls. Again, that is a positive step.
I am pretty happy with the Bill as it stands, but in the interests of objectivity, I will talk to a number of the new clauses and amendments. On new clause 1, the Government are aware that the Bill gives Ofcom significant new responsibilities, and it will need to increase its resources and skills to meet those new demands. Ofcom’s budget is approved by its independent board, and the Minister has today confirmed that the budget limit set by the Government will be adjusted to allow Ofcom to carry out new functions effectively. Ofcom is already engaged in this space—we are already proactively looking over the horizon and scanning for future threats—so I am happy that the Government have got this about right.
New clause 2 would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with information relating to a designated vendor direction. I am sympathetic to this, but the Government know what they are doing. As the Minister said, the ISC’s primary focus is to oversee the work of the security and intelligence agencies. Its remit is clearly defined in the Justice and Security Act 2013, so the Bill is not the appropriate place to achieve an overall enhanced role for the ISC.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am sorry to have to reiterate this point. There are other ways in which our concerns could be addressed, such as by adjusting our memorandum of understanding, rather than putting it on the face of the Bill, so I am with my hon. Friend as far as that is concerned. However, it is very clearly within our remit to oversee not only the agencies but those parts of other Departments where highly classified information is concerned. That is just a matter of fact—it is in the agreement between us and the Prime Minister.
James Sunderland
I empathise with my right hon. Friend’s view, and I agree that he has a point. My position is the same as the Government’s: I do not think that this Bill is necessarily the vehicle through which we should look at the future of how the ISC operates. I am a keen follower of the ISC and its output. Its work is eminent, and my right hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Sir John Hayes
Let me cement that point but also perhaps offer an olive branch to the Minister, if I might be so bold. If the Minister, when he sums up, were to make a firm and binding commitment that he, for example, and others will appear before the ISC at our request to be scrutinised on these and other matters, that might go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to assuaging doubts and fears.
James Sunderland
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, I empathise with the point. I will happily leave it to the Minister to make his view known in his summing-up later.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, may I say that I am anticipating three Divisions, on new clauses 1, 2 and 3? If there is to be an additional vote, I would like to be informed so that I can call it, but I understand that there are going to be only three Divisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank all those Members who have contributed to the debate today. It is an important debate because digital connectivity is an integral part of all our lives. For countless people across the country, having fast and reliable broadband and a good mobile connection is vital to our way of life, but for us to truly reap the benefits of the gigabit-capable broadband and 5G, we need to have confidence that they are secure and that means securing the networks on which they are built, the supply chains on which they depend, and the equipment and services that support them. The Bill demonstrates clearly the Government’s commitment to ensuring the security and resilience of our telecoms networks.
Let me turn to the new clauses and amendments. I shall start by addressing new clause 1. As the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom already plays an important role in ensuring the ongoing security and resilience of our networks by enforcing the current security duties under the Communications Act. This Bill will build on that experience, giving Ofcom new responsibilities and a range of new powers. What the new clause would do is require it to publish an additional statement as part of its annual report. Happily, I can reassure hon. Members that the Bill already has various reporting mechanisms included within it. Under the new and snappily named section 105Z, Ofcom will need to regularly report to the Secretary of State. Subsection (4)(a) makes it clear that that report must include information on the providers’ compliance with the duties imposed on them by the Bill.
Ofcom will also need to report on telecoms security in its annual infrastructure report, and clause 11 specifies that this should include information on the extent to which providers are complying with their security duties under new sections 105A to 105D. The Secretary of State will also need to regularly report to Parliament on the effectiveness and impact of the new telecoms security framework.
On the final point in the new clause of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about publishing information on emerging and future security risks, that is not of itself necessarily the most productive way of handling security risks, but the principle that she is trying to get to is very much part of what the Government are seeking to do and, of course, it would be part of what we intend to make sure that we talk about as much as we can within the bounds of national security.
I turn specifically to budget and resources. The hon. Member has set out her concerns about Ofcom’s access to resources and capabilities. It is an issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also touched on. I can tell the House today that Ofcom’s security budget for this financial year has been increased by £4.6 million on top of its current security budget. This funding will allow Ofcom to more than double its headcount of people working on telecoms security, ensuring that it has the necessary capability and capacity to deliver its new responsibilities under the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central is aware that I have written to the Intelligence and Security Committee about that security resourcing. It was at a level that I cannot go into on the Floor of this House, but I hope that provides the kind of reassurance that she seeks.
Specifically on the future risks that I alluded to a moment ago, we have ensured that the Bill is looking to the future. For example, clause 12(3)(b) amends Ofcom’s information-gathering powers under section 135 of the Communications Act to ensure that it can request information from providers concerning future developments in their networks that could have an impact on security and, when reporting on security, Ofcom must include any information that assists the Secretary of State in the formulation of security policy, allowing him or her to make an informed decision about what should be published as well in due course.
New clause 2 has been the subject of the majority of this debate, and rightly so. One of the phrases used about the ISC was that it adds value; this Government do not dispute for a second that it adds huge value, and I welcome the tone with which the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), has approached this. I appeared before the ISC with some trepidation, as is probably appropriate for all Government Ministers, but it was a hugely productive part of this process and something that I am more than happy to do again. I do not think that my right hon. Friend necessarily thinks that piecemeal changes to the ISC’s role are the way to pursue what he seeks, but the annual report that he has mentioned will certainly be looked at closely by the Government.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am very happy to agree with what the Minister has just said. It would not be necessary to keep trying to put these provisions on the face of each individual Bill every time a new unit is set up in a different Department, or a new duty laid on a different Department, if it could be agreed with the Government that the memorandum of understanding would be adjusted as it is meant to be adjusted when these changes occur. However, sadly, no Front Bencher has yet been able to give us an assurance that that is going to happen, and I know that the Minister will not be able to do so, either.
Matt Warman
As I say, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make that point in the annual report, and the Government will look closely at it. However, Members can take some comfort from the fact that much of the advice in relation to the more sensitive technical and national security matters within the scope of this Bill will be provided by the National Cyber Security Centre, and its activities already fall within the scope of the ISC, as my right hon. Friend knows. However, I welcome his approach to this, and I hope that his mechanism, rather than that of new clause 2, will be the one he will support today.
I turn to the last of the new clauses tabled by Opposition Members. New clause 3 aims to include the diversification strategy in the scope of the Bill. Diversification is crucial to the future of our UK networks, which is why the Government set out their plans to diversify those networks in the 5G diversification strategy in November 2020. That strategy includes steps to invest in research and development, to remove technical and commercial barriers to entry for new suppliers, and to increase our influence in standard- setting bodies—all issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and others on the ISC are keenly aware of the importance of.
We are pursuing a huge range of different mechanisms to enable diversification, because the Government are fully committed to ensuring that their strategy comes to fruition. However, the diversification strategy moves the whole market forward by broadening the supplier base in many ways that are beyond the security measures that are the purview of this Bill, including increased innovation and competition and the overall growth of the telecoms supply mechanisms.
To give the House an idea of some of the non-legislative measures that we are already pursuing, they include the investment in R&D development facilities such as the National Telecoms Lab and the SONIC—SmartRAN Open Network Interoperability Centre—lab that is jointly at work with Ofcom. We are also working to remove barriers to entry for vendors such as by co-ordinating the sunsetting of legacy network technologies, working internationally to co-ordinate diversification objectives, and exploring the use of commercial incentives to address the cost of incorporating new suppliers into a network.
Jim Shannon
I asked a question to do with the Northern Ireland Assembly and how cyber-security in Northern Ireland will be protected. Can we have an assurance on the Floor of the House today and through Hansard that that will happen?
Matt Warman
I will come on to the devolved aspects in amendment 1 in a moment, but it is of course vital that we continue the collaborative relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the Welsh and the Scottish Governments as well.
The Bill places security requirements on individual operators. They are hugely important, but they are not diversification requirements on the Government’s national scale. Defining diversification in legislation would be limiting in a hugely rapidly evolving market. I know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central understands the need for agility, and putting what she proposes into legislation would run counter to that ambition.
On the devolved Administrations, amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to consult Ministers from the devolved Governments when reviewing the impact and effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) noted, telecoms is a reserved matter under each of the devolution settlements. I say that, however, in the full knowledge that a constructive and close working relationship with each of the devolved Governments is hugely important, be it in Project Gigabit, in the shared rural network, or indeed in matters such as this. I look forward to that collaboration continuing; it will drive forward our connectivity.
I turn briefly to the amendments that were not selected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has spoken passionately about these matters, both privately and publicly. I do not want to go into a huge amount of detail on amendments that were not selected, but I simply say that the actions the Government are taking in the Bill speak powerfully for themselves.
On the specific matter of issuing designation notices to vendors headquartered in other countries, it is important to consider not just whether the kinds of laws that my right hon. Friend mentions exist, but how the Government in question intend to use them. A friendly democracy may, as indeed many do, have laws that would enable it to yield information and data from companies headquartered within their territory. The conduct of such a Government, and our relationship with them, may reassure us that they would not use those powers to do harm to the UK, but there are other cases where Governments that have these laws have acted contrary to the national interest of the UK in the past. As we set out in the illustrative notice for Huawei, there is a law in China that enables the Chinese Government to collect information from companies headquartered within its territory. As the Foreign Secretary has stated, we know that the Chinese state has in the past used its power to undertake malicious cyber-activity. The designation notice that I mentioned demonstrates how the Government could take those sorts of laws into account when exercising the powers that are already in the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for her work on the NATO Science and Technology Organisation. We very much welcome her preliminary draft report. I would like to express the Government’s commitment to deepening our co-operation with partner nations such as Japan and the Republic of Korea.
I thank all hon. Members on the Government Benches, and indeed on the Opposition Benches, for their constructive engagement throughout this debate. This is an important Bill that enjoys strong cross-party support, in the main. The sooner we can pass it, the sooner we can set about the crucial work of ensuring that our public telecoms networks are secure and resilient. I commend the Bill to the House.
Chi Onwurah [V]
This has been a very well-informed debate. I am sorry if my own digital connectivity did not enable my contribution to be heard as perfectly as it should have been, but I hope we have corrected that.
There were many excellent contributions from both sides of the House. It is important to note that the House is in quite rare agreement on a number of questions regarding the Bill, particularly on the importance of national security. The representatives of each of the parties in the debate—the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the Minister himself—shared support for the primacy of national security and recognition of the importance of our telecoms networks in our national security, and I was pleased to listen to their contributions. I thank the Minister for his response and for the tone in which the debate has been conducted.
However, I will say briefly, with regard to new clause 1, which seeks to ensure that Ofcom has the skills and expertise needed to undertake its new duties in the midst of all the other responsibilities that Parliament is asking, as well as reviewing future provision and threats to the network, that the Minister’s comments on the increase in the cap on Ofcom’s budget did not begin to address our concerns. We have, effectively, a snapshot of the financial resourcing available now. The new clause seeks to ensure that we have an understanding of the resourcing as it continues—as threats evolve in the future—and particularly that we are able to look forward to new and evolving threats on the basis of a thorough understanding of the assets in each network operator’s network.
Indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) emphasised the step change in the requirements of Ofcom that the Bill represents. The Minister implied that Ofcom would be able to do everything requested in the new clause when it comes to looking at asset registers, for example. I simply do not understand his reluctance to put that in the Bill, given the important role that Ofcom is to play in our telecoms security. I am afraid that I do not feel that he answered my points on new clause 1.
On new clause 2, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee—its Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis); the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—eloquently articulated many of the arguments for why the ISC needs to be part of the scrutiny of this Bill. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Beckenham was particularly detailed in his description of the very room requirements for assessing national security issues. Having worked at Ofcom, I know its rooms very well, and I do not think that they meet the requirements that he set out.
It is worth noting that the ISC was one of the first parliamentary organisations to raise issues around Huawei, back in 2013. It seems very wrong that it should be excluded from involvement in scrutinising how the Bill is implemented, given that it is the only parliamentary grouping with the appropriate security clearance. Although I appreciate the Minister’s constructive tone, I do not think that he answered the questions raised or sufficiently justified the Government’s aversion to ensuring a process for ISC scrutiny, so I will press new clause 2 to a vote.
Finally, the most complex of our new clauses is new clause 3, which would ensure that the diversification of our telecoms networks was achieved as a prerequisite for their security. We heard from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about how telecoms markets have been constructed to enable the consolidation and monopoly power of particular players, and particularly Huawei. Unfortunately, he did not go on to say how in the Bill the Government would deliver on a UK sovereign capability, but he was absolutely right about how the market has effectively failed.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) used her experience on NATO’s science and technology committee and on this Parliament’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to encourage the Minister to truly examine our network resilience. New clause 3 is designed to ensure the ongoing ability to examine network diversification and resilience.
We heard from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the impact of the unaccountable power of monopolies. Again, since the Bill does not mention a diversification plan or diversification strategy, we cannot see that it will do anything to address that issue. The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that the Bill supports network diversification. I know that that is the intention, but without our new clause I cannot see how it will actually achieve it.
The Minister reiterated the diversification plans, which are not a plan—as I set out, they have no detail and no action. As for his attempt to explain why the Government have omitted from the Bill any reference to diversification, I have to say that I found it entirely incomprehensible. It was as if referring in the Bill to diversification would limit the meaning of diversification; if that were the case, we would be unable to refer in any Bill to many of its intentions or outcomes.
I remain convinced, and there is agreement on all sides of the House, that we need to ensure that diversification of our telecoms supply chain goes hand in hand with ripping out Huawei and reducing our dependence on the two remaining providers. It is very important that we take this opportunity to change the Bill so that the diversification of our telecoms networks is an integral part of Ofcom’s reporting on the progression of those networks, so I will also press new clause 3 to a vote.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I announced earlier, there will be three Divisions. As usual—if anything is usual these days—the first will take eight minutes and each subsequent Division will take five.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Warman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today, and I also thank the excellent team of Clerks of the House, those at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and all those involved in the preparation of the Bill. In particular, I thank those who work at our agencies to support so much of what goes into our national security: they are the best among us, and all of us in the House are grateful for their service.
The first priority of this Government is to keep people safe and this Bill is just one step in achieving that objective. It is a precise and technical Bill but an important one none the less. While we might have disagreed on some of the details, it is encouraging that there is such broad consensus across this place and I hope that that spirit of co-operation continues when the other place considers the Bill.
The Bill will ensure the security and resilience of the UK’s telecoms networks for years to come. Bringing it into force on Royal Assent cannot come soon enough. It will create one of the toughest regimes for telecoms security in the world. It will protect our networks and shield our critical national infrastructure both now and in the future, as technologies grow and evolve. With this Bill, we are delivering on our commitments in the 2019 telecoms supply chain review, which were informed by the advice from the world-leading NCSC and GCHQ. Today, we have taken an important step towards putting those commitments on a statutory footing and taking action to protect and secure our important networks.
I hope that, in my response to the amendments and new clauses, I provided reassurance on the role of Ofcom, the importance of diversification and the other matters raised. I welcome the constructive challenge of Members on those points, and I hope I have reassured them that we are pushing in the same direction. I thank all Members for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to it passing through the other place.
Chi Onwurah [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement and echo his remarks in thanking all the Clerks and officials of the House and the Department who worked on the Bill, as well as our security services for the protection they provide day and night and for the input of the NCSC and GCHQ to the Bill.
I want to make it clear that the Labour party supports the Bill as a necessary step in protecting our telecoms national security. It is important that we legislate to ensure that Government have the power to act when faced with circumstances such as those presented by Huawei or, even better, to prevent dependency on high-risk vendors from arising in the first place. We will therefore not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We recognise that national security is the first duty of every Government, and we support the measures to promote national security in the Bill.
At every stage of the Bill’s passage, we have seen an engaged and informed level of debate. As a chartered telecoms engineer, I particularly welcome the time that the House is spending on considering our telecoms infrastructure, even in these circumstances, which are to be regretted: we should not have got here. Parts of our debate have resembled a wake for the telecoms sector we could have had with a UK sovereign capability. The telecoms sector should have been subject to a more active, proactive interest for years now—or, shall I say, 10 years? We have lacked a telecoms industrial strategy and that, together with a focus on foreign investment over national security, is why we are here. Successive Conservative Governments have allowed the telecoms sector in the UK to be dominated by a high-risk vendor. Competition on price rather than security has become the rule for the telecoms operators. The market failed, but Ministers did not notice; they thought that security could be left to the market.
This is at a time when digital has become part of every part of our lives. We now spend a quarter of our waking hours on the internet. The UK telecoms industry contributes £32 billion to the economy and directly provides nearly a quarter of a million jobs. It has an impact on all our lives. As we are experiencing during the pandemic, it is an enabler of almost everything we do, and in the future—by which I mean in the next few years—it will bring about even more significant changes to how we live, work and engage with one another.
From driverless cars to advanced manufacturing, digital connectivity is essential. Indeed, we can argue that the pandemic has given us a taste of the future and moved the future closer. It has shown us how important good, fast, stable connectivity is, with millions still depending on it to work from home and stay in contact with friends and family. The pandemic has encouraged—indeed, required—a mass migration online, with businesses that were not digital-ready suddenly forced to operate online. It is salutary to recall that before covid there was a question of whether broadband was a vital utility. That was a matter of debate; it was debated as part of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021. The pandemic has since proved beyond doubt that telecoms is an essential utility, but, although our telecoms infrastructure has held up during the pandemic—I congratulate telecoms operators on that—it could have been so much better. Many in rural areas or unable to afford decent broadband will not thank me for praising our telecoms networks.
When Labour left office, we had world-leading infrastructure. That is no longer the case. We are now 47th in the world for broadband speeds. I say that to emphasise the significance of the upheaval that the sector is facing after the Government’s decision to strip Huawei out of the network, at a cost of £2 billion and two to three years delay to 5G roll-out. It is a decision that we supported and continue to support, but we cannot let solving one problem give rise to numerous more. Unfortunately, the holes that remain in this Bill will do just that. Let me emphasise how important this Bill is in ensuring that we get regulation and investment right for a sector that contributes so much to our economy, as well as to our work and social lives.
We must make sure that we do not find ourselves in a similar position again, and that our telecoms network and supply chains are resilient and protected in future—even, critically, as the geopolitical environment evolves. Our telecoms infrastructure lacks security and resilience. The Government have taken no steps to maintain or develop a sovereign telecommunications capability, and their broadband strategy—if we can call it that—has far more U-turns, dither and delay than meaningful policies.
The Bill is passing to the other place with significant failings. The first is national security. Labour prioritises national security. The Secretary of State and the Minister both agreed during the proceedings that the Bill needed to include sweeping powers to address matters of national security, so we remain concerned that the Committee that provides parliamentary oversight on matters of national security is being excluded from oversight of the measures in the Bill.
Secondly, the security of our networks depends on an effective plan to diversify the supply chain. As our amendments have fallen, the Bill still does not even mention supply chain diversification or the diversification taskforce, even though we all agree that we cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers, which is the number that we will have left once Huawei is removed from our networks.
I am going to say this once more for the Minister: we need a diversified supply chain and that means a diversity of suppliers at different points of the supply chain. Britain has great start-ups that are just desperate to help address this issue. Where is the support for them? The future of telecoms networks is moving away from closed, proprietary boxes to open interfaces and innovation in the cloud. That provides a real opportunity for some of our innovative companies, but the Government have still not laid out how this is to be realised, as their own diversification taskforce report recently made clear. Is the UK going to benefit from the costly debacle of ripping out Huawei—an integrated supplier? Right now, the only beneficiaries would appear to be Ericsson, Nokia and lawyers. We put the Government on notice that we will be holding them to account on that.
Thirdly, the Bill gives sweeping new powers and responsibilities to Ofcom. This follows a vast and continuing expansion of Ofcom’s remit. Ofcom lacks experience in national security, and changes to its duties will require the recruitment of people with the required level of security clearance and experience. The Minister and the Government have sought to evade scrutiny on that. We will seek to hold them to account. As part of that, we are very concerned that the Bill in its current form is not forward thinking enough. It lacks the processes to provide the foresight needed to ensure that we are not in this same position again. Where is the horizon-scanning function to identify emerging threats and potential weaknesses in UK telecoms providers’ asset registers? If our networks became dependent on one cloud service provider, such as Amazon Web Services, how would we know?
To conclude, we support the Bill as a necessary measure to protect our telecoms national security interests, but we are concerned that the Government have allowed ideology to undermine effectiveness when it comes to this Bill, and we will continue to seek to improve it.
Bob Stewart
I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah): this is a Bill to try to block hostile states and organisations from breaching our national security, and its intentions are absolutely on target, and all of us agree with them.
I do not believe that we will not have to revisit parts of the Bill to ensure that in the end Parliament is sovereign over information. For instance, it does not seem right that Ministers and Ministries keep the information to themselves and it is not passed on, albeit in redacted form or through the ISC.
We have to get oversight right, so in the end we may have to revisit the legislation in the next few months and years as a result of the experience we have. I hope not—I hope the Minister is right that we will be able to have oversight without having to revisit the legislation, but I suspect we might not. There it is—I promised to be short, and I will sit down now.
Stephen Flynn
I am a strong believer that brevity is a great charm of eloquence, so that is a statement that would be well taken on board by the shadow Minister in future. I was hoping for a power cut in Newcastle—I am being kind.
First, I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for his partaking in the debate on Second Reading. He did us a great service in that regard. I also thank Josh Simmonds-Upton in our research team, who put a great deal of effort into the Bill.
This is a Bill that we will support. We will give it close scrutiny moving forward, and I hope that the Government will work on good terms with the Scottish Government moving forward in this regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am going to suggest that as we go through the next motions, the Serjeant at Arms sanitises just the Government Dispatch Box in order for us to save a little time.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 7 together.
Ordered,
Backbench Business
That Imran Ahmad Khan, Gareth Bacon, Bob Blackman, Patricia Gibson, David Johnston, Nigel Mills and Kate Osborne be members of the Backbench Business Committee.
European Statutory Instruments
That Owen Thompson be discharged from the European Statutory Instruments Committee and Richard Thomson be added.
Finance
That Lilian Greenwood be discharged from the Finance Committee and Mr Nicholas Brown be added.—(Bill Wiggin [V], on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Health and Social Care
Ordered,
That Neale Hanvey be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Anum Qaisar-Javed be added.—(Bill Wiggin [V], on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Ordered,
That Owen Thompson be discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Richard Thomson be added.—(Bill Wiggin [V], on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Justice
Ordered,
That Kenny MacAskill be discharged from the Justice Committee and Angela Crawley be added.—(Bill Wiggin [V], on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Committees
Mr Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 11 to 13 together.
Ordered,
Procedure
That Douglas Ross be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Gary Sambrook be added.
Public Accounts
That Sir Bernard Jenkin be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Mark Francois and Antony Higginbotham be added.
Women and Equalities
That Angela Crawley be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Anne McLaughlin be added.—(Bill Wiggin [V], on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
NHS Dentistry: Waveney
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Can I just pause a second to ask those who are leaving to do so in a covid-friendly manner, and to give the Minister an opportunity to come in? There we go.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There has been an underlying problem with NHS dentistry in the Lowestoft and Waveney area for a long time, with dentists retiring, leading to resources and dental capacity being taken away from the area, notwithstanding the need and demand for NHS dentistry. Many, but not all, of the remaining practices have difficulties in recruiting and retaining dentists. The situation has been exacerbated by a lack of funding, with net Government spending on general dental practice reduced by a third over the past decade. In recent months the situation has reached crisis point, due partly to covid but primarily to the closure due to retirement of two NHS dentist practices in Lowestoft and the closure of the mydentist practice at Leiston in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). The latter was due to the difficulty of recruiting dentists to work in the area.
This is a national crisis. Official figures in March 2020 showed that 26% of new patients could not get access to an NHS dentist. The situation has worsened during covid, with more than 20 million NHS dental appointments lost nationally since the start of the pandemic. As has been reported today, the British Dental Association’s members survey reveals that almost half the respondents intend to stop working in NHS dentistry in the next 12 months, and two thirds estimate that they will not meet the new 60% activity targets they have been set. This is the worst survey that the BDA has ever carried out, and urgent action is required to stop dentists leaving the NHS in their droves.
The situation is worse in Waveney. Community Dental Services, an employee-led social enterprise, has recently opened a new dental clinic in the old magistrates court in Lowestoft. That investment is greatly welcomed, although CDS highlights the challenges that it is facing in the area. It is concerned about the lack of access to NHS dental services. Lowestoft and Waveney is an area of high need for dental services, yet there is a serious lack of provision, which has been exacerbated by the backlog caused by covid and, as I have mentioned, by the retirement of well-established local general practitioners. The perceived remote location of the Waveney area and the distance from all the existing centres of dental training make recruitment difficult.
CDS emphasises the need for a focus on prevention, particularly among children. The treatment of children under general anaesthetic for the removal of teeth that cannot be saved is the highest cause of admittance to hospital for general anaesthetic treatment in England and Wales. CDS advises that the reduction in local authority funding to support targeted or universal prevention—I am not attacking local authorities for this—has had a significant impact on the Waveney population due to reduced oral health improvement services. This limits CDS’s ability to reach out to all the people who need its services.
The impact on young people needs particular focus. In Suffolk, the proportion of children who saw an NHS dentist fell by half due to the pandemic: 60% in 2019 compared with just 31% in 2020. This translates to 43,000 local children missing out on their dental appointments compared with the year before. CDS, which is a paediatric dental specialist, has a high number of referrals from other practices of children with multiple decayed teeth that require complex treatment, quite often under general anaesthetic. The lack of general dental services locally makes safe discharge difficult, if not impossible, thereby creating further pressure on services. This has a devastating impact on children’s life chances, and could well prevent them from achieving the best start in life.
Covid has made the situation worse. The interruption of routine dental care and the subsequent reduction in patient appointments has created a backlog of patients. The pandemic has also meant the cancellation of and significant interruption to the dental general anaesthetic list at the James Paget Hospital at Gorleston in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), which causes greater problems. The list will recommence on 1 June, and the backlog of patients needing urgent care is substantial, but this increases the pressure on dental practices, which have responsibilities for their patients’ dental care. It should also be pointed out that there has been no consultant orthodontist at the James Paget since mid-2020, resulting in patients having to travel further for care, and for children this disrupts their education.
I am receiving approximately 10 emails a week from constituents, many of whom are in agony, looking for an NHS dentist. Some will go private, but for many who are on relatively low wages this option is not open to them and is one they cannot afford. One constituent has been quoted £2,400 for a new front tooth and £2,000 for a bridge repair. Others who are in need of urgent attention, as I have mentioned, go to A&E at the James Paget in Gorleston. There, all that the exasperated consultants can do is to prescribe them antibiotics and painkillers. This is completely unacceptable. Another constituent, who had a new denture fitted in 2019, needed it to be adjusted as it made his mouth sore and had a poor bite. He had no option but to use his old dentures, which were worn down and had a tooth missing. He has only just seen a dentist and is now awaiting the new dentures. These are just a few cases that highlight the agonies that many people are going through.
Andy Yacoub, the chief executive of Healthwatch Suffolk, summarised the situation well. He said:
“We are living through a dental disaster, with little to no clear sign of when these problems will ease.”
He also said:
“This latest review by Healthwatch England strongly supports our own local view that there is huge inequality in the availability of NHS dental care amongst our population…This includes that some people have waited unreasonable lengths of time to get an NHS dentist appointment, while being told private appointments were available within a week.”
In Suffolk, he said that we are being
“inundated by feedback on a daily basis from those struggling to access these services. One individual revealed to us”—
Healthwatch Suffolk—
“that they required urgent hospital treatment after overdosing on painkillers to combat their symptoms,”
while another
“told us they couldn’t find a dentist to treat a tooth which had reached a point where it was decaying.”
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I confess I have a slight self-interest in this, because my father was the NHS dentist in Fakenham for 34 years. The problems in North Norfolk with dentistry are terrible, with long waiting lists and people not being able to be seen. The Healthwatch report from the past day or so corroborates that. It strikes me that the contracts are some of the root causes of that, as is the disparity between the private and public sectors. What can we do to try to get more people to join this profession? I have one example in North Norfolk where, for more than 10 years, no newly recruited dentist has wanted to come and work at the surgery.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The situation is very bad in Waveney. It is also bad in other parts of East Anglia, not least in North Norfolk and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). It is particularly bad in East Anglia, and one reason for that is that we are perhaps a little away from the centre of things, and it can be difficult to recruit people to work in the area. My hon. Friend is right that one solution is to reform the existing contract, which dates from 2006, and I will come on to that as I look at some short and long-term solutions that need to be instigated immediately.
In the short term, I urge my hon. Friend and Suffolk colleague the Minister to take the following actions. First, we must reduce units of dental activity targets. The previous target of 20% was appropriate, but the new 45% target is wholly unrealistic. Many practices will be forced substantially to reduce the number of emergency cases that they provide and to replace them with routine check-ups that are less time-consuming, resulting in an even longer backlog of outstanding emergency and urgent care cases.
Money that is currently clawed back by the NHS if dentists do not deliver UDAs must be reinvested in the Waveney area. Dentists under-delivering does not indicate low local demand, and any clawback should be reinvested into local dental services, not transferred to other areas. That situation is particularly prevalent in East Anglia. In 2019-20, 9.1% of total contract value was clawed back in the region, compared with 4.8% nationally across England.
I confess that I do not completely understand the opaque world of UDAs, but I know that the system is short-changing my constituents, many of whom are in agony. For children, there could well be lifelong consequences. Some NHS dentistry practices in the Waveney and Norfolk area want to take on more patients, but they are not able to do so as the UDAs are not available. John Plummer & Associates is a privately owned family dental practice with 10 NHS practices in Norfolk and Waveney. As NHS dental practices in the Lowestoft area have closed in recent years, dentists from those practices have joined John Plummer. Naturally, their patients would like to follow them, but because no more UDAs are now available, the dentists have been unable to treat them, as they will not be able to provide adequate treatment for their regular patients. Those UDAs are then lost to the Waveney area forever. So much more NHS dentistry could be provided in the Waveney area if more NHS dentistry was allowed. John Plummer & Associates would open a walk-in emergency NHS dental service, but it is not able to do so as it is not allowed to do any more NHS work.
The continuing problem with covid is limiting the number of people that dentists can see each day. That can be eased by installing high-capacity ventilators in dental surgeries. That will reduce the period between appointments, during which the rooms are cleaned, but most practices cannot afford that. I recognise that there is quite a bit of devil in the detail, but the Government can directly increase access to NHS dentistry by providing capital funding for this equipment, as the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland plan to do.
In the long term, root-and-branch reforms need to be instigated immediately. There is a need to get more NHS dentists practising in this area, and the Association of Dental Groups has put forward a six-point plan to achieve this. First, the number of training places should be increased. Earlier this month, Healthwatch Norfolk called for a dental school to be set up: based in Norwich, it would be able to serve the Waveney area and, indeed, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). As quickly as possible, the Government must instigate a recruitment drive, increasing the number of UK dentistry training places and introducing incentives for dentists to relocate to areas such as Suffolk and Norfolk.
Secondly, EU-trained dentists should be recognised. Their role is vital, and there must be continued access to NHS dentistry for EU-trained professionals, thereby preventing further shortfalls from arising. Thirdly, overseas qualifications should be recognised. The General Dental Council’s recognition of dental qualifications should be automatically extended to approved dental schools outside the European economic area, ensuring a smooth process for suitably qualified dentists to work in the UK—notably those from countries such as India. That should also include the doubling of places available under the overseas registration examinations.
Fourthly, the complex and lengthy process of completing the performers list validation by experience examinations—known as the PLVE—for overseas dentists should be speeded up, simplified and harmonised right across the country, with additional measures introduced to ensure that the process takes no longer than eight weeks.
Fifthly, whole dentistry teams should be allowed to initiate treatments. Allied dental professionals are, at present, not able to open a course of treatment. This means that they cannot raise a claim for payment of work delivered, with many practices unable to fully utilise therapists as a result; allowing whole dentistry teams to initiate treatments would address this problem.
The Association of Dental Groups’ sixth and final point is that the Government should create a new strategy to promote NHS workforce retention. They must reform the NHS contract, which is the major driver of dentists leaving NHS dentistry. A new contract, focused on the oral health needs of patients and targeting improved access and preventive care, should replace it.
With regard to the forthcoming health and social care Bill, with the commissioning of dentists set to move to integrated care systems, it is vital that dentists have a voice and are properly represented on ICSs. There is a worry that the possible pooling of budgets across primary care could lead to further cuts to NHS dentistry, and everything must be done to ensure that this does not happen.
Fluoridation of water can play a key preventive role in oral health, and it is very important that changes to the framework under which fluoridation schemes are carried out are accompanied by the capital funding that is necessary for those schemes to actually be put in place. I anticipate that we will consider this matter in more detail over the next few weeks when we debate the Bill.
I now come to the topic of new dental contract arrangements. As mentioned, underlying most of the problems of NHS dentistry is the fact that the current contract, which dates from 2006, is inadequate and now completely unfit for purpose. It must be replaced as quickly as possible. The BDA is looking for this to happen by April 2022 at the latest, and the new contract must break with the units of dental activity, ensure that NHS dentistry is available to all those who need it and prioritise preventive care.
My hon. Friend and Suffolk colleague the Minister is faced with a major task. From her perspective, it is unfortunate that the music has stopped on her watch. In summary, there are three things we need to be doing. I urge her, in the very near future, to provide practices, such as John Plummer & Associates, that will tackle the enormous the backlog of work with the resources to do so. We must end the cycle of retirements leading to funds being removed from the Waveney area, never to return. Secondly, we must tackle the growing scandal of children having to undergo major dental surgery. That requires much work in the short term in hospitals such as James Paget University Hospital, but in the longer term the introduction of major public awareness preventive initiatives is vital. Thirdly, the dysfunctional 2006 contract should be replaced as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend and Suffolk colleague the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing time for this important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who for the second time today has spoken about the challenges of dentistry that we have.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, this is not a new problem; it was a problem and challenge pre-covid. The pandemic has definitely shone a light, and things have become much more challenging in the world of dental provision during the pandemic. Dentistry has been significantly impacted because of the risks associated with the aerosol-generating procedure that dentists do and, obviously, with the saliva generated when someone is carrying out a procedure on someone else’s mouth. In response, dental practitioners have been required to wear full personal protective equipment to keep them, their teams and their patients safe.
Public Health England is reviewing the current guidance on infection prevention and control. I mention this because it goes to my hon. Friend’s point on fallow time—the time between the dentist putting their instrument down and cleaning down their room, and then seeing the next patient. These things have been big constraints in trying to have a rapid throughput of patients through the consulting room. Fallow time now is as low as 10 minutes in many cases, although that does depend on material factors such as the ventilation and so on.
I am talking to NHS England about the use of ventilation and the ability to support dental practices in putting ventilation in, but I gently point out that what sounds easy in a sentence in this place is often challenging. The buildings are not always owned by the dental practices, and in order to put ventilation systems in we have to take the rooms being used to deliver care out. So there is that combination of challenges, but there is new research on ventilation and lighting, and we are constantly looking at these things to see how we can further support the profession.
An important step forward has been to reduce the amount of time between seeing patients, in order to facilitate more care for more patients, but we have taken the action we have because infection control sits at the heart of what we have to do. I stress that because, with the variant of concern in some of our towns and cities around the country, we have to very mindful that we are looking for progress as to how we proceed with dentistry. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said about making sure we are looking for opportunities, but we have to be mindful of the fact that we are not yet clear of this pandemic, and that brings enormous constraints.
The thresholds that have been set for dental practices since the start of the year have been based on data on what is achievable while also complying with infection prevention and control. My hon. Friend alluded to the 45%, which was the level of dental activity placed on practices in the fourth quarter of last year. That figure is now 60%, and 80% through orthodontics. This is the tension that exists in this whole area. Sixty per cent is still 40% lower than what we delivered in pre-covid times—obviously. The challenge is to make sure that we are able to see the backlog, that we drive forward with looking after the most vulnerable and those with the highest degree of need, and that we do not lose ground on what has gone before, while also having to deal with complexities such as retirements and contracts coming back and so on and so forth. However defective the 2006 UDA contract is, it is not just a question of swapping one for the other.
The current thresholds are monitored on a monthly basis, and the new thresholds have been put in place for six months. Dental practices have been asked to deliver as much care as possible, prioritising urgent care, particularly for vulnerable groups. They are delaying planned care, ensuring that they are dealing on a needs basis with those in the most acute need.
In addition to these activity thresholds, NHS England has provided a flexible commissioning toolkit. I am very keen for the profession to get real-world examples of what can help deliver the service, based on the successes that have been achieved locally. Some of those successes have been achieved in our own particular area. Flexible commissioning is used to convert units of dental activity, or UDAs as my hon. Friend has referred to them, to activity that focuses on priority areas, such as improving access to urgent care, or targeting high-risk patients, which was exactly what he was asking us to look at in his speech. We are already doing that. It is good practice and regional commissioners can implement it. I am very keen to make sure that that practice is being used as much as it possibly can be. I am having very frequent discussions with NHS England to make sure that we are monitoring the use of these measures.
As well as flexible commissioning, support is also available to local NHS commissioners to put that capacity where we need it most. In the east of England, NHS England has developed the transformational dental strategy, the aim of which is to prioritise urgent care, prevention and inequalities. Despite our efforts to increase services, we know that patients are still experiencing acute difficulty in finding an NHS dentist—that is also true in my constituency.
A feature of the debates that we have had today is the availability of private provision in areas where there is no NHS provision. NHS England is charged with commissioning to the need in an area. Making sure that we commission to the need in an area is something that contract change, which I am very keen to see delivered by April 2022, addresses, but it is highly complex. I have met stakeholders in the UK. Some people suggest that the Welsh system is better. Others favour the French system or the one that exists in some of the Scandinavian countries. I have met members of the dental profession from all those places and, actually, no one has a perfect system. We are trying to take what is good about the various systems and ensure that we deliver in localities so that people can have access to care when they need it, with a particular focus on prevention.
We have a web-based programme in the east called service provider, which provides up-to-date information on dental services that are available. Patients experiencing difficulties are able to contact NHS England’s customer care centre and call 111 for help in accessing emergency dental care. All NHS dental practices in the east of England have been asked to reserve at least one slot per day for urgent dental care to improve capacity and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, allow greater access. In addition, we have not stood down the 600 urgent dental centres that we had across the country during the height of the pandemic; we have left those in place, and we have a network of them across both Norfolk and Suffolk.
However, we know that information on NHS dentists is not always easy to access. Alongside increasing access for patients, it is crucial to support NHS dental practices and mixed practices—and, arguably, private practices—in order that we can start to have a more balanced approach. As my hon. Friends the Member for Waveney and for North Norfolk mentioned, part of the challenge that we have is retention. That is the case particularly in our area, but it is something that I have discussed with Cornish colleagues too; my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and I have discussed at length how the problem is not unique to the east of England.
Practices have continued to receive their full contract payments minus agreed deductions, providing that levels of activity are met. An exceptions process has also been put in place for practices that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. It is wrong to say that we want anyone to feel that they are not supported to deliver what they can. We have also made personal protective equipment available free of charge through a dedicated portal; and as of a week ago, we had delivered more than 367 million items free to dentists, orthodontists and their teams.
If it has done anything, the pandemic has continued to highlight the fact that transformation in dentistry is necessary, particularly if we want to make sure that we drill down on the oral health inequalities that exist across the country. I am meeting the chair of Healthwatch tomorrow, and I am sure that, among other things, we will discuss access to dentistry at some length. We need to develop a sustainable, long-term approach to dentistry that is responsive to the population. It needs to provide high-quality, urgent treatment and then restorative care where clinically necessary, but prevention must sit at its core.
The majority of oral health failures are preventable. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney spoke about children. There is nothing more upsetting than a child being in acute pain and having all their teeth removed. That is a broader problem. Through flexible commissioning, we can ensure that we are doing supervised tooth brushing by encouraging local authorities to put that in, but we can also enable parents to do their part and ensure that they can help their children learn good habits right from the early days. Parents can encourage their children to look after their teeth by rubbing their gums before their teeth even appear, making sure that they understand how important it is.
In addition, any system that we design must improve patient access and oral health, and offer value for money for the taxpayer. It must also be designed in conjunction with, and be attractive to, the profession. NHSE is leading on dental contract reform work. Importantly, it is engaging with stakeholders, including the ADG, which my hon. Friend spoke about. It will be looking at what changes can be made to dental contracts in the short term to offer some improvements and some relief and respite to everyone, while details of the next stage of reform will be agreed by April 2022. Making NHS dental contracts more attractive to the profession will help with vital recruitment and retention, and I know that all my hon. Friends in the Chamber, particularly across rural and coastal areas, will welcome that.
Health Education England’s Advancing Dental Care programme has also been exploring opportunities for flexible dental training pathways and how we train our dental workforce to improve recruitment and retention. I am also very keen to make sure that we use the broader dental team as efficiently as we can, because dental technicians, dental nurses, hygienists and so on hold many skills that, particularly, could be used for prevention. However, with another hat in my portfolio on, I think of the obesity agenda and making sure that we all look after ourselves a bit better and have healthier lifestyles. Everything that we consume goes in through our mouths. Dentists are wonderfully placed, as are their teams, to help to encourage us to have a healthier lifestyle and to eat a little less sugar.
We remain committed to prevention and improving oral health, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney supports—I think, from his asks—the direction that we are trying to go in by changing the UDAs, concentrating on making sure that we have the skill mix right, focusing on prevention and looking at retention. As he said, however, this is a complex area. I am also having discussions with the GDC—he spoke about recognising dentists who have trained overseas and making sure that once we are assured of standards of education and so on, things are a bit simpler.
On making sure that we can expand schemes, subject to funding being secured and consulted on, I want to look at the expansion of fluoridated water. As my hon. Friend said, it is one of the simplest ways that we can improve oral health intervention, and we could significantly improve children’s health across the country. It is unacceptable in this day and age that young children have total dental clearances due to preventable tooth decay. The return on investment on fluoridation is very compelling and there needs to be a renewed focus on the investment in prevention.
We are committed to increasing dental access both in the short and the long term so that we can ensure equality of access no matter where in the country a patient lives. But this is complex. We are working hard at it. We are working with the profession, but we all need to double down both on prevention and making sure that we are all walking in the same direction to bring accessible oral healthcare to people.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Con) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neil Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) | Kenny MacAskill |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and only sit in places that are clearly marked. I should also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 488).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. On 26 April, the Government laid the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021, under the powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Corruption is one of the key drivers in undermining human rights, democracy, development and the rule of law around the world. It also undermines global prosperity, which reduces taxation that could have gone to fund public services. Corruption also undermines our national security and fuels conflict, and serious and organised crime.
The new sanctions regime is a significant step forward in the UK’s leadership in combatting corruption. It will enable us to impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and organisations involved in corruption around the world, and will help to prevent people from using the United Kingdom as a haven for dirty money. It covers all forms of corruption, bribery and misappropriation across the globe. The regulations also enable us to target those who facilitate, profit from, conceal, transfer or launder the proceeds of serious corruption. These sanctions will not only affect those named but should send a clear message to those around the world that corruption is unacceptable. The UK will not tolerate it and we will not receive the proceeds of corruption coming into our country.
As with all UK sanctions, we adhere to rigorous due process to ensure that the rights of individuals are respected. This means that those designated under the sanctions regime will be able to request that a Minister review the decision, and if they are still in disagreement, they will also be able to apply to challenge the decision in a court of law here in the United Kingdom.
The Government have made immediate use of this tool, and on 26 April we sanctioned 22 individuals from six countries for their involvement in serious corruption. All the names are published online in the UK’s sanction list for these regulations, and each designation is underpinned by evidence, as required by the 2018 Act. They include 14 individuals who were involved in the diversion of $230 million of Russian state property through a fraudulent tax refund scheme uncovered by the auditor Sergei Magnitsky, which was one of the largest frauds in Russian history. We will also impose sanctions on Ajay Gupta, Atul Gupta and Rajesh Gupta, along with Salim Essa, who were involved in long-standing corruption cases in the South African economy. We have also designated a Sudanese businessman and individuals across Latin America, in particular those involved in misappropriation of funds and soliciting bribes to fund major trafficking organisations.
The steps that we have taken to expand our sanctions framework will cover corruption as well as human rights and will give the UK powers similar to those in the so-called Magnitsky framework in the US and Canada. They will enable us to work even more closely in a co-ordinated way with likeminded partners. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue.
On behalf of the Labour Benches, I strongly welcome the new sanctions regime. It has been clear for many years that corruption needs to be relentlessly tackled as part of our wider foreign policy armoury. In fact, we have had a number of questions for the Foreign Secretary about when anti-corruption would be introduced as a heading in the sanctions regulations, so it is very pleasing that it is now there. I appreciate all the hard work that officers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have done to focus on the fraudulent activity of global operators. It is really good to see that we are tackling this.
Obviously when the Minister wrote his speech he probably did not realise that there would be an example of air piracy over the weekend, but I thought I would reflect on the terrible situation in Belarus, because it behoves us to respond in a way that reflects our concerns about a corrupt, Kremlin-backed financial system based mainly around energy. We know, for example, that Belarusian companies such as a subsidiary of the state oil company are active in the UK. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) wrote to the Foreign Secretary overnight about the subsidiary BNK UK, which is the UK arm of the Belarusian state oil company. We would like to know how the UK Government will stop the Belarusian Government using the London stock exchange to raise finance and sustain Lukashenko’s grip on power.
We would also like the FCDO to examine the evidence for further sanctions against individuals. One whom we have named is Mikhail Gutseriev, who is known to have acted fraudulently and has stolen from his own people. We would like to see him specifically looked at. I know that the Minister will probably not be able to give an answer today, because that is not how developing sanctions works—there is an element of stealth and evidence gathering to it—but we must eliminate any possibility of those linked to the Lukashenko making money in the UK. We know that there are fewer Belarusian entities sanctioned now than in 2012. Only seven entities are currently designated, compared with 32 under EU sanctions in 2012. In the space of 12 months this dangerous regime has stolen an election, employed brutal repression against its own people and hijacked a civilian airliner, so I would very much welcome a response to that point from the Minister when he winds up.
I also want to put on record my thanks to the late Sergei Magnitsky, the lawyer who questioned fraudulent activity in Russia and lost his life in prison due to violence, and to his friend Bill Browder for his ongoing work. He has worked across European nations, the USA and the UK, but is based here in the UK and is constantly putting forward suggestions for what the Government can do better—which is always a positive when it is in one’s policy area as an Opposition spokesperson.
One of the things that Bill Browder has suggested needs to looked at is whether our crime fighting organisations are fully resourced. For example, I know from a Foreign Affairs Committee trip to Colombia—where we have concerns about corruption relating to the drug trade and about its impact here in the UK—that at that point the National Crime Agency was facing cuts to its service. I also know that the Serious Fraud Office needs more resource and more legal powers to bring more successful cases—it has not had a good record of late. All those bits of the puzzle need to be in place to bring these crooks to justice.
Without the tireless work of people on the ground and our very effective non-governmental organisations—which understand corruption and the way it plagues rogue states such as Belarus, robbing people of opportunities and fuelling crime and illicit practices across the globe—the individuals maintaining those practices would remain in the dark, which we must not allow. The work of NGOs, like that of many whistleblowers, has uncovered appalling wrongdoing, so it is vital that their work is recognised.
I am also pleased that the regulations contain provisions for the sharing of information and the creation of criminal offences. Corruption is undoubtedly a crime and should be treated as such, but the most effective way to tackle it is the free sharing of information where required. We cannot and should not treat this as a siloed issue. There should be a Government-wide commitment to tackling the corruption that washes up on our shores and pollutes our financial institutions.
The Minister has been an MP for longer than me and will remember Mr Cameron’s commitment to tackling corruption over five years ago. What is his view of the status of the anti-corruption tsar in the Houses of Parliament? I remember that individual having much more of a profile, so perhaps the Minister could update me on who it is, the work he is carrying out, where he reports to, and so on, because it is important that we keep up this questioning and important that the individual tasked with looking at anti-corruption has a sightline into the work we are discussing today, so that it can be as joined-up as possible.
When the Intelligence and Security Committee met last year, it described London’s economy and financial centres as the London laundromat. I hope that today, and through the work of the anti-corruption tsar, we can do away with that epithet, which as a London MP I object to. Sadly, however, because of the way that corruption presents itself in a place such as London, the people at the top seem to have all this money—and can even, I hear, purchase expensive properties with a suitcase full of cash. This kind of thing has to stop. We must seek greater equality; there is nothing worse than that feeling. The rich list that came out this week showed 23 new billionaires, yet we have 4.3 million children living in poverty in this country. We must do much more at the very top level to get rid of this problem.
Before I wrap up, I want to press the Minister on a few questions for clarity and reassurance, starting first with a quick update on the work of the anti-corruption tsar in the Houses of Parliament and the transparency of the formation and operation of our sanctions regime. What does he envisage for the quarterly reporting, to ensure that MPs, civil society and the private sector can play a role in designating individuals? Do the Government intend to open a formal channel for Parliament or other NGO actors to put forward information, or will he commit to regularly reporting to Parliament? Or does he believe that that is a function of the anti-corruption lead, who is not a member of the Government? Or, does he believe there is a role for the Foreign Affairs Committee?
As I have indicated, these sanctions are welcome and have our support, but they are still not as expansive as those of some of our closest allies. I personally appreciate the fact that the US regime is very linked with the work of both the Department of the Treasury and parliamentarians there. In any given year, Congressmen and women can bring cases against specific individuals and the US Government have to respond, which is quite a good, grassroots-up way of doing these sorts of things.
Will the Minister confirm that the sanctions will be reviewed to bring us in line with the US? Will he also say what work has been done on the ground? This money is like a stream of water—when we close one door, it will just go somewhere else—so obviously we want to work closely with the US, which has a large economy where money could also be laundered. What diplomatic efforts will be brought to bear across the European economies? We need a solid commitment to ensure that law enforcement agencies and those tasked with investigating corruption and human rights have the resources and backing to do so.
As a champion of the overseas territories, the Minister will be aware that the open register process will finally complete in, I believe, 2023. However, I hope he can give me his assurance of that now. This has been a very long process—Mr Cameron announced it at least six years ago—so will the Minister update me on that?
Finally, as my Labour colleagues and I have said repeatedly, if the Government are really serious about confronting corruption, their tough words must be backed up with actions. We know that the bulk of the money coming out of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and those parts of the world is still laundered through the UK. These sanctions are welcome and should mark the start of cleaning up this mess, but we must ask again: will the Government look again at the recommendations of the Russia report, a number of which remain outstanding?
The Russia report was delivered on the last sitting day of Parliament at the end of July last year and covered things such as golden visas, an arrangement whereby wealthy individuals can apply for a specific visa to give them entry and UK citizenship, which then allows them to donate to political parties. For example, Mr Temerko, who has donated £1 million to the Conservative party over the years, is a UK citizen but still has his business interests over there. We need an assurance that there is not still some kind of remote control arrangement between that part of the world and our economy. The Russia report recommended that golden visas be brought to an end or reviewed, so I hope the Minister can update me on that.
Ms Fovargue, I have gone rather around the globe in this debate, but we do not get many chances to ask such questions in a free-ranging way, and I am sure that the Minister will write back to me and the Committee about whatever he cannot answer today. I thank the Committee for its patience and look forward very much to monitoring the progress of these sanctions.
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the regulations and her detailed querying. I do not think there will be any need for me to write back: while her questions are probing, they will be relatively simple for me to deal with today.
The hon. Lady started by thanking the FCDO officials working on sanctions. I will pass on those thanks when I head back to the office; this is a very complex arena. However, I must disagree with her on some of the underlying themes. Global transparency has got better in the UK, not worse. To put a number on that, in 2010 we were 20th out of 108 countries on Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index. The 2020 figure, the one most recently available, puts us at 11th.
The idea that anyone can turn up and buy a house with a suitcase of cash is just not true. If the hon. Lady has any evidence for that whatsoever, she should bring it forward. If anyone were to do that, estate agents would be bound by money-laundering and KYC—know your customer—regulations to declare it. In fact, I think they would even have to declare if that was offered, without it actually happening.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s praise of the late Magnitsky and of Bill Browder, who holds our feet to the fire. I note her points about the NCA, the Home Office and resource. I will certainly pass those on to the Home Secretary when I meet tomorrow, but I see that work very clearly in the African continent. I have not had the privilege to travel to Colombia to see the NCA’s work, but it is internationally as well renowned.
We will work closely with our US and Canadian colleagues. In fact, the legislation was drafted to enable us to do that, and some of the announcements on 26 April were made in co-ordination with our US counterparts. We will also be able to complement the EU’s sanctions, so that we can move at the same pace as another nation, or collection of nations, on our own, or in any other form of consortium we so chose.
On the anti-corruption tsar, I was indeed a Minister under David Cameron, and I work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and speak to him frequently about these issues, so we are very joined up at both ministerial and non-ministerial level.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that the anti-corruption tsar is not as high profile as before and that there is no formal reporting mechanism? Perhaps that is something the Minister could take back to think through. If we are to have an anti-corruption tsar, surely that individual should have a reporting function, an opportunity for parliamentary debate or some kind of profile within Parliament.
James Duddridge
I totally disagree with the hon. Lady in one part and agree with her in another. The anti-corruption tsar has immense influence and an immense voice. He is very loudly heard, and in many ways is uncomfortably loudly heard for a Government with other priorities. She makes a broader point about the role within Parliament. As a member of the Executive primarily, rather than as a parliamentarian principally, I will not comment on that, but she can no doubt raise the issue with him.
The hon. Lady referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee—or the equivalent in the US. We want to engage more with Parliament. There will be regular reporting on people who have been designated. In my experience, Parliament does not tend to have a problem with anyone we designate; the issue is with additional people. The mechanism for that is not fully formalised. It could be via the Foreign Affairs Committee—the Chair and his Committee have never been shy in coming forward with ideas—but it could equally be done more privately, because as she also alluded to, sometimes these things are best done privately. We do not want to give people notice that they might be sanctioned, because then they can move assets overseas.
The hon. Lady asserted that I perhaps wrote my speech before the situation in Belarus applied. She is absolutely right, but I can assure her that we are used to sanctioning Belarus. Following the rigged elections, 99 people were sanctioned. When we left the European Union we carried forward sanctions related to Belarus, and we already have an arms embargo in place on Belarus for anything that could be used to suppress the people of Belarus.
The hon. Lady mentioned the hon. Member for Wigan, who wrote to the Foreign Secretary this morning. Very rudely, he did not copy me in, so I am not aware of the details of that letter, but I note that the hon. Lady referenced an individual. She will appreciate why, even if I was fully aware of that individual, I would not be able to comment, because of the issue of assets moving elsewhere out of the country.
I thank the hon. Lady for this debate. I think I have answered all questions; I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 25th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 May 2021 - (25 May 2021)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin line-by-line scrutiny sof the Bill, I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water provided. I remind Members to observe physical distancing. Members should sit only in the places that are clearly marked. It is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly to avoid delays for other Members and staff—although I do not think that will be a problem for us given that you are all coming back this afternoon. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting, which shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate, is available in the room. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper; the selection and grouping list shows order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which an amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so. Here we go!
Clause 1
Police covenant report
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, after “workforce,”, insert
“including the impact of working with traumatised survivors on officers’ wellbeing and morale,”
This amendment aims to ensure the police covenant report, when addressing the health and well-being of members and formers members of the police workforce, also addresses the specific impact working with traumatised survivors, such as survivors of child sexual abuse, has on officers’ wellbeing and morale.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State may not lay the police covenant report before Parliament unless it has been reviewed by an oversight board.
(8B) The oversight board referred to in section (8A) must be made up of representatives of the following organisations, appointed in each case by the organisation itself—
(a) the Police Federation,
(b) the Police Superintendents’ Association,
(c) the Chief Police Officers Staff Association,
(d) UNISON,
(e) the National Police Chiefs Council,
(f) the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners,
(g) the Home Office, and
(h) the College of Policing,
and an independent chair appointed by the Secretary of State, and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Amendment 76, in clause 1, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
“(aa) members of the British Transport Police,
(ab) members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,
(ac) members of the Ministry of Defence police,”
Clause stand part.
New clause 44—Duty on health service bodies to have due regard to police covenant principles—
“(1) In exercising in relation to England a relevant healthcare function, a person or body specified in subsection (2) must have due regard to—
(a) the obligations of and sacrifices made by members of the police workforce,
(b) the principle that it is desirable to remove any disadvantage for members or former members of the police workforce arising from their membership or former membership, and
(c) the principle that special provision for members or former members of the police workforce may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of that workforce.
(2) The specified persons and bodies are—
(a) the National Health Service Commissioning Board;
(b) a clinical commissioning group;
(c) a National Health Service trust in England;
(d) an NHS foundation trust.”
Sarah Champion
It is a pleasure to speak here today and that the first amendment is on the police covenant, which has support across the House. The amendment would make the covenant as strong and useful as it possibly can be.
It is clear that officers and police staff across the country get variable levels of support. They put themselves at risk in the most extreme circumstances, and the horror and trauma they have had to deal with in the last year has been exceptional. I will speak specifically about trauma, and first let me give some examples. Child sex offences recorded by the police increased by 178% between March 2007 and March 2017 and there has been a 511% increase in the abuse of children through sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, in just that example, different police forces across the country give different levels of support to their officers and frontline staff. We should not be surprised that police officers are exposed to trauma, but I find it quite shocking that there is no standard training as soon as individuals join the force to help them identify what trauma is and how to deal with it. The fact that across police forces there is not a standard level of support to be accessed once an officer feels he has the need for it is really letting our forces down.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling the amendment. Does she agree that one of the problems is that for too long there has been a culture in the police of making do, being tough and toughing through it? That is why it is unaddressed, and that can lead to people not raising the concerns they feel and to the absence of help that should be there.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend knows the issues intimately and has tried to address them in the past. She speaks with a great deal of experience and she is absolutely right. I was speaking to my district commander about the clause on Friday. He said, “The biggest problem we have is that the culture in the force is basically to deal with it, and we are weak if we try to raise concerns.” My response to him was that in the armed forces, particularly in the last 10 years, they have completely turned that culture around because there was the will and impetus to do that. I am incredibly impressed by the level of self-awareness, recognition and support that the armed forces have when people start to feel the impact of trauma.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, the number of police officers who are off sick as a direct result of trauma and related activity demonstrates that the problem is huge. The evidence is there for the change that we propose.
Sarah Champion
This is what I do not understand: throughout my career in Parliament I have tried to focus on prevention, because it is cheaper. The bottom line shows that it is much better at the beginning to teach police officers or back room office staff how to identify trauma, how to deal with it and how to get help. That is why I say to the Minister that, within the covenant and with the opportunities she is given to follow through on her own’s party’s commitment to produce the covenant, we need trauma training and the necessary support in black and white in the police covenant.
Police forces have an organisational responsibility to support the wellbeing of their workforce. The College of Policing published a wellbeing framework, which outlines standards to benchmark their wellbeing services, but that is voluntary. The college has also issued specific guidance on responding to trauma in policing and psychological risk management. Let me offer some more facts and stats—people who know me know that I love a statistic. The 2019 police wellbeing survey identified some really worrying mental health data, finding that 67.1% of police officers responding reported post-traumatic stress symptoms that would warrant an evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. That is two thirds of the police. A Police Federation survey of 18,000 members found that
“Attending traumatic and/or distressing incidents”
was one of the top 10 reasons why respondents were having psychological difficulties at work.
Let me pick up on the phrase “psychological difficulties at work”. Such difficulties have an impact on the individual, their colleagues, and the public. I have done an awful lot of work with survivors, predominantly of child abuse but of abuse in general as well. The level of response and empathy that they get from that first police officer tends to dictate how the rest of that process goes and, ultimately, whether they are able to secure the conviction of the perpetrator. If that police officer has undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to access support, what will that first interaction with the victim be? It will be poor. That is not the officer’s fault; it is our fault for not putting the support in place to enable them to identify the issue at the time.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Lady certainly lives up to her name by standing up for the victims of abuse and those affected in other ways. The police could perhaps learn lessons in how to deal with some of those problems from GCHQ, many of whose officers, including those working in Scarborough, spend many hours looking at online images of child sexual abuse or terrorism. GCHQ is aware of those problems and is on top of them from the very start. Does she agree that the police could learn from GCHQ?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. GCHQ has a large footprint in his constituency, so he has seen at first hand that correct identification and the provision of early intervention and support prevent these issues arising. Unfortunately, in the police force that is a voluntary duty. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to put in the Bill that that needs to be addressed. It is simple, it is cheap, and it involves an hour’s training and signposting to existing resources.
Some 23% of respondents to the Police Federation survey had sought help for their feelings of stress, low mood, anxiety and other difficulties. Let us contrast that with the 67% who were recognised as having undiagnosed PTSD: just 23% of the nearly 70% who had those symptoms sought help.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will remember that when she was questioning Assistant Commissioner Hewitt about the availability of support, he said:
“An issue that we undoubtedly have around wellbeing and the occupational health service provision is the restricted amount of capacity… In all circumstances, where we want to refer officers or staff for support, one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 6, Q3.]
Does she agree that if we had proper training up front, so that people were trained almost to expect traumatic experiences, the pressure on the system when they undergo them would be all the less?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what I mean when I talk about recognition, a change of culture and early intervention. Members probably do not know that I trained and qualified as a psychodynamic counsellor. My very first client was a miner who had been buried alive—he was stuck underground. I was in my early 20s and he was in his mid-50s, and we looked at one another and both went, “Oh my God. This is what I have to deal with,” but as it was a post-traumatic stress disorder and he had come very soon after the event had happened, we managed to resolve the issue within four sessions.
With post-traumatic stress disorder, early intervention is key. If it is left for years—decades, in some cases—it becomes so embedded and ingrained in someone’s psychological make-up that it becomes a really big issue that affects every single aspect of life. It is important to recognise the early signs, which could be covered at the very beginning of training; it could even be an hour-long online training course. We need the police to be able to recognise it themselves. That is where we need to get to, and that is what the police covenant could do.
Returning to the survey, of those police officers who sought help 34% reported that they were poorly or very poorly supported by the police service. Of those with line management responsibility, only 21.8% could remember being given any training on how to support the staff in health and wellbeing.
Members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers have supplied me with examples of the sorts of incidents that they have to deal with. I apologise as they are shocking, but not unnecessarily so, I hope. This is the first case study:
“I served as a traffic sergeant. Part of the role was as a road death scene manager. I attended the scene of many deaths on the roads. I then went to a child abuse investigation, where I got promoted to DI. Whilst a temporary DI, my wife’s best friend and our neighbour hanged herself and I cut the body down. I got symptoms in relation to this straight away and things didn’t get better.
Now 11 years down the line, I have chronic PTSD, the side effects of which are severe depression, anxiety attacks and extreme mood swings. Now, it’s always at the back of my mind that if I’d had early intervention when I asked for it, maybe things would have been different.”
The following is case study 2:
“Operational experiences include attending suicides. For example, within my first few weeks of returning from training school, I attended a suicide where the victim lay on the railway tracks and was hit by a train. I assisted in the recovery of the remains of the victim.
Also, a man jumped off a tall office building and landed headfirst. I was the first on the scene to see the massive head trauma he had suffered.
They were all extremely distressing sights and I have difficulty getting them out of my head, even now.
These are just a few examples where I wasn’t offered any psychological support. I wasn’t even asked if I was okay. It was just seen by everybody as part of the job: suck it up and get on to the next thing.
I retired medically in 1999 as a result of injuries received on duty. I have suffered with complex PTSD and health issues ever since. I am currently waiting to receive further treatment from the NHS. I have received nothing from the police by way of support, even at the time of my retirement.”
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I can confirm the efficacy of having support immediately after a traumatic event. In my own experience as a social worker when I was a young man, I discovered someone who had unfortunately committed suicide. The support that I got from my senior colleagues allowed me to resolve the difficulties I had with the experience. It also convinced me that quick intervention can work very effectively and that, conversely, no intervention at all can lead to problems for many decades.
Sarah Champion
I thank the hon. Member for sharing that experience, which reiterates the two points of early intervention and creating a culture in which it is automatic for a manager to ask, “Are you okay?” and to offer support, and to have support in place.
Alex Cunningham
Another example comes from my personal experience. When I worked for the gas industry, I went to a gas explosion to handle the associated public relations. As went towards the building where the explosion had taken place, a fireman coming out the door said to me, “It’s not very pleasant in there.” I went in—I had to find out exactly what had happened—and there was the torso of a woman. That was 30-odd years ago, and it lives with me to this day. I got no support whatsoever—I did not even think about it. Perhaps that is all the more reason why we need to ensure that at least our emergency workers are getting the support they need as soon as possible.
Sarah Champion
Exactly. My hon. Friend used the phrase, “I did not even think about it” and that is what we have to change. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to turn that around and have a culture in which, if someone sees something traumatic, it will be automatic to check in on them to see if they are okay. If they are okay, that is good, and they can move on. Our police are suffering the most extreme trauma day in, day out. They do not know it when they get up in the morning but they have no idea what they will face when they open that door. Think of the stress that puts on their bodies—stress that can be alleviated.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not enough just to ask, “How are you?” in the context of a culture that expects people to be okay, and that, consequently, the Minister can give a lead in how she implements her welcome proposal for the police covenant by emphasising that mental health is as important as physical health? Does my hon. Friend also agree that just having wellbeing in there is not quite enough to change a culture and that the expectation that support is given needs to be clear?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend puts it far more elegantly than I could; I absolutely agree. The police covenant talks about wellbeing. We need the word “trauma” in there, because that is what we are dealing with. The Minister has the opportunity to put that in black and white and show the leadership that we need. The whole House would support her in that. I really hope that she can take that forward.
In our evidence sessions, Assistant Commissioner Hewitt said that we have an issue with
“the restricted amount of capacity. That is one of our challenges…one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 6, Q3.]
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, early intervention prevents escalation. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, spoke about dealing with trauma, saying:
“We have come an awful long way, but we have not gone far enough. One of the frustrations that my colleagues have is the inconsistency within forces…part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support. The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training”.—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
Chief Superintendent Griffiths said:
“There has been a 36% increase in inquiries to the police charities compared with the previous year, the vast majority of which are mental health concerns.”
He added that, on trauma,
the exposure for police officers…is quite significant.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 29, Q43.]
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
As I have previously declared, I am a former detective inspector in the Metropolitan police, where I served for 17 years in operational roles. I absolutely relate to the hon. Lady’s description of the lack of support at that time, but chief constables are required, as part of the police retirement process, to write to retiring officers to offer them such support.
Sarah Champion
Yes, but the case study from NARPO shows that that does not always happen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but we ought to extend that support to retired officers. That will not have a massive cost implication, but it is our duty to them for all they have done. We have a fantastic veterans covenant in place. The police covenant provides the opportunity to deliver something similar, in recognition of that incredible service that the police have given us. We should do something when they are serving as an officer and once they have left. The fact that it is voluntary and sometimes it happens and is piecemeal is just not good enough. That is not acceptable. We have the opportunity to change that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. We are looking to introduce the covenant now. Now is the perfect time in many ways, because we lost many police—21,000—over the past 10 years, but there is now a period of significant recruitment, so a lot of officers are coming into the force. Does she agree that now is the perfect time to make sure that we do that early intervention and training, so that those thousands of new officers do not go through the same experience as many others in the past?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. Now is the perfect time for those reasons, and also because hopefully we are coming out of the pandemic. The service that the police gave during the pandemic was exceptional. We should recognise the personal trauma that caused to them, by ensuring that the need for trauma support is recognised in the police covenant. That would be the greatest respect we can show.
Alex Cunningham
When my hon. Friend questioned John Apter, the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, she asked whether he supported this measure. He said:
“Absolutely, it needs to be meaningful and tangible, and it needs to have a benefit for those it is there to support—not only officers, but staff, volunteers and retired colleagues.”
He went on to say about training:
“I have had this conversation with the College of Policing, and part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support.”
The most important part of his evidence was:
“The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training from the start of somebody’s service to its conclusion and beyond.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Police Federation is fully behind the amendment.
Sarah Champion
I do welcome it, but it is not just the Police Federation, NARPO or the College of Policing that are saying that; it is what I hear when I speak to serving officers. I had a long conversation with my district commander about this on Friday, and he cited case after case of officers entering a building, having a traumatic experience, and then him trying to give them support. However, what tends to happen is that the support is not in place, the waiting list is too long and they then go off on long-term sick leave. While off on long-term sick leave, the issue is compounded so it becomes even more of an issue. I paraphrase, but basically he said to me: “When we are able to offer early intervention, the officer comes back and carries on serving. When we are not, we know that they are going to be off for a very long time, if indeed they come back at all.”
I say to the Minister that this amendment is a common-sense courtesy. It is a way for the House and the Minister to make a clear commitment to recognising mental health and trauma, and showing the respect and duty that we have to our police force.
Maria Eagle
I want to make a short contribution based upon my experience before I came into the House, which was a shocking length of time ago. It was 24 years ago, in fact, and now I have put that on the record—oh dear.
Before that time, I was a solicitor practising in civil litigation. I frequently tried to help people who had been traumatised at work and were suing their employer, normally because they had lost their employment. Some of the people I sought to assist in that capacity were serving and former police officers, and others who had encountered traumatic situations in the workplace.
At the time, I thought of myself as a relatively sympathetic ear, and I think I was regarded as such too—Members might be startled to hear that, given the adversarial nature of proceedings in this House over the past 24 years. However, it was tremendously difficult for me to get a good statement out of the people who had been traumatised, because they had put up barriers. I would ask them, “What effect did this have on you?” and they would say, “I’m fine. I’m okay.” Often that was a few years after the incident that led them to the path out of employment, whether they had to retire or they were medically dismissed. They were clearly not okay, yet even when I, as their solicitor, was seeking to take a statement to assist them in getting some support ex post facto, and usually after they had had to leave their employment, they were still almost incapable of telling me how they really felt about what had happened and the impact it had had on them.
I know that if those people had been in a culture that said, “It’s okay to be not okay; we are going to provide you with help; you might not think you need it, but it is here in case you do, and it is perfectly fine to go along to the counsellor and break down in tears; that does not mean you are not a man”—they generally were men, but not only—then my role as a solicitor, trying to get them some compensation for their trauma over the years and their loss of employment, might have been a lot easier.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend reminds me of another constituent who is no longer a police officer, unfortunately. He went to what he was told was a domestic incident, was let in and found someone on the floor, convulsing—they had taken a large amount of cocaine when they knew he was entering the building. He tried to resuscitate the person, which led to PTSD. He left the force, but this is where the double nub that my hon. Friend spoke about relating to compensation needs to be considered. The police force did not recognise his PTSD, which was the reason he resigned from the force—he could not cope because he could not get the support from them—but the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority did not acknowledge that he was a victim of a crime because of the incident that led to the trauma, so he got no support, no compensation and no job. He actually went to a solicitor three times and challenged it. I am glad to say that he is now an incredible campaigner for police veterans with PTSD and is getting them the recognition that they deserve, but it should not have to be a fight all the time; it should be automatic.
Maria Eagle
I saw that kind of situation many times in my practice as a solicitor. I always felt that it would have been better to have prevented these things from happening. I believe that amendment 2, by making it clear that the covenant can and should seek to address trauma, could be the key to opening up and changing that culture, facets of which we have all, in our various ways, given examples of today.
One thing that is common to all the examples that Members have recalled from their own experience is that they involve an emergency worker—someone who is there to help and benefit society—who in the course of their employment sees the kinds of things that the rest of us in society are shielded from, thankfully, and then they are not supported to overcome that trauma. That is the common thread.
The Government should accept the amendment, because wellbeing equates to mental wellbeing. It is not just about someone making sure they are physically strong enough to be a police officer; mental support is just as important. If inserting “trauma” could be a key to unlocking that kind of support, I believe that the Government could be responsible for leading and promoting a change in culture across our emergency services.
That has already happened in the armed forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said. Much progress has been made in what was a very macho workplace, where there was an equal lack of understanding that mental ill health and trauma could lead to serious disability, a lack of operational effectiveness and a requirement to retire far earlier than society would have wished, having invested a lot of money, time and effort into training such specialists. That is also true of our emergency services on the civilian side.
This is an opportunity for the Government to lead what will be a tremendously important change in culture—a signal to those organisations that this is the way forward and this is what matters. This has been missing in our civilian forces and civilian emergency services, and it needs to be there. This could be a really important way of leading that change.
I hope that the Minister will see the importance of that and will ignore what she may have in front of her, which will be from civil servants—who are doing their job absolutely adequately and well, I have no doubt—setting out to try to resist any change to the perfect wording that they have devised. It is not always perfect; it can sometimes be improved. I am not criticising the civil servants—I spent nine years as a Minister, so I know how hard they work—but sometimes a Minister can apply her own common sense to what is in front of her. She is there to do just that. She is there to say to her officials, “That’s all very interesting, but I am applying my political common sense and we are going to accept it.”
If the Minister does that—I hope she will—it could be the beginning of a real change in culture that in future will impact on the nameless people who otherwise might have fallen into the kinds of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham so eloquently set out. All of us who have spoken in this short debate have some experience of coming across aspects of this issue. In the future there might be unnamed people whose health benefits and who do not lose their employment and livelihoods because the Minister was brave enough to lead the change by accepting the amendments. I hope she will think very seriously about doing so.
Hywel Williams
I referred earlier to my experience as a young approved social worker under the Mental Health Act of getting an innocuous call, while I was on duty on a Saturday morning, that turned out to be a case of suicide in a very rural and unsupported area, which meant that I was there for quite some time before the police and medical people turned up. I want to make one point to the Minister. Following that day, I had two calls from a colleague—a peer—who shared her experiences and supported me. Then I had two calls from a manager, and on the Monday we had a short, purposeful meeting. My point is that support need not be extensive or even expensive in any real sense. Short interventions that are purposeful and skilled can be very sophisticated and effective.
Sarah Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairman- ship, Sir Charles. As we are debating amendments 2, 77 and 76, clause 1 stand part and new clause 44, I will speak to all the issues in the round. I will start by thanking Sarah Thatcher and Huw Yardley from the Public Bill Office, who have given so much guidance to us all in preparation for the Committee. We start this debate at the end of a difficult and turbulent year, but one in which people across the country have come together and there are many lessons that we can learn. I hope we can apply those lessons to the progress of the Bill. It is a year today since George Floyd was murdered, and I know that the lessons from that will also guide much of what we talk about today.
It is a pleasure to begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill by debating the introduction of the police covenant, which we all agree with and support. We all probably believe it is long overdue. The tone set by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham and for Garston and Halewood shows the nature of our approach and how we want to try to support the changes, but we also want to work to improve them as much as we can.
The Bill creates a statutory duty for forces to support police officers and places a requirement on the Home Secretary to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on protection, health and wellbeing and support for families. It applies—correctly—to serving and former police personnel. It is an appropriate acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by the police service and the need to provide better support. The Police Federation has campaigned for the introduction of a covenant for several years, and I salute it for the campaigning work that it has done. I am pleased that the Government are taking action.
It is appropriate to take a moment to thank, on behalf of the Opposition, the police and all those who have given incredible service working on the frontline through the covid crisis: our police officers, firefighters and other emergency services, health and social care workers, shopworkers and transport workers, who have all shown incredible bravery and dedication. Those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe are the very best of us, and we thank them for their service.
We support clause 1. We are pleased that the covenant will focus on
“the health and well-being of members and former members of the police workforce”—
their “physical protection”, and—
“the support required by members of their families”.
Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, is extremely important. I congratulate her on tabling it and agree with everything she and others have said this morning. It helps to expand on what is an absolutely crucial element of the covenant.
We heard today that a Member of this place has had to take several weeks off because they are suffering from PTSD. The surprise with which we hear that reflects how we do not talk about these issues enough. We do not support people enough who have these conditions, and we are not enabling a lot of different professions to tackle these issues.
In preparation for this debate, I talked to the National Police Chiefs Council, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association, and many police across the country who have talked about mental health and how it is a significant and growing issue. Some forces deal with it extremely well and some do not, which is the premise of where we are starting from. Some support out there is absolutely first rate and some really is not. There is no consistency across the country.
Working with traumatised survivors, as my hon. Friend set out, has a huge impact on the wellbeing and morale of police officers and staff, but the impact of running into danger and serving the public goes beyond that. I recall when I first became an MP talking to a police officer who had to stem the blood of a young boy who had been stabbed as he waited for the ambulance to arrive. The trauma of that cannot be underplayed.
I have talked to officers in the custody suite in Croydon where, only last year, Sergeant Matt Ratana, a police officer approaching his retirement after 30 years’ service in the police force, was shot dead in front of his colleagues by somebody who had been brought in for questioning. The impact of that on the entire community of police officers cannot be underplayed. The officers who were there had to intervene and try to help their colleague before the emergency services arrived. All the other people who worked in that area who were his friends and colleagues were also affected. Think also of colleagues in the Independent Office for Police Conduct who did the investigation and had to watch repeatedly the CCTV footage of what happened and see a police officer in that situation again and again. That is real, brutal trauma.
Sarah Champion
I support everything my hon. Friend is saying. The examples that she and I and Members here have given are the big trauma incidents that we recognise as likely to have an impact, but I also think it is important to recognise it might involve going to a domestic abuse case and seeing a child who is the same age as your child. A seemingly small case could have the most profound impact. Putting the provision for support in the police covenant, regardless of the incident, is the key to the amendment. It should be up to the individual to know and recognise when something has an impact and is starting to unravel—to see the early signs, whatever the trigger.
Sarah Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We do not always know what is going to trigger those kinds of responses. I met recently with Sam Smith, who some people will know. He is an ex-police officer who served on the frontline for three years. He said:
“You’re thrown into a job where, within weeks of starting, you’re spat at, fighting people, rolling over dead bodies—your adrenaline levels are so high”.
The job quickly became his life. A chronic shortage of staff meant that Smith did a lot of overtime, spending his time-off sleeping and barely seeing his friends. He started having nightmares. He said:
“I probably wasn’t the nicest to my girlfriend—I became irrational and unreasonable. When I look back now, I’m surprised she stayed with me.”
After two and a half years of service, Sam realised he was suffering from PTSD and did not feel he had the support he needed to stay in the job.
Since leaving the force, Sam has been running a campaign calling for better mental health support for police officers, as he is concerned about inconsistencies in support across the 43 different police forces. He says that at the moment the main mental health welfare service for police officers is a programme called Oscar Kilo. Many would argue that the money provided is not well spent, the provisions are entirely optional and nothing is mandatory for any forces. Because of that, and ever-tightening budgets within the police, the service can be underused, and many officers had never even heard of it.
Sam is calling for us to go further than the Bill and the amendment. He is calling for a national standard of wellbeing support for police officers and hopes that the Government will back his Green Ribbon Policing campaign. I know he would appreciate it if the Minister would look at the campaign for a national standard of wellbeing support, and perhaps she might consider meeting Sam and talking about how those proposals could be taken forward.
There are some aspects of the Bill on which we will inevitably disagree, but I think we can all, across the House, agree on the importance of the mental health of members and former members of the police workforce. In that spirit, I hope the Minister will support amendment 2 and potentially pledge to go further and consider wider reform to wellbeing standards for police officers.
I will move on to amendments 76 and 77 and new clause 44. As I mentioned, the Police Federation has been campaigning for many years for a covenant, through its “Protect the Protectors” campaign. All the police bodies are in favour. It is a good thing. To be the best it can be, we need to make some improvements and make sure that we do not miss this opportunity.
The covenant comes after a year where the police have had to carry out the enormous challenge of policing the draconian emergency covid legislation, with limited guidance, in some cases, or notice when laws would be changed. The police absolutely rose to that challenge and got the balance right overall. The covenant also comes within the context of significant cuts to the police, as well as the nature of crime changing, with violent crime high, terrorism and historic child abuse cases taking up more of police time, and a high proportion of crimes now online. The number of assaults on police officers has rocketed to more than 35,000 assaults in the last year, a subject we will return to in our debate on clause 2.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned, the number of police officers leaving the service with mental health problems is too high. Research from a team of sociologists at Cambridge University showed that nearly one in five police officers have symptoms consistent with PTSD. It is widely recognised that mental health issues are widespread and under-detected, and a proper response is patchy across police force areas.
Morale is at an all-time low. The Police Federation’s 2020 survey revealed that 86% of respondents said that they did not feel fairly paid in relation to the stresses and strains of the job. Some 65% of respondents reported that the covid-19 crisis has had a negative impact on their morale and 76% felt unfairly paid for the risks and responsibilities of their job during the pandemic.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will recollect the evidence given by John Apter during the evidence sessions. He quoted Martin Hewitt:
“You heard from Mr Hewitt that assaults on officers, staffers and other emergency workers have increased by 19% during the pandemic—some horrific levels of attacks—and very often, my colleagues say that they feel they are treated as a second-class victim.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 21, Q33.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that, having seen that surge, what she is trying to achieve is all the more important?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Throughout the period of covid, I have been talking to John Apter, Martin Hewitt and others. The impact on police staff—the exhaustion—of not being able to take leave for long periods of time and of those increased assaults has been significant. We need to reflect that.
As of March 2020, there were 2,578 police officers on long-term sick leave. More than half of long-term police officer absence is due to sick leave. In 2019, the national police wellbeing survey identified some worrying mental health data, which we have heard about. Some 18,066 police officers and 14,526 police staff responded to the survey, and 67.1% of respondents reported post-traumatic stress symptoms that would warrant an evaluation for PTSD. The average anxiety score for police officers was moderately high and their average depression score was moderate. They were not given the vaccine as a priority, so they were running into danger with that threat, and they have also had a pay freeze. This is an opportunity to show that we appreciate the work that they do, and to acknowledge that we can do better in giving them more support in the job that we ask them to do.
Sarah Champion
I support the amendment. To be quite honest, if I am on a train and something kicks off, I do not really care what police force the officer comes from. If they are a member of the British Transport police and can sort the incident out, I am just incredibly grateful. They ought to get the same recognition and levels of support as any other police officer.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is completely right. The fact that those police are the responsibility of another Department is neither here nor there. They should absolutely be front and centre as part of the covenant. We want to ensure that all the wider police family is covered by the police covenant. The amendment would extend the covenant to the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Police Federation and the Ministry of Defence police.
The British Transport police are the specialist police force for Britain’s railways, providing a service to rail operators, their staff, and passengers across the country. They respond to and investigate all crimes committed on or related to the railway network, including the most serious. They also have a significant role to play in protecting the many vulnerable people who use the railway network and stations as refuge when in crisis.
The nature of the work of the British Transport police means that officers regularly deal with the most traumatic incidents, and I would like us to reflect on that. Around 300 people take their own lives on the railways every year. British Transport police are the ones who attend and manage all those scenes, so every year, 40% of British Transport police are affected by people taking their own lives on the railways. More than 1,000 staff are affected by two or more cases.
The British Transport police often do incredible work on county lines. The criminals are savvy to that and are increasingly using taxis and recruiting young people in the towns themselves, rather than putting them on trains, as the British Transport police are so good at spotting those vulnerable young people on trains carrying drugs to other towns. There is a lot of knife crime on the transport system because people might be moving from place to place and through transport hubs. Last year, at East Croydon station, which is a major transport hub in my constituency, there was a murder when two lads from different gang networks bumped into one another and one murdered the other, and the British Transport police were there to respond.
I will give one other example. Please forgive me for talking about Croydon—I know I am a Front Bencher, but it is hard not to bring my own examples. Last week was the start of the inquest into the tram crash in Croydon, when seven people died and many more were injured as a tram toppled over after going too fast around a steep corner. The nature of that horrific incident—the windows shattered and people came out of the tram—meant that many bodies could not be identified. Again, it was the British Transport police who were there as the first responders to that crisis.
Sarah Champion
I did not realise until I started working on child abuse that there is an amazing charity called the Railway Children based in Liverpool and in India. The train network is often the first point at which runaway children are identified, and it is the British Transport police who are there to offer them support. My concern is that if an officer is experiencing trauma themselves, it is much more difficult for them to give the necessary sensitivity to a runaway. I agree that it seems bonkers therefore to separate British Transport police and tag it on as an afterthought.
Sarah Jones
I agree. When we consider the severe and significant impact of such crashes and traumas, as well as the day-to-day experience, as my hon. Friend said, of trying to deal with people fleeing county lines or fleeing crisis, we need to ensure that the British Transport police are as strong as they can be in response.
British Transport police officers are often victims of assault when carrying out their duties. On average, 21.5% of British Transport officers and police community support officers—about one in five—are assaulted each year. In the previous year to date, there were 470 assaults on British Transport police officers and community support officers. In the last year, during covid, even though the number of people using the trains went right down, assaults increased marginally. I guess that is understandable given the nature of what those officers are trying to enforce: disputes over wearing face masks or coverings on a train. There have been several incidents resulting in spitting or coughing as a method of aggravation towards either the victim on the train or the British Transport police. The Opposition’s key argument is that the British Transport police’s service is no lesser just because it happens to sit with the Department for Transport. Surely we could bring them in as part of the covenant and give them the same status as those in other police forces.
In the initial conversations about why the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police were not included, we were told that it was not feasible to put them in the Bill because they sit in different Departments: the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. However, they are included in other parts of the Bill such as the clauses that refer to police driving standards. If we can include them there, presumably we could include them here.
The key point about the police covenant, which we heard in our evidence last week, is that we do not want it to be just warm words; we want it to make a tangible difference to the experience of those in the police service. It is possible to include all police forces in the Bill, and it is surely the right thing to do. I would be grateful for the Minister to confirm that she has heard and understands that and perhaps will take steps to address it.
I turn to new clause 44. We want our police to have proper mental health support, as we have heard, but we want local health bodies to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, instead of the Secretary of State reporting on these issues and presenting back to police forces. New clause 44 emulates part of what the Government have provided for the military in the Armed Forces Bill, which puts a legal duty on local healthcare bodies. The words, “due regard”, have previously been used in other legislation, such as the public sector equality duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities to have due regard to several equality considerations when exercising their functions.
We think it would be good to enshrine these measures into the police covenant and in law, particularly on an issue as crucial as health. By emulating the wording of the relevant section of the Armed Forces Bill, new clause 44 does not specify the outcomes but simply ensures that the principles of the police covenant are followed and that police officers, staff and relevant family members are not at a disadvantage. I am aware that this is one of many issues, but the stark figures that we have all been talking about this morning mean there is not really a reason why adequate healthcare support for police and retired police would not be included in the covenant.
Clause 1(7) says:
“A police covenant report must state whether, in the Secretary of State’s opinion”.
I want to pick up on that, because it is important to remember that the covenant should be about providing the police with support that has a meaningful impact on their situation. Chief Superintendent Griffiths put it well when he said at the evidence session last week that
“a police covenant is almost the sector asking the Government for additional support or assistance, or to rule out any adverse impact on police officers, and for the Government to play their role across all other public agencies to try to level the ground and make sure everything is fair and supportive for policing.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 29, Q44.]
I hope the Minister will consider supporting new clause 44, which I am sure would have the full backing of the House.
Finally, I turn to amendment 77, which is absolutely crucial and goes to the heart of how the covenant should work going forward. The amendment would set up an oversight board for the covenant, with an independent chair and membership of police organisations that would review the annual report before it is laid before Parliament. The amendment would also allow the Secretary of State to appoint other people to the oversight board as they deem appropriate. In essence, the amendment would ensure that the covenant does not have Ministers marking their own homework. The point of the covenant is not for the Home Secretary to decide whether the police are doing what they should be doing; the point is that the police should be working with the Home Secretary to make sure the police are getting the support that they need.
Alex Cunningham
I always think of the expression, “do with”, rather than “do to”, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that working closely with the different organisations outlined in the clause will add considerable value to what the Government are trying to achieve. Better than that, it will have better outcomes for the police officers involved.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right in how he describes what the covenant should be about and how it should work.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that by including a broad spread of representative organisations at all levels of the police, whether trade unions or staff associations, and at all levels, from the most junior officer to more senior officers, it is much more likely that the kinds of events that lead to the outcomes that we were discussing earlier in the debate will be identified and can be tackled via the covenant, if those things are talked about across the whole range of organisations before fixing the report? Is that not the point of the amendment?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right, and all the police organisations have been really clear that this is how we get the best outcome from the covenant, and that this is how we can best define it. I mentioned the death of George Floyd, and all the major police organisations have been working together on black lives matter issues—for example, by looking at issues around discrimination across the police force. I have had many conversations with Martin Hewitt, John Apter, police supers and others in which they talk about how absolutely fascinating it has been to talk to police officers lower down in the force, understand what is holding them back and what changes need to be made, and drive that change forward. By bringing in all these organisations, we can deliver better policy.
John Apter, in an evidence session last week, said that
“in order to make the covenant meaningful for our members, retired colleagues and volunteers, I think that level of independence on the oversight programme, the oversight board and the delivery board, which would then lead in to the Government, is really important…It is not just the federation calling for this; collectively, we all believe very strongly in it.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 30, Q44.]
That is a powerful case, which I am sure the Minister understands. I hope that she will support our amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Thank you, Sir Charles. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
First, I thank Opposition Members for the constructive tone of the debate so far. I very much take the point that this covenant meets with the approval of all the parties represented here today and, I am sure, others as well. We are all conscious of the terrible incidents that members of the police force and the wider policing family have to endure on a daily basis, but we are also particularly mindful—reference has been made to this—of what they have had to endure and the services that they have had to provide in the past 12 months. It has been a very difficult time for the whole of society, and it is, I hope, no surprise to anyone that members of our policing family have been at the forefront of that and have been protecting us through these very difficult 12 months. I am therefore really pleased by the constructive tone of the debate thus far.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Croydon Central for tabling these amendments and explaining their reasons for doing so. As I hope will become clear, we very much understand the motivations behind the amendments and, indeed, we have great sympathy with what they seek to achieve. We may just have different ideas of how to achieve them.
Let me put the clause in context. I am pleased that parliamentary counsel decided to put this clause at the very start of the Bill, because it is a significant Bill—the largest criminal justice Bill that Parliament has considered for some time—and I think it right that the police covenant is at the very start. It sets the tone for the rest of the legislation.
This clause will enshrine in law a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant, which has been introduced with a view to enhancing support for the police workforce and their families—a very significant point. Even in this Committee Room, there are members of the policing family—they are not direct members themselves, but their fathers, mothers and so on have served in the service—and it is right that we include them in our consideration.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate the Minister giving way. She says, “and their families.” She has just done some exemplary work on the Bill that has become the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and knows that a disproportionately high number of cases of domestic violence and abuse happen within the police world. One would hope that, were we able to tackle the root cause of that by addressing the trauma at the very beginning and putting support in place, the knock-on repercussions would be prevented, which I am sure she and I both really want.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. She is right: in the course of proceedings on that Bill, we examined the impact that domestic abuse has on members of the wider policing family. She is absolutely right, and I will come on to that point about the trauma, if I may. I do very much acknowledge it.
I will just explain the thinking behind the clause as currently drafted. The covenant takes the form of a declaration and is not set out in the Bill. In particular, the report must address the health and wellbeing of members and former members of the police workforce in England and Wales, their physical protections and support for their families. Over time, the report may deal with other matters addressed under the banner of the police covenant.
The clause is in the Bill because our police put themselves at risk on a daily basis, dealing with some of the most challenging, toughest and most heartbreaking situations—hon. Members have given examples of that during this debate. I will explain how the covenant came into being. We set out a frontline review, inviting police officers, staff and community support officers to share ideas, in order to change and improve policing. The results of that review identified the fact that more must be done to support the wellbeing of those across the policing community. We have therefore announced plans to establish a police covenant, to recognise the bravery, sacrifices and commitment of those who work, or who have worked, in policing. No member of the police workforce should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their role in policing, and the covenant will support that aim.
The examples that hon. Members have provided show, first, the challenges, difficulties and—actually—terror that officers must face on occasion. However, I also hope—I am grasping for silver linings—that some of the stories show the improvements in our collective understanding of the impact of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder on mental health.
The example that the hon. Member for Rotherham gave of the officer who—I think she said that they were not even asked if they were okay, which, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood quite rightly said, should be only the beginning of the conversation; of course, much more must flow from that first question. However, the officer to whom the hon. Member for Rotherham referred had to leave the force in 1999. I hope that we all, as a society, have gained a better understanding of the impacts of trauma and so on on mental health since then.
Maria Eagle
Because the Minister has just said that trauma is now recognised, will she go the whole hog and include the word in her wonderful clause 1?
Victoria Atkins
I am developing my argument, if I may. The reason I referred to that particular officer, although other examples were given, is that under the covenant, as it is drafted, that officer—as a former member of the police force—is covered by the covenant, and we very much want it to support not just serving members but those who have served and have since retired, or had to leave.
We now come to the nub of the issue—the inclusion of words in the legal framework, as set out in the Bill. We believe very strongly that the consideration of the impact of working with traumatised survivors on the morale and wellbeing of members and former members of the police force is already within scope of the clause, as currently drafted. It falls within the broad categories of health and wellbeing, as set out in clause 1.
Again, just to give the Committee some comfort and, indeed, I hope confidence in what we intend to do, our initial priorities for year one, which will be overseen and monitored by the police covenant oversight board and the police covenant delivery group, will include working towards ensuring that occupational health standards, including for mental health, are embedded in all forces; holding chiefs to account for providing the right quality and investment in their workforce; further consideration of a new chief medical officer for policing in England and Wales; working on a review to establish what is a good support model for families, drawing on established good practice and research from other sectors and international partners; and once that is agreed forces will be required to implement locally bespoke schemes in their local infrastructure. It will include development training for GPs around the role of the police, similar to the military veterans’ GP training, and development of pre-deployment mental health support provided to the police workforce, particularly in the light of the pandemic and the effect that it will have had on the police workforce.
Rather like the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, whereby in the definition we set out the very broad legal framework, and there were many examples of domestic abuse behaviour in those categories, which were then put into the statutory guidance. The wording, “health and wellbeing”, provides the legal framework. Within that, it is for the board, the delivery group and, ultimately, the Secretary of State, to include those matters in the report.
Sarah Champion
The Minister’s words are giving me a lot of comfort, but could she clarify a little more? What she is talking about is retrospective support once the incident has happened. Is it her intent that there will be preventive action at the very beginning of police training, so people are aware what the trauma is in advance, rather than just focusing on once it has happened?
Victoria Atkins
I am sure that I will give further clarification in due course if it is needed, but I draw comfort from the fact that the wording I have here is the development of “pre-deployment” mental health support. If that requires further explanation, I am sure that I will provide that explanation in due course.
Victoria Atkins
I would just like to give comfort on this point. We also plan that the board should have its inaugural meeting to set its priorities during scrutiny of the Bill. Parliament will be able to assess the priorities that flow from that meeting within the scrutiny of the Bill. The approach in the clause is very much of openness and transparency. We want the concerns that have been quite properly put forward to be addressed within the legal framework as set out in clause 1, and the practical workings to have meaningful effect for officers, former officers and members of staff on the ground.
Maria Eagle
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. It sounds as if she is moving towards the suggestion that she might not accept the amendment. Although in broad terms, the word “trauma” can be encompassed in the widest possible definition of health and wellbeing, one of the difficulties faced thus far is that the culture has been that health is about physical health, and wellbeing is just about not being off work. Consequently, were she to accept the change in wording, it would give a very strong steer that Government see the importance of cultural change being at the heart of the issue.
Victoria Atkins
I would go further, because I would not want the Committee to understand that the covenant is the only work being done on mental health and understanding trauma and wellbeing. There is already work going on with some of the people who have been mentioned in the debate to improve local understanding of the impact. Chief constables are very alive to that.
The point of the covenant is to set the framework for recognition in relation to both mental and physical wellbeing, and to set up the structure so that the Secretary of State is accountable through the report to Parliament for those matters. It is drafted as it is because we do not want to fall into the beguiling trap where, in a year or three years’ time perhaps, people look at a list of conditions in a piece of legislation, and take that as exhaustive. We want professional curiosity and intelligence to be used in these matters. Our concern is that differentiating physical and mental health could have unintended consequences years down the line for how the terms of the covenant are deployed at local level.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister will have heard me quoting John Apter earlier. Having talked to the College of Policing, he said that there is a
“lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
Does she not think that it is time they were given that ability so that, were willing, they could alter the training to suit changing circumstances and the needs of police officers?
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He touches upon one of those imponderables, in that the police are operationally independent. There is always a balancing act, for Ministers of any Government, of any colour, in persuading, cajoling, directing and working with the police to ensure that their training meets both the expectations of the public and the needs of police staff. That is why the police want to come with us on this journey, because we are working together on this. I cannot be as directional as he is perhaps suggesting.
However, the fact that we are having these debates in Parliament is significant. We plan for the board to have its inaugural meeting during the scrutiny of this Parliament, and very senior people, who take what this House says very seriously, will be around the table. Having this debate will very much help them understand their responsibilities in this regard. I note that Paul Griffiths said in giving evidence last week:
“There is a need for consistency across occupational health standards, but I think that could be achieved through the programme management rather than through legislation.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
That is really what we are trying to address in clause 1.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central kindly invited me to meet Sam from the Green Ribbon Policing campaign to discuss some of these issues, and I would be delighted to do so. We are very much in listening mode as to how we can improve our plans for this clause. We have kept the wording deliberately broad to ensure that there is room within the legislation to allow the Secretary of State to consider issues of importance as they arise, and the issues that have been raised here will be included in those considerations.
We have built flexibility into the clause through paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2), to be addressed if considered appropriate. We very much want to strike the right balance, by directing the substance of the report without being too prescriptive. As the aim of the covenant is to focus on issues directly relevant to members or former members of the police workforce, we will be establishing a police covenant governance structure, along with key policing stakeholders, to feed directly into the police covenant report. This structure will support us in prioritising the most relevant issues to the police year on year, and ensure that the report reflects that.
Amendment 77 seeks to place the police covenant oversight board on a statutory footing. I hope that it is apparent from what I have said already that we do intend to establish such a board, albeit on a non-statutory basis, to drive the strategic direction of the covenant, to set priorities and to monitor progress, which will feed into the Home Secretary’s annual report to Parliament. The board will comprise key representatives from across policing, but we consider it appropriate for the board to be chaired by the Minister for Policing. As part of our plans to establish the board, we will ensure that its important work feeds into the police covenant report.
Sarah Jones
Does the Minister acknowledge that the reason we want to put the board on a statutory footing is that at the moment it falls to the Home Secretary to provide a report to Parliament only once a year? The power balance of who the covenant is for, who should be driving the improvements and who should be leading what is needed within the police is wrong. We believe that that balance could be put right if the Bill stated that it should be those police organisations, under an independent chair. If the Minister for Policing chairs the board, inevitably he will be marking his own homework. The whole purpose of the covenant is to enable the police to get the support they need in a way that is driven by the police for the police. It is not about the Minister deciding whether what is being done suits him.
Victoria Atkins
I am so pleased that the hon. Lady raises that, because the very first subsection of the Bill sets out the Secretary of State’s accountability. It is the Secretary of State who lays a report before Parliament, so they are accountable to Parliament for the contents of that report. I do not have a crystal ball, but I imagine that when the first report is laid, hon. Members from across the House will ask the Secretary of State searching questions about, for example, its observations and provisions in relation to mental health and trauma. In drafting the covenant, we have tried to keep the Secretary of State’s accountability absolutely on the face of the Bill. Just as the Secretary of State is accountable at the Dispatch Box, so too must the board be chaired by the relevant Minister, so that the flow of accountability to the Dispatch Box is there.
There are other important boards across Government that are not on a statutory footing but that assist and hold Ministers to account when it comes to how particular work is developed. The accountability point is that the Secretary of State must lay this report before Parliament, and then Parliament will hold the Secretary of State to account.
Sarah Jones
If the board is not on a statutory footing, it does not much matter who is chairing it, because there is no statutory line of accountability. If it is not on the face of the Bill, it does not matter. The Minister could agree to have an independent chair of the board if it is not going to be on a statutory footing. Her argument does not follow, in that sense.
Victoria Atkins
This is very speculative, so forgive me, but let us follow the hon. Lady’s example. If the board has an independent chair, and to everyone’s surprise they make recommendations to the Secretary of State that do not include measures relating to mental health, the Secretary of State is then in a very difficult position, because she is accountable to Parliament for the contents of the report, yet the work of the report, driven by a committee that is not chaired by one of her Ministers, has come to a set of results that she may not agree with and cannot account for. This is about the trail of accountability from the covenant through to the Dispatch Box. That is why—[Interruption.] I am so sorry; I have just been handed a note but cannot read the writing. I think I can get it. We have that chain of accountability through to the Dispatch Box, which is precisely what we are trying to achieve. We do not want the report or the Minister not to be accountable.
Sarah Champion
For clarity—I am sorry to labour the point, but it is important—will the board be on a formal setting? Is it an actual thing? Is it the same group of organisations that make up the report at present? If the board is an actual thing, my concern is this. To take the Minister’s hypothetical example, a new Home Secretary might not have any interest in mental health and wellbeing, but if the board is on a statutory footing, it still has a duty to push whoever is chairing it in the right direction. Could the Minister clarify whether the board is a formal body?
Victoria Atkins
Of course, and as with other boards, as I have said, the terms are set out and agreed. We want to be open and transparent on that. Its membership will include all the key policing representatives that one would imagine and, what is more, we have tried to go further by giving the Secretary of State the freedom to consult others. If there is a particular charity or organisation that is addressing a particular issue that the board feels is important that year, the Secretary of State has the power to consult that organisation. Again, to provide comfort, we will review the governance arrangements six months after the board is constituted, and we will consider the independence of the board’s chair as part of that.
Amendment 76 is an important amendment. We are exploring how the police covenant, as currently drafted, can apply to police forces and law enforcement organisations that do not fall within the remit of the Home Office, in particular the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police and the National Crime Agency. We are very much alive to the points made both by organisations and in this debate. With that work ongoing, I trust that the hon. Member for Croydon Central will not press the amendment to a vote.
Finally, new clause 44 would place a duty on specified health service bodies to have due regard to the police covenant principles. I recognise that, in advancing this new clause, the hon. Member for Croydon Central has drawn on the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill 2021 in respect of the armed forces covenant. The difficulty is that the two covenants are at a different stage in their development. The armed forces covenant has been around for some years, and in that context it is right that it should now develop, with the new duty provided for in clause 8 of the Armed Forces Bill. In contrast, we are just getting started with the police covenant. At the moment, we do not think it appropriate to place a requirement on specific public bodies to have due regard to the police covenant. We must gather robust evidence and have careful consideration of the needs and consultation with the relevant health service bodies.
I want to reassure the hon. Lady that, through the reporting requirement that we have set out in the legislation and the governance process, we will be looking at the best way to ensure that our police can access the right care when they need it. In the light of my explanation and my assurance that we are continuing to consider how best to address the report requirement for non-Home Office forces, I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham will be content to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
Before I call Sarah Champion, would the shadow Minister like to say anything in response?
Sarah Champion
The Minister is clearly in listening mode, and it is deeply appreciated how much time and consideration she has clearly given to the amendment. I am reassured by what she has said. If possible, I would like to have some more of the detail that she was talking about. At this point, I will not push the amendment to a vote, because of the chance to do so at a later date.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for her responses. On amendments 76 and 77, I stress again how keen the police world is that we make some progress on those two issues. I noted that she said on clause 77 that there will be a review in six months that will consider the independence of the chair. I think it makes sense to have an independent chair and believe it is appropriate, given that we are suggesting that the board should review the annual report before it is published. It cannot say what it is—it cannot control that—so having an independent chair would give comfort. However, I heard what she said on that, so I will not push that amendment to a Division. On amendment 76, which she briefly responded to after she got the note that we should hurry up, she said that work is ongoing. I cannot stress enough how strongly the different organisations feel about that. Again, I will not test the view of the Committee on that.
Sarah Champion
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Nobody wants to press any other amendments to a vote, and new clause 44 will be dealt with later, so we come to the decision on clause 1.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Increase in penalty for assault on emergency worker
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Clause 2 increases the maximum penalty for common assault or battery against an emergency worker from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment, thereby delivering our manifesto commitment. Our emergency services place themselves in harm’s way to protect us, and it is therefore right that we treat with particular seriousness any assault committed against an emergency worker, which is why we seek to legislate to increase the maximum sentence for assault against them from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our emergency services for the work they do on our behalf and on behalf of all our constituents, keeping us safe, looking after us and protecting us. I am sure the whole Committee will be united in expressing that sentiment.
We consulted last year on extending the maximum penalty from one year to two years and found overwhelming support for the move. In evidence last week, we heard representatives of policing and emergency services expressing strong support for the move as well. It will give courts the ability to pass higher sentences, reflecting the seriousness and severity of these offences. The clause does not change the definition of emergency workers. That is set out in section 3(1) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and covers police constables; National Crime Agency officers; prison and custody officers; fire, rescue and search personnel; and those people providing NHS services. The clause simply amends the maximum sentence that appears in that Act from 12 months to two years.
It is worth saying that, where more serious assaults occur against emergency workers, such as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or grievous bodily harm with intent, those offences will be charged as those more serious matters, which of course have higher sentences. Actual bodily harm has a maximum sentence of five years; GBH, under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, also has a five-year maximum; and GBH with intent has a maximum sentence of life. We of course expect more serious assaults on our emergency workers to be prosecuted and sentenced accordingly.
It is worth noting that the proportion of defendants in assault cases against emergency workers receiving immediate custody went up last year compared with the year before, from 17% to 25%, and about 10,000 cases were successfully prosecuted and sentenced. This legislation is being used on a fairly wide basis.
No amendments have been tabled to the clause. I believe it commands widespread support across the House and among the public. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than necessary. I think I have covered the key elements of the proposals, and spoken about the importance of the work of our emergency services and the tribute that we pay to them. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Maria Eagle
I do not wish to detain the Committee for long; I have just a couple of points. The Minister set out that the consultation has gone on. It was obviously a manifesto commitment of his party, and I generally approve of manifesto commitments being implemented. Even if I might not agree with all the ones that were in his manifesto, I can see the point, but am I not right that the original intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act, was to have a two-year maximum, but it was reduced during the passage of the legislation to one year as a consequence of the Government of the day wanting it to be one year?
I understand that there have been consultations and a manifesto commitment since, but from where does this Damascene conversion come? It seems to me that the Government originally said, “We’ll support the legislation if the maximum is one year,” and within months of it being implemented they were saying, “It’s got to be two years,” which was what my hon. Friend actually wanted. He cut it in order to get Government support. I am interested to find out where that conversion came from. Was there some sudden bit of evidence that convinced the Government that my hon. Friend was correct, in which case I congratulate the Government on being willing to change their mind. I would be interested to hear from the Minister where that change of heart came from.
Secondly, I notice that the British Association of Social Workers and the Social Workers Union have submitted a petition to the Government, which I understand has quite a few thousand signatures, asking them to amend the legislation to include social workers in the definition of emergency workers. No doubt there are arguments for and against that, but I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say about whether the Government have any intention of doing that.
Sarah Jones
Clause 2, as the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, has outlined, increases the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. We absolutely support that provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood highlighted, the Opposition have been calling for it for years. On Second Reading of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda introduced, he eloquently said:
“An assault on anyone is wrong, but an attack on any emergency worker—whether that is a police constable, a paramedic, an ambulance driver, an accident and emergency doctor or nurse, a fire officer, a prison officer, someone working in search and rescue, or someone working on a lifeboat—is an attack on us all. And when we are all attacked, we all stand firm together.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1103.]
Many Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, were present on Second Reading, and I remember well the huge support for that private Member’s Bill, with many Members wanting to speak.
During the covid pandemic, which has happened since that legislation was passed, there has been a shocking increase in the number of attacks on frontline emergency service workers, with a 31% increase compared with 2019. Over the last five years, attacks on frontline police officers have gone up by 50%. It has been clear through the pandemic that emergency services and shopworkers have been right at the forefront, risking their own health to serve their communities. Many have faced unacceptable attacks as they have worked to keep us safe, from being spat at and punched to being verbally abused and intimidated. Those attacks should be met with swift, meaningful punishment.
As I mentioned earlier, Sergeant Matt Ratana was murdered doing the job that he loved last year. All of us, I hope, would do everything that we can to honour his memory by campaigning to stop assaults on our police as best we can. The NHS figures are disturbing. Between January and July last year, there were more than 1,600 physical assaults on UK ambulance workers. In London, there were 355 physical assaults on ambulance workers and 239 incidents of verbal abuse. I experienced it myself when I rode out with some police officers, and we had to arrest people who were on drugs and being highly abusive. The ambulance workers arrived and were sexually assaulted by the two men. It is a daily occurrence, and we should not accept it.
The Government’s impact assessment states that over 11,250 cases of assault on an emergency worker were proceeded against in 2019, with around 9,050 resulting in a sentence. Of those, 1,900 cases received a fine, 3,600 a community sentence, 950 a suspended sentence and 1,550 an immediate custodial sentence. Of those receiving an immediate custodial sentence, most—67%—were sentenced to three months or less, 27% were given a sentence of three to six months, and only 6% received an immediate custodial sentence of six months or more.
We should pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda for all their work campaigning to achieve the change. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax originally drafted the “Protect the Protectors” Bill and campaigned relentlessly with the Police Federation for its introduction. The Bill was later picked up as a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, and received universal support to be passed into law.
As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda had originally pushed for a two-year maximum sentence in his Bill, but the Government had wanted 12 months, to which he agreed in order to ensure that the Bill passed. It is a shame that the Government did not agree to it at that time and it would be useful to understand what the change in view is down to. There are still concerns around the stronger sentence only applying to convictions in the Crown court, and some in the police have raised concerns that it should come alongside effective sentencing guidance: magistrates should be able to sentence for longer to avoid clogging up the Crown court. Sentencing guidance has not yet been published in relation to section 2 of the 2018 Act, and while the increased sentence is welcome in the Bill, it would be good to hear from the Minister about his plans for new sentencing guidance.
Mr Goodwill
Is it also the case that, because we introduced the ability to appeal against lenient sentences, if judges and magistrates do not use the powers in the Bill available to them, it is open to the Government or law officers to challenge those sentences?
Sarah Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It would be good to hear the Minister’s view on that in his response.
To finish my remarks on clause 2, which recognises the bravery of emergency workers and appreciates that there should be increased sentences for those who assault them, the Government could take many other actions that may also reduce the number of assaults against emergency workers. We should not lose sight of them. Being alone on a patrol increases the risk of assault, and that tends to be down to resources. The Government need to tackle that issue. We also have a woefully small amount of evidence as to why assaults are increasing. What is the evidence around what is happening, and why it is happening? What analysis has been done by the Home Office on where these assaults are taking place, and why?
Linked to that is the issue of protective equipment. There has been a big increase in body-worn cameras and spit guards in policing, but what lessons are actually being learned from covid, and from the experience suffered by our police officers and other emergency workers during this time, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect them in the future? In conclusion, clause 2 is a welcome step in the right direction.
Sarah Champion
Covid has obviously changed everything, including our definition of “emergency worker”. Several MPs have pointed out that emergency workers are not the only group suffering from frequent violent attacks, and provisions should be extended to all staff in the NHS and social care, as well as to shopworkers. In 2020, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers found that the vast majority of shopworkers—88%—were victims of verbal abuse in 2020. They were largely trying to implement the covid restrictions. Nearly two thirds were threatened, and nearly one in 10 were assaulted. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing for those workers? They were on the frontline of the pandemic and should be given the same level of protection as emergency workers.
Chris Philp
Let me reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood asked about what had prompted the change from one year to two years and if there had been a “Damascene conversion.” The change is evidence that the Government are always willing to listen and to reflect. They have listened to organisations such as the Police Federation and to the results of the consultation. It is no bad thing that a Government are willing to keep things under review and to make changes, where there is public appetite or evidence to support them, rather than simply to remain with a particular position that was taken two or three years ago. It is a sign of maturity and wisdom that we are willing to make changes as appropriate.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rotherham asked about other workers, including social workers. The 2018 Act, which passed with widespread cross-party support, drew a particular distinction about frontline emergency workers—the police, firefighters, frontline NHS staff, rescue services and so on—who are putting themselves directly into harm’s way, because what they are doing is unique.
However, as both hon. Members and the shadow Minister said, other workers also have contact with the public, including retail workers and social workers, which is important. That is why the sentencing guidelines we already have rightly recognise that a victim might be working in the public sector or otherwise providing a service to the public, including working in a shop, as an aggravating factor. Because it is recognised as an aggravating factor, it means that if the victim is one of those people, the judge is duty bound to pass a higher sentence than would otherwise be the case, so that is accounted for in the way I just described.
The shadow Minister spoke a little about the sentences passed down and mentioned that in 2019 only 6% of sentences for common assault on an emergency worker were for six months or more. That went up a bit last year. The figures for 2020 came out just a few days ago, and it went up to 15% in 2020. The average sentence has gone up as well. By elevating the maximum sentence today, we in Parliament are sending a clear signal to the judiciary and others that we expect this offence to be taken extremely seriously, and sentenced accordingly and commensurately.
My understanding is that the Sentencing Council guidelines for the offence as it already exists are due to be published in the near future, possibly as soon as later this week. They will provide further clarity to the judiciary, but Parliament’s voice will be heard clearly today in signalling that we expect longer sentences for people who assault our emergency workers. I am sure the judiciary will hear that.
The shadow Minister made some points about ensuring that the police are properly protected. She drew particular attention to the risks of attending lone patrols and the need for resources. We are in the middle of a successful police recruitment campaign, which will eventually target 23,000 extra police. We are about a third of the way through that. The result of that extra recruitment will be to mitigate some of the risks that the shadow Minister mentioned. As a fellow Croydon MP and her constituency neighbour, I am well aware of those risks and was painfully affected by the awful murder of Sergeant Matt Ratana. I take the opportunity to join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to Sergeant Ratana and his family. He died in the course of duty after a long and distinguished career, and I am sure we all want to remember him and his family.
I hope that answers the questions that were raised, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Special constables and Police Federations: amendments to the Police Act 1996
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Sir Charles, noting that there are no amendments, I do not propose to speak to the clause, which I commend to the Committee.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Sir Charles. Clause 3 would allow police specials—volunteer police officers—to become members of the Police Federation, a proposal that we support. I wanted to say a few words because special constables play a vital role in keeping our communities safe. They have been of huge value to communities across the country, particularly through the pandemic. The special constabulary has a long and proud history and has made an immeasurable contribution to policing our communities.
Sir Robert Peel is often quoted:
“The police are the people, and the people are the police.”
That cannot be more applicable than to our special constables who volunteer to make our communities safer while working at other jobs. It is important that special constabulary officers feel valued and that their contribution is recognised. It is imperative that they have the support and opportunities to thrive and feel they have the protections they deserve for doing such an important job. I know this clause is close to the Police Federation’s heart and to that of former special John Apter, who has campaigned for police specials to join the federation.
The number of police specials has significantly declined. There were 9,126 specials in England and Wales in September 2020. That is 10,500 fewer than in 2012, a drop of more than 15%. John Apter argues that including the specials in the Police Federation will help increase numbers, as the representation that the change will bring may encourage more people to volunteer with the police. It would give specials a legal status, like that of police officers who are members of the federation. Putting the change into law will formalise that support for specials. In a survey about federation membership, 94% of respondents who were specials said that they wanted to join the Police Federation.
In Scotland, police specials are already part of the Scottish Police Federation. Scottish specials have the same legal status in the force as their regular officer counterparts. Both are appointed to office by the chief constable of Police Scotland, so there is no legal barrier to specials joining the Scottish Police Federation. The inclusion of specials in the Scottish federation has been uncontroversial, as far as I can see.
The Association of Special Constabulary Officers is supportive of specials being given greater access to the federation’s legal advice and assistance services. It says:
“As frontline volunteer police officers we are exposed to the same risks of complaints and injuries and conduct investigations, and the Federation has an unrivalled local network of capability on those issues already in place, which is required under police regulations and funded by forces. In this respect ASCO is supportive of the ongoing work.”
However, ASCO has voiced concerns about how much it will cost and the risk of specials losing their independent voice. ASCO wants to retain its role as the representative association and professional body for police specials, with the federation being the lead and expert organisation in respect of the elements of formal representation that it is funded to undertake.
The cost will be around £3 million, which is not being covered by the Home Office. If the number of specials increase, as we hope, back to 2012 levels, that would possibly rise to £6 million or £7 million. The chair, workforce lead and “citizens in policing” lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners have agreed in principle to fund membership for specials. They wrote to all current PCCs in June 2020, asking them to indicate their willingness to pay specials’ subscription fees. Although we support the relatively uncontroversial clause, will the Minister confirm that that £3 million cost is accurate? Does she think the cost of membership is proportionate? Is it appropriate for taxpayers to cover that amount out of the police precept, especially if the number of specials rise and the cost goes up to £6 million or £7 million?
Victoria Atkins
I note the time. Our special constables make a vital contribution to keeping communities safe, through their professionalism, dedication and sacrifice, increasingly fulfilling a range of specialised and frontline roles. They often face the same risks as regular officers while on duty and have the same powers as regular officers.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 25th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 May 2021 - (25 May 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
When we adjourned this morning, I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Croydon Central that special constables make a vital contribution to keeping communities safe, through their professionalism, dedication and sacrifice. Increasingly, as they fulfil a range of specialised and frontline roles, they face the same risks as regular officers while on duty. Given that they share the range of powers that regular officers can deploy, we are very pleased to have included this clause in the Bill.
The hon. Lady asked me about the funding. We understand that the Police Federation is currently exploring funding options for specials’ membership. The Home Office currently provides free access to an insurance policy for all special constables, to cover the costs of legal advice in the event of disciplinary and misconduct proceedings. We have no plans at present to withdraw from that insurance. I commend clause 3 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Meaning of dangerous driving: constables etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We support clauses 4 to 6, which relate to police driving standards. The Opposition have been calling for some years for proper legal protections for police officers when they pursue suspects on the roads. We know that the police put themselves in incredible danger to ensure that suspects are caught, and they should not be criminalised for doing that job. One of the first events I attended as an MP was an event organised by the Police Federation, and this issue was part of the first conversation that I had with it. I pay tribute to the Police Federation and others who have campaigned for this change.
Clauses 4 to 6 amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that qualified police drivers are compared to what is expected of a competent and careful trained police driver, rather than what is expected of competent and careful drivers, for the offences of dangerous and careless driving. It makes a lot of sense to give the police these added protections when they are driving for police purposes.
For those who may have concerns about these clauses, it is important to consider the context in which this change is being made. The Independent Office for Police Conduct publishes an annual report on deaths during or following police contact. In 2019-20, 24 people died in road traffic incidents involving the police: 19 were pursuit related; three were emergency response related; and the two remaining incidents were classed as other police traffic accidents. The number of road traffic fatalities involving the police in 2019-20 was the fifth lowest figure since records began in the early 2000s.
The Police Federation has been campaigning since 2012 for the skills of police officers to be considered in dangerous and careless driving cases. John Apter of the Police Federation, giving us evidence last week, said:
“All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 22, Q34.]
The Police Federation says that the
“current legislation leaves drivers vulnerable”,
and that subjecting drivers to conduct and criminal investigations as a result of being held to the same standards as a normal driver caused significant distress and impeded their careers. The Home Office’s review of the law, guidance and training governing police pursuit in September 2019 concluded that it is not appropriate to hold officers to the same standards as regular guidance, and set out to consult on possible changes.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that police forces have in place strict guidance on how police officers can use their driving skills? In particular, if a hot pursuit were to put members of the public at risk, they would have to desist from the pursuit.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is right; there are many other processes in place for when an accident occurs. As soon as an accident occurred, the IOPC would investigate why it happened. Measures are in place to ensure that the police do not do things that we would not expect of them. The amendment aims to make sure that it is very clear what is expected of them and what is not. When I spoke to the National Police Chiefs Council lead on those issues, it was clear to me that we have to enable the police to do what they need to do without fearing that they will be taken to court. There also need to be checks and balances to ensure that they do not overstep the mark.
The Government review was welcome. The IOPC concluded:
“Any change to legislation must not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermining the ability to hold the police to account effectively”.
That is very important. The change is welcome; it is not about the police driving without fear of scrutiny, but it is important that police are not prosecuted for doing what they have been trained to do.
It is also important to discuss an issue related to clause 4, which a number of police officers have raised with me. We tried to craft some amendments around this, but it was problematic, so I am just raising the issue. There was a concern that the number of officers who have undertaken the full level of driver training varies between forces, because there are various different levels of driving training, and what officers have will depend on where they are. Officers who do not receive the full training worry that they will be hesitant to do what may be required of them in the circumstances. For instance, if they were on a motorway and needed to ram a vehicle in order to save someone’s life on the road, would an officer take that risk if they could end up subject to a criminal investigation?
The police clearly have to strike a fine balance in the circumstances they are presented with. I have no doubt that, in the main, they will do what is expected of them. Subsection (3) states that
“the designated person is to be regarded as driving dangerously… only if)—
(a) the way the person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, and
(b) it would be obvious to such a competent and careful constable that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
Can the Minister provide some assurance? If a police officer who has done the basic level of police driver training finds themselves in a situation where they have to respond to an emergency incident that would require higher levels of training, how would they be protected?
On a matter related to clauses 4 to 6, the College of Policing has said that it would be “highly desirable” for police vehicles involved in pursuits always to be fitted with black boxes, which monitor the performance of drivers. Some forces, such as the Metropolitan police, fit all vehicles with those devices, but that is not the case everywhere. Could the Minister look into that? The cost might be prohibitive, but what would it take for all vehicles used in police pursuits to have those black boxes? What safeguards will be in place to protect drivers who have not had the highest level of driver training? Will that lead to more IOPC and court referrals, or can we be comfortable that the clauses as drafted will provide that protection?
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am broadly supportive of the measures. When I go out with South Yorkshire police, I am always incredibly impressed by the amount of planning and expertise in the force, but I need to raise concerns made by the IOPC, which I hope the Minister will respond to. It, too, is broadly supportive, but it has raised a couple of reservations, including the fact that the lack of detailed information on the number and outcomes of investigations involving police road traffic incidents made it difficult to understand the full context of the proposed legislative change, and therefore how big the current problem is. It also says that any change to legislation must not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermining the ability to hold the police to account effectively. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on those points.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
On an almost minute-by-minute basis, highly trained police drivers respond to emergency calls on all our behalf. They rush to incidents of danger when others run away. They are highly trained and they deserve the protection afforded by the Bill, and to be judged by the standard of the training they have received, rather than the standard of a normal driver. This may seem a relatively unimportant feature of the Bill, but it is extremely important to the police officers who undertake these dangerous duties. It is a matter of great interest and concern that they should not be treated as criminals when all they are actually doing is performing their duties to the best of their abilities.
Victoria Atkins
Clauses 4 to 6 provide a new test to assess the standard of driving of a police officer. Should an officer be involved in a road traffic incident, this new test will allow courts to judge their standard of driving against a competent and careful police constable with the same level of training, rather than against a member of the public, as at present. Clause 4 applies the new test to the offence of dangerous driving, while clause 5 makes similar provision in respect of the offence of careless driving.
We believe that police officers need to be able to do their job effectively and keep the public safe. We are aware of concerns among some police officers over the legal position when pursuing suspected offenders or responding to an emergency. The hon. Member for Croydon Central asked about different standards of training. The proposed changes seek to strike the right balance between enabling the police to keep the public safe on the roads and pavements, apprehending criminals around the country who would otherwise pose a threat, and effectively holding to account the minority of officers who drive inappropriately.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has worked closely with police forces to standardise police driver training across England and Wales. This will ensure that police drivers are trained to a similar standard, depending on their role, and that the legal test for police drivers will have a fairer comparator. This will also include different levels of training to reflect the training and skills that each role requires.
Sarah Jones
The NPCC made exactly that point: people will have different levels of training. It just wants reassurance about officers who are not trained to do something that they end up having to do in the line of duty. Will they be affected because they have not had a very high level of training when, for example, pursuing somebody?
Victoria Atkins
This will include different levels of training to reflect the training and skills that each will require, so that difference is reflected. We are pleased to introduce these clauses. There is a careful balancing act between the interests of the law-abiding public and police officers while ensuring that standards are maintained on the road. These provisions will also extend, I am happy to say, to police driving instructors when they carry out advanced police driving techniques for the purpose of teaching trainee police driving instructors and trainee police drivers in the territorial police forces and other police forces. We believe that this new test strikes that balance, so I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 7, page 7, line 33, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
This amendment, together with Amendments 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89, would ensure specified authorities involved in the “serious violence duty” safeguard children at risk of or experiencing from harm.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 79, in clause 7, page 7, line 38, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 92, in clause 7, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) prepare and implement an early help strategy to prevent violence and support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm.”
This amendment would add a duty on specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy.
Amendment 80, in clause 7, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) safeguard children involved in serious violence in the area, and
(e) identify and safeguard children who are involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 93, in clause 7, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) any children’s social care authority for the area which is not a specified authority for the area.”
This amendment would ensure that any children’s social care authority which was not already involved in the strategy would be consulted in the preparation of the strategy.
Amendment 82, in clause 7, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(7A) The local policing body for the area must provide an annual monitoring report for local safeguarding partners on actions undertaken as part of a strategy.”
Amendment 83, in clause 8, page 9, line 3, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 84, in clause 8, page 9, line 6, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 85, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 86, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
“(d) identify and safeguard children who are involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 88, in clause 9, page 10, line 30, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 89, in clause 9, page 10, line 32, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
New clause 17—Child criminal exploitation—
“At end of section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (meaning of exploitation), insert—
‘(7) Another person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence and the person is under the age of 18.’”
This new clause introduces a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation.
New clause 47—Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children—
“(1) The specified authorities for a local government area must collaborate with each other to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation in the area and safeguard affected children.
(2) The duty imposed on the specified authorities for a local government area by subsection (1) includes a duty to plan together to exercise their functions so as to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation in the area and safeguard affected children.
(3) In particular, the specified authorities for a local government area must—
(a) Identify the kinds of child criminal exploitation that occur in the area,
(b) identify the causes of child criminal exploitation in the area, so far as it is possible to do so, and
(c) prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children in the area.
(4) In preparing a strategy under this section for a local government area, the specified authorities for the area must ensure that the following are consulted—
(a) each educational authority for the area;
(b) each prison authority for the area;
(c) each youth custody authority for the area.
(5) A strategy under this section for a local government area may specify an action to be carried out by—
(a) an educational authority for the area,
(b) a prison authority for the area, or
(c) a youth custody authority for the area.
(6) Once a strategy has been prepared under this section for a local government area, the specified authorities for the area must—
(a) keep the strategy under review, and
(b) every two years, prepare and implement a revised strategy.
(7) A strategy prepared under this section may be combined with a strategy prepared in accordance with section 7 (Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence) or section 8 (Powers to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence).
(8) For the purposes of this section, “child criminal exploitation” means activity which would constitute an offence under section [Child criminal exploitation] of this Act.”
New clause 58—Training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence for all specified authorities to which Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act applies.
(2) Before publishing the strategy the Secretary of State must consult such bodies with expertise in providing relevant training as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Sarah Jones
This is a really important part of the Bill. The Minister knows that I came into this House in 2017 absolutely determined to tackle the scourge of rising levels of serious violence, particularly youth violence, and she knows that I set up and chaired the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, which relentlessly champions the need to prevent violence through strong policing, of course, but also through prevention. We have been in many debates together, and she has kindly met constituents of mine who have lost family members to knife crime, and she has also spoken to the APPG.
There has been a long conversation in Parliament about bringing organisations together to look at the stories behind the headlines, and to look at the evidence of what causes violence, in order to understand that it is not inevitable and that it is something we can affect. There is plenty of evidence from many places on how to reduce violence. Many other hon. Members across the House have campaigned on this, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who has done so much cross-party work on the issue.
Clauses 7 to 22, which place a duty on local authorities to plan, prevent and reduce serious violence, are welcome. At their core is the new duty on specified authorities to identify the kinds of serious violence that occur in a relevant place; to identify the causes of serious violence in the area; and to prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area. That is significant. Although there are many “buts”, which we will come to as we go through the amendments, it is important to recognise that that is a good thing and will make authorities work better together and make them look to prevent as well as reduce violent crime.
Of course prison is absolutely crucial in terms of justice and punishing those who have wronged, but we know that it does not stop overall levels of crime increasing. Although policing is absolutely vital, at the heart of everything we are talking about, we know that an increase in resources and focus leads to a reduction in violent crime, but it goes up again over a couple of years. We can look at how knife crime goes up and down. It goes up, there is a significant intervention from the police, there are more resources, and it goes down. People are locked up, but then a few years later it starts rising again. We know that the real long-term solution is prevention, as evidenced in many parts of Scotland—the example often given—and in other parts of the world as well.
We have talked about this before, but we know that the approach to prevention and tackling violence is more effective when it is tackled in the way that the last Labour Government tackled teenage pregnancies. We had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe. It was a massive problem and everyone was very concerned about it. There was a moral panic about why so many were getting pregnant. There was a 10-year intervention that looked at the causes of why these things were happening, so it was not just about trying to stop girls having sex; it looked at why on earth their aspirations were so low. Their education and ambitions were not what they could have been. A broad approach, targeted from the centre and delivered locally over a 10-year period, reduced teenage pregnancy by 50%—a huge, long-term reduction that has remained pretty static. It has delivered a societal change because of the nature of the approach.
It is argued that we can do the same thing with violence, as has been done in Scotland. Over a long period of time we can reduce violence, and those levels can become the societal norms. We can shift the norms and reduce violence. That is what many of us have campaigned for, and it is at the heart of this new part of the Bill.
I will give another example. In Croydon, there was a review of 60 cases of serious violence among young people, which involved people who were murdered, people who were imprisoned for murdering other people, and people who had been victims or perpetrators of the most serious cases. They looked at all those cases and where the similarities were, and it turned out that half of those young people were known to social services before they were five years old. That tells us everything we need to know about how the duties should operate. If someone is in care, is vulnerable, has experienced domestic abuse in the home, has parents with addiction or does not have parents at all, there are things that make them more vulnerable to getting involved in violence later in life. If we intervene at the earliest possible stages, we can have a significant impact not just on the lives of those young people, but on society and on the cost to society. Figures about the cost of a murder are bandied around, although I am sure they are now outdated. People used to say a murder costs about £1 million, but it probably now costs the public purse significantly more.
Sarah Champion
I just wanted to congratulate my hon. Friend on making such a powerful and relevant speech. I also wanted to give her a moment to get a glass of water
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to get a glass of water.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of looked-after children. When I was the lead member for children and young people in Stockton, there was forever a group of young people whom we knew needed extra support, yet we found out that many of these young people ended up in the prison system later in life, which was a terrible tragedy. More power to her elbow, because we really need to tackle the problem early. I am sure she agrees with that.
Sarah Jones
I completely agree.
When we talk about violent crime, there is often a moral panic about what is happening, and we often see very polarised responses. Either it is all about more policing and more resources, or it is about tougher sentencing—throwing people in prison and throwing away the key. Actually, we need to have a much more grown-up conversation about the causes of these issues and what the solutions are. I hope, and I think we all hope, that this part of the Bill is a step in the right direction towards doing that.
Moving on to the amendments that we have tabled, having held roundtable discussions and spoken to policing organisations, charities and others, I am concerned that, as currently drafted, the Bill will not deliver the results that we intend. There is a lot of talk of the need for a public-health approach to tackling serious violence that seeks to address the root causes, and we welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of the need to shift the focus towards that. However, we do not believe that, as currently drafted, the proposals amount to a public health approach. We, along with several agencies, are concerned that there could be a number of unintended consequences for both children and the agencies involved if the statutory public-health duty is created without achieving the desired result of reducing the number of children who are harmed by serious violence.
A vision for tackling serious violence that does not also help to protect children from harm, does not include the full range of partners and interventions needed, and does not consider some of the more structural factors that contribute to violence, will not deliver the outcome that we want. We need a broader strategy that equips the safeguarding system and the statutory and voluntary services to protect children from harm, with the resources and guidance to do so. It should embed a response that takes account of the context in which children are at risk and that is trauma-informed, as we were discussing this morning. A duty for serious violence that presents these issues as distinct from wider safeguarding duties could lead to a more punitive approach to those children, which evidence suggests is inadequate to reduce violence. Of course, implementation of a new duty without additional resources will be difficult for services that are already tasked with rising demand and crisis management options, and have low staff retention.
Amendment 78, and the amendments to other clauses, make the specified authorities involved in the serious violence duty safeguard children at risk of or experiencing harm. In particular, amendments 80 and 86 refer to children involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The point we are trying to make is that the statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own, without a statutory duty to safeguard children.
As an example, I met police from Exeter because there is a county line from London to Exeter, and the police had been working to tackle that issue. A senior police officer told me that there had been a number of occasions on which they had picked up a child at the coach station because they can quite often tell if someone is bringing drugs to the area, as they will get off the coach on their own with just a rucksack—the police pick up young children who are doing that. On several occasions, that senior police officer had to sit with the child in his office for hours because nobody would come to collect them. Perhaps the child is in foster care, which is very often the case, and because they have been found with drugs, the foster parents will not have them back. The local authority might not have any emergency foster carers and so cannot take the child back, and nobody will come to look after them. That child is committing a crime, but they are also a child who ends up sitting there playing computer games in a senior police officer’s office in Exeter because nobody has worked out how to join things together and look after them.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that those children are symptoms and casualties of crime, rather than the cause? We need some sensitivity in the Bill to recognise that.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not disagree with the premise of what is in the Bill, but we think those two things need to come together. I am sure we all have examples of cases where children are manipulated and groomed into committing criminal offences. They sometimes have no choice whatever, or they feel that they have no choice. Those things have to be looked at together or this will not work.
Amendment 92 would add a duty on the specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy to prevent violence, support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm. The Minister may say that that could be part of the wider duty, but we have tabled the amendment because that early intervention is crucial to prevent violence before it occurs, and that really ought to be in the Bill.
We in this place will all have spoken to and had presentations from people talking about ACEs—adverse childhood experiences—whether domestic abuse or a violent death, for example. Violent death in particular causes significant problems for young people and has not really been looked at enough. We know about all those ACEs, and we know that the systems and structures in place at the moment often intervene at the point of absolute crisis rather than intervening earlier and more effectively by trying to break the cycle of violence. Including an early help strategy in the Bill would ensure that that crucial element is not forgotten. That is part of a much wider issue that is out of scope of the Bill, including Sure Start, the importance of schools and intervention, and the funding of child social services, but we want the principle of early intervention to be included in the Bill. It is important that the Government, local authorities, the police and the voluntary sector have a joined-up approach to preventing, recognising and responding to violence. Central to that must be the need to prevent the criminalisation of children, as well as early intervention to prevent young people from becoming involved in violence in the first place.
Sarah Champion
This point is more to do with new clause 47, but it is appropriate now. Does my hon. Friend agree it is vital that the serious violence duty and accompanying strategy interact with local authority strategies to tackle child exploitation, the national violence against women and girls strategy and the national tackling child sexual abuse strategy as well as others?
Sarah Jones
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. They all need to join up, but some organisations have asked questions about how such things will join up effectively to ensure that offshoots of activity are pulled together as one whole.
New clause 47 would ensure that the bodies under the duty collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children. The new clause takes the definition of modern criminal exploitation from new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to introduce this statutory definition of child criminal exploitation:
“Another person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence and the person is under the age of 18.”
The definition would cover activities such as debt bondage and GPS tracking by gang leaders of those coerced into running county lines. When I was in Birmingham a few weeks ago, I heard about very young gang members. Yes, they were scared, but they were so invested in their criminal gang leaders, whom they saw as their family, that they were prepared to commit crimes that would put them in prison for very small amounts of money. They genuinely believed that was the most sensible choice available to them. They were clearly exploited, but there is not necessarily a definition in place to respond appropriately to that.
As my hon. Friend said, children who are groomed and exploited by criminal gangs are the victims, not the criminals. Many different organisations have flagged, as witnesses said last week, the fact that the absence of that statutory definition makes it harder for agencies to have a co-ordinated and effective response to vulnerable children.
The serious violence duty is a unique opportunity to bring together all the relevant authorities for training and action at a local level. In the past decade, county lines drug dealing has been a major driver of serious violence across the country. I am afraid that since the National Crime Agency’s first county lines assessment in 2015, the Government have been slow to respond, and cuts across the public sector have made things worse. Sadly, county lines drug networks rely on the grooming of vulnerable children to act as drug runners. They are badly exploited, then abandoned when they are no longer of use to the gang leaders. The Children’s Commissioner for England has estimated that 27,000 children are gang members. Modelling done by crime and justice specialists, Crest Advisory, identified 213,000 vulnerable children.
Children and vulnerable young people experiencing serious violence require a different response from that given to adults, and being involved in violence is often an indicator that children are experiencing other significant problems in their lives, such as being criminally exploited. Despite growing recognition of child criminal exploitation, there are still concerns that many children and young people involved in exploitation are not being identified or sufficiently supported by statutory services. Too often, these young people only come to the attention of the authorities when they are picked up by the police, caught in possession of drugs or weapons, or through involvement in a violent assault.
I should also mention the important issue of young girls who are involved in gang activity. I met a young girl who had been involved and had been injured as a result. She was in a hotel room with several gang members, who had money and drugs. The police had raided the hotel and arrested all the boys, but told the girl to be on her way because they did not know how to respond to her. She was in danger and was being exploited, but the police response was not there because they were not used to dealing with girls in that situation. Presumably they thought they were being kind, but they were actually leaving a girl who had been exploited to potentially still be in danger.
Alex Cunningham
When I was a member of the Education Committee, we carried out an inquiry around support, particularly for girls, and we had an evidence session with young people. A 16-year-old girl, who had been a victim of exploitation, had been placed in an out-of-town YMCA somewhere in Kent, to live there until the authorities sorted out what needed to happen with her. She told stories of men braying at her door at night asking her to come and party. That is all the more reason why we need a multi-agency approach, so that girls like her are properly protected.
Sarah Jones
Sadly, that tale is probably not uncommon. I am sure that the response of agencies to girls is better than it was, but it is still not joined up in a way that provides the support that is needed.
Children and young people who are victims of child criminal exploitation and gang violence are not being identified in time to save their lives, literally, and to save other people’s lives, despite frequent opportunities to do so. Communications between agencies and the recording and sharing of data is often poor, and support for at-risk children is inconsistent. As the 2019 report on gangs and exploitation by the previous Children’s Commissioner found, only a fraction of children involved in gang violence are known to children’s services.
The experience of being criminally exploited is extremely traumatising to children, and it is unlikely they will be able to escape these abusive experiences and rehabilitate without significant professional support. The approach to tackling child criminal exploitation must combine effective enforcement with long-term safeguarding and support strategies that are focused on managing long-term risks as well as the immediate ones. Too often vulnerable children receive crisis-driven care, not the long-term trust that they need, which would be provided by preventative support.
As part of criminal exploitation, children may be threatened into carrying knives or perpetrating violence against rival groups. It is important to understand the underlying causes of why children might be involved in violence and for these underlying causes in a child’s life or in the lives of children within a certain area to be addressed. This would involve adopting a more universal understanding of how children are coerced, controlled and threatened into serious violence, taking disruption action against those who coerce and control children, and ensuring that the response to children is centred on addressing their needs, fears and experiences.
Sarah Champion
I was struck by and am still musing on the fact that, earlier, when the example of a child carrying out a crime was given, the word “choice” was used. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the situation she describes, these children have no choice unless we add to the Bill the measures that she argues for?
Sarah Jones
I agree that they do not have a choice, but I have met young people who committed crimes as a child who believed that they did have a choice and that they were making the right choice because their parents had no money and they wanted to pay the bills. They believe that they are making sensible decisions, but they are children and they are vulnerable, and they are not. We need to provide support if we are going to stop them spiralling into a life of crime in the future.
New clause 58 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who now co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, and who worked with Barnardo’s on the new clause. It would require the Government to publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence for all specified authorities to which chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill applies. It is really important that all bodies involved in safeguarding children and the prevention of serious violence receive proper training in looking out for and preventing child criminal exploitation. The training of professionals can make all the difference when identifying children who have been criminally exploited and in understanding the dual nature of a child being an offender and a victim.
I have had trauma training, as I am sure have several people in this room. I cannot tell hon. Members how useful it has been to understanding the issues children deal with and which levers might be used. I was in a meeting with police recently, talking about a 15-year-old boy who had just committed quite a serious crime. The police officers, who had had trauma training, had a relationship with this child because they had been playing football with them for several months before the crime occurred. They were able to appreciate that the child had an alcoholic mother who was abusive, and we were able to talk to some charities about getting some support for that child. The police understood what interventions were needed to try to pull the child out of criminal activity and pushed towards a life of non-criminal options. It was amazing to see. Having that training and understanding some of these underlying issues is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall for tabling the new clause, which we will support.
Sarah Champion
I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for the amendments and new clauses she has tabled. Effectively, my new clause 17 underpins and provides the impetus for the work that she detailed, and I am grateful to the Children’s Society for helping me to develop it.
I start from the position of being the MP for Rotherham, where 20 years ago it was not uncommon for girls to be raped, abused by gangs or forced into carrying out crime on behalf of those gangs. They would get a criminal record and would be told that they were child prostitutes, and their lives were destroyed accordingly. We now have a definition of child sexual exploitation. That completely changed the attitudes of all the agencies, including the police and the social services, and the general population to the fact that exploitation of those children was happening.
It is clear that child criminal exploitation is going on, whichever heading we put it under, but we are quite a long way behind in our understanding of what that actually means. New clause 17 would place a statutory definition of criminal child exploitation in law for the first time by amending the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For it to be truly effective, the Modern Slavery Act must adapt as new forms of exploitation are recognised. Child criminal exploitation is the grooming and exploitation of children into criminal activity. There is a strong association with county lines, but it can also include moving drugs—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for adding to my knowledge; I now know what “plugging” is, which children are forced to do—financial fraud and shoplifting. Obviously, that has been around for decades, but we are only just waking up and realising the harm and damage that those criminals are causing children. The true scale remains unknown, as many children fall through the cracks of statutory support.
The Children’s Commissioner estimated that 27,000 children are at high risk of gang exploitation. During 2020, 2,544 children were referred to the national referral mechanism due to concerns about child criminal exploitation, and 205 of those cases involved concerns about both criminal and sexual exploitation. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted that girls are criminally and sexually exploited by the same gang.
Alex Cunningham
I am just reflecting on the attitude of the professionals who do not actually understand or do not have a clear enough definition with which to work. What changes do they want to ensure clarity and that they can better protect people?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. I am going off on a slight tangent, but The Times is tomorrow coming out with an article about child sexual exploitation. One of the key indicators of that is children going missing, and it cites the case of one girl who went missing 197 times, each time being reported to the police—this is recently—but the police still did not act. Just having the definition is not enough. This is about the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central described. It is about the training, public awareness, and all the agencies working together when they see that child. What I have found with the CSE definition is that having that hook does really sharpen and focus professionals’ minds around it. We have taken huge strides when it comes to child sexual exploitation, because we have that definition in place and because there is a level playing field when talking about it.
Sarah Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very powerful case she is making. It reminds me of a conversation that I had recently with police officers, who were talking about the number of children who go missing but are not reported to the police as missing, because the family have other children, siblings of the missing child, and are nervous that if they report that one child has gone missing—who will probably come back, because he is doing county lines—the other children might be taken into care. That underlines the case for training and understanding of these issues beyond just policing. It is through education and terminology that everyone can understand that all the different organisations involved in trying to reduce this can understand some of the issues and intervene when they need to.
Sarah Champion
Exactly. Once people have the definition, they have a list of the indicators, and going missing would of course be one of those, so the first thing that would cross the social worker’s mind, rather than “Oh, this is bad parenting,” would be, “Could the child be being sexually exploited? Could the child be being criminally exploited?” It really shifts the mindset of the professionals. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
There is another potential nervousness that the Minister may have. I know that a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation was explored when the Modern Slavery Act was reviewed in 2019. I note that the reviewers’ main concern was about a narrow definition of child criminal exploitation that would not be future proof as the exploitation adapted. That is why the definition that I am proposing is broad and simple, focusing on the coercive and controlling behaviour that perpetrators display in relation to their victims, not on the very specific criminal act itself.
I know that the Home Office has raised concerns with regard to use of the section 45 defence in the Modern Slavery Act and children being able to take advantage of that. I am aware that colleagues have also raised concerns about unintended consequences that this definition might have for the use of that defence, but I do not believe that there would be those unintended consequences. A clear definition of child criminal exploitation would guide a jury far better than is the case now, as jurors would need to weigh up the evidence and consider the defence but would be aided by a much clearer definition of what constitutes relevant exploitation. That would in fact reduce the risk of the section 45 defence being used spuriously, which is a concern that colleagues have raised with me. This definition would not change the provisions under section 45, but I hope that the awareness raising that would come with a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation would enable genuine victims of exploitation to use the defence more routinely.
The Chair
Before we move on, I remind colleagues that they are meant to address the Chair. I am seeing quite a lot of backs. I do not mind seeing backs occasionally, but it does help Hansard writers and everybody here if we have a little bit of fluidity and motion. I call the Minister.
Victoria Atkins
Sir Charles, I am probably the worst offender for that, so forgive me—I will try to face forward.
Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I set out why we feel it necessary to create the duty. Serious violence has a devastating impact on victims and their families. It instils fear in communities and it is extremely costly to society. It is always difficult to talk about economic cost when we are talking about children in harm and grieving families and so on, but there is an economic cost as well.
Incidents of serious violence have increased in England and Wales, and it is for that reason that we have decided to introduce the serious violence duty. The duty is a key part of the Government’s programme of work to prevent and reduce serious violence. It involves taking a multi-agency approach to understand the causes and consequences of serious violence, focusing on prevention and early intervention, informed by evidence. In addition to tough law enforcement, we need to understand and address the factors that cause someone to commit violent crime so that we can prevent it from happening.
Analysis of responses to our 2019 public consultation, which tested options for a public health approach to tackling serious violence, found an overall consensus that a legislative approach was preferred to a voluntary, non-statutory approach. We know that that is already being undertaken in some areas, such as those with a pre-existing violence reduction unit, but there is inconsistency across England and Wales. We envisage that the duty will create the conditions and legal basis to bridge that gap.
At its core, the duty will require specified authorities to work together and share data and intelligence. They will also need to formulate an evidence-based analysis of the problems associated with serious violence in their local area, and subsequently produce and implement a strategy detailing how they will respond to those particular issues. The duty will be placed on specified authorities from the police, justice, fire and rescue, health and local authorities. Education, prison and youth custody authorities will be under a separate duty to co-operate with the specified authorities where required; they can also choose to collaborate voluntarily with the specified authorities, or with each other, should they wish to do so. There will be requirements for authorities to consult all such institutions in their area as they prepare their strategy.
We know how important it is that we get implementation of this new duty right and that we ensure that the authorities understand what will be required of them. That is why we have published draft statutory guidance to support the implementation of the new duty. That guidance, which is available to hon. Members now, explains the requirements of the new duty and provides advice on how they can be met effectively, including examples of good practice. We have done that precisely because we want Parliament, charities and others to examine the document and feed in their thoughts on how it can be improved, ensuring that the guidance is as effective as it can be ahead of implementation of the new duty.
Sarah Champion
When the national referral mechanism was introduced, I was struck that the responses to my freedom of information requests showed that it was not UK children who were being referred. There was a perception that it was international children, whereas the act of trafficking can mean literally taking a child from one side of the street to the other. Has the situation changed, and will anything in this work make that apparent to local authorities and other safeguarding organisations?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Sadly, the situation has changed and now the most common nationality of potential child victims of modern slavery is British. As she knows, the NRM is more than a decade old. The criminal world has moved on and the needs of the children we are trying to help, as well as those of adult victims, have changed.
The transformation programme is looking at whether there are different ways in which we can help victims, depending on the safeguarding arrangements that may already be in place and whether children have any family or parental links with this country. Clearly, the needs of a child from Vietnam who has no family links in this country may be very different from those of a child who has been born and brought up here, with parents looking after them and with brothers and sisters. We are trying to find ways to address the needs of all victims, but particularly child victims in this context.
Local authorities are of course already responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery. Children’s services must already work in close co-operation with the police and other statutory and non-statutory agencies to offer child victims of modern slavery the support they require. With the background and context that it is already mandatory, we therefore conclude that it is not necessary to include that as a further requirement in the Bill.
I turn to amendment 92 and an early help strategy. The hon. Member for Croydon Central is right to point to the need for a focus on prevention, which is a key part of what the duty seeks to achieve. Early intervention is an important part of prevention work and reducing serious youth violence. The duty already sets out the responsibilities of specified authorities and the work they are to undertake, which includes risk factors that occur before a young person has become involved in serious violence. The specified authorities, including the local authority that has responsibility for children’s social care, will be required to consult education authorities in preparing the strategy. They can also be required to collaborate on the strategy. As such, the provision should already ensure that a strategy to reduce and prevent serious violence would encapsulate early help for this cohort, so we do not believe that an additional strategy is required. Again, I refer to the draft statutory guidance that already has early intervention running throughout it. Indeed, we plan to add case studies before formal consultation, to help explain and guide multi-agency partners.
On amendment 93, children’s social care authorities have a crucial role to play and significant insights to share, particularly for those young people at risk of becoming involved in serious violence, child criminal exploitation or other harms. However, local authorities that are already named as a specified authority under the duty are responsible for children’s social care services. Therefore, for the reasons I have already outlined, we do not believe it necessary for the clause to contain the explicit requirement to consult such services, because they are within the definition of local authority. Again, we will make it clear, as part of our draft statutory guidance on the duty, that social care services, among other vital services for which local authorities hold responsibility, must be included.
We believe that amendment 82 is also unnecessary, given the functions conferred on local policing bodies by clause 13, which are intended to assist specified authorities in the exercise of their functions under the duty and to monitor the effectiveness of local strategies.
I turn to new clause 17 and the important issue of child criminal exploitation. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for setting out the case for providing in statute a definition of child criminal exploitation. Child criminal exploitation in all its forms is a heinous crime, with the perpetrators often targeting and exploiting the most vulnerable children in our society. We are determined to tackle it. There is already a formal definition of child criminal exploitation included in statutory guidance for frontline practitioners working with children, including “Keeping children safe in education” and “Working Together to Safeguard Children”. In addition, as the hon. Lady noted, the definition is also included in the serious violence strategy, published in 2018, the Home Office’s “Child exploitation disruption toolkit” for frontline practitioners, and the county lines guidance for prosecutors and youth offending teams.
We have discussed the introduction of a further statutory definition with a range of organisations and heard a range of views. On balance, the Government have concluded that there are risks with a statutory definition. Some partners highlighted the changing nature of child criminal exploitation. Inherent to such exploitation is that it evolves and responds to changes in the criminal landscape and the environment. As such, there are concerns that a statutory definition could prove inflexible as the nature of child criminal exploitation adapts.
In addition, as the hon. Lady has rightly noted, the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, conducted by Frank Field—now Lord Field—and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and Baroness Butler-Sloss, considered the definition of child criminal exploitation under the Act and concluded that it should not be amended, as the definition currently in place is sufficiently flexible to meet a range of new and emerging forms of modern slavery.
We believe that our focus should be on improving local safeguarding arrangements to identify and support victims of child criminal exploitation, and on working to ensure that the right support is in place locally to protect these very vulnerable children.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate, foresaw and understand all the objections that the Minister raises. As she is a former barrister and someone who uses the law, does she agree that it would help to have a definition, as our witnesses said?
Victoria Atkins
Well, we do have the definition in the Modern Slavery Act. Modern slavery cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute because, as with other hidden harms, they require the involvement of often very vulnerable people, including adults as well as children. They include people who might not have English as a language at all, let alone as a first language, and people who might be targeted precisely because of their vulnerability. Although we are looking very much at the context of children, we know that vulnerable adults have their homes taken over by county lines gangs to cuckoo and sell their drugs from, with all the horrendous violence and exploitation that vulnerable adults have to endure as part of that.
We will continue to look at this. As evidence develops, we will be open to that, but, on balance, we have concluded that it is preferable at this stage to focus on the local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and to work on the serious violence duty to get a level of understanding of all the good practice taking place at the local level, which the hon. Lady and others have talked about.
One should not view the Bill as being the only thing that the Government or safeguarding partners are doing to address concerns. We have increased the dedicated support available to those at risk and involved in county lines exploitation, and have provided funding to provide one-to-one caseworker support from the St Giles Trust to support young people involved in county lines exploitation. We are funding the Children’s Society’s prevention programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and modern-day slavery and human trafficking on a regional and national basis.
We are also working on a public awareness campaign, #LookCloser, which was rolled out nationally in September and focuses on increasing awareness of the signs and indicators of child exploitation so that the public and frontline services report concerns quickly to the police. As I say, on balance, at this point, we do not believe that a statutory definition is the correct approach, but we are focusing on practical responses to exploitation.
On new clause 47, I have great understanding as to why the hon. Member for Croydon Central tabled it. It would require specified authorities to prepare and implement a strategy to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and to safeguard affected children. We have, however, built flexibility into the duty to allow areas to decide which specific crime types are a priority locally. We have done that deliberately so that local areas can react to what is needed in their areas. Indeed, the draft statutory guidance sets that out. Under the duty as drafted, the specified authorities will already be able to include child criminal exploitation in their local serious violence strategies, should that be of particular concern to them. I very much understand the motivation behind the new clause, but we are not convinced that a separate strategy is necessary.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested to hear the Minister say that there is training to address local issues. I accept that that is a factor. Surely, though, there should be a consistent training programme across all professions to ensure that everybody is approaching these matters in the same way, albeit taking account of local factors as well.
Victoria Atkins
I do not assume that the duty and the draft statutory guidance preclude that consistency of standard; but in this arena and also with other crime types that are hidden and which prey upon vulnerable people, I am very keen that we encourage innovation. We are seeing some really interesting work being conducted through the Youth Endowment Fund. The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with that; it is a fund that stretches over a decade. It is protected money of £200 million that is being invested across the country and is evaluated very carefully in order to build a library of programmes that work—and also programmes that do not work: we need to know both those things, to help local commissioners make good decisions about what they should be funding with taxpayers’ money. I am keen that we enable that sort of innovation.
Of course, consistency of standards is one of the reasons why we want to introduce the duty—precisely because we are aware that those areas that have VRUs may well be a few steps ahead of other parts of the country that do not have them because they do not suffer the same rates of serious violence as London or Manchester, for example. I very much take the point about consistency, but we believe that that can be addressed through the duty itself and the draft statutory guidance.
I am going to come to an end soon, Sir Charles. There is a requirement to include how inter-agency training will be commissioned, delivered and monitored for impact in the published local safeguarding arrangements. That is relevant to the point that the hon. Member for Stockton North just made. Safeguarding partners must also publish an annual report on their safeguarding arrangements, which should include evidence of the impact of the work of the safeguarding partners and relevant agencies, including training.
I am pleased that the Committee has had the opportunity to debate this duty. We have more debates ahead of us, I suspect. We believe that the three safeguarding partners already in place, through the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements that came into being in 2019, are the way to address some of the important issues raised by hon. Members in this part of the debate.
Sarah Jones
Sir Charles, I am sorry about turning my back previously. It was a very appealing amendment and it is hard not to look.
The Chair
It is a great debate, and I do not want to stop anyone. I totally appreciate that.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for her response. In many ways, we are in the same place. We are trying to make this new duty as effective as it can be. I would like to test the will of the Committee on amendment 78, because it is important that, when we are trying to prevent and tackle serious violence, we safeguard children. I understand the Minister’s point about duplication, but not to have that in the Bill would be a huge loss.
The Minister talked about the Home Office funding that goes to the Children’s Society and the St Giles Trust for their incredibly important work. They are the advocates of this; they are the organisations saying to us that this is what we need to do. The Minister gives them money but should also listen to their argument, because it is fundamental and important. On the other amendments, I appreciate that the Minister is doing what she can through the guidance and other means.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 7, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) Specified authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when performing their duties under this section.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 7, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) each registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 8, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) each registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 51, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3A) Specified authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when performing their duties under this section.”
Amendment 54, in clause 8, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) each registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 55, in clause 8, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“(d) any registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 56, in clause 9, page 10, line 45, at end insert—
“(f) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 57, in clause 15, page 15, line 5, at end insert—
“(f) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 58, in clause 16, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(e) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 59, in clause 17, page 16, line 19, at end insert “or registered provider of social housing”
Amendment 60, in clause 17, page 16, line 22, after “authority”, insert “or provider”
Amendment 61, in clause 18, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
“(g) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 62, in clause 19, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 5 (Authorities responsible for strategies)—
(a) after subsection (1F) insert—
(1G) Responsible authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when exercising the functions conferred by or under section 6 or section 7.”
(b) in subsection (2), after paragraph (d), insert—
“(e) every registered provider of social housing in the area.””
New clause 28—Provision of accommodation to reduce or prevent risk of serious violence—
In the Housing Act 1996, section 189, after subsection (d), insert—
“(e) a person at risk of serious violence, if the provision of accommodation would reduce or prevent the risk of that person becoming a victim of serious violence.”
This new clause amends the Housing Act 1996 to add those at risk of serious violence to the list of those who have a priority need for accommodation, if the provision of accommodation would reduce or prevent the risk of that person becoming a victim of serious violence.
New clause 29—Code of practice on application of section 177 of the Housing Act 1996: prevention and reduction of serious violence—
“The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, issue a code of practice under Section 214A of the Housing Act 1996 on preventing serious violence to provide—
(a) that the application of section 177 of the Housing Act 1996 is to be applied to those at risk of serious violence so as to ensure that it is not deemed reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if the provision of alternative accommodation would prevent or reduce the risk of serious violence against that person;
(b) for the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities to be updated to include a new chapter on the duties of local authorities under subsections 7(3A) and 8(3A) of this Act, with particular reference to preventing and reducing serious violence and safeguarding young people at risk of serious violence;
(c) that the police shall be responsible for timely collaboration with housing providers on the reduction of the risk of serious violence to individuals where the exercise of housing duties may reduce or prevent the risk of serious violence; and
(d) guidance on the disclosure of information in accordance with regulations under section (9)(2) of this Act by and to specified authorities which are housing authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence in a prescribed area, with particular reference to assisting the housing authority with the prevention and reduction of serious violence in the exercise of its duties under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.”
Sarah Jones
These amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). They are supported by a vast array of very sensible organisations, from Redthread to Shelter, from the St Giles Trust to Barnardo’s. This section of the Bill sets out the Government’s ambition to reduce violent crime and address the root causes of serious violence by making sure that public bodies work together to stop serious violence. The amendments seek to protect young people and their families from the growing problem of gang grooming, harassment and violence.
Many young people, including children in their early teenage years, experience serious violence and harm as a direct result of being groomed by criminal gangs in their neighbourhood. The common factor in these cases is the need for families and young people to be moved urgently to a suitable home away from the area of gang activity to mitigate the risk of harm. The Government’s serious violence strategy in 2018 identified homelessness as a risk factor for being a victim or perpetrator of violent crime and highlighted the significant growth in vulnerable populations, such as those facing homelessness, over the past decade.
In communities across the country, a lack of suitable and affordable housing options and difficulties in accessing alternative accommodation in a timely manner mean that vulnerable victims are at risk from serious violence and exploitation and have no way of escaping. Too often, desperate pleas by families to social landlords and local housing authorities to move a household to safety are not addressed. Housing providers are not part of planning, with either the police or social services, for the safety of their tenants, even when they hold vital information to help. I have sadly experienced several times in my relatively short time as a Member of Parliament a family coming to me and saying that they feel that their son is at risk of being attacked. They want to move, and the police support the move, but they feel that there is nowhere for them to move to, or there is no mechanism for them to be moved in an emergency. On two occasions, a child has ended up being stabbed because they were not moved away as quickly as they should have been, and in one case, before I became an MP in Croydon, a family who were desperate to move were not moved and the child ended up being stabbed and killed.
We see this in communities across the country—it is not only in London—but in areas of acute housing need it is particularly acute, as Members would expect. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow address these challenges, learning from the way in which domestic violence victims have been prioritised for housing to keep them safe, and ensuring that housing providers are statutorily required to play their part in tackling serious violence.
Research by Centrepoint in 2019 highlighted the links between youth violence and homelessness. Violence and exploitation drive homelessness and housing insecurity, and the experience of homelessness increases vulnerable young people’s exposure to criminality and risk. A survey of 227 young people with experience of homelessness in England and Wales found that one in six had taken part in criminal activity, such as selling or preparing drugs, in order to access a place to stay. The London charity, New Horizon Youth Centre, found that, of a sample of 102 young people accessing its specialist youth violence outreach programme, 95% had been or were currently homeless. Shelter has documented the fact that stable accommodation has long been linked to success in reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation. This is not new; I worked for Shelter years ago and we used to have the same debate on the impact of homelessness and bad housing. It is significant, and the likelihood of offending increases significantly if someone is homeless.
Two recent serious case reviews of 14-year-old children who were killed as a result of gang violence highlighted the failings in safeguarding them with regard to housing. In the case of one, an offer of accommodation made to his mother was withdrawn shortly before he was shot dead in a children’s playground in Newham in September 2017. The serious case review into his death found that there were
“clear gaps in risk assessments and risk management plans for Chris”,
including the failure to update the housing manager of the need to relocate Chris out of the area, and that
“there was a significant missed opportunity in the absence of a referral to access the Pan-London Reciprocal Housing Agreement. There were also significant gaps in information sharing between Children’s Social Care, the Police and the Youth Offending Team in relation to risk information that could have triggered such a referral.”
Chris’s mother has spoken of how she struggled to get housing outside the area where he was at risk:
“When it came to help, there was not much help. I was scared for him and he was scared for himself. It was just me and him left to sort this out. The most important one for me was housing, to get us out of the area. To be out of the clutches of the gangs so he could continue being a child.”
Mr Goodwill
When the hon. Lady talks about poor-quality housing, would she say that some of the appalling housing in Croydon—for example, in the Regina Road block—is an example of the sort of housing that we should be trying to improve?
Sarah Jones
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his political jibe. He is correct to say there are examples of bad housing in Croydon, as there are in other parts of the country. It has a massively serious effect on people’s lives. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Croydon South muttering about it from a sedentary position.
I will move on to the issue that we are talking about. When an urgent move is required because of gang violence, temporary accommodation is often the only realistic option. The law currently does not prioritise families in this situation, in contrast with the requirement for victims of domestic abuse to be treated as a priority for rehousing. Section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1996 gives victims automatic priority need, so that victims fleeing domestic abuse are moved urgently and thus protected. That is not the case when the threat of violence is external, which means that families are often forced to choose between giving up a secure tenancy and making a homeless application to their local authority, or keeping their secure tenancy and staying somewhere where they are in danger. The child safeguarding practice review published last year notes a case where a family moved back to an area where they were at risk in order to prevent the loss of their right to permanent housing. Within months, their son was killed.
The problems do not stop there. Evidence from practitioners shows how people at risk of violence who approach their local authorities are often not given adequate support due to their not being categorised as priority need under section 189(1) of the Housing Act. Youth workers who work with victims of gang violence often try to identify mental or physical health needs in the family in order to create a workaround. This shows that the system is not responding to the needs of victims of violence because of their status as victims. Support workers at New Horizon Youth Centre in London state that when young people are found in priority need, it is often as a result of any mental health conditions that they have managed to have diagnosed during the centre’s work with them following a serious incident of violence—it is not on the basis of being a victim or being at risk of such violence. In most cases, there is police evidence of risk, but the support workers have found that this is not enough to secure a positive priority need decision.
Kate Bond, the youth outreach project manager at New Horizon Youth Centre, explains: “We have seen so many cases where violence or the threat of violence is rejected as a reason for young people to be seen in priority need under the Housing Act. We have cases where even though there is clear evidence that someone’s life is at risk—not only because of their current injuries, hospital letters and police reports, but also proof from a range of other relevant services—they are not found in priority need. Too often, we end up having to pay for these young people in emergency accommodation and spend a long time gathering proof under other grounds for priority need, keeping the young person in limbo. Traumatised young people are further demotivated by this process and the sense that their lives being at risk is not enough to secure them somewhere safe to live. This continues to put lives and communities at unnecessary risk. However, even that threshold for proof required by local authorities before they will place young people in temporary accommodation can be difficult to reach. Often, for example, young people cannot go to their GP because it is in an area where they feel unsafe, so securing medical proof becomes more challenging and the diagnosis of mental health conditions more difficult.”
Under sections 177(1) and 177(1A) of the Housing Act, a person is legally homeless if violence or the threat of violence means that they cannot be reasonably expected to remain in their current accommodation, but the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities currently provides no guidance for local authorities on how to consider whether an applicant might be in priority need because their current home puts them at risk of gang violence, harassment or grooming. Currently, there is only general advice on the assessment of violence in paragraph 8.36, whereas the assessment of domestic abuse is dealt with in some detail by the statutory guidance. The guidance also says that a shortage of housing could be taken into account when considering whether a family should be moved.
Housing providers such as local authorities or housing associations may also hold critical information that can be used as evidence to support the homelessness application, safeguarding, or police investigations. They may be able to support young people and families to access alternative accommodation. Practitioners are reporting, however, that housing representatives are often not included in relevant case forums and discussions on families at risk of harm. Similarly, when people fleeing violence present at their local authority for rehousing, there is currently no duty on the local authority to seek information from the police to ascertain the level of risk when assessing the housing application.
As I said, amendments 50 to 62, and new clauses 28 and 29, were drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow in collaboration with the co-chairs of the Housing Law Practitioners Association and Garden Court Chambers, and with the backing of many organisations such as Centrepoint, New Horizons Youth Centre, Shelter, Crisis, Barnardo’s, the Big Issue Foundation, St Basils, Catch-22, Redthread, Homeless Link, Nacro, the Revolving Doors Agency, Fair Trials and the St Giles Trust.
New clause 28 would ensure that we learn from best practice of housing support services for victims of domestic violence, and that those who are at risk of violence owing to gang behaviour are prioritised for rehousing away from harm. For children and adults affected by and at risk of serious violence, seeking support to secure a safe place to live can be extremely difficult. Evidence from practitioners shows how young people, care leavers, people with multiple needs, and families facing threats of violence are not given adequate support when approaching their local authorities to seek help moving out of harmful situations because, despite meeting the threshold for vulnerability, given that they have fled violence or threats of violence, they are not seen as in priority need. In many cases, they do not receive the initial duties and assessment to which they are entitled under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. New clause 28 is designed to remove that hurdle and set outs clearly that anyone at risk of violence is in priority need, whether the violence takes place inside or outside the home.
New clause 29 would ensure that the current homelessness code of guidance is updated to take into account the specific needs of those fleeing gang violence and exploitation. Serious cases reviews have shown that the current guidance is not sufficient and young people are paying the price with their lives. Victims of serious violence are often forced to choose between remaining in an area where they are at risk or making a homeless application and giving up a secure tenancy. In the financial year 2019-20, more than 7,000 households were recognised as being at risk of or experiencing non-domestic violence and abuse and seeking homelessness support. It is right that the departmental guidance provides specific guidance for people in that situation.
Homelessness and housing precarity are significant contributing factors to children and adults becoming vulnerable to violence as they respond to offers of accommodation from those seeking to exploit them. Prevention of that trend and early intervention to reduce the harm they may face requires their housing needs to be met quickly and appropriately. The current homelessness code of guidance highlights certain vulnerabilities faced by groups such as young people, care leavers and victims of trafficking, who should be considered as part of the housing application, but there is little guidance around young people at risk of violence and exploitation. By enhancing the current code of guidance so that local authorities take into account the needs of people at risk from serious violence, the Government would ensure that the needs of that vulnerable group specifically are considered by local housing authorities to protect them from further risk of violence. Amendments 50 to 62 would ensure that registered social landlords are involved and consulted in local efforts to reduce serious violence, and that there is timely co-operation between the police and local housing authorities to prevent serious violence.
Part 2 of the Bill outlines the model for multi-agency working to prevent serious violence. The horrific cases in the serious case reviews tell us that there is no effective multi-agency response to preventing serious violence that does not include housing. These amendments will ensure that registered social landlords are included in the new duty and ensure that there is timely information sharing between the police and RSLs for the purpose of preventing serious violence. By supporting effective multi-agency working between all partners, the Government can ensure that housing is considered as an essential part of a comprehensive public health approach to tackling and preventing the serious use of violence.
As I have said, there is provision in law and in practice for people fleeing domestic violence to have a route out of that violent situation, through their local authority and the definition of priority needs. There is not the same route out for those at risk of gang violence in their area, and I have seen the consequences of that. These amendments would put those at risk of serious violence on the same footing as those at risk of domestic violence. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider these amendments.
Victoria Atkins
We very much recognise the valuable contribution that local authorities and housing associations are able to make as part of local efforts to prevent and reduce serious violence. Local authorities are responsible for the delivery of a range of vital services for people and businesses in a local area, including housing and community safety. It is expected that such responsibilities will be key to the role they play in local partnership arrangements as they contribute to the development and implementation of the duty. As such, they will be best placed to provide a strategic overview of and information about housing and associated issues in the local area.
The statutory guidance for the duty makes clear that such duties are relevant and should be considered as part of the work to meet the requirements of the serious violence duty. We therefore do not consider it necessary to stipulate in legislation that such authorities must have due regard to their housing duties when meeting the requirements of the serious violence duty, as there will be a requirement for them to have due regard to the statutory guidance in any case.
Moreover, existing legislation is already designed to ensure that social housing is prioritised for those who need it most. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will continue to work with the relevant sectors to ensure that the guidance is clear and fit for purpose, in relation to this crucial point, ahead of the duty provisions coming into force. When it comes to recognising and protecting the groups of people most at risk of involvement in serious violence, we are aware that housing and risk of homelessness are factors to be borne in mind, but we remain to be persuaded that an explicit reference to registered providers of social housing within the provisions for the duty is the correct approach to take in this instance.
One of the key requirements of the serious violence duty will be for specified authorities in a local area to work together to identify the causes of serious violence and, in doing so, ascertain which groups of people are most at risk locally. Legislation already dictates that, where a local housing authority requests it, a private registered provider of social housing or registered social landlord shall co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority’s allocation scheme. That includes lettings allocated to those in priority need and those requiring urgent rehousing as a result of violence or threats of violence. Statutory guidance on allocations was issued in 2012, and local authorities must pay due regard to it.
Furthermore, the Regulator of Social Housing’s tenancy standards make clear that private registered providers of social housing must co-operate with local authority strategic housing functions. Those who are at risk of violence should already receive support if they are in need of social housing and/or if they are at risk of homelessness. However, it is important that local authorities are able to respond according to the needs of the specific local area and of the particular person. We are concerned that the amendment, which applies only to the social housing sector and not the private rental sector, may inadvertently single out and potentially stigmatise social tenants as being associated with serious violence, which I am sure nobody wants to flow from that.
Sarah Jones
It is unusual for housing and the Home Office to be in the same conversation, which is possibly why the Minister was using strange terminology more akin to the MHCLG.
Sarah Jones
That is something that we need to try and shift over the long term and that is the point of the clauses and amendments.
I understand the Minister’s points. On new clause 28, there is a clear argument that there is provision on domestic abuse but not a provision for violence outside of the home in a similar way. Now is not the time to press the new clauses to a vote, because that comes at the end of the Bill’s time in Committee, and I am happy to leave the amendments. However, I hope the Minister will encourage housing organisations, through the process of the new duty, to be part of the conversation because they are absolutely crucial, as I have seen for myself. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 7, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) the local voluntary sector and local businesses.”
This amendment would create a duty to consult the voluntary sector and local businesses in preparing a strategy to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 7, page 8, line 30, leave out “from time to time” and insert “every two years,”.
This amendment would require the specified authorities for an area to prepare and implement a revised strategy every two years.
Amendment 87, in clause 8, page 10, line 4, leave out “from time to time” and insert “every two years,”.
This amendment would require collaborating specified authorities for an area to prepare and implement a revised strategy every two years.
New clause 59—National Serious Violence Oversight Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board, to be known as the National Serious Violence Oversight Board.
(2) The Board will be comprised of the Secretary of State, who will be the chair of the Board, and such other people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The duties of the Board are—
(a) to review local serious violence strategies,
(b) to share relevant data relating to such strategies, and
(c) to share good practice in the preparation and implementation of those strategies.
(4) Not later than two years after the date on which this Act is passed, and every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report from the Board on the progress of the duty to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence.”
Sarah Jones
Amendment 116 would create a duty to consult the voluntary sector and local businesses in preparing a strategy to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area. As part of the new duty, several public authorities are required to consult each other, but some agencies are missed out, including the voluntary sector and local businesses. The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). It comes from the all-party group on knife crime, who worked with Barnardo’s on this amendment.
The voluntary sector holds crucial information and intelligence about what really happens in families and communities. The sector includes organisations that directly support victims and offenders and can help to bring their voices and experiences into policy making. They often know what works and what does not. Local areas will not be able to tackle serious violence without engaging with the voluntary sector’s knowledge and local intelligence.
Local businesses are also crucial in tackling serious youth violence. If we have learned anything from our work in child sexual exploitation, places are just as important to safeguarding as people—shopping centres, cafés, taxi ranks and gyms. Preventing violence cannot be done without their input.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is making that point because, when it comes to Rotherham and what happened in child sexual exploitation, the community did know about it and did try to report it at the time, but to very little effect, unfortunately. Crucially, the voluntary sector stepped up, with much of the work done through charitable funds to try and support the young people. That needs recognition in the Bill, not least so that some resources will flow through afterwards, because the voluntary sector has its arms around the community. It is the eyes and ears of the community. We ought to embrace that, and the statutory bodies ought to have a duty to negotiate, engage and listen to and respond to the voluntary community’s wishes.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her points about Rotherham. It is absolutely clear that the voluntary sector and local businesses are part of the solution and should therefore be part of the conversation and strategy. Their kind of preventive work will make the serious violence partnerships effective. Local businesses and the voluntary sector are a crucial part of that type of safeguarding.
Amendments 81 and 87 are straightforward. We felt that the language in the Bill was rather loose. For instance, it states that the specified authorities for an area must “from time to time” implement a revised strategy. Quite a lot of the organisations that we spoke to felt that “from time to time” could mean “not really ever at all” if they do not fancy it. Although I appreciate that the Minister might say that she wants local organisations to do what is right for them, “from time to time” felt too loose, so we suggested that the strategies should be refined every two years.
New clause 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, would require the Government to establish a national serious violence oversight board. The duties of the board would be to review local serious violence strategies, to share relevant data at a national level in relation to such strategies, and to share good practice in the preparation and implementation of those strategies. The board should be fed into by individual strategies for each local area to take into account the different patterns of risk, crime, vulnerability and exploitation found across the country. The oversight board could then feed in the relevant information across different Departments to achieve a joined-up approach to preventing serious violence.
Sarah Champion
The Minister has not said that the door is closed on the definition of child criminal exploitation. To take that one particular example: we would be looking at a range of definitions to which the local authority serious crime board could respond, meaning that we would again be in the dark days of a postcode lottery. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless these definitions are in place, something like she is proposing makes absolute sense in order to get that uniformity of service? We are trying to prevent crime and support victims, so a simple measure would be to have an oversight body to make sure it happens.
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is always good to look back at what has worked in the past, and I go back to the example I cited earlier of the teenage pregnancy strategy. There was a defined strategy from central Government that was overseen centrally but delivered locally, so that there was room for local flexibility according to what was needed. However, there was also a clear set of parameters within which people should be operating, and an expectation of what they should be delivering with what was actually quite a targeted approach. The Prime Minister used to receive daily data on what was happening in each local area. I am quite a fan of gathering data centrally and trying to push change as much as possible, so I agree with my hon. Friend.
Similarly, a national serious violence oversight board would be able to analyse national trends and provide real scrutiny of what is and is not working across the country. Strategies need to feed into somewhere central so that the national landscape can be understood and that good and bad practice can be shared. The Minister talked earlier about that balance between what we allow local police authorities to do and what we set nationally. That conversation about how much we control from the centre and how much we allow people to feed in locally is always happening. The change suggested by new clause 59 is for a local and national mechanism in which at least the information can be gathered and analysed, so that we can see who is doing well and who is not doing well, and then respond appropriately.
Serious violence inevitably crosses boundaries. Effective responses to child exploitation, for example, are often hampered by the fact that it is a form of abuse that takes place across the boundaries of all the different police forces and local authorities in England and Wales. That creates inevitable fragmentation.
While the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre has helped to deliver a more joined-up approach to policing of child exploitation, the same joined-up approach is not found between the police and other agencies, or between different local authority areas. It would be impossible to tackle serious violence without some form of national oversight of the strategies. Learning and best practice can be shared at a national level. We see from the findings of the serious case reviews that sharing is still not effective, resulting in the same failings occurring again and again. We do not want that to happen with the serious violence partnerships as well.
Under the previous Prime Minister there was a serious violence taskforce, which was disbanded and replaced with the National Policing Board, but the National Policing Board looks at all parts of the policing system and has a different function altogether. We need some oversight that specifically addresses serious violence. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Theresa May) was Prime Minister, a unit to tackle violence was set up in the Cabinet Office, but I am unsure whether it still exists. Does the Minister know? Either way, she might consider the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and consider a kind of national co-ordination of the strategies to ensure that they are as effective as possible.
Victoria Atkins
We very much agree that voluntary and community sector organisations and local businesses are key to working with young people to tackle issues relating to serious violence and crime, and indeed to offering alternative opportunities to young people. One of the non-legislative measures that I am working on at the moment is bringing together the private and public sectors to offer opportunities by way of training, work placements and so on to young people who at the moment may believe that their life chances involve joining a gang and earning their money that way. We have to give young people a range of alternatives, so I very much agree with the motivations behind all these amendments, but particularly those that seek to involve charities and businesses.
I should point out that clause 9—“Power to authorise collaboration etc. with other persons”—is very much intended to include charitable organisations in the serious violence duty. We did not feel that it was right to put a duty on charities, but we did very much want to reference their ability to be included and involved in both the drawing up and the implementation of the strategy.
We are not persuaded that amendment 116 is necessary, because of the way it is drafted. It would potentially create significant new burdens if specified authorities were required to consult all voluntary sector organisations and businesses in the local area, as opposed to those that they considered to be most relevant to the local strategy for preventing and reducing serious violence.
I will shamelessly take this opportunity to mention, by way of example, the wonderful Louth Navigation Trust in my constituency. Wonderful charity though it is, I think it would itself accept that it is probably not able to assist in the drawing together of a serious violence duty in the way that specialist charities, such as St Giles Trust, Redthread and the other organisations that we all know and work with. will be able to do. That was a flippant example—forgive me—at 4 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon.
Turning to amendments 81 and 87, we very much agree that it is important for serious violence strategies, required by chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill, to be kept under review to ensure that they remain relevant and address the current issues affecting local areas at the time when they are being implemented. However, we are concerned as to whether an explicit requirement for revised strategies to be prepared and implemented every two years is the correct approach to take.
The duty is a key part of our work to prevent and reduce serious violence, focusing very much on prevention and early intervention, and informed by the evidence. We have been clear that a key focus of the duty, as I have said, should be on early intervention and prevention. That is why we have included a requirement for specified authorities to identify the kinds and causes of serious violence in the local area and the work that flows from that. It is therefore clear that local strategies should include a combination of short-term as well as longer-term initiatives aimed at preventing and reducing serious violence.
The draft statutory guidance for the duty makes it clear that local partnerships should review their strategy on an annual basis. Such reviews should consider how the interventions and solutions have affected serious violence in their area—considering, for example, crime statistics, and accident and emergency data. A review may well highlight the need for a refreshed strategy, for example where new and emerging crime types are identified—there may be the emergence of a new county line in their area—but we do not expect that to be the case every time.
We know that specific initiatives and actions that focus primarily on early intervention may not have a discernible effect on serious violence levels immediately. An assessment of the effectiveness of a local strategy conducted only two years after the strategy is first prepared may not capture the potential long-term impact and, therefore, may render it ineffective and in need of revision. Perhaps there would be a fairer analysis if a little more time were permitted to enable the interventions to take hold.
We want to ensure that local area resources are directed towards delivering on the strategies that they have prepared, instead of being diverted towards the preparation of revised strategies because there is a calendar they must keep to. I am reminded of a phrase about being driven by data and not dates, and wonder whether it is appropriate here.
I believe that specified authorities in local areas will be best placed to determine the necessary frequency of revisions in their own strategies, and that the existing requirement for strategies to be kept under review will ensure that a revision will be necessary and timely, rather than simply a formality. I see a role for hon. Members in that. I hope that they will watch closely what their areas are doing under this duty, and they will be able to highlight any concerns they have about the appropriateness, timeliness and so on of strategies and their revisions.
Finally, new clause 59 would require the creation of a statutory national serious violence oversight board, to be appointed and chaired by the Secretary of State. There will need to be a system in place to monitor progress in relation to the duty. There may be a useful role for the Government to support the process, but we question whether it is necessary to include the detail of such arrangements in the Bill. We will consider non-legislative options, which will in all likelihood feature in our statutory guidance for the duty. That will ensure that specified authorities are able to have a say in the arrangements, through a public consultation, following Royal Assent, including any proposed role for central Government, before they are established.
We expect to detail any role for Government in monitoring progress and activity in relation to the requirements of the serious violence duty to be included in the version of the draft statutory guidance, to be consulted on following Royal Assent. It is worth noting that specified authorities will already be expected to monitor their own progress, through the requirement to keep their strategy under review. Police and crime commissioners and those areas where mayoral offices have responsibility for policing will also have the discretionary power to monitor the performance of the specified authorities against their shared objectives.
Furthermore, community safety partnerships have a statutory requirement to keep the implementation of their strategies under review, for the purposes of monitoring effectiveness and to make any changes to strategies where necessary or expedient, and to publish the outcomes of each review. In the light of the explanations I have given, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon Central to withdraw her amendment.
Sarah Jones
I heard what the Minister said, in particular about amendments 81 and 87. She said that she did not want to push organisations towards having to prepare revised strategies all the time. She also said that the guidance advises them to review their strategies on an annual basis. We are in the position of having both things at the same time.
I hear what she says and am reassured by the need to look at it on an annual basis. I do think the phrase “from time to time” is slightly too loose to be in the Bill. We have seen the need for both short-term and long-term planning and we need to get that balance right. A lot of the violence reduction units, within PCC areas, say they want to be able to plan and get money beyond a year. At the moment, their money is given annually, which is very prohibitive. That is worth bearing in mind.
I heard the Minister say that there will be systems in place to monitor success and that she will look at what such systems could be. I was reassured by that and hope that she will ensure they have the teeth and resources to analyse what is happening across the country. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 8 to 10 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clause 11 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Sarah Jones
As I said, the Opposition welcome the intention behind the serious violence duty, which is to facilitate that multi-agency response to tackling and responding to violence in a local area. However, we have concerns about how the duty will operate in practice and how it will instruct local partners to respond, in particular to vulnerable children. As has been said in the Committee today and by a number of organisations, the duty as drafted will not facilitate a safeguarding response to children experiencing serious violence. I hope that the Minister will build and reflect on our debate on that.
I will take this opportunity to thank all the organisations that have attended so many meetings and done so much work in this area, particularly the Children’s Society, which helped draft several of the safeguarding amendments. Safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable young people from harm should be the first priority of statutory agencies and any subsequent duty for these agencies to co-operate with one another. If a young person is found to be at risk of or experiencing serious violence, any responsible adult is duty bound to report that to child protection. Clauses 7 to 11, which set out the duty, do not mention the word “safeguarding” once, and nor do they signal the need for the specific involvement of children’s social care teams in creating a strategy to prevent violence in a local area.
It remains unclear what activity the Government want to see flowing from the duty to co-operate. Three measures of success identified in the guidance are homicide rates, hospital admissions for knife or sharp object assaults, and police-recorded knife crime. Having just those measures might have a short-term impact, but that will not address the underlying drivers of serious violence and therefore might not have the long-lasting impact we are hoping for.
The duty is clearly framed as a crime reduction initiative, and it is right that it should be, but it is not a safeguarding tool, and the Opposition believe that it must focus on both. As we know, violence drives violence, and if the Government want properly to follow a public health approach to tackling serious violence, they cannot treat violence as if it happens in a vacuum.
Improving children’s safety and the wider safeguarding of children are integral to tackling the drivers of serious violence. The Opposition believe that without that focus, the Government risk those well-intentioned measures leading to a more punitive approach to vulnerable children. It would be good if the Minister reflected on our points about safeguarding and perhaps thought again about that work as well as the child criminal exploitation points made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and supported by so many.
Without enough funding for this work to take place, it will be very difficult for local authorities, whose resources are already very squeezed, to put in place strategies that will have an impact on the likelihood of children getting involved in violence. One example that the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction looked at a lot was youth services, which on average have been cut by about 40% across the country. It is possible to map a correlation—we did this work with Barnardo’s—between those areas that have made the largest cuts to youth services and those with the largest increase in knife crime. Obviously, we cannot point to an immediate cause and say that a violent crime occurred because a youth centre closed, but there is a correlation between those areas with the highest cuts and those with the fastest increases in knife crime. With the wider issues of funding and supporting local authorities, whether that is children’s social services or youth work—all that important work—it will be difficult for the Government to achieve what they want.
Mr Goodwill
As a former Children’s Minister, I know that there is no direct correlation between funding and outcomes. Indeed, some of the most cost-effective local authorities in terms of children’s services are those that do not use a lot of agency work, which is cheaper than some of the least effective, which tend to spend more in some cases.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I can provide the evidence that maps those areas that have made the largest cuts to youth work and the areas that have seen the largest increase in violence. There was not a direct causation, but there was a pattern and a trend. Although these things are not absolute, the evidence for every local authority shows that there was an impact. Youth work is known to be effective as an adult intervention with young people who perhaps do not have parental involvement in the way that we would want.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but often it is the local authorities that are failing, with a big backlog of work, that find they cannot recruit, and therefore have to rely on agency social workers and foster carers. That means they are spending a lot more money. Some of the better ones, such as North Yorkshire, have very few agency workers because they can keep it in house and delivery it cost-effectively.
Sarah Jones
Yes, that is a separate point that the right hon. Gentleman is right to make. Agency workers are not invested in the organisation they work for; they do not know the area; they are more expensive and often not as effective. My point is that the significant reduction in funding for local authorities will inevitably have an impact on their ability to implement this duty. I hope that the Minister and the Home Office will push forward the argument for more funding for local authorities.
Victoria Atkins
I hope that the Committee feels that, in my responses to the amendments, I have dealt with the substance of most of the clauses. I want to emphasise that clause 8 is included to reflect the fact that, particularly in the instance of county lines gangs, criminal gangs do not respect county boundaries, police force areas or local authority areas. They will reach their tentacles across the country, wherever they think there is a market and they can do their harm. The clause encourages and requires authorities to collaborate to address those concerns.
Sarah Champion
Does the Minister agree that they are keen to look at the legislation to see where it is weakest, and to target accordingly?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. Criminal gangs are very adept at spotting Government and local priorities and adjusting their behaviours. During the global pandemic, still some county lines were adjusting their methodology to evade detection when they were moving around the country. It is disgraceful, disgusting behaviour, and I hope that this duty and the requirement to collaborate will help to address that.
On the point that the hon. Member for Croydon Central made about housing priority need and the comparison with domestic abuse dealings in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, I will arrange for a letter to be written to her on that point. Unless there are any more interventions, I will sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 12
Preventing and reducing serious violence
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 12, page 12, line 34, at end insert—
“(5) In exercising their functions under this Chapter, specified authorities must have particular regard to reducing serious violence against women and girls, including street harassment, and reducing instances of hidden harm resulting from serious violence.”.
Sarah Jones
Clause 12(4) states that the duty introduced in chapter 1 will predominantly be focused on the most serious forms of violence, which are marked by:
“(a) the maximum penalty which could be imposed for any offence involved in the violence,
(b) the impact of the violence on any victim,
(c) the prevalence of the violence in the area, and
(d) the impact of the violence on the community in the area.”
While those are all extremely important, we would like the Government to emphasise in the duty protection and support for women and girls. It should be in the Bill that violence against women and girls counts as serious violence. We know that women are more likely to be victims of hidden harm and domestic abuse, which does not conspicuously contribute to the prevalence of violence or the impact of violence on the community in an area. During covid, we saw an increase in domestic abuse. I spoke to a primary school head in my constituency who said that in a year they would usually deal with one or two cases of domestic violence affecting their pupils, but at that point they were dealing with seven family cases. Those issues are often hidden and so, as I say, do not necessarily impact on the community in an area in the same way as violent street crime would.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that some violence is gendered, and that recognition of that in the Bill is a necessary inclusion?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is exactly the point I was about to make. She is completely right. This is in some senses an addition. Perhaps the Minister will say it is for local organisations and agencies to decide what to prioritise, but the reality—this is not a criticism—is that this duty was conceived at the height of concerns about street violence, violent crime and knife crime, and we may all be a little bit to blame for not focusing as well on the gendered violence and hidden violence that does not make the headlines in the same way, but is equally important. One feeds the other: if there is violence in the home, there is often more violent behaviour from children because they learn that behaviour. Gendered violence is just as important but is perhaps not as highlighted and talked about as it should be.
Women from all parts of the country, from all backgrounds, young and old, are killed every week. Last year, the number of female homicide victims in England and Wales reached its highest level since 2006, up 10% on the previous year. That is true of not only murder but all kinds of violence against women and girls. For the year ending March 2020, the crime survey for England and Wales estimated that 7.1% of adults aged 16 to 74 years had experienced sexual assault by rape or penetration. Domestic violence, already endemic across Britain, increased significantly during the covid pandemic, with 260,000 domestic abuse offences between March 2020 and June 2020 alone.
Amendment 91 would ensure that specified authorities have particular regard to reducing serious violence against women and girls, including street harassment, and reducing instances of hidden harm resulting from serious violence. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is presented. This would be a very useful thing for local agencies to do. It is incredibly important and is part of the wider violence picture and should therefore be included in the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
As hon. Members will be aware, tackling violence against women and girls is one of the Government’s key priorities. These abhorrent crimes have no place in our society. This Government are committed to ensuring that more perpetrators feel the force of the law and to improving our support for those who suffer at the hands of abusers.
We have taken action to tackle all forms of violence against women and girls by introducing legislation around forced marriage, female genital mutilation and the disclosing of private sexual photographs. More recently, the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will bolster our response to domestic abuse at every level. The Act includes placing a duty on local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation, as well as many other things. What I have said about here it does not do justice to the Act, but we recognise also that legislation is not the only answer. Local authorities and others have a role to play in tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we provide funding to support victims of such crimes.
We have refrained from including in the duty set out in the Bill a specific list of crime types that must be included in a serious violence strategy for a local area. We have also refrained from prioritising one type of victim over another. This is to allow local strategies to take account of the most prevalent forms of serious violence in the locality, and the impact on all potential victims. Forms of serious violence will vary between geographical areas and we want to enable partners to adapt and respond to new and emerging forms of serious violence as they develop and are identified. That could include domestic abuse or others forms of violence against women and girls, but the Government believe, as set out in the duty, that it should be for authorities to determine what their specific priorities should be for their area. That is consistent with the model of police and crime commissioners and mayors who have policing responsibilities for setting priorities for policing.
In making any such determinations, they must consider the maximum penalty that could be imposed for any offence involved in the violence, the impact of the violence on any victim, the prevalence of the violence in the area and the impact of the violence on the community in the area. It is anticipated that work to answer these questions would form part of the development of a strategic needs assessment and strategy. The approach of including a specific offence, as is urged in the amendment, is not consistent with the wider approach.
We are committed to going further in our efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, which is why we will be publishing a new cross-Government strategy tackling violence against women and girls, which will be followed by a complementary domestic abuse strategy. I look forward to their publication to set out our approach to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, including street harassment.
I hope these assurances and our commitments to future work in this area mean that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Sarah Jones
I hear what the Minister is saying and I applaud the work that has been done thus far on violence against women and girls, but I believe that the list in clause 12(4) that she just read out steers the whole process in the direction of serious street violence and youth violence, without a nod to the incredibly point about violence against women and girls, so I would like to test the will of the Committee on amendment 91.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sarah Jones
I would be very happy for my colleague to speak, as I am slightly fed up of my own voice, but I will carry on.
Sarah Jones
I just wanted to raise a couple of concerns. We have not tabled amendments to the clauses, but I want to bring some issues that have been raised to the attention of the Committee.
Clause 14 would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations regarding how PCCs or mayors can assist serious violence partnerships. It would allow education, prison and youth custody services to collaborate in order to prevent and reduce serious violence; it would also allow them to collaborate with SVPs. Subsection (5) places a duty on a relevant authority to collaborate with other relevant authorities for the purpose of preventing and reducing violence, if requested to do so by another relevant authority. The example provided in the explanatory notes is that
“a local young offenders’ institution may choose to collaborate with a secure children’s home located in the same area if they are experiencing similar issues with serious violence within their institutions.”
That makes sense, but we believe that there needs to be some nod in that process towards the focus on the safeguarding responsibility for children. It is important that the duty does not just become an intelligence-gathering exercise instead of a proper data-sharing exercise, so we want to ensure that people can be protected and prevented from getting involved in serious violence.
Clause 15 would impose a duty on education, prison and youth custody services to collaborate together and with SVPs when one partner organisation requests it, as long as complying with the request does not infringe on any of their existing legal duties. The explanatory notes call this a “permissive gateway” that
“would permit but would not require the sharing of information.”
The example given is that
“a clinical commissioning group could disclose management information about hospital attendances where serious violence was suspected, which could support the development of a local problem profile/strategic needs assessment.”
Again, that makes sense. However, the notes go on to say that
“any disclosure of information under this clause may be made notwithstanding any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of the information, save that disclosure would not be permitted if it would contravene the data protection legislation or the prohibitions on disclosure provided for in any Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.”
We have talked to organisations that are concerned that the need not to uphold any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of information could undermine some of the trust that children, particularly those who are vulnerable or who are being criminally exploited, have with teachers and educators. Will the Minister talk through what any other restriction on the disclosure of information means in this context, particularly when applied to an individual child in a school setting? Will she set out the key difference between the “permissive gateway” of information sharing and the multi-agency structures—for example, referrals to children’s social care—that already exist for information sharing about individual children?
Overall, there is no question but that information sharing between agencies and police forces is vital to achieving a proper understanding of serious violence, particularly involving the county lines drug network and the many vulnerable children who have been swept into it, but it is also important that the objective of information sharing is about the safeguarding of vulnerable people and children, as well as crime prevention and reduction.
Victoria Atkins
I will deal straightaway with the point about information sharing, as it would seem to me that the other clauses are understood.
Clause 15 provides a new permissive information sharing gateway for specified authorities, including local policing bodies and education, prison and youth custody authorities, to disclose information to each other. Sadly, we know that information sharing between agencies is not always as full and as timely as we would like, because of concerns that they are not allowed to share information. We do not want those concerns to get in the way of preventing serious violence.
Of course, we must operate within the law, so the clause ensures that there is a legislative framework in place to enable information to be shared between all authorities exercising functions under chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill. In doing so, the clause permits but does not mandate authorities to disclose information. I reassure the Committee that, as required by article 36(4) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, my officials have consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the proposed provisions within this clause and clauses 9 and 16, and no concerns were raised.
To be clear, clause 15 does not replace existing data-sharing arrangements or existing protocols that are already working well, including those under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Through the clause we are simply ensuring that all the specified authorities—local policing bodies and education, prison and youth custody authorities—are able to share relevant information with each other for the purposes of the recipient of the information exercising their functions to prevent or reduce serious violence. Such bodies should already have arrangements in place that set out clearly the processes and the principles for sharing information and data internally. Examples of data that could be shared include hospital data on knife injuries, the number of exclusions and truancies in local schools, police recorded crime, local crime data, anonymised prison data, areas of high social services interventions and intelligence on threats such as county lines, including about the activities of serious organised crime gangs and about drugs markets.
An important element of the duty would be to establish the local problem profile, and data sharing between the duty holders would be a crucial part of that process. By virtue of this clause, the authorities I have mentioned would be able to share information freely, providing it does not contravene data protection legislation or the provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I hope that reassures the Committee.
Sarah Jones
That is reassuring. I wanted to raise the point to ensure that we were all aware of that concern, which was raised to us by several organisations. I am grateful for the Minister’s response.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 16, page 16, line 14, at end insert—
“(8) A local policing body must report annually on the requests made under this section, including information on the bodies the request were made to and the use of information provided.”
This amendment would require local policing bodies to report on requests for information made to specified authorities, educational authorities, prison authorities and youth custody authorities for the purpose of assisting with its functions under section 13.
The amendment would ensure that when information was shared between partners, the local policing bodies reported back to their partners to explain how they were using the information. That would in turn help the partners better to understand the wider context to the issues raised.
The Children’s Society has pointed out that clauses 15 and 16 raise questions as to what information will be collected about individual young people and how that information may be used. It is keen that additional information sharing requirements do not result for some children in a more punitive response instead of a response that balances safeguarding and the prevention of violence escalating.
I will end my comments by asking the Minister further questions on the issue of data collection. Will the information and data collected through the duty be strictly management-level data, or case-level data? Will police forces be able to request information on specific vulnerable young people, and will policing bodies be able to request from specified authorities such as schools case-level information on children at risk of or experiencing serious violence? If so, how will the police use that information?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady asks a specific question—namely, will local policing bodies be able to request case-level information on children at risk and how will they use it? Police and crime commissioners and, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London, will have powers to work with the specified authorities to support multi-agency working. The specified authorities will need to co-operate with a local policing body when required to do so.
However, we will make it clear in guidance that the local policing body should consider the proportionality of additional requests and anticipated costs to specified authorities before making any such requests. That includes specific requests for data, which may be made only in order to fulfil its role of monitoring the effectiveness of local strategies. Such requests for data must relate only to the organisation that has generated it, except where functions are contracted out. Sufficient safeguards must be in place to ensure that information, including that which pertains to individuals, is disclosed in line with relevant data protection legislation.
Arrangements must also be in place to clearly set out the processes and principles for sharing information and data. Such arrangements should cover the sharing of information and data within the local partnership and with external bodies and should include the purpose of sharing the data, what is to happen to the data at relevant points, and clarity on respective roles. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.
Sarah Jones
I am pleased that that will be in the guidance. I think that issues flow from things such as the gangs matrix in London. There were concerns that information that was gathered in order to support people actually ended up being used as a way of profiling people—that the data was perhaps not used in the way in which people had thought it would be. That was the basis for the amendment. Given that that will be in the guidance, however, I am reassured that the purposes for which the information should be used should be clear. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Again, if it will assist the Committee, I am content to hear the hon. Member for Croydon Central set out her stall, as it were, and I will then respond.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
My concern is about clause 17(4), and indeed clauses 18(3) and 19(7), which all say that the Secretary of State must “consult” Welsh Ministers, rather than “seek the consent of”. This is an issue of long-standing concern for me, my party and, indeed, the Welsh Government. Given that it is long-standing and has been discussed before, I will not seek to press a vote on this tonight, although I may consider doing so on Report.
What are we talking about here? Clause 14(3) says:
“A relevant authority and a specified authority must collaborate”
with these requests. Clause 14(4) says:
“A relevant authority must carry out any actions which are specified”,
for example regarding strategy. Clause 14(5)(b) says that local governments “must collaborate”. Clause 16(4) says that a person must supply information to a policing body. I have no particular problems with these provisions, save for that it is the Secretary of State who has those powers in Wales, not the Welsh Government. The point is, of course, that the Welsh Government have responsibility for very relevant areas of government and policy in Wales in respect of the Bill—health, social services, education, local government and a good deal on top of that. Clause 17(4) says that the Secretary of State “must consult” Welsh Ministers before giving directions; clause 18(3) says they “must consult” before giving guidance; and clause 19(7) says they “must consult” before making regulations.
The Secretary of State has duties that must be carried out and powers to compel, but they must only consult, rather than seek the consent of, the Welsh Government or the Senedd. What will happen if there is divergence between Wales and England in policy or law? Of course, the Senedd is now a law-making body. There is a certain body of law—for example, on social services—that is different from that in England. That divergence may be accentuated and grow into the future as the Senedd flexes its muscles, as any half-competent democratic institution will seek to do, so we may have a situation whereby there is a good deal of divergence on the crucial matters that are relevant to the Bill.
Sarah Jones
I will be brief. I have three questions for the Minister, just to get a bit of clarity. The first is on clause 17, which, according to the Library briefing, gives the Secretary of State
“powers to issue directions to any SVP member, education, prison or youth custody service it thinks is failing to discharge its duties to prevent serious violence.”
It would be helpful if the Minister could provide an example of what that means. What direction will the Secretary of State be issuing? What is envisaged by that clause?
Secondly, the amendments in clause 19 require community safety partnerships to have regard to
“preventing people from becoming involved in serious violence”,
and to
“reducing incidences of serious violence”
when assessing crime and disorder in their area and formulating their strategies. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how that differs from what their strategies are doing already. Will there be a bit of an overlap of strategies there?
My final point is one that has been raised by the Local Government Association and has been drawn to my attention elsewhere. The community safety partnerships have had their funding steadily withdrawn since 2010, which has had an impact on their resources and their capacity to do things. It would be helpful if the Government could review the impact of those funding reductions on community safety partnerships—perhaps with a view to increasing that core funding—and on the ability of councils to address the range of crime issues they are expected to assist other partners in tackling.
Victoria Atkins
Serious violence has a devastating impact on victims and their families, instils fear in communities and is extremely costly to society, as I have already said. I hope the Government’s intention is clear from the discussions we have had today, but it is crucial that there are consequences if some authorities are not focused on what we are trying to achieve through the duty. On the rare occasion when a specified authority or educational, prison or youth custody authority does not fulfil its requirements under the duty, thereby risking the success of the whole partnership, clause 17 provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue a direction to secure compliance.
This power does not apply to probation services provided by the Secretary of State or to publicly managed prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres or secure colleges. For such authorities, existing mechanisms will be available to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the duty, so we are trying to get consistency across them all.
For any directions relating to a devolved Welsh authority, the Welsh Ministers must be consulted before a direction is issued. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government on the operation of the direction, as far as it relates to devolved Welsh authorities, and I will be writing further to Minister Hutt shortly.
I was asked for examples of when we envisage that a direction may be given. It is very much expected that these powers will be used infrequently—I hope never—but we must have this ability to ensure compliance if that situation were to arise. It is very much a matter of last resort when all other attempts to work effectively in partnership with an authority have failed. Where necessary, we must have this backstop mechanism to ensure that all relevant authorities comply with the duty and play their part in reducing and preventing serious violence.
A direction may include requiring authorities to take the necessary steps set out by the Secretary of State in order to comply with the duty. If necessary, to ensure an authority complies, a direction can be enforced by a mandatory order granted on application to the administrative court in England and Wales. We very much hope that this power will be used rarely, if at all, but if, for example, an authority refuses to provide information that it is required to provide under the Bill, it is available as a last resort when all other attempts to work effectively have failed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clauses 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Health and Dentistry: England
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered oral health and dentistry in England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I was compelled to call for this debate after an NHS 111 call handler contacted me to describe the hardship that they experienced in trying to get patients in severe pain emergency dental appointments—too often without any success. Dental practitioners and lab technicians have also approached me, detailing the many obstacles in their profession that are preventing them from giving the care that they so desperately want to give their patients. The different perspectives make it blatantly clear that dentistry in this country is in crisis and patients, including children, are not getting the care that they need.
There is a lot of work to be done to fix what has long been a broken system, so let me start with thanks to all my colleagues who are contributing to this debate and to all those organisations, including the British Dental Association, the Association of Dental Groups, the Faculty of Dental Surgery and Healthwatch, and dentists in my constituency, who not only briefed me for the debate but have been working day in, day out, for years to raise the serious issues that I will go on to mention and who have the solutions, if only the Government would listen.
I hope that the Minister will come to the table today with a response that matches the gravity of the situation, because access to dental care in England is in a parlous state. A constituent employed by the NHS 111 service first got in touch with me in September 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, to tell me, in his words,
“about the woeful state of the dental service or more precisely the lack of a dental service”.
He covered Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Essex, but was aware that his comments applied nationwide. He told me that he spent the majority of his day speaking to people who were literally crying out for an appointment and even emergency treatment, but he had absolutely nothing to offer them. He told me that if someone is lucky and already registered with a dentist, they might be offered an appointment at some future date, often weeks in advance, but if not, they had no chance of being taken on. He said that that applied to everyone, including children and pregnant women. That was of course during lockdown, but many of the barriers to finding appointments persist.
I contacted the constituent again in February and he told me that, if anything, the situation was worse. He worked almost exclusively on dental calls; they were coming in relentlessly. He described it as a Catch-22 situation. If people are not registered at a practice, NHS 111, virtually without exception, can only tell the callers that practice books are closed to new NHS patients for the foreseeable future. If a patient is registered, they will be told that their practice cannot offer treatment—often for weeks ahead. Let us remember that patients call 111 only as a last resort and are mostly in considerable distress. They mistakenly believe that the NHS runs the dental service, and have nowhere else to go. Many turn up at A&E in desperation, which only adds to the pressure on NHS hospitals which do not have the capacity, expertise or tools to fix dental problems.
My constituent told me it was heart-wrenching to have to listen to these calls for six hours a day. Last week, when I asked for his permission to raise his concerns in this debate, he told me that
“there is real anger and desperation brewing.”
I hope that the Minister is listening carefully to my constituent’s experience, because this is the situation on the ground. I am sorry to say that he has now decided that enough is enough—he will leave his role because he says he
“can see no possibility of any improvement this year.”
NHS dentistry is facing an unprecedented backlog in care that will take years to clear. The BDA estimates that a staggering 30 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic, and a report published yesterday by Healthwatch found that 80% of people struggled to access timely care during lockdown.
Even before the pandemic, only enough NHS dentistry to cover just over half of England’s population was commissioned. Over a quarter of people either struggle to or cannot pay, so they avoid dental treatment altogether. Capacity is severely limited by infection control measures, and access problems have now reached an unprecedented scale in every community, with deep existing inequalities set to widen even further.
If the Government are serious about levelling up, tackling health inequalities needs to be at the top of the agenda. Healthwatch found that, among people living in the north-east of England, those on low incomes and ethnic minority groups were hardest hit by the twin crises of access and affordability.
The Care Quality Commission’s “COVID-19 Insight: Issue 10” report published last week rightly questions whether enough NHS dental capacity is being commissioned, and challenges NHS policy leaders to deal with the demand and ensure that everyone—especially the most vulnerable—has equal access to NHS care.
The system has long suffered from chronic underfunding. Even if you factor in the income from patient charges, which have been increased by an inflation-busting 5% in each of the last five years, the total NHS dental budget was lower in cash terms just before the pandemic than it was when Labour left power in 2010.
The dental contract introduced in 2006 is structured with ridiculous, counterproductive targets which do not make things any easier. Totally discredited and unfit for purpose, it is incompatible with providing safe and sustainable services for patients, both during and after the pandemic, and must be reformed. The peculiar Units of Dental Activity system effectively caps the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS and actively disincentivises dentists from taking on new NHS patients, especially in poorer areas where a new patient is more likely to have large, unmet dental care needs.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Engagement team, who ran a survey in relation to this debate. When asked what key changes would enhance their ability to do their job every single respondent, 78% of whom were oral health professionals, wanted to abolish what one described as
“the aberration that is the UDA system.”
Another said that they would have no problem committing to provide 100% NHS dentistry if they were paid for the work they did. However, under the current system, a root canal treatment—which can take up to three hours of highly technical and skilled work—is renumerated the same as a little filling that may take 30 seconds to place.
Why can the Government not understand that a work- force work best when they are respected and incentivised? We need to get more patients through dentists’ doors, but aggressive and punitive activity targets are not the way to go about this. The targets have been the driving factor behind the recruitment and retention crisis in NHS dentistry. While the Minister is keen to point out that the headcount of dentists providing NHS services has been pretty stable, when dentists need to do only an hour of NHS work a week to be considered an NHS dentist, that is meaningless smoke and mirrors.
In reality, many dentists have been reducing the NHS work they do, and the Minister’s written answer last week revealed that the number of practices providing NHS dentistry in England fell by 1,253 between 2015 and 2020. As in other parts of the NHS, the pandemic has brutally compounded the pre-existing problems in the dental system.
I appreciated and welcomed the Government’s support for NHS dentistry in the early stages of the pandemic. The Minister quite rightly decided to pay dentists their historical contract values when they were told to close their doors to patients in the first lockdown. After dental practices reopened last summer, dentists were asked to work their way through the backlog, prioritising patients on the basis of need, instead of focusing on delivering units of dental activity.
Just before Christmas, however, the Government changed course. Despite standard operating procedure continuing to severely limit the number of patients that can be seen safely, the Government expected dentists in England to deliver 45% of their historical activity between January and March or face financial penalties. This target was further increased to 60% in April. The BDA members survey suggests that a large proportion of dentists managed to meet the target only by taking extraordinary measures, such as cancelling all annual leave and working beyond their contracted opening hours—all of this while working many hours a day in heavy-duty personal protective equipment.
Dentists in my constituency tell me the same story: the situation is not sustainable. To put this in context, the Labour Government in Wales have not introduced any such targets, recognising that chasing activity measures is good for neither patients nor dentists in the context of a pandemic. I would welcome the Minister’s explanation of the extreme difference in approach between England and the rest of the UK, and I urge her to follow the lead of the Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland, who have committed capital funding towards buying high-capacity ventilation equipment, which can drastically cut down the fallow time required between treatments. This sensible investment allows dentists to see more patients safely and will pay for itself in increased patient charge revenue.
Morale in the profession is at an all-time low, and there is a real danger that the pressures will turbocharge the flight of dentists from the NHS, driving them into private dentistry or early retirement, and making the problems with access for patients a permanent feature of our dental health service. That is on top of the significant loss of overseas dentists as a result of Brexit. The backlog created by the pandemic cannot be tackled if we have no workforce left to do it. Dental practitioners must urgently be added to the shortage occupation list. I hope that the Minister will outline the Government’s road map out of the current high-intensity infection prevention and control measures.
There can be no more kicking the can down the road when it comes to contract reform. It is now a matter of urgency. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances that the new system will be rolled out more quickly, and certainly without any further delays, and that it will decisively break with the discredited units of dental activity and instead prioritise increasing access for patients, and prevention. It is vital that the Government seriously invest in preventive measures.
Oral health is an essential precondition and indicator of overall health, and it deserves to be given priority in our health system. One in eight children in Bedford has obvious tooth decay by the time they are three, and the figure rises to one in five by the time they turn five. The Government are letting children down. In the year before the pandemic, over 23,000 children between five and nine were admitted to hospital because they had tooth decay. It is absolutely shameful that a completely preventable disease continues to be the No. 1 reason why young children in England are admitted to hospital. In the last five years, 540 children in Bedford have been admitted to hospital for tooth extractions, wasting over £500,000 of precious NHS resources just in our town, as well as causing pain and stress.
Procedures under a general anaesthetic are another area of dentistry where the pandemic has taken a heavy toll. They are often necessary in children with extensive decay and adults with special needs, and waiting times were very long even before the pandemic, with patients often waiting in excess of a year. The suspension of most non-urgent surgeries has left tens of thousands of patients in pain for months, with some taking huge amounts of painkillers or resorting to do-it-yourself interventions or multiple rounds of avoidable antibiotics while they wait for this completely preventable surgery.
I welcome the plans to legislate to recentralise water fluoridation as a preventive measure, but would welcome assurances that changes to the legal framework will be accompanied by proper funding, otherwise it will be meaningless. Water fluoridation is highly effective, but it will take years before we see its effects, so proper investment in preventive oral health programmes, such as supervised toothbrushing, is needed. Supervised brushing is estimated to save over £3 for each £1 invested over five years. I hope we will see a consultation and a roll-out of this sensible and highly effective intervention very soon.
Finally, I turn to the forthcoming health and social care Bill. Beyond the measures on fluoridation, the White Paper barely mentions dentistry at all. I hope to hear a commitment today that dental services will be properly represented in the governance structures of the integrated care systems, and that the changes to commissioning structures—and particularly any possible pooling of primary care budgets—do not result in further cuts to dental budgets.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to serve under your guidance, Ms Bardell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on obtaining this debate. His speech was a barrage of negativity, and it is not all negativity in this field. I am a practising dentist—part-time at the moment; very little. I am a member of the British Academy for Cosmetic Dentistry, the British Fluoridation Society and the British Endodontic Society. That is wet-finger dentistry, though in a glove.
For decades, the dental profession, especially NHS dentists, has felt that dentistry as a health service has, as far as the Department is concerned, been seen as a Cinderella service, or an expensive minefield, or both. This has gone on for decades under Governments of various and even mixed complexions. However, I believe this has markedly improved with my hon. Friend the Minister and the current chief dental officer. There has been a visible change of attitude. Both ladies recognise the importance of improving the oral health of the nation and of the status of dentistry as a health service. To use the chief dental officer’s banner statement, at last
“Putting the mouth back in the body”.
Covid has had a dramatic effect on the ability to provide dental services, whether NHS or private. Waiting lists for all dental patients have dramatically exacerbated, and we have just heard a tirade on this. Covid meant that for a period all dental surgeries were closed. Only emergency services and specialised clinics were open. When the surgeries were permitted to start resuming covid protection, actions such as furloughed time, PPE and so on added to the delays, complications and diminished throughput. Clinical teaching of final year students was diminished, such that there is doubt that some of them are ready to graduate.
All the dental team should have been double vaccinated by now, whether private, mixed practices or NHS. The R factor is going down. An increasing proportion of patients have been vaccinated. Dentists are following a careful triage system. Deaths are down, hospitalisations are down and the 21 June release is still on, we hope.
My hon. Friend the Minister can see my request coming like a big balloon because I have already discussed it with her. The time has come for a road map to release dentists from PPE and all the restrictions. We need a return to the pre-covid treatment of patients and we need SAGE to look at it and get on with it. That will be the biggest single action in enabling dentists to get this backlog into line.
My second wish is a push at an open door with the Minister. Dental care is preventable, but while there has been progress, we are badly behind, especially in caries prevention for children. Pre-pandemic, these children occupied 177 clinical general anaesthetic extraction cases in hospital—a complete waste of our services. The latest figure that I have seen is that 23,529 children between the ages of five and nine were admitted to hospital because they had tooth decay.
I first started practising dentistry in a deprived area in east London. The state of dentition there shocked me, especially the state of children’s dentition. It was not the deprivation that caused the poor dentition; it was the diet and the almost complete lack of oral hygiene. Put simply, kids and parents did not toothbrush. Some parents did not even know that toothbrushes existed. And if you went into the supermarket, the shelves were packed with biscuits and cakes, whereas there was little meat or vegetables; go to less deprived areas and it is the other way round. So, it is not the deprivation; it is the shoppers—the parents.
The Minister will know where I am going with this. She and the chief dental officer are already embarking on teaching children in teams throughout the country to brush their teeth. Coincidental with this, most children are accompanied by their parents, some of whom are stunned to see this little thing called a toothbrush. But the message is getting through; as the hon. Member for Bedford said, we are starting to get some progress, and it is happening quite quickly.
As I have said, tooth decay is essentially highly preventable. Water fluoridation is the single most effective public measure that could be taken to prevent tooth decay. At the moment, implementation of fluoridation is in the power of local authorities. Little progress has been made. We lag behind every other western nation. Most of our western nation comparators have a fluoridation rate of domestic water supplies of between 60% and 80%, but we have a rate of only 10%. It is the system; the costs are to the local authorities and the cost-benefits are to the national health service.
The process of consultation over fluoridation is lengthy and tedious, and it is providing a platform for protesters of the same type as the anti-vaccination people. Some of the things that they say are quite extraordinary. I had to listen to a man explaining to me that he had done some research. He said that he had been to a town with young people and no fluoride, and to a town with older people with fluoride, and the venereal disease rate in the town with young people was higher than that in the town with older people. Therefore, according to him, if we put fluoride into the water supply, people got venereal disease. And to my astonishment, there were other people there who actually believed that nonsense.
To make a more practical point, there are considerable difficulties for both local authorities and water companies, in that their boundaries are rarely, if ever, coterminous. So, it makes eminent sense for the implementation process for the new schemes of fluoridation to be put in the hands of central Government and driven by central Government, which is the Minister’s proposal.
In doing so, however, I hope that the Government will curtail the procedures on consultation. In every period of consultation, in every place of consultation, the same thing is said by the same people, and I believe that the same nutters come out. If we continue with that process, we will have a repetition of the scaremongering stories from people who are basically cranks.
The safety, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and benefit of fluoride in water supplies, whether it is achieved naturally —as is the case in many parts of the world—or artificially, is proven to be workable and to achieve dramatic reductions in tooth decay. With this proposed step and the Government’s determination, rather than our lagging behind the rest of the world we could actually lead, and I hope that we move to do so.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I ask Members to keep their remarks to within eight minutes, to allow equal time, and I hope to call the Opposition spokespersons by 10.35 am.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
Thank you very much, Ms Bardell, for your chairmanship today.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this timely debate. Like others who have spoken, I have heard countless stories from my constituents in Norwich South that show the very human cost of chronic and long-term underfunding of NHS England services. What I have heard has led me to conclude that the state of NHS England’s dental services can only be described as a scandal. Simply put, this is a service that is broken.
Many constituents now face insurmountable barriers to accessing basic healthcare. They face extreme delays in getting an appointment, if they can secure one at all. They are then faced with prohibitive treatment costs, even for NHS services, which some simply cannot afford. Constituents tell me it is impossible to get an appointment, let alone with an NHS dentist, and that they have been turned away despite being in pain.
One constituent had dental treatment delayed by a year; others had treatment cancelled, only for their oral health to deteriorate. Some constituents tell me that when they do manage to get an appointment, sometimes after weeks or months of waiting, they are told that the treatment they need can be done only at a private clinic, at a cost of thousands of pounds, which they simply do not have.
Delays, cancelled appointments and treatments so expensive that they are unattainable lead to agony, disfigurement and a range of other healthcare problems. Someone with a business in my constituency was forced to pull out 18 of his teeth when receding gums had left him in agony and the broken dental care system left him no other options. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) would like to tell that businessman that his agony is his own fault and due to his diet. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman change his dental bedside manner when talking to patients, because I do not think that patient would agree that the situation was entirely on his own head, given that he could not receive timely treatment from the NHS.
Scandalously, my constituents’ experience, far from being exceptional, is reflected up and down the country. Yesterday, Healthwatch England said that people are faced with a wait of up to three years for dental appointments. Four in five people are struggling to access timely care. Even when they get an appointment, a staggering 61% find treatment too expensive. Who is bearing the burden of this chronic Government failure to provide healthcare for all? Surprise, surprise: it is, as ever, those on low incomes and from ethnic minority groups who are affected the most by the lack of appointments and the soaring costs for treatment.
Healthwatch England revealed that almost twice as many people from lower socioeconomic groups struggle or cannot afford to pay NHS dental charges as those from higher socioeconomic groups. The cause of this crisis is no secret. NHS dental services, as is the case with our public health service at large, are chronically underfunded by the Government.
No doubt the Minister will reel off a long list of figures about how much the Government are spending on dentistry, but the reality speaks for itself. According to the British Dental Association, NHS general dental practice is already the only part of NHS England operating on a lower budget in cash terms than in 2010. That means that in real terms, net Government spending on general dental practice in England has been cut by more than a third in the last decade. Those problems are set to get worse. According to the British Dental Association, around a quarter of dentists plan to stop providing NHS services and move to fully private provision. More than a third plan a career change or early retirement in the next 12 months.
I will finish by stating the obvious. Dental care is healthcare. If my constituents cannot access the healthcare they need when they need it, I am afraid that we have a national health service in name only. We must not forget that it is the principles of care and universalism that make so many people rightfully proud and defensive of the NHS. The Government must not continue to treat dentistry and oral health as an afterthought, or as a service that can be quietly privatised. It is part and parcel of preventive healthcare, a building block in a society that values wellbeing.
Oral and dental care must be fully provided for by the NHS. In the immediate future, support must be given to practices to enable them to open safely and see more patients. Longer term, we need dentistry and oral health services to be provided equitably. The Government have an opportunity in the upcoming health and social care Bill to do just that. I hope they take that opportunity, for the sake of my constituents and many others around England.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell, and I thank the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for organising the debate. The Minister knows that I have spoken on these dentistry issues on several occasions, and I have written to her as well. As discussed with the Minister, I will be writing to the Treasury on these issues this week, because the Minister is a champion of public health, dentistry, pharmacy and other issues, as she rightly points out, but there is a cash problem here as well. I am aware that she is doing her best in difficult circumstances, and covid presents a unique set of circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that we are seeing an improvement under the Minister—or we should see an improvement once covid gets lifted.
Islanders are facing issues, however, in relation to dentistry. It is, frankly, just very difficult—nig,h-on impossible in some parts of the Isle of Wight—for families to find an NHS dentist. I thank the Minister for the extra money to soak up some of the outstanding appointments, but that money was reasonably limited and it went very quickly. Some Islanders who are getting a new dentist are now having to go to the mainland for treatment. That is incredibly inconvenient, especially given that, with the most expensive ferries in the world, some kids on the Island have never seen a dentist in their life.
The Healthwatch England report found that 7 in 10 people find it difficult to access an NHS dentist. The same body published data in 2019 showing that 85% of dental practices across the country were closed to new patients. That is absolutely reflected in my constituency. As well as the inconvenience and the damage to the nation’s dental health, it will cause us problems in the longer term, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. That is because we know that there will be a significant rise, potentially, in cancer cases: one of the side effects of a lack of dental appointments is that we will not be able to spot cancers like mouth cancer, and ill health, when they show themselves in people’s mouths. We know, also, that gum disease is associated with heart disease, so there is a knock-on effect on other bits of the health service.
As I have discussed with the Minister, my worry is that—as with pharmacies—because we have a cash-flow problem in these areas, that problem will exhibit itself as greater, and frankly more expensive, problems further down the line. Dental practices were clearly facing issues before covid. The challenge is, in part, a workforce one. The British Dental Association found that 75% of dental practices are struggling to fill vacancies. Over half of newly-qualified NHS dentists under 35 are thinking of leaving the NHS in the next five years, with many going into private practice. It is good that they are staying in dentistry but bad that they are leaving the NHS, because the NHS is where we now need the acute dentistry support.
Dental schools are not producing enough dentists. The nearest dental school to us is in Portsmouth. These problems seem to be exacerbated in coastal, rural, isolated areas. We are isolated by being cut off from the mainland by the Solent, and we are also coastal and pretty rural. We are experiencing these factors on the Island more, arguably, than many other parts of Britain. We also have an issue on the Island with dentists retiring or leaving early, and that is specifically the case among several of them. That will put our system under even greater threat, not only for NHS dentists but also specialists working in dental labs on the Island and indeed elsewhere. I have talked about that on numerous occasions.
There is no easy fix to these problems, but there are some potentially reasonably quick wins. I want to mention a few now, to see if I can interest the Minister in them. The initiation of a dental training scheme on the Island would be incredibly helpful and would deal with one specific hotspot. If someone trains here on the Island, there is nothing to stop them then going back to the mainland, so we would not only be training dentists for the Isle of Wight—it would be good if we were—but if we have an overflow of dentists there is no reason why they cannot go back to the mainland after their training.
Can we have a simplification of the process for qualifying as a training practice, and then a boost to the funding for interns’ salaries? We are not talking about significant amounts of money here, but these measures will pay dividends in the long run. According to people who are clearly much more expert on these matters than I am, it is important to make changes to the contracts to incentivise remaining in the NHS. It is also important to separate laboratory fees from dental fees, which will help laboratories to survive as well.
Finally, on fluoridation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley raised, I think this is a no-brainer. It is very difficult to make a case against it. The Minister was kind enough to grab coffee with me, last week or the week before, to talk about public health schemes. If he is looking for a test case, fluoridation is a scheme that could be very easily introduced to a large area of the UK that is highly measurable because it is separated by sea from the mainland—clearly I am talking about my constituency. We are self-contained and have only one local authority and one water authority to deal with, so if there was a desire to introduce another fluoridation pilot scheme or pilot a roll-out, that could be done very successfully on the Island. Given that we are seeing dental problems and have a shortage of dentists on the Island, may I respectfully suggest, if there is to be a move to fluoridation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley rightly suggested, that it please start where it is arguably most needed—on the Isle of Wight?
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this important debate.
As the Minister knows all too well, I have spoken on this issue many times in this place, but the problems facing NHS dentistry have never been more serious or the need for action more pressing. The flurry of reports and media coverage in the past couple of days confirms the urgency of the crisis before us. Last week’s Insight report from the Care Quality Commission questioned whether enough NHS dental capacity is commissioned, and challenged commissioners to ensure that everyone, especially those who are vulnerable, have access to NHS dental care.
Yesterday’s report by Healthwatch England stressed that the dental crisis shows no signs of slowing and rightly called for a radical rethink of NHS dentistry and a rapid, radical reform of the way that dentistry is commissioned and provided. Today’s analysis by the British Dental Association warns that the extreme pressures of trying to hit unrealistic activity targets and working long hours in heavy-duty PPE have led to an unprecedented crisis in morale among the dental workforce, with almost half of NHS dentists saying it is likely that they will reduce their NHS commitment or leave the profession altogether in the next 12 months. Unless we urgently act to avoid the looming exodus of dentists in the NHS, the consequences for patients will be dire.
Bradford South has faced serious challenges with access to NHS dentistry for a long time. The triple whammy of chronic underfunding, the failed dental contract and the pressures of the pandemic means that the kind of problems that we have long seen in my constituency, and West Yorkshire more widely, have now reached almost every community in England. However, I look forward to meeting the Minister and her team again to examine the data and the outcomes of the extended pilot project to increase access to dentists in Bradford.
The BDA estimates that 30 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic. That is an unprecedented backlog that would take years to clear, even under the very best of circumstances, but considering the growing crisis in access throughout the country, the Minister must do all she can to support NHS dental teams as they work to meet the extraordinary challenge. Unless we make NHS dentistry a place where people want to work, the crisis we are seeing now will become a permanent state of affairs.
First and foremost, on dental contract reform, I will not outline yet again all the reasons why the current contract needs to be abandoned. I know that I would be preaching to the converted, as the Minister and colleagues on both sides of the House agree with me on that. I welcome the Minister’s recent assurances that a reformed system might be rolled out next year. I stress that it is crucial that new contractual arrangements are rolled out no later than April 2022, as we simply do not have the luxury of more time. The issue is now so urgent that there can be no more kicking the can down the road.
It is also essential that the new system does not simply tinker around the edges of the current discredited contract. We need to see a decisive break from units of dental activity, which are completely incompatible with providing safe, sustainable services for patients as we emerge from the pandemic. The new contract must have prevention at its heart and ensure that dentistry is available to all. Secondly, we must support dentists to see as many patients as safely as they can, but in a way that is sustainable. I am sure the Minister will be telling us later how activity targets imposed by the Government in January and increased further in April have helped to improve access to NHS dentistry. I am sure that, faced with severe financial penalties, which could destabilise or even bankrupt their practice, NHS dentists have seen more patients since the targets were introduced. However, we must question at what cost—to both patients and to the workforce—these targets were met.
The BDA members’ survey indicates that more than 90% of dentists had to take extra measures to meet their targets, with large proportions forced to reduce the amount of private work they do, which, in the long term, subsidises the NHS side of their businesses. They had to cancel annual leave and work extended hours in heavy duty PPE, and I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is not sustainable in the long run and explains the rock-bottom morale of the workforce. More importantly, patients pay the price for this extreme pressure to clock units of dental activity.
Dentists report being forced to prioritise routine appointments over dealing with a huge backlog of urgent care, which is much more time consuming and complex but counts roughly towards the same target. The current 60% target in England is four times higher than the 15% dentists in Northern Ireland have been asked to deliver, and three times as high as the 20% that dentists in Scotland will be asked to deliver later this year. The Labour Government in Wales rightly recognised that targets were not the best way to support dentists in seeing more patients and did not introduce them.
Ultimately, the extreme nature of the target in England drives dentists out of the NHS. Access to dental services will be reduced permanently and it will be the patients who, in the long term, pay the price for what, in the short term, might look like a policy that benefits them. It would be much more effective and, crucially, more sustainable to follow the actions of the Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations and help dentists reduce the gaps they need to keep between patients by helping them to upgrade their ventilation equipment. Many have already done so, but nearly 70% of practices report that they now face financial barriers to further investment in this area. Can the Minister outline why England remains the only part of the UK not to even investigate the merit of providing capital investment to help increase access safely?
Can the Minister also set out her plans to change the current high-intensity infection prevention and control measures? Fallow time and having to work long hours in heavy duty PPE is exhausting and demoralising for dental staff, as well as reducing access for patients. Most colleagues have focused on high-street dentistry, but we should not forget that we are also facing a major backlog in secondary dental care services. In Bradford, almost 1,000 children under the age of 10 had to be admitted to hospital to have decayed teeth removed under general anaesthetic in 2019-20. The pandemic has certainly not reduced the need for such operations but most of those procedures have been on hold since it started. That has led potentially to tens of thousands of children and adults with special needs waiting in pain, in many cases much longer than a year. Can the Minister tell us how many are currently on the waiting list for hospital dental procedures and how she plans to tackle unacceptably long waits for those operations?
Finally, I urge the Minister not to treat dentistry as an afterthought in reforms of the healthcare system. Changes to primary care commissioning in the upcoming Health and Social Care Bill must not lead to a postcode lottery or further cuts to extremely overstretched dental budgets and dental services. They must be represented in the governance structures of the integrated care system. Beyond the measures on fluoridation, the White Paper barely mentioned dentistry at all, which, in itself, is quite telling. To turn the page on the access crisis we are currently seeing, we must finally stop treating dental services as a Cinderella service of the NHS and give it the priority it deserves.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. My gratitude goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), as this debate is timely and important for all our communities. He is a long-standing champion of better public services for all.
I begin by thanking all dentists and dental staff in our country. They do a difficult job and the pandemic has made it even harder. I know from experience that the British Dental Association plays an important role in supporting the dental community and, of course, patients, and I am grateful to it. Earlier this week, there were reports in the media regarding the state of our dental industry. As ever, it is the most disadvantaged in our communities who have borne the brunt of the crisis in the sector. Healthwatch England reported that it had seen a significant rise in calls and complaints at the start of this year. The pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge, but it cannot be acceptable that in one of the richest countries in the world some people have been informed that they have to wait up to three years to see a dentist.
Shockingly, 22% of children under five in Stockport have experience of tooth decay, which compares unfavourably with the best area in England, where only 7% of children have decay. In addition, last year 300 children in Stockport had teeth extracted under a general anaesthetic in a hospital due to tooth decay. In the latest GP patient survey, 14% of adults surveyed in the Stockport clinical commissioning group area said that they had not tried to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the past two years because they assumed that none would be available. Only 2% said that they were currently on a waiting list for an appointment. The British Dental Association has welcomed the Government’s commitment to dental contract reform, but these reforms must be meaningful. They must expand access to NHS dentists across England because private treatment is not accessible to everyone.
It is an old saying that prevention is better than cure, so these reforms must also prioritise prevention. In the past two years, 135 children were admitted to hospitals in England for extraction of decayed teeth every single day. Shockingly, this continues to be the No.1 reason for children under five being admitted to hospitals in the UK. The data tells us that supervised tooth brushing improves oral health, but also saves money in the long term. We need a dedicated funding package in England for these programmes.
As is often the case, underfunding is the basis of many long-term problems. The data on the number of practices providing NHS dentistry makes for depressing reading. The British Dental Association has reported that the number of practices providing NHS dentistry fell by more than 1,200 in the past five years. Adding the pandemic to this equation means that the nation is facing an exodus of dentists from the NHS. As I said, the upcoming reforms must be meaningful and expand access to NHS dentists across the country.
In March, I tabled three separate written parliamentary questions regarding people on waiting lists to register with an NHS dentist in Stockport, in the north-west region and in England. Unfortunately, the Minister’s answers to all my questions were the same. It is simply unacceptable that the Department of Health and Social Care does not hold this data centrally. How can we expect the Government to tackle the serious and long-term issues relating to NHS dentistry if they do not even hold the data centrally? That suggests that the Government are either not taking this crisis seriously or are woefully underprepared to tackle it.
Frustratingly, as several Members on both sides of the House have highlighted in the main Chamber, we have seen a pattern of behaviour from the Department of Health and Social Care of taking an unreasonably long time to respond to letters, queries and written parliamentary questions from MPs. That is simply not acceptable and makes our role of representing our constituents all the harder.
The Government must reform the system so that everyone has access to an NHS dentist, within a reasonable distance and timescale. We are facing a dental crisis. We must do more to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities have access to treatment and no longer face the prospect of being priced out of treatment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you, Ms Bardell, for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate with you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for putting the debate into context. Here I am again debating dental services with the Minister and, yet again, championing the needs of my constituents and the dentists who have worked relentlessly throughout this pandemic in extremely difficult circumstances.
York had a dental crisis before the pandemic. Constituents now tell me that they have to wait at least three years to receive NHS treatment and that those trying to register struggle or simply search for treatment outside the area. We have serious problems in York, as the Minister knows. NHS treatment needs to be available for all and, tragically, it is not. Many are now turning to accident and emergency services to get pain relief or a course of antibiotics. Private care is not an option, nor should it ever be.
Successive Ministers have failed to address this crisis. This month, the Minister was unable to tell me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) has said, how many NHS dentists there are in my city. The fact that she does not have that basic data gives me little hope that the Government have really got a grip on the scale of this crisis and the needs that must be addressed.
It is perplexing that oral health is seen to be different from other areas of healthcare, and that we have to pay for things that are done to our mouths but not to the rest of our bodies. It did not start that way. When Nye Bevan established the NHS, dentistry was free at the point of need and everyone was entitled to have their check-ups and treatment on the NHS. It was transformative. In 1951, the first assault on our NHS occurred when charges were introduced. That caused Bevan to resign in disgust, and sadly since then the divorcing of oral health from the rest of medical care has failed to serve us well.
Evidence from the BDA—I thank it for the work it does—shows that the pattern of health inequalities in other areas of healthcare is reflected in dentistry and oral healthcare, so it is time for integration, not segregation. Although I understand the point that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made, he did not suggest a solution. Of course, we need to ensure that good-quality, healthy food is available for all, particularly those living in deprivation, but it is wrong to blame those individuals for their lack of choice due to their financial circumstances.
This patchwork of failed contracts has courted privatisation and created a dependency on labour from other countries which, simultaneously, this Government are spurning. In the past year, I have been on a journey with many of York’s dentists to learn why, unless we see radical change to the delivery of dental services, the system will collapse. Dentists will burn out or leave—indeed, they are doing so as we speak—and the nation’s oral hygiene will deteriorate further. Even during the pandemic, dentists have been told that they will be penalised if they fail to deliver unrealistic contractual targets while practising in a covid-risk environment.
The NHS dental contract fails to pay. The Minister sets unrealistic targets—units of dental activity—without consideration of the scale of the barriers that dentistry is facing, and without providing mitigation. Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland seem to have understood that, but this Minister has not. In a post-covid world, and against a backlog of more than 20 million appointments—think about the scale of that; we are rightly exercised by the 5 million outstanding secondary-care appointments that we are having to grapple with at the moment—it is baffling that the Government have failed to grip the scale of this deepening crisis and have not instituted an emergency service.
The tightening of the thumbscrews on dentists through their contracts shows no mercy, despite their call for ventilation equipment funding, high-grade PPE and an understanding that requiring treatment rooms to lay fallow before a deep clean can commence due to the aerosol- generating procedures eats into dentists’ ability to deliver their contract obligations. The arbitrary, unevidenced targets require dentists to work round the clock, cancel leave and often their whole lives. They force dentists to focus on high-volume, low-risk work such as check-ups, while patients requiring treatment, not least complex treatment, are made to wait. It is unethical and wrong.
To top it all, the Government’s net spend on dental services, as we have heard, has been cut by more than a third in the past decade. Evidence shows that every pound invested can save over three, as well as teeth. This is the moment to start again, and I am glad the Minister is in listening mode. We have the diagnosis. We know the problems and the scale of the challenge. It is not time to tweak locum contracts or drive our dental staff harder. It is time to get a real, pragmatic solution in place. There is an opportunity to legislate for a national dental service in the forthcoming health and care Bill to solve this problem.
Oral health should be seen as a public health matter. It should attract the planning and preventive approach that any other public health emergency would. Fluoridation, as we have heard, is a no-brainer and brings universal benefits. I urge the Minister to introduce that without delay and end the postcode lottery. A principle needs to be made that everyone should be able to receive free oral health at the point of need—no barriers, and no excuses. Good oral health has to be accessible for all—nationally determined on the what, and locally determined on the how. We need to increase significantly the number of training places for dentists in the UK and ensure that the benefit they gain from training is tied in with their commitment to serve in a national dental service under NHS terms. Training bonds are not unique, and they ensure reciprocity. Therefore, they will bring real benefit to the service. What plans has the Minister executed in order to train more dental staff and ensure that we have sufficient numbers in our dental schools? What discussions are taking place? We would like to know.
Delivery is something that this pandemic has taught us all about. We need a collaborative approach—a place-based system approach—to ensure that we address the scale of the issues. The vaccine programme has settled the debate about emergency provision once and for all, and we are in that space now with dental care. Every child and young person should be able to access dental inspections in school each year, and this should be routine from when children start school. Early prevention would not only save the NHS a lot of money; it would also save children a lot of trauma.
Similar plans could be put in place for care homes. For adults, an accessible check-up service would clear the backlog and enable cases to be triaged, population-wide, into treatment. For some people, light treatment could be provided simultaneously, with more complex cases referred to a booking system.
As we have seen with this pandemic, there are collaborative ways to address health crises. A place-based approach, whereby barriers can be removed, can be enabled to provide the solutions. Rather than struggling to design ever-more challenging contracts and systems to serve a fair model, the Minister could create a national dental service and use this framework to work with local delivery partners. In a matter of months, she could start turning this vital service around for all.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, may I gently and politely remind Members to turn off their phones or put them on silent during the debate?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this hugely important and timely debate. It is certainly very important for my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.
I sponsored a Back-Bench debate on this topic back in January, and here we are again. In that debate, there was real agreement from Members from different parties that there was an impending crisis facing UK dentistry, and that the actions that needed to be taken to avoid it were clear, yet the crisis remains. Patients in my constituency and across the country still have huge concerns about accessing dentistry and getting the care that they need.
Not enough action is being taken, so the Government should not have been surprised to wake up and find this morning’s front pages covered in reports of a three-year waiting list for some patients to see an NHS dentist. According to a new survey of dentists in England, nearly half indicate that they are now likely to seek a change of career or early retirement in the next 12 months should the covid restrictions stay in place. The same proportion say they are likely to reduce their NHS commitment. That is very important, because we particularly need to save NHS dentistry.
In the five years before the start of the pandemic, the number of practices providing NHS dentistry fell by 1,253. Some 85% of dental practices are now closed to new NHS patients, and 60% are closed to child patients. I can see this in my constituency in London and across the country. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of NHS dentistry hangs in the balance right now, and it is people who are on lower incomes who are the most affected. The Government have been warned time and again by MPs, the British Dental Association, mydentist, patients and dental practitioners, yet we feel that their warnings are falling on deaf ears. I hope we hear differently from the Minister.
As colleagues know, and as has been said, 20 million appointments were lost between March and November, which has created a huge backlog that will take years to clear unless it is addressed now. In my own borough of Wandsworth, nearly 6,000 fewer courses of treatment took place in the final quarter of 2020. One child is hospitalised for a tooth extraction every 10 minutes. I am a mother who took my child to hospital for a tooth extraction. I have seen many other children there and I know how devastating it is at the time. It can have long-term implications for the child’s health as well, but that can be prevented, so I will go through some of the preventive measures.
I welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to dental contract reform, which is essential. The new contract must break with units of dental activity. It must prioritise prevention and ensure that NHS dentistry is available to all who need it. After a decade spent developing new systems, it is crucial that the Government deliver on their commitment to roll out new contractual arrangements by April 2022. It is also important to make it clear that the roots of the crisis we face go back to well before the pandemic. This is not just about covid prevention measures. It has been a long time coming and the pandemic has only lit the touchpaper.
There is a huge disparity in funding across the UK. The Labour Government in Wales spend approximately £47 per year on primary care dentistry per head of population compared with only £34 in England. As capacity across the service continues to be severely limited by infection control measures, access problems have now reached an unprecedented scale in every community, with the existing deep inequalities of both access and outcomes set to widen even further. When the Minister responds, I would like to hear reassurances about action on prevention, about current practices and ventilation, and about dentist retention, especially recruitment, which I will focus on.
First, prevention. There has been a lack of face-to-face health visiting, especially for early years. In early years settings, supervised brushing and encouraging parents and teaching them about supervised brushing has been limited. There needs to be a real upgrade and fast tracking of check-ups in the early years settings so that we do not have a huge backlog of issues in later years. There needs to be dedicated funding for new water fluoridisation schemes, as many other Members have said—I am fully in favour of those—and further measures to reduce sugar consumption.
On recruitment, my dentist is the main provider of NHS dental care, and they consider this a priority issue for now. There are not enough places to train UK dentists in the UK, and the intake is dropping, not increasing as we need it to. Even if the numbers were to increase, it would take six years to have an effect because it takes six years to train a dentist, so there needs to be secondary legislation to change the overseas registration process. That would not cost anything, which I am sure the Minister would welcome. It has a huge amount of support from dental associations and practices, and it could be relatively simple and quick to see an effect with more dentists coming from overseas to this country. A simple change in the way that dental qualifications are recognised would make a difference.
The overseas registration process has to be carried out in the UK. It costs £4,000 and takes 12 months. If the overseas registration exam process could be equivalent for dentists and medics, including part 1 to be carried out overseas and increasing spaces on that exam, it would make a huge difference. Such small changes could transform dental care in this country.
Prior to 2001, the General Dental Council pre-approved certain dental qualifications outside of the European economic area. That was due to our membership of the European Union, but it changed because of Brexit. Now—I do not say this very often—we could take advantage of Brexit and return to the pre-2001 system of prioritising Commonwealth dental schools by recognising select qualifications.
We must support all practices to enable them to increase the number of patients. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and others have said, they must have capital expenditure for new ventilation equipment and also a road map out of the use of heavy-duty PPE, which is bringing down morale and will not be needed in future. Also, the fallow times need to be brought down. We need to prioritise dentistry in the upcoming reforms of the healthcare system, particularly in the health and social care Bill, and we need an urgent review of the whole system, especially new targets—not for dental activity but for increased retention of NHS dentists.
It is time to stop the slide into the privatisation of dentistry. It is time to stop treating dental health as a kind of luxury instead of there being free oral health at the point of need. We are sleepwalking into the biggest oral health crisis since the creation of the NHS. It is time the Government took responsibility and rescued UK dentistry before it is too late.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate. Like much of our health service and, indeed, British life during the pandemic, dentistry has had to stretch and adapt and tackle its own unique challenges. It is welcome and important for us to have the opportunity to discuss this today; the steps required to recover and rebuild; and the wider oral health issues that we have not been able to deal with during the pandemic.
My hon. Friend led us in a strong manner and clearly laid out for those watching the gravity of the situation and the amount of pain that has been building up. He made important points about contract reform that I will return to. I have felt among friends and perhaps, even the usual suspects, as a number of us have talked about dentistry throughout the pandemic and before: my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson). Their points were very pertinent, particularly the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South about finances; by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South about prevention; and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport about disadvantage and his frustrations on data, to which I will also return. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central spoke about the crisis prior to the pandemic and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has just spoken about recruitment. They were all very well-made points and I will be returning to them in my contribution.
On the Government Benches, we are very lucky to have the professional insights of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). His points about fluoridation were excellent—I share much of them and will be returning to them. I could not agree with his points about decoupling deprivation and personal choice. Of course, personal judgments are always critical, but if we decouple deprivation, it would not explain why we see poor oral health generation after generation, year after year on the same streets and on the same estates, which are always the poorest ones. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) was dogged in his persistence around equity of access. His points were unique to the Isle of Wight but I share a lot of commonalities in my community, and from what I have heard, so do other parts of the country.
Where do we stand today? Two in three adults in the UK have visible plaque. Almost one in three have tooth decay. Three in four have had a tooth extracted—including me. Over 3 million people suffer from regular oral pain and there are over 8,300 new cases of mouth cancer every year. That is the scorecard for Britain’s oral health as we meet today. That is why it is so important that we act in this area. We are talking today about oral health and dentistry, but you cannot decouple those two things. Support for dentistry is support for our oral health, and good oral health in this country will mean that we are in a better and stronger position around dentistry.
I will begin with dentistry. In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney secured a debate in the main Chamber about the future of dentistry. It was well-timed and came just as the Government’s newly imposed activity targets on the profession were under way and just as we had re-entered another lockdown. I will reiterate what I said that day. Of course, activity is needed to ramp up to start to tackle the growing backlog of need in this country, but the failure of the Government to ensure that NHS England and those who negotiate for the dentists came to a workable, mutually agreeable deal was a significant failure of leadership. It led to significant anxiety and weakened dental services in the long run.
When the debate was announced, I submitted a number of written questions to help us to establish the facts regarding what has happened since that debate in January and they were named for response yesterday. I am sad and disappointed that the Department came back last night to say that we would not be able to get an answer in time, which is a shame. I am surprised the data is not more readily available and hope the Minister will help us with that today. The four questions were: how many practices hit the 45% target; how many missed the 45% target but hit the 36% figure to avoid clawback; how many have given their NHS contract back; and how many have served notice that they intend to do so? I hope that data is readily available. It would help us in our discussions about the future.
I understand that the mean UDA performance between January and March was 59%. The British Dental Association reports that the majority of practices have hit these targets by adopting approaches—such as working beyond contracted hours, cancelling annual leave and prioritising routine care over complex cases—that are at best unsustainable, and at worst dangerous.
Furthermore, they have surveyed their members to find out what impact the last quarter has had on them: 29% say they intend to stop doing NHS work entirely and nearly half intend to reduce NHS work. A similar proportion say that they are likely to change career or retire should the current restrictions stay in place. That is the staggering personal impact of an imposed settlement that has led to unsatisfactory working practices and extraordinary stresses.
Discussing the judgments that have been made in the past is important, but also as we go forward because now that target goes from 45% to 60%, which will last us through to September. I hope that the Minister can tell us what extra support the Government will provide to practices to enable them to increase the number of patients they can see to hit their increased target, to do it safely and to do it in a way that does not incentivise perverse working practices that we would not want to see.
We know how those in the profession feel about this from the same BDA survey. Nearly two thirds of NHS dentists do not think they will hit that target, and 88% of dentists report that the current conditions have had a high impact on their morale. We need to hear from the Minister what extra support they would get, particularly around the operating procedure, or perhaps, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley says, a roadmap from restrictions or access to technology to allow them to do more. Throughout this debate, we have heard that there has been far too much stick and never any carrot. I think it is time to recognise the contribution by working with the profession rather than against them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, this pandemic has exposed a service built on sand. The NHS general dental practice is the only part of the NHS in England operating on a lower budget in cash terms than in 2010, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South also said. In real terms, net Government spend on general dental practices in England has been cut by over a third over the past decade, with the number of NHS dental practices in England falling by more than 1,200 in the five years prior to the pandemic—then we wonder why we have an access issue.
Similarly, relentless cuts to the public health budget year on year for a decade have meant that supervised toothbrushing schemes, like the excellent Teeth Team in my community, are a rarity when they should be the norm. That is the Government’s legacy in oral health for the past decade. As we know, that has the greatest impact on the poorest and the youngest. In 2020, more than 70% of children did not see an NHS dentist, despite tooth decay being a leading cause of hospitalisation for 5 to 9-year-olds. We also know the massive impact that has on school absence. This is a serious social issue, and we are letting our children down.
Where can we go from here? I do not think it is hyperbolic to say that we are in the last chance saloon for NHS dentistry. All of the evidence shows that we are clearly on a trajectory that is pushing patients from the public sector into the private sector. This is happening with the workforce too, pushing them from the NHS into the private sector, but there is hope and there are opportunities, and we need to grasp them.
First, we need contract reform. I support what the Minister has said previously and publicly on contract reform. It is welcome that NHS England and the dental profession are in the same place and have agreed very sound basic principles for contract reform. That is very good news indeed. We, as Opposition, will support this process and help build consensus around it. My major call here is that we must go at pace to move beyond UDAs—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South made some excellent points there—into a new, more preventative future for oral health. We have got to be ready by April 2022, so I hope the Minister can update us there.
Secondly, I welcome the commitments made around fluoridation. I bear the scars of many years of saying that I believe Nottingham’s water should have fluoride in it, I do. The counter lobby, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, are aggressive, vicious and very similar in many ways to the anti-vax movement. However, if the Government bring forward sensible proposals, I would be very keen indeed to build consensus around them. This is a great national prize and a great opportunity for public health.
Thirdly, we need a renewal of oral health as a core element of public health. The Government should reverse their cuts to the public health grant so that local authorities can provide preventative services, particularly in the poorest communities and particularly targeted at their children. I am glad that the Government now want to consult on reintroducing schemes such as supervised toothbrushing, but it is hard not to have a slight sense of grievance given that local communities were already doing this before they had the means to do so taken away. That is what happened, but now we must move forward. Again, we should be doing that at pace.
Finally, we should take a robust look at the supply chain. The Minister knows I have concerns about the dentistry supply chain, particularly for dental labs, which have not been part of any of these contracting conversations but are significantly impacted by them.
To conclude, we entered this crisis having underfunded and under-supported dentistry. We have navigated this crisis by treating the profession as antagonists, rather than partners. If we want to build a new future for oral health and dentistry, we can do it by investing in it and all coming together. I hope to hear a commitment on that from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this important debate. We have heard during the debate that we all want better dentistry. I would like us to have that conversation in a constructive and positive manner going forward.
I thank all members of the dental profession. This has been incredibly tough, but there is a reason. I very gently point out that dentistry uses aerosol-generating procedures. Dentists work very much around the mouth and nose, where there are saliva and droplets. The whole onus of what we did at the beginning was to keep people safe—the profession, their teams and their patients. It has been a very slow rebuild, and infection control still lies at the centre of that. I would like everybody to remember that, because it makes dentistry a uniquely challenging area to try to deal with.
I agree with everyone that dentistry was an incredibly challenging area before the pandemic. Certain parts of the country, including the east of England but also the south-west, already had systemic problems. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and I have had conversations about how we can improve this and drive things forward. The Healthwatch report published yesterday shows that demand for dental access remains high, and that many patients are experiencing difficulties. I am not shying away from the fact that there is a problem and that we need to work hard to fix it. However, there was an access problem prior to the pandemic as well. I very much welcome the Healthwatch report, and I look forward to meeting the chair of that organisation tomorrow.
The pandemic has had, and continues to have, a substantial impact on dentistry, and I am grateful to dentists and all their teams for their continued resilience and dedication in providing the best care for their patients under extremely challenging circumstances. They have had to adjust to working differently and responding to new challenges, especially around infection and control measures, which I know they find restrictive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) brought members of the profession and we discussed how difficult it is to work in the PPE and so on. We are looking, with Public Health England, at how we can provide them with that assurance. However, once again, at the heart of this lies the fact that my primary concern is to make sure everybody is safe. I would not be doing what I am tasked with if that were not the case.
Ventilation was bought up by several people. There are significant and practical financial and timing challenges in assessing and putting it in. Not every dentist owns their own premises, and not every dentist acts only in their own premises. However, I have asked NHS England what we can do in this area, what is practical and what can be achieved by working with the profession. The aerosol-generating procedures obviously involve high-speed drilling, creating a fine spray of saliva, which creates a heightened risk of transmission, as pointed out. In response to our usual high street dental practices, we required dentists to wear full PPE and to rest rooms early in the pandemic for up to an hour. That caused problems, and challenges with getting volume through. That caused problems, and challenges with getting volume through. With the new guidance, however, the time in many cases is down to as little as 10 minutes, depending on, as I have said, the level of ventilation and other things. That has been an important step forward in allowing greater throughput in practices and has helped to facilitate more care for more patients. But we are asking the profession to see patients on the basis of need. As everybody has pointed out, there has been an enormous backlog for some considerable time. We need to ensure that we are seeing the people who have the most urgent and essential need first. That is why people will not always get a routine appointment at the first time of asking.
Taking revised IPC—infection prevention and control—requirements into account, we have worked closely with NHS England in considering what levels of NHS dentistry can be delivered in the current environment. It is undeniable that the pandemic and the necessary steps that we have had to take to protect dental patients and staff have led to a reduction in the number of patients treated. That is self-evident, but we are continuing to work with dentists, the broader profession and NHSE to develop a road map, which is essentially what everybody needs in order to move forward.
I know that many across the House are concerned about the thresholds; the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who is always constructive in these things, has said that they were introduced last year. But there is a fine line here. In the beginning, we supported the profession with 100% of payments for what it was delivering, but we now need to get that volume up. We cannot have no targets for delivery; we cannot have a drive towards giving more patient care but not ask the profession to deliver more. That just does not work. Dental practices have been asked to deliver more care, prioritising based on clinical need, and in that way we have sought to target available capacity at those who need it most. I am pleased to say that approximately 95% of practices exceeded the threshold for full remuneration set in the last quarter of last year, so up to March. The average performance in February was 59%.[Official Report, 7 June 2021, Vol. 696, c. 2MC.] The hon. Member for Bedford will be pleased to hear that 87% of his local NHS practices have already exceeded the threshold, and there is still time to submit the activity for quarter 4.
We have continued to monitor the levels of NHS care being delivered, and on that basis we have set the new threshold of 60% for dental activity and 80% for orthodontic activity between April and September. Sixty per cent. still means 40% of people who were seen before not being seen, and that was still not a system that was enabling everybody to be seen. That is why we have challenges throughout the system, but the thresholds were based on data. The accusation that they were not modelled properly and we did not look at them is actually not fair, because we have done that. I am terribly sorry, but I cannot remember who said that people were not doing NHS care but reverting to private care. I think it was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), or was it the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)? It is still a patient in their chair; it is still activity; it is still volume. It is just a different way of charging.
Again, the thresholds were based on modelling. There is a need to lift capacity if we are to care for patients. We are monitoring on a monthly basis, and the thresholds have been put in place for six months to provide some stability to the system. To improve access for those who need it most, NHS England has also provided a flexible commissioning toolkit; it has been charged to do that. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, as my discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley have shown and as we discussed in the previous debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Putney, these things are in train. We need to effect change. The UDA—unit of dental activity—system, brought in by the Labour Government in 2006, is broken; we understand that it is broken, but these things take more than a month to put in place. To improve access for those who need it most, we are pushing on with flexible commissioning, focusing on those experiencing health inequality and on available capacity where it will impact oral health most. We are looking at and targeting those vulnerable groups who have been referred to by so many hon. Members.
The situation remains challenging, even as we see more and more people being vaccinated, and certainly in Bedford there are challenges. I spoke to the hon. Member for Bedford last week about surge testing and turbo-charging the vaccination programme in Bedford. We need to be aware that, when there are these challenges, we have to look at dentistry and be doubly careful that we are aware of variants of concern in some of these areas.
Many patients are still experiencing difficulties in finding an NHS dentist. NHS England’s customer care centre can help people, and patients with urgent need can also call NHS 111. I say to the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) that there are 10 urgent dental care, or UDC, teams across Norfolk. So, if anybody needs that number of teeth extracted or is in pain they should ring 111 and they will be directed to a UDC for urgent care.
Actually, we are seeing broadly the same number of patients through urgent care as we were pre-pandemic, showing that the current prioritisation is keeping numbers stable. However, the need for urgent care is not wavering and in all reality it will rise, because people have been waiting for a longer period of time.
I acknowledge that the Healthwatch report also highlights the fact that information on NHS dentist availability is not always easy to access. Again, I have tasked others with going away and making sure that patient information is more readily available. So, NHS dental practices will be asked to update their information online, because much of it is out of date, meaning that it is much harder for individuals to see what is available locally. The update will mean they can find the care they need.
I have also asked that we truly look at and identify where we have dental capacity and where we have dental deserts, as it were. That goes to not only where we target the workforce—we are working with the GDC very closely on overseas registration and so on—but how we actually deliver, because parts of the country have much greater access problems than other parts.
Throughout the pandemic, we have supported NHS practices, in addition to paying the full contractual value for the lower ends of activity. We have also provided free PPE from the dedicated portal. As of 18 May, nearly 7,000 dental providers have registered with the portal, which has shipped over 367 million items to dentists, orthodontists and their broader teams.
I will move on to contract reform. The pandemic continues to highlight the fact that transformation in dentistry is essential. If we are to address continuing inequalities, particularly in children’s oral health, I want to see a change in the way we approach dental services and oral health. We have much to build on, but it is time to move from research to action.
We are grateful to the prototype practices, whose commitment to the reform programme has been invaluable over the years, and their ongoing participation has enabled us to gather vital data, which will inform the next stage of the reform process. I have spoken to people with different systems, from as close as Wales—leading academics and practitioners—but also people from right across Europe. I have spoken to people who provide services that are totally free at the point of delivery and those who have a total charging system.
No country has a perfect system. Dentistry offers an incredible challenge. We have a mix of private, mixed and NHS services, and I would like to maintain that environment. We need to develop a sustainable, long-term approach to dentistry that is responsive to the population, providing high-quality urgent treatment and restorative dentistry.
There is an opportunity for the whole team to support improved population health. Everything we eat goes in through our mouths, so dentists are great in helping to advise in other general areas of health, such as obesity and so on. We have a profession that is eager to contribute more and enthusiastic to do so. High-quality prevention needs to be at the forefront, and I am determined that a transformation in commissioning will help us to achieve that.
I am beginning to run short of time, for which I apologise. A toothbrush costs 33p. Every parent needs to help us to care for their children’s teeth. Oral decay is preventable. We need to work together, so that there is more supervised tooth brushing but also more parental guidance, so that parents can help their children to have healthy oral hygiene.
I want to see water fluoridation, which has been in some parts of England for decades, rolled out. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) argue that his constituency would be a good test place. A provision needs to be included in the upcoming health and social care Bill, to transfer responsibility to the Secretary of State, in order to expand schemes more easily. I am glad to see the unanimous support for that. Subject to funding being secured and to consultation with partners, that is something we need to work on together. I want to prevent the unnecessary pain and suffering each year of those 37,000 children in many of our constituencies. Water fluoridation offers the quickest return on investment, giving as much as £35 return for every £1 spent.
I hope it provides reassurance that I meet regularly with the profession. I am meeting the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health next week. We are committed to ensuring that patients can access NHS dentistry and supporting the profession. A substantial amount of work is going on, changing the way dental services are provided to improve the health of the population.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Asylum Dispersal Scheme: Stoke-on-Trent
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall between speeches.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the asylum dispersal scheme in Stoke-on-Trent.
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Bardell. Today I need to talk about something that is incredibly important to the constituents of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, as well as those in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent constituencies, and that is the asylum dispersal scheme. Before I begin, I would like to place on record how immensely proud I am that Stoke-on-Trent has become the second home of the Home Office. With the recent announcement, we now have more than 550 jobs coming into the city of Stoke-on-Trent—new jobs that will give entry-level opportunities at all grades for the fine people working there, of which 200 will be asylum case workers.
We have a long history of working with the Home Office, and this relationship is set to become even deeper. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office for all their work in making this move possible, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and the leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Councillor Abi Brown, without whom, as a team, I do not believe this would necessarily have got over the line.
Following on from the excellent speech by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who spoke with the Minister at the end of April in a similar debate, I want to keep reiterating the same messages. To be very clear, Stoke-on-Trent has done more than almost any other area in giving asylum seekers a home. We had the fifth highest number of asylum seekers per 10,000 of the population across the whole of the UK at the end of last year, with only Rochdale, Middlesbrough, Cardiff and Glasgow having higher numbers. At the end of August 2020, Stoke-on-Trent was housing 1,010 asylum seekers. This means that one in every 250 people living in Stoke-on-Trent is now an asylum seeker.
We have a very high cluster limit ratio of 79%, compared with 29% in Birmingham, and our city council has repeatedly had to challenge proposals made over the last year to increase numbers further, yet the position is about to get even more unbalanced. The pandemic has led to roughly 10,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels around the country. Under Operation Oak, which aims to vacate all hotel occupation as close to the end of the first quarter of 2021 as possible, companies such as Serco are stepping up their procurement of more permanent housing. To make the system fair, I would have expected Serco to focus on areas that have taken in no asylum seekers, but no. Rather than taking an even-handed approach, it has chosen to double down in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which are already stretched to breaking point.
Some 1,760 of those 10,000 people have been allocated for dispersal in the west midlands. Although no figures have been given for individual authorities, the west midlands region will be taking the highest strain in the country. It is very likely that the new arrivals could take Stoke-on-Trent to the one-in-200 limit. The maximum number, based on the one-in-200 limit, would be 1,277 individuals, an increase of just 267.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an important issue. I am aware that the Government have a proposal that by 2029 the proportion of supported asylum seekers accommodated in each government region will reflect their share of the United Kingdom population. Does he agree that there must be substantially greater funding to establish suitable family housing in these circumstances, and that to achieve this goal additional resources need to be set aside from today to make our asylum system work? That would be a minor effort as we have 4,000 people on the housing list. We want them and we support this scheme, but we have to be aware of the reality that there is not enough housing available.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he really is my hon. Friend and a superb colleague. He absolutely hits the nail on the head. We will hear a similar story about Stoke- on-Trent, where people are looking for two-bedroom and three-bedroom homes and young families are struggling because we do not have one-bedroom sheltered accommodation for the elderly population to move into. Our schools are at absolute capacity, if not over capacity, and we have a public transport system that has, quite frankly, been well and truly left behind.
All those factors need to be taken into account. Stoke-on-Trent also has the second lowest council tax income in England, just above Hull, so there is a real strain on the public purse. More needs to be done financially to assist areas like Stoke-on-Trent that are—I will repeat this—happy to welcome those who are most in need. We want to be an open, forward-thinking and dynamic city, but we also want the spread to be fair across the whole of our United Kingdom.
Based on the cluster limit of one in 200, the maximum number of asylum seekers would be 1,277 individuals, but based on the average of three asylum seekers per dispersal property, that will require 89 more properties. Indeed, in many areas of Stoke-on-Trent this limit has already been broken, with concentrations of asylum seekers far in excess of the cluster limit.
In March this year, some 14 wards in the city had a ratio in excess of one in 200. In Etruria and Hanley, a ward I am proud to share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), the ratio is one to 44 and in some other areas it is as high as one in 30. These concerns have been raised by council officers directly with Serco, but, despite the council voicing its concerns to Serco repeatedly, the response to date has been extremely disappointing.
Rather than considering the situation in individual wards, Serco has undertaken only not to exceed the one in 200 cluster limit for the city as a whole. It has also refused to provide real-time feedback on property procurement, offering nothing more than a current quarterly report on the properties being used for dispersal accommodation. Data from Serco shows that 66 requests were made for properties in Stoke-on-Trent in February, compared to 38 in Coventry, 33 in Wolverhampton, 31 in Birmingham, 14 in Walsall and Sandwell and 12 in Dudley.
From these numbers, it seems clear to me that Serco is not taking the concerns raised by the council seriously at all. In fact, Serco has told the council that it will soon start challenging councils when they raise concerns about the procurement of a requested property. The stark truth is that our city has now reached its limits. Services, already under strain, are being stretched even further and Serco has refused to engage with the council on this at all. As such, I completely agree with the council’s decision to pause its involvement in the dispersal scheme.
Far too often, we hear hon. Members and council leaders advocate doing more to help refugees, but when it comes to action no one stands up. It is simply not acceptable that, while Stoke-on-Trent has taken in more than 1,000 asylum seekers and is set to take in more, a host of councils around the country have taken in none. In fact, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have not given accommodation to a single asylum seeker.
Given the frequent attacks that the Conservatives get from Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party and Green politicians about how Conservatives are heartless and must do more to help asylum seekers, one would think that they would want to lead by example. Imagine my shock when I learned that at the end of December 2020, the champagne socialists in Labour-run Islington, Labour-run Exeter and Lib Dem-run Eastleigh have not given accommodation to a single asylum seeker.
In Scotland, out of 32 councils only three have taken in asylum seekers, and two of these—Edinburgh and Fife—have taken fewer than 10. The fact is that Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems talk the talk about helping asylum seekers, but are nowhere to be seen when it comes to doing anything about them. We have to rebalance the equation, and to do that reform must come from a number of angles.
I am 100% behind the Home Secretary, her new plan for immigration and the new sovereign borders Bill. I have discussed the plan with Reverend Jim Lowe of Burslem Elim Church, who is a Trustee of the Burslem Jubilee Project in my constituency, which the Home Secretary visited in 2019. I thank the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for taking the time to meet us yesterday.
Talking to people such as Mehdi Mohammadi, an Iranian refugee from the Burslem Jubilee Project, makes it clear just how important it is that we continue to offer a safe haven for people who live in fear of persecution around the world. However, while we proudly continue to act as a beacon for asylum seekers, we must also take action to ensure that the people who are coming here are doing so legally and are genuine refugees. Failure to deter illegal crossings will inevitably lead to more people risking their lives to get here and scumbag gangs taking money out of people’s hands. Tragically, we will therefore see more people die as they try to reach our shores.
There must also be reform, so that councils that refuse to willingly play their part are mandated to take their fair share in the future. That point was made in the letter sent from council leaders and MPs in the west midlands to the Home Office, which I wholeheartedly endorse. Dispersal must be organised equitably, so that councils across the country shoulder an even share of the burden, rather than a few local authorities doing the heavy lifting, as at present.
One reason why places such as Stoke have a greater number of dispersed asylum seekers is commercial opportunity. For companies such as Serco, which administers the scheme, it makes sense to house asylum seekers in cheaper accommodation, giving the company more profit per head. It cannot be allowed to continue. Commercial considerations cannot be allowed to take precedence over local services and communities.
I am pleased to say that my excellent local branch of Citizens Advice in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire has suggested a potential solution, or at least a way that other areas might be encouraged to take part in the scheme. Rather than providing support centrally or nationally, the support budget could be divided and provided as a ring-fenced grant to the local authorities taking part in the dispersal scheme. They could then commission local services that are tailored to local needs. There is a precedent for running services like this: the funding to support victims of crime is divided between police and crime commissioners, so that they can run things based on local needs.
To rebuild trust in the system, I would urge the Minister to seriously consider the recommendations made by Stoke-on-Trent City Council on how to proceed. Serious discussions have to be had with participating authorities and those like Stoke-on-Trent, which has paused its involvement in the scheme, about what numbers they are expected to take in future. Figures must be agreed for each local authority in the west midlands, based on existing and proposed numbers. A funding package linked to the dispersal of asylum seekers should be agreed with participating authorities before any further dispersal takes place. Most important, the Secretary of State should start talking to non-participating authorities to get their agreement to accept dispersed asylum seekers, and she should use the powers to mandate participation where necessary.
In Stoke-on-Trent, we are proud to have given a home to asylum seekers, and our city council has long been a willing volunteer in the Home Office’s asylum dispersal scheme. We have a long history of working with the Home Office. As I said earlier, we will soon have even stronger ties with the Department as we become its second home. Stoke-on-Trent City Council wants to carry on working with the Home Office, but the situation has reached a point where local leaders have had to temporarily withdraw from the dispersal scheme. I do not want that, the council does not want that, and I know Ministers do not want that, but, frankly, the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke have had enough of other areas failing to chip in. I say again that we are proud to have played our part and given a safe home to so many, but now is the time for other councils to do the same.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this debate on asylum dispersal in Stoke-on-Trent. It featured a rare intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which was appreciated.
It is important to underline that our United Kingdom has a proud record of helping people facing persecution, oppression and tyranny. We stand by our moral and legal obligations to help innocent civilians fleeing cruelty around the world. A crucial part of this endeavour is the contribution that many local authorities make in supporting those obligations being delivered in reality, which applies especially to Stoke-on-Trent owing to its contribution to the asylum dispersal scheme over a number of years. I gratefully acknowledge the Members of this House who represent the local community and the city’s consistent interest in this area of work—not just by talking in the House about supporting those seeking asylum, but by actually doing it in their area. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say before, declarations of solidarity do not house anyone.
The pandemic has had a significant impact on the system of supported asylum accommodation run by the Home Office. In March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, we took the decision to pause the cessation of asylum support. That decision was taken to alleviate pressures on local authorities from people exiting the asylum system, in line with the public health advice at the time. Continuing with the cessation of support at a time when international travel was not possible and the accommodation market was very restricted across all nations of the United Kingdom would have posed a significant health risk to communities across our UK by leaving people unable to secure housing or to return home.
That decisive action has led to a significant increase in the number of people we are supporting while we consider their claim for protection. To put that in context, we have seen around a 30% increase in demand for accommodation during the pandemic, resulting in more than 60,000 asylum seekers currently being provided with accommodation while their claims are considered. That has also resulted in the use of contingency accommodation, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, including hotels and Ministry of Defence sites, requiring some people to be accommodated in such accommodation for more than a brief period.
We are, though, working closely with local authorities across our United Kingdom and our contractors to procure more housing to reduce our reliance on that type of accommodation and to minimise the amount of time that individuals are housed in it. Despite the challenges that we have faced over the past year, we have consistently met our statutory obligations to destitute asylum seekers. That has included at times, and where appropriate, continuing to provide accommodation where support would normally be ceased.
On asylum dispersal, which has rightly been the focus of this debate, hon. Members will know that, by virtue of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the United Kingdom has a statutory obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation while their application for asylum is being considered. Section 4 of the Act also requires us to provide support for failed asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute and where there are reasons that they are not able to leave the UK. That has been particularly relevant over the past year during the pandemic.
I very much recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. Many of the issues that he raised are symptoms of our broken asylum system. As he said, the measures proposed in the Home Secretary’s new plan for immigration are intended to make the asylum and appeals system faster and fairer, which will have a direct impact on the provision of asylum support and the quantity of it that we need to provide.
However, I acknowledge the desire for a much more equitable dispersal of asylum seekers across the United Kingdom to ensure that all local authorities are playing their part. I acknowledge that that has been a particular concern in the west midlands, as highlighted by the local authorities that take part in the dispersal areas writing to the Home Secretary on this matter. I would very much repeat my hon. Friend’s encouragement to all local authorities to participate in the dispersal scheme, which would enable all areas, including Stoke-on-Trent, to take a fairer share as we reform the system.
My hon. Friend mentioned the April debate. I always find it odd to hear MPs state in debates that they are desperate to do more, but they seem to think, for areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, that it does not mean their own council becoming a dispersal area. Prior to the pandemic, my officials and local authority chief executives agreed a changed plan to move, over time, to a more equitable dispersal of asylum seekers across the whole United Kingdom. Inevitably, work on that sadly had to be paused as we responded to the immediate challenges of the pandemic, but I am pleased to say that we have restarted that work. That would see the west midlands, for example, moving from currently supporting more than 12.5% of supported asylum seekers to less than 10.5% by 2024. In addition to implementing the changed plan, my officials continue to work with strategic migration partnerships and local authorities to discuss the costs associated with supporting asylum seekers in their region. Again, that touches on the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made.
We have also implemented process improvements to support collaboration between the accommodation providers and local authorities when identifying wards for future procurement. The Home Office is also working closely with a wide range of local authorities to increase the number of areas, as of today, that accommodate and support people seeking asylum protection. Every local authority is being encouraged to contribute their share. In the past three years there have been some successes, which I want to highlight, not just in the north and the midlands but in other areas—someone called them the Tory shires. Aylesbury Vale, Gosport, Oxford and Wiltshire are places that have come on board with the system. That means that we have been able to increase the number of voluntary dispersal agreements from 92 to more than 160, and we continue to try to increase dispersal across our UK, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North touched on. It is worth noting that we have agreements in place with more than 40 more authorities than are currently participating but where the providers find it particularly difficult to procure suitable properties.
I would reassure my hon. Friend that, as we take forward the new plan for immigration, we will continue to focus on working with local authorities in the UK, to move to a more equitable dispersal of asylum seekers. My officials have been asked to prepare advice on options, including analysis of the impact on communities of the current system. I intend to consult local government on those options in due course, once there is more detail to discuss with them.
The Government demand the highest standards from contractors and their accommodation, and we monitor them closely to ensure that those are maintained. Accommodation providers are required to provide safe, habitable, fit-for-purpose and correctly equipped accommodation, complying with the decent homes standard, in addition to standards outlining relevant national or local housing legislation.
The Home Office has worked closely with our providers to improve property standards over the lifetime of the previous asylum accommodation contracts, and has made several improvements in the current asylum accommodation and support contracts. Where a provider is found to fall short of those standards, we work with them to ensure that issues are quickly addressed. When they are not, we can—and do—impose service credits. Housing providers are required to inspect each property every month. The Home Office also inspects properties on a targeted basis each year.
In total, 3,300 property inspections were carried out in 2018-19, meaning that approximately 28.3% of the provider property portfolio was visited. To reassure hon. Members, only 17 properties out of that 3,300 were identified as having a defect requiring immediate action. It is important to recognise that defects will occur in properties that we are using, just as they do in social housing or the private rented sector. We would always encourage service users or their representatives to raise issues with Migrant Help as soon as they occur, so that they can be attended to.
As already mentioned, the Home Office, along with local authorities across the United Kingdom, has had to use hotel and other contingency accommodation during covid-19, although not to my knowledge in Stoke-on-Trent directly, given the contribution already being made as a dispersal area. When we look at procuring contingency accommodation, we expect our providers to engage with the police, local authorities and local contacts, prior to and during hotel use in all locations.
We regularly provide local authorities and partners with information about hotel use in their areas, including, crucially, occupancy figures. We believe that the hotel and contingency accommodation we provide is of good quality. Asylum seekers receive three meals a day, with staggered mealtimes to cater for social distancing requirements, and wider support that meets all the current public health guidance and usual contracted standards.
Where issues have been raised, we have inspected many ourselves. Our providers have also conducted surveys and acted on recommendations, in relation to matters such as the type of food provided. We have undertaken several measures in the short term to mitigate the use of hotels as contingency accommodation. Working groups have been established with three providers, to monitor the availability of accommodation within their portfolios. The groups meet Home Office officials weekly and their objective is to mitigate moving to hotel use wherever possible, by increasing the amount of dispersal accommodation in all regions of the UK.
We again thank councils such as Stoke-on-Trent for maintaining their commitment to this process, and to other areas that have been prepared to increase their share, if I may put it that way. As a result we have reduced our reliance on contingency accommodation by 25% since December, including exiting a number of hotels and ceasing use of the Penally site in Pembrokeshire. Hotels are only ever a contingency option. The Home Office does not view them as a long-term solution; it is not a position we wish to be in. We do recognise that that presents the challenge of how to ensure an effective system of dispersal accommodation that does not overburden those areas that have already made a significant contribution, especially when compared with some areas that are keen to make statements but not to provide solutions.
At our contingency accommodation at the Napier site, all the basic needs of asylum seekers are met, including their welfare needs. The site is catered with three meals per day, and options are provided that cater for special dietary, cultural or religious requirements. Additional meals can be provided as required. There is power, heating, water and access to phones, and support items such as toiletries are provided, along with access to laundry facilities. All asylum seekers housed there have access to a 24/7 advice, issue reporting and eligibility—AIRE—service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services. We are also looking into how we can use time at locations such as Napier to move forward asylum claims, including by creating interview rooms on site.
Yet the root of the issue in Stoke-on-Trent is the fact that our asylum system is broken. It is expensive and has lost public trust. It is vital that the generosity of the UK is not open to abuse from illegal migrants with no right to be here, and the ruthless criminal gangs that make money from exploiting vulnerable individuals. The challenges that we are grappling with have not been helped by the pandemic, but we must also recognise the pressure being put on the system by those who have no legitimate claim for protection or who simply want to use the asylum system as an alternative route for economic migration. While I continue to ask local authorities to act as dispersal areas—in Scotland, for example, where only Glasgow currently agrees to do so—we should not lose sight of the need for more fundamental reform of the system, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out.
We will stop those who come here illegally making endless legal claims to remain in our country at the expense of the taxpayer, and we will expedite the removal of those who have no legitimate claim for protection, reducing pressure on communities such as Stoke-on-Trent. In doing so, we will not turn our back on those who do need our protection where we can work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and our local authority partners to provide a planned pathway to integration in the United Kingdom for genuine refugees, just like the 20,000 we have successfully resettled from the conflict in Syria with the help of more than 300 local authorities.
Through our recently announced new plan for immigration, we are committed to increasing the fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum while deterring illegal entry into the United Kingdom, breaking the business model of people-smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger, including from dangerous and unnecessary sea crossings. We must do all that we can to stop that criminal activity. It is putting lives at risk. There are no two ways about it. That is why we must move to make a change. I encourage all with an interest in this area to take part in the consultation on our new plan and help to shape the future in creating a firm but fair system.
Again I thank all in Stoke-on-Trent—MPs, councillors and the community—for the commitment that they are making, and I urge other local authorities across the United Kingdom to play their part in the asylum dispersal process. As I have said before, simply making statements, joining a protest or passing motions does not deliver the support needed. I encourage more local authorities from across the country to engage with the Home Office on the strategic migration partnership to increase dispersal and relieve overall pressures on the system.
As I said, the United Kingdom has a proud record of giving refuge and sanctuary to some of the world’s most vulnerable and oppressed people, and the city of Stoke-on-Trent has provided us with invaluable support in doing that, alongside other communities in the west midlands that I look forward to meeting in the near future. As I have confirmed a number of times, the UK Government remain committed to ensuring that asylum seekers and refugees receive the support and care that they need, even in the challenging circumstances of a pandemic. Yet we cannot do that without the support—the active, engaged support—of local communities, something that the city of Stoke-on-Trent can be proud that it has provided for many years and is continuing to provide. It is now for others to do their bit as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practices in order to support the new hybrid arrangements, and timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the scope of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The unduly lenient sentencing scheme has been in existence since 1989. It was brought in as a result of woefully inadequate sentences imposed by some judges, to the horror of many members of the public. This included, of course, the so-called Ealing vicarage case, in which an offence of rape was treated less seriously than an offence of burglary. Things had to change, and I am pleased to say that they did.
Having spent 20 years working in the criminal justice system myself, I am very aware of the fact that judges generally get things right, but they are human, and mistakes happen. It is right that the defence can appeal sentences that are too harsh, and it must therefore be right that the prosecution can appeal sentences that they feel are wrong too.
There is a blanket right for the defence to appeal against sentences in the magistrates courts, and a right to appeal against sentences imposed in the higher courts. That is right, and that is fair, yet the prosecution has very limited rights to appeal against sentences that are too lenient. It is in this respect that the scales of justice in this country do not balance.
I pay tribute to the fact that the Government have extended the scope of this scheme more than any other. In 2017, 2018 and 2019, the scheme was extended, so we have ensured that many victims of some of the worst crimes can see the sentences in their cases increased to a fair level. The scales of justice are levelling up, but they are not there yet. I hope during this debate to make constructive suggestions about how we can build on that good progress, and how we can continue. While I have raised the issue of unduly lenient sentences in this place several times before, I was prompted to do so again by a particularly harrowing case affecting one of my constituents.
Gemma Robinson from Dartford was attacked in 2019 by her partner, Joseph Falconer, in the most despicable manner. He had previously assaulted her and was subject to a restraining order, but had tricked or cajoled his way both back into her life and into her home. This young lady was described as the life and soul of any party, yet she was mercilessly beaten by Falconer until her eye socket was fractured and her tooth punched through her lip. She was then spat on by him before he left the house and, in the final insult, he completely cleared her bank accounts.
He was, I am pleased to say, arrested and charged with section 18 GBH, an offence that is covered under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. The matter went to trial, with Mr Falconer having pleaded not guilty. However, Gemma Robinson, feeling unable to face him in court, took her own life—an event that devastated her family. Subsequently, Joseph Falconer was, quite astonishingly, offered a less serious charge under section 20 of Offences against the Person Act 1861—an offence of malicious wounding. This is an offence that is not covered by the unduly lenient sentencing scheme and he pleaded guilty to that charge. Despite being described by the judge in court as a “dangerous, jealous and controlling man”, he was given just three and a half years imprisonment. Gemma’s family understandably felt that this was insufficient and they contacted my office. Only at that stage were they made aware by my office that there was no power to appeal, as malicious wounding under section 20 of Offences against the Person Act 1861 is not covered under the scheme. Incredibly, had Joseph Falconer been charged with coercive behaviour under the harassment legislation, the scheme would have applied.
Gemma Robinson’s family feel totally let down by the system and they are not alone. There are many instances of people applying for a sentence to be reviewed under the scheme only to be told it is an offence that is not covered. In fact, around a third of the applications are not covered by the scheme and the largest number of offences that are applied and are not under the scheme are actually under section 20 for malicious wounding and also for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. There are many quite vicious and violent assaults taking place in this country for which an unduly lenient sentence is imposed. Yet nothing can be done about it by the victims or by anybody else.
Sadly, the injustices do not stop there. There is a strict 28-day time limit on applications to challenge sentences. I fully understand why we need some certainty and why there is a need for time limits, but there is an arbitrary time limit in this particular case and it needs looking at again. Many rules can be avoided in criminal law if exceptional circumstances apply. That should apply to this time limit too. If there are exceptional circumstances, judges, at their discretion, can enable an appeal under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme to take place. Currently, that is not the case. The criminal justice system is littered with examples of how injustices occur when courts have their discretion removed. The 28-day time limit on unduly lenient sentences is yet another example of where the courts do not have any discretion and, therefore, injustices occur.
A judge, for example, can withhold the publicising of a conviction and sentence if it would impact on another trial. Yet even when that happens, as it did in a rape case in Newcastle that was highlighted in this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), the judge has no discretion to change or alter in any way the 28-day time limit. An offence is published after 28 days have elapsed, but people then cannot do anything about it. That really needs to be looked at again, because the defence can apply for time limits to be waived when lodging appeals, and so should the prosecution.
The unduly lenient sentencing scheme applies only to the Crown courts. A youth court, for example, when hearing very serious cases such as rape cannot be subject to the scheme. That has caused injustice in more than one case, so we need to look at attaching the scheme to types of offences only and not to the venue where the case was heard. The whole scheme, when we think about it, was brought in after a rape case was mishandled. Yet today, rape cases can be mishandled and unduly lenient sentences imposed without the prosecution or the victim being able to do anything about it. We need either to include rape cases in the youth court within the scheme or to remove the ability of the youth court to hear such cases.
The unduly lenient sentencing scheme is about fairness and balancing the scales of justice so that we give one side the same rights as the other in a court of law. By and large, in the most serious matters the scheme achieves that, but glaring anomalies prevent that in cases such as that of Gemma Robinson, my constituent, and far too many others. Great strides have been taken to widen the scheme, but we must ensure that the widening of the scheme is a continuing process, not simply an event.
The criminal justice system exists to protect the victims of crime, and it does so through fairness and balance. It is therefore imperative that we continue to widen the scheme, and thereby continue to protect the victims of crime.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on setting the scene. I apologise in advance to you, Mr Dowd, to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister for having to leave: I have a meeting at short notice with the Nigerian ambassador to discuss some issues that I have concern about.
Thank you for inviting me to speak, Mr Dowd. This is an issue that I feel strongly about. Most of the issues that I speak about in Parliament come out of my office: they are things that I am made aware of by constituents and so on. I want to speak about that, if I can. This is a very difficult matter, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. The fact is that what one person sees as justice is not the same as another person’s justice, although I perhaps have a very simplified view. That is why we have the law and legislation to set out sentences, and why we say that Lady Justice is blind, although some of the things that I will refer to are a blindness in the justice system.
I have sat in many a constituency surgery with the families of victims of assault, who have begged me to intervene in the sentencing of the perpetrator. When we know what that person did to their family member, we have to restrain our emotions and control ourselves, and that is sometimes difficult. When the people who assaulted their loved ones are given nothing of a sentence, they seek to find the broken pieces of the victim and hold them together with love. They know that in six months’ time, due to good behaviour, the perpetrator will be out on the streets again. It really nyarks me, to use an Ulster Scotsism; more than that, it angers me. I have outlined the procedure for sentencing in written evidence to the Attorney General, knowing that the likelihood of an increased sentence is slim to none.
When I get home, I will be writing a letter about a case that I read about in the provincial papers on the way over this morning. I am not going to mention any names, because the person is a paedophile who carried out awful, horrendous abuse of a young child. He got approximately 10 years in prison. He is back out again, and guess what he did when he got out? He did the same thing again to another wee defenceless child. I really feel that the law of the land needs to be incredibly strong when it comes to convicted paedophiles with a pedigree that will never change. My letter will ask for that person to serve all his living life in jail and never to be let out again. It is important that the law protects people from the actions that such people carry out.
I believe that a court or a judge should be able to increase sentences in certain circumstances, and I believe that we must broaden those circumstances. I will never forget reading of a lady whose daughter had been left severely disabled after a car accident caused by drunk driving. She discussed how her daughter had lost her future, and the whole family had lost theirs as a result. It does not just affect one person; it affects the whole family, and that should be taken into account in a court sentence as well. The driver was sentenced and released because he was a first-time offender. He then went on to kill someone in his next driving spree. Two families have been destroyed, but the second may have been saved had the judge known that he could extend the sentence. That option was not available or taken up.
I am someone who believes that people can change. I am a great believer in that position; I have always said that people can change. I live in a Province and represent a constituency—Strangford—where people have changed after their past, and we have to accept that people change. I am also a Christian and I believe that people can change their lives—I believe that, for I am a changed person from what I was many years ago, because of my religious belief and faith. I believe in second chances and I believe in rehabilitation. However, I also believe that there are consequences that have a price to be paid.
The Library briefing succinctly sets out the statistics on unduly lenient sentences. A parliamentary question to and response from the Solicitor General on 17 November last year noted that the number of sentences considered by the Attorney General’s office more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, from 342 to 837. The Attorney General in 2016, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), said that the 837 referrals received by his office in 2016 represented a 17% increase from the previous year.
In June 2018, the Minister said that 2,347 people had applied for sentences to be reviewed in the last 12 months, and a total of 1,040 sentences had been referred to his office for consideration as unduly lenient. I probably made 20 of those personally, looking for sentences to be reviewed in many cases, whether it be criminal violence against people, unduly lenient sentences or the cases of those involved in horrific animal abuse; those are the things that I am concerned about.
In 2018, the then Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, referred a fifth of all eligible cases to the Court of Appeal. Of these, 73% were found to be unduly lenient. So there was a change—a quite significant change. That indicates to me that there is a need for flexibility, so that courts can hand out stronger sentences.
In 2016, 190 cases were referred to the Court of Appeal and in 141 of those cases the Court of Appeal increased the sentence. Again, that tells a story. In 2015, the Attorney General’s Office considered 713 requests, of which 136 were referred to the Court of Appeal as being potentially unduly lenient, with the Court of Appeal agreeing to increase the original sentence in 102 cases. In 2014, the Law Officers considered 469 cases and referred 128 offenders to the Court of Appeal. Of those offenders, 86% had their sentences increased.
I am not a statistician by any means, but the reason I quote those figures is that it is important that we look at the referrals for unduly lenient sentences and see that the courts have increased the sentences in the majority of cases.
I believe we must trust our judges with wider powers and that we must do so in law. That is why I support my colleague and I have to say my friend, the hon. Member for Dartford, in what he is proposing today. I am quite sure that those who speak after me will reflect that opinion as well.
Speaking as someone who has been in tears with constituents in my office over sentencing issues, I know that this is a very tough issue to deal with. I know the Minister is a very understanding and compassionate Minister, and that he will be able to reflect in his speech on our request, as individuals, regarding this matter. However, we can and I believe we must make changes, to ensure that victims of crime are protected and that real rehabilitation of offenders can take place.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this incredibly important debate on an issue that is very emotional for the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. The Minister has heard me time and again talking about it, whether it be chuntering in the voting Lobby or in meetings, or talking to him personally about my views on what we should do with some of the most violent criminals and offenders in our country. Personally, I have a policy of, “Lock them up, throw away the key and forget about them,” but I appreciate that we live in a society where perhaps that is not always going to be the case.
However, I will raise one particular case in my constituency, which happened very recently and is extremely high profile. It is a very sad story of how women in particular in this country are the victims of some of the most horrific crimes. I am here to talk about Kimberley Deakin, a 29-year-old who lived in Burslem. She was brutally attacked and murdered by a scumbag, whose name is Lewis Crofts, in a cold and calculated manner, to the point where this young lady, dying on her doorstep, had to call for a neighbour to come and save her child—a very young child, not far off the age of my own daughter. The hurt and pain that this case has caused the local community is palpable. It was such a brutal and premeditated attack, and the murderer showed absolutely no remorse. In fact, he only changed his plea to guilty three days before going to court. When he was arrested at Stafford services, having just bought another bottle of vodka and some cigarettes, he said:
“I have done what I have done. It is as simple as that”.
The attitude of that individual!
The judge did take a very stern view of what had happened, and handed down a life sentence with a minimum of 16 years 9 months inside, but I am sorry: the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke do not believe that 16 years 9 months, no matter how long that might be, is enough—life should mean life. We are left baffled. When a crime as calculated, as cold, as chilling as that has taken place, there should never be an ounce of an idea that this person can ever see and smell freedom again.
While I appreciate that that case is one of many that will bring about much deeper legal contemplation over sentencing, probably by people far more educated than I on this issue, it is a really important issue to raise. The attack has left behind a broken family, mother and father, uncle, friends, families and Ava, the daughter, who sadly will no longer grow up knowing her mother. I know that across the House, we as Members sadly come across this type of case far too often in our constituencies, in our local newspapers and in the correspondence that we receive. I wanted to be here to speak up for Kimberley, her family and friends. When I saw Natalie Neale, a friend of Kimberley, she said that no amount of time would be suitable for this scumbag in order to pay back what he had taken.
This wretch has robbed a child of her mother and cut short a young life. The idea even of his being released at the age of 50 horrifies and mortifies me. I appreciate that this is an individual case, and I give full praise to the current and previous Attorney Generals, who have always encouraged Members of this House from all parties to write to them if they feel that an unduly lenient sentence has been passed. I will certainly be making those representations to the Attorney General. There will always be a hole in the heart of Kimberley’s families and friends. Their lives have been ripped apart, but the man who caused that could potentially be free to walk if, obviously, a probationary board felt he was able to.
In my opinion, this Government should go further and do more on unduly lenient sentences. When people hear a judge issue a sentence of even five, 10, 15 years or life, they want to see that time served. I appreciate that there are technicalities of good behaviour, and that certain things may be handed down in a sentence that prisoners can work towards, such as education, or therapy for an alcohol or drug addiction, but unfortunately it baffles constituents when they see five years end up being two, or 10 years end up being five. They want to see justice served.
I know that this Minister is incredibly patient when he listens to colleagues such as me ranting and chuntering from the Back Benches on this type of stuff and I know how seriously he takes every type of case that is brought forward. I want to use this opportunity to say to Kimberley’s loved ones that they have an ally in me and in the Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke community. As for Lewis Crofts, the longer he is locked up, the longer that we never see that man walk on the streets. I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison until he passes, because as far as I am concerned, he forfeited his right to be a citizen of this country—he forfeited his rights in full—when he decided to take away the life of a young woman and steal a child from growing up with her mother.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing this important debate. The unduly lenient sentence scheme could be seen as a positive scheme that victims and their families can engage with to challenge weak sentences that are handed down by courts. However, the sad fact is that the scheme is unknown to the majority of the British public. In the 32 years since the scheme was launched, the number of cases referred to the Attorney General’s office for review is negligible.
I have a constituent, Johnny Wood, whose sister Jackie Wileman was tragically killed by a gang of four men who were joyriding a stolen HGV around Barnsley. They had 100 convictions between them. In this case, the law on dangerous driving limited the sentences given. After much campaigning the sentences have, thankfully, now been changed and will soon be life imprisonment. It was too late for Jackie’s family, but I hope that the change will help many more in the future. Dangerous driving is one of the crimes most referred to when people engage with the scheme.
There are too many tragic examples across all sorts of different crimes. Take the example of Josh Hanson, a 21-year-old from Kingsbury, who was murdered at a bar while on a night out. His killer, Shane O’Brien, walked up to him, pulled out a Stanley knife and sliced his neck and chest. Josh and O’Brien did not know each other beforehand, and had spoken for only seconds before the attack. O’Brien went on the run for more than three years and was on the Met police, Europol and Interpol most-wanted lists, before he was caught and jailed for a minimum of 26 years in October 2019.
Josh’s mother Tracey only found out that she could appeal against O’Brien’s sentence on the last day that she was able to lodge an application—the 28th day. She lodged her complaint at 5.5 pm and was rejected by the Attorney General’s office, due to the firm deadline of 5 pm and the application’s being sent out of office hours. Tracey has since campaigned for reform to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, asking that the 28-day time limit be flexible in certain circumstances, and that the scheme be mentioned in judges’ sentencing remarks.
I am aware that the revised victims’ code came into force last month, and that it includes a requirement for the witness care unit to inform victims about the scheme promptly when sentencing takes place. Assigning responsibility to the witness care unit is not a definitive solution, as it engages only with victims who are witnesses in the court case. Will the Minister consider placing a statutory duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the scheme is more widely known about and available to victims?
Will the Minister also look to introduce flexibility around the time limit beyond 28 days in certain circumstances, such as where there is a failure of the responsible agency to inform the victim of the right to apply under the scheme, or where it is not reasonably practical for the application to be made in time? Families are denied the right to challenge simply because they are not aware that the scheme exists.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing the debate. I apologise for being a few minutes late; I was responding to an urgent question in the Chamber on rape prosecutions. I meant no disrespect to the importance of this debate.
The unduly lenient sentence scheme has helped many pursue justice. It is open to anyone to access and challenge a sentence that they consider unduly lenient. It is an extremely important and welcome mechanism. The scope of the scheme was last expanded in 2019, to include 14 more offences, including child sexual offences, harassment offences, stalking and the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Those were good and necessary reforms, but it is clear that there is still more to do to ensure that just sentences are reached.
A number of important contributions have been made to today’s debate highlighting the limitations of the scheme. The hon. Member for Dartford mentioned the tragic case of his constituent Gemma Robinson, who was beaten mercilessly and took her own life before the case reached trial. Her partner was sentenced to just three and half years, after being charged under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is not covered by the scheme, thus clearly highlighting some of the limitations.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), whose constituent was brutally murdered on her doorstep, expressed his concern that her murderer could be released by the time he is 50. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned his constituent who was left severely disabled after being hit by a drunk driver, who then received a lenient sentence. Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) raised the case of her constituent, Jackie, who was killed by a dangerous driver. Because the unduly lenient sentence scheme did not apply to that sort of case, there was no redress for her family. My hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly to increase sentences for death by dangerous driving offences, and that law will now change.
The case of Ruth Williams also highlights the limitations of the scheme. Ruth’s husband Anthony Williams strangled her to death during the first lockdown. In February at Swansea Crown court, Mr Williams was found not guilty of murder but admitted to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and was sentenced to five years in prison. Had the victim been another member of the public, it is highly likely that Mr Williams’s sentence would have been more severe. The fact that this domestic homicide has received such a comparatively lenient sentence seems to indicate that if the victim is a wife, as opposed to a random member of the public, then the perpetrator is deserving of a discounted sentence. I wrote to the Attorney General calling for that case to be referred under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and indeed it was. In April, however, the court of appeal ruled that the sentence was not unduly lenient, highlighting that the ULS scheme does not always work if the sentencing guidelines do not allow for it.
We need much more robust sentencing for some crimes to resolve that, especially in cases of violence against women and girls. For example, the number of female homicide victims in England and Wales is at its highest since 2006, almost half of those being domestic homicides. Cases such as the horrific murders of Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey highlight the inadequate sentence lengths for some of the worst crimes. After stabbing Ellie Gould multiple times, her killer was sentenced to just 12 and a half years in prison. Labour has put forward an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, calling for a review into the effectiveness of current legislation in sentencing policy. If the Government do not accept the amendment, then Labour in government will commission a review to look at increasing sentences for domestic homicide, and reducing the gap in sentence length between domestic homicide and other homicides. The review will also examine the effectiveness of sentencing more broadly for domestic abuse.
Further to that, there is currently no statutory minimum sentence for rape—only a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In 2020 alone, nine cases of rape were referred to the Attorney General’s office through the ULS scheme that had initial sentences of imprisonment ranging from two years to four years and 10 months. Two of those cases were for the rape of a child under 13, and one was for the rape of a child under 16. Despite that, not one of the nine cases was referred by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal. Labour would end lenient sentences for rape by introducing a new statutory minimum sentence of seven years, better reflecting the seriousness of the crime. Does the Minister agree with those proposals?
Our laws must send a strong signal that violence against women and girls will not be tolerated, but under this Government we have yet to see tough action on that. We believe it is time for judges to be able to hand out enhanced sentences and increased punishments to those who commit crimes on the basis of their prejudice against women. Our recently published green paper, “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls”, outlines those measures.
I shall now discuss some of the procedural issues around the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East said, there is currently a strict and absolute 28-day time limit from the point of sentencing within which an application under the scheme may be made. Offenders, meanwhile, may appeal their sentence outside the 28-day timeframe in certain circumstances, so there is not parity between the two. The previous Attorney General made it clear that the 28-day timeframe was absolute, yet we desperately need flexibility around it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East highlighted the case of Josh Hanson, who was just 21, murdered in a bar while on a night out. The killer walked up to him, pulled out a knife and sliced his neck and chest. He went on the run for three years before finally being caught and given a minimum sentence of 26 years. No agency ever made contact with his mother, Tracey Hanson, and she was not told that she could appeal the sentence under the scheme. It was only when she approached London’s Victims’ Commissioner on the 28th day after sentencing that she was made aware of the scheme. She urgently submitted her application to the Attorney General’s office on that 28th day as soon as she had notice of the scheme, but her application was rejected for being outside court hours. At the time there was not even a mention of office hours or court hours in the victims code or on the Government’s website.
Tracey has campaigned to reform the scheme ever since, and has been asking for flexibility around the 28-day time limit in certain circumstances, and for the scheme to be specifically referenced in judges’ sentencing remarks. Those are wholly sensible requests. Will the Government agree to them? Although the revised victims code will include a requirement for the witness care unit to inform victims of the scheme, it just does not go far enough. They only engage with victims who are witnesses in court, and the requirement does not apply to all victims, including those who are bereaved family members. In Josh Hanson’s case, for example, the duty to notify his mother Tracey would not have applied, because she was not a witness in the case. Nevertheless, clearly she had an interest as the mother of her son, who had been killed. I therefore ask the Government to put a statutory duty on the CPS to ensure that victims and their families are informed of the existence of the scheme, irrespective of whether they are witnesses to the case. I also call on the Minister to look at extending the time period beyond 28 days in certain circumstances—for example, where there has been a failure of the responsible agency to inform the victim of their right to apply, or where there are extenuating circumstances that mean the application simply could not be made in time.
If we are to have true confidence in sentencing decisions and the scope of the ULS, we need tougher sentences for some crimes. We need flexibility around the 28-day time limit, and we need to give the Crown Prosecution Service statutory responsibility for informing the victim and their family members about their rights of appeal. None of that is outside the scope of what an effective Government could bring about, and I hope that, following this important debate, we will see action in this area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
What a genuine pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I think I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say how pleased we are to see you there.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing a debate on this important topic, and for the force, candour and articulacy that he has brought to this important area—not just today, but for many years. I pay warm tribute to him, particularly for the way that he raised the case of his constituent Gemma Robinson, who was brutally attacked by Joseph Falconer. My hon. Friend read out the sentencing remarks by the judge, who referred to this gratuitous attack and to “jealous and controlling” behaviour. I hope Gemma’s family will know that the shame of those remarks will haunt, and should haunt, Joseph Falconer for the rest of his days. That cowardly and appalling attack is one that we condemn in this House, and that my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House with admirable clarity and eloquence. I thank other hon. Members, too, for raising with great force and conviction their constituents’ concerns about victims who have suffered so grievously,
Let me turn to the specific matter that we are considering today—the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As all hon. Members have said, it is a valuable part of our criminal justice system. It was introduced in 1989, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford rightly stated. It has allowed prosecutors, victims of crime and, indeed, members of the public to ask Law Officers to consider referring a sentence imposed by the Crown court to the Court of Appeal for review, and to do so where the sentence is felt to be unduly lenient. If a sentence is referred by Law Officers under the scheme, the Court of Appeal will then review the sentence and may decide that it should be increased. I realise that we all well understand that.
It is important to note—this is a point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) underscored—that in the vast majority of cases, sentencing judges get it right. Day in, day out they deal with a range of cases that vary in complexity and severity, and I take the opportunity to commend them for their work. Thousands and thousands of cases are dealt with by the Crown court, and a similar number of sentences imposed. Overwhelmingly, the judges get it right.
I pay tribute to the Sentencing Council—I will refer to it in a moment in a little more detail—for its excellent work in developing sentencing guidelines that have provided judges with valuable guidance on deciding appropriate and proportionate sentences. The guidelines are also of assistance to Crown prosecutors who might be speaking to victims who may be interested to know how a case might end up, in terms of the sentence, and to advocates speaking to their clients, because certainty and clarity are an important part of a criminal justice system that does justice to victims.
It is important that the sentencing process is made more consistent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, who has a distinguished career and practice in this area, well understands. The introduction of the sentencing code last year has helped to enhance the transparency of the sentencing process by bringing together the procedural provisions that courts need to rely on when sentencing offenders and structuring them in an order that follows the chronology of a sentencing hearing. Frankly, the previous system was extremely complicated, and there were an awful lot of opportunities for sentencing judges with the best of intelligence to fall into error. The sentencing code has helped to improve that. However, on the rare occasion when there may have been a gross error in a sentencing decision, the scheme ensures that justice is served, helping to boost confidence in the sentencing process.
Turning now to a few more specifics, the scheme applies to a wide range of the more serious offences dealt with by the Crown court. This includes all indictable-only offences, in other words, those cases that must be tried before judge and jury, and it covers offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. I pause to mention that because where hon. Members have referred to specific cases involving murder, those cases are, of course, within the scheme. I will turn in a moment to issues about time limits, and so on, but it is important to note that murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery are all within the scheme. It goes beyond that to certain offences that are triable either way, mainly related to terrorism, violent physical or sexual assaults and drug-related crime. In preparing for this, I wrote down a number of offences that it covers—it is a very long list, and I will not read them all out.
To pick up on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made, I do want to set out in a little detail the extent to which the scheme was expanded over recent years. The Government have taken the opportunity to extend the scope of the scheme so that it covers more offences. In August 2017, additional offences included: failing to disclose information about an act of terrorism; fundraising contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000; use of funds in connection with terrorism; money laundering; and weapons training. We extended the scheme to 19 terror-related offences, and to a further nine terror-related offences in January 2018, such as tipping off a terrorist and not complying with a restriction after returning to the UK.
In November 2019, we extended the scheme to 14 more offences, including stalking; harassment involving violence; the possession of indecent images of children; controlling and coercive behaviour; abuse of position of trust in sexual offences; and possession of indecent images. Including these offences in the scheme has helped to ensure that perpetrators of these horrific crimes receive sentences that match the seriousness of their offending behaviour.
The Government continue to keep the scope of the scheme under review and will carefully consider any proposals to extend the scheme to cover more offences. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford correctly indicated, the number of cases that have been referred under the scheme has gone up quite considerably over recent years.
I must stress that the decision to extend the scheme is not a straightforward one, because it is very important—not just to defendants, but also to victims and everyone else—that there is finality in sentencing. The general rule is that a person should expect to serve the sentence a judge has imposed upon them. It should also be recognised that Parliament, in creating the scheme, intended for it to be an exceptional power.
In addition, this scheme has to be set within the wider context in which it sits. The Government have brought forward a wider package of legislative measures in recent years to ensure that the punishment that offenders receive reflects the severity of their crime. To pick up the points that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) quite rightly made when she was talking about violence against women, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on what is now criminal which was not 10 years ago.
Forget the ULS scheme; first of all we must ensure that it is an offence. More than 10 years ago, it was not an offence to carry out upskirting. It was not an offence to exert coercive control. It was not an offence to stalk. It was not an offence to send revenge porn or threaten to do so. It was not a specific offence to take part in non-fatal strangulation. It was not a specific offence to assault an emergency worker. There is an enormous amount that has changed over recent years to ensure that people who do commit crime can be punished for it. I could add plenty of others, such as causing death by careless driving. That is the first point.
The second point is that over the past 10 years, there has been a significant increase in sentencing to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. There are longer sentences for stalking, desecrating war memorials, and animal welfare crimes. It used to be the case, as recently as 15 years ago, that although someone would get a life sentence, the minimum period that they would serve before being eligible for parole was normally 15 years. Now, if a knife is used in the crime, it is a starting point of 25 years, and if a firearm is used, the starting point is 30 years. It is important to stress that there is not automatic release at the end of that period; that is the earliest point at which they are eligible for parole. So we have more offences and longer sentences.
Defendants are also required to spend longer in custody. We enacted the sentences for offenders of particular concern provision, ending automatic release for terrorism and child sex offenders, and ensuring that convicted terrorists spend a minimum of two thirds of their term behind bars before being considered for release by the Parole Board. We have taken action to ensure that offenders sentenced for serious sexual and violent offences spend longer in custody. Last year, we delivered the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020, which ended automatic release from custody at the halfway point for offenders given a standard determinate sentence of seven years or more for a serious violence or sexual offence that carries a maximum penalty of life.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge raised the issue of rape. It is important to note that under these provisions, if the individual is sentenced to seven years or more, they will now serve much longer. Although I genuinely welcome her points on this—we all want to see robust sentences in respect of those who attack women, and particularly for sex crimes—we have had to address a situation brought about by section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, whereby people who committed that kind of crime would be released at the halfway point. It is a really important step to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system by ensuring that people are not automatically released at the halfway point. That was the situation that we inherited, and that is the situation we have changed.
Stephanie Peacock
Does the Minister agree that there should be a minimum sentence for rape?
Alex Chalk
We would happily look at a minimum sentence for rape. There are minimum sentences for firearms and third-strike burglary. Respectfully, it would sound more credible if we had had support on that issue on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to provide longer sentences for those who commit these appalling crimes. I do not question for a second the commitment across this House to ensuring that those who commit appalling offences serve their time, but there are ways we can do it, and it requires everyone to step up and vote for it.
To deliver on our manifesto commitments to make punishments tougher for the most serious offenders and end automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes, we recently introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to Parliament. Measures in the Bill would ensure that serious sexual and violent offenders who receive a standard determinate sentence of four years or more serve two thirds of their sentence in custody, aligning their release point with serious violent and sexual offenders sentenced to seven years or more.
To recap: more offences, longer sentences, longer in custody. But we have gone further, because we have longer licence periods as well. We have brought in a wider range of terrorism offences within the scope of the extended determinate sentence. No longer is it the case that someone is released on licence until the end of their sentence. In certain cases, that licence period will be extended so that they know that if they transgress again, offend against the public, betray innocents, betray trust or destroy lives, they can expect to be punished again.
The victims code has rightly been referred to. The Government are taking action to ensure that victims are supported at every stage of the criminal justice system. The new victims code came into force on 1 April, and it sets out 12 key rights for all victims of crime. I respectfully urge right hon. and hon. Members to have a look at it if they ever get a moment. It is the culmination of two years of extensive work, including wide stakeholder engagement with victims and victims groups to ensure we have a clear and comprehensive framework for victims’ rights. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) made an important point about the awareness of this, and she is right to do so. Awareness is critically important, so let me take the opportunity in this place to emphasise that right 9 is the right to be given information about the outcome of the case and any appeals. Right 9.4 says:
“If you think the sentence given to the offender is far too low”—
that’s the heading—
“For some (but not all) cases sentenced in the Crown Court you can ask the Attorney General to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal to reconsider it. This can only be done if the Attorney General thinks that the sentence was not just lenient but ‘unduly lenient’, such that the sentencing judge made a gross error or imposed a sentence outside the range of sentences reasonably available in the circumstances of the case.”
It goes on, but I will not read the whole thing out. We all have a duty to amplify and publicise that, and I take my opportunity to do so today.
Later this year, we will consult on the detail of the victims Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech, which will enshrine those 12 key rights in law and hold agencies accountable for delivering those rights to victims, with a view to their publishing a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill will set expectations for the standard and availability of victim support. Let me say also, because it was an important point, that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge picked up in her powerful remarks what can be the context for appalling crimes such as murder, namely, gateway offences of domestic abuse and so on.
We are investing record amounts in support for victims: more than £300 million this year, including £27 million to recruit 700 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, in an increase of more than 40%. That is important because we want to ensure that women—it is usually women, frankly—who are the victims of domestic abuse have the opportunity and support to go out and support the prosecution that leads to that individual being taken out of circulation, if that is the will of the court and the proportionate and appropriate sentence. That means that the individual does not go on to commit further appalling crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford referred to his specific constituent’s case, the dreadful case of Joseph Falconer. He and other hon. and right hon. Members made the point about time limits. It is important to note that in the circumstances that he referred to—where, say, a judge has imposed a contempt of court order and reporting restrictions because to report on the case might lead to a miscarriage of justice elsewhere—the CPS automatically sends to the Attorney General’s office a summary of that case and it is then reviewed. So that takes place as a matter of course to deal with precisely that point. When it comes to deferred sentence, the clock only starts ticking on the date the substantive sentence takes effect. Those are two aspects that I hope provide my hon. Friend with some comfort.
I accept, however, that there is a wider issue about ticking clocks. We have to weigh up the balance of our criminal justice system and recognise, as a matter of conscience, that where an individual has been convicted, punished and disgraced at the hands of the state, they need to know the maximum extent of his punishment, save in truly exceptional circumstances. There are cases, of course, when even if he is given a long sentence—tough—he is going to get a longer one because that is what the Court of Appeal says. None the less, in the majority of cases, it is important that when that person stands up and is told what his sentence is he has a sense that that is the sentence he is going to get.
The other important point is for victims as well. Those people who have built themselves up to this moment, to the sentencing hearing, which can be a moment of great distress, want to know that that is it. A sigh of relief; this is over. We need to weigh that in the balance to ensure that there is a measure of finality.
My hon. Friend made an excellent point about the youth court and he talked in particular about the issue of rape and the extent to which that could somehow be taken outside the unduly lenient scheme. He made a powerful point about that. It is important to note that for those very rare cases that are dealt with in the youth court because, for the sake of argument, the offender is aged 13, for example, if the court decides, having learned about the offending, that it is so serious that the maximum penalty of two years with a detention and training order is insufficient, they do now have power—I have checked—to commit that to the Crown court. It was previously under section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but that has been superseded by the sentencing code legislation.
Let me close by saying that if people are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, it is critical not only that people are convicted for the wrongs that they have done but that they are required to serve a sentence that reflects the indignation, anger and upset that we feel as a society on their behalf. Sentences are longer, and more offences have been created. People are serving longer in custody, and there is the opportunity for longer licence periods as well. We are extending the unduly lenient system to ensure that justice can be done, and of course we will continue to keep the matter under review. As we do so, we will have the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members in this House firmly in mind.
Gareth Johnson
I thank the Minister for his response and for some of the reassurances that he gave us. I welcome the expansion of the scheme that has taken place, and I also welcome the fact that this is by and large a non-party political issue. Members of different parties have different approaches to the criminal justice system, but ultimately we all want to see fairness prevail, and I am pleased to see that.
We owe it to the victims of crime to make changes to this scheme. We owe it to Gemma Robinson, Kimberley, Jackie, Josh and Ruth, and the thousands of other people who have inadvertently been wronged by the criminal justice system. The 28-days issue is one that I would implore the Minister to look at again, because as I said in my speech, I believe that when there is a lack of discretion from the court in exceptional circumstances, injustice can occur. He was right to point out that we want certainty for both the victim and the offender. At the moment, there is certainty for the offender, but there is less certainty for the victim, because people can appeal out of time in some exceptional circumstances. That should also apply to the victims of crime.
Let’s face it, if we were creating a criminal justice system today, we would not create one like this. There is no way that we would say that the defence can appeal against anything but the prosecution cannot. That is simply not how anyone would create a system that rightly prides itself on balance and fairness. As far as the unduly lenient sentence scheme is concerned, we do not yet have that, so I would ask that this process, which has rightly been pursued by the Ministry, continues to look at what other offences can be brought into the scope of the scheme, so that we can have equality of arms and ensure that justice prevails, which is, after all, what we all seek to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the scope of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.
Sport: Disabled Officials, Referees and Umpires
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending the debate physically should clean their spaces before they use them and when they leave. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered encouraging more disabled officials, referees and umpires into sport.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am particularly grateful that the debate has been selected and that the Minister for Sport is here to respond.
Inclusivity in sport is something we all believe in and want to promote. Great strides have been made in Paralympic sport, the amazing Invictus games and disability cricket. I have to pay tribute to the England and Wales Cricket Board for its amazing and inspiring work enabling people with disabilities to play cricket. We have a whole range of thriving disability sports, enabling access and participation. But what about officials who have disabilities? What about officials who are wheelchair users? I am sad to say that this is an area that has been overlooked. It is seen as a barrier too far, a hurdle too high.
What does a young person born with cerebral palsy do if their dream is to be a football referee? What does a cricket umpire with a lifelong passion for cricket do if they develop a condition that means they have to use a wheelchair? Should they just accept that they must abandon their dream? Should they just give up on their passion and allow their disability to stand in their way? We are all here in this place to tear down barriers that stand in the way of the hopes and dreams of those we represent. That is what I am seeking to do today.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, who has been doing a fantastic and impressive job during this covid period, for which I thank him, the extraordinary campaign of my constituent, John McIntear, who has been championing access for people with disabilities to officiate in sport. John is an inspiring person. His passion is cricket, and he is a qualified cricket umpire. He is also an ex-serviceman and he uses a wheelchair. John has a life-limiting condition and the prognosis, I am sad to say, is not good. John was determined that his condition would not prevent him from continuing to umpire cricket, so he embarked on an inspiring campaign: sports officiating from a powered wheelchair—SOPW. It was a campaign that captured the imagination of cricket and other sports across Shropshire. Working with the Royal British Legion, Motability, the Shropshire Association of Cricket Officials, Shropshire Disabled Cricket Club, the Shropshire Cricket Board and, of course with support from the Shropshire Star, John set about raising funds to buy a specially adapted powered wheelchair, which has enabled him to continue his passion for cricket by officiating at cricket matches as an umpire.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When I saw that we would debate this topic in Westminster Hall, right away one of my constituents came to mind: a young fellow called Scott Hilland. I know his dad, mum and the family very well. Scott was born disabled, and he has a powered wheelchair. He plays for and is the captain of the Northern Ireland wheelchair football team. It is clear to me that he could be an official—he has officiated some of the matches I have been to watch. The hon. Lady has been inspired by John McIntear, and I have been inspired by 17-year-old Scott Hilland.
Lucy Allan
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent Scott is a testament to what can be achieved by anyone who sets their mind to it. He sounds a wonderful person.
Despite the disruption caused by covid, John McIntear has now used his specially designed powered wheelchair to umpire his first match, which is a huge achievement. John’s success led him to wonder whether there are other officials using wheelchairs to participate in umpiring. He found that, in fact, there is only one other disabled person doing so. So John decided that in the time left to him he would campaign to give people who are disabled the opportunity to officiate in whatever sport they wish to. His aim is to work with organisations to secure the provision of powered and suitably modified wheelchairs to enable those with mobility impairments to officiate in sports.
I will quote John McIntear, because I would like his words to be put on the record. He says:
“I want to inspire and encourage people who are disabled to go out and follow their dream. From the start, the principle of umpiring from a powered wheelchair has never been about me. It is all about giving people with a disability the opportunity to officiate in whatever sport they wish to.”
So often in life, we need someone to show us the way; someone to show us that something can be done; someone to raise our horizons, to enable us to believe that the obstacles in our path can be overcome; and someone to give us the ambition and tell us that something is possible. John has done that and it is awe-inspiring.
John has shown the way to sports organisations, sports clubs, disability access organisations and people with disabilities who want to officiate in sport. Indeed, I would say that John has also shown the way to us in this place. John’s work gives people hope and creates opportunities where people believed there were none. John is a trailblazer and we can see from his example that mobility impairments are not a barrier to officiating in sport.
The Minister will understand that I have some asks of him and his Department today. I ask him to reflect on what more can be done to support people with disabilities to officiate in sport, and I ask him to support John McIntear’s campaign, by encouraging sporting bodies to engage with it and consider how they can train people with disabilities to become referees, umpires and officials of all kinds, and how they can create opportunities for participation. Also, can he please consider what his Department can do to promote and create opportunities for people who are mobility-impaired to officiate, including at high-profile events such as the much anticipated Commonwealth games in Birmingham, which would be a massive opportunity to show the UK’s commitment to inclusion and mobility-impaired officials? I know that the Minister is, in fact, the Minister for the Commonwealth games; he has that great honour. It is possibly a very arduous task, but it is also a great honour. So I know that it is in his gift to make that ambition a reality.
Consequently, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments today. However, I would also be most grateful if he could come back to me, once he has had the opportunity to discuss this issue with officials, and set out ways in which we can all build on John’s remarkable efforts.
Very sadly, the prognosis for John McIntear’s condition is not good and the time left for him to campaign on this issue is very short. In closing, I must pay tribute to John and his inspiring work, and I know that he will continue to champion this cause with energy and determination for as long as he can do so. I also know that he will have every success. Perhaps he could be persuaded to come and umpire a Lords and Commons cricket match, to shine a light on his campaigning efforts.
Ultimately, I know that one day we will see a test match or a Premiership football match being officiated by a mobility-impaired individual in a powered wheelchair, and we will have John McIntear and his campaign to thank for that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dowd.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this debate, and on raising the important issue of inclusion for disabled people in all aspects of sport and in officiating in particular. She is always a great champion of her constituents and it is a pleasure to respond to her. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution and for highlighting another inspirational person, his constituent Scott.
It is clear from my hon. Friend’s comments that she shares my view that sports and physical activities at all levels are hugely important to disabled people. That is why the Government and their arm’s length bodies, Sport England and UK Sport, have worked closely with the sector and national governing bodies, including the ECB, which my hon. Friend highlighted, to ensure that inclusion in sport remains a priority at all levels from grassroots through to pathways to elite sport and governance.
At the outset, I would like to say that the Government are absolutely committed and recognise the great importance of sport and physical activity for disabled people who take part, including officiating and referring. The opportunity to have a parliamentary debate on what steps the Government are taking to support disability officiating in sport is a positive message in itself to send, highlighting the importance of equality, diversity and inclusion at all levels of sport. I warmly welcome the efforts of campaigns to increase diversity and inclusion, such as sports officiating from a powered wheelchair—SOPW—founded by my hon. Friend’s constituent, the truly inspirational individual Mr John McIntear, a Royal Navy veteran and a cricket umpire who uses a powered wheelchair. I would like to put on record my admiration for his work and encourage other governing bodies in sport to engage with his campaign, as my hon. Friend requested.
The Government’s strategy, “Sporting Future”, is aligned with Mr McIntear’s ambition for more inclusion in sport. It stresses the importance of helping under-represented groups and isolated communities, including disabled people, to take part as active participants, spectators and in the workforce. In addition, Sport England has recently launched its new 10-year strategy, “Uniting the Movement”. This strategy reinforces its commitment to increasing participation in sport and physical activity for those from under-represented groups, including disabled people.
I am aware that even before the effects of the pandemic, disabled people and people with a long-term health condition were twice as likely to be physically inactive as those without a disability or health condition. There are deep-rooted inequalities in participation levels in sport and physical activity. We know there are people who feel excluded from being active and participating in sport, because the right options and opportunities simply are not there. That does not only apply to taking part in playing, it also extends to the sporting workforce and officials. That only strengthens the resolve of the Government and national governing bodies to redouble efforts to ensure we keep the focus on increasing opportunities for disabled people.
We have been working with Sport England, UK Sport and sports organisations such as Activity Alliance to ensure that guidance is in place. That will help disabled people to get back to playing, volunteering and participating in the sports they love as safely as possible.
Sport has so much to offer. Everyone should be able to take part. In turn, sport has so much to gain from welcoming everyone in the community, including disabled people. Diversity of experience can only be an asset.
With the opening up of sporting activities over the next few months, projects such as sports officiating from a powered wheelchair will help to focus attention and resources on disabled individuals to have the opportunity to officiate in any sport they choose to participate in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford said, the UK has led the way in supporting, for example, Paralympic sports and disability participation at a grassroots level through Sport England with initiatives such as the “We Are Undefeatable” campaign; and partnerships between Sport England and Disability Rights UK, Aspire, Sense and international mixed ability sport.
However, many who wish to officiate are hindered by lack of access due to their level of mobility. Although programmes that focus on disabled coaches, volunteers and leaders are available, Sport England has also identified a gap around disabled officials and referees and is actively reviewing how to address this going forward. I would be happy to continue the dialogue with my hon. Friend on this area.
Lucy Allan
In his capacity as Minister for the Commonwealth Games, will my hon. Friend consider opportunities for disabled officials to participate?
Nigel Huddleston
I am delighted to comment on that. My hon. Friend is right: I am indeed the Minister for the Commonwealth games, which is an absolute honour. As we get closer and closer—we are not too far away from one year to go—the excitement and responsibility are certainly building up. It is really important that we do include disabled people in the games, with the motto being “a Games for everyone”.
That is absolutely right; that will be a focus. For the first time, Birmingham 2022 will deliver the largest fully integrated parasport programme of any Commonwealth games. It is an important distinction that the Commonwealth games, unlike the Olympic games, is integrated. Therefore, we will look to further promote opportunities for equality and inclusion, including officiating, in the lead-up to and throughout the games. I would be happy to give my hon. Friend an update on that at the appropriate time.
In terms of funds, certain funds and efforts are being made, such as the £20 million Tackling Inequalities Fund from Sport England, which will be essential to providing the necessary support at a community level, catering specifically to the needs of under-represented groups through trusted community partners and alliances. Currently, £13.5 million has been awarded and £9.7 million has already reached community organisations and groups across the country.
As a result, over 2,800 projects are actively being delivered by trusted partners close to the communities that have previously been unserved or underserved by more traditional delivery structures. Of these, almost £2 million has been awarded to 500 projects specifically targeting disabled people in sport.
We also welcome the efforts of inspirational individuals such as John McIntear and the FA licensed referee Nathan Mattick, who showcase first-hand that disability is not a barrier to officiating. They are indeed role models.
There are also organisations such as the National Star College UK, which target their campaigning, funding and support into education, refereeing and officiating opportunities for disabled people. It is now our job to ensure that the momentum continues and that the same level of effort and support is provided to disabled individuals who want to coach and officiate in the sports that they so clearly love.
Before closing, I should also mention that the Government are keenly aware that the last year has been particularly difficult for many disabled people. The recent Active Lives survey from Sport England has indicated that there was a general decrease in activity levels, but disabled people in particular were less active. That is probably in part because they are more likely to be reliant on facilities to participate in sport, which, of course, in many cases had to be shut. However, I am more determined than ever to work closely with the sector to ensure that activity levels return as quickly as possible to pre-pandemic levels and then beyond. As part of that work, there will be scope to look at the opportunities for disabled people to officiate and referee, as well as coach, volunteer and serve in leadership capacities in sport.
It has been a pleasure to respond to this debate today and to speak on this really important issue. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Telford and her constituent again for their work on this. It is clear that this needs to be a joint effort; the arm’s length bodies that I work closely with, who are true experts in the field and care deeply about inclusion within sport, will be vital in reducing broader inequalities in sport and creating officiating opportunities for disabled people.
Understanding the needs of diverse communities, including disabled people, within sport is key to taking the first step to creating a level playing field, and today’s discussion has been genuinely useful in that regard. As we emerge from the pandemic, now more than ever it is important that we keep progressing. I am more determined than ever that the sports sector emerge from the pandemic stronger, with inclusion at the centre of everything it does.
Question put and agreed to.
Cyber-Fraud in the UK
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.
I also remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and that Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to those of us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cyber-fraud in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd; I did not know that you had joined the Panel of Chairs, so I am particularly glad to see you in the Chair.
I am grateful that this important issue was successful in the ballot, affording us a golden opportunity to keep up the pressure on the Government to take this issue and its real-life consequences seriously. We have heard in recent weeks and months from a growing number of colleagues from across the House who have voiced concerns about the scale and scope of this problem, clearly illustrating that this is by no means a constituency-specific issue.
Cyber-fraud impacts us all, and failure to address it at the root risks undermining both our national security and our personal safety. Simply put, it is as real a threat to the weekly online shop as it is to national security. It respects no boundaries and views every home and institution as fair game. It poses a clear and present danger to each and every one of us.
However, tackling cyber-fraud will require grit and determination, and a steadfast refusal to roll over to powerful online platforms that believe they are untouchable. We must remember that their bark is worse than their bite. They know that if one Governments succeeds in implementing real change, more will follow. And we need that one Government to be the UK Government.
The British public are now more likely to experience fraud than any other type of crime and the scale of cyber-fraud in particular is growing exponentially. It is no longer enough to promote public awareness campaigns about not giving out bank details or ignoring unsolicited text messages. We need a substantial and co-ordinated response from financial institutions, Government and law enforcement. The country needs a standardised response and reporting mechanism, so that we can shape a set of established norms and expectations, making reporting easier, alongside tracking reports and timeframes for action.
The Government have said that if something is illegal offline, then it is illegal online. This is a principle that I am sure all colleagues can agree with, but, as is so often the case, we have seen little evidence that the rhetoric is being matched by regulation.
The covid pandemic has shaken our economic foundations to the core. It has also significantly undermined the capacity of many people, businesses and organisations to cope with unforeseen financial costs. All of us in this room will have examples of the rise of online financial scams in our communities. I receive information about new scams faster than I can publicise them to constituents. This is followed by stories of people forced into financial hardship as a result of losing money to these scammers, all of which is truly heart-breaking. People are not falling for these scams because they are naïve; they are being tricked by schemes that are astonishingly sophisticated, aping the look, feel and processes of the legitimate enterprises that they are impersonating.
Economic criminals and scammers employ myriad methods to extract funds from consumers. However, since covid-19 one particular method known as brand cloning scams has become more widespread. Criminals target retail investors looking for investment opportunities online through paid-for advertising on sites such as Google and Facebook. These adverts direct victims to fake price comparison websites, or to the cloned website of a well-known and respected investment manager.
This also creates the untenable situation whereby multi-billion dollar corporations, which own and run the platforms where adverts are posted, profit not only from promoting scams but from the Financial Conduct Authority, which pays for adverts warning consumers against the very same scammers. This has created a perverse incentive; platforms have a financial incentivise not to take proactive steps to block fraudulent adverts.
As many Members in this room will know, I have spoken out against the idea of self-regulation for some time. Why would companies proactively prevent the adverts they are being paid to host? It is a case of the fox not only being paid to guard the hen coop but being given free on-site accommodation too.
The scale of this issue grew exponentially during 2020. The Investment Association recently published statistics showing that the total number of reported incidents of this scam alone may have quadrupled from approximately 300 incidents in July to 1,175 by October. This resulted in estimated total reported losses to savers from these scams more than doubling from approximately 4 million in July to 9.4 million by October, with over 200 victims losing money. There is no depth to which these criminals will not stoop.
Over the course of the pandemic, we have seen an explosion in NHS scams. From antibiotics to testing, vaccines to health insurance, scammers have continued to find ways to harness people’s fears and concerns to devastating effect. The NHS in England has teamed up with police and other agencies in a campaign to warn the public about these scams. Text messages are linked to booking sites that mimic the NHS sites and ask for personal details, including bank details. These bank details are then passed on and used to buy goods online.
While people have been warned that the NHS will never ask for bank account details, PINs or passwords and will never arrive at your home unannounced or ask for identity documents to be sent away, we still have all heard the stories, particularly of elderly people, being conned out of significant amounts of money. Preying on the scared and vulnerable in our society is utterly reprehensible, but it is part of a wider theme of the unpreparedness of Government to deal with the challenges that arrive.
The reality of online fraud is likely to be much greater as not every loss is reported and there is a known disconnect between the amount of fraud and reporting to agencies. Action Fraud recently commented that in 2020 overall it saw 19,000 reports of investment frauds across all categories. These are, of course, only the cases reported. We have to get rid of the stigma of falling victim to a scam so that more people are persuaded to come forward and report fraud.
Another increase we have seen during the pandemic is home working, which has become a necessity for many people. Many businesses and employees are considering a hybrid working pattern once restrictions are fully eased. Many have understood that, although home working brings with it some downsides, particularly for those who can easily be tempted to log in after hours, there are many upsides, including greater flexibility for those with other responsibilities, money saved on the commute and greater comfort. But there are vulnerabilities for business and Government that need to be addressed. Domestic wi-fi and email systems do not usually have the same security as business-operated networks. Business networks should not be the only ones protected by cyber-security. It is people who are often the target of cyber-criminals, and it is people as a whole we should be protecting.
Hybrid working is a natural extension of the increased importance of the internet in our professional and personal lives, and the hybrid nature of our lives needs to be recognised in legislation. If the Government refuse to act and upgrade our analogue legislation, businesses and workers will continue to be at risk of fraud.
In February, the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies published its occasional paper on the topic of cyber-fraud, “The UK’s Response to Cyber Fraud: A Strategic Vision”, which notes that the UK economy loses an average of £190 billion every year to fraud, and that the majority of UK fraud now involves internet-based scams. Despite the commitment in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto to the creation of a new national cyber-crime force, the Government’s approach to tackling cyber-fraud can be described as an “alphabet soup”, according to the writers of the RUSI report. They gave a number of key recommendations for Government priority action, but I have highlighted the three that I think are most important as we work to make tackling cyber-crime a priority.
First:
“The National Crime Agency…should publish comprehensive guidance for private sector organisations on how they can lawfully assist law enforcement in preventing and investigating cyber fraud through information sharing.”
We have to change the cultural view that companies must protect their information at all costs, even to the detriment of colleagues, customers and wider society. A regulatory framework is needed not only to protect prospective victims of crime but to ensure that companies are clear about their responsibilities to support the prevention of crime and investigations. We need to face cyber-criminals united, and we must use all the resources we can muster.
Secondly, there needs to be a large-scale development of skills and capabilities within our public sector. There needs to be large-scale training across police forces to help them deal with the huge increase in cyber-crime in our public institutions; to ensure that they have the knowledge to deal with the cyber-threat. The Government need to harness the knowledge in our universities and research agencies, and if necessary work in partnership with those who have the requisite cyber-intelligence—for example, RUSI. We have the expertise and ideas, and we now need to bring that together to develop resilience within our institutions.
Thirdly:
“The Home Office should provide increased resourcing for the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit to ensure that the service can reach a wider range of residents in more force areas.”
We also need to think about how we reach people. It is obviously important that we reach young people and educate them on the dangers of the internet, the way people can target their victims, and how they are easily reached in schools and educational settings. We should not forget everyone else, particularly older people, for whom the internet is a completely alien landscape, where they have not learned to mistrust the communications from “the bank”, “the Post Office” or, recently, “the NHS”. Although resources to look after victims of crime are important, we also need resources to prevent people from falling victim in the first place.
We stand at yet another turning point in politics and our society. Covid has exposed elements of our society that we cannot be proud of. The inequalities exposed by the pandemic should shame the Government, but they provide us with motivation and a point at which we can recognise the problems and act on them. Online shopping, already expanding before the pandemic, has been turbo-charged. However, with this boost must come responsibilities and a duty to society from the online retailers. We have seen that scams impact not only the wellbeing of their victims but also that of those they impersonate. Online retailers and companies must contribute to their own security through taxation. We in real life, as it were, contribute to our physical wellbeing through taxes, paying for police officers and doctors. The online world must contribute to its wellbeing and that of its customers.
The main problem identified by the RUSI report was the number and diversity of stakeholders involved across sectors, from Government authorities to law enforcement, from financial institutions to private sector industry, and from cyber-security companies to IT companies. Everyone in this interconnected and technological world has an interest at stake. We need clarification on which Department leads on cyber-security and internet safety.
Then there are the quangos. Of course, internet infrastructure relating to national security will have a whole level of security. Although we do not expect our business or private systems to be protected to the level of GCHQ, the ambiguity of life on the internet these days and the host of immersive tasks that we now complete online must come with the requisite protection and guidance. That requires a clear delineation of responsibilities for all involved.
For too long, the Government have been complacent about the dangers of increased internet usage, with analogue laws in a digital age. Far too much leeway is given to social media platforms. Yes, we need to protect freedoms of expression, but we also need to protect people against criminal elements who operate in this online wild west to cause harm. False advertising is illegal. Impersonation to extract financial gain is illegal. Theft, whether in real life or online, is illegal. We needed an Online Safety Bill that would have protected people, not one that merely hints at what is considered immoral. Sadly, this is not the Bill we will be seeing in the coming months.
The Minister will no doubt set out how the Bill will be the best thing since sliced bread, how it is world leading. I understand all of those things, but two years on the Bill has made very little progress and we are now going to pre-legislative scrutiny. Two years ago, it was very positive and progressive, but now other countries are taking the lead around the world. We need to know what the reluctance to act continues to be and why the Government are still delaying. It is important that, as we tackle fraud, we put our communities, children and businesses, which are at risk of cyber-fraud, first.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this timely debate.
The scale of fraud and cyber-crime is remarkable, affecting more people more often than any other crime. It represents more than a third of all estimated crime, with 6.1 million incidents in England and Wales in the year ending September 2020. Eighty per cent of reported fraud is facilitated by the use of digital technology and the coronavirus pandemic means so many more of us are using online services to shop and invest and for leisure. As our habits change, so do those of criminals.
I believe that life on the internet should be as safe as our lives offline. If being exploited on the high street is unacceptable, the same must apply to vendors who operate online. I am proud that the City of London Police, based in my constituency, is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for economic and cyber-crime and the national lead force for fraud. It works to investigate serious, complex and cross-border fraud, which is beyond the capability of a local police force, and provides training for such police forces and private sector workforces through its Economic Crime Academy. With the support of the City of London Corporation and stakeholders, including UK Finance, the City of London Police has consistently shown how it can harness and work with the private sector to tackle cyber-fraud, providing a bridge for law enforcement into financial institutions and, importantly now, into the FinTech sector.
I welcome the draft Online Safety Bill announced in the recent Queen’s Speech, which I hope will do much to tackle cyber-fraud. Indeed, the inclusion of fraud within the legislation will provide much needed encouragement for online service providers to take responsibility for protecting users of their services and implementing counter-fraud strategies to prevent malicious content. That is essential in a time when we have become even more dependent on making our digital defences robust and capable of dealing with the volume of fraud that we are now seeing. By the same token, if we are seeing cyber-fraud more often replacing traditional crime, we must allocate the relevant resources to reflect this new significance.
Equally, the City of London Police, which holds the unique role in this landscape, must be properly funded so it can continue upholding its national responsibilities. That said, online fraud need not be as sophisticated; online threats can and do spring from almost anywhere. Last year, the City of London Police alone requested suspension of 54,000 telephone, email, website and social media accounts. Facebook, Amazon, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn are the platforms that feature most frequently in fraud and cyber-crime reports, and I am sure all of us in this room use at least one of those platforms every day. The challenge is immense, and online service providers must take more responsibility to protect users of their services and implement counter-fraud strategies.
The suspicious email reporting service, developed in partnership with the National Cyber Security Centre, has received nearly 6 million reports in the past year, resulting in the removal of more than 43,000 scams and 86,000 URLs, including those linked to covid-19, investment and online shopping fraud. I have used the excellent service myself, forwarding suspicious emails to report@phishing. gov.uk, and texting 7726. We all have a part to play in ensuring that those fraudsters are closed down as soon as possible.
Clearly, updating the framework by which we enforce against cyber-fraud is a priority for this Government, and I welcome their conviction on that, but the solution is not one-dimensional. We all have a role to play in fraud prevention. We know not to leave our doors unlocked, our possessions visible in our cars or our telephones on a table when we are out eating. We know that to keep ourselves safe, we have to take a degree of personal responsibility. The same needs to be replicated online. People, no matter what their age, should be taught how to keep themselves safe online.
Although there is more that can be done and, critically, is being done centrally, greater priority must be placed on fraud at a local policing level. Too few of the cases disseminated to local forces for investigation by Action Fraud have actually reached a judicial outcome. Simply increasing capability, capacity and focus centrally will not address the substantial shortfall in local police forces to take cases forward. Now more than ever, there needs to be a drive to boost local police capacity and ensure consistency of approach. I am glad to see the Government respond with strength on this issue. It is my hope that strength does not wane, but is fortified to protect our citizens against aggressive and malicious abuses of technology.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing the debate. This issue is becoming more and more prevalent. Sadly, in my own office I have heard several cases of people being scammed out of significant sums of money. One gentleman was swindled out of around £200,000 through an online banking scam. A seemingly innocuous mistake, a momentary lapse in vigilance, trusting those who appear to be who they are not, and a lifetime’s work can disappear, with a life forever damaged. Listening to victims recount their trauma is one of the hardest things we do. We must ensure that we do all we can to stop more of our constituents becoming victims.
It is a missed opportunity that the Online Safety Bill does not go far enough to tackle cyber-fraud and scams comprehensively. As a natural consequence of that inaction, this spiralling problem will only get worse. Action Fraud reports that £1.7 billion was lost through cyber-fraud in the past year. I struggle to comprehend how the Government cannot make it an absolute priority, as a significant step to make our online world a safer space. Tinkering at the edges of the problem will not cut it. The Government must tackle this problem, with wide-ranging provisions in the Online Safety Bill. That is very much the view of campaign groups, regulators and industry.
An area that needs specific action is online advertising, as it is the catch that hooks so many, whether the older retiree seeking to find a way to invest a pension, or cloned websites that attract the younger online user. The sophistication of such scams is becoming more apparent and must be met with a regulatory and legislative framework that is fit for purpose, ensuring that big tech is held responsible while also equipping our own police forces to be able to go after the perpetrators. We must have action. All online economic crime must be addressed by the Bill. This is the opportunity and we must take it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. May I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this excellent debate? The subject is rather close to my heart. I would like to share an anecdote, which may explain why I feel as I do.
Before I was elected to this place almost four years ago, my mother passed away. She was 91. She had led a good life, and I loved her dearly and miss her today. When she died, her telephone number was going to be taken back by BT, but I thought, “No; for sentimental reasons I will keep her number,” and that was all organised. What happened over the next few weeks and months was a revelation to me, and a nasty one at that: I was getting scam calls—fraudulent calls. Gradually it sank in that my mother must have been getting these calls in particularly high numbers—in a way that my old telephone number had not—and that she must have been on some database shared about among scammers as someone who was elderly and vulnerable.
It seems to me that there must be evil databases out there that scammers use to email stuff to vulnerable people. Curiously enough, my wife gets the odd one—we have got quite sharp at recognising them—and, exactly as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said, we report them in the correct fashion. I point out in passing that a quick google on such messages can be highly informative.
I, too, have had constituents who have lost large amounts of money. The trouble is, it was just in a moment of inadvertent not thinking that they released information they should not have done. It is a desperate business to talk to these people; it really is awful. However, right now in my constituency there is a climate of fear, with people getting really worried about perfectly innocuous emails coming in. I put it to colleagues that that fear is not healthy for society.
To conclude, I have personal experience and have seen what happens. It has affected my family. I often wonder, “Did my mother fall for any of these scams?” I do not know—she is not here to tell me—but I worry that she might have done; God only knows. I welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that legislation will be forthcoming, as I am sure we all do, and it is up to us all to ensure that it works and is absolutely watertight. All sorts of things could be done. Perhaps the Home Office could put out information in easily readable forms to all sorts of people around the UK saying, “These are the things to watch out for.” We need such warnings, but we also need forms of reassurance that say, “If you are worried about something, call this number. We can advise you and help.” I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I echo the comments thanking the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for bringing forward this important debate. As we have heard, cyber-fraud is a huge challenge right across the UK. From email scams, banking fraud, fake websites, computer viruses and online relationship scams to investment scams, cyber-fraud is thriving as cyber-criminals develop increasingly sophisticated ways to prey on victims in the cyber-world.
UK businesses lost more than £6.2 million to cyber-scams in the previous year, with a 31% increase in cases at the height of the pandemic, last May and June. The most common type of attack has been hacking through email or social media, which accounted for 53% of attacks over the past year, leading to a loss of £2.9 million. Scams caused by hacking of computer services have been revealed as the second most common type of attack on businesses over the 12-month period, but as we have heard, the consequences for individuals who have fallen victim to cyber-crime and cyber-fraud can be extremely far-reaching. While technology has helped older people to be better connected during the covid outbreak, unfortunately our increased participation in the digital world has also provided additional opportunities for criminals.
As we have heard, cyber-fraud can leave its victims in desperate financial situations, and it takes many forms. Since lockdown began, more than £5 million has been lost to covid-related scams and £16 million has been lost as a result of online shopping fraud. Criminals send phishing emails and texts claiming, as we have heard, to be from the Government, Government agencies, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and health bodies, convincing people to open links and encouraging them to reveal sensitive personal or financial information.
The most immediate impact, of course, is financial. Most people over the age of 70 who fall victim to a serious scam can be dead within two years, such is the impact on health and wellbeing. It is important, as we have heard, that we have the tools to protect ourselves online to minimise the risk of falling victim to those types of cyber-crimes. Organisations such as Age UK are doing a great amount of work to try to educate particularly older people about what steps they can take to better protect themselves from cyber-fraud. However, as we have heard, we need greater public education on the issue so that we can all be better informed about the kinds of cyber-scams to which we may be vulnerable.
There are genuine fears, repeated in today’s debate, that the draft Online Safety Bill falls far short of what is needed to protect consumers in this digital age. The Bill will not seek to address fraud via advertising, emails or cloned websites. The biggest online harm is scamming and it will simply not be sufficiently covered in the Bill, which will leave consumers pretty much as exposed as they have ever been to cyber-fraud.
Nearly 2 million people fell victim to online scams in the six months after lockdown measures began in March 2020. It is shocking that those living with mental health challenges are three times more likely to have lost money to scammers, causing trauma and crippling money problems at a time when many people are already under huge financial, emotional and psychological strain. We need extra resources to deal with cyber-fraud. The fact is that law enforcement agencies are struggling to keep up with the creativity, innovation and sophistication of criminals who engage in such behaviour. Those who can protect us from online fraud need the resources to do so.
Alongside that, older people have been moving increasingly online, sometimes by choice but sometimes out of necessity because of the disruption to normal life that the pandemic has caused. Our older people are living longer, and with 1.3 million older people expected to be living with dementia by 2030, the most vulnerable people in our society need as much protection as we can give them. We need protection for all consumers, vulnerable or otherwise, and the Bill provides a real opportunity for us to provide that.
Cyber-fraud is an evolving threat and will continue to prey on us in all sorts of insidious ways. We need more education for the public, given that such crime is becoming more widespread. We also need more information about how we can all protect ourselves, more resources for experts who can prevent and trace perpetrators, and a Bill that fully recognises the threat in ways that will give confidence to consumers. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the very important issues that have been raised today.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I can say with confidence, particularly beyond the earshot of other Merseyside MPs, that you are the most distinguished Member in our region, so it is good to see that recognised in the position of authority that you now hold. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing today’s debate; he has been a tenacious campaigner on the issue and a strong advocate for victims.
Fraud is an utterly devastating crime for individuals, households, businesses and institutions across all of society. It often targets the vulnerable, leaving victims traumatised, hurt and despairing. It shatters personal finances, damages our economy and threatens our national security. With 4 million offences recorded last year—nearly 12,000 incidents per day—fraud is now endemic. It comprises a third of all crime, and nearly one adult in 10 in England and Wales is affected.
With more of us switching to online patterns of communication, banking and working, fraud has risen sharply in those spheres. The City of London police, to whom I pay tribute—the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), in whose constituency they are situated, mentioned them as well—have claimed that reports of online shopping fraud are at an all-time high. That is a worrying trend, which I fear has been turbocharged by the current covid pandemic, as others have said. Online scams have rocketed by some 1,500%, including shameful NHS-related scams and scams by fraudsters purporting to be from delivery companies. In the past 12 months, we have witnessed an increase in remote banking fraud of 61% and in online shopping and auctions fraud of almost a third, while incidents of remote purchase fraud such as internet order fraud are up by nearly 132,000.
We know that the methods of fraud and the technology used are constantly shifting, so the question is whether the Government have kept up in the way that they should. Sadly, I must say to the Minister that despite increased warnings about the rise in fraud for many years, it is clear to me that the Government still do not seem to have a coherent plan or strategy. I would argue that they have all but given up on tackling it.
Do not take my word for it. We have seen the Minister’s colleagues openly admitting that the police lack the tools needed to properly deal with the crisis. In response to a letter that I sent him in April, the Conservative outgoing police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley—who was the then national lead on fraud, as the Minister knows—said:
“Little is done to combat major fraud…Police forces have neither the time, capacity, nor capability to take on fraud.”
Does the Minister agree with his colleague? If not, could he explain why he was moved to make such critical comments?
We also know that the independent policing inspectorate, in a scathing report, warned that the
“lack of government or national policing strategies for tackling fraud…has profound implications”.
That report was dated April 2019—more than two years ago. In February 2021, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned, the hugely respected think-tank RUSI highlighted its concerns, which have been outlined.
Let us give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. With a new national cyber-security strategy this year, we can hope that finally the Government will deal with the flaws that have been raised and ensure that resources are allocated to meet the challenge; he may want to touch on that. However, as has been mentioned, other opportunities to act exist. For example, lots of individuals fall victim to fraud online through fake advertisements, often through social media platforms and search engines, yet there was no mention of addressing that specific criminality in the Government’s draft Online Safety Bill. In fact, I do not believe that the words “fraud” or “scam” are mentioned once.
We cannot afford to keep letting the fraudsters get ahead. So I urge the Minister to work, if he can, with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because I know that the Bill is a joint Bill being developed between the two Departments, and to think again about the opportunity that might exist in the Bill to address this issue.
In conclusion, we live in an increasingly digitally connected age and we need clear cross-Government and cross-system strategies to tackle the rise in cyber-fraud and to protect the public, the UK’s reputation as a safe place to do business and, of course, our wider national security. If the Minister helps to do that, he will have my support and the full support of the Opposition.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before a fellow Scouser, Mr Dowd, who was elected on the same day as I was, back in 2015, although we originate from different ends of the city of Liverpool—yours was the posh end and mine was slightly rougher. [Laughter.] It is great to see you join the Panel of Chairs and to preside with such wisdom over us today.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this extremely important debate, in which Members have spoken with some passion and concern about this issue, underlining the fact that it must be a significant Government priority. I can assure them that it is.
We recognise the devastating impact that fraud can have and how crucial it is that we do everything in our power to protect victims and bring the perpetrators to justice. As a number of Members have outlined this afternoon, these crimes are occurring on a vast scale. According to the latest figures for the year ending December 2020, fraud accounted for over a third of all crime. Is there anybody in the nation who has not been touched by it? I myself was plagued with calls from a recorded message purporting to be the National Crime Agency, telling me that my national insurance number had been suspended and that I was likely to be arrested unless I pressed “1”. They obviously picked the wrong guy, in that I can call the NCA myself. But after I highlighted that problem in a newspaper, strangely enough the calls dried up the very next day. These people must be readers of The Times.
In all seriousness, however, I was very sorry to hear the experience of the mother of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). These crimes can be extremely distressing, particularly when they are targeted at the vulnerable or the elderly, and we really need to focus, because behind the numbers are real people, which we must always keep in mind.
As Members have outlined, the impact of being targeted by fraudsters can be truly devastating, both financially and emotionally. Victims’ lives are turned upside down, their savings are gone and their confidence is shattered. There is also a knock-on effect for society as a whole. We know, for instance, that the money that fraudsters can make goes to fund other serious and organised criminality, such as drugs and terrorism, and fundamentally the function of our economy is based on trust. Those economies that do best in the world are those where there is low corruption, low fraud and a high degree of trust between individuals, and that is something that we must preserve for our economic well-being as well as for our mental wellbeing.
As people have pointed out, with the pandemic and the rise of people staying at home, the importance of staying safe in the virtual world has increasingly become a pressure on us all. Our approach to tackling fraud and online scams puts the interests of victims first—trying to prevent fraud, providing the support that fraud victims need and catching the criminals responsible. It is my view, and that of the Government, that victims must be at the heart of all that we do. We are deeply concerned about the growth and scale of this type of crime, which is increasingly sophisticated and rooted in complex social engineering.
We are working across Government and with the financial sector to ensure that as many victims as possible are able to claim their money back or are reimbursed. We are keen to improve the quality, speed and consistency of victim support and reimbursement, and we have been working closely with colleagues in the Treasury to explore what more might be done to promote greater consistency across the sector.
However, we know that for victims, more is lost than just money. Our estimates suggest that around one in 13 people experience fraud each year. Many of those targeted will suffer serious emotional harm; feelings of shame, trauma and invasion of privacy are all common, as well as a loss of confidence in themselves and in the systems that are in place to protect them. We need to prevent that kind of suffering.
We are working with national and local policing, including police and crime commissioners, to support the victims of such crimes. The National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, based within Action Fraud, also plays an important role by helping victims to recover and to protect themselves against future fraud.
Our law enforcement and intelligence colleagues also play a crucial role in keeping the public safe and bringing these opportunistic criminals to justice. We are considering all routes, including legislation, to give them the tools they need to go after the fraudsters and, crucially, to protect those who are vulnerable to these harmful crimes.
At the forefront of our response is the law enforcement cyber-crime network, which operates at national, regional and local levels to combat the threat from this type of crime and to provide support to those affected. We are boosting the capabilities of the National Crime Agency’s National Cyber Crime Unit and increasing its ability to investigate the most serious cyber-crime. We are also continuing to invest in the cyber-teams in each of the regional organised crime units across England and Wales, to bolster the regional response.
As the hon. Member for Ogmore outlined, fraudsters will use any hook to commit these crimes and covid-19 has been no exception. We have seen criminals exploiting unease and fear, by opportunistically selling bogus personal protective equipment, running phishing campaigns and impersonating Government Departments and the NHS, as hon. Members have pointed out. We are also aware that fraudsters are using the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine to target and scam elderly and vulnerable people. The NHS will never asked for payment or bank details; if someone is asked to provide financial details or pay for the vaccine, that is a fraud.
The Government are working intensively with local enforcement teams to identify, disrupt and stop these appalling scams and amplify public safety messaging about fake messages that claim to be from the NHS, instructing people to sign up for the vaccine. We have launched a gov.uk page containing advice on the matter, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked, and we encourage the public to remain vigilant and forward suspicious emails to report@phishing. gov.uk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) has done, and text messages to 7726, which is free. These systems allow the National Cyber Security Centre and telecoms companies to remove the infrastructure that the fraudsters exploit. The suspicious email reporting service has already led to more than 5.8 million reports, with more than 43,000 scams and 84,000 websites taken down.
We do want to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. To achieve that, it is vital that we leave no space for fraudsters to operate. First and foremost, we must ensure that everyone who can, including the public and private sector, prioritises preventing these types of fraud. That is critical to prevent the significant emotional and financial harm to victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, in other types of crime we promote exactly that approach. Did you know, Mr Dowd, that about 50% of thefts from motor vehicles happen because people leave the car open and forget to lock it, and 43% of burglaries happen because somebody leaves a window or door open? Cyber-crime is no different. Preventing these types of fraud is critical to prevent the significant amount of emotional and financial harm to victims, who experience the economic damage to our businesses, and also to disrupting the organised criminals who perpetrate these crimes. To do that, we are taking steps to ensure that fewer people fall foul of such scams in the first place.
On the draft Online Safety Bill, we have taken the decision to bring user-generated fraud into the scope of the Bill. The Government have engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders, including the finance industry, consumer groups, civil society organisations representing victims of fraud, law enforcement and other public bodies. The inclusion of user-generated fraud in the Bill will require platforms to tackle some types of fraud, such as romance and investment scams, that result in massive financial losses and inflict significant psychological harm.
The Bill would require tech companies to protect their users from those types of fraud, which is part of a collaborative effort by the Government to tackle online fraud, working with law enforcement, regulators, industry and consumer groups. We are determined to relentlessly pursue those fraudsters and close down the vulnerabilities that they exploit. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will shortly be considering whether tougher regulation on online advertising is also needed.
The response to fraud demands a collaborative, innovative response to keep pace with the changing threat and new technologies, and we continue to work closely with the industry to drive progress. A great example of that kind of partnership is the specialist dedicated card and payment crime unit, a police unit that targets and disrupts credit card fraud and demonstrates the positive collaboration between UK Finance, the City of London police and the Met police, together with the Home Office, who are working to develop its relationships online.
I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. I hope that I have reassured people that this is a particular area of importance for us as it grows. This is a novel area for crime fighting. The iPhone has only been around for 10 or so years—our lives have been transported online in a frighteningly quick time. It is incumbent on us all—in Government, in policing, in law enforcement more generally and in those large organisations that steward, shepherd and track us, follow us and sell us things online—to make sure that we are as safe as possible. I believe that across Government, law enforcement, those businesses and beyond, we have a collective responsibility. We will be working together and, in the years to come, we will all be safer.
Chris Elmore
I thank the Minister for his response. As we move into pre-legislative scrutiny for the online harms Bill, I hope that there will be broader scope for tackling fraud. I am grateful to the Minister for Digital; I was one of those who lobbied for that change, and I am grateful to her for engaging, but the Bill is still too narrow in its scope around individuals and fraud, and how platforms will respond.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part today, including the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for their support for ensuring that the Government do more on tackling the increased threat of fraud in the UK.
It is important that, if additional legislation is needed, the Minister tackles that in the coming months. If he does not, the pandemic of fraud will only get worse. It is truly important that the Government respond in a positive way. Too many people are losing out. Too many people are losing their livelihoods. In some cases, people are taking their own lives. As decision makers and legislators, we have to acknowledge that in the months rather than years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered cyber fraud in the UK.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Research Collaboration Advice Team
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The Integrated Review sets an ambition for the UK to be a science and technology superpower by 2030. International research collaboration will be central to achieving this objective, and our research sector needs to be both open and secure.
The Government work with research institutions, funding bodies and industry to ensure national security risks are understood and responded to appropriately. I and the Secretary of State for BEIS (Kwasi Kwarteng), as well as our officials, have discussed these issues at all levels within the research community. We expect institutions and individuals to make sure international collaboration is safe, sustainable and secure.
I am therefore pleased to announce that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will this year launch the Research Collaboration Advice Team (RCAT). The new unit will provide an efficient route by which researchers can access advice, as well as seek confidential consultation on sensitive and emerging issues. Its leadership will operate from Manchester and advisers will be distributed across the UK, available to researchers from across the country. Advisers’ responsibilities will be limited to guidance, and they will not have enforcement responsibilities.
The RCAT will be a BEIS unit, but its advisers will work closely with officials in the Departments for Education, International Trade and Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the National Technical Authorities.
This initiative complements a number of measures already in place to manage risk within international collaboration, including:
Guidelines published by Universities UK, on behalf of the sector and with Government support, to help universities to tackle security risks related to international collaboration;
the Trusted Research campaign, run by National Cyber Security Centre and Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure in partnership with BEIS and the Cabinet Office;
one of the toughest export controls regimes in the world, including guidance recently published by the Department for International Trade specifically for academics;
the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Academic Technology Approvals Scheme, a pre-visa screening regime expanded to cover a wider set of technologies and all researchers in proliferation sensitive fields;
guidance from the Intellectual Property Office on protecting intellectual property known as the Lambert Toolkit; and
our work with partners and allies, including the G7, to create international frameworks that support open, secure science collaborations.
My Department is working hard to promote research collaboration, putting science and technology at the heart of our international partnerships. As a package, these measures are enabling this effort by making sure collaboration is safe, sustainable and secure.
[HCWS53]
Consultation on Use of Force in Mental Health Units
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Today, I am pleased to announce the launch of the Government’s consultation on the statutory guidance for the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018.
The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, also known as Seni’s Law, was introduced into the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) in July 2017 and received Royal Assent in November 2018. The Act is named after Mr Olaseni Lewis, who died as a result of being forcibly restrained while he was a voluntary patient in a mental health unit.
The purpose of the Act is to clearly set out the measures which are needed to both prevent the use of force and then ensure accountability and transparency about the use of force in mental health units. By promoting good practice, identifying poor practice, and through a greater understanding of where there are problems or issues for specific groups, we can address this nationally as well as locally. The statutory guidance sets out how we expect mental health units to meet the requirements of the Act. This consultation will seek views on the clarity, content and approach of the proposed guidance.
This is vitally important to minimise restrictive interventions in mental health units which affected 12,000 individuals in 2019-20, and disproportionately those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
This is a landmark piece of legislation which enjoys the support of patients, people with lived experience, voluntary and charitable sector organisations and the NHS. Today’s launch represents a significant step forward in our efforts to prevent the use of force in mental health units which would not have been possible without the tireless campaigning of the hon. Member for Croydon North and the Lewis family.
This consultation is part of the Government’s wider reform agenda to improve support for individuals with severe mental illnesses. The Government published their Mental Health Act White Paper on 13 January 2021, which sets out proposals for once in a generation reforms to the Mental Health Act, responding to and building on Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Act. We are also working hard to achieve our NHS long-term plan commitment to give 370,000 adults and older adults with severe mental illnesses greater choice and control over their care and support them to live well in their communities by 2023-24.
The consultation will conclude on 17 August 2021. The Government’s intention is to publish the final statutory guidance and begin commencement of the Act in November 2021.
[HCWS55]
United Kingdom-India Free Trade Agreement: Consultation
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
This morning, the Department for International Trade launched a public consultation on a future Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. This consultation will make sure that the public, business, civil society and trade unions across our nation, can have their say on Government’s approach to a future trade agreement with India. As with all consultations, my Department and I will continue to engage Parliament and the Devolved Administrations throughout the scoping of an FTA with India. Today’s announcement is consistent with the Government’s approach of consulting widely ahead of launching trade negotiations, to ensure our position is tailored to the UK economy and supports our national interest.
India, as the world’s largest democracy, enjoys many shared values with the United Kingdom, as well as strong cultural links. It is expected to become the second biggest economy in the world by the mid-2030s, presenting significant trade and investment opportunities as a key partner for us in the increasingly important Indo-Pacific region. On 4 May 2021, the Prime Minister launched the United Kingdom-India Enhanced Trade Partnership (ETP) with Prime Minister Modi of India as part of the “2030 Roadmap” between the two countries, which includes a declaration of our shared intent to begin work towards a comprehensive FTA. A future comprehensive deal could provide opportunities for businesses across the United Kingdom in key sectors of mutual interest such as healthcare, technology and services. It would boost an already strong economic relationship too; bilateral trade more than doubled between 2007 and 2019, standing at around £23 billion at the end of this period, and the bilateral investment relationship currently supports nearly half a million jobs across both countries. As in all negotiations, we remain committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, product and food safety, and animal welfare standards in any trade agreement with India, as well as protecting the National Health Service (NHS).
The online consultation opens today on www.gov.uk and will be live for 14 weeks. It will be accompanied by an information note that sets out the definition and scope of an FTA, along with detailed analytical information on the United Kingdom’s current trade and investment relationship with India. Government aim to complete scoping before the end of this year, with the results informing our approach to full FTA negotiations.
[HCWS52]
Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. Members to bring to their attention spend under the Industrial Development Act 1982 (“the Act”). Total of Scheme Grants Commercial Airports Ground Handling Operators £ 86,925,171.00 £ 65,075,462.00 £ 21,849,709.00
On 24 November the Government announced the introduction of the airport and ground operations support scheme (the scheme) with the intention of supporting airports and ground handlers who have experienced the impact of covid-19 on their business while maintaining high levels of fixed costs during the 2020-21 financial year. The aim was to open the scheme in January and ensure grant payments were made to eligible businesses by the end of the financial year. Grant payments would be made using powers in sections 7 and 8 of the Act.
Section 8(8) of the Act states that financial assistance for any one project shall not exceed £30 million, except so far as such excess has been authorised by a resolution of the House of Commons. The need to act and ensure that support was provided promptly meant that the Government were previously unable to seek such authorisation from the House of Commons.
Section 8(9) of the Act provides that the Secretary of State shall lay a statement concerning the financial assistance before each House of Parliament if they are satisfied that the payment or undertaking to pay financial assistance in excess of £30 million was urgently needed and it would have been impracticable to obtain the approval of the House of Commons by way of a resolution.
The need to provide urgent support to airports and ground handlers who play a vital role in the infrastructure of the country made it impracticable to seek authorisation by way of a resolution, for payments under the scheme in excess of £30 million and I am therefore tabling this statement. The details of the spend on the scheme, which opened for applications at the end of January, are set out below:
The Government remain committed to supporting the sector and has recently announced that the scheme will be renewed for the first six months of the financial year 2021-22. Consent for the use of powers in sections 7 and 8 of the Act for the renewed scheme will be sought separately.
[HCWS54]
Covid-19 Health Inequalities: Quarterly Report
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
I am publishing today the third of my quarterly reports to the Prime Minister on progress to address covid-19 health disparities among ethnic minority groups.
Vaccination offers the clearest path out of the pandemic and remains the key step in addressing the disparities in risks and outcomes from covid-19. My report summarises the unprecedented programme of measures taken to tackle misinformation and to increase both vaccine confidence and uptake among ethnic minorities.
Over the last quarter the Government, together with national and local partners, have responded quickly, effectively and flexibly to drive vaccine uptake. Measures include:
A bespoke plan for vaccinations during Ramadan, including the use of “twilight jabbing”;
Establishing vaccination centres at around 50 different religious venues, with many more acting as pop-up sites, to build trust and confidence within local communities;
Piloting family vaccinations with a view to encourage uptake among multi-generational households, where the risk of infection may be higher;
Allocating over £7 million of additional NHS funding to local sustainability and transformation partnerships to enable targeted engagement in areas with health inequalities and with communities that are not vaccine confident; and
Providing local health leaders with comprehensive data on vaccine uptake among those most at risk from covid-19, allowing them to take targeted action.
My report also sets out progress with the community champions scheme, which was launched in January. The 60 local authority areas participating in the Government-funded scheme recruited 4,653 individual community champions by the end of March, who are now playing a vital role in combating misinformation and driving vaccine uptake.
These combined efforts have led to increases in both positive vaccine sentiment and vaccine uptake across all ethnic groups over the last quarter. Vaccine confidence has increased in three consecutive research periods and the vast majority of people say they have already been vaccinated, or would be likely to accept a vaccine.
The Government are not complacent. The relatively low uptake rates for some ethnic groups and emerging new variants remain areas of concern. The Government will continue to encourage everyone to take the vaccine when offered.
My report sets out a number of next steps, including improving our understanding of how the pandemic has impacted frontline healthcare workers, investigating any practical barriers to vaccine uptake by ethnicity, and improving the quality of ethnicity data in health records.
My fourth and final report will provide a further update and will include recommendations on how this work to address covid-19 disparities should be taken forward, as part of our longer term strategy to tackle health inequalities.
[HCWS56]