House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
I am in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues on COP26, including on co-ordinating our international engagement. The Prime Minister and Ministers across Government are raising climate change with international counterparts to secure ambitious climate commitments by November this year.
Stuart C. McDonald
Does the President agree that diplomatic efforts ahead of COP will need to be more than discussions with other states, and with non-state actors as well? What discussions is he having with non-governmental organisations—in particular, with the Under2 Coalition—ahead of COP, and what role does he envisage their playing in November?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We want this to be the most inclusive COP ever. As he will know, we have set up a civil society and youth advisory group, which is an opportunity for groups from the global south and the global north to come together and discuss issues. I can say to him that, ahead of the climate and development ministerial meeting we had on 31 March, we took a lot of feedback from this grouping in deciding what we needed to discuss.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Many stake- holders that would normally engage at COP26—civil society groups, NGOs, politicians, business leaders—still do not have clarity about how they will engage at COP in November. I understand the difficulties related to the pandemic, but can the President give the House an update today on when guidance will be provided to stakeholders about online versus offline and whether presence will be allowed in Glasgow?
Alok Sharma
I have always been clear, and I reiterated in a speech I gave in Glasgow with six months to go to COP, that we want this to be a physical event. That is the basis on which we are planning, and we are ensuring that we are exploring all measures to ensure this is covid- secure—safe for the people of Glasgow and, of course, safe for participants as well.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
The recent G7 agreement on an international minimum corporation tax shows the significant progress that can be made at such forums. What can the President-designate tell us about the environmental Marshall plan the Prime Minister reportedly intends pursuing at the G7, and how will that impact on the discussions he is currently having with other countries in his capacity as COP President?
Alok Sharma
Matters related to what G7 leaders are discussing will of course come forward in the communiqué at the end of that process, and that is up to the Prime Minister and his fellow leaders. What I can tell the hon. Member is that we had a successful Climate and Environment Ministers meeting of the G7, which I co-chaired together with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In that meeting, we made commitments on overwhelmingly decarbonising power systems in the 2030s in the G7 countries, but also commitments on phasing out fossil fuel support overseas.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan sets out our blueprint for a green industrial revolution. The plan invests in green technologies and industries. It leverages billions of pounds of private sector investment to create and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs and level up across the UK.
Andrew Gwynne
And that is very welcome, but building back better after covid cannot just apply to us here in the United Kingdom; there absolutely has to be a global approach. So is the President frustrated that the big emitters such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and Russia have only resubmitted their previous climate pledges, and worse, that Brazil has backtracked on its climate pledge? What is he doing to convince them that meeting their fair share is important so that we can achieve the 45% reduction in emissions to keep our climate change within 1.5° C?
Alok Sharma
I would just say to the hon. Member that when the UK took on the COP26 presidency, less than 30% of the global economy was covered by a net zero target; that is now 70%. All the G7 countries have committed to 2030 NDCs that are aligned with net zero by 2050. Of course, he is right that we want all countries, particularly the big emitters, to come forward with ambitious emissions reduction targets.
Matt Western
The credibility of the COP presidency rests on demonstrable climate change action at home. However, the decision by the Government back in 2015 to scrap the Labour Government’s zero carbon homes legislation has meant that we have lost 1 million zero carbon homes in the past five years. It is a simple question: why do this Government seem to want to allow non-zero carbon homes to continue to be built?
Alok Sharma
I would point out to the hon. Member that the UK is the country in the G20 that has decarbonised its economy fastest since the year 2000. He will know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working on a heat and housing decarbonisation strategy as well. That will come forward, and of course we will set out our net zero strategy ahead of COP26.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
First, can I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does as a trade envoy in north Africa? Of course, I and fellow Ministers speak to—and, indeed, our whole diplomatic network speaks to and engages with—Governments across the world, including in north Africa. In recent months, I have spoken to Ministers in a range of countries, including Morocco, Sudan and Egypt, which I visited in February.
Damien Moore
What plans are there to sustain engagement in this region in the forthcoming months?
Alok Sharma
We are working proactively with countries in the region through our COP26 energy transition council. We co-chair the adaptation action coalition with Egypt and we will continue to engage in north Africa, one of the regions most vulnerable to climate change.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Sustainability groups and wider civil society are essential partners to the UK presidency with their links to communities most impacted by climate change. That is why we have established the COP26 civil society and youth advisory council, allowing a regular dialogue with those groups as we plan for COP26, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also launched this week the “Plant for our Planet” campaign to encourage all our constituents, and perhaps my hon. Friend, to think about the natural world and how we can live and work better within it.
Anthony Mangnall
May I ask the President, and indeed the Vice-President, of COP26 to engage with my constituents and the sustainability groups we have? It is incredibly welcome to hear the steps they are already taking, but we would really like to see a Devonian perspective on COP26 this year.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Well managed agriculture will be a critical contributor to our planet’s climate solutions, and the UK wishes to use its COP26 presidency to drive the global transition to sustainable agriculture and land use. We are committed to using our presidency platform to amplify local climate action, so I am delighted to hear about the activity being led in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and COP unit officials would be very happy to follow up and meet with them.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Devon is not the only area that is leading the way in developing community action plans, and indeed South Shropshire Climate Action has produced the first constituency-wide action plan, which I will be delighted to present both to the President and the Vice-President following this session. Will there be scope for such community groups that are leading the way in finding practical means for communities to help get to net zero to attend COP26 in Glasgow in order to spread this great practice?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are really fortunate in the UK to have, as my right hon. Friend has demonstrated, a passionate civil society that is among the world leaders in climate action. The UK launched the domestic “Together for Our Planet” campaign to celebrate climate initiatives across the UK and to inspire the public—and clearly they are already inspired—to be more engaged in climate action in the run-up to COP26. So I would be delighted to receive further information on climate action from Ludlow, as well as any other constituency that wishes to submit it, because to be able to share that is absolutely what COP26 is all about.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
We are working with the Welsh Government and indeed the other devolved Administrations to ensure an inclusive and ambitious summit for the whole of the UK. I have spoken with Welsh Government Ministers at the COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group, which I chair, and I look forward to speaking to Julie James, the Welsh Government’s new Minister for Climate Change, at the group’s next meeting, which is taking place tomorrow.
Jonathan Edwards
Offshore energy generation will have a vital role to play in achieving Wales’s energy, economic, decarbonisation and wellbeing goals, yet we are operating at the moment with one hand tied behind our back, because the Crown Estate has sole responsibility for allowing development on the seabed. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Welsh Government about devolving the Crown estates in Wales to Wales, as is the case for Scotland, as part of the British Government’s COP26 legacy?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do of course talk to the devolved Administrations, but the role of the COP presidency is to ensure that we get consensus across 197 parties. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)—the Vice-President, as she is now styled—is also the Energy Minister and the adaptation champion, and she will be very happy to discuss these matters with him.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
As incoming COP President, the UK is committed to reducing all greenhouse gas emissions and is encouraging all countries to raise their climate ambition in nationally determined contributions and long-term strategies ahead of COP26. The UK announced its NDC last December; it is an all-economy target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% on 1990 levels by 2030, and the UK’s sixth carbon budget will require UK greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 78% by 2035. The emissions scope of these targets does include methane.
Sir Robert Neill
A lot of the debate and discussion focuses on reducing the carbon footprint. I am glad that the Minister includes methane; as she will know, over the course of 20 years, 1 tonne of methane will warm the atmosphere about 86 times more than 1 tonne of carbon. Given that the UN and Climate & Clean Air Coalition report demonstrates that we can nearly halve those emissions by 2030 by using existing technology, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will make securing commitments to reductions in methane a priority at the upcoming COP?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
In the UK, we are tackling methane emissions domestically by supporting the agriculture sector to reduce its emissions further through the agricultural transition plan. We have made good progress already to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, in our domestic agriculture sector. We produce a litre of milk with 17% less greenhouse gas emissions and a kilogram of pork with 40% less greenhouse gas emissions than in 1990. In our role as COP president, the UK has established a new international dialogue to raise international ambition on the transition to sustainable agriculture, with around 20 countries currently participating.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government are introducing legislation to transform our environment, including measures to improve how we manage our resources and waste, through the Environment Bill. We continue to work with other countries to move towards a resource-efficient and circular economy.
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the Vice-President of COP26’s answer. I have had many conversations with passionate young people from schools around my patch— St Margaret’s School, St Martin’s School and South Charnwood School—who are dedicated to recycling. They wanted me to ask: will the Government consider asking for international targets on recycling rates to drive up recycling across the globe?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the schoolchildren in my own constituency are passionate and regularly communicate with me about reducing waste and reusing materials. The Government’s view is that taking action is the best way to drive progress, harnessing that consumer power to drive changes in packaging use in the goods that we all buy. Our children are the ones who are going to help all us parents across the country to drive that. Domestically, we are introducing the extended producer responsibility scheme to ensure that producers cover the full net cost recovery for packaging waste, and a deposit return scheme to increase the recycling of drinks containers. That will help us achieve a 65% recycling rate by 2035.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Through the COP26 nature campaign, we are driving action to protect and restore forests and critical ecosystems, as well as helping to catalyse a sustainable transition of the agriculture sector and food systems through our forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogues.
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he is doing. May I ask him to step up his work on ensuring that protecting ecosystems is part of the agreement that we hope will be reached at COP? I know that we have the summit in China, but the protection of habitats and ecosystems around the world is such an important part of dealing with climate change that I hope it will be part of the deal in the autumn. May I also ask him to put some pressure on the Brazilian Government over the measures that appear to be happening there that could accelerate, rather than reduce, the loss of the Amazon rainforest?
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. He will know that the UK co-led the development of the leaders’ pledge for nature, which almost 90 leaders around the world have endorsed, committing to global action to protect nature. Of course, we are campaigning for strong biodiversity targets to be set at the biodiversity COP in Kunming this October. As he would expect, I am in contact with the Brazilian Government as well.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We are exploring opportunities for strengthened international collaboration on innovation focused on the bioeconomy through Mission Innovation, a global initiative to enable affordable clean energy and achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. Leveraging growth of the bioeconomy will support clean growth across multiple sectors and contribute towards achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Rachael Maskell [V]
The climate crisis is turbocharged, as the trajectory of mitigation ever deviates from planet-saving targets while the Government move at a glacial pace to establish a climate economy. BioYorkshire will not only create 4,000 new jobs and upskill 25,000 people but lay the foundations for world-beating research in biosciences here in York and Yorkshire, offsetting carbon and waste. All we ask is for the Government to bring forward the funding already committed ahead of COP26. Will the Minister agree to do that and meet me to discuss the project and the importance of BioYorkshire?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am always happy to meet new, interesting and innovative projects, and I am very happy to commit to doing that. We are absolutely leading the way on this. Mission Innovation is an extraordinary organisation, driving and shining a light on some of the most forward-thinking processes. One key challenge in helping developing countries move to clean growth is ensuring that the technologies that UK businesses and our scientists invent and take to market can be used in those developing countries.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
The UK is committed to championing diversity and inclusion throughout our COP26 presidency. More than 45% of the senior management team in the COP26 unit are women, including our chief operating officer and communications director, and around half the COP26 negotiating team are women.
Mr Virendra Sharma
Later this year, I am hosting the British South Asian youth summit, focusing on COP26. Will the Minister meet our youth champions to hear the perspective of young people living in some of the areas of the world that are most vulnerable to climate change?
Alok Sharma
As I said in response to an earlier question, we have the civil society and youth advisory group, co-chaired by two young climate activists, one from the global south and one from the global north, and on every visit that I do, I meet youth activists. Of course, I am very happy to look at the event that the hon. Gentleman is talking about and, if my diary permits, I will certainly come to it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Our overarching objective is to keep within reach the target of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. To do that, we are asking countries to set out ambitious emissions reduction commitments, come forward with plans to protect communities and nature, mobilise finance and reach agreement on the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook.
Mr Bone
Mr Speaker, you will remember when David Cameron was hugging huskies, and I thought it was a great idea to try to do something to save the planet, so I got rid of my polluting petrol car, bought a biofuel car and then discovered that I was destroying the rainforest. I knew what to do next: get carbon dioxide down and buy a diesel car; now I know that when I drive along the street I am poisoning people. Could the President of COP26 please give me some advice? Before I buy an electric car, will he assure me that the mining of cobalt and lithium is not killing people in the mines, or would it just be easier for me to buy a horse?
Alok Sharma
That would certainly be sustainable. I am really pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is indeed a climate activist at heart; it is a revelation for all of us. It is great that he has made a decision to purchase an electric vehicle. I can tell him that he will not be disappointed. Plug-in grants are available and he knows that the Government are also backing the sector with almost £3 billion-worth of support.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As the President of COP26 knows, the International Energy Agency latest world energy outlook makes it clear that a net zero pathway for global energy requires that there be no new fossil fuel supply beyond projects already committed to as of this year. That means not just coal, but oil and gas. The report reinforces the obvious need to secure agreement on a global framework for a managed and fair phase-out of fossil fuels. Will the President therefore tell the House whether he accepts the IEA’s conclusion and, if so, whether ending all new fossil fuel supply from next year will be incorporated into the objectives of the UK’s presidency of COP26?
Alok Sharma
I actually commissioned that report and I am very pleased that it is so substantive. The hon. Gentleman is right: we need to make sure that we help all countries with a clean energy transition, and that is what we are doing through the work of the COP26 Energy Transition Council.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Two weeks ago, I chaired the G7 Climate and Environment Ministers track with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. At that meeting, the G7 nations agreed overwhelmingly to decarbonise their power systems in the 2030s, consistent with their 2030 nationally determined contributions and net zero commitments. In addition, they committed to take concrete steps to end support for international coal power generation by the end of 2021. This is a critical step in consigning coal power to history and accelerating the international transition to clean energy.
Robert Halfon
Of course we welcome plans for a cleaner, greener Britain, but can my right hon. Friend reassure my hard-working Harlow residents that the Government’s environmental measures will not mean a more expensive Britain, hitting the low-paid with extra costs and increasing the cost of living for ordinary folk?
Alok Sharma
The Government are committed to getting the transition to net zero right for all consumers. We are committed to driving savings and making our homes better insulated with more energy-efficient measures. My right hon. Friend will know that through the energy company obligation and the expanded warm home discount, we will provide at least £4.7 billion of extra support to low-income and vulnerable households between 2022 and 2026.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
For a successful COP26, we have a particular responsibility as hosts to build trust with developing countries. The Government’s decision to cut aid spending—the only G7 country to do so—is therefore an appalling one, not just because it is wrong in principle, but because it is staggeringly self-defeating. The COP26 President knows that that decision makes a successful outcome at the conference of the parties harder, not easier, so may I invite him to add his voice to the powerful calls we heard yesterday, including from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to immediately restore Government aid spending to 0.7% of GDP?
Alok Sharma
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is doubling its international climate finance commitment to support developing countries; I can tell him that that has been very much welcomed around the world. With regard to the overall official development assistance spend, this is a temporary measure, as he knows. As the economic situation improves, I hope that it will be possible to restore the 0.7% target at the earliest opportunity.
Edward Miliband
The problem is that cutting aid spending severely undermines the ability of developing countries to tackle the challenges of climate poverty and public health. The COP26 President knows that: it is what developing countries are telling him in the negotiations. We need vulnerable countries to be calling for more ambition from big emitters such as China, but they will be much more reticent in doing so when they do not feel that we can be trusted.
Totemic on the issue of trust is the promise made at Copenhagen for $100 billion of public and private finance for developing countries. More than a decade on, it still has not been delivered. It is our job as hosts to deliver on that promise. Can the COP26 President therefore tell us whether the $100 billion will finally be delivered this weekend at the G7 meeting?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the $100 billion is a totemic figure. We are doing everything we can to ensure that we are able to deliver it by COP26. I can assure him that I am having very frank discussions with donor countries—with developed countries —to ensure that they deliver on that commitment made in 2009.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
All energy-from-waste plants in England are regulated by the Environment Agency and must comply with the strict emissions limits set in legislation. I am aware that Northacre Renewable Energy Ltd has applied for an environmental permit from the Environment Agency to operate an incinerator in Westbury, Wiltshire, and the Environment Agency is considering responses to the public consultation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We will be launching a new contract for difference auction at the end of this year. The opportunity for a number of smaller sources of energy storage will be available.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Alok Sharma
May I commend my hon. Friend for all the work that he is doing in Dudley on supporting the local economy and green jobs? As I set out earlier, I co-chaired the G7 climate and environment Ministers meeting, which came forward with some ambitious commitments.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Alok Sharma
I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman talks to the Leader of the House on the matter of the timetabling of the debates and other events in the House. I would also say to him that we are working very hard and pressing all the big emitters to ensure that they come forward with the ambition that is required to be able to halve emissions by 2030.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) raised this issue with me, and I have set out the position on overseas aid. In terms of our schools, we are engaging, and I hope I will shortly be able to send out a pack that will encourage young people in our schools to get even more involved in COP26.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am delighted that the UK is hosting the leaders of the world’s greatest democracies at the G7 summit in Cornwall this week. This is the first meeting between G7 leaders since the start of the pandemic. This week is Carers Week, and I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in thanking care workers and everyone caring for family, friends and loved ones. Their selflessness and devotion to helping others is an inspiration to us all. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gavin Newlands
I very much echo the comments of the Prime Minister on the lot of unpaid carers. After plenty of warm words for the victims of fire and rehire, including from the Prime Minister himself, the Government yesterday announced their legislative response to the ACAS report, which is to do absolutely nothing. They will do nothing for the hundreds of thousands already threatened or, as the ACAS report points out, for the many more who are anticipated to face fire and rehire when the furlough scheme ends. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It is increasingly clear that this Government will not protect workers, so will they devolve employment law to Holyrood so that the Scottish Government can?
The Prime Minister
Actually, this Government have been absolutely clear that it is unacceptable to use the threat of firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic. We welcome the ACAS report, which finds that fire and rehire should be used only in limited circumstances, such as to prevent job losses, when other options have been exhausted. We have therefore asked ACAS to produce clearer guidance to help employers with other options.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The east midlands could have no more fervent or effective a champion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his vision for the east midlands freeport and all the benefits that rail integration will bring. I know that he is about to have a meeting with ministerial colleagues to determine how the integrated rail plan can work with HS2 best to achieve his objectives.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
This is the first PMQs since the Prime Minister and Carrie got married, so may I offer my warm congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife and wish them a happy life together? I have to say that I admire the way they managed to keep it secret. I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Carers Week. I also send our deepest sympathies to the four people killed in Sunday’s terror attack in Canada. It was, as the Canadian Prime Minister said, an attack motivated by hatred and Islamophobia, and we must all unite against that at home and abroad. May I ask the Prime Minister to pass on our thoughts and condolences to the Canadian Prime Minister when he sees him later this week?
Why does the Prime Minister think that his now former education adviser, Kevan Collins, described the Government’s education plan as a “half-hearted approach” that
“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”
and that
“does not come close to meeting the scale”
of what is needed?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I want to thank Kevan Collins for his work, but above all I want to thank pupils, parents and teachers for everything they have done throughout this pandemic. The struggle has been enormous and, in addition to the extra £14 billion we have committed—taking per pupil funding up to £4,000 in primary schools and up to £5,150 in secondary schools—we are now putting another £3 billion into educational catch-up with the biggest tutoring programme anywhere in the world, and it is based on the best evidence that we could find and that Sir Kevan could supply.
Keir Starmer
Let me get this right. In February, the Prime Minister appoints an expert to come up with a catch-up plan for education—a highly respected expert, who consults widely and comes up with a plan—and the Treasury baulks at it and says, “We’ll only provide 10%.” Yes, one tenth of what is needed. The Prime Minister, whatever he says, rolled over and children lose out. So much for levelling up.
Let me help the Prime Minister with the numbers. The funding he announced last week is about £50 per child per year. Even if you add in previous announcements, in England it is only £310 per child over four years. The US has a catch-up plan worth £1,600 per child, and in the Netherlands it is £2,500. So can the Prime Minister explain why, when he was told by the expert he appointed that only an ambitious, fully funded catch-up plan would do, he came up with something that, in the words of the same expert, is too small, too narrow and too slow?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to catch up on his mathematics because, in addition to the £14 billion I have already mentioned, there was already another £1.5 billion of catch-up funding. This is a £3 billion catch-up plan, just for starters, and it includes the biggest programme of tuition—one-to-one, one-to-two, one-to-three tutorials—anywhere in the world.
We all know there are schools and classrooms in this country where children are getting private tuition, thanks to the hard work of their parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about levelling up. What we want to do is to get on the side of all the kids who do not have access to that tuition and to support them. That is what I mean by levelling up.
Keir Starmer
Who does the Prime Minister think he is kidding? He asked Kevan Collins to tell him what was necessary to catch up. Kevan Collins told him, and he said no. Who does he think he is kidding? The Chancellor’s decision—I assume it was the Chancellor’s decision; it always is—to hold back the investment that is needed is a completely false economy, as the long-term costs are likely to be at least £100 billion, and probably more. Who will be hardest hit? Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If the Government do not change course, this will hold Britain back for a generation. Here is the difference between us and them: when Labour says education is our No. 1 priority, we mean it. That is why we published a bold £15 billion plan for every child to catch up on education, and we are putting it to a vote this afternoon. If the Prime Minister is really serious about this, he would back the motion. Will he do so?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I will tell you the difference between us and the party opposite: we put in the tough measures that are needed to give kids across the country a better education. When we rolled out the academies programme, which has driven up standards, who opposed it? They did. When we put in tough measures to ensure discipline in schools, they opposed it. At the last election, they even campaigned to get rid of Ofsted, which is so vital. [Interruption.] They did. He stood on a manifesto to get rid of Ofsted.
Will he now say that he supports not only our tuition programme but our radical programme to support teachers with better training? We are now putting in not only a starting salary for teachers of £30,000, which we have introduced, but another £400 million to support better training for teachers. That is what we are backing in our party. These are serious, costed reforms, based on evidence, unlike anything he is producing. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we have just a little less shouting? I remind the Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister’s questions, and it is not about the agenda of the last general election. [Interruption.] Ofsted was not the question. I am not interested in what the Opposition put on the agenda; I am more interested in you answering the question.
Keir Starmer
Mr Speaker, let me take this very slowly for the Prime Minister. The Collins review, commissioned by the Government, was very clear: if the Collins proposed action is not taken, the attainment gap will rise by between 10% and 24%. That was on a slide shown to the Prime Minister last week. He talks about the various measures, so let us look at this more closely. Which part of our plan—the plan being voted on this afternoon—does he oppose? Is it breakfast clubs for every child? Does he oppose that? Is it quality mental health support in every school? Does he oppose that? Is it more tutoring for every child who needs it? Does he oppose that? Or is it additional investment for children who have suffered the most? Which part of our plan does the Prime Minister object to? If he does not object to it and he agrees with it, why does he not vote for it?
The Prime Minister
With great respect, Mr Speaker, I do think I am entitled to draw attention to what the Labour party stood on at the last election. They have not yet repudiated it; they did want to get rid of Ofsted. But I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he is now saying that he supports our tutoring programme—that is what I understood from him just now—that is a good thing, because hitherto what has happened is that the kids of well-off parents, thanks to their hard work, have been able to rely on private tutoring. What the Government are now doing is coming in on the side of all the other kids who do not get access to that tutoring—6 million children will have access to tuition thanks to this programme. It is a fantastic thing; it is a revolution in education for this country. If he is now saying that he supports it, that is a good thing, although I have learnt in the course of the last year that his support can sometimes be evanescent.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister pretends he is here for the other kids. The report says that the attainment gap will go up by between 10% and 24% if the action is not taken, and he has just rejected it. How can he be on the side of the other kids? Come off it! We have been here before: free school meals—U-turn; exams fiasco—U-turn; and now catch-up. The Prime Minister has been all over the place when it comes to education, and he is on the wrong side of it again.
I now want to turn to this week’s G7, which will be the first major summit since the recovery. The UK needs to lead, not just to host. The priority must, of course, be a clear plan to vaccinate the world. As the delta variant shows, nobody is safe from this virus until everybody is safe. The Prime Minister has made big promises on this, but it needs a truly global effort to make it happen, so will he take the lead at the G7 and do whatever is necessary to make global vaccinations a reality?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. What the people of this country also understand is that not only were we able to give one of the first authorisations for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but, thanks to the deal the Government did between the Oxford scientists and AstraZeneca, we were able to ensure that one in three of the 1.5 billion doses that have been distributed around the world are the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. That is global Britain in action, to say nothing of the billion vaccines that we hope to raise from the G7 this week.
Keir Starmer
That would sound a lot better if the Prime Minister was not the only G7 leader cutting his aid budget. I hear what he says about vaccines, but we also need clear global agreement and global funding. Hundreds of former leaders, businesses and development groups have called for exactly that kind of leadership at the G7, and that is what we need to see from the Prime Minister this weekend. The G7, bilateral discussions with President Biden and the possibility of a new Government in Israel also provide a real chance to restart a meaningful middle east peace process. The appalling violence recently, which killed 63 children in Gaza and two children in Israel, shows just how urgent this is. For too many people in Palestine, the promise of an end to the occupation and a recognised sovereign Palestinian state feels more distant than ever, so will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this weekend to press for renewed international agreement to finally recognise the state of Palestine, alongside a safe and secure Israel; to stop the expansion of illegal settlements; and to get a meaningful peace process back up and running?
The Prime Minister
It has been a long-standing objective of this Government, and I think it is common ground across the House, that the solution for the middle east peace process is a two-state solution. We continue to press for that, and I have made that position plain in my conversations with both the Palestinian Authority and of course with Israel.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for failing to be sufficiently ambitious in our overseas aid spending—I think I heard him say that in that compendious question. [Interruption.] He is gesturing at the Government Benches. Under this Government we have spent more and continue to spend more than Labour ever did under Blair and under Brown, and even when they were spending money on Brazilian dancers in Hackney—which is what they did—to raise consciousness of global poverty. We are spending £10 billion a year at a time of acute financial difficulty for this country, and I think the British people know that that is the right priority for this country. If Labour Members want a vote on that matter, I remind them that the people of this country had an opportunity last month to vote on the way the Government were handling things and the balance that we were striking, and they adjudicated firmly in favour of the Government. The Opposition pontificate and prevaricate and procrastinate—
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have committed a total of £3.8 billion to fund energy improvement in the performance of social rented homes in particular.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I am sure we are all looking forward to the European championships kicking off later this week. May I take this opportunity to wish all the best to our country, Scotland —to Steve Clarke and the team—and to remind the team that it is time for heroes?
Later this week, the Prime Minister will walk into the G7 summit as the only leader who is cutting development aid to the world’s poorest. At the very moment when global leadership is needed more than ever, this Tory Government are walking away from millions still struggling from the covid pandemic and a poverty pandemic. The Prime Minister has been hiding on this issue for months. This is a Government on the run from their own moral and legal responsibilities and on the run from their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister cannot hide from this issue any longer and he cannot run from democracy in this House. Will he stand up today and commit to a straight vote in this House on his inhumane cuts, as demanded by the Speaker? Prime Minister, it is a very simple question: yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I wish all the very best to Scotland and England and all the home nations that may be playing—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to reciprocate, Mr Speaker, but you never know. It was worth a shot, I thought.
The Prime Minister
Oh, he did. Good—that’s nice of him.
Anyway, the answer is clear: as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the people of this country were given a vote on this and many other matters very recently and they adjudicated very firmly in favour of the balance that the Government are striking. We are in very, very difficult financial times, but you should not believe the lefty propaganda, Mr Speaker, that you hear from those on the Opposition Benches. We are spending £10 billion overseas. We have actually increased—[Interruption.] All they want to do is run this country down when we have increased spending on girls’ education alone to half a billion pounds—almost half a billion pounds. That is a fantastic sum of money to be spending in difficult times and we should be proud.
Ian Blackford
I have to say that I do not think I ever heard the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), call the left propagandists. The simple fact of the matter is that every single party, every single Member of this House, stood on a manifesto commitment of 0.7%. The Prime Minister has reneged on that, and Mr Speaker has indicated that the Government should allow a vote on it. It is pretty basic stuff. After a year dealing with the deadly virus, why cannot the Prime Minister get this? In a pandemic, no one is safe until everyone is safe. Now is the time to support each other, not to walk away from those in need. People are dying and they need our help. The Prime Minister has the nerve to brag about the Government’s support for the vulnerable, and at the very same time he is slashing £4.5 billion from the world’s poorest. In the week of the G7, what kind of world leader washes their hands of responsibility by cutting water and hygiene projects by more than 80% in the middle of a pandemic?
The Prime Minister
I may say that I think that the last contribution was absolutely disgraceful. The people of this country have gone through a very difficult time.
We have had to spend £407 billion supporting jobs, families and livelihoods throughout the country, and yet we are continuing to support international vaccination. This country has contributed £1.6 billion to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and I think £548 million to COVAX. Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman of the statistic that I mentioned earlier. One in three of the vaccines being distributed around the world to the poorest and the neediest come from the Oxford-AstraZeneca supply, thanks to the deal that this Government did—or does the name “Oxford-AstraZeneca” continue to stick in his craw?
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, because the whole point of the tutoring programme is that it is evidence-based. Every tutoring programme—there are 6 million children who can benefit—is equivalent to three to five months of educational catch-up. We will also be looking at increasing time in schools. I hope that the loyal Opposition will use their influence with their paymasters in the teaching unions to encourage them in that objective.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister knows full well that the best way to reduce checks in the Irish sea is make do a Swiss-style sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union. So far, he has decided not to do that. Why is he prioritising cheap, dodgy beef from Australia over the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland and reducing checks in the Irish sea?
The Prime Minister
No, what we are prioritising is the right and the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to have access—as they should, freely and uninterruptedly —to goods and services from the whole of the UK, and we are working to ensure that we protect the territorial and economic integrity of our country. That is what matters.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. Last year, in spite of the difficulties we faced, we delivered the highest number of new homes for over 30 years, but his point is an extremely good one. As all hon. Members know, we must find better, faster ways of releasing publicly owned land—brownfield sites—for development, and that is exactly why we are looking at the suggestion he makes.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
What we are seeing across the country is people responding to massive investment— a £640 billion programme of investment in roads, in schools, in hospitals, in policing—that, bit by bit, is transforming people’s lives, hopes and opportunities. That is fundamentally the difference between the hon. Gentleman’s side of the argument and ours. We believe that there is talent, genius and flair around the whole country but opportunity is not evenly distributed. That is our ambition and that is what we are doing with our campaign for levelling up. If he is now saying, by the way, that he supports what we are doing on the tutoring revolution—because I know he is a great educational expert—then I am glad to hear it.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know, introduces a new criminal offence where a person who resides or intends to reside on land in a vehicle without permission and has caused or is likely to cause significant damage or distress can face new penalties. Guess who voted against that Bill on a three-line Whip? Does anybody know? It was the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and his entire party.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concern that he has and the injustice that he mentions. I will make sure that he gets a meeting as soon as possible with the relevant Minister in the Justice Department.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and I agree with him completely, because I think that David Frost—Lord Frost—is doing an outstanding job. I venture to say that he is the greatest Frost since the Great Frost of 1709 or whenever it was.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am indebted to everybody who serves the Government in whatever capacity. We have a lot of very tough decisions to make but we will continue to get on with delivering the people’s priorities—and by the way, we will continue to ensure that we deliver value for money, that we do not waste taxpayers’ money, and that Ministers follow the ministerial code.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
In April 1989, 96 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, yet nobody has been successfully prosecuted for their part in those unlawful killings. The most recent trial collapsed, because although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, as it was evidence to a public inquiry, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice. Will my right hon. Friend urgently look at the ramifications of that judgment for current and future public inquiries, and ensure that people are given the justice that has been so cruelly denied to the families of the Hillsborough 96?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Of course, the families of the 96 who died in the Hillsborough disaster and those who were injured have shown tremendous courage and determination. My right hon. Friend raises a particular issue about the recent court case and asks for a review of the law. I can give her the reassurance that we will always consider opportunities to review the law and how it operates if necessary, and we will certainly be looking at the case she describes.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I am afraid I had no advance notice of the question and cannot comment on the case, save to say that if he will send me details, we will get back to him as soon as we can.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am delighted that Southend-on-Sea has now been given the opportunity to become a city.
In the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, a million and a half ladies were forced to give up their babies for adoption. By any standards that was cruel, and the hurt is still felt by those ladies today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that an apology should be given, and that all those involved in the process should acknowledge that forced adoption was wrong?
The Prime Minister
I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about Southend, but also what he says about those who have been affected by forced adoption. The practices that led to forced adoption cannot now occur because the law protects birth parents. He asks for an apology; I can tell him that the agencies involved in forced adoption in the past have apologised for their role—and quite right too.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, again, I am afraid what he is saying is completely wrong. The sums that we are already investing in education are huge and we have announced a £3 billion additional package of catch-up, investing not just in teacher training—another £400 million to help teachers improve their qualifications as they go up the ladder—but in the biggest tuition programme in the history of this country: the biggest anywhere in the world. That will make a huge difference to young people in Wansbeck and across the country. Many kids are getting private tuition at the moment, but loads are not. We want to level up.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Recently, I met Giani Singh, who 25 years ago founded the Sikh Helpline UK, which is based on West Bromwich High Street. I went to hear about the fantastic work that it has done over the years, supporting the community with advice on issues such as hate crime, domestic violence, bullying, mental health, addiction and more. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Giani Ji and the team for their work and wish them the very best of luck with their 350-mile charity bike ride from Edinburgh to West Bromwich next month?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work of the Sikh Helpline UK. I am very happy to join her in wishing Giani Singh and the team the very best of luck for their charity bike ride.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
No. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that once again he is completely missing the dynamism and optimism of so many people I meet in the agricultural sector, who see opportunities for Welsh lamb and Welsh beef around the world. Why is he not thinking of this as an opportunity for exports, instead of cowering in this way? Welsh lamb, Welsh beef and Welsh farmers can do brilliantly from the deals that we are opening up around the world. He should be championing Welsh agriculture and Welsh produce.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
In East Surrey I have been working with brilliant parish councils in Smallfield, Burstow and Horne to ensure that we can get a better balance on heavy goods vehicle movements, allowing local businesses to thrive but ensuring that residents feel safe. I welcome the Government’s work to clamp down on moving traffic offences, but would the Prime Minister also consider taking another look at the powers of the traffic commissioners to ensure that we can find a balance?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. Traffic enforcement outside London can only be undertaken by the police, but I will certainly look at the role of the traffic commissioners in the cases that she describes.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
“Our greatest national asset”; “Best of this country”; “Record increase in funding”; “Saved my life—no question”; “My No.1 priority”—all things that the Prime Minister said about our NHS. Yet award-winning South Tyneside District Hospital has lost vital services and been told by his Government to make further cuts to remaining services. Later today, I am presenting a petition on behalf of more than 40,000 of my constituents who are against these cuts. Like me, they want him to help us save our hospital and ensure, for once, that he is able to match his rhetoric with some action. Will he?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and all the changes that the hon. Lady mentions will be consulted on in the usual way. I note that Dr Shahid Wahid, the executive medical director of the trust, was recently quoted in the Shields Gazette as saying:
“This is about improving surgical services…It is not about downgrading anything”.
The hon. Lady mentions cuts: this Government, this year alone, have given another £92 billion—£92 billion—to support our NHS, on top of the huge commitments that we have already made.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Yesterday we had the fantastic announcement of £25 million of investment into Redcar town centre, which will allow us to build a new water sports facility at Coatham, a new indoor activity centre on the Esplanade and give the town a much-needed lift. I am working with the council on other bids for Eston, a tier 6 area, but in the meantime may I invite the Prime Minister to come to the mighty Redcar and see our plans for levelling up our area—and I will even treat him to a lemon top?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for the people of Redcar. Thanks at least partly to his advocacy, we have announced a town deal to benefit Redcar and the levelling-up fund will help secure local investment in infrastructure and communities in Redcar. As and when my diary permits, I will be thrilled to join him for what I think he described as a lemon top.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
12.40 pm
Sitting suspended.
Petition
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about South Tyneside Hospital on behalf of 44,000 of my constituents in South Shields.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of South Shields,
Declares that the downgrading of South Tyneside Hospital announced in the “alliance” between South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust (STFT) and City Hospitals Sunderland (CHS) with loss of acute services will be a disaster for the people of South Tyneside and the people of Sunderland; further that the removal of all acute services to Sunderland will make the Sunderland A&E unsustainable and will mean that people from South Tyneside will have to travel to Sunderland or Newcastle; further that the immediate threat of this “alliance” is the loss of acute stroke and maternity services; further that the decision to downgrade South Tyneside Hospital demonstrates that the Government’s direction with the NHS is to reduce its funding and damage it through its fragmentation into purchasers and providers, closure of acute hospitals and A&E Departments, cut-backs and the takeover of the most profitable services by private health companies; further that the Government has a duty to provide a comprehensive health service across England to all communities; and further that access to healthcare is a right of all in a modern society and we demand that it be guaranteed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS England, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group and South Tyneside Health & Well-being Board to stop any plans to close acute services at South Tyneside District Hospital and to safeguard its Accident and Emergency Service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002667]
Opposition Day
Investing in Children and Young People
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the resignation of the education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, over the Government’s inadequate proposals to support children after the coronavirus pandemic; agrees with Sir Kevan’s assessment that the current half-hearted approach risks failing hundreds of thousands of young people; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward a more ambitious plan before the onset of the school summer holiday which includes an uplift to the pupil premium and increased investment in targeted support, makes additional funding available to schools for extracurricular clubs and activities to boost children’s wellbeing, and provides free school meals to all eligible children throughout the summer holiday.
It is a privilege to open this debate. Today I invite hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House to put children and young people first and support our motion. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who does not agree that children and young people are our country’s most precious asset, that as we emerge from the pandemic and begin to rebuild our country their education and wellbeing must be our top priority, and that we owe it to them to match the ambition, optimism and enthusiasm they have for their own lives and their futures with measures to ensure that every child can enjoy an enriching childhood and achieve their full potential. So Conservative Members must understand not just my dismay, but the dismay of every teacher and parent I have spoken to in the past week at the wholly inadequate announcement from the Secretary of State, providing just 10% of the funding that the Government’s own highly respected expert education adviser Sir Kevan Collins had said was needed to enable children and young people to bounce back from the pandemic. If this Government really want to make good on the Prime Minister’s claim that children’s education is his priority, the paltry announcement we got last week is simply inexplicable. As we know, the plans fall so far short of what is needed that Sir Kevan refused to be associated with them and resigned last Wednesday. He described them as too small, too narrow and too late —and he was right.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kate Green
I will not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There was nothing in the plans to support children’s socio-emotional wellbeing, which parents and teachers have told us again and again is their priority for children and young people. I support small group tutoring as an element of supporting children to catch up on lost learning, but last week’s announcement of additional funding will amount to just one hour per fortnight per child of tutoring, and the Government’s package performs woefully when compared with those of other countries, amounting to just £50 per pupil compared with £1,600 in the USA and £2,500 in the Netherlands.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that that figure she has just given for the US relates solely to catch-up funding and therefore is comparable? Does she need to add up a number of figures from the British Government for English schools? Is she suggesting that that is what that figure refers to?
Kate Green
It is certainly not 30 times out in its accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to ask about the make-up of the different figures, but even on my most generous interpretation of the amount the Government have put in over the past year to support children’s catch-up, which I calculate would amount to £310 per pupil, we are still well short of what other countries are spending.
Tim Farron
The hon. Lady has rightly pointed out that the Government’s own expert adviser recommended 10 times more money than is being given, so I am sure she would agree that this is an outrage. Does she also agree that headteachers and teachers will make the best use they can of what paltry money the Government do give them, so is it not right that the professional judgment of headteachers should be trusted in how they spend that money? Yes, there has to be accountability, but surely they should be given the freedom to make the best choices of how to make the best use of what money they are given.
Kate Green
I am grateful for the opportunity to echo the appreciation of the work that school leaders and staff have been doing over the past 15 months of the pandemic, and of course we must respect and recognise their professional judgment.
The suggestion that last week’s announcement is just an instalment and that there will be a review of what more is needed is both wholly unnecessary, when Sir Kevan Collins has laid out a clear and comprehensive plan, and is an insult to children who have already lost between two and four months of classroom time and should not have to wait another term or more for the support that they need to recover from the pandemic.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In the proposals that Sir Kevan Collins made, how much of the £15 billion was related to the half-hour extension of the school day? Does the hon. Lady agree that if we are to do something as radical as extending the school day, which I support, the evidence base should be looked at and it should be done carefully? We will have trade unions to negotiate with, and rightly so, as well as teachers who are not on contracts and may have had their hours extended beyond 4 o’clock already. There are problems with suddenly announcing things without having carefully thought them through.
Kate Green
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably building up more problems than actually exist in the provision of extended activities at the end of an enhanced school day. We already know that many schools are able to provide some such activities, and that it is not just through schools, but through youth and community organisations, that such activities can be added to the school day. We are talking about ensuring that every child has the opportunity to benefit as soon as possible—we had 15 months to plan this— from the enhancement that those activities can bring to their childhood.
The Conservative party’s plans are a terrible betrayal of children and young people’s excitement at being back in class with their friends and teachers, their optimism and their aspirations for the future. Today, I hope that we can come together as a House to resolve to do better. Last week, I was proud to publish Labour’s children’s recovery plan, which proposes a package of measures for schools, early years and further education settings to address children and young people’s learning loss and their wellbeing.
Robert Halfon
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), because I think that a longer school day is essential. In the media last week, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she opposed a longer school day. There is a big difference between a longer school day and enhanced activities, and a longer school day is a core part of Sir Kevan Collins’s programme. I think we need the Labour party to be clear on exactly what it supports.
Kate Green
My reading of Sir Kevan’s proposals is that the longer day would be used for exactly the kind of activities that the Labour party supports: social and emotional play, learning and development-related activities, including sport, the arts, drama, debating, music and so on. There is also time, of course, for some focus on formal, more structured learning, but we have heard again and again from teachers and parents, as I am sure Conservative Members have, that children get tired and their concentration wanes after seven or eight hours.
Kate Green
There is no point in the hon. Member shaking his head. That is what they told us. Any parent will recognise the fact that expecting children—
Kate Green
I am coming on to children’s resilience, so it will be good to speak about that in a moment. I think we have to be realistic about expecting children to work full on, especially children who may already have a large amount of homework. We have to be realistic about what childhood is for. Enhancing a school day, of course, increases some learning opportunities, but we have to recognise that play, social activity, arts, culture and music are also learning activities and will therefore enhance children’s attainment.
In recent months, parents and teachers have told us again and again that socio-emotional wellbeing and time for children to be with their friends is their top priority. That is why our plan would see all schools offering new extracurricular activities, from breakfast clubs to sport, music, art and drama, creating time for children and young people to play and socialise, and removing the cost barrier that prevents all schools from offering those activities or all children from participating in them. Such targeted programmes can also help to accelerate children’s academic development, delivering two months of additional progress, which rises to around three months for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is therefore all the more disappointing that the Government have failed to invest in these activities.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) rightly says, children are resilient, and many will be able to overcome the challenges and disruption of the past 15 months, but some will struggle and need more help to recover. That is why Labour’s plan also proposes funding to meet their needs by providing schools with additional resources to hire specialist counselling or mental health provision.
Mental health support, and activities that make use of schools’ fabulous facilities to provide an enhanced offer at the end of the school day, are important in and of themselves. They also free up teachers to concentrate more of their time on children’s learning. However, more must be done to make up lost learning. Although small group tutoring will help, the truth is that most children are going to do most of their learning in class, alongside their classmates.
That is why Labour would reverse the Government’s £133 million stealth cut to the pupil premium, and why we are calling for a further boost to the pupil premium in early years and schools, as well as for its extension to further education, to reach the most disadvantaged children and young people—including, of course, those with special educational needs and disabilities or in alternative provision. That targeted funding will enable teachers to focus extra attention on the children who need it most, helping to close the attainment gap, which Sir Kevan suggests could have increased by between 10% and 24% as a result of the pandemic.
Finally—hon. Members must forgive a sense of déjà vu here—our motion calls on the Government fully to deliver free school meals to every child eligible for them over the summer holidays. The current guidance for the Government’s holiday activities and food programme proposes that children should receive that support on just 16 out of 30 weekdays this summer. No one in this House would think it acceptable for their children to be fed only once every two days, so why do the Government think it is acceptable for the 1.6 million children eligible for free school meals? Children do not go on half rations just because it is the holidays. The Government really must put this right before this term ends, to ensure that no child goes hungry over the summer.
Today, more than 200 charities, education experts, business leaders, unions and young people have called on the Government to put children at the heart of the recovery, so it would be especially fitting for every hon. Member in this House to support our motion today—to support our call for the development, by the summer, of an ambitious recovery plan that enables our children to access world-class education, receive support for their mental health and wellbeing, enjoy the opportunity to make the most of their childhood, and achieve their full potential.
As adults, we have a responsibility to match the ambition that children have for their own future. That is why addressing the impact of the pandemic on young people must be our priority, for their life chances and wellbeing, and for our country’s future success and prosperity. Today, we have set out how Labour would make Britain the best country in the world to grow up in. This afternoon, I hope that Members across the House will join us in voting for that bold ambition.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I welcome this debate and the opportunity that it gives us to set out clearly what we have done and what we plan to do to ensure that no child—no child, Mr Speaker—will suffer damage to their long-term prospects because of the pandemic. As I listened to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talk about vision and ambition, I asked myself, where was she—where was the Labour party—on all the big strategic decisions we have taken since 2010 to transform our education system and drive up academic standards in our schools?
Where was the Labour party in 2010, when we reformed the national curriculum, replacing Labour’s dry, bureaucratic, competence-based curriculum with a curriculum rich in the knowledge that children need to succeed? Where was Labour when we transformed the teaching of reading and introduced the phonics screening check, ensuring that every child is set on the path to becoming a fluent reader? Where was Labour when we extended the academies programme to primary schools and to good and outstanding schools to give them the autonomy to drive up standards even further and to help underperforming schools improve? Where was Labour when we introduced the EBacc performance measure, ensuring that more young people are studying the core academic subjects at GCSE—English, maths, science, history or geography and a foreign language —that are so fundamental to later progress and success?
It is this party’s vision, ambition and actions that, under three Conservative Prime Ministers, have led to the attainment gap between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers closing by 13% in primary schools between 2011 and 2019 and by 9% in secondary schools. It is this party’s vision, ambition and actions that have resulted in 86% of schools being judged by Ofsted as good or outstanding, compared with just 68% when we came into office, despite the bar of what makes a good or outstanding school being raised. It is this party’s ambition, vision and actions that have led to this country rising in the international league tables of children’s reading ability—we were up to joint eighth place in the progress in international reading literacy study published in 2016—with nine to 10-year-olds from this country scoring our highest ever results and low-attaining pupils improving the most.
The commitment of Conservatives to educational standards and to the success of our school system was demonstrated clearly when, in 2010, even as we had to tackle the crisis in the public finances after the global financial crisis, school funding was one of just three areas of public spending that were protected from the spending constraints needed at the time to restore confidence in our public finances and our economy. At every stage of this appalling pandemic, it is the commitment of this Conservative Government, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Education Secretary to education standards and to the success of our schools that has meant that we have taken every step possible to protect the education and life chances of young people.
Our commitment to education has been at the core of the Government’s decision making, only closing schools when absolutely necessary and reopening them before any other sector of society and the economy, and ensuring that the most vulnerable children and the children of critical workers have been able to attend school throughout the pandemic. What a debt of gratitude we all owe to the thousands of teachers and support staff who have kept our schools open, even during the darkest days of this pandemic.
In 2019, we secured the biggest school funding settlement in over a decade—a three-year settlement adding £14.4 billion in total to school funding—and we reconfirmed the 2021-22 school funding settlement, even as the Treasury faced enormous bills as we fought the pandemic, while protecting people’s incomes and jobs.
Kate Green
Surely the Minister accepts that the figures he suggests for school funding ignore and overlook the fact that we have seen a real-terms funding cut for schools of 9% over the last 10 years.
Nick Gibb
That is not what the Institute for Fiscal Studies says is the record of our spending on schools once we reach the end of the three-year financial settlement for schools.
When schools were closed to most pupils in March last year, we continued to provide support to pupils eligible for free school meals, even though they were at home, and we extended it to the Easter holiday, to the Whitsun half-term and, with inspiration from Marcus Rashford, to the long summer break. Altogether, over £450 million has been spent through the food voucher scheme. We invested more than £400 million to provide laptops, tablets and internet access, with over 1.3 million computers built to order, imported, configured and delivered to schools, so that every child, regardless of means, could continue to study and be taught while locked down at home. Again, what a debt of gratitude we owe to our teachers, who have developed lessons and learned how to teach remotely and to engage their pupils while confronting their own challenges in working from home.
We supported the inception of the Oak National Academy, helping schools to provide high-quality online lessons. Thanks to the hard work and brilliance of scores of highly talented teachers, that has led to over 94 million views and downloads of those lessons, and Oak will continue to have a critical part to play in helping schools and helping pupils to catch up.
We put in place a system of controls in schools to ensure that as they reopened after the summer, they would be as safe as possible from the spread of the virus. We also provided £139 million to help schools cope with the exceptional costs that they faced during the first lockdown. Again, I thank teachers and support staff for all their hard work last summer to adapt their schools and introduce the new safety measures.
In June 2020, while we were still in lockdown, the Prime Minister announced the first £1 billion commitment to ensuring that pupils were able to catch up: £650 million of catch-up premium and £350 million for a teaching programme—a new initiative to provide private one-to- one or small-group tuition for the children most in need. We created a market. We worked with the Education Endowment Foundation to identify and evaluate the best tutoring companies—33 in all—and asked them to expand their number of tutors. So far, more than 230,000 pupils have been enrolled, and our announcement last week extends that further still to 6 million courses. This is an evidence-based approach that research suggests that could help to boost progress by up to three to five months for every pupil who takes one of those 6 million courses. Combined with our provision through the 16 to 19 tuition fund, it will amount to 100 million hours of tutoring over the next three years.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Would the money not be better spent through the schools themselves? Are teachers not in the best position to identify the pupils who are in the greatest need of additional tuition? Could teachers not work in small groups with children to advance them through the school curriculum, rather than involve outside companies that have no idea of the history of the children or their records?
Nick Gibb
We want to have both. In the package that we announced last week, £579 million is allocated to schools to do just that. They can use that money either to employ local tutors or to free up their own teachers to tutor the pupils who they know need the most help. The idea behind the hon. Gentleman’s exhortation was announced last week.
Tim Farron
I have raised with the Prime Minister the issue of the Government directly commissioning outdoor education centres—of which there are dozens of excellent examples in Cumbria—to make use of their skills and talents to help re-engage young people with a love of learning. It is not about cramming subject-wise. Will the Minister engage with me and Brathay, the charity in my constituency that has written a draft proposal for the Prime Minister, to see whether we can make that a reality in schools right throughout the country, not just in Cumbria?
Nick Gibb
Yes; we share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. Outdoor education centres are wonderful places, and none are more wonderful, of course, than those in the Lake district, which the hon. Gentleman represents. I would be happy to discuss those issues with him further. He will know that residential courses are now available for schoolchildren as a result of our moving to step 3 of the road map.
In February this year we announced £700 million of funding to extend the tutoring programme, to provide extra funding to schools through the recovery premium, and to fund a summer school programme aimed at year 6 pupils who are about to start secondary school.
But of all the catch-up and education recovery initiatives and funding that we have announced and provided this year and last year, the most important catch-up is happening every day in tens of thousands of classrooms throughout the country. Eight million pupils are back in school—back to the routines and disciplines of study and to being taught by 450,000 highly qualified and committed teachers. That is why the Government have been so determined to reopen schools to all pupils at the earliest, safest moment, and it is why the £400 million of funding for continuing professional development and teacher training is probably the most important element of the package of measures that we announced last week. We are supporting teachers with 500,000 courses over the next three years, helping the profession to be the best that it can be, and supporting the professional development of early years practitioners, with all the benefits that great teaching will bring for pupils and for catch-up.
If having pupils back at school and benefiting from great teaching is key to catch-up, why would not a proposal to extend the time that children spend at school be a highly effective measure to increase attainment and help children to catch up what has been lost during the pandemic? That is why we are reviewing the evidence of the benefits of a longer school day and consulting with parents, teachers and pupils about how and whether to introduce such measures. It would be a big change and would require significant funding and more teachers, which is why we are right to take a short period of time to review the evidence and consult. The review will be ready in time for the spending review later this year.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister has been on his feet for over 10 minutes now. Does he share my concern and that of the Disabled Children’s Partnership that disabled children and parent carers have been completely missed out of the Government’s plans for education catch-up? What message does he send to parents of disabled children?
Nick Gibb
I do not accept the hon. Member’s views. We have put disabled children and children with special educational needs absolutely at the core of our decision making. We have enabled vulnerable children to remain in school—in special schools or in mainstream schools—throughout the pandemic. As for all the funding that we have allocated to schools, particularly through the £650 million catch-up premium, three times as much funding per pupil was allocated to children with special educational needs and disabilities through that programme, demonstrating our understanding and concern about those children, in particular, in our school system.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for taking a personal interest in Joseph Leckie Academy? The building is looking absolutely fantastic, and I hope he comes to visit. However, I want to pick him up on funding, because some of my heads in Walsall South do not recognise the extra funding that the Government say they are giving. Many are operating on a deficit. Will he write to me and set out exactly which schools are operating on a deficit and which are operating on a surplus?
Nick Gibb
Yes, I would be delighted to write to the right hon. Member. We know that schools are spending considerable sums during this period. As I have set out, we have all the different funding provisions that we have allocated to schools for catch-up and, indeed, through the exceptional costs fund during the period from March to July. There have been other schemes—when there have been excessive numbers of staff off, for example—in which we have provided funding for schools. Schools that are in serious trouble with their finances will always have recourse to their local authority or to the Department, if they are an academy, to tackle those particular challenges.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Minister is right about the importance of face-to-face and in-school education. I welcome a lot of the funding announced for England, but as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I note that our school attendance is the worst in the Union. I implore him to work with the Welsh Government, on the review, the funding and the tutors that he is making available, on a cross-border basis to address this issue. We need to work with the Welsh Government and help them with schemes such as the ones he is announcing today, which we look enviously over the border at.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Nick Gibb
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to try to conclude my remarks, so that other people can speak.
As we have shown throughout this crisis, the Government are ready to spend to deliver on our commitment to education. We announced £1.4 billion only last week, and as the Prime Minister said then,
“there is going to be more coming down the track, but don’t forget this is a huge amount that we are spending.”
Behind the Opposition’s warm words and hot indignation, there is no substance and no real plan, but the Government are getting on with the challenging job of tackling the pandemic, keeping our economy alive, supporting people’s incomes, supporting the NHS and our doctors and nurses, vaccinating the nation, and providing education and support to 8 million children and young people. Working with tens of thousands of able civil servants and supported by Conservative Back-Bench MPs, we are doing every day what we believe to be right in order to get the country through this crisis. We know that there is more to do, not just to tackle the impact of the pandemic, but to continue to spread the benefits of our reforms since 2010 across the country to ensure that all children are taught an extensive, knowledge-rich curriculum by well-trained teachers in a disciplined and caring environment, with high expectations and where success is rewarded and celebrated. That is our vision, that is our commitment, and that is our ambition.
Mr Speaker
May I remind hon. Members that there is a speaking limit of six minutes for Back Benchers? The countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate. Is Jeff Smith ready?
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
I am, Mr Speaker. Thank you for calling me so early in the debate. First, I pay tribute to all the teachers and school staff in Manchester, Withington for the amazing job that they have done over the last year. They have kept our schools open. They have kept children learning and they have supported families in really difficult times. They have been some of the heroes of the pandemic.
It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who made an excellent speech. The key point was when she said that Labour would put children and young people at the heart of the recovery from the pandemic, and they deserve to be, because this has been a tough year for young people. It has been tough for everybody. In the most formative years, a year really is a long time. I believe that young people are resilient, but there is no doubt that the last year will have had an effect on their mental health. The brilliant mental health charity Mind published a survey last year on the impact of the first lockdown and it said that two thirds of young people said that their mental health had worsened during the first period of lockdown restrictions. We have now had another year of various lockdowns and restrictions. It has been hard for young people, so we need the best mental health support we can give to children affected by the crisis.
There is an equally worrying issue around lost learning and the widening of the disadvantage gap in attainment. Despite the brilliant work of teachers and schools generally, there are pupils who have not been able to access learning as they should. I know that my own niece and nephew, who live in quite a small crowded home, really struggled to get the internet access that they needed to be able to properly access online learning. It is really tough in disadvantaged areas to be able to do that. In Manchester, the gap in months between our disadvantaged pupils and non-disadvantaged pupils nationally is likely to be 8.2 months at primary and 18.2 months at secondary level. That is really worrying and we need a plan for recovery.
When the Government bring in a highly respected adviser such as Sir Kevan Collins as education recovery commissioner, and when he puts forward well-received and well-respected proposals, we would expect any Government to act on those proposals. Can there be any more damning condemnation of this Government’s actions, any more damning illustration of their failure of our young people, than their own adviser resigning in protest at the inadequacy of the Government’s response? It is a shocking indictment, but, unfortunately, it is only the latest sign that the Government have got education policy wrong all along in the last year.
I met a group of heads last month to talk about issues in school. I have to tell the Minister that, from my conversations with those heads, you would not recognise the rosy picture of the education system that he has just painted. They were pretty damning in their assessment of the Government’s performance on education over the last year. The biggest complaint was on short-termism —not knowing what was happening from one week to the next; items never arriving until the last minute; and the Government not thinking through policy properly. We all recall the chaos over exams and the issues on assessment; the Government should have defined the process months ago. Problems on nursery funding compounded the difficulties, making life impossible for teachers trying to ration places for keyworker children. Reductions in pupil premium had a massive impact in big cities such as Manchester.
Budgets have been reduced in real terms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, meaning that schools are looking at having to lose staff when they are most needed. On budgets, over the last year, it has been a case of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Those are just some of the problems that headteachers have brought up with me.
On top of all that is the failure to properly support families. About 100 yards from where I am speaking now, there is a mural on the side of our local coffee shop that has become something of a tourist attraction. It is a brilliant portrait by the street artist Akse of a man who has become a national treasure. Even a lifelong Manchester City fan such as me has to doff my cap to Marcus Rashford for his brilliant work highlighting food poverty, but, again, what an indictment that it took a football star to help to shame the Government into providing free school meals during school holidays.
Labour would extend free school meals into the holidays, including this summer. We have a plan, outlined by my hon. Friend, to make a real difference to young people across the country: small group tutoring for everyone who needs it; high-quality mental health support in every school; support for teachers; and a proper education recovery premium, investing in the children who have had their schooling disrupted most.
The amount committed so far by the Government is inadequate, as Sir Kevan has said. It is just a 10th of what he recommended and what is needed. I know that the Prime Minister has suggested that there is more to come. If there really is more money to come, it is needed now so that pupils can be catching up now. The Government really need to put their money where their mouth is now. Sir Kevan wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
“I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size.”
Those are damning words. The Government are failing hundreds of thousands of children. Our children need a plan that will not fail them, and Labour has that plan. I hope Members from all parties will support it this afternoon, for the sake of all our young people.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome the debate. I begin by paying tribute to all the teachers and support staff in my constituency of Harlow and the villages for all their work to try to keep children learning over this difficult time.
My views on education funding are clear. Before the 2019 election, the Education Committee published a proposal that focused on a long-term plan for a secure funding settlement for schools and colleges. I have campaigned hard, since Easter 2020, for money to be spent on a catch-up fund because of damage from school closures and the lasting effect on children. That is why, while not a lockdown sceptic, I was a schooldown sceptic. My position is therefore clear.
However, I reject the premise of the motion because it implies that the Government are doing nothing for education funding. The Secretary of State and the Schools Minister deserve credit for the £3 billion that has been secured for the catch-up premium and recovery, as does my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Children and Families, for the extra £220 million for the holiday activities and food programme, for catch-up, sporting and wellbeing activities and free school meals. Many millions of pounds extra have been given to local councils and charities to ensure that children are fed properly. There is also an extra £79 million for mental health. The motion should have acknowledged that extra funding.
At any other time, funding of more than £3 billion to the schools system would be welcome, especially when £400 billion has been spent on the covid pandemic. With all that in mind, I want to focus on two matters. The first is the catch-up fund and ensuring that it reaches the most disadvantaged pupils. The second is my hope that the Government will implement an important part of Sir Kevan Collins’s recommendations—a longer school day. I have huge respect for the shadow Education Secretary, but she still did not make it clear whether the Labour party genuinely supports a properly structured, longer school day.
My worry about the catch-up fund is that it appears that not enough is reaching disadvantaged pupils. Recent figures suggest that 44% of people receiving the pupil premium were missed. There is also significant regional disparity: for example, there is huge take-up in the south- west, but just 58% take-up in the north-east. If the catch-up programme is to be the success that I believe it could be, Ministers must ensure that funds are directed towards the most disadvantaged pupils who have learnt the least during the pandemic.
Perhaps one way of doing that is to allow schools more autonomy to choose their tuition routes to permit teachers to choose their own catch-up tutors, not leave it solely to the groups already chosen by the Department for Education, however good they may be. I accept that there must be absolute, definitive criteria for quality and outcomes. The teachers and support staff are best placed to identify those most in need of additional support and they can offer the quality catch-up that those pupils require.
I want to discuss the key part of Sir Kevan Collins’s plan. It is no good going on about his resignation if a key part of his plan is rejected, as it appears that the Opposition are doing. It is the idea of a longer school day. I was encouraged by the Secretary of State’s response to my question during the statement on Monday. He said that
“there is a body of evidence that can be collected that shows that extra time in the classroom can deliver real benefits for pupils. It is about getting the combination right.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 691.]
The Schools Minister has been even more encouraging today about what could happen once the evidence is there. That is a huge step forward.
I have said previously in the House that I am talking not about an extended school day in terms of pupils learning algebra—though, knowing the Schools Minister, he would be delighted if that occurred—until 7 o’clock in the evening, but a combination of academic catch-up and extracurricular activities to improve mental health and wellbeing. We know that 39% of academies set up before 2010 have seen success for pupils from the introduction of a longer school day, and I have seen that in my constituency. I urge the Government in the meantime to set up some school pilot schemes in disadvantaged areas of the country, inviting civil society groups to help to run the extracurricular activity, and gather the evidence that will feed into the proposals for the comprehensive spending review.
In conclusion, the Government have provided a hefty starter, with billions of pounds allocated to catch-up funding, mental health wellbeing and free school meals. This commitment to education, alongside the lifetime skills guarantee and the Chancellor’s kickstart funding for apprenticeships, shows real direction of travel. I mentioned that this was a hefty starter—the main course will be a serious long-term plan for education, along with components such as a longer school day with a secure funding settlement. I hope—the Minister suggested this in his statement today—that the Government reach this point by the time of the comprehensive spending review later this year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
There is not a part of the UK population that has not felt the severe impact of the covid-19 pandemic over the last 16 months. Whether it is the pain of bereavement or long-term health impacts, the hardship of reduced income or unemployment, all of our communities have suffered. But the impacts of the pandemic have been further fuelled by pre-existing inequality and disadvantage, and that is no more clearly seen than in the impact on children and young people. Our education system should be—and, indeed, thanks to the dedication and commitment of our teachers, often is—a bulwark against disadvantage. From early years through to college and university, education services provide the opportunity to reduce the impacts of poverty and deprivation. But faced with a stay-at-home order and the requirement to switch to online learning, we saw very quickly the impacts that 10 years of cuts to school funding have had on the resilience and capacity of our schools.
The stark reality is that UK schools were lagging far behind on investment in IT. Our schools should not have faced an impossible scramble to get laptops and broadband access to the most disadvantaged children. In the 21st century, the ability to learn through modern technology should have been a basic requirement, as it is in many other countries around the world. Instead, in my constituency, we saw our local council stepping in to provide laptops where the Government were far too slow, with communities fundraising and donating technology. While I pay tribute to all of that work, it should not have been necessary: our schools should have had the investment in basic IT equipment for every child already.
IT is just one example. Throughout the pandemic, the Government’s approach to children and young people has been chaotic and they have often seemed to be an afterthought—from the utter scandal of last year’s exam results, to the abandonment of so many university students, left to pay for accommodation they did not need, with little recourse for poor-quality online provision, to the failure of the catch-up tutoring programme and the shameful reluctance to fund free school meals during school holidays. Our children and young people feel left behind because they have been left behind by this Government.
We turn now to the national recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. The Government have a special duty to our children and young people to ensure that the harms they have suffered over the past year remain superficial wounds from which they recover fully, not deep, permanent, debilitating scars. Children must be at the forefront of recovery. Whether it is the babies born during the lockdown who have missed out on the earliest opportunities to socialise with other children so vital for speech and language development, or the teens whose independence was just beginning to expand at the point at which they were confined to the four walls of their homes, or children with special educational needs and disability who simply have not been able to engage with online learning at all and have missed out on months of education and support, we must ensure that no child is left behind.
But the mean and paltry nature of the Government’s response is an insult to every child, every parent and every teacher, school leader, early years practitioner and youth worker in the country. The Government employed Sir Kevan Collins for his expertise to set out what was required to enable our children and young people to catch up and recover, and then decided they would ignore his recommendations and do it on the cheap, with a tutoring offer of less than £1 per day for each day that children were out of school. This insult comes on top of stealth cuts to the pupil premium, which will cost schools in Southwark, which covers part of my constituency, £1.2 million and mean that 723 children in Lambeth are no longer eligible for free school meals. This Government are adding to food poverty for our children and young people, not reducing it.
Our children and young people are the future of our economy and our communities; we cannot afford not to invest in their recovery. Labour has set out an ambitious and comprehensive plan to invest in our children based on a clear understanding of children’s needs. We would ensure that no child is left to go hungry by funding breakfast clubs and free school meals during the holidays. We would deliver the mental health support in every school that is absolutely vital in helping children come to terms with their experiences over the past year. And we would ensure an effective tutoring programme for every child who needs the support to catch up and provide funding for extra-curricular activities, which should be not a luxury for a privileged few but available to every child to expand their horizons, discover new talents and passions and have fun with their friends.
In closing, I pay tribute to the teachers, support staff, school leaders, youth workers and voluntary sector organisations across Dulwich and West Norwood who week by week for more than a year have been straining every sinew to deliver support for our children and young people. There is so much commitment, innovation and creativity in our communities and in our schools, but that work should be in addition to comprehensive, fully funded support provided by the Government, not, as it so often is, plugging the gaps.
I hope the Government will listen today, rethink our approach and fund the recovery programme our children so desperately need.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who speaks for the Opposition, was quite right when she said that children are our most precious assets, and, as parents, we share with our brilliant teachers; we rely on them for the education and preparation for adult life of our children, and I want to join with colleagues across the House in paying tribute to them and thanking them for all they do.
This is a moral imperative: we all know that there is a whole-cohort effect from this pandemic and a risk of lasting effects on this generation of children and young people, and we cannot let this generation be put at a disadvantage because of covid. We also know that the effect has been felt very unevenly: some children have progressed entirely as they would have done in a regular year, but many have not, and we know that the attainment gaps that had been closing since 2010 will have started to widen again. We also know that this is not just about academic attainment; far from it, it is about the whole of children’s development—their extra-curricular activities, their socialising and their development as people.
This calls for a whole-of-society response including expanding mentoring programmes, having more volunteer readers, firms working more closely with schools, and having more STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—ambassadors, accelerated careers programmes and work experience. We need established broadcasters and new media to step up on early literacy programmes, and sports clubs and governing bodies have a key role to play, as do cultural organisations and the voluntary sector. In fact, everybody has a part to play in supporting this generation. For the Government of course it is about many things, too: it is about a bolstered school sports and activity plan, the holiday activities programme, the mental health services support reforms, working with local authority children’s services, innovations in early language and literacy, and the major upgrade to technical and vocational education which has at its heart T-levels.
And of course it is about money. A higher proportion of national income—Government money—is spent on British state schools than in many other countries, but clearly additional resourcing has been needed during the pandemic to support schools, and clearly it is needed now to support schools and children in its wake. Some of the figures bandied around about what other countries are doing are entirely misleading; they are not comparing, as it were, apples with apples or apples with pears, but comparing apples with pomegranates. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston speaking for the Opposition just repeated them without doing some basic fact checking, and I could say the same for her boss, the Leader of the Opposition. However, it is the case, of course, that many countries around the world are looking at the extra support that is now needed, and here we have just recently had the £14.4 billion uplift over three years and since the pandemic £3 billion in three different funding packages over the past 12 months. The last tranche of that will cover 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses in an unprecedented and unparalleled programme of individual and small group tuition. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister and his colleagues in the DFE have focused on the programmes with the best evidence, and we know that there is very strong evidence for one-to-one and small group tutoring.
It is also true that we cannot just dial these things up infinitely. People who have spoken to schools recently—I guess that is most colleagues here in the Chamber today—will know that the No. 1 thing that people are talking about is often not a lack of money for tutors but a lack of tutors, because obviously there were not 100,000 tutors hanging around who were not already busy when this thing hit, and that is a difficult thing to scale up for. It is right that schools should have the flexibility to source tutors locally—I was pleased to see that in the package—because it is they who will know their schools’ situation best.
I also welcome the involvement of Teach First in the programme, but I would ask the DFE to redouble its efforts in its search for where talented professionals can be found to support this effort. Of course, teachers themselves are a big part of the effort. For example, every year teachers volunteer to be exam markers, and many teachers will want to be involved in this programme, but we also need to think about recent retirees and PGCE returners. As my right hon Friend the Minister knows, many thousands of people in this country have a postgraduate certificate in education but are not currently teaching. It would be wonderful to get some of them to come back to the profession, either full time or part time—[Laughter.] I am not trying to shame anyone here. We also need to redouble our efforts on teacher workload to free up their time to be able to do these incredibly important things.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I would like to see us move to a rational, long-term, predictable system of funding that works both for when pupil numbers are shrinking as well as for when they are expanding, and perhaps this is the moment when that might be possible. It is important that we look at extra time to make up for lost time, and the tutor programme is of course part of that, as is moving back public exams a bit, but it is right to look at the question of a longer school day. Not everybody is excited about that prospect, but there is clearly a role for some of these important, enriching and broadening activities. It is right that the Government are taking an evidence-led approach, and I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. We look forward to hearing more in due course and at the spending review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to ensure that we get everybody in, I am going to have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
In May, the End Child Poverty campaign released a report detailing the shocking levels of child poverty in the UK. For my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green the report confirmed what many of us already knew all too well: that child poverty was on the rise. Nearly half of all children in Birmingham, Hall Green live in abject poverty with no sign of this improving. I wrote to the Chancellor on behalf of my concerned constituents about this very issue and pointed out how his most recent Budget contained no hope for those millions of families living in abject poverty. This Government clearly have no intention of putting an action plan in place to meaningfully tackle the extreme levels of child poverty, and therefore they are failing not only the people of Birmingham, Hall Green but the people of Birmingham, the west midlands and the rest of the UK.
I cannot say I was surprised when I saw the news of the insulting offer made to schools. Sir Kevan’s resignation, while regrettable, was wholly justified considering the Government’s “half-hearted” approach to the so-called catch-up plan. This is yet another milestone in the failure of this Government to take seriously the issues faced by families and children. Schools in Birmingham, Hall Green have not seen their funding grow to meet the challenges of the pandemic, with many schools seeing a decrease in funding in the last year. This means that the overall increase in funding for schools in my constituency is below the average for England. Many schools do not provide a full five-day education due to the funding constraints. Children deserve a full five-day education. The Government’s catch-up plan will do next to nothing to assist these schools in meeting the needs of teachers, pupils and parents.
I implore the Government to look closely at and learn from Labour’s children’s recovery plan to remedy this shameful situation. I also suggest that the Government seriously consider the current state of funding for our local authorities, which continue to provide essential services to families and children in need, despite their increasingly precarious financial situation. I call on the Government to ensure full and proper funding of local authorities, so that essential services can continue to meet demand. I also urge the Government to rethink their approach to universal credit in line with what End Child Poverty has suggested and make the £20 uplift permanent.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this debate and, like my colleagues, I pay tribute to the teachers in my constituency, who have been working really hard during the difficult last year in extraordinary circumstances, delivering education to pupils and ensuring that as few as possible fall behind. Inevitably, some children have fallen behind across the country, and it is vital that we do everything we can to ensure that we do not leave a generation behind and that no child loses out from this pandemic.
The Opposition have called this debate because they say that they have a plan to recover education, so it is fair enough for us to look at how previous Labour education plans have done. What is the evidence on whether Labour’s education policies actually work? The last Labour Government up to 2010 had a range of education policies. “Education, education, education” was their mantra, and where did we score on international league tables in that time? From 2000 to 2009, we dropped from seventh to 25th place in the international scores for reading, we dropped from eighth to 28th place in the international league table for maths and we dropped from fourth to 16th place in the international league table for science.
What about Wales? Labour has been in charge in Wales for the last 22 years and responsible for education policy there, and what are the results? Labour education policies have led to Wales scoring below the international average on the PISA scores not just in one subject but in every subject tested. In science, maths and reading, children in Wales fall below the international average. In contrast, pupils in England score above the international average in every single subject. It is not that pupils in Wales score less than some in the rest of the UK and better than others; they score worse in every subject compared with every other part of the UK—compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
So there you have it: Labour has controlled education policy in Wales for 22 years, and now Welsh pupils score worse in every subject tested compared with pupils in every other part of the UK—talk about a lost generation. This has real world consequences. The number of students from Wales studying in the UK’s top Russell Group universities has fallen. Graduates from Welsh universities are now the lowest paid in the UK. That is the hard evidence of Labour’s education plans.
If I were marking Labour’s education performance, I would give it a big F for fail. Labour trying to teach anyone else how to run an education system is like Mr Bean trying to teach someone how to be a secret agent—it has no credibility. The fundamental problem with Labour on education is that it suffers from producer capture—the blob says, “Jump” and Labour says, “How high?” Labour is, in effect, the political wing of the education unions. Education unions no doubt do a lot of good work for their members, but as we have seen time and again during the pandemic, the unions do not really have the best interests of children and parents at heart.
From free school meals to league tables to academies for our primary schools, education unions and Labour have resisted every successful education reform. In 2001 in Wales, working closely with its education union paymasters, Labour scrapped league tables for schools, which was followed closely by scrapping national testing for 14-year-olds. Nationally, the Labour party stood on an election platform with a manifesto commitment to scrap Ofsted, which plays such a vital role in keeping standards high in education. Labour will never improve education standards if it does just what education unions tell it—they have nothing to teach about education policy.
The pandemic has been terrible for the education of many children. The Government must help, and are helping, children to catch up with their education recovery plan. I fully commend it.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I put on record my appreciation for the teachers, support staff, parents and pupils of the schools in my Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, who have faced a torrid 16 months of interrupted education. Parents have faced the unexpected opportunity—some might say—of home tutoring while trying to hold down their own jobs.
I particularly thank two primary schools that I visited a couple of weeks ago. Carter’s Charity Primary School in Preesall is a beach school. It was already very focused on outdoor education, but throughout the past year it has had a school allotment, engaging children in learning through doing, being outdoors and growing things, which is so important for their mental wellbeing after the time that they have had. Fleetwood’s Charity Primary School, also in Preesall, has turned its playing fields into a community orchard to bring the community together and create a space where we can take what we have done over the past 16 months of creating community and have a lasting legacy. Many of the children have planted trees that will be a reminder in years to come of the resilience that they have shown through what has been such a difficult time.
There is no doubt that the impact of covid-19 on young people and children has been profound. Their education has been interrupted, the employment opportunities have gone for our older young people, and their mental health is in crisis. It is on those topics that I wish to address my remarks.
From speaking to headteachers across schools, it has been really clear that children and young people are not able to learn while their mental wellbeing suffers. Given the importance of play for young children and of youth work for older young people, we cannot see education through a narrow prism of just academic learning. Labour’s children’s recovery plan includes funding for schools to deliver new extracurricular activities, boost wellbeing and target support for children who have missed out, and an extension of free school meals for pupils this summer.
On mental health, recent data from NHS Digital suggests that one young person in six now has a probable mental health disorder. We must not underestimate the impact that the pandemic has had on those young people, because experiencing mental health difficulties can have far-reaching impacts, including on young people’s educational outcomes, their future earnings and their relationships. We know that the earlier a young person gets support for their mental health, the more effective that support will be, yet just over a third of young people with a diagnosable mental health condition are currently able to access NHS care and treatment.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a new joint campaign called Fund the Hubs, which is run by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition in partnership with YoungMinds, the Centre for Mental Health, the Children’s Society, Youth Access and Mind. The charities are calling for a systematic approach to supporting young people’s mental health so that young people can have a one-stop shop to access mental health support. They are calling for hubs across the country to be able to provide early support for young people’s mental health, with no need for appointment or referral, so that they can address their mental health issues sooner and get support faster.
Finally, youth work is phenomenal. It can support and bolster academic and educational learning outside the classroom. Given the crisis that our young people are currently living through, it is appalling—I find it unacceptable—that the sector is on its knees. In the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, the Government promised a £500 million youth investment fund. That has been promised, but not a single penny has materialised in the youth sector and we have had just £30 million announced for next year. From that announcement to today, not a penny has gone into supporting our young people through delivering youth work and youth services.
Will the Minister at least confirm that the piggy bank has not been raided and that the money will be forthcoming? Can she give an indication to those who work in the youth sector—those delivering youth work through local councils, but also those in the voluntary sector such as the Sea Cadets, the Guides and the Scouts—that the money will be forthcoming? Our young people need academic support and tutoring catch-up, and they need food in their bellies, but they also need youth work to provide the mental wellbeing and resilience that allow them to achieve academically, go out into the workplace, contribute to our economy and build those relationships. After all, after the year we have all had and the crisis we have all lived through, if young people are to be the future, we need to put our money where our mouth is—£500 million was promised; when will it be delivered?
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) has just done, I would like to thank my local teachers, support staff, parents and pupils for all they done throughout this global pandemic across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
I would like to ensure that it is on the record that when the £3 billion announced over the last 12 months specifically for catch-up is added to the increase in core school funding, the raising of the pupil premium, investment in the school estate, increased higher needs funding, investment in the free school meals national voucher scheme, in digital devices and in the holidays, activities and food programme, and the exceptional funding to cover specific unavoidable costs incurred by schools due to covid, it racks up to a total spend of £14 billion from this Conservative Government on education and young people. So the idea that the Conservative party, which I am proud to be part of—I am also a proud ex-teacher—somehow has not invested in young people and education is for the birds.
There must be an immediate response, but there also has to be a longer-term vision. I wish to focus on the idea of extending the school day, of which I am a huge advocate. I am delighted that there will be a review of it. Especially for disadvantaged students, such as the 31% of children in low-income families in Stoke-on-Trent, an extended school day could have a transformative impact in the long term, not only for them, but for their parents. We are talking about parents who have to take half a day out of work, and therefore lose their earnings, because they are having to go to collect their loved ones at 2.45 pm, 3 pm or 3.30 pm. It is simply unfair on those people, who are working hard to put money on the table for their kids. Having an extended school day will go a long to helping with that.
I was shocked to hear the shadow Education Secretary saying that she does not want children doing maths in the evening. I completely concur with Katharine Birbalsingh, the fantastic headteacher of Michaela Community School, who, in response to a BBC news clip, tweeted:
“What is it…where we think ‘doing maths’ is some kind of massive strain on our brains?!”
Ultimately, an extended school day means the opportunity for kids to learn and have that extra time with their teachers, just like many a private school child has had the advantage of being able to. That is about creating equality and fairness in our education system. Not just the academic, but the extra-curricular is important. Some 500,000 young people currently do not get to enjoy those sort of activities or holidays outside school. I want every child who attends a state school in this country, especially disadvantaged children, to get access to the very best, rounded education possible, such as the one I was able to have, as were many other Members in this House. So when we are thinking about post-pandemic recovery, we have a huge opportunity to get this sorted, and there is a simple way we could overhaul after-school activities in order to so do.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a brilliant member of our Education Committee. Does he agree that a wealth of evidence shows that an extended school day, combined with academic, mental health and wellbeing activities, increases educational attainment, as well as helping pupils’ mental health? There is a wealth of evidence out there that makes his case absolutely.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my right hon. Friend for that and could not agree with him more. Even though we sometimes cross swords in the Select Committee, on this we are absolutely united in understanding the importance, both academically and to the wellbeing of the student.
I have an idea for the Minister on how this can be achieved without having to get any new money. When it was originally brought in, the pupil premium was intended to offer activities and enrichment opportunities to pupils. If we were to ring-fence just 10% of the existing pupil premium budget—worth about £2.7 billion—for its original purpose, we could ensure that disadvantaged children get the same access to activities outside school as their better-off peers. Schemes such as The Challenger Trust are ideally suited to deliver this model. Run by Charlie Rigby, the trust offers activities to disadvantaged children that have been shown by the Education Endowment Foundation to boost confidence and motivation and, from this, improve attendance, behaviour and attainment in school.
The trust is already working with schools to offer after-school activities and is trialling its model in Gateshead. Working in local partnership trusts with school staff and youth services, who volunteer to carry on beyond the normal 3 pm closing time, the trust can extend the school day up to 6 pm, without increasing teacher workloads. Without allocating any more money, in this way we can extend the school day by three hours, seven days a week. We do not need masses of extra money to give all our children a better future. If we all use the pupil premium funding in the way it was originally intended, the funding will already be in place.
I would like to talk about the fantastic holiday activities and food programme. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), came to visit Ball Green Primary School in Stoke-on-Trent North to look at the unbelievable Hubb Foundation, led by Carol Shanahan and Adam Yates, a former professional footballer who delivered 140 activity sessions for young people across the city of Stoke-on-Trent in the Easter holidays, not just to boost their education and socialisation but to give them the skills to be able to cook and eat a really good cooked meal throughout the day.
The idea of shortening the summer holiday is something that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard time and again from me by text. Estimates in a report I did with Onward show that reducing the school summer holiday from six to four weeks would save the average family £266. That has a huge financial impact in the pockets of parents while also helping to tackle the plight of children not being able to get fed over a long summer break. More importantly, it means that the attainment gap of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, which widens during the six-week summer break, can continue to be narrowed, so that when they return they do not have to spend the first seven weeks of term, on average, catching up to where they were in the previous academic year. Longer school days, shorter summer breaks, and ring-fencing the pupil premium: these are realistic long-term solutions that I hope the Minister will have in his mind when the review is undertaken.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, let me just say that I am absolutely not against taking interventions, but it would be helpful if colleagues who do so still stick to the five minutes, because otherwise we are preventing others from speaking later. I want us to help each other out and do the maths as well: you can see from the clock that you are keeping within the five minutes.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for advocating a similar policy to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) when she was Chair of the Education Committee in 2000.
We should respect the fact that there is general agreement in this House that one of the first duties of any Government is to invest in education and our children’s future, and I am glad that that sentiment has been expressed in this debate.
I thank teachers, parents and students for their hard work and perseverance during what has been an extremely difficult year that no one could have anticipated. The pandemic was clearly a once-in-a-century event. We need to try to put ourselves in the place of those young people and imagine—it is very difficult to do this—what they have been through in this incredibly difficult year. They have faced all sorts of obstacles, as have their teachers, and they have risen to enormous challenges, but despite all that effort, they have still fallen behind in their studies, through no fault of their own. This once-in-a-century event demands a response in line with the scale of the problem, and I am afraid that for all the warm words and the emphasis on the importance of education, there has clearly been a failure of Government on this important issue.
Looking at this in very general terms without getting distracted by the detail—we have had some interesting debates about education policy, and I am sure more will follow later as the debate pans out—there is the central question of money. On the issue of whether the Government are willing to commit sufficient national resources to this crucial problem, they have fallen short, as £50 per child is not comparable with £1,600 per child in the United States or £2,000 in the Netherlands. Both those countries have followed active policies of school reform and investment in education over 20 to 30 years, as arguably we have also done in that time.
It is important to see this in the context not just of the detail of education policy but of the Department’s failure of leadership—I do not say that lightly—on a series of crucial issues during the last few months: its woeful mismanagement of the exam system last year; its failure on universities, where first-year students faced unbelievable pressure due to mismanagement; the failure of its tutoring programme; and its repeated failure on free school meals and holidays, where it had to be pushed by a footballer. I commend Marcus Rashford for his work—I am not a Man United fan, I am afraid, but he has done the most amazing job on this and we should all respect him—but the issue should have been taken up by Ministers long before he needed to come in and save the day.
What is worse, that follows a series of very poor decisions since 2010. The Minister may try, in a very smooth and sophisticated way, to defend some of those spending decisions, but it is quite clear that there has been a lack of investment in education since then. On teachers’ pay and a series of other indicators, this country fell behind where it should have been. That was a conscious decision of the Government, and it has led to a series of major problems in the system, such as the crisis in special needs—arguably, it deeply worsened that—the recruitment and retention crisis among teachers, which has a direct effect on children’s learning, and a series of other problems.
It is no good trying to criticise the record of the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 when, clearly, there was both major investment and, as a result, a major improvement in standards and attainment, demonstrable on a whole series of metrics. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) quoted selectively from some international studies when a whole range of extra countries joined them in the intervening period.
I appreciate that I am nearly out of time. The question now is, will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor rethink—will they listen to their own officials and, I believe, the ministerial team at the DFE—or will this be another example of the Government’s being all talk and, I am afraid, very little action?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Education is one of the best opportunities we can provide for young people; it is the best leveller-up. Sadly, our children have felt the burden of this pandemic, with school closures, cancelled exams, learning at home, and enrichment and extracurricular activities stopped. It is on us to fix that and to ensure that our children do not become the lost covid generation.
That is why I very much welcome the Government’s package of support and work on education recovery, and in particular the discretion given to our school leaders, the training and support for their profession, and the careful thought that is being put into longer-term, sustainable interventions to support education. I particularly support the provisions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). The impact of this pandemic will be felt for a generation, and our response must be equally broad and sustained.
I have regular Zoom meetings with my school leaders, and the message from each meeting is clear. Yes, things are tough, but in my nurseries, primary schools, secondary schools, prep schools and colleges—state and independent —our teachers have risen to the challenge. They have got on with it, and they continue to deliver for children living in Runnymede and Weybridge. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. Honestly, I believe that it is only through their passion and dedication that they have been able to continue delivering so much despite such adversity. I say to all my teachers and staff working in education: thank you.
However, the best way that we can thank those staff is to listen to them and respond to concerns that they raise. My school leaders tell me that they will do whatever is needed to support our kids, but they need help with one thing in particular: what is coming down the line. They put in the work, the graft, the inspiration and the passion—my God, do they do all they can for the children they teach!—but they need warning of what is coming down the line. I think there may be a few more twists in the tale in terms of what this pandemic could throw up—third waves, no waves, winter pressures. Whatever the future holds, we must give schools as much run-in time, preparation and contingency planning as possible so that they can start laying the groundwork. I ask the Minister, please, as part of our recovery plan, can my teachers have as much time and contingency planning as possible for whatever the future may hold?
I turn to the Opposition’s motion of regret. Last year, while we did everything we possibly could to keep schools open to the prevent the disruption and damage that we knew that would cause down the track, the Opposition were demanding closures. A few months ago, we sought to reopen schools as soon as we possibly could, yet we faced pressure from the Opposition and the unions to keep them closed. Where were these champions of education then? And now we mount an incredible package of support and they express regret. You couldn’t make it up.
Now is the time, not for political posturing or point-scoring, but for addressing the real issues facing our children, families and schools. This debate should not be about who can promise the biggest headline, but about how to deliver long-term support where it is needed, to ensure the best opportunities and education for our children, as we are doing.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I want to start by applauding the ambitious plan set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who opened the debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is a member, with me, of the Work and Pensions Committee, because I want to talk about the Committee’s work. We are conducting an inquiry into children in poverty, because the number of children in poverty is climbing sharply. I am very grateful to the Education Committee for its support for our work; the Chair, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), spoke earlier in the debate.
In evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on 27 May, Anne Longfield, who was the Children’s Commissioner for England until February, told us:
“Those that are living in poverty and at disadvantage are much less likely to achieve academically at various points we measure”.
Pointing out that child poverty is now twice the level of pensioner poverty, she identified to the Committee a gap in the Government’s capacity because of the loss of joint Department for Work and Pensions/DFE working. She said:
“There used to be a policy team, there used to be a policy around poverty. That was then able to look at how the impact of national policies needed to drive not only alleviation of poverty but a reduction of poverty.”
I think Anne Longfield is right: those two Departments should be working together as they did in the past.
Problems, obviously, have greatly worsened during the pandemic, as we have been reminded in the debate. Research by Kellogg’s has shown that nearly a fifth of schools have started a food bank since the pandemic began. Ben Levinson is headteacher of Kensington Primary School in my constituency—I am delighted that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, plans to visit that school tomorrow. It is Primary School of the Year in the current Pearson National Teaching Awards. Ben Levinson told the Committee of a
“sizeable population…of families who have no recourse to public funds who have really struggled through this period.”
The school runs a food bank.
Joanne Ormond, head teacher of Maryport Church of England Primary School in Cumbria, told the Committee about
“that next level of families up that are struggling—the ones who have low-paid jobs, so they don’t necessarily qualify for the free school meals”,
and how difficult those families had found things during the pandemic. She singled out single parents as being very hard-hit.
The Social Metrics Commission has found that 57% of children in families working just part time are today in poverty. The Resolution Foundation has shown that the poverty rate for families with three or more children has now risen to almost half—47% of those families are in poverty. In written evidence, the charity Magic Breakfast told us that food insecurity, worse physical and mental health outcomes and lower educational attainment are all impacts of child poverty.
So the Government need to be very serious about this challenge and put their money where their mouth is. There is no sign of any willingness to do so as yet, as last week’s resignation of Sir Kevan Collins dramatically highlighted. We need a change of heart.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I think the point that the whole House agrees on is that teachers and schools did a tremendous job, and continue to do a tremendous job, throughout covid-19, and they have worked through all the holidays and were among the unsung heroes of the pandemic. The bit that we all ought to be able to agree on is that the Government have put tremendous amounts of money into education, children and young people. That started with a £14 billion commitment to raise the per pupil funding to £5,150 per secondary pupil and at least £4,000 for every primary school pupil, and to raise the teacher starting salary to £30,000. There has been money for mental health, laptops, summer schools, food and summer activities, and there has been money for catch-up. Last week’s announcement took the amount that we have committed in the last 12 months to £3 billion, which is paying for 6 million courses of tutoring. We know that one course can raise a child’s attainment by between three and five months from where they are at the moment. There have been issues with recruiting tutors in certain parts of the country, and that is why I am very pleased that, with this money, schools will be able to pay their own staff to deliver some of this tutoring where there are those issues. There is money for teacher training, too.
It is wrong to suggest that we just take that amount of money, divide it by the number of pupils and come up with a small amount of money that is being spent—that does not take into account all the other money that has been spent, and part of the point of this money is to direct it at the children who need it most. It is to direct it at the children who we know are behind rather than ones that we know are not, and to direct it at disadvantaged young people, which is something I am particularly keen that we do. The Government are looking at the evidence and at outcomes rather than simply the amount of money being spent.
The bulk of the money cited as the figure from the report is to extend the school day, and I support extending the school day. I was a governor of schools for 10 years, and I have been to charter schools in the US and seen them use an extension to the school day very effectively. But the important thing is not what I think; again, it is what the evidence suggests about the outcomes we will achieve, and it is right that the Government are reviewing the evidence. I would actually support the school day being extended by more than half an hour, but we need to know what that review says, and yes, that will then take money.
I think money is the easy part here. the Labour party motion contains nothing about evidence or outcomes; it is about money—four areas where Labour wants more money. Generally speaking, when individuals and organisations call for money, the Opposition will get behind that call and will amplify it, and they are perfectly entitled to do that. But when we went into lockdown last March and the National Education Union said
“teachers should not be teaching a full timetable, or routinely marking work”,
and we knew what impact this was going to have on children and particularly disadvantaged children, the Labour party said nothing. When we wanted to get schools back so that we could start repairing some of this damage, the same union worked with other unions and came up with a 180-point checklist of things it wanted to see before schools could open, as though working with children was like working with radioactive material, again the Labour party said nothing. When the same unions were scaremongering—telling teachers that they were more at risk of covid than other professions that were also working with the community—again, Labour said nothing to challenge this. It actually went further and said, “Let’s not follow the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s age-based approach to vaccinations; let’s just vaccinate teachers”, because of the scaremongering that was going on.
The easy thing to do is to be on the side of more money. We could all do that all day, and say we need more money for things. The harder thing to do is to focus on outcomes and on the evidence, and that is why I am pleased that that is what the Government are doing. Yes, I would support a longer school day, as long as it means well targeted and well structured activity, but no, I cannot support the Labour party’s pose that the only issue is “Let’s give something more money”, and I will not be supporting its motion today.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
The past year has taken a toll on everybody’s mental health. According to the Government’s own former education adviser, more than 200,000 children have developed mental health conditions over the last year. Barnardo’s charity says:
“A defining impact of the pandemic has been on children’s mental health.”
After months of missed face-to-face education and time away from their friends, this is no surprise, and it is not a new problem. It comes on top of years of Government neglect of children’s mental health services, which has led to a situation where young people are pushed to breaking point before they get help.
The Health and Social Care Committee recently heard from two young people who described how services simply were not there when they needed them. One of them described being on a two-year waiting list for child and adolescent mental health services, and because he had that referral, he could not even access the support offered by charities while he waited. In his words:
“There wasn’t anything until things got so dire that it was the crisis team.”
As his mental health deteriorated, he ended up in A&E seeking emergency support, but that was only a sticking plaster.
If we do not provide the mental health support that our children and young people need now, we are simply storing up problems for the future when they hit crisis point. As Sir Kevan Collins has made clear, the Government had an opportunity to take bold action and put in place robust support services to help children recover from the past year. They have totally failed to rise to the scale of this challenge. Rather than having the kind of ambition shown by Labour’s children’s recovery programme, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have allowed the Treasury to dictate the terms and block any real progress.
We all know that the recovery funding provided falls far short of what is needed—of course, before that, the funding of children’s mental health services was inadequate. Even if the Government meet their targets for mental health support by 2024, there will still be 7.5 million children without access to mental health support at school. That means that early intervention and targeted support will be unavailable to the vast majority of children and young people, forcing them to wait until they hit crisis point and then have to access heavily rationed NHS services. In contrast, Labour’s plans would put a trained mental health counsellor in every school, providing the early intervention needed to support the mental health of our children and young people.
Across the board, the Government have failed to offer the support that our children need. They have had to be shamed into feeding children over the school holidays. Their latest holiday activity and food scheme proposes providing food for just 16 days over the summer. Not only is that scheme not covering every weekday, but in Salford it is set to reach barely one in five of the children on free school meals. That means that more than 10,000 children are going hungry in Salford alone.
While councils have stepped up in the past to make up the shortfall, we cannot expect them to keep doing so when they are already overstretched and underfunded. Rather than continuing to try to do this on the cheap, will the Minister finally do the right thing and agree to feed every child who needs it across the whole school holidays until the end of the pandemic?
Further, after a year that has taken a real toll on disabled children and their families, the Government’s proposals contain nothing specific to help them recover. The Disabled Children’s Partnership found that four in five disabled children have seen their support services withdrawn over the past year, and three in four are now socially isolated. At the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the Government took sweeping steps that allowed local authorities to stop providing many services to disabled children. While similar provisions related to care for adults were repealed this spring, there has been no change for children’s services.
Will the Minister confirm that not only will the Government ensure that all funding for those services is reinstated urgently, but that more funding is put into the services to help disabled children to catch up? Half an hour of tutoring a week will not make up for a year of missed speech and language therapy, which is why we need a dedicated plan to help disabled children and their families to recover from the pandemic. The Government could and should show more ambition, and I urge them to change their approach to ensure that our children do not end up paying the price for Government incompetence.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
It has been a great pleasure for me in my constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner to have engaged directly today with children from Holy Trinity Primary School in Northwood, and a few weeks ago, in a direct personal visit, with children at Cannon Lane Primary School. It is very clear how much progress those children are making now that they are back in the classroom and how much they are enjoying being back with their friends.
The message that I have consistently received from headteachers, school staff and mums and dads is that they have valued enormously the support that has been put in place—the priority that the Government have rightly placed on ensuring that children can access education where it has been safe to do so and on ensuring that schools are able to reopen and stay open. Education is important not only in its own right, but in the way it supports the economy.
I pay particular tribute to the work of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), in leading the programme to support the most vulnerable children in my community and communities across England. The roll-out of the programme has included not just ensuring that children get fed, but promoting other activities to help to keep their education, their social development and their lives on track and ensure that they are safeguarded. For me, that is probably the most important lesson from the pandemic: to recognise the complexity of the circumstances that the most vulnerable children in our country face, and acknowledge that local authorities, which know their communities best and are generally already engaged with those children and their families, are in the best place to design packages of support.
It is right that the siren calls for a simple extension of free school meals have been resisted: they do not help many households in which the children are below school age, for example, and they do not help households which, for whatever reason, have not made an application. It is very clear that we need a much more nuanced and targeted approach if we are to make a genuine difference in the lives of those children.
Hon. Members have raised a variety of concerns. It has certainly been very clear to me from speaking to headteachers that there have been issues with the availability of tutors under the national tutoring programme; the quality of what is available has been good, but sometimes identifying the support required has been a challenge. That goes to the heart of what I think is a reasonable criticism of the Opposition motion: we need to ensure that we have qualified, experienced people able to do what they need to do to help children to get their lives back on track. A motion that is about simply spending more money, not thinking about where we will identify those people and get them into jobs to make the difference that they need to make, is not worth the paper it is written on. We need to ensure that we can demonstrate that anything debated by this House is credible.
It is clear, once again, that the role of local authorities in supporting schools has been critical. I certainly would not criticise regional schools commissioners, but it is clear that the scale of their task and their inability to engage at a micro-local level, particularly with directors of public health, has been an inhibiting factor in the response that schools have been asked to produce to the pandemic crisis. We need to ensure that we look at how local authorities interact with all the schools for which they are a champion in their local area, so that in future we have the resilience that is required at a local level. Especially as we look at a more localised approach as we unlock the country in June, we need to ensure that that capacity is in place locally.
I will finish on what I think has been a really positive decision by my hon. Friends at the Department for Education to invest significantly in the professional development of our early years workforce. As all parents of young children know, it can make a transformational difference, especially to the lives of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, if they can access high-quality early education. The structure in place with tax-free childcare and free hours has enabled the capacity to be created for people to access. It is absolutely welcome that the Government have made the decision to invest a very significant sum—approximately £150 million—in the development of that workforce, so that we can ensure for future generations that we have the top-quality staff in place who can give children the very best start in life. That is an example of practical action: not just promising money, but choosing to do the thing that will make the difference in a child’s life.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The pandemic has been immensely challenging, not just for all the young people at school in Ipswich, but for the teaching staff. One way or another it has been challenging, but no one child’s experience has been the same, so it is very important that we steer clear of generalisations. However, it does seem that those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have been hit the hardest by what has happened and have probably lost out the most.
In Ipswich, we benefited from being a pilot scheme for the holiday activities and food programme; we have also been an opportunity area for some time. That has been extended, which is good news—it has done some really brilliant work and has been welcomed by all teaching staff in my constituency.
With regard to the Government’s position, it is quite clear that any interventions that they make need to be evidence-based. Like many colleagues who have spoken today, I sympathise with the idea of extending the school day, but we need to figure out how we are going to do that so that we do not place even more burdens, pressure and demands on teaching staff, who have had an incredibly difficult pandemic, or on young people who are under pressure to catch up. I would like to see more money on the way when it comes to a new spending review. One of the reasons I supported the Government on the international aid cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was that I would like to see more money going into education. Ultimately, the Labour party does not have a clear strategy for how it will pay for what it says it wants. When it comes to any key spending decision, it says, “Yes, more money, more money.” Same old Labour: absolutely no strategy for how it is going to pay for it.
I would like to talk briefly about special educational needs. You know—sorry, I should not use that word here. I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am getting there. You know—[Laughter.] I care very much about special educational needs; I spoke about it in my maiden speech. Not everything is about money when it comes to improving special educational needs provision, but a lot is about money. The reality is that a huge number of young people in Suffolk are being failed and let down by the status quo, and I will speak to that, because the stakes could not be higher.
On the Education Committee, we have just launched an inquiry into prison education. It is thought that 35% of those in prison have some kind of special need. Actually, the figure will be far higher, because we are not diagnosing properly every prisoner going into the system. The reality is that the figure could even be higher than 50%. Is that not shameful? Is that not something that we should be ashamed of—the fact that that many prisoners are individuals who have special needs that have not been met? When we come to making the justification for ploughing in what I think is a lot more money into special educational needs, we need to explain that to the public. Yes, it is morally the right thing to do to get the potential out of these individuals, but, even thinking about it in a hard-headed way, it will save us money down the trail.
The other thing is that if you are an unconventional thinker, if you are a creative thinker, who feels that the system is failing you, you are more likely to turn against that very system. There is nothing more depressing in a class than looking in the eyes of a young child who has special educational needs that are not being met; their eyes are glazed over and they are not engaged. There are steps that we can take. We can look at teacher training. We can raise awareness of things such as autism, dyspraxia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, because there is a big problem there. As a dyspraxic, I can say that the understanding of dyspraxia, as an article recently said, is in the “dark ages”. Yes, awareness and teacher training are part of it, but a lot of it will have to be money and investment to ensure that those unconventional, creative thinkers get that tailored tuition as much as they possibly can to unlock their potential. The stakes could not be higher, because, quite frankly, so many have ended up in the criminal justice system, a nuisance to society, costing us money. This is not just about making them average achievers. Given the right support and the right funding, young people with special educational needs can weaponise their disability as unconventional and creative thinkers, and they can make more of a contribution to society than almost anyone else.
My plea would be this: I very much understand the position that the Government are in—I believe that the Labour party is only looking to score political points—but when it comes to this medium to long-term debate about funding, let us level with the country about how high the stakes are when it comes to how we fund special educational needs. We cannot let down our young people with special needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. On the motion relating to the remuneration of the Information Commissioner, the Ayes were 369, the Noes were 2, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I start by referring to the Daily Mail, which ran an absurd story—a wholly inaccurate story—about places such as Bradford, which is my city, being a no-go area. It was based on a recently published book. Today, I want to set the record straight: Bradford is a young, energetic and diverse city where around 85 languages are spoken. Bradford is also the youngest city in Europe. Recent research shows that, on the list of the 20 most entrepreneurial UK cities, Bradford comes second.
In 2020, 4,786 new businesses were created in the district, and that continues, but, just like any other city, we have our challenges. The past 15 months have been extremely difficult on all fronts. It breaks my heart to say that this Government have treated our children as an afterthought. Throughout the pandemic, and even now, they are neglecting them when it comes to the education recovery fund, which simply does not go far enough.
Sir Kevan Collins’s resignation was a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ catch-up plan, which is failing to deliver for our children. The Government threw out his ideas and expertise as soon as it became about the need to stump up the cash. We know that early-years education needs further investment, but the Government choose not to do anything about it. Over the last decade, the Government have slashed further education funding by a third and the adult education budget by half. Colleges have been allocated funds only to hold small group tutoring for the most disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-old students with no one-to-one support.
The Government recently admitted that there had been an underspend of £2.1 billion in the apprenticeship levy fund since May 2019. Labour proposes a wage subsidy incentive to create 85,000 new apprenticeships from last year’s underspend. The Government must now look at our plans for giving our next generation their first step on the ladder.
Recent data shows that 32,260 people in Bradford claim unemployment benefit. Of those claimants, 6,880 are aged between 18 and 24. Young people are desperate for jobs. Meanwhile, the kickstart scheme has created jobs for only 3% of unemployed young people nearly a year after it was announced. The Government must work with us to deliver our jobs promise, which guarantees jobs, training or education and placements for all young people who are out of work for over six months.
Youth clubs are the beating heart of our communities, working day in, day out to empower and advocate for young people, but youth services are on the brink of collapse due to Government cuts of 73% since 2010. The Government must now deliver their manifesto commitment to give £500 million to youth services.
Despite this extremely difficult period and lack of funding, Bradford Council has worked extremely hard to support children and young people through a range of services. That can carry on only with the right resources and funding. For example, if we look at exclusion from school, we see that fewer than 10 children were excluded in 2018-19 in the whole of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in England, several hundred children were excluded.
Poverty plays a big part in children’s learning. There is no poverty of aspiration in Bradford West or in the whole of my city, but there is poverty, and it is growing. I really want to showcase Bradford. I invite the Minister to Bradford to see at first hand what the city has to offer. I ask her to commit that the Government will ensure that cities such as Bradford are not neglected and left behind. I appreciate and value the opportunities fund and the increase in it, but that is not enough for the youngest city in the whole of Europe and I would welcome the Minister’s response to my invitation so that I can demonstrate what I mean. I invite her to meet young people, the teachers who have done what they have done during the pandemic and the people who have shortcomings in child and adolescent mental health services, and to put real investment where we need it.
If we want generation covid to thrive for the future of our country, the Government have some serious commitments to make, and I would welcome an intervention for Bradford from the Minister.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I pass on my thanks to Sir Kevan Collins, who was kind enough to read my One Nation education paper and give me some of his valuable time to talk through the extended school day and my views on assessment. I hope that we will see more of his impact, with his ideas implemented in the next few months, not least in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.
Covid has given us the opportunity to revamp our education system and the school day. Brexit has given us the opportunity to look at what skills we need within our population to maximise our new economy for the global world. I therefore believe it is time to look at our education system; to look at the extended school day in the round, our assessment system, which is no longer fit for purpose, our teacher training and child pedagogy, and what we teach. We must finally put an effective careers service in schools, which will help guide our young people in this new world.
I am pleased that the Government support an extended school day, and it was good to hear so much support from Back Benchers who spoke before me. I agree with the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday that it is extraordinary and inefficient that some schools send their pupils home at 2.30, leaving empty school buildings, yet others are open until 5 pm.
I recently read about Fulham Boys School in west London, where the school day goes until 5 pm, Monday to Thursday, and the normal 3.20 pm on Friday. The extra hours are spent on additional activities such as sport, music, drama, public speaking, coding and cooking. I would personally add community work, including the National Citizen Service, and a comprehensive personal, social, health and economic education programme in every school. That is a proper education in my eyes, one that develops the whole child.
With so many parents working full time, this must be the way forward, even if it means voluntary contributions from those parents who can afford to contribute, which is exactly what happens at Fulham Boys School, but it must not be to the disadvantage of those who cannot afford it. Imagine what well-rounded individuals we could produce, with the skills that employers want.
I also welcome the Government’s £3 billion commitment to catching up through targeted interventions. I have seen the impact of past initiatives as a school inspector and school governor, and it makes a huge difference. We should be focusing on that now and in the future.
I am delighted that we have provided an extra £400 million for half a million training and development opportunities, including for those in early years settings. We need to look again at teacher training across the board, at the ways into teaching and at their continued professional development. Teachers have been incredible during the pandemic, with teachers having to learn new techniques, sometimes teaching both in the classroom and online, as well as preparing for those who do not have access to computers. Our children deserve the best training and the best teachers.
Education is not just about structures or buildings; it is about teachers and leadership. Everyone remembers the good teachers and the bad, so this must be a major focus. We are fortunate enough to have excellent teachers in Meon Valley, and I want to thank them once again for all they have done over the last year.
Finally, I thank the Government for the extended holiday activity scheme through the summer. Many children in Meon Valley have benefited from this scheme over the past few years, and I am very pleased that it is continuing.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Erdington may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in England. According to the Government’s own figures, 42.5% of children in the city of Birmingham are now growing up in poverty, a total of 116,552.
In Erdington, child poverty has increased by 6.6% since 2015, with 10,000 children now living in poverty. I have seen at first hand the heartbreaking, devastating consequences for young people. A generation of young children is being scarred by poverty and hunger, which holds them back at school. There are, no doubt, some welcome developments on funding, but the truth of the matter is that schools do not have the resources available to combat the financial aftershocks of the pandemic rightly described as
“the greatest peacetime threat to education in living memory”.
The irreversible scarring of a generation is now a serious possibility, the devastating consequence of poverty and covid, and that is why the appointment of Sir Kevan Collins as the Government’s education recovery commissioner was so important and, indeed, so welcome, and why the information that emerged on his proposed education recovery plan was so unanimously welcomed by the sector.
If ever there was a city or, indeed, a constituency in need of a properly funded long-term recovery plan, Birmingham would surely qualify. Instead, what we saw last week was a derisory offer from the Government that satisfied no one, least of all the commissioner. He did the noble thing and resigned, not least because what the Government did flies in the face of assurances given by the Prime Minister that no child will be left behind as a consequence of the covid crisis.
According to the Education Policy Institute, the latest spending commitment means the Government have committed to £310 per pupil, compared with the equivalent total funding of £2,500 in the Netherlands. To add insult to injury, the Government have refused to confirm that they will extend free school meals over the summer period or make the £20 universal credit uplift permanent beyond September, both of which will hit the disadvantaged hardest—so much for levelling up.
This is against the backdrop of a wider crisis in schools funding, which I see, for example, in maintained nursery schools. I am proud to say that, four years ago, we started a campaign in Erdington that became nationwide to win transitional funding for nursery schools, to avoid what would have been a complete catastrophe as a consequence of a new funding formula. Four years on, however, nursery schools still do not have secure, long-term funding. They are being subjected to a year-by-year settlement, the consequence of which is that they simply cannot plan ahead, and more and more nursery schools—partly due to the impact of the pandemic—are seeing a loss of income through that, which is pushing many of them into deficit. They are having to cut back on the services they provide, and some are threatened with closure.
There is a wider scenario, one aspect of which is nursery schools, which are the jewels in the crown of early years provision. I see that at first hand in my constituency, in Castle Vale Nursery School, Featherstone Nursery School, Osborne Nursery School and Marsh Hill Primary School—wonderful institutions giving young children the best possible start in life.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all the school staff, and the headteachers in particular. I have seen just how tough it is for them on the frontline, dealing with the immediate financial pressures and utterly determined that they will give children the best possible start in life. Led by Vicky Nussey, the headteacher of Paget Primary School, the primary and secondary schools in Erdington are first-class—they are exemplary in what they do—but their message is crystal clear: if they are to continue to give young people the best possible start in life and give joy to the parents and grandparents who see the lives of their children and grandchildren transformed, their voice must be heard by the Government. What the Government have done is simply not enough. We need more investment in our schools, because the future of a whole generation depends upon it.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in this important debate. The pandemic has been a mental as well as a physical health crisis. It is not enough simply to treat people who have the virus, as crucial as that is; we also need to focus, as we have, on protecting everyone’s emotional and physical wellbeing, and of course, children are at the top of our list. Children need the structure of a school day to help them learn and develop. Members across the House will be acutely aware that the Government prioritised reopening schools as soon as it was safely possible to do so. Children’s education was our priority then, and it is our priority now. Which party was it that sided with the unions when they tried to keep the schools closed? It was not the Conservative party.
How wonderful it is to see schools open. I had the pleasure of visiting virtually a year 5 group at Haversham Village School a few weeks ago, and they asked me some excellent questions, especially about space. It is the Conservative Government who got schools like Haversham Village School open, and it is the Conservative Government who have delivered more than £3 billion in catch-up support so far.
This debate is centred on the latest tranche of the education recovery plan, worth £1.4 billion. Included in that package is £1 billion-worth of tutoring courses, which is so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) said in his excellent speech, just one course of high-quality tutoring has been proven to boost the attainment of disadvantaged pupils by three to five months, so it is entirely right that we target this at the most disadvantaged children first. If I understood the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) correctly, I think she was asking for this to be targeted at the most disadvantaged children first, which is exactly what we are doing. That is what levelling up in education means and why we are investing more than £1 billion to deliver 6,000,000 15-hour tutoring courses for those disadvantaged pupils. We are expanding the 16 to 19-year-old tuition fund, targeting key subjects such as maths and English. We are investing in teachers, with £400 million to make sure that they have the resources, skills and training they need to support the children they teach. We are providing £253 million to expand the existing teacher training and development scheme, giving half a million teachers the chance to access world-leading training. There is £153 million to provide early years practitioners with evidence-based professional development.
This is simply the latest stage of the ongoing support that is being provided to children, schools, teachers, headteachers and governors as we build back better in education. We have already announced £700 million of catch-up funding to help children catch up on the learning they have lost during the pandemic. The summer school programme for primary and secondary schools includes additional clubs and activities. The structure that children need to learn and thrive is so important for their mental and physical health, as well as for their educational progress. We have already invested £200 million in expanding the existing statutory programme to boost catch-up learning. Of course, in the previous financial year there was the £1 billion educational covid catch-up plan to help schools provide tailored support. Crucially, headteachers have been given the discretion to make interventions where they are needed most.
The real heroes during this pandemic have been the parents, schools, teachers, headteachers and governors. I know at first hand how hard parents have worked to home-school children. The Government have consistently prioritised schools, put children and young people first and invested in the education and wellbeing of pupils.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the teachers and headteachers in St Helens and Whiston for their work during this dreadful pandemic and for the care and support that they have given to their pupils. In fact, teachers talk about how safe they felt—how protected they were by their headteachers.
I heard the pride of the head of a special nursery for special children with special needs. She said, “There have been some positives, Marie.” There was the little boy who took his own coat off and hung it up on the hook because mothers could not come into the nursery— the children had to come in by themselves because of the isolation and the care taken.
I have been told about the pride taken in the children, but also the horrors of the child who could not lift up their head and face people. So much work goes in—I was a governor for more than 40 years in my time, and I have seen the commitment that teachers put in for all ages. I do not come from a well-educated family myself, but the teachers have so much commitment, compassion, passion and care for our children. They are safeguarding our children as well as teaching.
It is not just the children; schools take care of the families, too. I was told of a mother who came in and was hanging around because they did not have the paper and pencils so that the kiddie could work at home. She went to school to explain, so a special blue bag was provided for those parents who needed it, to give them the little that they could not afford.
People who had not been employed for two years previously did not get furlough money—they were not entitled to it. People who were on zero-hours contracts did not have the stamps and they did not get the money. They turned to the schools for help, as well as to the councils. All the teachers and headteachers praised the support that they got from local authorities.
A well-rounded education is the greatest gift that a child can receive. As a society and country, we should take pride in ensuring that our children receive the skills, knowledge, education and confidence they need to navigate themselves through the uncertainties in life. Over the past 15 months, children’s education has been disrupted in a way that I have never seen in my lifetime, and as I was born shortly after the second world war—not the first—that is saying something. I have been truly humbled to listen to the headteachers, teachers and parents who have spoken to me during this pandemic about the care and compassion that has been given by schools. Children of all ages have missed out on the hours of in-person learning—I stress that it is in-person learning—that our excellent teachers provide. There have been times when the extra teaching provision did not turn up, or the IT that was supposed to go to those who needed it most—such as in Knowsley, one of the most deprived areas—was taken away from them.
Education is vital to the lives of those young people and to the future of our country. Investing in young people is investing in our country’s future. The children of today are our greatest future asset. They will be paying off the coronavirus debt for decades, as they are still paying for the global financial crisis and austerity, which more or less robbed them of all the youth services and libraries. They have suffered from the lack of contributions to the voluntary sector, and I praise the people in the voluntary sector and the community who have come out to help during this pandemic.
It makes no sense to cheap out on these children’s future. It makes no sense to cheap out on the whole country. Society, not just the pupils, benefits from the investment provided to education. The Government’s supposed catch-up plan fails to live up to its name; it is about one tenth of the recommended size. Their own education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, resigned over the plan. He accused the Government of taking a “half-hearted approach” to the problem. Perhaps after Marcus Rashford’s school meals saga, this comes as no real surprise. The Government need to get this right or they will create a lost generation. Hundreds of thousands of children in our country will feel the impact of this Government’s error for decades to come.
Inequalities have been exposed by the coronavirus. We know the areas that need levelling up; they have felt the brunt. The Government have talked a lot about their levelling-up agenda, yet they fail the country by skimping on education provision. Under the Government’s plan, the very areas that they are promising to level up will suffer the worst. Every child must be valued and supported based on their needs, and the funding provided must follow those needs.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Attitude—that is what I want to talk about today. More specifically, I want to talk about having the right one. I believe that the Opposition have the wrong attitude. In fact, if I were writing the Opposition’s school report, I would mark their attainment as “poor”. The poor attitude of the Opposition is something that my constituents have noticed over the past year and a half. Why? Well, rather than constructively scrutinising the Government, the Opposition instead seek to undermine and demoralise every Department. Today, they are doing so with the Department for Education. I hope they realise that when they do that, the only outcome is to dishearten teachers and pupils, and I know that from speaking to individuals in schools across Don Valley.
If Opposition Members and their party spin doctors want to carry on like this, so be it, yet I implore the Opposition to think just for one moment about what they are doing. They are saying to our children that they will not do well because of the Government, that they did not get their apprenticeship or university place because of the Government, and that they do not have the career they wanted because of the Government. Let me tell the House that by promoting this attitude, the Opposition are fuelling emotions of helplessness and promoting a culture where young people believe that they will get nowhere, yet I want to tell the pupils in my schools that you can have an excuse, or you can do well. You can have an excuse, or you can work hard to get an apprenticeship or a dream university place. You can have an excuse, or you can have a great career. This is a wonderful, dynamic country and, ultimately, your future is in your hands.
Yes, more money is always needed, which is why I thank the Government for the money that they have spent over the last 18 months and the further £1.4 billion in catch-up funding that was announced last week. I thank them for the new school that is being built in Hatfield, Doncaster. I thank them for all the laptops that they have issued, as these all help massively. I thank them for the food activity programmes, as, again, those have helped thousands of children in Don Valley. But if I have the option of a school with more money or a school with a can-do attitude, I know what I would rather have.
Between the millennium and 2010, England fell in the league tables for English, science and maths under a Labour Government, and from what I have heard so far from the Opposition Front Benchers, I am not surprised that that is the case. What children need more than anything else is great teachers and headteachers, and I am pleased that I have many in my constituency. I believe that they need an MP who champions them at every opportunity and plays an active part in speaking to their pupils. I do not believe that teachers and pupils need MPs who grandstand in this Chamber on motions that will achieve nothing other than a few likes on a social media account and a percentage point swing in an opinion poll. Such actions just prove to my constituents that they made the right choice at the last election, and that by making that choice, they will not be left behind any longer.
Finally, I say this to all my local parents: I know it is tough after a long day at work, and that long division might not be your strong point, but sitting down with your kids to watch a Bitesize tutorial is the best thing you can do. It will pay dividends for your children and pay dividends for your relationship with them, too. Having the right attitude towards your children’s teachers and school will also make all the difference, so back your teachers and your head. This will ensure that your children have the right attitude, not just an excuse. That way, our children will grasp life’s opportunities so that they can have the future they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to ensure that we get everybody in, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
No one seriously thinks that the Government’s education catch-up plan is adequate: not teachers, not parents and not pupils. Some Conservative MPs do, of course, but the Government’s now former education recovery commissioner certainly does not. I suspect that even some Conservative Members would privately admit that it is nowhere near enough, because these plans represents just a tenth of what the Government know is required to get our children’s education back on track. They know what is needed, yet they refuse to deliver. What is needed is proper investment in our children’s futures: breakfast clubs, mental health support, extracurricular activities and small group tutoring for all who need it. That is what Labour would be doing.
Just like with our national health service and with our care system, the problems started years before this pandemic. Our schools went into this crisis after a decade of Conservative cuts. School spending has been slashed so much that spending per pupil will remain lower in real terms in 2023 than it was 13 years earlier, in 2010. That is a lost decade of funding for our kids’ education. Youth services have been decimated, with funding cut by three quarters since 2010. The Tories had a choice and, with these cuts, they chose to rob working-class kids of their futures.
The funding allocated for education recovery is truly miserly, with less than £1 for each week that kids were out of school. The cost of the catch-up plan is about the same amount that the eat out to help out scheme cost in a month last summer. We are one of the richest countries on the planet, and during the pandemic UK billionaires increased their wealth by over £106 billion, yet we have 4.3 million children growing up in poverty. We have thousands of children relying on emergency food bank parcels each day, and we have 1.7 million children from low-income families who do not get the free school meals they need all year round. It really is absolutely shameful.
The truth is that a social emergency is facing children and families in this country. It is a fact that more than 11,000 children in my constituency of Leeds East live in poverty. That is more than half, and it has gone up year after year under successive Conservative Governments, so forgive me, but when I hear Conservative MPs and Ministers talking about levelling up, I just do not believe them. I would love the Education Secretary to come to east Leeds, to the gates of schools such as Parklands Primary School in Seacroft or Bankside Primary School down in Harehills, and explain to the parents, to their face, why their children’s catch-up is worth a measly quid for each week of normal education that they have lost. What kind of money has been spent at Eton? You can bet your bottom dollar that it is more than £1 extra per week. I ask myself this question: for all the rhetoric, for all the talk of levelling up, if it is not good enough for pupils at Eton, why the hell do this Government think it is good enough for working-class kids in my constituency in east Leeds?
The truth is simple. Strip away the Government’s rhetoric, face the facts and forget the censorious speeches that blame children and families for the lack of opportunities that they face under a Conservative Government; the fact is, and the figures show it, that this Conservative Government and this Conservative Prime Minister do not care about working-class children. A decade of education cuts before 2020 shows that, and the Government’s refusal to invest in our children’s education recovery after 2020 shows that they have not changed one jot. That is why that we have just heard a Conservative MP saying that it is not all about money—it is not all about money because they do not want to make the political choice to give our working-class children the money that they need and deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have just been informed that one hon. Member has withdrawn, so I will keep the limit at five minutes for as long as I can.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is truly an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). The most troubling element of restrictions and lockdowns associated with the covid-19 pandemic has been the impact of school closures on our young people. Even withstanding the impact on their education, socialising with others and learning in a classroom environment has a whole host of obvious benefits. That is why this Government did everything in their power to keep children in the classroom and prioritised the safe reopening of schools in the first step of the road map out of lockdown.
Schools and teachers in Peterborough have done outstanding work supporting young people, either through remote learning or through supporting directly in the classroom the children of key workers, often going the extra mile. That has involved regular phone calls to families and young people just to let them know that they are not on their own and that their schools are still with them. As schools have reopened, they have been working hard to make sure that young people are not left behind. I place on record my thanks to teachers and all the school support staff in my city for what they have done.
I also place on record my thanks to Jonathan Lewis, the director of education at Peterborough City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council. Council officers do not always get the appreciation that they merit: not only has he had to put up with phone calls and queries from an inquisitive and sometimes exasperated local MP, but he has been an invaluable source of advice for schools across the county during this difficult time. Every single headteacher I have spoken to in Peterborough thinks that Jonathan has done an outstanding job. He is an excellent council officer.
The Minister saw for himself the excellent work going on in Peterborough when I took him to the Queen Katharine Academy in Walton. We met the principal, Lynn Mayes, and her leadership team, and were impressed with their plans and their ambition—this is a school that went the extra mile—but perhaps most valuable was listening to some of the students themselves and hearing at first hand how they managed during the pandemic and how excited they are to be back.
Like many great schools in my constituency, the Queen Katharine Academy makes me proud to be the city’s MP, but it would be wrong for me to turn around and say that everything is fine and dandy. Young people in Peterborough have had to make huge sacrifices to tackle the virus. That is why the £3 billion that has been provided so far in catch-up support is important. The support is targeted at the right children with high-quality tutoring, including the 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses targeted at those students who need it the most.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) said, it has been shown that just one course of that high-quality tutoring has been proven to boost attainment by three to five months. This has the potential to have significant merit for young people in my constituency. Of course, that is on top of giving every pupil in England a funding boost as part of a £14.4 billion investment in schools and an increase in funding of more than £1.5 billion for children with special educational needs.
Schools are more than just a building; in fact, they are more than just a school and often they are the hub of a local community. We already have the infrastructure there to build back better. These buildings are open beyond school hours for youth clubs, community activities and sport, so why do we not make use of them for extended school hours to help our young people to catch up? Extending the school day could have a profound impact on the wellbeing of our young people, on mental health, on physical fitness and of course on academic attainment. So I was astounded to hear the Labour shadow Education Secretary say that we do not want children to be doing more formal learning. This is an extraordinary position for the Opposition to take, and parents up and down the country will be appalled.
Finally, I would like to say how pleased I am about the roll-out of new T-levels. These new qualifications will be very welcome for young people and parents in my city, and I am thrilled that City College Peterborough will be offering them by 2023. They are the perfect complement for our new STEM-focused university, which will transform our local area, and it is just one way in which Peterborough is building back better.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
The Government are failing our young people, too many of whom have been left behind since long before the coronavirus crisis. With chronically underfunded schools, youth services slashed and persistently high levels of mental health problems, young people are already being denied the opportunities enjoyed by their parents’ generation. Due to this Government’s paltry support, the long-term impact of covid-19 will exacerbate the difficulties they already face.
The Government’s new funding package amounts to just £50 per pupil. For the Netherlands this figure is £2,500, while in America it is £1,600. Why do our Government not place the same value on the future of our children and young people? If the UK were to match the US, it would cost £15.5 billion, which is how much the Government were advised to provide by their own education adviser. Yet they have only announced a 10th of what our children and young people need.
Under the Government’s current programme, an entire year of funding for the crucial 2021-22 academic year will amount to around £984 million. That is barely more than the £849 million spent on the Chancellor’s eat out to help out scheme, which only ran for one month and was found to contribute to the spread of the virus, at great cost to the taxpayer. That reveals the warped priorities of this Government of the super-rich. Two thirds of the current Cabinet were privately educated, yet they systematically deny young people—especially those from African, Asian and minority ethnic communities and working-class children—the opportunities and privileges they benefited from.
Children have missed over half a year of in-person school, yet this Government believe that less than an hour of tutoring a fortnight can bridge that gap. Their measly tutoring offer amounts to less than £1 per day for each day children were out of school. Shamefully, the Government are only proposing to feed children on free school meals for 16 of 30 weekdays during the upcoming summer holidays. Do they really think it is acceptable to expect children to go hungry every other day? This is a Government who are happy to fork out billions in shady deals to their donors and large corporations, yet cringe at the prospect of guaranteeing food for vulnerable children. They must significantly improve the quality of, and widen access to, free school meals, including over the school holidays.
Youth work is a powerful tool for young people, providing on their terms someone to speak to, something to do and somewhere to go, and thus youth services are a vital lifeline for all young people. But due to severe Government cuts over the last decade, hundreds of youth centres have closed in Leicester and across the UK. This is nothing short of daylight robbery of young people’s futures. Youth services have been decimated—cut by 73% in less than a decade. That also significantly reduced the support available for young people referred by social services, reduced support for working-class children needing extracurricular activity, and reduced to zero issue-based detached youth work to young people who are at risk. It is to our shame that detached youth work is something of a relic, practically extinct in the UK. Average spending per 16 to 24-year-old in the east midlands also fell by 50%, from £134 to £66, between 2012 and 2019. Taken together, this Government’s neglect of young people is a generational betrayal, and still the Government have offered nothing, coming out of this pandemic, for services to young people. They have not even offered to return youth clubs and after-school provision they stole from young people.
Young people did not ask for this pandemic or choose to grow up as it took hold. They have made incredible sacrifices to protect demographics who are more at risk from the virus. We have a moral duty to repay their sacrifice with adequate support. That requires much, much more than the insulting package put forward by this Government.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
This Government have spent more than £400 billion protecting the lives and the jobs of the people of this country. We have borrowed £300 billion in just the last fiscal year. The last time we exceeded 10% of GDP was in the financial crisis in 2008, and before that world war two, so forgive the common theme: we must have a degree of fiscal prudence, and the Treasury should have the right to challenge what it is asked to spend in these very difficult times.
The problem is that the adage that children are like vessels—that we fill them up with tutoring and they will be back on track—is only part of the answer. We will spend £1 billion towards a national tutoring programme for disadvantaged students, on top of £1.7 billion for summer schools and mental health support and already £3 billion in catch-up support. We should remember that the very first step of this Government’s road map was getting our young people back into the classroom, because everybody knows the damage that being away from their school does to children. However, children and young people need more than that. They need a varied curriculum—one of breadth. That is why I have fought tooth and nail back in my constituency to get outdoor learning centres open. There can be no better way of ensuring a depth and diversity of learning experiences. Outdoor learning centres are invaluable, and they must be part and parcel of a programme to get children back outside after such an enormous “stay at home” message for so long. We should get them learning outside in the natural environment. What better way is there to support their social and emotional needs?
I am blessed to have many such centres in North Norfolk, and the Education Secretary knows only too well that I have pushed him all the way to get their reopening on the road map as soon as possible. In particular, my constituents Sara Holroyd and Mark Holroyd from Aylmerton Field Study Centre, and Martin Read from Hilltop, have been through the most horrendous of times, unable to take bookings, and have suffered enormous losses due to the absence of firm news on when their businesses can start to accept young people back again.
I therefore wonder whether I can call on the Government to do even more with imaginative schemes for young people. What about embracing the National Citizen Service? That is a golden opportunity not only to get the outdoor learning sector going again, but to get our young people in the outdoors for that valuable and enriching learning experience.
Today, the Prime Minister paid tribute to the fact that it is Carers Week. One of the ways this £1 billion of support must be channelled is to help young carers in our society. I have talked about young carers in this place many times. As a patron of the Holt youth club in North Norfolk, I know just what incredible work Julie Alford, Kevin Abbs and all their team do for the community, as does Carers Matter across Norfolk.
The Holt Youth Project has looked after more than 50 young carers who have suffered disproportionately in the pandemic. Just imagine those children who are looking after a parent who is simply too sick to home school them. Those young people must be given the opportunity of the further support that this package will entail. We already know that young people caring for a parent do not have a normal childhood, and they will undoubtedly have fallen even further behind during the pandemic. I know that the Government will match that fund with those people in society, to help them as an absolute priority, and I commend them for it.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to pupils, parents, teachers and support staff in Liverpool, West Derby for their efforts during this difficult period and for the support they give our communities. The pandemic has seen the growth of existing inequalities that children and young people face, caused by a decade of austerity and Government cuts to vital services.
The Government have clearly learned nothing from the past year, as we can see in the lack of funding for millions of working-class children who have suffered through no fault of their own. The Government’s plans for education recovery, announced last week, are inadequate, incomplete and frankly immoral. The £1.5 billion offered is way below the £15 billion that Kevan Collins, the former education recovery commissioner, judged was needed. No doubt he walked away from his position because he had listened to the teachers, trade unions and parents and understood the gravity of the situation and the inequality it would cause the next generation of working-class children.
The Government have continued to ignore the opinions of the people who devote their lives to trying to deliver the education that the children in our communities deserve. In England, the Government’s pledge amounts to just £50 per pupil per year for education recovery—one fiftieth of what the Netherlands is delivering and one tenth of what was recommended by their own commissioner. We can spend £37 billion on a failed privatised track and trace system, but we cannot invest in our children’s future? Shameful! The inadequacy of that £1.5 billion will not affect the children of Eton, but it will impact the children at Lister Junior School in my constituency for years to come.
Let us touch on the Government’s record and the impact it has had on communities like mine in Liverpool, West Derby. Some 4.3 million children are living in poverty, including 34% of the children in my constituency —children left without digital devices and without free school meals in the middle of the pandemic because of the failure of the Government’s food voucher scheme delivered by Edenred, with teachers delivering food parcels and schools setting up food banks. Yes, you heard that right—schools setting up food banks. Maybe the Minister can join the National Education Union and support the Right2Food campaign, which calls for universal free school meals for every child in this country.
There is an attainment gap of 9.3 months for primary pupils and 22 months for secondary school pupils in Liverpool. The Government have forgotten about kinship care throughout the pandemic, but figures show that a third needed access to digital equipment that was never offered and half now believe that their children need additional support to catch up on education. There has been an increase in the number of children with mental health conditions, with NHS data now showing that one in six young people in England were experiencing such a condition in 2020. Youth services were on the brink of absolute collapse due to Government cuts. In Liverpool, 86% of spending was cut between 2011 and 2020—it is unforgivable.
As I finish, my question to the Minister is simple: in the light of everything that I have just outlined, why do the Government treat the working-class kids of this country so appallingly?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) this afternoon.
Before I go on, I, like everybody else this afternoon, pay tribute to the amazing work done over the past year and a half by teachers, support staff and everybody else involved in delivering education in my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and across the entire country.
It is incredibly interesting that the SNP have chosen not to have any representation in this debate—its Benches are deserted. That could be because today’s Opposition motion deals entirely with investing in young people in England; the SNP may have decided to take a principled stand in not involving themselves in matters that do not affect their constituents—unlike me and my Scottish Conservative colleagues, who care just as much about a child’s welfare in Penrith as we do about that of a child in Perth.
However, that SNP principle is allowed to lapse from time to time, as we have seen on such important issues as foxhunting, in which the SNP does feel it has a role to play in deciding what goes on south of the border. So I do not think it is that. I think that, as when the SNP removed Scotland from international league tables on educational performance, it is terrified of having to defend its shameful record of supporting children and young people in Scotland.
Today’s motion talks about the Government’s plans to support children, investment in targeted support and additional funding in England, and it is usually at this point that a separatist would jump up from the Benches opposite primed with their SNP HQ briefing points—sent, by the wonders of the internet, from Murrell towers in Edinburgh—to opine to the world on how much better things are in Scotland, but not today, and why? Because while this Conservative Government are committing £1.4 billion to education recovery, £1 billion for tutoring courses to help students recover from lost teaching during the past year, £400 million for training and development of teachers, £700 million on a catch-up funding package, raising the pupil premium, eliminating digital exclusion—including £3 million for laptops and tablets for students in need—and extending our holiday food and activities package, the SNP is failing Scotland’s children.
The Scottish National party Government claim to have invested £400 million in catch-up funding and, per pupil, that would appear on the face of it to be more generous than the UK Government, but take a look at how that money is being spent: the vast majority is being spent on increasing ventilation in classrooms. That is very important in getting kids back into the classroom of course, but it does not help the children and young people of Scotland catch up. More than half of children and young people in Scotland had no contact at all from teachers over the first lockdown, a fact not helped by the roll-out of tablets and laptops in Scotland last year being a complete and utter shambles, and I will not even go near the situation regarding exams and assessments.
That is even before we examine the record of the SNP in education before the pandemic hit, with the attainment gap widening, children from less advantaged households in England now more likely to get a place at university than those from similar backgrounds in Scotland, and the trumpeted and ironically named curriculum for excellence leading to a situation where in the poorest parts of Scotland one pupil in five—one in five—leaves school without achieving a single pass at national 5 level, and where across Scotland one in 10 children fails to meet the required standard for national 4 in literacy and numeracy.
So what is the plan in Scotland? What is the SNP’s grand plan—the ambitious project to help children and parents catch up for lost time? It is a £20 million summer of play. Of course, encouraging and providing opportunities to socialise and play and to improve the mental wellbeing of children is vital, and I actually think we should be looking towards the Scandinavian model of education and examining how the model there is based much more on putting the health and wellbeing of children first, but our young people need so much more than the derisory £25 per head that is being pledged by the SNP on this. If the Labour party is criticising us for not investing enough—that is its position today, and that is completely respectable—to help young people get back on track in England, what on earth are we to make of this laughably poor situation in Scotland? Except that it is not laughable, because this is incredibly serious.
Our Government—any Government—have a duty to the next generation to provide them with the skills and education needed for them to get on in the world of work. In this duty—this sacred duty—the SNP has failed and are failing the young people of Scotland. Today’s students in Scotland will pay the price for SNP failure. Scotland will pay the price for SNP failure. I oppose the motion today because this Government are doing the right thing by children and young people in this country. I only wish that our ambition was matched by the Government in Edinburgh.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to all the teachers, school staff and parents who have worked tirelessly to educate our children and keep them safe during the pandemic.
The Government’s failings on children’s education are clear. Over 140 organisations, including the North East Child Poverty Commission, have slammed the disgraceful recovery plans, stating that
“supporting babies, children and young people to recover from the impact of the pandemic is still not a priority for Government investment.”
That is simply damning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) highlighted, the Government’s recovery plan places a value of just £50 per child—32 times less than the US and 50 times less than the Netherlands. Is this really “build back better”, because to me it seems like “build back cheaper”?
Fortunately Labour has offered an alternative plan: one that invests in children’s education, nourishes their extra-curricular interests, and gives every child the mental health support they need. Not only does this plan place children at the heart of the recovery—it does so without scapegoating our incredible school staff, as the Education Secretary did so shamelessly yesterday. It is disgraceful how Conservative Members have been attacking our trade unions, whose members are actually teachers and support staff who have been working tirelessly for our young people and children.
However, for many pupils in my constituency, the education barriers extend beyond the Government’s miserly plan. Under the Labour Government in 2009, Framwellgate School Durham was earmarked for a full rebuild. Yet when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came to power, the plans were scrapped under the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). In the decade since, the school has grown to 1,300 pupils. Between them there are just 16 toilets. There is no disabled access to the classrooms on upper floors, while poor drainage means the site regularly floods. This is far from the optimal learning environment. Yet despite Fram School being scheduled for rebuild in 2009 and having a very poor condition report, it was not included in the first 50 schools allocated rebuild funding from the Government, and it does not know when it will receive the funding it desperately needs. In the meantime, decisions must be made on how best to spend maintenance funding without the ability to plan for the long term.
In comparison with the Government’s inaction, under Labour leadership, Durham County Council backed a £34 million investment for a new joint campus for Belmont Community School and Belmont Primary School. If only central Government would show the same ambition. With this in mind, I wonder if the Minister could answer two simple questions from Fram School: when will Fram School receive funding for a rebuild; and will the Government give schools transparency by publishing a priority list and a long-term rebuild list so that the conditions of schools can be compared? I urge the Government to accept Labour’s education recovery plan and to invest in children’s futures in Durham—and for Framwellgate School, recovery must come with a rebuild.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to all parents, Liverpool City Council, and all staff working with children and young people in Liverpool, Riverside, who have provided invaluable support over the past 14 months during the pandemic.
In this country, 4.3 million children are living in poverty, and in my Liverpool, Riverside constituency, 38%—11 children, on average, in every single classroom in my constituency. That is totally unacceptable. It is the legacy of this Government, including a decade of Tory austerity that hollowed out vital services, leaving millions of children in need and at risk, and my council with £450 million less to spend on those in greatest need.
If there was any doubt about this Government’s priorities, the pandemic has laid them bare for all to see. In the past year, this Government have chosen to spend more on one month of the disastrous Eat Out to Help Out scheme than on the entire year’s budget for schools catch-up, and put only £50 per pupil into the education recovery fund. This is scandalous when £25 million of this meagre budget has been spent on a contract outsourcing teaching to a HR firm with little teaching experience—another example of cronyism. That the Government’s own education recovery commissioner has resigned over the pitiful funding pledge to help pupils catch up speaks volumes. They are still threatening to cut the universal credit uplift of £20 that has been an invaluable lifeline for so many families living on the breadline in Liverpool and across the country. Barnardo’s, the largest children’s charity in the UK, has identified that nearly 300,000 children were referred to children’s services during the pandemic, many of them previously unknown to local authorities. Two thirds of its workers have supported families in the last year who were unable to put food on the table. This speaks to a crisis of poverty and the welfare of children. It is a shameful state of affairs for a country as wealthy as ours, the fifth richest country in the world. This Government have presided over the expansion of the wealth of billionaires by 25% during the pandemic, while the use of food banks has rocketed by a third in the same time.
If this Government are serious about ensuring that no child is left behind, we need an urgent change in direction. Can the Minister give me a straight answer: does he accept that this Government’s funding pledge for post-pandemic education recovery is entirely inadequate, and will he commit today to go back to his Government and get a commitment to proper resourcing on a par with the investment made by other countries, so that we can provide an education system that supports high standards and places pupil wellbeing at its heart—yes or no, Minister?
We are emerging from an unprecedented crisis that has shone a spotlight on the struggles of the poorest and most vulnerable in our country, particularly black young people, who are twice as likely to be unemployed, six times more likely to be excluded from school and over-represented in the criminal justice system. This must be a turning point—one where our country fundamentally shifts our priorities and commits serious resources towards eradicating child poverty, improving our welfare and education systems and creating a country in which every child can thrive, for the many, not the few.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is clear from Kevan Collins’s resignation that the Government’s catch-up plan is failing to deliver for our children. It has highlighted that supporting children and young people to recover from the pandemic is not a priority for this Conservative Government. Let us make no mistake: child poverty was rising long before the beginning of the covid crisis. In the three years before the onset of the pandemic, my region of the north-east had the second highest child poverty rate in the UK at 37%. The north-east has urgently needed a new and credible Government strategy to end child poverty for some time. For too long, school budgets have been under extreme pressure, waiting lists for mental health services have been too long, and services to support families and children have been stretched by a lack of Government funding.
In my constituency, the child poverty rate stood at 24% in 2015. That is a shameful figure, but the latest data shows that in 2019-20, it stood at 36%—a 12 point increase. The Collins report calls for an investment of £15 billion—£700 per pupil—over three years to support children’s recovery. That would have gone a long way to reversing those figures, yet the Government have decided to go with only a tenth of what is needed. The stated figure of around £50 per child is an insult to hard-working families, schools and teaching staff in Jarrow and beyond. It is time that this Conservative Government began to wake up and realise that investment in our children is both the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do. Children and young people in my constituency cannot wait until the spending review for emergency funding to arrive. It must come now for it to have any effect on learning and social outcomes.
A Labour Government would see action and investment to ensure quality mental health support in every school, small group tutoring for all who need it, not just 1%, continued development for teachers, extracurricular activities for all, an education recovery premium and a guarantee that no child will go hungry. Only through Government delivering those things can we begin to see a reverse of the shocking child poverty figures across our regions.
There is no economic reason why this Conservative Government could not deliver for our children and young people. They have been warned that failing to help children to recover lost learning could cost the economy and taxpayer as much as £420 billion—almost 30 times the cost of Labour’s comprehensive £15 billion plan. It is time that the Prime Minister stepped up and sent a message about what really matters, because this Government cannot afford not to make an investment in our children’s future.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I pay tribute to every single teacher and member of school staff around the country who does so much to educate our children, as well as to the important role that parents fulfil as part of the education process. I also thank all the education unions, including the National Education Union, for their important work supporting and campaigning on behalf of school and college staff. I know that Dawn Taylor and the team at Stockport’s National Education Union branch are well respected in our town.
I am proud to have not one, but three maintained nursery schools in my Stockport constituency. Hollywood Park, Lark Hill and Freshfield do a brilliant job of serving children and parents in my constituency. Families across our country also benefit from our maintained nursery school system. However, research by the National Education Union reveals that there are only 389 such schools left in England, of which many are located in the most deprived areas of the country.
I pay tribute to the hard work of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Much more needs to be done by the Government to support maintained nursery schools and properly fund them in the years ahead. As the all-party parliamentary group for nursery schools, nursery and reception classes made clear last year:
“Maintained nursery schools need long-term certainty about funding if they are to continue to provide vital services to disadvantaged communities during the pandemic and beyond.”
I would like to hear the Minister provide that reassurance to the House today.
In the country with the fifth largest economy in the world, no child should ever have to go hungry, but unfortunately, as we saw in the past year, that is exactly what this callous Government attempted to allow when they planned to scrap free school meals during the holiday period, despite many families being financially crippled by the pandemic. Fortunately for millions of children around the country, including thousands in my constituency of Stockport, the embarrassment caused by the brilliant intervention of the premier league footballer Marcus Rashford forced the Government to scrap those plans. That situation can never be allowed to happen again, which is why the Labour party has committed to extending free school meals over all holidays, including the long summer break.
I would like to say a few words about the challenge that our youth clubs face. These clubs are the beating heart of our communities, working day in, day out to empower, advocate for and educate young people. They also perform a vital role in our children’s wellbeing: one survey revealed that more than 80% of children and young people who attend youth groups consider themselves to be happy—a significantly higher proportion than among those who do not. Furthermore, youth clubs can help to combat the rise in antisocial behaviour and ease the burden on our police services.
However, youth services are on the brink of collapse because of this Government’s cuts. A staggering 73% of funding has been slashed since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. That flies in the face of the Conservative party’s own manifesto commitment to set aside £500 million for young people’s services in its much-publicised youth investment fund. Almost unbelievably, the chief executive of the National Youth Agency revealed earlier this year that the money had “gone missing”. Given that the fund was first announced two years ago, I find that completely unacceptable.
The Government have also suspended their requirement for councils to reveal their spending on youth services, leading to well-founded concerns that a fresh round of cuts may be on the horizon. After the Government have already presided over the closure of at least 763 youth centres since 2012, this latest kick in the teeth is shameful and leaves more and more young people isolated and unsupported. The funding is crucial not only for traditional youth services, but for community and volunteering organisations such as the Scouts, the Guides and the cadets.
Finally, Greater Manchester, where my constituency is, faces one of the highest rates of persistently disadvantaged children in the country. The situation has worsened dramatically during the pandemic: research by the Education Policy Institute recently revealed that the attainment gap between poorer pupils and their more affluent peers has stopped closing for the first time in a decade. In my local authority, Stockport, that means that the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children ranges from six months at early years level to 10 months by the time they are at primary school, and almost two years by the time they reach secondary school. That is simply not good enough. The Government need to urgently address this rising crisis or risk long-lasting damage that will take years to overturn.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I put on record my thanks and gratitude to every student, teacher and support worker who has worked so hard in these difficult times. I also thank the Minister for School Standards for kicking off the debate with his usual leadership skills. So effective were they that in his 15-minute speech he pretty much failed to mention the catch-up plan or the moment that we are living through. That trend was followed by most of his hon. Friends.
It was a debate where there was sometimes more constructive agreement than was apparent. I was struck when the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a passionate speech calling for a whole-society approach to supporting children. I really hope he finds the time to read our plan, because we have championed that in opposition. I know that the shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has a driving passion for it too, and it is riven through our educational catch-up plan.
This is a pivotal moment: one when students and school communities across our country will discover whether Ministers match the ambition that young people have for themselves and for our country, or whether this week will be like the last, when those in government, from the Prime Minister down, made the decision—yes, it was a decision—to become the barrier to young people bounding forwards after the challenges that pandemic life has presented them with. Anyone who has played a role, large or small, in the running of schools, colleges or nurseries will pay testament to the resilience, character and sense of purpose with which most students approach their education. Even in the last 13 years, as the core curriculum and testing became myopic, funding per pupil was slashed, class sizes grew and teaching assistants dwindled, students and their teachers found ways to move forward.
The challenges disproportionately placed on those living with disabilities was covered very well by my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and, in a very thoughtful speech, by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). For too many individual youngsters down the generations, insurmountable barriers have existed. The doors to the education they deserve need to be broken down—they are not wide open, as they should be. Tackling that has been the central mission of education policy across the political divide for as long as I have known it. We may disagree over how to achieve it, but both parties have usually tried their very best, until now. The events of the last week show us that the challenge is no longer just about knocking down barriers for individual student learning; it is about the Government slamming the brakes on an entire generation, making it harder for every student to learn, capping the potential—the essence of what is possible—for young people up and down the country. This is a new low, even for the party that voted against feeding hungry kids over the holidays. For all of history there has been one great leveller: education. Yet before us is a party that promises to “level up”, but in practice puts bricks before people. You can’t level-up without giving people who are trying to overcome the greatest barriers all the support they need.
To take just one example, students in the north-west are seven times more likely to be absent from school for covid-related reasons than those elsewhere. They need the greatest support to overcome this simple but immense challenge. The only significant catch-up programme to survive the butchery by Government of the Kevan Collins report is the national tutoring programme. Overall, it is reaching only 1% of students, but, crucially, even then 40% fewer students are participating in the north than in the south. It is about time Ministers heard the truth: this is not levelling up; this is robbing opportunity from those in greatest need. Covid has disrupted the incredible effort that our students and teachers are putting in every single day. The average pupil has missed 115 school days and the attainment gap has widened by a devastating 24% in some circumstances, and this has come on top of many wasted years, when no progress was made on helping those with barriers to learning to keep up with those who do not have such barriers.
Perhaps most shocking of all is this Government’s inability to make the link between investment in education today and economic prosperity for all tomorrow. In that, their lack of imagination is breathtaking. The Collins report outlined colossal scarring to our economy in the absence of immediate, large-scale intervention. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that half a year’s lost learning could cost our economy £350 billion in lower lifetime earnings. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor announced a furlough scheme, which Labour supported, at a cost of £14 billion per month. He did not tell workers to wait six months until his spending review to see whether they would be supported. Individual workers and our economy as a whole needed support then, and, rightly, they got it. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a super deduction—£25 billion in tax breaks for the 1% of companies at the top. He said they needed that much, right at that moment, so he delivered it.
However, when it comes to the moment of greatest need for education, the difference is stark and everyone sees it. Furlough covers 80% of workers; the National Tutoring Programme covers 1% of students. The difference could not be more stark. Instead of doing “whatever it takes” to support students in their quest to learn, the Government have given them a tenth of what their own adviser said was needed, and shelved most of the recommendations in a report that they commissioned.
The National Audit Office tracked how much different Departments have spent in additional spending during the pandemic. The Department for Education came eighth. The Prime Minister said that education was his priority and the Chancellor said the same, but now we know the truth. The education, wellbeing and resilience of our nation’s youngsters are the Government’s eighth priority. They are all but forgotten, and the Secretary of State is all too forgettable in the Prime Minister’s eyes.
Robert Halfon
Further to my question to the shadow Secretary of State, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the core part of Sir Kevan Collins’s plan that there should be a structured, longer school day? Is that the Labour party’s position or not?
Peter Kyle
What struck me when people said throughout the debate that we are against a longer school day is that if they read Labour’s plan, they would see that we are calling for a day that is long and full of activity. The shadow Secretary of State has called for that consistently in the past week. We want to discuss how that extra time is used, which should be a cause for considerable deliberation by the House. However, given the number of Members who stood up today to say that they do not want any extra money to be spent on additional days, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can call for anything.
The House will shortly divide and Members will have the chance to support key priorities in the Collins report and Labour’s national children’s recovery plan: a temporary uplift in the pupil premium; resources so that school facilities can be used out of hours; and emotional support so that every student can focus on the learning, and those challenged by stress in these times are not held back. If the motion falls and the Government continue on their current course, students will have more challenges to overcome, not just in the weeks to come, but into the future. Our economy will be scarred for decades as will our ability to compete around the world against countries, which, in this moment of crisis, are investing 30 times more in their students than we are. That will haunt our nation and hold back our economy.
In the weeks and months ahead, our schools should be hubs of buzzing, healthy activity during school hours and way beyond. A school without students is not a school; it is just another empty building. This summer, whenever we pass a quiet, empty school, that building will also represent something else: it will be a monument to this moment of greatest need, when students and those who support them were truly abandoned by this Tory Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the chance to debate this important topic. I thank every single person who has contributed. Members across the House have spoken with deep admiration for teachers, teaching assistants, parents and our children and young people. I agree with them. I want to add my thanks to early years staff, to social workers and to everyone who has cared for children during this time.
We in the Government completely agree that we must do all it takes to ensure that our children recover from the impact of the pandemic. Our children have had a deeply turbulent time. We owe it to them to steady the ship, and this Government are committed to ensuring that we leave a legacy that underpins our promise that no child should ever be left behind.
Let us look at this Government’s track record in delivering first-class education for children. Back in 2010, when we took over from Labour, only 68% of our country’s schools were rated “good” or “outstanding”. That figure is now 86%. Over the past decade, the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers has narrowed by a substantial 13% at primary schools and 9% at secondary schools, and that is because of this Government’s continual focus on improving education standards.
We have prioritised children above everyone else during the pandemic. We made sure that our schools were the last to close and the first to open. However, instead of focusing on what is happening in our schools and our school standards, the Labour party has been talking about the money. As a former math student, I think that if we are going to talk about the money, we should look at all the numbers.
The £1.4 billion announced last week takes the total investment so far in education recovery to over £3 billion. It is quite correctly targeted at top-class tutoring and teaching, because evidence shows us that those are the interventions most likely to make a real difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), a former Education Secretary, correctly pointed out that it is vital that we put the investment in where it makes the most difference to children. It is also weighted more towards those schools with higher numbers of pupils from low-income families, because we know that that is where the covid-19 impact has been the greatest, and towards those in special schools.
The £3 billion package is only one part of what has been invested in our children. A few Members, including the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), spoke in favour of extending the school day. The next stage of our recovery plan will include a review of time spent in school and college, and the impact that that could have on helping children and young people to catch up. The review’s findings will be set out later in the year and they will inform the spending review, but it is absolutely right that we consult and look at the evidence first.
The £3 billion package is only one part of what we are investing in our children. Before the pandemic even started we had committed to the biggest school funding boost in over a decade, a three-year programme of £14 billion—
Vicky Ford
I will not, because I want to address as many hon. Members’ comments as possible. If I have time at the end, I will come back.
That three-year programme of £14 billion takes the whole schools budget to £52.2 billion by next year. We levelled that up across the country, so that per pupil funding is at least £4,000 in every primary school and £5,150 in secondary schools this year. Over the past two years we have also put record funding into high needs, increasing the funding for special educational needs and disabilities by £1.5 billion—nearly a quarter—over that period.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) spoke about special educational needs. Twenty-six of our 33 providers under the national tutoring programme can support those with SEND; 17 can support those in special schools. I visited some special schools last month. They are using their catch-up funding very sensibly to invest in speech and language and other therapies for children, exactly as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South requested. I am very proud that we were one of the few countries in the world to keep open schools for vulnerable children, including those with more acute special educational needs and disabilities, even at the height of lockdowns.
Vulnerable children are often cared for by local authorities, so during the pandemic we increased the funding for councils, with an additional £4.6 billion of un-ringfenced funding for both children and adult social care, and another £1.55 billion went to councils at the last spending review.
As we know that early education is critical, we invested around £3.6 billion last year in early years entitlements and continued funding nurseries and pre-schools at pre-covid levels throughout 2020, even if children were not attending. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke with great praise for our early years settings, and I agree that early education provides the building blocks of a child’s future. I am sure he will be pleased that £153 million—more than 10%—of the funding announced last week goes to early years.
When schools were not open to most pupils, we set up the school meal voucher system, putting nearly an extra £500 million in the school food system, and we invested more than £400 million in laptops and devices.
Stephen Timms
Can the hon. Lady tell the House why she believes that Sir Kevan Collins resigned last week?
Vicky Ford
Sir Kevan is a very thoughtful person. He worked very closely with us on the two first key elements of the catch-up packages, which is the improved teaching and tutoring. In all my engagement with him, I found him to be very helpful, especially on the elements to do with early years. I do not know the rationale behind his resignation, but I do know that, as I said earlier, we are looking at the proposals to extend the school day, but that needs to be done with deep consultation and thought to make sure that that money, if it is invested, delivers the best education for our children. I am completely confused by exactly what Labour is suggesting it will do with the school day.
We have also invested £269 million in local authority welfare schemes, including ring-fenced funding for families to help with food and fuel, and I know that many Members have been interested in that. Our £220 million holiday activities and food programme is now live across the country. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) very kindly invited me to visit her constituency. Bradford is, of course, one of the areas where we have tried, tested and piloted this holiday activities and food programme. It means that children of families on lower incomes can take part in holiday clubs and enjoy enriching activities, giving them both food and friendship.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said that we did not care about kids in his constituency. Actually, Leeds has benefited from the HAF funding every year since 2018. It has developed and delivered an excellent programme, and I do hope that, this summer, he will pop down and visit some of the kids who are having so much fun and getting food from that project. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) asked about projects for children and young people in her constituency. Well, of course, Leicester was a partner in the HAF programme in 2019, and will return again as a partner in 2021.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 2MC.]
Mental health does matter. My colleagues at the Department for Health and Social Care have put another boost of £79 million into children and young people’s mental health, so that over the next three years another 345,000 children will be able to benefit. As the Prime Minister said last week:
“There’s going to be more coming down the track, but don’t forget this is a huge amount we are spending.”
Our skills package will also help young people to open up new opportunities. In response to this pandemic, we announced more than £500 million to make sure that young people have the skills and training that they need. Since we launched the kickstart programme last September, employers have created more than 210,000 jobs for young people. I will never forget 2010, the end of the last Labour Government and the last recession, when nearly 1 million 16 to 25-year-olds were not in employment, education or training.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 2MC.] When it comes to supporting children and young people, and their futures, I will take no lessons from Labour. This is not a catalogue of chaos; it is a catalogue of cash, targeted at evidence-based support for our young people. They have shown huge resilience and patience throughout this pandemic, and I support them.
Question put.
Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the unprecedented backlog of more than 57,000 Crown Court cases, as well as record low convictions for rape and a collapse in convictions for all serious crime; calls on the Government to set up more Nightingale Courts, to enshrine victims’ rights in law and to introduce the proposals set out in Labour’s ‘Ending Violence Against Women and Girls’ Green Paper; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to update the House in person on progress made in reducing the court backlog by 22 July.
As always, it is good to see the Secretary of State for Justice in his rightful place.
In 1915, Franz Kafka wrote “The Trial”, which was about a young bank official, Josef K, who was arrested and prosecuted by a distant bureaucratic state, despite having done nothing wrong. The novel chronicles his lifelong struggle and frustrations with the invisible law and untouchable court. Readers of Kafka are shocked by the grindingly mundane frustrations of Josef K’s trial, which goes on for an entire year.
As has been repeated so many times, reality is often stranger than fiction. Today, in modern Britain, it can take multiple years before victims of crime and the accused finally get their day in court. Simon Foster, the new West Midlands police and crime commissioner, recently explained that he had seen court trial dates set for as late as 2024. He was right to pin the blame on the mismanagement and reckless neglect of the justice system over the past decade. Disturbingly, he warned that the delays would put domestic abuse, violence against women and rape cases at particular risk of collapse, due, of course, to the vulnerability of the witnesses.
I do not enjoy having to repeat the damning statistics that show that the Government are failing the survivors of violence against women and girls—frankly, they break my heart, and they should break all our hearts—but it is necessary for the House to recognise the scale of the problem that the Government have created if we are to have any chance of fixing it. In 2019-2020, the number of rape convictions in England and Wales fell to a record low: just 1,439 suspects in cases where a rape had been alleged were convicted of rape or another crime—half the number three years before. I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State, but I repeat that, because it is worth listening to: just 1,439 suspects in cases where a rape had been alleged were convicted of rape or another crime —half the number just three years before. Fewer than one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year resulted in a suspect being charged. The public have lost faith in those who are supposed to keep them safe: seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Would he agree with me that behind all of these statistics is often a desperate young woman not knowing what her rights are, waiting months for an independent violence and sexual assault advocate, and just in desperate straits, and that the House has to push harder on this Government to get it right? It is completely unacceptable.
Mr Lammy
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for conveying the seriousness of this. A young woman who has been subject to a rape is frightened, lonely, and confused, and feels all sorts of things, and we have to look into our hearts and really ask: have we arrived at that place where that young woman is supported? This debate, in part, is to say that there is more to do. That ought not to be a terribly partisan statement. It is a statement that we have to do better as a nation by those young women.
Some 89% of women and 76% of men say that tougher sentencing for sexual harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence would also make women feel safer. Frankly, while the Government dither—and we have been surprised on the Labour Benches by the dither—Labour has had to step in. Today, we ask Members of Parliament from all parties to back our plans to do a few things: to make misogyny a hate crime; to increase sentences for rapists and stalkers; to create new specific offences for street sexual harassment and sex for rent; to reverse this Government’s record low conviction rates for rape, with a package of policies to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including by fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, offering legal help for victims and better training for professionals; to remove legal barriers that prevent victims of domestic abuse getting the help they need through legal aid; to bring in new custodial sentences for those who name victims of rape and sexual assault; to train teachers to help identify and respond to the support child victims of domestic abuse need; to repeal the rape clause for social security claims; and to introduce binding national indicators to hold the Government to account.
The Opposition’s plea to the Government is to work cross-party on this initiative. I say to the Secretary of State again, and I have said it across the Floor of the House, that although the Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, I am worried that he sees this more as partisan in nature rather than us being able to work in a bipartisan way on an issue of such importance. His whole posture this afternoon—hands across his chest, looking away—does not convey what we typically understand of the status of his office.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misinterpret any of my body language, but the reason for it is that he and his party had a chance to work cross-party by voting for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and he did not do that. All I see from him, with the greatest of respect, is dither and irresolution.
Robert Buckland
I am happy to explain again why the Bill makes it absolutely clear that those sentenced for serious offences including rape will serve longer in custody. For those serving sentences of four years or more the automatic release date will now be two thirds—it will no longer be half, which was of course the policy of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and that builds on the change we made last year to make sure that sentences of seven years or more for serious crimes including rape also met with the same term of imprisonment, namely automatic release after two thirds as opposed to half. That is a longer term of imprisonment.
Mr Lammy
I said in terms, in Hansard, that nothing in the Bill increases the sentences for rape, and the Secretary of State gets to his feet and talks about time served, not what my party is proposing, which is increasing sentences for rape. My suggestion is that nothing in his Bill increases the sentence length for rape, for sexual assault, for harassment or for stalking; just as the Secretary of State is legally qualified, so am I, and he has confirmed in terms that while his Bill deals with time served, it does not increase the sentences for rape.
Robert Buckland
I am absolutely delighted to come to the Dispatch Box at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind him that in the past 10 years the average sentence for rape has increased dramatically, up to about 10 years, and the maximum is life in prison. I thought that he and I were interested in making sure that more and more perpetrators—[Interruption.] I can do without a running commentary from the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). The way in which we encourage people to come forward and make sure that their cases are heard is to encourage more and more people to plead guilty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how any of these back-of-a-cigarette-packet measures that he proposes actually amount to anything when it comes to the effective prosecution and detection of people who commit rape.
Mr Lammy
Nothing in the Bill is specific on crimes that disproportionately affect women; in 296 pages the Bill does not even mention women once. We need an increase in the minimum tariff for those who commit rape and stalking. The Labour party is clear on that. I wish the Secretary of State would get beyond the hot wind—stop talking about time served and talk about minimum sentences. He has been a barrister for long enough; he must know the difference between time served and a minimum sentence. It is surprising, frankly, that I have to re-educate him on what a minimum sentence served is.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman and respect him as a lawyer, as I respect the Secretary of State, but he will know that if we are going to have a discussion about specific nomenclature the truth is that, whether we talk about time served or minimum sentences, to say that we should increase the sentence for rape is not something that can realistically be done because the maximum sentence for rape is, as a matter of common law, life imprisonment. I accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had about how long that should translate to in practice through guidance and other matters, but it is not fair, I respectfully suggest, to talk about failing to increase what is already a life sentence; that is just a matter of law.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to assist his good friend the Secretary of State, but let me just say to him that all around the common law world—in Australia, in New Zealand, in the United States of America—there is a movement to increase the minimum sentences for rape. We in this party have looked closely at what has been done in those jurisdictions. I think in India the term has just increased to nine years because of the controversies around some rape cases there in the past few years, and in Australia it has increased to, I think, seven years. For that reason, it is our position that we should increase the minimum tariff.
I recognise that there is a legitimate debate around time served, and the Secretary of State has put his position in the Bill. I recognise also that, for heinous crimes, a whole life-sentence is appropriate. Indeed, we propose that in the Bill—someone who abducts, rapes and kidnaps a woman should serve a whole-life sentence. That is not currently in the Bill—we are proposing that. I will not refer to the controversial case before the courts at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman knows why we are proposing that. I say to him gently that this debate boils down to the value of a woman’s body and how seriously our party is taking it. That is why there is a serious legal disagreement between myself and the Secretary of State.
If we do not work cross-party on this, the Government will, in our view and in my view, be letting down victims of rape, domestic abuse, assault and violence once again. It is impossible to separate that failure of victims of violence against women and girls from the Government’s failures across the justice system as a whole. The backlog in the Crown courts is at an unprecedented level of more than 57,000 cases. It sat at 39,000 cases even before the pandemic began.
The backlog has been exacerbated by the pandemic, but it was created by the decision of this Conservative Government to close half of all courts in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019, allowing 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. As the Secretary of State stares at the backlog figures, which worsen every month, does he now regret his Government closing the courts and telling those that stayed open to have so many days off?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. There is no way that a party that has presided over the court backlog that we have—which has a huge impact on victims, who are sat nervously waiting to see perpetrators in court and then hopefully in prison—can say that it is in any way serious about being tough on crime, is there?
Mr Lammy
It absolutely cannot say that it is tough on crime when victims of crime face watching their cases collapse. I recognise that this has been a very pressured time—it is a pandemic—and the Secretary of State has had to deal with a range of issues in our prisons, in our probation, in our police and in relation to our judiciary. I recognise that, but in the end, the justice system has to serve victims of crime, and palpably and honestly, on any objective measure, things have got worse for victims of crime in our courts, and we need to do something about it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
First, the right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I spoke to our Crown court judge in Gloucester earlier this afternoon, who confirmed that the backlog has been lower month by month over the last six months, and it is lower than it was before the pandemic. One key reason for that is that it uses the court resolution process very effectively.
Secondly, although the right hon. Gentleman is making a strong pitch for why he wants to look after the victims of justice, where were he and his colleagues when policemen were getting injured in Bristol and police vans were being set on fire? Where was he when the windows of retail shops and banks were being smashed and people were clambering over the tops of railway trains, endangering life?
Mr Lammy
In 2010, 152,791 Crown court cases took, on average, 391 days to complete. In 2019, 107,913 cases took an average of 511 days, meaning that 30% fewer cases took over 75% longer to complete. The hon. Gentleman can add up—that is a poor record, on any analysis. He asks where I was. All I can say is that I am the shadow Secretary of State for Justice; I condemn the violence, but I do not think anybody expected me to be part of the policing.
Under the Conservatives, rapists, thieves, arsonists and those who commit fraud have never had it so good. Convictions for rape, robbery, theft, criminal damage, arson, drug offences and fraud have fallen to a 10-year low. The total number of convictions has collapsed from 570,000 in 2010 when Labour left office to 338,000 in 2020 after a decade of Conservative rule.
It is important that we look back to learn the lessons of this Government’s mistakes, but we must also look forward if we are going to fix this, and the solutions are pretty straightforward. We need more sitting days and more court space. Labour has called for a guarantee of at least 33,000 more sitting days. We are glad that the Government seem to have listened to our campaigning on this, but we also need to see the creation of more Nightingale courts if we are to end the delays. Will the Secretary of State promise, when he gets to his feet, to keep Nightingale courts open for longer, as well as to open more of them, to reverse the delays?
To address the crisis that victims are facing, the Government’s priority must be to introduce measures to reverse the backlog and to tackle violence against women and girls, but we must do more than that to protect the public and keep victims of crime safe. More than a quarter of all crimes are not being prosecuted because victims are dropping out of the process entirely. One million victims every year are being failed by the very system that is supposed to protect them. On top of denying justice through delays, this Government have so far failed in the simple task of enshrining victims’ legally enforceable rights. The Conservatives have promised a victims Bill in almost every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and in their past three manifestos, but five years on, their Bill has still not appeared in Parliament. The latest farce is that the Government are promising to publish a draft. It is getting draughty here with all the hot wind!
Labour has its full victims Bill published, brought to Parliament and ready to go. This would put key victims’ rights on a statutory footing, including the right for victims to read their rights at the point of reporting; the right to regular information; the right for victims to make a personal statement to be read out at court; and the right of access to special measures, including video links at court. Similarly, Labour’s Bill would include a number of new protections for victims. Victims of persistent unresolved antisocial behaviour would be given support for the first time. We would introduce new sanctions for non-compliance with victims’ rights. We would introduce victim strategies with mandatory equality impact assessments. We would enhance the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. We would guarantee the equal treatment of victims with insecure immigration status. We would put a statutory protection on agencies to report concerns on child sexual and criminal exploitation.
These are not partisan issues, and any Member of Parliament who recognises that this is the right way forward should vote with us tonight. No more hot wind. No more getting up and talking about time served or defending a record. We know it has been tough—we are in a pandemic—but victims cannot wait, and we cannot have a situation in which the Justice Department in the Government is letting down that important relationship with the Home Office. I think that might be what is happening at the moment.
The mistakes of this Justice Secretary and his Conservative predecessors were closing courts, cutting police, cutting the prosecution service and the de-prioritisation of crime. This has led to a backlog that is unprecedented, delays that are forcing victims of crime to drop out, and inefficiencies that are letting dangerous criminals get away with murder. But the present Justice Secretary’s failures are more of inaction than of the wrong actions: a failure to address violence against women and girls even when we offer him the measures to help him to tackle it, a failure to protect victims’ rights even when we offer him a Bill that is published and ready to go, a failure to reverse the backlog in the Crown courts even when it is obvious that he just needs to encourage and create sufficient space.
Inaction can be just as costly as the wrong actions. Inaction is standing by whistling to yourself while the world around you burns. Inaction is ignoring the desperate pleas of victims denied justice. Inaction is complicity. The result is a justice system that has become Kafkaesque for victims, as well as for the wrongly accused. Arrests are slow, if they happen at all. If they are lucky, victims are given court dates that are many months or even years later. Trials are then delayed. New court dates are rescheduled, then delayed, then rescheduled, then delayed, then rescheduled, then delayed.
I ask the Justice Secretary and Members of Parliament from all parties across the House to end the inaction and vote with the Opposition today. Now is the time when we all need to step up, put aside any partisan differences and act.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to the Chamber that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. Just for a change, we will not have a three-minute limit; we will start with a six-minute limit, which will reduce later depending on how long Members take to speak.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I thank the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for at least some of his remarks. I welcome today’s debate, which is an important opportunity for us to properly reflect on some of the serious issues that he quite properly raises. I can say at the outset that we absolutely agree with him when he talks about the ordeal of victims. The fact that this is nothing new is a matter of reproach for all of us. Can we do better? Yes, we can. Will we do better? Yes, we will. Are we taking action? Yes, we are—and it is there that, with the greatest respect, I take the gravest issue with his remarks.
To characterise my work or the work of this Government as somehow whistling or fiddling while Rome burns is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Calm reflection and a look at the work that the Government have continued to do, well before the covid pandemic, will bear that out. I think of the actions that this Conservative Government took to address important issues of violence against women and girls. Many Members from the right hon. Gentleman’s party and other parties in this Chamber were involved as well—I readily and happily accept that —but it is a record of action.
Outlawing coercive control within an intimate relationship, an offence that we are now going further to expand; outlawing upskirting; creating a criminal offence of stalking, which I and other parliamentarians were involved with; outlawing revenge porn and now the threat of revenge porn; outlawing the so-called rough sex defence; dealing with the appalling offence of non-fatal strangulation—those are all achievements by this Conservative Government. Let us not hedge or make any qualification of that. It is a Conservative Government who have driven forward important action on violence against women and girls.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, that there is no monopoly on ownership of these issues. I do not want for one minute to convey the impression that somehow we hold the monopoly of wisdom on all things. I think it is right to gently, firmly and consistently point out that there have been many opportunities for us to work in a joint way. There have been times when that has been done; I particularly single out the approach that the right hon. Gentleman took on the counter-terror measures that the Government have introduced in the past year. That was an example in which we worked constructively and maturely together, but I hope he will forgive me for saying—well, I am sure that he will not, but I will say it none the less—that there was an opportunity to do that again on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the Labour party did not take it. Frankly, it makes it rather difficult for me to take seriously the words that come out of his mouth about working together when such an important opportunity to work together was missed.
Catherine West
What does the Lord Chancellor say to the 44% of victims of rape who walk away before the trial, fed up because the defendant got their legal advice when they reported it but they have had zero? They may have had a very nice police officer have a little chat and ring them once a month, but they have had zero, because victims are waiting months for the independent sexual violence advisers and months for their court date. They are fed up—44%. What does he say? Will he apologise?
Robert Buckland
Having met and talked, in a professional and now a political capacity, to many of the victims that the hon. Lady describes, I say this: an apology is due, and I give that, but action is due as well, and that is happening.
The hon. Lady talks about independent sexual violence advisers. From day one of taking office, I made the case consistently that the expansion of their important role was a vital part of my policy, and we have done that. In 2019, I put an extra £5 million into investing in ISVAs. We have now expanded that; the total that we are investing in increasing ISVAs as we speak is £27 million. That means hundreds more ISVAs who will be available to support victims of crime from the get-go. She is right: the evidence is clear that, where an ISVA is involved, the rate of dropped cases falls dramatically—by about 50%, in fact.
I take up the hon. Lady’s challenge and exhortation, and I say that this is work in progress but we are getting on with it—yet another example of the action that I and this Government are taking to deal with the heart of the matter. Of course, that is going to be followed up very soon by the important end-to-end rape review, which we will publish. That piece of work has, quite properly I think, considered and reflected on a very important judicial review launched against the Crown Prosecution Service that was dealt with earlier this year, and indeed on the representations of many groups in the sector, reflecting the important views of thousands of victims of the most heinous crime of rape. That review will be published imminently, and I can assure her that it will be a full and proper reflection not only of the problems that we have encountered but of what can be done and what will be done to help to remedy the situation.
I am not going to hedge or qualify; I am going to be absolutely frank about the fact that the current rates and numbers of cases being brought to court are inadequate. They do not reflect the reality of what has been happening to thousands of women and girls in our country, and we are determined to do everything we can to change that. That involves a change from end to end—police, prosecution and the court system itself. That is what we need to encapsulate and get right, and I can assure the hon. Lady that, when that document is published, it will be the fullest proper reflection of the important points that she is properly so passionate about.
Richard Graham
My understanding from the judge of our Crown court is that there are ways to speed up the handling of the rape cases to which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) so correctly referred. One of them, for example, is making the Crown court available for certain sittings at certain times as a magistrates court, so that a case can be heard in the magistrates court and immediately moved into the Crown court. That is a way of speeding up the whole process. Does my right hon. and learned Friend, who knows far more about these things than I do, agree that there are practical ways in which courts can work with the Crown Prosecution Service to speed things up so that these cases get heard faster?
Robert Buckland
I have the happy advantage of having spoken, I think, to that very same judge myself last week when I visited our Nightingale court at Cirencester. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right in several respects to highlight the important work being done in the western region to deal with the heavy case load. The proactive work that is being done by dedicated judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and all court staff to come together to resolve cases that are capable of proper resolution and to identify and list those cases that absolutely need a trial has been a shining example of how to do it. Similar success has been achieved in Wales in eliminating and dealing with the so-called backlog, and we see that in other parts of the country too.
That is no reproach to those parts of the country that are facing a particular challenge. There is no doubt—the right hon. Member for Tottenham knows this from his constituency experience—that there is a particular pressure in London and the south-east, where there are still a great number of cases yet to be resolved. However, it is right to say that, in the good work that is being done, supported by investment from Government, we are seeing the sorts of results that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about. He mentioned potential ways in which—
Robert Buckland
I just need to finish the point, and then I will give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee. With regard to how the magistrates court and the Crown court can work together, the short answer is yes, there will be some further potential primary legislation changes. One or two visa matters are already dealt with in the current Bill before Parliament, but I am sure that the sort of uncontroversial change that ensures that the interests of justice are served and which allows magistrates to work more in synthesis with the Crown court will be one that the right hon. Member for Tottenham and Labour would wish to look at carefully and possibly support. I imagine that it would command his support, but I will not prejudge the position, obviously.
Sir Robert Neill
Returning to the matter of rape and serious sexual offences, does the Secretary of State agree that one key issue is that the best determinant of a successful conviction will be not what happens once it comes into the justice end of the system, but the quality of the evidence file that the Crown Prosecution Service has in deciding to bring proceedings, and ensuring, to avoid delay, that it is full and complete at the point at which it arrives in the Crown court? That is what needs to be tackled. Evidence to our Committee shows that much of the problem is delay at the investigation stage, failures in disclosure, failures to pursue proper leads and, sometimes, the failure to deal with victims, complainants and other witnesses sensitively. Is not that perhaps the area that we really need to concentrate on in a genuinely joined-up approach, as has been said?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the important early stages of an investigation and the particular problem, frankly, of disclosure. Disclosure is a vital part of our system—it ensures fairness—but for many, particularly young women, who are faced with having to give up their mobile phone, in which their lives are stored, it is a very difficult choice. It is almost Hobson’s choice: give up your phone. What substitute do you have? Suddenly it is gone for months. Your life is on your phone. They are these sorts of choices. Women should not be put in that position—it is just wrong—and we are going to do something about that. I will not open up all the details with regard to the rape review, but the House can see my concern about the early stages of an investigation.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham and other Members on both sides of the House rightly talk about the length of time that it takes from a complaint to the outcome of a trial. There is no doubt that while the court process is a part of it, it is by no means the whole part and, very often, the wait has been for many months—and sometimes years—prior to the bringing of the case into court. If a suspect is remanded in custody, of course, the courts continue to work very hard to get those cases dealt with. There are custody time limits. There was a temporary increase to those time limits that I, through the consent of this House, ordered last year, which has now come to an end. It related to the pandemic and, rightly, I ended that, as it is such a serious measure when it comes to deprivation of liberty. However, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that, in cases where custody time limits apply, the courts have been getting on with the cases in a timely and proper way.
The issue has been those complex cases that perhaps involve many defendants—perhaps defendants on bail—which have had to take their place behind custody cases and which I accept have been taking too long to come to court. I watch the numbers, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—I share some information with him, of course, on a proper basis—and I take into particular consideration the length of time that it takes. I truly will not be satisfied until I see a significant drop in the length of time that cases take from arraignment and charge, when they come into the justice system, to final outcomes. But it is right to say that, certainly in recent weeks, there have been some encouraging signs.
Mr Perkins
I wish the Secretary of State well with reducing wait times. That is what we all desperately want to see and that is why I am so pleased that we are having this debate. Will he therefore tell us what he considers will be a success in reducing those wait times and when he expects that we will see them come to an acceptable level?
Robert Buckland
I will judge success—never “mission accomplished”, but certainly success—when I see the number of cases that take six months or longer dropping to well below 20% of all cases. That is my personal benchmark. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date when that will be achieved; what I can say is that there is now a sustained pattern in which the number of cases being dealt with in both Crown and magistrates courts is larger than the number of cases coming in. That, obviously, means one thing—a decline in the overall number.
The Courts Service’s latest published plan is to see the overall number of cases in the magistrates courts reduce back to pre-covid levels by the end of the year. Every sign that I have been seeing over the past few months suggests that that progress is sustained and sustainable. We should pay tribute to the magistrates, judges and all the court staff who are working so hard to make that real.
The pressures that we are under are all familiar to us in the House. I look around in this place and see so few people, and that reminds me of the challenge in courts. Imagine the difficulty of running a busy court where people are coming back and forth and covid coming into the middle of it all. The work done to make our courts safe, in accordance with guidelines from Public Health England and Public Health Wales, has been immense. We invested about £113 million in safety measures —from perspex screens right through to social distancing measures, plus the Nightingale courts programme, which is allowing us to create the sort of capacity needed to deal with the case load. Plus there is the commitment I made, to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham alluded, that there should be no upper limit on the number of sitting days that can be used by the Crown court.
In other words, the Government and I have clearly signalled to all involved in the system that all systems are go and only the inevitable constraints of the current covid pandemic and social distancing rules would hold back the sort of full-throttle progress that I would love to see. If we continue with the common endeavour of the vaccination programme—that race that it is so important to win—and continue to make progress, I am convinced that will be reflected in improved figures at our courts.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor is absolutely right to pay tribute to court staff, magistrates and judges. As he knows, I sit as a magistrate and have seen the work that has continued right the way through the pandemic. What he has missed, though, is the investment that the Government have made in technology. I have been able to sit here, in the House of Commons, and undertake justice procedures for Merseyside so that we can keep the process and the wheels of justice moving forward. That investment has made a significant difference, too.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to be prompted by my hon. Friend, who anticipates what I was just about to say about the next limb of our investment, which is in technology. At the beginning of the pandemic, about 500 cases or so were being dealt with by way of telephone or remote technology across the whole of England and Wales. Last week, the number reached 20,000—just under half all the cases heard every week in our various jurisdictions.
That has not happened by accident; it has happened as a result of significant Government investment in the hardware and software so that the technology works as well as possible for all court users. We continue, through the £1 billion court reform programme launched in 2017, to evolve, refine and improve the technology. All the measures that we have invested in are supported by the biggest single increase in court maintenance in nearly 20 years—the £142 million that I announced last summer. That is further evidence of the concerted action that I and the Government have taken since the outset of the crisis.
Plans were outlined for recovery in the criminal courts in September last year—most notably, our commitment to create 290 courts that could be used for jury trials. But we did better than that: we now have over 300 courts that can be safely used for jury trials—and they are happening day after day. We published our plans for other court recovery, relating to other jurisdictions, in November. I can remember a time at the beginning of this crisis when there was a serious question as to whether the wheels of justice could carry on rolling at all, but at no time did we stop. Again, that is as a result of the application and dedication of everybody involved. The most difficult and troubling moment for all of us concerned in the system was the decision to stop jury trials at the end of March 2020. There was a two-month hiatus, but it did mean that in late May of that year we were among the first jurisdictions in the world to start jury trials again. That was a remarkable achievement and a testament to everybody who got involved in that endeavour. Clearly, that has had a consequence and an impact, and I do not seek to shy away from the reality of that. However, I can sincerely say to the House that our robust action—the investment we made, the multi-layered approach we are taking—is yielding the sort of results that all right hon. and hon. Members would welcome: the sort of outcomes for witnesses and victims that we all want to see. Can we do more? Yes, we can, and we are going to do more, not just in the ongoing work to recover from covid, but on the legislative framework, which I think we all agree needs to be enhanced.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
One area of crime that has seen a significant increase during the pandemic is pet theft, with the number of dogs being stolen in Suffolk alone having doubled. I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s taskforce on pet theft. Does he expect that it will lead to legislation in the current Session?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. Clearly, the abduction and theft of much-loved pets has caused real distress to too many people. During the lockdown, we have seen the rise in pet ownership, because of the comfort and company that much-loved pets bring, yet there is no doubt that there is an insidious market in the underhand sale of animals. Clearly, there is a wider issue here that needs to be looked at, which is why I was delighted to help bring together my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary to form the taskforce. We are looking at legislative measures, whether they relate to enhancing cruelty laws, on which we have already taken important action, increasing the maximum to five years, or to looking at stamping out the trade itself, in a way that we did several years ago with regard to scrap metal, where there were a spate of thefts and real misery for many people. We are looking at this in great depth and we aim to come back in a short while with a report. If that means we need to legislate, of course we will do so.
I wanted to talk about victims. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is not in his place, but I wanted to pay a bit of a tribute to him for the work he did when he was in the shadow team with the right hon. Member for Tottenham. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on these issues and I respect that, and I listened carefully to what he said. My proposed way forward of having, first, a proper and full consultation to make sure that this legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose, together with the draft Bill approach, will give everybody the chance to really bring a cross-party flavour to what our deliberations should be, to make sure that any product is going to be the result of mature and careful deliberation, so that we are not just paying lip service to these issues and not just enshrining the victims’ code into law, important though that is, but we are looking carefully at how people, organisations and agencies are held accountable. That is the big question we all need to ask ourselves. Here is the challenge for the right hon. Gentleman and others in this House: we have to balance the important principles of independence of prosecutorial authorities and other agencies within the criminal justice system, with the clear and present need for victims of crime to feel that if something has gone wrong, not only can they go and complain to somebody, but there is an outcome they can be satisfied with—there is accountability for any failure or dislocation in the system. That is what we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel on. I am sure that, in the spirit of the exhortation from the right hon. Gentleman, he will take that away and consider the offer that I make for how we can create a truly transformative victims law.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that undertaking, and of course I will work with him on that. I am grateful that he paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). I just remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) gave us the first victims Bill and also takes this very seriously, so—how can I put this?—if my boss takes it seriously, I take it seriously, and I am happy to work with the Secretary of State to deliver that victims Bill. We all know that we can do more for victims.
Robert Buckland
To add to the number, the Prime Minister, too, takes this very seriously. It is his absolute wish to see the quality of support given to victims to be the best in the world, and that is my ambition. I know that it is the ambition shared by Labour too, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the need for changes, I am absolutely focused not just on legislation but on culture. The way in which we approach violence against women and girls has to improve. I have mentioned the important action we have already taken. The new strategies to be published this year on violence against women and girls and domestic abuse will help all agencies to drive the step change that we need. The independent review that I will undertake with regard to the sentencing of domestic homicide cases is a vital part of that, so that we can better understand sentencing practice and consider the need for change. In the context of some of the proposals from the right hon. Gentleman, that review will be very important when it comes to the overall impact of any changes, however well intentioned they might be. I talked in some of my interventions about the important changes that I would commend to the House with regard to the Bill that is currently in Committee. I have also mentioned the end- to-end rape review.
As the new super-courtrooms are brought into service, one at Manchester and one at Loughborough, that will further enhance the ability of the system to deal with some of the larger, gang-related offences and multi-handed defendant cases that have been a real concern to all of us who want to see justice being done. As we future-proof legislation to allow more easy use of virtual hearings throughout the process, this is an example, again, of the Government putting those who use the service first—the victims and the witnesses of criminal offences. Remember that a system is worth nothing if it does not genuinely serve the British public and create a sense of confidence that when people come forward with serious complaints, they will be dealt with properly, professionally and expeditiously. Those are the aims that I have. It is all about recovery, rebuilding and restoring our justice system.
While I absolutely take on board the proper observations made by Labour Members, I say this to them: everything I seek to do is in the spirit of genuine collaboration and co-operation. Justice is too important for us to just leave it to mere party politics. I hope that as the weeks and months go forward, we can move away from a spirit of confrontation and remember that the work that continues to be done by this Government in order to combat crime and to deal with an effective criminal justice system is never finished. I can assure this House that, with regard to my commitment, and the commitment of my ministerial team and everybody at the Ministry of Justice, we are working daily and tirelessly to achieve the goals that all of us would wish to see. Justice is beyond measure. It has been part of my entire adult life. I am privileged to be able, in my term of office, to work to achieve the goals that I think all of us would want to see reached.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you; I was rather optimistic about the time limit. The House has to understand that we have had two lawyers battling it out here. They are normally paid by the hour and so it is understandable. In all seriousness, I would have curtailed the debate, but both right hon. Gentlemen took a significant number of interventions, so it has been a full debate. We start with a time limit of five minutes. I call Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not being a lawyer, I will try and stick to your time limit; it should be a bit easier for me. It has been interesting to follow the Justice Secretary, but a pleasure to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). It was an honour to be on the shadow Justice and Attorney General’s team until a few weeks ago.
The Conservative party traditionally prided itself on being tough on crime, but its record of delay in tackling crime is nothing to be proud of. The central theme of our criminal justice and courts system has now become delay, delay, delay. A backlog of over 54,000 Crown court cases means a four-year wait for justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. That impacts not only on the victims of crime and their families, who often cannot move on with their lives, their work and often their mental health. A delayed and failing justice system also fails the accused and those eventually convicted and sentenced. We cannot hope to address the causes of crime without giving those caught up a realistic timescale for a court hearing and a decision, and for those convicted, a quick start on work to cut future reoffending. A slow justice system costs us all—failed trial dates or the financial and human cost of remand in custody and, for our communities, a lack of faith in the whole criminal justice system.
The fault of those delays does not lie with our courts or those working in them. I know, from visiting Isleworth Crown court, how tirelessly they are working to ensure that the courts run smoothly. No, despite the Secretary of State’s explanation, he cannot get away from the fact that the Government brought a sledgehammer down on our legal system, and have done since 2010. By 2026, half of all our courts will have closed. There are 27,000 fewer sitting days now than in 2016, there has been a 15% cut in the Courts and Tribunals Service, and, despite agency recruitment, a shortfall of 1,400 staff still remains. We have had cuts to legal aid, to policing, to specialist support, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and others.
The Government may say that court delays are due to the coronavirus, and that the Government are moving heaven and earth to fix them, but it is not, and the Government are not. At the start of 2020 there was already a backlog of 39,000 Crown court cases, with a backlog now of over 53,000. The Government need to be honest about the cause of the delays and then start to address the backlog. Labour is proposing a guaranteed 33,000 extra sitting days and more Nightingale courts.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, the Conservatives are failing to protect women and girls in the criminal justice system, with record low conviction rates for perpetrators of sexual violence and an epidemic of misogyny that makes women and girls feel unsafe. Victims are losing faith that the justice system will be there for them. The Government’s rape review was announced over two years ago and we are still waiting. Meanwhile, rape prosecutions have fallen to the lowest level on record and domestic abuse prosecutions have fallen by nearly 20%. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) pointed out that for every victim there is a cost. These are not statistics, and that is why Labour has put gender-based violence at the top of our agenda, and why we published a green paper on ending the epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Finally, I want to address the issue of how the justice system can better serve those killed and injured on our roads. The issue concerns Members across this House and is an issue for the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, which I co-chair. So I ask, will the Government consider using the opportunity of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to address some of these issues, including the lack of clarity over the distinction between careless and dangerous driving offences and the inadequate sentences for fatal hit-and-run offences, as well as for serious hit-and-run and car-dooring offences—and, finally, end the courts’ routine acceptance of exceptional hardship pleas from offending drivers who are seeking to avoid driving bans?
I look forward to hearing from the Government on the issues of road safety justice, on the backlog of court cases, on their victims’ Bill, and on their rape strategy, and I hope that they will vote for the Opposition motion today.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am saddened by some of this debate, because I genuinely like and respect both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who are committed politicians and committed lawyers. We missed a bit of the seriousness of the debate in some of the party political knock-around that inevitably happens in these cases. The truth is that this is a really important issue, and both of them have elements of force and truth in the cases that they make. There is actually more common ground than one might read from some of the noise in between. I would have thought that anyone who listened to the very reasonable approach of the Lord Chancellor would say, with respect to the shadow Secretary of State, that he was the wrong messenger to shoot at.
The Lord Chancellor, like me, has immersed his life in the criminal law. Between us, we have clocked up about half a century of doing the publicly funded, the unfashionable, and the rough end of the trade. It is not that we have not seen exactly the things that the right hon. Gentleman talks about on the ground. It is not that I have not seen or experienced the frustrations of victims when I have prosecuted offences that we were not able to bring to a conviction, or the difficulties in sitting in a police cell trying to persuade often troubled defendants who have committed very serious matters to accept the reality of the evidence. Those are things that cannot always be reduced to simple statistics. Behind the statistics of conviction rates and prosecution rates there are individual cases that are all fact-specific in every instance. It is not in the gift of any Government to guarantee a given rate of conviction or a prosecution for any type of offence, because the nature of the system is that an independent jury, properly directed by an independent judge, must come to a decision on the evidence that is put before it.
Sir Robert Neill
I will do, certainly, but this will be the only one.
Catherine West
I accept the point being made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, and he is making it very well, but 44% of victims—not 10% or 20% even, but 44%—are walking away from their day in court. Why is that?
Sir Robert Neill
If the hon. Lady will allow me to develop my point, it is the point that I made in my intervention on the Lord Chancellor, which is that we need a much more whole-systems approach to this. The justice system can deal only with the evidence that is put before it. It is as good as the evidence that it has obtained. What is required is a much more holistic approach, with an emphasis on the investigation of not just serious sexual offences, but all offences, and that has not always been the case. I can remember when I started at the Bar, when complainants in rape cases and other serious offences often got, I am afraid, an unsympathetic understanding from the police force and the legal system. That has changed hugely. It has changed out of all recognition from when I was in practice, so there have been real changes, but also, as has been observed, the nature of the technology that we all use in our everyday lives makes issues such as disclosure all the more important.
We must not pursue targets at the cost of doing justice in the individual case either, and that balance is not an easy one to achieve or to articulate. We need to make that point really clearly and robustly. What is required, and where I hope that we can share some common ground, is that to achieve that we need systemic long-term investment in the system. Failure has been known to come from this side of the House—the hon. Lady and others know that I am not afraid to speak out and criticise my own party when I think that it has got it wrong. What I have found as Chair of the Select Committee and from the reports that we have done is that, over a period of decades—decades going beyond any Government and probably beyond virtually anyone sitting in this Chamber—there has been underinvestment in the criminal justice system. That is largely because it has never been a politically interesting, dare I say politically “sexy”—horrible word—or politically high-level agenda item. It has always been a Cinderella service that is downstream and has never had the attention that it deserves.
Both Front Benchers—my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Tottenham—are doing a lot to push the issues up the agenda. The Lord Chancellor has battled hugely and, I hope, successfully—I will continue to support him—to get more reinvestment in the system. To be frank, my own Government, of which I was a part, took out too much at one stage and adopted too transactional an approach. More money is being put back in, but the reality is that we have to have a consensus that it is important to spend money on our court infrastructure and important to ensure that investigation by the police, charging by the Crown Prosecution Service and the work of the courts are properly joined up.
It is also important that we have a functioning court system in which there is proper investment in capital and resources to make sure that the buildings and infrastructure actually work. I welcome, for example, the lifting of the cap on sitting days to deal with the backlog. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to assure us that that will be continued indefinitely, until such time as we reach the sensible and realistic level of backlog to which he referred. We all ought to urge the Treasury to give him the funding to do that.
We then need proper capital investment in the prison system, which we have not even touched on, because if we are really to prevent more victims, we need to make sure that, as well as punishing and deterring, the prison system rehabilitates and reforms where necessary.
This is a massive topic and the time available does not permit us to touch on it all. I hope that this debate is at least a trailer, and I plead for a more consensual, less politicised and certainly longer-term debate. We need a more honest debate with the public about what our justice system has to do, what it should be for and what its objectives are on a much more long-term basis. It would be a real service if we in this House could take a lead on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The time limit will now be reduced to four minutes.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
As ever, I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) had to say. In particular, I agree with him that the Justice Secretary is an honourable man, and I applaud many of the things for which he claimed credit for the current Government and the steps taken forward.
Nevertheless, the reality is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made a powerful case about the underfunding of our criminal justice system, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We have an underfunded justice system. If a person from Mars arrived tomorrow, he or she would recognise that there is no such thing as a joined-up criminal justice system. Importantly, there no such thing as an acceptable victim’s journeys through the whole process. There are too many areas where victims are let down.
Of course, there are some bright points. Rape is better investigated by the police today than it was in the past, but domestic violence is not always. In domestic abuse cases, people get the police officer on duty, who could be brilliant but could also be massively non-empathetic. That cannot be right. There is not enough money for training our police and we have to look at that.
Really important steps have been made on the protection of victims of domestic abuse, but we have an underfunded refuge system. Women in particular, but also men, are having to travel way outside their own area to find a place in a refuge when they flee domestic violence. Last year, something like 56%—or thereabouts—of victims of domestic abuse were turned away. That cannot be right.
Things go wrong in the prosecution system. An underfunded Crown Prosecution Service is simply not acceptable. The liaison between the police and the CPS is not strong enough. I have never understood why it is not possible to have—I wanted to see them in my own local police force—dedicated police officers who work all the time with the CPS to make sure that files are transferred properly and competently.
Within the CPS, the practice of barristers coming in late on and picking up cases without really knowing what they are until the day of the trial is unacceptable. A friend of mine was kidnapped and raped, but because the barrister decided it would be impossible to prove the charge of rape, the defendant got off scot-free. No other charge had been laid—the charge of kidnap was simply not available. That cannot be right.
When it comes to our court system, it cannot be right that, for victims and witnesses—and witnesses are often victims—not only are there delays, but the process is intimidatory. That is unacceptable. It cannot be right when cases drag on not only for weeks but for months. There must be investment in training but we must also drive through a joined-up approach to our criminal justice system that says, yes, victims and witnesses are central to it, not simply bolt-on extras. We have a brilliant sexual assault referral system in this country. We should treasure it, but we should fund it properly.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
We all come to this place to speak for the people we represent and give a voice to those who cannot be heard. Today, I rise to speak on behalf of Georgia Williams, a Telford teenager, and her family. Almost exactly eight years ago today, Georgia suffered a brutal death at the hands of a sadistic killer, who repeatedly sought out young victims and groomed and stalked them as he pursued and finally executed a grotesque sexual fantasy. The perpetrator rightly received a whole-life term.
Georgia was 17. She was optimistic, she was fun, she was happy and she shone with life and energy. Full of hope for the future, she had her whole life to live, ambitions to fulfil and dreams to come true. Georgia epitomised what is so good about young people. Her parents, Lynette and Steve, who I have got to know over the years, reached out to me on hearing about the release of Colin Pitchfork because they know the grief and suffering that victims’ families experience and they want others to understand. They want others to know why life must mean life.
Some crimes are so abhorrent and offensive to the moral conscience that society cannot just be expected to accept their perpetrators back in our midst. Society is being asked to forget the crime, forget the victim and forgive the perpetrator. In the most grotesque and heinous cases, why should society be required to accept that the slate must be wiped clean? Why do we insist, just because a period of time has passed, that such crimes must now be forgotten? We are in this place as legislators. We represent the people who put us here and we need a Parole Board that operates under a legislative framework that gives the public and victims trust and confidence.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his excellent team for their radical and reforming work. I particularly congratulate them on the action taken on automatic early release for serious sexual and violent offenders. That subject caused much heartache in my constituency and I am grateful for their work on it. I now urge my right hon. and learned Friend to focus on the role of the Parole Board and ensure that it has the full confidence of the public and victims.
No one can begin to understand the terrible grief and devastation that the Williams family suffered, not least because Georgia’s killer could have been stopped before he eventually targeted her. For any parent, losing a child is a tragedy from which they never recover, but to have a child taken in the horrific circumstances that Georgia suffered is a torment and despair that we cannot begin to comprehend.
I will end by sharing the words of Georgia’s parents with the House:
“To hear that Colin Pitchfork, who took the lives of two children for his own pleasure, is to be released, is an insult to the two young victims.
The impact of losing a child is devastating, this anguish is compounded when as parents, you know that those last minutes of your loved one’s life were spent in terror. These monsters destroy more than one life, they destroy whole families.
It has been 8 years of torment for me and my family since Georgia was taken. The impact on my mental health has ruined my life and in turn my family’s—there is no cure for our suffering. Based on my experience as a police detective, I believe Pitchfork will kill again, I’ve seen it all too often.
Victims’ families are forgotten in a short while, but the terror and chaos it causes in our lives goes on. It changes how we live our lives forever—we want to reach out to ease the extreme distress of other suffering families.
Please Lucy, do everything you can for the victims of Colin Pitchfork to ease their families’ suffering.
Keep Pitchfork in prison.
Life must mean life.”
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
I want to address the question of enshrining victims’ rights in law and discuss a particular group of victims: bereaved families and survivors of public disasters. I have been raising matters for and speaking on behalf of the Hillsborough families, some of whom are my constituents, since I was elected in 1997. On 26 May, the final criminal trial arising out of the unlawful killing of 96 children, women and men collapsed. There is now no prospect of anyone responsible for the gross negligence of South Yorkshire police on that day being held to account by our criminal justice system, nor will anyone be held to account for the subsequent police cover-up, in which police sought to deflect blame on to the victims and survivors of the disaster and away from themselves.
This has led to so much anguish and pain for the families and survivors over the last 32 years, as they have repeatedly had to defend the reputations of their wholly innocent lost loved ones and fellow fans. Despite David Cameron having apologised to the families and survivors from the Dispatch Box when he was Prime Minister in 2012 for the police cover-up, last week a defence barrister involved in the collapsed trial repeated the slurs about Liverpool fans on the BBC, and another denied that there had been a cover-up in an article in The Spectator. The very next day, an agreement by South Yorkshire police and West Midlands police to make payments and civil damages to 601 family members and survivors for the further psychological distress caused by that very cover-up was made public.
It cannot be right that these untrue claims are still made with impunity. Families should not have to spend 32 years defending the reputations of their lost loved ones. While this is an extreme case, there have been other disasters where the victims have been blamed or families have been unable to find out the truth of what happened and have been marginalised, ignored and not seen as central to legal and administrative proceedings. It seems likely that there will be more such instances in future if nothing changes.
It took the Hillsborough families 23 years of non-stop battling to have the truth of what happened to their loved ones acknowledged officially, 28 years to get correct inquest verdicts and 32 years in total until all the criminal prosecutions arising out of the disaster came to an end. That is far, far too long. The law needs to be changed to make provision for proper, bespoke support at an early stage for those bereaved in public disasters. I do not just mean legal advice. Once things go wrong, it is almost impossible to put them right. Things have to be done properly from the start.
There are a number of proposals that would make a difference, and I urge the Government to adopt them. The establishment of an independent public advocate—which, as the Lord Chancellor knows, I have a ready-made Bill to do—is key to preventing things from going wrong in the first place. It uses freedom of information and transparency—the principles underlying the operation of the Hillsborough independent panel—to prevent cover-ups from happening and to ensure that bereaved families are at the heart of proceedings. Measures in the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill on a duty of candour and equality of arms at inquests would help.
I hope the Lord Chancellor agrees that the law must be changed to prevent bereaved families in public disasters from ever again being treated like the Hillsborough families have been treated. I hope he agrees that that would be a fitting tribute to their 32-year campaign for truth and justice. As my constituents bereaved or affected by Hillsborough said to me when I met them after I was elected 24 years ago, we do not want this to happen to anyone else. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to make sure that it cannot ever happen again.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The Select Committee on Justice, of which I am a member, is working on reports on court capacity, legal aid and the withering of access to justice, probation, recovery from the disastrous privatisation experiment, the long-unresolved failings of the coroner system, and our crumbling prison system, in particular its effect on women, young people and the mental health of those in custody.
The Lord Chancellor’s priorities seem rather different: at the behest of a Prime Minister who has little respect for the rule of law, he is busy interfering with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the independence of the courts—dangerous constitutional tinkering while the justice system grinds to a halt. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill undermines fundamental civil liberties, while the further review of judicial review looks like an obsession in avoiding scrutiny, as we have seen again today with the findings of the judicial review of the Cabinet Office Minister’s conduct and yesterday with the exposure of that same Minister’s secret “clearing house” for freedom of information requests: bad priorities, and the wrong priorities.
We have heard about the backlog of cases in the Crown and magistrates courts and there are similar logjams in the civil court and tribunal systems although they are less well recorded. It is true that the Crown court backlog has been this high before, but then the court system was operating at a much higher volume and numbers of outstanding cases fell quickly. They rose again before the pandemic because of deliberate Government actions in closing courts and reducing sitting days. With the acceleration of the backlog in the past year, they lack the means to tackle it. Belatedly they introduced testing at court on a purely voluntary basis. They set up Nightingale courts, but perhaps a tenth of the number required, and a fraction of the number closed in the last decade. There are insufficient judges or lawyers to cope with the needs of the justice system because cuts in both legal aid and the CPS have left a skeleton service. Victims are waiting up to four years from offence to disposal. This is a question not just of quantity but of quality of justice. Memories fade, witnesses get cold feet, victims want to move on with their lives, trials collapse.
There is a lack of urgency and direction at the Ministry of Justice. The decision to spend £4 billion on new prison places while letting existing prisons decay, and the lack of facilities, of training and education, of proper healthcare and of basic living conditions in so many of our Victorian prisons are a disaster for inmates, for underpaid and overworked staff and for all of us. The failure to rehabilitate prisoners and to reintroduce them to society with housing and employment support is a recipe for recidivism.
It is only possible in these debates, and with the time we have, to skim the surface of these issues, but the inquiries of the Select Committee and some of the APPGs, such as the all-party group on legal aid, show the depth and complexity of the challenges we face. Unless the Secretary of State starts to look critically at his Government’s record, he will be just another Tory Lord Chancellor who has presided over the further decline of a justice system that once was admired and copied around the world.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
The Government have been taking strong action to tackle violence against women and girls by delivering our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, legislating to protect women and girls from serious violent and sexual offenders and ensuring they spend longer behind bars, legislating to ban upskirting, and delivering additional support for victims during the pandemic, ensuring that organisations and victims have everything they need. I am proud of the strong measures this Conservative Government have taken to improve our criminal justice system, but today I want to concentrate on the appalling decision made by the independent Parole Board to release Colin Pitchfork.
Pitchfork brutally raped and callously murdered two innocent teenage girls in my constituency 30 years ago. The young lives of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann were horrifically cut short in the most violent of ways. There cannot be any worse sexual offences committed against women than raping and murdering them. The horrific nature of those crimes has left a lasting and deep impression on the collective memory of my constituents, particularly those living in Enderby and Narborough where these brutal crimes took place. The families and friends of Dawn and Lynda continue to endure endless pain and nightmare memories.
The Lord Chancellor will recall that I campaigned and lobbied his predecessor very hard in spring 2018, at the time when Pitchfork was due to have his first parole hearing. At about that time the Parole Board made another awful decision involving John Worboys, which caused outrage across our country. The victims of Worboys were rightly disgusted with the independent Parole Board’s decision. There was a widespread belief that the Parole Board had completely failed to safeguard women’s safety and had acted manifestly irrationally in choosing to release Worboys. The flawed decision by the Parole Board to release John Worboys eventually led to a new reconsideration mechanism; the rules were presented to the House as the then Government’s response to avoid another Worboys-type situation.
The independent Parole Board’s decision on Monday to release double child rapist and killer Pitchfork has caused widespread alarm; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for referring to the Pitchfork decision a few moments ago. The new Parole Board rules have very infrequently been considered, and in some respects the Pitchfork decision is a real test of the efficacy of the reconsideration mechanism rules.
There is a strong and compelling argument that the Lord Chancellor does not need to apply the same stringent judicial review grounds in law. He is acting as an applicant, not as an adjudicator. The decision for him to take is whether to refer the matter back to the Parole Board for it to reconsider, not for him to decide the issue in its place. I end with a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend to exercise a discretion that this House gave his office for cases of this sensitive nature, and not to allow the high threshold for judicial review to obfuscate his ability to refer the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Laura Farris will be the last speaker on four minutes. We will then go down to three minutes, to get as many people in as we possibly can.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
A point that I think we can all agree on is that victims should not have to wait. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen how difficult it is to accelerate justice. In May last year, Lord Brown, the retired Supreme Court justice, wrote in The Times that it was time to abandon jury trials. He recalled the experience of judge-only trials in Northern Ireland during the troubles and recommended that we temporarily pursue that route.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) disagreed. On 20 June last year, he wrote:
“You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
He later came forward with his own proposal for “wartime juries” of seven people, which he thought might reduce the backlog by 15% to 20%. A number of practitioners disagreed, including Baroness Kennedy, who said that that was
“opening the door to sacrificing the precious way people in our communities contribute to something really important.”
Again and again, she has talked about the magic number of 12 people on a jury, which is what the Lord Chancellor has pursued.
I say that not to criticise any of the views to which I have referred, but because there are good, fair, sensible arguments for and against any of those options. All of them are imperfect, but all have at their heart access to justice and the execution of article 6 rights. I respectfully say that these delicate, nuanced considerations about delivering justice deserve more than the atmospherics of an Opposition day debate.
It is important to contextualise our backlog. It is striking how much better we are doing than equivalent jurisdictions. New Zealand has a population of 5 million and a backlog of 75,000. New York City—one city in one state—has a backlog of 50,000 criminal cases. It is important to look at the progress that we are making through the backlog. The latest figures published by the MOJ up to, I think, 25 April show that disposals are now at a level 5% higher than before the pandemic.
Catherine West
If 44% of the victims are walking away, the backlog is dealt with.
Laura Farris
I think I understand the hon. Lady’s implication. Of course I am not suggesting that the backlog is dealt with, but the critical point is the progress that we are making through the backlog rather than the number itself. It is right to say that disposals now outstrip receipts and we are reducing numbers, which is something that I think we should be very proud of.
I also think that there is real cause for optimism in how remote hearings have been used. From a standing start, we saw courts embracing nascent technology, and in 12 months they have delivered everything from a 12-week trial in the High Court to a complex jury inquest in Kent, all of it online. These changes are becoming embedded. In the future, we will be delivering justice in a way that is more efficient, more economical and crucially, I hope, more swift.
I would like to spend a moment on the issue of justice for women. I echo the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), in that I think we do women a disservice if we reduce these questions to a political tit-for-tat, although I think the mood has shifted a little bit since the start of this debate. There are Opposition Members for whom I have a lot of respect on this issue, and they know that.
The Government have made good progress. Stalking, choking, revenge porn and rough sex are ugly crimes that have found their way on to the statute book, where they did not previously exist. Of course, we are not there yet, and it is a raw feeling to be speaking on this in the week when Wayne Couzens admitted to the abduction and rape of Sarah Everard, but that crime did not happen because of an absence of laws. In fact, Harriet Wistrich from the Centre for Women’s Justice gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, where she said that the fact is we do not need more legislation. Her concern, which she expressed powerfully, is that the police are failing to implement what is already there. Very respectfully, when I read the Labour Green Paper, I saw almost no reference to police failings at all.
I also think that we as a House have to be honest. While young people can pick up a phone, click a few buttons and watch rape porn, we have a problem. While schools and universities, and even workplaces, tolerate or at least turn a blind eye to misogyny and harassment in their midst, we have a problem. When young people are living in families where they see perhaps violence and misogyny exhibited in the home, we have a problem. The justice system is the end point, but if we are serious about violence against women and girls, we owe it to the victims to work seriously and collaboratively on the causes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There is now a three-minute limit. I remind everybody—I do not know what has been said before from the Chair—that if anything is before the courts and is sub judice, please do not make reference to it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Government’s own figures show that the number of outstanding criminal court cases has risen by 15,918 since the pandemic began. Some of this is a consequence of covid—a consequence made worse by the Government’s slow action to introduce the Nightingale courts—but covid does not explain the huge backlogs that had already built up before covid hit.
It is completely unacceptable that the Government are using the pandemic as an excuse for the backlog and to obfuscate a much deeper problem. For too long, the Conservative Government have underfunded the whole of our justice system. Funding for courts and tribunals has fallen by 21% in less than a decade. The legal aid budget has fallen by almost 40% in the same period. This is completely unsustainable for our courts, their staff and professionals and, crucially, for those who are seeking justice.
Rape and domestic violence cases have been among those worst hit by the courts backlog. In the first three months of the pandemic, prosecutions for crimes against women and girls fell by more than half compared with 2019. Over 50,000 women reported being raped last year, but how many rapists were convicted? Fourteen hundred. Only one in six women report incidents of sexual assaults to the police, and as so many survivors of sexual and domestic violence are denied justice, is it any wonder that report rates are so low? Repeated delays to trials not only affect a person’s ability to provide evidence, but add hugely to the retraumatisation of victims. It is literally adding insult to injury.
Urgent improvements across the whole justice system should include specific training for police prosecutors and judges on how to handle these cases sensitively. Misogyny should be made a hate crime to help stamp out the abuse that many women face on a daily basis. The Government must finally ratify the Istanbul convention, which I have been asking for for a long time, and uphold internationally agreed standards for preventing violence against women. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must not lose sight of the human cost of this unprecedented court backlog and low conviction rates for instances of rape, and I urge all Members to support the motion tonight.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I think we all agree today that we need to tackle the court backlog, but I think what we have mainly heard from Opposition Members are just attempts to cast blame rather than new solutions. Let us take the Opposition motion, in which the only solution offered is more Nightingale courts. Call me naive, which Members may, but I thought the purpose of an Opposition day was to oppose something that the Government were doing, rather than to support the innovation coming from this Government, which is Nightingale courts. There is no detail on where they should be, how many there should be, how they should be staffed or indeed how much we should spend on them. Nothing at all.
A Nightingale court has just opened in Kent, thanks to strong support from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on the Front Bench, and also detailed support from the Department in terms of where it should be, exactly how we could get the right configuration of rooms so that we had the necessary custodial rooms and where we could find the staff for this important court. This kind of detailed, important work by the Department has led to us having 60 Nightingale courts, which will really make a difference and have an impact on speeding up justice in this country. That is in contrast to the Opposition’s motion today, which simply seeks to take credit for something that is an innovation from this Government.
I shall move on to other parts of the motion, having established that the first part is simply supporting the Government’s existing policy. Labour wants to introduce additional measures from the “Ending Violence against Women and Girls” Green Paper, which it produced. Some of those measures are constructive, and I think we should work together on them on a bipartisan basis, but I remember the debates during the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and that was not bipartisan; there was a marked difference from the approach taken during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which was very different in tone and enabled us to pass a landmark piece of legislation. Claims of decriminalising rape are incredibly unhelpful and wrong. That is the opposite of the approach that we need to take to tackle this incredibly important issue.
The Government are doing a lot, as has been mentioned by many already. We have the Domestic Abuse Act, and the movement in the direction of pre-recorded cross-examinations will be incredibly important for helping the victims of rape and others, as will the ending of automatic halfway release for rapists, because I think the time that rapists spend in prison is important. There is also better protection for the victims of domestic violence. I urge Opposition Members to match their rhetoric with action. Bipartisan is definitely the way we need to go with this, but they cannot do that when they are making sensational claims on social media.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The criminal justice system is at the very heart of people’s trust in Government. When things go wrong, we want the police to be able to investigate effectively, we need the CPS to prosecute efficiently and we deserve a court system that provides a fair and, yes, speedy trial. I welcome this opportunity to examine the Government’s response to covid in our criminal justice system, as well as the longer- term challenges. Looking at the early stages of investigation, the Government have made big steps. They have already recruited more than 9,000 new police officers—on their way to 20,000—to improve detection and collection of evidence. They have also tackled overload in the CPS by recruiting 400 new prosecutors to reduce caseload crashes and improve performance.
However, the court system itself is a harder nut to crack. All of us who have worked in the criminal justice system will know quite how big a task it has been to get back up and running in a covid-secure manner, particularly when it comes to jury trials. The challenge has been the greatest in the Crown court with its larger trials and its need to accommodate jurors, but here the innovation has been enormous, with 302 covid-safe jury courtrooms constructed to date, as well as the famous Nightingale courts, 60 of them created from scratch. Across the board, massive investment in remote hearing technology has sped up pre-trial hearings, with 20,000 hearings now taking place remotely every single week. This is an innovation that will continue to pay dividends for the administration of justice long after this pandemic has passed into history.
Perhaps most of all, the courts system has responded to the need by recruiting 1,600 new court staff, a 10% increase to the entire service, to speed up delivery and get on top of the backlog. All this work has allowed England and Wales to be the first western country to restart jury trials, despite the pandemic. Sticking with full juries is the right decision. It takes longer to work through the backlog, but the facts show that the Crown courts have now caught up with weekly demand and started to accelerate past it in the past few weeks. The Government have put in place a plan of action and the results are showing in the week-by-week reduction of waiting lists.
There is still much to do, so the message has been sent to every courtroom that there are no financial constraints on courtroom sittings for the whole of this year, but I want to make one respectful suggestion, following the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). It is that this opening of the purse strings should not stop until the waiting list has been reduced to a reasonable level for the long term.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
The title of this debate is “Protecting the public and justice for victims”. Young people are part of the public, so I want to raise the issue of young people, particularly those imprisoned in youth offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. I worked with children in care for over a decade, so this has been a personal interest of mine, and I am a member of the justice trade union groups.
The good news is that the number of young people imprisoned has fallen over the past two decades, to about 850 on average. The bad news is that it is not reducing reoffending by those individuals; 71% of them reoffend within 12 months of leaving a secure placement. In addition, although the number may be declining, the latest statistics on behaviour management measures, published in the Youth Justice Board report in February, demonstrate just how poor the behaviour management problems are in these institutions. The numbers on restrictive physical interventions and self-harm are at a five-year high. The system is failing young people.
We know that the right interventions work. If we can intervene at an early enough age, we can grow people out of crime. All the evidence points to the benefits of smaller institutions nearer to young people’s homes and communities to maintain family contact, and, in educational settings, to investing intensively to overcome past educational failures and maintaining educational opportunities for these young people.
Unfortunately, the Government’s new reform plan, to merge youth offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes into secure schools, flies in the face of all that evidence. We now know that the Government’s proposal is that autonomous trusts will run those schools, under the Ministry of Justice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seeks to promote new charitable providers to expand youth detention, by the looks of it. The University and College Union and others have a real fear that that is simply renaming child prisons as schools under multi-academy trusts.
The fall in numbers gave us the opportunity to ensure that we could tackle youth offending effectively, rather than simply investing again in ineffective incarceration. We believe that simply renaming these institutions will fly in the face of all that is needed at the moment, so many of us are urging the Government to think again and work with civil society organisations, professionals and unions to design an effective system that is based on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I was pleased earlier, when I intervened on the Lord Chancellor on the matter of pet theft, that he gave such a positive response about the intentions of the taskforce that is looking at that terrible crime and what measures can be put forward to deter it. I declare an interest: as someone who had never previously owned a dog, I was fortunate that my family took ownership of a beautiful chocolate-brown sprocker spaniel from Norfolk in February, just before lockdown. Obviously, we did not know that lockdown was coming, but I have huge sympathy with the many families who, in lockdown, desperately tried to get a pet and often had to pay over the odds. Of course, prices surged, which in turn inevitably attracted those with nefarious motives.
To give an idea of the scale, not only did the number of dog thefts in Suffolk double in the last 12 months, but a single raid by the police in Ipswich, on a Traveller site, resulted in the discovery of 83 stolen dogs. I believe that most of them have been returned to their owners, so there is a good news story there. However, my main point is that, to most people, their pet is a family member, and I hope that whatever measures we bring forward, we recognise that this is a traumatic crime, not just for the animal itself but for the family concerned. From social media and speaking to people in my constituency, I can say that the threat of dog theft has caused massive anxiety, and I hope that we strengthen the law so that we deter this heinous crime.
Another crime that is particularly relevant in rural constituencies such as South Suffolk is hare coursing. I received an update earlier from the wildlife team at Suffolk police, and I was struck by a fact that I hope the Justice Minister takes into account, because this is very much an MOJ issue. There were six convictions for hare coursing in the last year in Suffolk and the average penalty was a fine of £142. The key point is that, with hare coursing nowadays, we are talking about organised crime gambling many thousands of pounds. One hundred and forty-two quid is not going to stop organised criminals gambling thousands of pounds.
As I am sure the Minister knows, the problem is that hare coursing is not a minor matter anymore. It can often lead to violence, and certainly the threat of violence. Our farming and rural communities feel very, very intimidated by this crime and they are spending huge amounts of money protecting their land, protecting their sheds and so on. At the same time, it is inevitable that those caught up in this crime may well be the same sort of people who are robbing their farms of vehicles, robbing their GPS systems from their tractors, and so on.
Jerome Mayhew
Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in his constituency are so concerned about the risk of hare coursing that they are taking the step of shooting their hares to prevent it becoming an attractive destination?
James Cartlidge
I welcome that point. It just shows how much of an impact this has had. In terms of the law, farmers in my constituency are on a WhatsApp group where they share intelligence about potential hare coursing. The police are using a drone to find the perpetrators, who are themselves increasingly sophisticated, but the law that generally covers hare coursing is the Game Act 1831. In other words, despite all this technology, the piece of legislation covering it received Royal Assent a year after the first passenger steam railway came into being, and I suspect that it may be in some need of modernisation.
We have heard about some very serious crimes and I understand why there is such concern about the issues around rape and the victims of that crime. It is incredibly difficult and it is important that the Government focus on that. There are also crimes such as dogs being stolen and the theft of farm property, which perhaps do not sound as serious but where the wider impact in rural communities is still very significant. We want to see a signal from the Government—not just in police numbers, but particularly in sentencing and punishment—that those crimes are taken seriously and that at least the guidelines, if not the law, will be toughened accordingly to protect rural communities.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Opposition days are incredibly precious for the Opposition. There are so many things that our party could have chosen to debate, but I am really pleased, and I believe that it is of fundamental importance, that we have chosen to table this motion. We need to press the Government to do so much more to address the record-breaking backlog, and the important part of the motion about violence against women and girls is also very welcome. I hope that the Government, in the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) introduced the motion, will encourage Government Members to support it, because if there is going to be cross-party consensus on this, it would be a really positive sign to see the Government supporting this motion.
As we have heard, more than 57,000 cases are awaiting court time. The measures that the Government have so far proposed are utterly inadequate to address the backlog. The chief executive of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has said that the Government need 200 Nightingale courts to fill the gap and remove the backlog, but the Government have just 25 up and running. It is not just the buildings that are needed; the Government’s cuts mean that the service employs 2,100 fewer people than it did when they came to power.
We have heard about the impact that this has on victims, but I want to ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider my constituent, who I will call Ms C and who is watching our debate. She has been a long-standing victim of serious violence from her former partner. Her ex-partner was recently jailed for the fifth time. The court heard that he is a heroin and crack cocaine addict who is also extremely violent. He has left my constituent with injuries so bad that her sight is permanently damaged. On other occasions, she has had other facial injuries, been concussed and had her head split open. On one occasion, he forced his way into her flat, and imprisoned her and held her during an appalling ordeal. Prior to his imprisonment, they lived on the same street, and alongside the violent attacks that she has experienced, he has often made verbally aggressive and intimidating threats towards her when she has left the flat or he has seen her walking down the street. He was also jailed because he was guilty of attacking a police officer, attacking a nurse at the royal hospital, attacking another police officer when the police were called to the hospital and smashing up my constituent’s flat.
The council wants to evict this man when he gets out of prison, but it has told Ms C that it is likely to be over a year before it will be able to get a court appearance. She is now facing the likelihood, after all these attacks, of this person coming back to live on the same street. That is the reality of what court backlogs mean. When we consider the motion today and think about the steps that the Government are taking, nothing is more important for my constituent, and thousands more like her, than making sure that we get rid of these backlogs. Justice delayed is justice denied.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
This has been an interesting debate. Clearly all our constituents’ lives have been hugely impacted by lockdown, but one thing that, I am sure, has struck us all is how communities have stepped up to support each other—that is true in respect of justice, as it is in respect of healthcare and social care.
I particularly draw attention to the work done through a project called OWL—the Online Watch Link. It brings together the Neighbourhood Watch CCTV cameras across my constituency and many other parts of England to support our local police services in producing evidence quickly and effectively, so that perpetrators of crime can be quickly apprehended and that there is then sufficient evidence to charge and convict them in the courts.
I have been particularly impressed at how, during this lockdown period, more members of the community—in my constituency and elsewhere—have been signing up to support the project. It has been instrumental in bringing literally thousands of charges, securing convictions for offences from burglary to some sexual offences and many offences involving theft and car crime. The more that we as citizens can support each other, the better, but it is also important that as a Government and Parliament we recognise that it is not just the criminal justice system itself but the communities that we are elected to serve that can support each other in bringing perpetrators before the law.
In due course, I would like to seek consideration from the Government about what more can be done to address the issue of the theft of catalytic converters from vehicles. That has blighted many dozens of my constituents and people across England. Perhaps the Government could bring used car parts within the remit of the laws on scrap metal so that we can ensure that those who steal and deal in those parts, causing great inconvenience and cost to people, can be brought to justice more effectively.
Finally, I express my strong support for the work being done on how we improve justice for young people; I am thinking in particular of secure schools. Having served as a magistrate, I am well aware of the frustration that many in the justice system feel about a lack of sentencing options that give young people a chance to turn their lives around when they have fallen within the remit of the justice system. It is welcome that the Government are bringing forward these proposals to give us a real chance, based on evidence from overseas and the Taylor review of 2016, of helping young people to turn their lives around.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Covid-19 and Westminster austerity simply serve to highlight the fundamental problem that Wales is the only nation in the UK without powers over its own policing and justice systems. Justice is devolved in Scotland and the north of Ireland, and there is no rational basis for Wales to be treated differently. Giving Wales powers over justice should not be simply for its own sake; it is a necessity to deliver real justice for victims and create a better, safer society. As Lord Thomas’s Commission on Justice in Wales report noted,
“there is no overall alignment of policy and spending which is essential if the criminal justice system is to be effective in reducing crime and promoting rehabilitation.”
That lack of alignment is starker than ever, with the Westminster Government pushing through the law and order policing Bill, which will do nothing to tackle the violent and squalid state of many prisons, aid rehabilitation or break the costly cycle of reoffending, which is estimated to cost £18 billion per year.
With the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, Wales cannot afford to lock more people up in prisons such as HMP Berwyn, where prisoner violence and assaults on prison staff increased by 143% and 25% respectively in 2020, or in the overcrowded Victorian-era Swansea prison, where 79% of prisoners report that they have a mental health problem, according to the prison inspectorate.
But there is an alternative. With the proper powers, we could build a holistic system that promotes protection and rights for victims, rehabilitation of offenders, and long-term prevention of crime. This would be brought about by integrating the justice system with Welsh social, health and education policy, and services alongside the growing body of distinct Welsh law. Last month’s Senedd election returned a super-majority for further powers and devolution to the people of Wales. It has a clear and strong mandate for the devolution of significant further powers from Westminster to Wales, which will have a real, positive impact on the lives of people across Wales. It is time to act and to deliver on that mandate. In today’s debate in the Senedd, Plaid Cymru is calling on the Labour Government in Cardiff to turn their rhetoric of home rule into reality and to deliver the stronger Wales and the stronger Senedd that the people have voted for by delivering on their manifesto commitment to pursue the devolution of justice.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I regret the backlog of 50,000 cases. Of course, anyone is going to regret that, but frankly we regret the pandemic and we regret all the unprecedented challenges that all our Government Departments had to face as a result of the pandemic.
I find it interesting how I have noticed, or sensed, that Labour is trying to seem a little bit tough on law and order. It is slightly perplexing. This is a party that went into the last election with a manifesto pushing a presumption against any prison sentence for those sentenced to less than six months unless it was for rape or a violent crime. We should think about all the really incredibly nasty individuals who would have got off with no prison sentence as a result of that. I appreciate that Labour is under new management, so presumably we are going to see some changes—although it does not seem so, because of course its leader voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which increased sentencing for those who attack and abuse our emergency services. Labour voted against that. It also voted against the tougher sentences for some of the serious offenders associated with that. Labour is not trusted on law and order; it is incredibly weak on law and order. That does not mean that we do not need to get tougher, though, so I am going to talk about that.
I am going to talk about one case, specifically, in my constituency, involving Richard Day, a constituent of mine who was walking home from a night out with his brother and some others in late 2020. He was set upon and attacked, unprovoked, by a group of young men. There was a punch to Richard Day’s neck and he died. As he was dying, they stood over him laughing at him and went through his pockets and took his belongings. I have spoken about this before in this place. The reason why I do so is that the headline is protecting the public and justice to victims. We have an example of that right here, because the individual who was found guilty for that act was sentenced to four years in a young offenders institution because of his age; he was 16 at the time. He was automatically let out after two years, and because he had 14 months on remand, in about nine months this individual, I assume, is going to be back out on the streets of Ipswich. Is that justice for the victim’s family? No, it is not, and it is something they are going to have to live with for the rest of their lives. Is that protecting my constituents, who, frankly, are wondering right now, is this man going to be back out on the streets of Ipswich in the not-too-distant future?
We have made some positive moves as a Government and there is a lot further to go. We need to look at the role of things like the Sentencing Council, which, as we have seen on pet theft, is so cut off from what the majority of people in this country want, which is tougher punishments for those found guilty of pet theft. Our judges, time and again, issue overly lenient and soft sentences that mean that many of my constituents have lost faith in the criminal justice system. We have to find a way of respecting the independence of the judiciary but at the same time bringing the actual sentences we see and what the public want to see closer together, because that is the kind of society we want to live in.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The pandemic has stretched our justice system and created an unprecedented backlog of 57,000 cases in Crown court, but the Government must recognise that the past 10 years of their Conservative mismanagement dismantled the justice system’s ability to respond to increased demand, and is undermining the delivery of justice and the safety of dedicated public sector workers.
The Government cannot blame the case backlog solely on the pandemic. Under the Conservative party’s watch, the backlog was at 39,000 even before the pandemic. As Kevin McGinty, then the chief inspector of HMCTS inspectorate, said to the Attorney General in March, the pre-covid backlog was
“unacceptable”
and was
“due to years of underfunding.”
While we have seen the number of cases soar, the number of staff directly employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has fallen by 15% in five years. To plug the gap, the Government have had to rely on agency staff, but the simple fact is there are now fewer staff, working on more cases. During that period of sustained underfunding, the Government had a fire sale of magistrates courts. Between 2010 and 2020, 164 magistrates courts were closed. That amounts to more than half of all the courts in England and Wales, and equates to 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. Even though the Luton and South Bedfordshire magistrates court in my constituency has remained open, since 2010 46% of magistrates courts in the east of England have been closed. This cuts to the heart of the flawed austerity agenda. It is all well and good to stress that £223 million was made from the sale of court buildings, but that has damaged the delivery of justice. The Government seem to know the price of everything but not its value.
Those seeking justice are now looking at waits of up to four years for their court trials. Such a long delay will impact victims’ recovery, as well as all witnesses’ ability to recollect events and give evidence in court. Does the Conservative party now regret the decision to close more than half the courts across England and Wales since 2010? The chief executive of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service said that we need 200 Nightingale courts to eliminate the case backlog, but only 25 are up and running. It is not overstating it to say that without urgent action, the Government are losing the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to serve the public and uphold the law.
Will the Minister, in his closing remarks, tell the House what assessment he has made of the impact of the backlog on the number of cases that are dropped as victims and witnesses withdraw from the process? What steps are the Government taking to speed up justice for vulnerable people who are victims of crimes such as rape and domestic violence? Finally, the justice system should not be run on the cheap, so has the Minister learned the lesson that drastic austerity cuts inflicted on the Ministry of Justice were a false economy?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Over the past year we have faced an unprecedented crisis—in our health service, in our economy and, yes, in our justice system, too. Unfortunately, a period of national crisis is not enough to deter criminals and, worse, many have sought to take advantage of those made even more vulnerable by the circumstances. As people stayed at home, the number of domestic abuse cases went up sharply over the course of the past year.
I commend the work of organisations like Eva Women’s Aid and Foundation in Redcar for their work to support victims of domestic abuse during this time. Home simply is not the safe place it is supposed to be for everyone, but the new Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will better protect victims while perpetrators will not only be brought to justice more quickly, but also with the prospect of being locked up for longer. There is more to do, and I thank the Government for listening to the voice of women and girls and extending the recent call for evidence.
I also congratulate the new Conservative police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Steve Turner, who is holding a separate survey for women and girls in Teesside to respond to, so that we can use that evidence to get the right funding and resources to help women feel safe in Teesside. So far, more than 750 women have responded, which shows the strength of feeling and the worrying experiences that women and girls in Teesside face every day.
Sadly, knife crime claims all too many lives. I feel particularly sorry for the people of London, who were let down by a Mayor who clearly cannot get a grip of this issue. Knife crime is, of course, not limited to the capital; it happens every day, and Ministry of Justice figures show that Teesside is one of the most dangerous places for knives and offensive weapons in the country, highlighting our need for a violence reduction unit in Teesside. I pay tribute to the incredible work of organisations like the Chris Cave Foundation to deter young people from carrying offensive weapons of any kind. The organisation was set up by Theresa Cave after her son was killed in a knife crime attack 18 years ago; the anniversary of his death is on Saturday. She thinks the justice system is still far too lenient when it comes to serious crime, or, in her own words,
“The police do their job but there are far too many getting a slap on the wrist when caught with weapons. The courts need to take a far more serious view on this to make potential offenders think twice before”
picking up an offensive weapon. This must be our charge: to hear what victims are saying and ensure that our justice system does deliver when people need it; that young people are protected from harm; and that women and girls, and indeed everyone, is kept safe from dangerous criminals and abusers. I commend the Government for their work and thank them for what they are doing in this regard.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have had a couple of withdrawals, so after Catherine West will be Andy Carter.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) mentioned knife crime, because as we have been speaking two youngsters have been arrested for a tragic knife crime incident yesterday outside a school—it can happen anywhere. Unfortunately, I think there might have been an increase in shooting as well, so across the spectrum of crime, from antisocial behaviour, where 1.5 million separate incidents have been reported this year, right through to rape, sexual assault and some of the most serious crimes, crime is up under this Government.
I thank the Justice Secretary for his gracious apology to the 44% of victims who walk away. The saddest thing as a constituency MP is to hear a victim of crime say, “I cannot stand this any longer. I know what he did to me was wrong, but I cannot face this any longer.” We have that on an epidemic scale in this country, which is why that vigil touched a nerve for every woman in this country. It is because we are sick of it. That is exactly why there is so much emotion around this topic. Whether we are talking about Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, who were murdered in a disgraceful, heinous attack last summer, or the terrible circumstances around the Sarah Everard case, this touches a nerve because we know that our justice system is failing victims.
I want to see this improve, and I have made that very clear during this debate. I want to see an absolute seriousness in dealing with this, because it goes to the heart of who we are and the culture, and we must own this as a big problem within our society. I also wish briefly to thank the Justice Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for saying that when he was a Minister he felt that the Government did take out too much, and the decade of austerity is not helping now.
I briefly wish to touch on the issue of perpetrators, because I am not really one of those people who just wants to throw the key away. When the prison system is failing so hugely, what do we expect but to have people coming out and wanting to create mayhem and more crimes? We need to make our prisons safe, decent and secure; to have education and training for prisoners, so that they can get a job on release; and to address addiction. Our prisons are full of people who are addicted to drugs but who have time on their hands. Why are we not providing high-quality addiction services, and training the staff and paying them properly so that they can look after the perpetrators? This approach would allow us to have the justice that we seek: justice for victims, as per the excellent manifesto that our Front-Bench team have produced, doing the homework for the Government, as ever; and, secondly, a proper prison system so that we can have justice in our society and a genuine reflection of us and our identity, and what we want to see in our society.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I am pleased to speak in this debate, not just as a Member of Parliament, but as a member of the judiciary. Through the pandemic, I have been to courts on Merseyside regularly as a magistrate, to hear issues being brought forward through the courts system. We have talked today about delays and problems, but it is incredibly important that we put on the record our thanks to the people who have worked all the way through the pandemic in the courts system to ensure that justice was delivered and is delivered in a timely fashion. In particular, let us thank the magistrates, who are, on the whole, volunteers. They did not have to go in, but they chose to get in their cars to drive to magistrates courts. We should also thank the judges, ushers and legal advisers who spent time in courts and had to adapt, innovate and work through with real determination to ensure that the wheels of justice keep turning.
Those who commit criminal offences did not down tools during the covid epidemic. Disputes between neighbours, businesses and family members continued to arise, and vulnerable children and domestic abuse victims, in particular, still needed support and time in the courts. Having sat in many domestic violence courts, I know that, when requests were made by the police, magistrates were there to deliver those orders in swift order.
I am very pleased that we are seeing progress in the courts. Jury trials simply do not mix with a global pandemic, but the UK is the first western common-law nation to resume jury trials, and the Government have put a tremendous amount into ensuring that justice can be delivered. I particularly welcome—I mentioned this earlier—the investment in technology. That has really revolutionised the court system. There is nothing more frustrating as a magistrate than sitting and waiting for papers to be handed round in courts. Today, with a new computer system, things can happen in a much speedier and more efficient manner, so that is a tremendous investment.
Finally, I make a plea to the Minister to ensure that we have the resource readily available to support those with mental health and learning difficulties who are at this moment trying to navigate our court systems. I have a number of cases locally where disputes are causing great distress for my constituents. We need to ensure that these people are not just talking to screens. The benefits of the complex cases court for those suffering mental ill health are invaluable, and I encourage the Minister to look at what we can do to roll that out further.
These issues are far too important to politicise. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the work that he has been doing through this global health emergency to ensure that the action required to protect the public and prevent the spread of the virus will also ensure that victims are protected and justice is served.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
The justice system is failing endemically to live up to its name. As of last month, there were half a million cases outstanding in the magistrates and Crown courts, and some trials are now being listed for 2022. Victims, witnesses and defendants are facing years of waiting with procedures hanging over them. This is a crisis of justice. Even before the pandemic, Tory austerity cuts had brought the justice system to its knees, with the Ministry of Justice losing a quarter of its budget over the last 10 years. Resulting reductions in legal aid and the increase in court and tribunal fees have increasingly made justice a privilege of those who can afford it, leaving those who cannot with immense and, too often, insurmountable barriers. This has left the scales of justice weighed against ordinary people.
This sorry state of affairs was made crystal clear in the recent collapse of the Hillsborough trial, described as a “mockery” and a “shambles” by family members of the 96, who had fought tirelessly for justice. Will the Minister today go some way towards rebalancing the scales and commit to bringing forward the Hillsborough law, which would place a duty of candour on all public officials and require parity of legal funding for bereaved families and public bodies?
The pursuit of justice stretches beyond the courts, as well the Minister knows. It necessarily includes the ability of people to hold public authorities to account. However, the draconian measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill severely threaten our ability to do just that. By making it an offence to cause “serious annoyance” or “inconvenience”, this Bill restricts our fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and effectively removes our collective ability to fight back against state abuses of power. The Black Lives Matter protests last year and more recent demonstrations in response to the murder of Sarah Everard shone a new spotlight on a pattern of violent crackdown by police on peaceful protesters that stretches back to miners protesting at Orgreave and elsewhere in the 1980s and beyond.
I ask the Minister: what does this Bill do to make our communities safer or bring justice closer to those families? Some of the most disturbing clauses attack the nomadic lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. In Liverpool, we have a large, eminent settlement of GRT families living in Kirkdale, who face systemic discrimination as well as routine violence. These new proposals are discriminatory and potentially unlawful, and threaten increased persecution of these communities. The Government’s own consultation on extending these powers shows that even the majority of police respondents think that the crackdown is the wrong approach.
The fact that the Government have spent so much time and resource curtailing people’s basic democratic rights and freedoms to hold them to account, rather than focusing on overhauling our creaking and hollowed-out justice system, speaks volumes about their priorities. I call on them today to reject the authoritarian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and invest significant resources in balancing the legal system—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Kim, but we are on a three-minute limit. We let you go on a bit after, don’t worry.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
As has been highlighted today, violence against women and girls is endemic. It affects one in three of us in our lifetimes. From prevention to bringing perpetrators to justice, we need to be determined to do everything in our power to ensure that we tackle the underlying misogynistic attitudes that lead to violence against women and girls. We must ensure that victims feel able to report abuse and that they can trust the criminal justice system to enable them to gain justice.
Earlier this year, the Government laid out their law and order agenda in the mammoth Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but despite the Bill’s size, there is nothing in it at all that even attempts to tackle violence against women and girls. The Crown court backlog currently exceeds 58,000 cases, which means that survivors of serious sexual assault and rape are having to wait years to go to trial. This long wait for justice meant that a record number of criminal cases collapsed last year, as more than 1 million victims dropped out before trials even began.
It is not just an issue in the courts. In England and Wales last year, more than 52,000 rapes were recorded by police, and only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons—a rate of 1.6%. That has led many survivors of rape and sexual assault to believe that the system is set up to work against them, not for them. The fact is that the police never investigate most sexual violence, because most sexual violence goes unreported. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, just under 25% of sexual assaults are reported to the police—significantly less than other violent crimes. There are many reasons for that, but one often cited is distrust and fear of the police. We need an institutional overhaul.
We must do our utmost to ensure that victims and survivors get access to the support that they need. It is essential that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill be amended to ensure that the criminal justice system works for survivors of gender-based violence. For the last five years, the Government have promised a victims Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but like the rape review, it is still nowhere to be seen. Giving women and girls who are victims of gender-based violence more rights would go a long way to preventing them from dropping out before trial, as would fast-tracking rape and serious sexual assault cases through the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts.
Seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working. This Conservative Government must put ending violence against women and girls at the top of their agenda. I urge colleagues across the House to vote for the motion today because, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), we need to step up, end this inaction and stop failing women and girls.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Justice cannot be brought without first apprehension, then investigation and finally resolution. What we have witnessed over the past decade has been the considerable dismantling and diminution of our criminal justice system—the loss of 22,000 police from our streets; the closure of hundreds of police stations such as in Warwick, Hartlepool and elsewhere, making access to the police more difficult and meaning that more crimes go unrecorded; and the closure of half the courts between 2010 and 2019.
Across the country, as a proportion of all crime recorded by the police, violence reached its highest level in 2019-20 since comparative records began. Violence against the person increased in every police force across the country, and overall only one in 14 crimes led to a charge. Locally in Warwickshire, knife crime has quadrupled since 2013-14—a 300% increase in just seven years.
I want to focus on the failures of justice in relation to sexual violence and harassment and child abuse, as shared with me by constituents. Let me start with sexual violence and harassment. We see this Government failing to protect women and girls from violent criminals, which should be one of the first duties of any Government. With record low conviction rates of perpetrators of sexual violence and an epidemic of misogyny that makes women and girls feel unsafe, the Government are treating victims of violence as an afterthought. New research has found that seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working and consider Government action to be inadequate. Victims are losing faith that the justice system will be there for them.
In Warwickshire, there were 1,600 arrests for domestic abuse-related crimes between 1 April and 30 June, and 15% of all recorded crime is domestic abuse-related, yet still the police and crime commissioner is replacing all nine staff from its domestic abuse unit with police constables, who should be out on the street.
The crime survey of England and Wales estimates that 3.1 million adults were victims and survivors of child sexual abuse before they turned 16, which is likely to be a highly conservative estimate. Cases brought before courts are too few, and convictions are even fewer.
Tackling gender-based violence is at the very top of Labour’s agenda, by making misogyny a hate crime, increasing sentences for rapists and stalkers and creating new specific offences for street sexual harassment and sex for rent; time prevents me from going through all the details. With record low conviction rates for perpetrators of sexual violence and the epidemic of misogyny against women and girls, which makes them feel so unsafe, this Government are treating victims of violence as an afterthought. That is why I will be voting for our motion.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I am glad to see so many Members across the House here today to speak about the importance of ending violence against women and girls and what the Government need to do to ensure proper justice for victims. I am grateful to my colleagues, who have made some powerful points. The hon. Members for Telford (Lucy Allan) and for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke about the fact that some crimes are so awful that the perpetrator should never be released; the hon. Member for Telford spoke about 17-year-old Georgia Williams, who was brutally murdered in her constituency, and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire spoke about Dawn and Lynda, who were raped and murdered as teenagers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) talked about the need to enshrine victims’ rights in law, which the Opposition have been pushing for strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) raised the case of his constituent, a woman who was horrifically injured by her former partner, but backlogs in the courts mean that he may end up living back on the same street as her. My hon. Friend brought to life the reality of the court backlogs with that example.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather disgraceful that, in a debate on the important subject of violence against women, the Government Benches are empty?
Ellie Reeves
I am grateful for that intervention. That is really important, and it shows the Government’s lack of seriousness on this issue. This is so serious. My hon. Friend, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), made powerful points about how women who are victims of rape have lost confidence in the criminal justice system, and because of that, they are giving up on their cases before they even get to court.
Let me be clear: this Government are letting down victims of rape and serious sexual violence on every front. There is a 58,000-case backlog in our courts; rape prosecutions are at their lowest level on record; rape conviction levels are at a 10-year low; and domestic abuse prosecution levels are plummeting. Only one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year resulted in a suspect being charged, and the number of victims who pull out of their trial has more than doubled in the past five years. The horrendous figures speak for themselves: this Tory Government have completely failed victims.
When I have spoken to victims, they have told me that they often feel as though they are on trial when they report these crimes. They have told me 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 and not for them. That is a complete and utter failing by this Government.
The police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands, England’s second-biggest police force, recently warned that rape and domestic violence cases will be among the worst hit by the growing court crisis. He described how the backlog of cases
“undermines the credibility of the justice system”,
with cases collapsing owing to the lengthy delays that victims face, and said:
“It’s particularly domestic abuse, violence against women and rape cases that are going to be at serious risk”
of collapsing. With 44% of rape victims already pulling out before their cases get to trial and record low prosecution and conviction rates for rape, we cannot afford things to deteriorate any further. We cannot afford more women and girls to be continually let down by this Government. We cannot afford to wait any longer for action: enough is enough.
We have now been waiting for more than two years for the Government’s rape review and the date of publication has again been kicked into the long grass, with no action forthcoming from the Government. In that time, another 100,000 rapes have been reported to the police. Not only are there huge delays with the publication of the rape review, but the Minister who has direct oversight of it, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), does not even know to whom he and his Department have spoken. When recently there was an urgent question on the review, the Minister was asked whether the review had directly consulted survivors as part of its engagement panel. He said that they had been, but the reality is that the review has commissioned no specific survey of rape victims and no roundtable meetings have been held directly with survivors of rape and sexual abuse. In the more than two years since the review was announced, how on earth has there been no direct contact with survivors? How can this Government say that they have put victims at the heart of the review when they have failed to speak to them directly? The views and experiences of victims must be at the centre of our efforts to turn the tide on record low levels of rape charges and convictions, but instead victims have been ignored throughout the entire process.
It is clear that at every single step of their journey, victims are being let down by this Government. The Government have no ideas and no plan. Labour has one—we have a plan. We have set out what we would do in our survivors’ support plan and our Green Paper on ending violence against women and girls. We would introduce tougher sentences for rape, stalking and domestic murder; review sentencing for all domestic abuse; and introduce whole-life tariffs for those who rape, abduct and murder a stranger. We would remove the legal barriers—such as legal aid and no recourse to public funds—that prevent the victims of domestic abuse from getting the help that they need. We would introduce a survivor support package to improve victims’ experience in the courts. The package would include the fast-tracking of rape and sexual violence cases, legal help for victims and better training for professionals to give people the help that they need. We would also bring in training for teachers to help to identify, respond to and support child victims of domestic abuse.
Will the Minister commit today to backing Labour’s survivors’ support plan? Will he introduce the indicators across the CPS, Ministry of Justice and police that are required to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system, as set out in our Green Paper? Will he commit to enshrining victims’ rights in law? Will he create more Nightingale courts to reduce the court backlog? And will he finally publish the long-awaited rape review?
This Government have let down victims on every front. We need to see how they intend to reverse the shocking deterioration in rape prosecutions on their watch, and how they intend to improve the experience of the criminal justice system for victims of rape and sexual violence, and restore it so that it works for everyone.
I urge every Member of the House committed to ending violence against women and girls, to protecting the public and to ensuring that victims get justice and that we have a criminal justice system that works for everyone to vote with us today and support Labour’s motion. The time for warm words is over. We need action. We need a plan. That is exactly what our motion today does.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to be able to close this evening’s debate.
The covid pandemic is truly unprecedented. It has affected every corner of our lives; from hospital operations denied, to schools closed, to businesses struggling, and even how Parliament itself operates, we have seen covid’s effects. The court system is of course no different; bringing people safely into buildings for trials and hearings, especially jury trials, is a difficult thing to do. It has required a Herculean effort over the last year and more to keep our justice system operating, and I would like to start by paying tribute to the judiciary, the staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, barristers, solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the National Probation Service and so many others who have worked tirelessly in extraordinarily difficult circumstances to keep our justice system running.
In doing that we have, as I have said, had to confront a Herculean task, yet at the beginning of this afternoon’s debate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) suggested from the Opposition Front Bench that there had been inaction by the Government during this time; extraordinarily, that was what the shadow Justice Secretary said. Nothing is further from the truth, however. Impressive action has been taken in the last year to combat the impact of coronavirus on our court system: a quarter of a billion pounds extra spent on making sure our justice system can still operate; 1,600 extra HMCTS staff hired; 402 Crown court jury courtrooms set up, more than the target of 390; and a rapid deployment of remote hearing technology that has enabled 20,000 remote hearings a week, a 4,000% increase on the number before the pandemic.
Catherine West
The title of this debate is “Justice for Victims”. What advice would the Minister give me as a constituency MP when a young victim says, “I’m not going to pursue that case because I cannot give the next four years of my life to that man”? What is his advice when she says, “I’m just going to go and get my cousins to beat him up”?
Chris Philp
I would advise any Member of Parliament to do everything they can to support victims in their constituency to pursue prosecution. I will talk in a few minutes about some of the measures we are taking to speed up the justice system further and help and support victims, particularly women victims and victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, but we should all encourage and support our constituents. I know the hon. Lady would do that; I am sure she is doing it, as of course we all do, and I will discuss some of those measures in just a moment.
I was talking, however, about the action we are taking to ensure that justice is delivered and that victims like the hon. Lady’s constituent can have confidence. In addition to those 20,000 remote hearings a week, speeding up justice for people like the hon. Lady’s constituent, we now have covid-safe measures in 450 courtrooms. We have opened up 60 Nightingale courtrooms around the country. We have got super-courts coming to hear multi-hander trials. And to support victims such as the hon. Lady’s constituent we are spending this year across Government, not just in the MOJ, £300 million to give victims the support, encouragement and help they need, exactly as the hon. Lady was saying a moment ago.
These actions have delivered results. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said in her excellent speech, despite these difficulties the England and Wales jurisdiction is leading the world in court recovery. Many jurisdictions have barely restarted jury trials. We restarted jury trials in May of last year, and we were the first jurisdiction of our kind to do so. Backlogs in other jurisdictions are far higher than ours when we adjust for size.
Talking about our jurisdictions, in the magistrates court—let us start there—the outstanding caseload is dropping now by about 2,000 cases a week. The outstanding caseload at one point, at the height of the pandemic back in the summer of last year, went up to 525,000. As the shadow Justice Secretary said in his remarks, it is now back down to 460,000. About half of the extra caseload caused by covid has now been removed, and every single week it is relentlessly going down further. That is thanks to the work of our magistrates, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who sits on the bench in Merseyside. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the work they have done in reducing that outstanding caseload in magistrates courts week in and week out.
The Crown court is obviously more difficult because jury trials and pandemics do not very well mix, and the number of outstanding cases has gone up. However, I can report to the House that the level of disposals—[Interruption.] I am coming on to that. The level of disposals now in the Crown court is running above the pre-covid level. It is running about 5% above the pre-covid level, as of the week commencing 25 April, which was just a few weeks ago. The most recent management data we have—it is not yet published, and is subject, of course, to verification—from the last few weeks now shows the outstanding caseload beginning to turn the corner and decline as these measures take effect.
Catherine West
There is so much time; it is only 6.46 pm. Could the Minister explain to me why there is a three-month waiting list for an independent sexual violence adviser, and why those individuals are not allowed to go into the courtroom when the victim desperately needs them to go in with them on the day? At the moment, they are not allowed into the courtroom.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. For the very reasons she mentions, we are currently recruiting a large number of additional ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers. A lot of extra money has gone into this in the last year, and the recruitment is well under way. Those ISVAs do provide vital support to victims to make sure they are able to give their evidence.
I have outlined the action we have taken—the substantial action we have taken—and the results that it is delivering. But we are not resting there; we are doing more. In this current financial year, the Lord Chancellor—my right hon. and learned Friend has just joined us—has made it clear, as has the Lord Chief Justice, that Crown court sitting day numbers will not be a limit to listing. We have given a clear signal to the judiciary to list as much as they possibly can without limitation, and I am sure that our country’s judges will be listening to our proceedings this afternoon and will list cases accordingly.
We are also going to continue opening more Nightingale courts, and we are going to have some super courts to hear multi-hander cases. Of course, I am delighted that, following the energetic and effective campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), Kent is one of the most recent places to have a Nightingale court opened.
We heard a little bit of commentary about the state of our justice system prior to the pandemic, and reference was made by several Opposition Members to the outstanding caseload of 39,000 cases prior to the start of a pandemic in the early part of 2020. It was suggested that that level of outstanding cases was shockingly high, but what none of the Opposition Members chose to mention or chose to remember was the fact that in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, the outstanding caseload in the Crown court was not 39,000, but 47,000—a great deal higher. I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who got that outstanding caseload down by 12,000 compared with our Labour predecessor prior to the onset of the pandemic.
We also heard some commentary about convictions and about the state of the criminal justice system. The most reliable measure of crime is the crime survey; it is the only statistical measure recognised by the Office for National Statistics. The number of crimes recorded by the crime survey back in 2010 was 9.5 million. The most recent figures from a year or so ago show that that has declined by 40%, with the figure down to 5.6 million, so we do not need any lectures about the last 10 years from the Opposition, when crime under this Government has dropped by 40% according to the most reliable measure. Of course we want that to continue, and we are hiring 20,000 more police officers and 400 more prosecutors to make sure that that reduction in crime, as measured by the crime survey, continues.
We heard quite a few moving and important contributions during this afternoon’s debate on the critical issues of violence against women and girls and of rape, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for her thoughtful speech on this, as well as the many other Members who contributed to this discussion. I would like to start by addressing the question of sentencing for rape, which was raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his speech. The maximum sentence for rape is life, and judges are free to sentence up to that level. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the actual sentence lengths that are being handed down. The sentences that are being handed down for adult rape have increased in the past 10 years by two and a half years. They have increased from 79.2 months back in 2010 to 109.4 months more recently. The average sentence for men convicted of this appalling crime has gone up by two and a half years, and quite right too, because it is a despicable and appalling offence.
It is not just the sentence that is important; it is also important how much of that sentence is served in prison. We legislated by statutory instrument about a year ago, and we are legislating again now in the PCSC Bill to ensure that violent criminals, including rapists, get released automatically not after half their sentence, as was the case under the last Labour Government, but after two thirds of their sentence, to ensure not only that sentences are longer but that more of the sentences are spent in prison. That is the right thing to do, and I strongly support those measures.
Many Members have raised the issue of the inappropriately low rate of rape convictions. The Government fully acknowledge that the rape conviction rate is far too low and that action is needed. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge asked some questions about the rape review. I do not want to pre-empt it too much, but my understanding is that it will be published in days rather than weeks. It will comprehensively seek to address the issue of rape convictions. They are too low—there is no two ways about that—and through the rape review, we will work with those on both sides of the House to get the rape conviction rate increased, because that undoubtedly needs to happen.
Many steps have been taken already, but more are needed. I particularly draw the House’s attention to the section 28 rules about evidence. As of last November, all vulnerable witnesses have been able to give pre-recorded evidence at a very early stage in the process, including the cross-examination, in order to deal with exactly the sort of trauma that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) referred to, and to get evidence recorded quickly so that the victim can move on. That has applied to all vulnerable victims as of November last year, and we are now piloting a further three areas where victims who could potentially be intimidated can record their evidence in the same way. That is an extremely important move.
More generally on violence against women and girls, a great deal has been done already, although of course there is more to do. Domestic violence protection orders were prioritised by the courts during the pandemic, and it was this Government that introduced new stalking offences and increased the sentences for them. This Government, with cross-party support, introduced the upskirting offence, did work on female genital mutilation, introduced and passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and introduced the measures on non-fatal strangulation and the rough sex defence—action after action designed to protect women and girls.
However, more is needed and in the coming months, we will publish a refreshed violence against women and girls strategy and a domestic abuse strategy. There will be a review of domestic homicide and, of course, the Law Commission is conducting a review of hate crime, which will include misogyny. There has been progress, but we need to make a great deal more.
Catherine West
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he acknowledge the important work done through private Members’ Bills on those subjects? The way that he expressed it suggests that they were all the ideas of the Tory Government. If I am correct, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) promoted a private Member’s Bill on upskirting and another Member had a measure on strangulation. Several of the Minister’s recommendations come not from the Government but from private Members’ Bills.
Chris Philp
I made it clear that the measures had cross-party support. It is true that some of the ideas originated in private Members’ Bills, and we welcome that. The Government listens across the House and takes action. Therefore, when private Members’ Bills that had merit were introduced, such as some of those we have heard about, for example, the upskirting measure, we embraced them and got them passed. We can all, on both sides of the House—the Members who promoted the private Members’ Bills and the Government for embracing and passing them—be proud of that. As I said, much has been done, but there is much more to do.
I want to deal with one or two specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made some important points about pet theft. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, a taskforce is taking action on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) mentioned catalytic converter theft, which also plagues Croydon South, and I will take up his suggestion.
I want to pause on the moving and powerful contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who recounted the appalling constituency case of Georgia, who was so awfully murdered, and of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), whose constituents, Lynda and Dawn, were murdered by that terrible man, Pitchfork. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford also raised that case. The Government have of course seen the independent Parole Board’s decision of Monday to release that man. Thanks to legislation passed a year or two ago, the Lord Chancellor has the power to review such decisions and to ask the Parole Board to think again. I can confirm that the review of that decision is ongoing and will be concluded before the expiration of the relevant time limit. The Lord Chancellor is acutely aware of the case and is looking at it as we speak. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Telford and for South Leicestershire for raising the case. I assure them that it is under active consideration.
It is clear that the pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on our justice system as it has on so many parts of our lives, but we cannot allow the virus to stand in the way of justice. That is why we have taken action: Nightingale courts; £250 million; no limitation on sitting days; 1,600 extra staff; the roll-out of technology, and so many other measures. We will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that our justice system recovers.
Our justice system is the cornerstone of a civilised society. It is fundamental to keeping us and our constituents safe. The Government will do everything necessary to sustain, support and protect our justice system and victims. We have led the world in court recovery. That work will continue.
Question put.
Business without Debate
South Tyneside Hospital
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about South Tyneside Hospital on behalf of 44,000 of my constituents in South Shields.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of South Shields,
Declares that the downgrading of South Tyneside Hospital announced in the “alliance” between South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust (STFT) and City Hospitals Sunderland (CHS) with loss of acute services will be a disaster for the people of South Tyneside and the people of Sunderland; further that the removal of all acute services to Sunderland will make the Sunderland A&E unsustainable and will mean that people from South Tyneside will have to travel to Sunderland or Newcastle; further that the immediate threat of this “alliance” is the loss of acute stroke and maternity services; further that the decision to downgrade South Tyneside Hospital demonstrates that the Government’s direction with the NHS is to reduce its funding and damage it through its fragmentation into purchasers and providers, closure of acute hospitals and A&E Departments, cut-backs and the takeover of the most profitable services by private health companies; further that the Government has a duty to provide a comprehensive health service across England to all communities; and further that access to healthcare is a right of all in a modern society and we demand that it be guaranteed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS England, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group and South Tyneside Health & Well-being Board to stop any plans to close acute services at South Tyneside District Hospital and to safeguard its Accident and Emergency Service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002667]
Free Trade Agreements: Cameroon and Ghana
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you very much for granting this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. While the UK-Australia trade deal has been getting a great deal of attention recently, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the UK’s agreements with Cameroon and Ghana. I wish to raise the opportunities that the Minister and his Department have missed and the distressing lack of ambition that has been shown in these deals.
Throughout the passage of the Trade Act 2021, I and many other Members across the House raised our concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. That is just as true of these roll-over deals as it is of the brand new free trade agreements. In fact, calling these deals “roll-over deals” is somewhat misleading. While they have received very little public or parliamentary attention, they are of huge importance for Ghanaian and Cameroonian partners. The original EU deals on which these deals are based included mechanisms for ongoing parliamentary dialogue between the EU Parliament and their Ghanaian and Cameroonian counterparts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter forward; the number of people who are here is an indication of the interest in this issue. Does she agree that historically the UK has used these arrangements to encourage liberalisation of public services and regulations, and that at times this can limit the policy space available to Governments in developing countries and prevents them from regulating their economies in the public and democratic interest? Does she further agree that, when it comes to a free trade agreement, we must be careful to build up and not make life too difficult for these nations?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member is precisely right; that is a very real danger of these deals.
Parliamentary scrutiny has not been replicated in the new deal, which means there is no ongoing scrutiny of this deal for UK MPs, and nor have MPs been involved in setting the mandate for negotiations. As a result of the Trade Act, my honourable colleagues and I have no guaranteed vote or debate on the final deal, instead relying on the CRaG— Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—process, which was not designed for modern trade deals and is therefore not fit for purpose.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady, like me, has heard the Government say many times that the most important thing about Brexit is being able to take our own decisions on issues such as trade, rather than the EU doing so, and that the British Parliament should have a final say in all these decisions. Does she understand why the Government now insist that we must roll over exactly the same deal that the EU had with Cameroon without any questions asked, and with no changes, and that Parliament has no right to a final vote on that deal? Does that sound like taking back control to her?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Lady. No, it does not, and at every stage the Government have refused any kind of scrutiny, either of their EU deals or, as she says, the roll-over deals that have followed.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for holding this really important debate, evidenced by the number of people who are here tonight. She will be aware that the shadow Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked the Government to hold a debate and crucially a vote on the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, but is she aware that the Secretary of State rejected that request on the basis that there had been a 14-minute debate on the previous EU deal in the other place back in November 2010 and therefore no further debate would be required? Does she think that sounds like a Government who care about parliamentary scrutiny, let alone human rights?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member admirably makes my point for me: at every stage this Government have refused scrutiny. We cannot and do not have any oversight at all of what the British Government are doing in our name and how they are supporting our African partners.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said, the hon. Lady will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that, when it comes to trade deals,
“I can think of behaviour that would cross the line and render a country beyond the pale.”
The Biya regime is responsible for mass executions, burning villages, the killing of women, children and the elderly, torture, disappearances and sexual abuse. That is not just a one-off; it has happened on a sustained basis over four years against the English-speaking population. Can the hon. Lady possibly understand why the Government do not consider that that behaviour crosses the line and puts Cameroon well beyond the pale?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. The lack of scrutiny means that the events that he describes do not come to light and that we do not get an opportunity to express our view as a British Parliament on whether that is acceptable.
It is not only MPs to whom the Government are not listening. Ghana and Cameroon are part of the Economic Community of West African States, which is composed largely of least developed countries that have been automatically offered tariff-free access to the UK market under the Everything but Arms scheme. The Conservative Government had previously made it clear that regional trade was one of their major priorities for African economic development through the support of the UK’s aid budget, namely £4 million between 2010 and 2016, yet Ghana’s requests for an approach that would not cut across its ECOWAS commitments were consistently rebuffed. The liberalisation schedule will see Ghana beginning to open its markets to UK goods immediately, on a timetable that is at odds with its neighbours in the ECOWAS customs union. That totally undermines regional trade in west Africa.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I congratulate the hon. Lady on holding this really important debate that the Government have prevented. On her last point, does she agree that by rolling over individual trade agreements, the UK is losing the opportunity to put in place a generalised trade agreement with the combined African trade area, which could be pro-development and could support African countries through trade in a much more positive way?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. The point that I would like to make is that there are so many missed opportunities in this roll-over deal; the one that she mentions is absolutely an example.
With nothing stopping UK goods entering Ghana duty-free and leaking into neighbouring countries, those countries will need to introduce new border checks, which will significantly set back progress towards improved continental trading links. Does the Department have plans to do an ex post assessment of the impact of the deals on regional integration? If their effect is found to be damaging, will the Minister commit to reviewing them?
Not only have the Government not listened to Ghana, but at the beginning of this year, when roll-over deals had failed to be agreed on time, they imposed tariffs on imports from Ghana and Cameroon. In January, Brexit tariffs were imposed on a shipment of Fairtrade goods from Africa that arrived into Portsmouth, including £17,500 on shipments of bananas from Ghana. The UK has worked hard through the Fairtrade Foundation to ensure that the food coming into this country is of the same standard that we would expect our own producers to sell elsewhere.
The Government refused to waive or reimburse the tariffs, placing huge extra costs on importers, namely Fairtrade fruit and agriculture co-operatives. That totally undermines the efforts of the Ghanaian banana industry to protect the livelihoods of the many thousands of workers and their communities who rely on tariff-free access. It is outrageous that we are penalising developing countries that are improving labour rights, environmental standards and food standards. We should be supporting them.
Sarah Olney
I might make some progress, if that is okay.
Looking forward, it is essential that Ghana and Cameroon be supported through the implementation of these trade deals and any future trade facilitation. The UK is reneging on its obligations set out in the roll-over agreement to provide aid for trade. Ghana, Cameroon and many other countries in the Everything but Arms scheme have to change their export procedures to meet HMRC import procedures. We are imposing that cost on them. Why should they bear it? Can the Minister confirm whether Ghana or Cameroon will receive any aid to support the implementation of these deals?
In a letter to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Foreign Secretary implied that Cameroon will receive no bilateral aid this year. Are the Minister and his Department not concerned that that will have a negative impact on the implementation of the deal? The UK is currently not even meeting the financial burden that we have imposed, let alone further trade facilitation costs. Will the Minister commit to protecting TradeMark East Africa and future trade facilitation funding?
I am also deeply concerned about the lack of thorough impact assessments for these deals. Unlike for new trade agreements, the Department has not published scoping assessments, or any detail about the effect of these new deals on the economy, the environment, human rights or international development. The Government have not yet published their framework for how they are approaching impact assessments after Brexit, given that they are no longer bound by the EU scheme. This was due to be published in January 2021, but no such framework has appeared. I am therefore anxious about whether deals such as the Ghana and Cameroon ones are aligned with the UK’s broader human rights, women’s rights and environmental commitments.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. Was she not especially surprised by the timing of the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, coming just weeks after the United States Senate unanimously backed a resolution supporting the US Government’s decision to suspend trade preferences with Cameroon, and urging other countries around the world to take similar action in solidarity? Does she think that the Secretary of State was not paying attention, or that she just did not care?
Sarah Olney
I would not presume to offer a view, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right: a massive opportunity here has been missed to address some of the human rights and other impacts on which we could have had an influence through this trade deal.
That brings me to my question to the Minister: how is the UK assessing the impact of trade deals beyond the very rudimentary scoping assessments that happen prior to negotiations. Women comprise the majority of the cheap labour pool in both Ghana and Cameroon. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to the disruptive impact of trade liberalisation. Cheap food imports following the removal of tariff barriers have been found to reduce the domestic prices of agricultural produce and to lower women’s agricultural earnings. For example, in Ghana and South Africa, the dumping of EU poultry products following the EU economic partnership agreements have left many of the local farmers unable to compete with the tonnes of frozen chicken dropped on African markets annually. Will the Minister explain how he will know whether the deals are rolling back progress on women’s economic rights if there are no ex-post assessments?
The Department has similarly shown a spectacular lack of ambition when it comes to the environmental provisions in the deals. The UK has actually taken a step backwards, choosing to replicate the approach taken in the EU-Ghana deal, rather than using the EU-West Africa EPA model, which includes provisions for parliamentary dialogue around environmental issues. I cannot understand why the UK has not used this model, which at least takes a step in the right direction, but has instead opted for the most basic option in both of these deals. The Department’s decision not to kick-start negotiations on a sustainable development chapter with Cameroon is a sorely missed opportunity to drive environmental objectives through trade. Ghana and Cameroon are currently suffering from deforestation and land use change resulting in environmental harm, yet these deals do nothing to move discussions forward on preventing illegal deforestation.
In the past, the UK has negotiated a voluntary partnership agreement with Indonesia about the timber industry to tackle deforestation. When countries such as Ghana and Cameroon said that they could not guarantee that timber was produced legally and was not contributing to deforestation, instead of working with these countries to improve regulations, the Department has chosen to provide no support at all.
I would also be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the deal with Cameroon is aligned with the UK’s human rights commitments.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that President Biya’s brutal and highly factional repression of the English-speaking minorities of the country, including those in the Buea region, are tantamount to human rights abuses, and the UK Government should urgently reconsider the economic partnership agreement signed with Cameroon in March?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member for his very valuable intervention. One of the key points that we need to impress on the Minister during this debate is the human rights angle.
The International Trade Committee has asked the Government to consider withdrawing trade preferences from Cameroon in the light of the human rights abuses in the country. Academic research shows that military assets provided by the international community are being transferred to the anglophone regions and used to persecute unarmed civilians, and the major national dialogue had no legitimacy in the eyes of anglophone civil society. I urge the Minister to press the Cameroon regime to call a ceasefire and participate in inclusive talks, mediated by a third party, such as Switzerland’s Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
Finally, I want to talk about the use of rendez-vous clauses in both these agreements. I have two concerns. First, on top of the abysmally limited scrutiny that these deals are getting now, adding further areas of negotiation after they have been signed raises questions about how those additions can be effectively scrutinised. How would my honourable colleagues and I be able to hold the Government to account on what may be significant and potentially damaging new provisions?
My other concern is the substance of those future negotiations. Historically, the UK has used these negotiations to encourage liberalisation of public services and regulations. Committing to trade rules on services, investments or patents, for instance, could undermine a country’s ability to develop strong, gender-responsive public services, to ensure that investment creates decent jobs and benefits for local economies, or to achieve access to medicines for all. Developing countries have long resisted attempts to push those issues in the World Trade Organisation, and they should not be imposed by the UK in bilateral deals.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. On that point, as she says, these trade deals require complex services to be admitted to the developing country while not providing it with support in order that it can export its products and services to the high-quality standards that we have in this country. Does she agree that that unequal use of legal and other powers is detrimental to the development agenda?
Sarah Olney
I absolutely agree. The main failing of these trade agreements has been the real failure to support development in both these countries. It is not in our long-term interest in any sense not to support the local economies in every way we possibly can.
Trade deals have real potential to foster improved regional trade, protect human rights and support environmental protections, but parliamentary scrutiny and dialogue are crucial to achieving those goals. These deals do nothing to raise standards.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny for the Government to say that we cannot have a vote on the UK’s deal with Cameroon today because we had a debate on the EU’s deal 11 years ago, especially since the main objection that many of us have to the UK’s deal is the campaign of violence from the Biya regime against the English-speaking population of Cameroon, which began just four years ago? Perhaps, as well as buying us a new royal yacht, the International Trade Secretary might look to buy us a time machine.
Sarah Olney
“Mockery” is the exact word. That is absolutely right. The Government are treating this House with utter disdain.
These deals not only represent a missed opportunity but present a real danger of contributing to environmental damage, eroding women’s economic rights and undermining developing countries’ ability to create a policy agenda that benefits their citizens. Will the Minister take advantage of the UK’s opportunity to shape the future of the global trading system by striking considered trade deals that rise to the opportunities and challenges that we all face?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
My thanks to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, and I thank other right hon. and hon. Members for taking part.
We all know that trade is a key driver of economic growth that can trigger positive changes in a country’s economy. It helps to raise incomes, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. Of course, it has been the trade liberalisation over recent decades, sadly not embraced by so many on the left of politics, that has lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than ever before in human history—something that should be celebrated. Between 1990 and 2015, as trade liberalisation enhanced market access, the percentage of people across the globe living in extreme poverty plummeted from 36% to less than 10%.
We want no country to be left behind without the full benefits of free and fair trade, and we are determined to help people around the world get ahead on the strength of their enterprise and ingenuity. It is therefore excellent news that the agreements that we have secured with both Ghana and Cameroon provide tariff-free access to the UK market. That will provide a huge boost, encouraging export-led growth as well as supporting and creating jobs in Ghana and Cameroon.
Of course, increased trade with developing countries also creates opportunities for UK firms and consumers. These deals open up fast-growing markets to our exporters and provide British consumers with access to Cameroonian and Ghanaian goods, including firm favourites such as bananas and cocoa, at competitive prices. Both countries have also agreed to a gradual liberalisation of tariffs on UK goods. That will create further opportunities for our exporters, particularly of machinery and electronics, and will ensure that Ghana and Cameroon can continue to enjoy the best of British at competitive rates. These agreements will ensure that our trade with Ghana and Cameroon continues to blossom, and will support jobs and economic opportunity and living standards in Africa here and at home.
Sarah Olney
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response so far. At the start of his speech he spoke about supporting the economy and increasing employment, and all the other great things that we hope to achieve through our trade deals, but could he be more specific about how this trade deal will help that? I listed in my speech a number of different ways in which I believe that these trade deals are undermining progress towards those goals. I shall be grateful if he will give us a little bit more detail.
Graham Stuart
I am happy to do so. Dealing with the issue around human rights, I hear the concerns that hon. Members have voiced, particularly about human rights abuses in Cameroon. [Interruption.] It is a serious topic, and it would be best served if we did not have so much chuntering from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), as I am sure everyone would agree.
Our long-standing relationship with Cameroon allows us to have open, candid discussions on key issues. Violence does appear to have decreased in recent months compared with the peak of the conflict, but we continue to call for inclusive dialogue and an end to fighting in the north-west and south-west regions, through direct conversations with the Government of Cameroon and through international bodies, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested we should. We have urged the Cameroonian Government to work with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and have called for impartial investigations to ensure that perpetrators are held to account.
In March, the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), travelled to Cameroon and met President Biya, Prime Minster Ngute and Foreign Minister Mbella Mbella and made our position clear. We continue to monitor closely the human rights situation with Cameroon—
Graham Stuart
I will not give way.
This Government’s position is that beneficial growth and support for democratic principles are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the former is an important part of the latter. As we all know, more prosperous countries tend to be more secure and peaceful. For that reason, our focus remains on ensuring trade continuity, full ratification of the agreement and supporting trade-led growth in Cameroon.
I will turn now, if I may, to trade with Ghana. Our agreement with Ghana was signed on 2 March, restoring trading terms that had applied until the end of 2020. Our Department had long sought to conclude an agreement with Ghana. We proposed a deal on the same terms as Ghana had with the EU; I do not recall the hon. Member for Richmond Park being so passionately opposed to it when it was an EU deal, but perhaps that just comes with her party badge. Despite our consistent attempts, Ghana chose not to engage in talks on that basis for over a year. Between the end of the transition period and the agreement’s coming into effect in March, Ghana was instead eligible for preferential tariff rates under our generalised scheme of preferences. The UK made every endeavour to avoid that gap, but doing so was not entirely within our gift.
Nevertheless, I am proud to say that once meaningful engagement was established, both sides worked at an exceptional pace. We were able to minimise disruption to businesses by concluding negotiations in record time, and we look forward to working with Ghana fully to realise the potential of this agreement to provide vital jobs and livelihoods, as well as strengthening our long-standing ties.
Of course, one of the problems, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that if you base a lot of your argument on briefings provided by pressure groups, you can sometimes be misled. A bridging mechanism—
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Let’s have a proper debate.
Graham Stuart
The debate was obtained by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I do not think we need chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench, let alone so loud or rude.
Graham Stuart
I have no intention of giving way. I would like the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to be quiet.
Graham Stuart
She can speak in the proper way. She should not speak otherwise.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We heard the contributions from the Opposition side in absolute silence. I now want to listen to the Minister’s response with the same courtesy.
Graham Stuart
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A bridging mechanism ensured continuity of Cameroon’s duty-free, quota-free access, so there was no disruption similar to that with Ghana; I am afraid that the hon. Member for Richmond Park was misled.
Some hon. Members have voiced concerns over the relationship between the Ghana agreement and that country’s ambitions for regional integration. Since 2016 the EU’s agreement with Ghana has been in place despite Ghana’s existing ECOWAS membership. That is also true of Côte d’Ivoire, another ECOWAS member with a trade agreement with the EU. Although this debate does not concern Côte d’Ivoire, it is worth noting that we have also rolled over that bilateral agreement. We are working closely with its Government to develop our relationship further. The UK’s agreements with both Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire include provisions from the EU agreements on working towards a future trade agreement with the west Africa region. We look forward to discussing this prospect with our west African partners.
On scrutiny, it is important to note that Parliament has already had the opportunity to scrutinise existing EU agreements. As with all continuity agreements, we follow the statutory process of laying agreements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but in line with this Government’s commitment to transparency, we went well beyond the statutory requirements of CRAG and provided comprehensive information to Parliament to support its scrutiny of our trade policy approach.
On the rendezvous clauses, our agreements with Ghana and Cameroon retain provisions from the original EU agreements, which provide for further negotiations relating to specific aspects of the treaties: for example, a provision to negotiate further commitments on sustainable development with Cameroon. This is in line with the principle of providing continuity of effect that has guided our approach to all continuity agreements. The parties are not obliged to make changes. Any updates would be negotiated, and changes to treaties would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny. [Interruption.]
I now turn—preferably without further chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench—to the concerns that hon. Members have raised regarding the environmental provisions in these agreements. In line with our international obligations, the Government will continue to ensure a high level of protection for the environment in all new trade agreements. We have long supported the promotion of our green values globally, and this will continue now that we have left the EU and become an independent trading nation once again.
The UK’s trade agreements with Ghana and Cameroon secure liberalised tariffs for businesses and pave the way for further economic growth as the world seeks to build back better from covid-19. These deals give British consumers access to more products at competitive prices and will see more of the best of British enjoyed by the people of Ghana and Cameroon—something that it seems the hon. Member for Richmond Park is not in favour of.
I can assure the House that we remain alert to human rights and environmental concerns at all times, but we believe—unlike, it would seem, Opposition Members—that encouraging greater trade gives us an opportunity to offer a hand up to those most in need by creating the opportunities and employment they need to rise out of poverty. If we took on the suggestions of Opposition Members, we would do the opposite: we would close the door to those countries and the opportunity for their people to prosper and grow. These agreements are further evidence of global Britain’s determination to champion free trade—something that so clearly does not have many advocates on the Opposition Benches. We will champion free trade around the world that fosters growth, creates jobs, and raises living standards for all.
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | 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 |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
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 |
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Neale Hanvey |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
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 |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Deferred Divisions
That, from 1 November 2021 —
The House divided: - Ayes: 369 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 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, which is not a problem today. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has asked that masks should be worn in Committee except when speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk. As people may have noticed, eagle-eyed, if Members wish to remove their jackets, given the inclement weather from a Yorkshireman’s point of view, they are very free to do so.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021.
A copy of the regulations was laid before the House on 26 April.
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The payments sector in the United Kingdom has seen rapid change over recent years, with people increasingly using card, mobile and electronic wallets to make payments. Firms today range from small remittance firms on the high street to FinTech giants with millions of customers. The growth of the payments sector has offered opportunities for UK businesses and consumers, with many using payment and electronic money institutions not only to make payments, but as their transactional banking provider to access their salaries and savings. Customers are now able to make payments that are faster, cheaper and more secure. However, as that sector has grown, so has the number of customers exposed to risk if those firms were to fail and enter insolvency.
There is evidence that existing insolvency processes for payment and electronic money institutions are not working effectively for customers. It is challenging for an administrator to start returning relevant funds until they have complete information on all claims to those funds. Gathering that information, potentially without key outsourced staff or access to the firms IT systems, can make insolvency a long and expensive task, during which time customers do not have access to their funds. They also face an increased chance of receiving a reduced claim at the end of the process as a result of high administration fees.
Recent administration cases have taken years to resolve, with customers left without access to their money for prolonged periods and receiving reduced monies as a result of high distribution costs. The regulations therefore propose to introduce a new special administration regime for payment and electronic money institutions and an extension of provisions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to those firms. The new regime is modelled on the 2011 special administration regime for investment banks.
The changes will help to make managing the insolvency of a firm a quicker and clearer process, ultimately leading to customers receiving their funds quicker and giving continuity and confidence to consumers and businesses in the event of a payments or electronic money firm being put into insolvency. The legislation also corrects a minor defect in recent legislation, which transposed and on-shored the bank recovery and resolution directive II.
The special administration regime for payment and electronic money firms is a new insolvency process that provides consumer protection objectives and a toolkit for insolvency practitioners to aid them in efficiently managing an insolvent payment or electronic money institution. The new regime includes bespoke objectives placed upon the administrator to ensure the return of customer funds as soon as reasonably practicable, to engage with relevant authorities and either to rescue or wind-up the institution in the best interests of creditors. It also contains useful provisions on matters such as continuity of supply, to ensure that key functions, such as the provision of IT services, are maintained and not lost at the point of insolvency, and provisions to ease transfers of business which would allow the administrator to move customers to a new provider. Importantly, it also provides bar date provisions, which, with appropriate consumer protections, set deadlines for customers to claim their money back. Once those deadlines have passed, administrators are able to begin making distribution of funds, rather than having to wait for everyone to claim in their own time.
I would like to note to the Committee that additional work is required in order to apply the special administration regime to firms located in Northern Ireland, and partnerships or limited liability partnerships located in Scotland. Around 1% of the 1,300 UK payments and electronic money firms are located in Northern Ireland, and there are no firms that are partnerships or LLPs based in Scotland. I have written to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and Scottish Government and committed to rectify that as soon as is practicable in future legislation. In the interim, consumers will still benefit from the changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and from the protections offered to the 99% of eligible firms, as it does not matter where in the UK the customer is located.
The instrument also provides for part 24 of the Financial Services and Markets Act to be applied to payment and electronic money institution insolvencies. The extension of those provisions will provide the Financial Conduct Authority with the same powers to participate and protect consumers in an insolvency process for those sectors as it does for other FCA-supervised firms. That includes the right for the FCA to speak at court hearings regarding the insolvency and a requirement for the administrator to work with the FCA during the insolvency process, ensuring that the FCA can work on behalf of consumers to get them their money back.
The regulations will protect consumers and inspire confidence in a modern and world-leading British financial services sub-sector, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Even by the standard of Treasury SIs, this is fairly technical material that we are discussing today, and I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Last night in the Chamber during a different debate, I challenged the Minister that legislation and regulation needed to keep up with financial innovation. In that context, we were talking about frauds, scams and such things, but the point still holds in respect of the regulations, so I am certainly not going to oppose their intention.
As the Minister said, the regulations have arisen on account of financial innovations and the growth of electronic money institutions and payment institutions and so on. The non-bank sector has become a far bigger part of the financial ecosystem. The Minister spoke of 1,300 firms to which the regulations could apply to ensure cover, and the impact assessment tells us that those firms currently hold about £17 billion of UK assets. It is true that as the financial sector changes, so must the regulatory and legal system around it.
The idea of resolution or winding up a failed financial company has been a much bigger policy priority since the financial crash, because that exposed how difficult some of the process is given interconnected payments, all sorts of different claims on assets and so on. After the crash, a special system was developed for investment banks. The collapse of Lehman Brothers involved a long, complicated process and it was thought that a special resolution regime was needed for such institutions. The Government are trying to take that idea and apply it to electronic money institutions. The policy aim is to speed up the process in the event of insolvency and stop it taking years to conclude.
A consultation on the regulations was carried out between December and January which pointed to six recent cases of insolvency in payments or electronic money institutions, some of which have gone on for three years or more and in only one case had people received some of their money back. The consultation only attracted 15 responses out of those 1,300 companies, so it was fairly thin, although in fairness, I think that the responses included one or two from trade bodies, so they may have represented a number of firms. Most of the responses broadly agreed with the Government’s action, so I have just few questions for the Minister.
The regulations relate to insolvency and ensuring continuity of service and payments where insolvency takes place. The regulations talk about an asset pool and the administrator having governance over that. The question in my mind goes back to Mr Micawber, and what if the asset pool is too small for the liabilities? Is that not the definition of insolvency, when someone has liabilities of 20 shillings and income or assets of 19 shillings? How can the administrator guarantee that people will get their money back from the asset pool if, by definition. the firm is insolvent? Are we talking about getting so many pence in the pound, rather than the full investment back? Or is it a question, as is often the case in insolvency, of a hierarchy of creditors, where some people—often the taxman—are first on the list and others are lower? What happens if the asset pool is too shallow to cover the liabilities.
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme does not cover the institutions in question, and that was raised in the consultation. Why is that? At least one respondent argued that the FSCS should have that remit. On capital requirements, I am sure that, like me, the Minister is regularly lobbied about how much capital institutions have to hold. One insurance policy against insolvency is to hold a reasonable amount of capital. Has the Government considered—I can hear the industry objecting to this as I speak—increasing the capital requirements to make insolvency less likely and to make the companies more resilient if they run into trouble?
As the Minister said, the regulations propose a bar date—a cut-off point—to avoid a long drawn-out process that takes years to conclude. The logic of that is completely understandable, but how will the administrator be guaranteed to make reasonable, in fact extensive, efforts to contact people who might have claims? The last thing we want is someone coming along and saying, “I never knew about this. I didn’t know it was insolvent. I have got assets in this”, and then a legal case pursuing.
Some of the firms will be involved in transferring remittances. That is a very important business for the UK as we have a population with roots all over the world. How will the regulations help consumers not to be hit with excessive costs in the event of foreign exchange transactions? That is already an issue, which we have debated in the context of other SI. If someone is sending a few hundred pounds to a relative possibly in a country that is much less wealthy than ours, the last thing they want is for a lot of that to be eaten up paying out to administrators.
Finally, when it comes to transferring assets, how will the insolvency practitioners deal with assets that are held abroad? Some of the organisations are international, with assets in the UK and assets abroad. Does the proposed regime just apply to UK assets or is the intention that the resolution process will also include assets abroad?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically forensic but clear questions, and I am happy to try to respond. He raised a number of reasonable points about the nature of the provision for reimbursing customers who find themselves dealing with an insolvent provider. He also picked up on the fact that the institutions in question do not form part of the FSCS levy and the compensation scheme from that. However, they are subject to the Payment Services Regulations 2017, PSRs, and the Electronic Money Regulations 2011, EMRs. They impose a different regime, which is a safeguarding requirement to protect customer funds received for the provision of a payment service or e-money. That means that the firms dealt with under today’s SI must put a certain amount of capital aside or have an insurance provision for safeguarding. They are not completely without some provision, but it is just different from the levy pool that comes out of the FSCS, levy payment and membership of that pool.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the cut-off process, the bar, and how reasonable that would be. Of course, that is underpinned by a court process and one of the provisions in the regulations is for the FCA to be a participant in that, to verify the exhaustive nature of steps taken to identify customers who will be subject to some of the pay-outs.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about foreign exchange and the transfer of assets abroad. Those matters would ordinarily come under the provisions of the FCA, but I will look into those issues further and write to him on those two specific points. My instinct is that there is no distinction in terms of different treatment for different customers.
I am confident that the legislation will produce better outcomes for UK businesses and consumers in the payments and e-money sectors. The right hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged the fast-evolving nature of the industry, and it is vital that we in the UK ensure that our financial services sub-sectors have appropriate consumer protection measures. I look forward to the full implementation of the regime. I think that it will provide greater assurance to consumers and a clearer pathway to resolution when firms go under. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2021
Draft Immigration (Collection, use and retention of Biometric information and related Amendments) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee unless Members are exempt or are speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021.
Tom Pursglove
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I start by saying that I am sure that the whole Committee sends our very best wishes to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), whom I am standing in for today. He has had a family bereavement, and we send him and his family our very best wishes. They are very much in our thoughts at this difficult time.
The legislation that we are debating concerns two linked elements of our immigration system: the use of biometrics, and the fees regime. I will take each of them in turn. The use of biometric information enables us to check and confirm the identities and immigration status of foreign nationals who come to live or work in the UK. The Government are pursuing an ambitious programme of change to deliver a fair and firm immigration system that is much easier for customers to navigate and works in the national interest. Through the biometric regulations, we will update our powers so that fingerprints can be enrolled once and retained for subsequent reuse, saving the applicant the inconvenience of needing to re-enrol every time they make a new application to come to or stay in the UK, or to replace immigration documents. As members of the Committee will appreciate, no longer needing to travel from places such as the Shetland Islands or the Scilly Isles to the nearest service centre will be a major improvement for customers. The regulations also provide us with the ability to restart the fingerprint retention period when biometrics are reused for an immigration application, to avoid deleting them prematurely.
The regulations will support the move from physical to digital evidence of immigration status. We live in a digital age, in which businesses and customers expect a swift, user-friendly experience. With that in mind, we are developing a biometrically enabled digital immigration system, underpinned by security and efficiency, that will provide real-time evidence of immigration status online. And with that in mind, the regulations clarify our powers to use and retain biometric information obtained from asylum seekers and foreign nationals who are unlawfully in the UK, require leave but do not have it, or lack adequate documentation.
The fees order sets out the services that we charge for and the maximum amounts that we are able to charge for immigration and nationality products and services. I make it clear at the outset that no fee levels will be changed through the order before us today. Fee levels are amended through immigration and nationality fees regulations, which are laid before Parliament separately and are subject to the negative procedure.
The changes in the fees order ensure that definitions within the legislation are flexible enough to enable us to evolve our products and services to meet the demands of our customers. The fees order will amend the definition of “transfer of conditions” to ensure that it covers the need to update digital services as well as changes to physical documents. The change to the definition of “premium services” will provide the Home Department with greater flexibility to offer a wider range of optional premium services relating to immigration or nationality where there is a demand to do so. The proposed changes do not introduce any new services at this point or impact on standard services. The fees order also ensures the related provisions in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 are updated to reflect those definitions. In reusing biometric information, the Department continues to incur processing costs, which need to be met. The fees order will therefore clarify and give assurance that the power to charge for biometric enrolment also includes the power to charge for biometric reuse.
I realise that the draft regulations both cover somewhat technical areas, but they bring with them a big improvement for those using these services. I hope I have been able to explain how they will help facilitate our ambitious journey towards a biometrically enabled digital immigration system and ensure that the fees we charge for border, immigration and nationality services are supported by the right framework.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I begin by associating myself with the Minister’s remarks about the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Torbay. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this difficult time.
As the Minister has explained, the draft fees regulations propose a phased approach to online platforms for evidence of immigration status by amending the definition of the “transfer of conditions” to ensure it covers digital as well as physical documents. It increases the charge of £19.20 to enrol applicants’ biometric information for each application for a period of leave to remain, to a one-off charge of no more than £30 for the reuse of biometrics. It redefines and expands the term “premium services” to cover optional immigration and nationality services generally, not just applications—for example, for Border Force officers checking passports on carriers at sea, which some carriers choose to pay for. The draft order makes amendments to make clear that the expression “premium services” has the same meaning as in the 2018 Regulations and the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, and amendments to the definition of “transfer of conditions”.
The Opposition have previously stated our serious concerns about the overall high cost of immigration and nationality application fees. The one-off £30 fee may seem reasonable to us, but considering the financial circumstances of applicants, it may be burdensome on some applicants. Has an impact assessment been done on the effect of the increase on people who may have a very low income, if any at all, when seeking to make the application? We also have concerns about the lack of physical proof for immigration status and have made that point on previous occasions.
The draft regulations on biometric information allow the retention of a vast amount of information, to be stored for a period increasing from 10 to 15 years. It also grants the Secretary of State huge powers. We have serious concerns about the draft regulations, but it is difficult to assess the impact, because there is a lack of transparency on what the new digital orders will look like in the future, what legal safeguards will be in place to protect people’s privacy and their data, and how the process will interact with the digital hostile environment that previously existed. We also have questions about the use that contractors in removal centres will have of biometric information and the safeguards around the contractors’ processes in managing that data.
The Secretary of State’s powers will be draconian. For example, the draft regulations allow the Secretary of State to order someone to whom the regulation applies to attend a place to have their photograph taken.
We have further concerns about the deletion of data. We have heard previously detail from the Windrush scandal of people having their boarding passes destroyed. We have concerns about how long the data will be held and the Home Secretary’s power to turn off the tap and people losing all their data at the switch of a button.
The Opposition not only have concerns about safeguards, but about people’s immigration status. Currently, people have physical documents to prove their status, but what happens under a solely biometric system if someone is unable to produce a physical document? Does that mean they will lose out on various benefits, the right to rent a property and the right to work, even? Those data changes may be made without their notice. If any changes are made to someone’s immigration status, what safeguards will be in place to notify them? Will they receive a letter or an email? How will that work?
The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instruments, but we would like our reservations to be noted. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond in writing, not necessarily right now, to our valid concerns. We will not push the matter to a vote but want our concerns to be noted.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, as ever, for his constructive comments and questions. I will make a number of observations in response, but if I miss anything, I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, will be more than happy to follow up in writing, because I am conscious that the shadow Minister asked several probing questions.
On fees, it is important to make the point that the fees order is an essential part of the immigration fees framework. It enables the Department to set fees via any future regulations. The changes in the order we are debating will ensure the right framework is in place to support the ongoing fees that we charge for border, immigration and nationality services. It is crucial to recognise, however, that the fees order is not creating any new services. The change to the definition of “premium services” made in the order will provide the Department with a greater flexibility to offer premium services relating to immigration or nationality in a wider context of circumstances, and as things develop. We are not proposing any new services at this point in time; that is something that we may look at again in due course. The existing fees will not change, however, as a result of amending the definition of “premium services”, and those services that we do offer will continue to remain optional.
Everybody is very mindful of the security of data. That is a pressing concern, and quite understandably given the nature of the world that we live in. The shadow Minister is right to ask about such security. Obviously, we have collected biometrics for immigration purposes for many years—in fact since 1993—and we store biometric information very securely on the immigration and asylum biometrics system. That is a different system from the one with which there have been issues relating to police data and its loss earlier this year. There are strict controls on how biometric data may be used, and when such information must be deleted is set out in legislation. The draft SI will, if approved, change the retention regime but it will not alter where that information is stored or how that data is protected.
Biometric records due for deletion are subject to a three-step process before they are permanently deleted from the system. IABS has a number of mechanisms to protect the data it holds and that data is stored in secured locations, accredited to store and process UK Government protectively marked information. I hope that offers the shadow Minister some comfort about the safeguards in place to ensure that the data is handled securely and correctly, as people across the country and visitors to it would rightly expect.
The shadow Minister referred to people being able to demonstrate their status so as to meet necessary requirements, and I think it is important to say that extending the period of data retention should make it easier and more convenient for people to be able to demonstrate their status so that they can successfully access services.
On the confirmation of status, it is now standard practice to issue letters to demonstrate and clarify people’s status. They are then able to retain those letters for future purposes, and that is helpful if they are ever required to demonstrate their status for any particular purposes, including when interacting with government more generally.
If I have missed any points in response to the shadow Minister, I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, will be delighted to write to him with more detail.
In conclusion, the focus of the proposed legislation is to further simplify, standardise and modernise a range of provisions to provide a clearer, more consistent experience for those who engage with the immigration system. As we roll out biometric reuse, applicants will no longer have to attend repeat biometric enrolment appointments. Home Office teams will be able to focus on processing applications instead of waiting for applicants to attend a biometric appointment to enrol their biometrics both in the UK and overseas. We will continue to phase out less secure physical documents that are easily lost and need to be replaced. We will simplify the process for gathering biometrics and standardise how we use and retain them in what is a key strand of our drive to deliver a fully digital system.
The changes to the fees order will provide a stable legal basis and ensure that it is fit for purpose for services and products developed gradually. I emphasise again, and to respond to the shadow Minister, that the changes will not amend specific fees, and any future fee changes will be subject to approval by Parliament, and no doubt future debate of any such regulations.
Throughout the lifespan of the fees order, immigration fees will continue to be reviewed and updated where necessary, and all existing Government oversight arrangements will remain in place. As such, I commend the order and the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT IMMIGRATION (COLLECTION, USE AND RETENTION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION AND RELATED AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Steel Sector: Supply Chains
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings 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’ email address, which is 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. There is nobody sitting in the Public Gallery in order to speak.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK steel sector and its supply chains.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Graham. Hon. Members taking part in the debate today will recognise that this is not the first time that we have sought assurances from the UK Government that they are sincerely committed to supporting the British steel industry. Indeed, by my calculations, since 2015 Labour MPs have secured 19 debates and urgent questions on steel, made 51 speeches on steel, asked 54 oral questions on steel, and intervened on or responded to Ministers 103 times on the future of our steel industry. A pessimist may ask, “What’s the point?”. After all that pressure, the British steel industry still faces a range of serious challenges, and the UK Government are continually failing to provide the necessary level of support to allow the UK steel sector to compete.
In spite of those powerful headwinds, I am optimistic about the future of our steel industry, because I believe that covid-19 has completely reset the way in which the British people think about the sort of country they want to live in. The public want a Britain that can stand on its own two feet and that is more resilient to external shocks. The pandemic has exposed the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that lie at the heart of our economy and our society. The pandemic has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that if we wish to address those weaknesses and vulnerabilities, we must commit to and invest in a renaissance of modern manufacturing in our country.
British manufacturing has been in decline, dropping from 30% of GDP in the 1970s to just 9% today. The UK’s shift towards a city-centric, service-based economy means that it is now the most geographically unequal country in northern Europe. We have the richest area in the whole of northern Europe—London—but also the five least prosperous areas, with west Wales and the valleys the poorest of all.
Today, our country stands at a fork in the road, and the choice is clear. Are we going to continue to allow our manufacturing sector to wither away, constantly eroded by the sort of policies that have come to define the last decade and which are advocated in the book of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, “Britannia Unchained”: “Let the market rip. Let the City of London call the shots. Let globalisation and deindustrialisation ride roughshod over our communities.”? Or are we going to truly understand the pandemic as a clear and unambiguous warning that we cannot go back to business as usual and that we must strive for real enduring change; that we must stand on our own two feet by reducing our dangerous over-reliance on imports from China; that it is time to recognise that the collapse of British manufacturing is the primary cause of the grotesque inequality that exists between the wealthiest and the poorest regions of our country; and that a modern manufacturing renaissance is our only route towards a fair and just transition to a cleaner, greener future?
Our manufacturing base can be rebuilt only if it is based on a strong and healthy steel industry, because steel is a vital foundational industry that is critical for our security, prosperity and green resilience. Our economic and national security are underpinned by steel. Every military vehicle, major infrastructure project and power station requires steel. In a world where strategic competition between democracies and dictatorships is intensifying on an almost daily basis, it is crucial that as much of that steel as possible is produced here in the UK.
Our prosperity as a nation is also dependent on steel as a vital foundational industry that feeds into our entire manufacturing sector. Steel jobs are good jobs that pay an average annual salary of £36,000, which is 36% higher than the Welsh average, and the Port Talbot steelworks in my Aberavon constituency provides 4,000 such jobs, alongside thousands more through the supply chains.
Home-grown steel is also the only route to tackling climate change. Steel will play a critical role in greening our economy by building the electric cars of the future and providing vital components for solar, wind and tidal power. Moreover, British production processes have half the carbon footprint of China’s far less decarbonised steel industry, and shipping steel from the other side of the world is obviously more carbon intensive.
Whether we look at the British steel industry through the prism of our national security, regional prosperity or planetary sustainability, we draw the same conclusion: there can be no sustainable post-pandemic economic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry. The arguments are compelling, irrefutable and over-whelming, so it is difficult to understand why the UK Government have been so slow to act, but the pandemic has put rocket boosters on the need for a modern manufacturing renaissance underpinned by the rebirth of our steel industry.
The Government must now take the following steps. First, they must reject the recommendation of the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate regarding steel safeguards, and must ensure that all 19 of the safeguards remain in place. Those trade defence measures were put in place to guard against import surges caused by President Trump’s section 232 tariffs, and it is essential that they are retained until such time as the section 232 tariffs are dropped by the Biden Administration. The TRID’s recommendations are tantamount to dismantling the flood defences just as the tidal wave is about to hit. Will the Minister assure us that she has made the position of the steel industry, steel unions and steel MPs clear to her colleagues in the Department for International Trade?
Secondly, the Government must as a matter of urgency address the issue of our industrial energy crisis. British steelmakers pay 86% more than their German competitors and 62% more than the French. Over the past five years, that disparity has cost the UK steel industry an additional £254 million. Those additional costs represent funds that should and would have been directed towards critical capital investment, including decarbonisation projects. Will the Minister please assure us today that her Department is truly committed to tackling the root causes of the UK’s astronomical industrial energy prices, and can she set out her urgent action plan for doing so?
Thirdly, we need a patriotic procurement policy. It is absurd and inexcusable that the Ministry of Defence is buying Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy that are built with Swedish steel. We need procurement that gives the right weighting to local value. Let us look at big opportunities such as High Speed 2, with 2 million tonnes of steel. How much of that steel is going to be British? Can the Minister assure us today that every Government Department and HS2 will be signed up to the steel charter by the end of this calendar year?
Fourthly, we need a Government who are truly committed to rebuilding our manufacturing base, and who believe in partnering with industry to do so. Some say that steel is a sunset industry, but nothing could be further from the truth—it is at the cutting edge of innovation. Indeed, the vast majority of the alloys that are used in steel these days did not even exist 10 years ago. It is absurd to have a Government who have utterly failed to support the Orb plant in Newport—I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—which could play a major role in electric vehicles.
It seems that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, which is precisely why co-ordinating forums such as the Industrial Strategy Council are so important. Can the Minister please explain why the Industrial Strategy Council has been closed down by the Business Secretary, and can she please tell us whether she thinks that decision will be a help or hindrance to the future of the British steel industry?
British steelworkers are a strong, proud community of men and women who make the best steel that money can buy. They are certainly not looking for anybody’s charity, special treatment or favours. They are simply seeking the opportunity to compete without having one hand tied behind their back. They are simply asking for a level playing field. Since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have let them down by leaving the flood gates open to heavily subsidised imports from China; by failing to close the energy price gap; by declining to develop a patriotic procurement policy; and by failing to grasp the vital role that a home-grown steel industry must play in driving the green industrial revolution forward.
Receiving a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is as important to steelworkers as it is to every other working person across the length and breadth of our country. However, working people are motivated by far more than money. Above all, they are driven by the sense of pride and dignity that their work gives them, and steelworkers are certainly not an exception to that rule.
Steelworkers do long shifts in challenging conditions because they want to make a contribution. They are fiercely proud of the fact that steel is the basis of the houses we live in, the offices we work in and the cars we drive. They are steelworkers because they want to do their bit for their country, for their communities, and for their families. They are steelworkers because they want to be part of something bigger, but they cannot do this alone.
They need a Government who will back them to the hilt; a Government who will put policies in place that attract investment, rather than drive it away; a Government who truly believe that a country should be able to stand on its own two feet. Our steelworkers need a Government who are genuinely committed to reversing the decline of manufacturing in this country. They need a Government who are truly invested in swinging the pendulum from cities to towns, and from London and the south-east to the rest of the country. Britain needs its steel, and our steelworkers need a Government who are on their side.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
I should inform all participants that due to a technical problem, all those participating virtually did not catch the first three minutes of the debate. That has now been resolved, but I pass on the apologies of the staff who have been working to resolve the problem.
There are a lot of Back-Bench participants on the call list. If it is possible for them to keep to about five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate. As I am a fellow steel MP, I agree with him on many of the issues that he has raised this morning.
The steel sector has seen tough times and this Government have been proactive. In Scunthorpe, we put in hundreds of millions of pounds to keep our blast furnaces going. I myself come from a steel family, so I know that when times get tough, it is not only the steelworks that are threatened but the steelworkers— people like my granddad, who worked in Scunthorpe steelworks for 30 years—and the 20,000 supply chain jobs in my area, as well as the towns that grow up around the industry.
Steel is, indeed, a foundation industry that is crucial to national security. Our ability to manufacture and produce steel is critical in ensuring that we are self-reliant and insulated from global steel shortages. The Minister will recognise that there is competition between Governments in providing the best environment for a steel industry to thrive and there is much that we can do to provide a better competitive environment for UK steelmakers.
Rather than continuing to provide support in times of crisis, as this Government have undoubtedly done, we need to continue to look further and harder at long-term steel measures. Indeed, the glaring flaw in the preliminary recommendation by the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate is that it did not make a sufficient industry-led assessment. Our steelworks produce many products across the categories assessed by TRID. These products are linked back to the production of crude steel and steelworks need a certain base level of production to be profitable. An increase in imports in an unprotected category could affect the viability of another steel product, and there is a real risk that the UK will be increasingly vulnerable to imports if steel safeguards are removed. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues from the Department for International Trade to prevent that from happening.
We must also address the high cost of energy prices. Our steelworks currently pay almost twice as much for energy as French and German steelworks. On steel procurement, there has been progress and many in the industry have welcomed the overarching principles of the Government’s recent paper. The central tenets, especially on considering the overall social value of procurement and providing more flexibility for decision making, are absolutely right. The procurement of steel from the UK generates social value for our communities. Steel does indeed create well-paid jobs and has a part to play in levelling up areas such as Scunthorpe as manufacturing and logistics powerhouses.
However, challenges remain and I hope that the Minister will consider them. Steel procurement often involves an internal supply chain process. A contracting authority for an airport, for example, may appoint different subcontractors for different parts of the project. Each subcontractor may then appoint a sub-subcontractor on smaller bits and the sub-subcontractor may in turn, given their much smaller brief, procure the steel they need for their section of the development from an overseas producer without a tender—for example, one they have an existing relationship with.
That means that the same steelmaker may have to pursue, through multiple channels, contracts that are ultimately for the same project. That also makes reporting of the origins of steel difficult, which flies in the face of another fantastic tenet of the Government’s procurement proposals, which is transparency. Most importantly, in our national projects, this situation could cost the taxpayer more, due to the fragmented supply chain, the administration, the bureaucracy, the increase in supply lead times and the margin that each level of the steel supply chain commands.
We will see whether the proposals go deep enough and I hope that the Minister will say how she will work with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to ensure that sub-sub-subcontractors uphold the high standards that the Government are looking to set for contracting authorities.
I believe that the British people want to see the Government use British-made steel in large-scale Government projects such as HS2. They want to see every bit of steel that we have the capability to produce being produced here in the UK. Indeed, I hope the Minister will consider what she can do with the traditional supply chain to explore whether contracting authorities can make steel procurement a separate tender, so that our steelworks can bid for large parts of the steel required in a steel-intensive national project.
That not only fulfils the core tenets of the Government’s procurement proposals but makes commercial sense. Our steelworks are well equipped to deal with the different products needed and have dedicated supply teams to provide technical management and supply chain steel expertise. I hope that the Minister can explore this approach with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office.
I come from Scunthorpe. I was brought up so close to the steelworks that we could hear them making steel when we lay in bed at night. This matter is personal to me and to many of my constituents. The hon. Member for Aberavon is absolutely right—none of us could live a single day of our lives without steel. This Government have a proud record in supporting the steel industry in places such as Scunthorpe. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and working with her on behalf of our world-class steelmakers.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am very frustrated that we are here once again; I hope my speech will explain why. The British steel industry has huge potential, but the long-term failures of the Government to address the underlying issues continues to hold it back. Since I was first elected in 2012, steelworkers in my constituency have faced a seemingly endless cycle of crises with lingering uncertainty, not only for them but for all those throughout Rotherham, where the local economy and people’s livelihoods depend on the sector. That uncertainty has continued with Liberty’s announcement that it is selling its speciality steels division, which includes the narrow strip mill at Brinsworth in my constituency.
Throughout the recent difficulties at Liberty, the Government have promised much but, to date, delivered little in the way of practical support. That cannot continue as the sale progresses. Any sale must safeguard the long-term future of the plant and must hold Sanjeev Gupta true to his word that no plant will close on his watch. Liberty must run a transparent sales process and engage with all concerned parties, including the trade unions. The Government must carefully scrutinise any deal and ensure that it includes clear safeguards for the future of both the plant and the steel jobs. They are crucial assets to our economy and they cannot be lost as the result of a fire sale to secure finances for GFG’s other businesses.
While the sale of speciality steel is concerning, Liberty’s ongoing commitment to its Aldwarke plant in Rotherham is encouraging. The plant can lead the way in our drive to decarbonise our steel industry. Decarbonisation presents challenges but also offers huge opportunities to grow our economy and create new green jobs, but that would take sustained support from the Government and a viable long-term plan—something that, to date, has been lacking.
I urge the Government to recognise this opportunity to work with the industry to create the greener future we all want to see. None of that can happen while the Government continue to shy from confronting the sector’s underlying issues—issues that are well understood, but remain unaddressed. The Government had long argued that EU rules prevented state aid for the steel sector. Those rules no longer apply, and it is high time that the Government developed their own system to regulate subsidies and support investment.
The public sector is British Steel’s largest single customer. Tendering processes must consider the impact on domestic jobs, as already seen in France and Germany. I see no reason why this Government’s procurement process cannot favour UK-produced steel, not least because it is the best in the world.
With British Steel paying an average of 86% more for electricity than its competitors in Germany, action on damaging high energy costs is essential if the industry is to hope to compete on an even footing. We must also defend our industry from being overwhelmed by cheap foreign imports. It is deeply disappointing that the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate is arguing to slash safeguards on nine out of 19 product categories, which runs the risk of cutting the industry off at the knees. I urge the Secretary of State to reject its recommendations.
The steel industry can have a bright future if the Government engage with these issues and work with the industry to provide the support that it needs to grow and thrive. However belatedly, I really hope the Minister will listen and that the Government will act to protect our steel industry.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
British steel was once the envy of the world. From Newport to north Lanarkshire, steel making supported hundreds of thousands of jobs and inspired a fierce and well-earned pride in all involved. In January 1980, the Thatcher Government provoked a strike at the British Steel Corporation—the first national strike in the industry for more than 50 years—to break the union and pave the way for privatisation and under-investment. We are paying the price for that today, as the future of the industry hangs in the balance. Unable to compete on the international stage, the economic output of British steel fell by a staggering 30% in 2016 alone, and last year the Government’s brazen refusal to step in and save the Orb steelworks in Newport led to the historic site closing after 122 years in operation.
Now, the crisis at Liberty Steel threatens not only the livelihoods of the steelworkers themselves but those of more than 3,000 workers in the wider supply chain. Some argue that the British steel industry is doomed to terminal decline—just another in a long line of industries sacrificed to deindustrialisation. I could not disagree more. If we made the right investment now, I believe we can not only secure work for generations to come but re-establish the UK as a world leader in sustainable steel production. Technological advances, such as direct reduced iron technology and hydrogen power, have the potential to transform the industry. It currently accounts for about a quarter of all UK industrial emissions, but it can be part of the green industrial revolution and once again become a force to be reckoned with.
None of that is possible without direct Government support. There have been many encouraging steps so far, such as the re-establishment of the UK Steel Council, the creation of the £250 million clean steel fund and the commitment to founding two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s. Very good, but I fear that we are failing to go far or fast enough in decarbonising the sector. Hydrogen-based steel making is already being piloted in at least 23 sites across Europe, so the UK risks being left far behind by our European neighbours. Whether it is Scunthorpe or Port Talbot, these are the very communities that the Government promised to level up, yet they will be the ones that pay the price.
The British steel industry faces a stark choice: decarbonise or wither away. That is why I call on the Government to heed the calls of the industry leaders and environmental groups and begin trials of hydrogen steel without delay, with a view to fully decarbonising the sector by 2035, as recommended by the Climate Change Committee. That is an enormous challenge, but without that scale of ambition, we cannot possibly hope to compete with our international competitors.
This is not just about decarbonising steel. If we are going to revive this vital industry, the Government also need to take advantage of our departure from the EU’s regulatory framework and ensure that the procurement policy actively benefits British steelmakers. Over the next 10 years, an estimated 7.6 million tonnes of steel will be needed for public infrastructure projects. The Prime Minister must honour his promise and ensure that British steelworkers are at the very front of the queue.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this debate and on his excellent analysis of the challenges facing the steel industry. He, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred to the problems of trade defence measures, and that is what I will concentrate my remarks on.
Last month, the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate published a draft recommendation to withdraw half of all trade remedies on steel. If that happens, the consequences could be disastrous. During the Committee stage of the Trade Act 2021, I argued that there should be an independent body to make recommendations on trade remedies, which would also take into account domestic economic considerations, but the recent recommendations by TRID show that the regulations that were set out in its mandate, which now also govern the newly established Trade Remedies Authority, are simply not fit for purpose.
Steel manufacturing is a critical national asset. Steel produced in Britain is used to make ships for the Royal Navy and wind turbines to meet our climate obligations. The construction of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C is using Welsh steel, and 1.3 million tonnes of steel are required for the construction of High Speed 2. The sector directly employs more than 30,000 people, supports a further 41,100 jobs in high-value supply chains, makes a £2.8 billion direct contribution to UK GDP and supports a further £3.6 billion in its supply chains. Steel is a vital asset—we must protect it in the national interest. However, in making its draft recommendation, TRID failed to take into account the reality of the steel supply chain.
The full spectrum of measures is designed to protect the viability of steel as a whole, not just individual production lines. Removing safeguards would mean that the manufacture of steel sections, tubes, wire rods and plates in the UK becomes unviable. It seems almost certain that the European Union will retain its section 232 tariffs beyond 30 June, meaning that any global overproduction of steel will likely flood the UK, crush domestic supply and have potentially catastrophic consequences for the industry and communities here in Britain.
That existential threat to the industry is a strong argument for maintaining all existing trade defence measures for steel, but TRID, and now the TRA, is forced to prioritise the unimpeded functioning of a global market because that is what it says in the regulations which direct their decision making. The regulations do not envisage the maintenance of the safeguards that domestic producers should be able to expect from their Government—these take second place for our trade remedies body. Hence the recommendation by them for the removal of some safeguards. The economic tests which TRID and the TRA must apply, according to their own regulations, do not provide the Secretary of State for International Trade with the ability to take into account wider factors of strategic national interest when deciding whether or not to reject a recommendation from them. The Business Secretary said he was
“committed to a strategic presence of steel in the UK.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 233.]
The International Trade Secretary said that she will do
“whatever it takes to protect our steel industry.”
The two Secretaries of State must keep their promises and allow the safeguards to remain beyond 30 June while the weaknesses and trade remedies regulations are fixed—they promised to do this. Members on all sides will work with the Government to support jobs and communities. The existential threat of lifting half of the safeguards means there may be just 21 days to save British steel.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate.
Steel is a foundational sector across the UK and never more so than in Neath Port Talbot county borough. Upon these strong foundations, economies and supply chains are created. Port Talbot’s steelworks reaches all the surrounding communities. Thousands of Neath constituents have worked there, know someone who works there, or work in its supply chain—my father did. To say it has been a difficult few years for the steelworkers in Neath Port Talbot would be an understatement. Competing in a global market, the absence of anti-dumping tariffs, the lifting of lesser duty rates and rising UK energy process have conspired to create uncertainty and fear. Over 2,000 local jobs have been lost since 2014. Steel and the steel industry are vital to Wales and its economy.
The idea that the steel sector does not have a future is unthinkable, but our steelworkers are as robust as the steel they make. They have bounced back from every adversity so far—but the situation is about to get much worse. The recent Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate recommendations on the existing steel safeguards could be catastrophic for the UK steel sector. Only 10 out of 19 product categories are recommended to have safeguards extended, leaving sites in Llanelli, Cardiff, Gateshead, Sheffield and many more without the protection to limit sudden increases in imports. The lifting of safeguards would open up UK markets to trade diversion and have a negative impact on the remaining measures. The interconnected nature of UK steel means that a threat to one product category will have consequences for the others.
Steel imports increased by 25% between 2013 and 2017, before the original EU steel safeguards were introduced. The current circumstances of global overcapacity and import restrictions in other countries make it highly probable that steel imports will again escalate should safeguards be removed. It is probable that the EU and the US will continue to provide safeguards for their industries and place measures on UK steel imports. It is astounding that the UK Government would provide open access to our steel market. The market remains volatile and delicate during the continuing pandemic, which has seen steel demand drop by 16% during 2020. The steel sector needs stability to recover and to adapt to a post-covid world. Safeguards are crucial to provide stability. The steel sector will continue to face many challenges—decarbonisation, subsidy regulation post Brexit, public sector procurement, energy price disparity—but it is the removal of steel safeguards that poses the biggest existential challenge, given the interconnectivity across the sector.
This is the first major trading test for the UK in post-Brexit times, and the UK Government must establish a fair trading environment for the UK steel industry and our communities. In contrast, the Welsh Labour Government have been standing up for steel, making an £8 million commitment to help secure a £30 million power plant at Port Talbot; offering £17 million of support for skills development; investing in energy efficiency; planning to reduce carbon emission; and offering research and development funding for new product development. At critical times, the Welsh Labour Government have provided direct financial support to sites right across Wales, protecting our jobs and communities.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate. He is both the Member for Port Talbot and our chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries. He gave an excellent analysis, setting out the issues yet again.
My hon. Friend mentioned that we have had 19 debates on steel in this House over recent years. I feel I have been there with him in many of those, making the same points over and over again. I do so because steel has always been at the very heart of the community that I represent, with many workers in both the steel industry in Newport East and down the road in Port Talbot, and in supply chains, making world-class automotive steel for BMW, Jaguar Land Rover and other projects at Tata Llanwern. We also have the Celsa site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which is one of the largest producers of rebar; and Liberty, which produces hot rolled coil for domestic and export markets for use in construction and is at the cutting edge of modern steel technology. On that note, I know that we all want the future of all Liberty Steel businesses secured, including Newport, and I know that hon. Members for steel constituencies will hold Liberty and the Government to account and make sure that we uphold that commitment to the workforce and our industry going forward.
On behalf of that industry, those businesses, those workers and the unions in my constituency, I say again what steel MPs have been saying here for many years: steel should be a cornerstone of a comprehensive, forward-looking industrial strategy in this country. It has an absolutely pivotal role to play in our recovery from the pandemic. The economic value of the steel sector cannot be overstated. The industry makes a £2.8 billion direct contribution to GDP and supports a further £3.6 billion through its supply chains, while the average salary is around 36% higher than the regional average in steel heartlands such as south Wales and Yorkshire. If the Government are really serious about levelling up across the UK, they should look to steel as a foundation to build on.
In his response to me at Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions last month, the Secretary of State said that the Government were
“committed to a strategic presence of steel in the UK.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 233.]
Although I welcome that assurance, it is now time that the Government backed it up with meaningful action to support the industry.
As others have said, we need a change of direction on procurement. The Community union, plus Unite, GMB and others—I pay tribute to them for all the work they do on behalf of their members—have campaigned for decades for contracting authorities to effectively deploy social and environmental clauses in tendering processes in order to support domestic jobs in industry, just as they do in France and Germany, but little has changed in practical terms since 2016, when there were a few measures, and home-grown steel companies are continuing to miss out on important contracts, despite rhetoric from the Prime Minister about being at the front of the queue. The most recent Government data on how much steel is sourced in the UK includes only 160,000 tonnes, which is somewhat less than the estimated 800,000 to 900,000 tonnes of steel that their forward-looking pipeline indicates is used by central Government each year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon said, we need a patriotic procurement policy.
The case for sourcing UK steel is overwhelming. Every 1,000 tonnes of UK steel used in a public project delivers 4.5 jobs in the steel industry, and 10 jobs when the supply chain is included. As others have said, in addition to the economic boost that that provides, there are real environmental benefits from not importing steel from the EU or China respectively.
Energy prices are a prevalent problem. Ministers may have grown tired of steel MPs banging the drum about this over the years, but it remains critical for our industry. The oft-quoted evidence s is stark: UK steel producers pay 86% more for electricity than their competitors in Germany and 62% more than is paid in France. That is a £54-million-a-year cost burden to the UK steel sector and a huge competitive disadvantage. The targeted charging review led by Ofgem is set to make matters worse, as the review’s proposals would leave our producers paying 156% more in energy costs. Obviously, that would be devastating. I urge Ministers to do what they can on that, too.
As others have said, we need Ministers to work urgently to prevent the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate from slashing our steel safeguards in half. The case was excellently argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). The safeguards are vital to providing a stable environment for the sector and protecting against unprecedented import surges, especially at a time when we are seeing significant global overcapacity in steel.
I also specifically ask the Minister to look again at the issue of bonded warehouses, which effectively undercut UK producers by waiving duty on cheap foreign imports. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has led on this issue, and both of us have written to Ministers to convey our concerns and the concerns of unions and management in Newport and in Tredegar at Liberty. Will the Minister here today look into the matter?
As my hon. Friend has said, we saw the cost of doing nothing at the Orb works: we lost the only plant making electrical steels in the UK at a time when we are going to need electrical steels. The Government should have stepped in then. Orb steelworkers knew what was at stake, and I was proud to stand alongside them and their unions in the fight to save steel jobs.
As a country, we just cannot go on making huge strategic mistakes when it comes to our steel and manufacturing sectors. We need to utilise our steel assets and invest in our greatest strength, which is the indomitable, passionate and highly skilled steelworkers we have. We need the industry to have a level playing field. We need to have the right backing to drive this forward. We ask again for the Government to step up, to address the issues raised again today and to come up with a viable long-term plan to protect our industry.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Like everyone else, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this very important debate today.
This year marks the 125th year of production at Shotton steelworks on Deeside, which is a remarkable achievement. I hope and trust that we will see another 125 years. I doubt I will still be here to celebrate that, but we all live in hope. Order books are good and Shotton continues to produce high-quality value-added products, which is a great credit to the workforce and the management of the plant, yet we only have to look at Shotton’s history to understand the highs and lows that the industry faces as a whole. In 1980, more than 6,500 jobs were lost on a single day— at the time, it was the largest redundancy at a single plant in the history of western Europe. Those jobs have never come back. The plant today is still efficient and profitable, but Shotton cannot function on its own—it relies on Port Talbot for its steel—just as the industry cannot function as individual plants.
The UK steel industry has been in a fragile state for many years, seemingly lurching from one crisis to another. We have a Government who talk about their support for the industry going forward, but their actions—or, rather, lack of action—tell a very different story. Only when a plant or business is on the verge of collapse do they seem to show any interest in the steel industry, and they lose interest again when the plant either is saved in the short term or has collapsed. If steel is to have a future in the UK, we need a Government who recognise that we have to have a long-term plan to support the industry.
It is no good saying simply that steel needs to modernise or decarbonise its business, or that somehow hydrogen will save the day at some point in the future. That will not happen if we do not support and maintain a viable business today. Hydrogen might well be the future, but it is some way off and we cannot just use it as an excuse to do nothing now. That means addressing what many other colleagues have mentioned—the ludicrous situation where steel manufacturers here pay 62% more for electricity than those in France, and 86% more than those in Germany. That is not a new problem; it is something we have been banging on about year in, year out, but—shock, horror!—nothing changes, nothing happens. All we are told by the Government is to take it up with Ofgem, but we all know the answer we will get. All Ofgem says is that there is nothing it can do. I would argue that Ofgem seems intent on making the situation worse, rather than better. How can we seriously expect the industry to invest in the future when it has both hands tied firmly behind its back?
We were always told that nothing could be done and that, as with so many other things, it was all Europe’s fault. The same public procurement argument was constantly wheeled out, as a number of colleagues have said. Other European countries managed to do something, but for some unknown reason we could not. Even that excuse has gone now, however, and the UK Government need to step up to the plate.
The UK steel industry supplies only about 10% of public sector current requirements. That needs to increase dramatically. The Government need to work with the industry to make that happen. The Prime Minister talks a lot about infrastructure projects, shovel-ready projects post covid. I had the pleasure of speaking in the restoration and renewal debate the other day, and I said that this place should be the very starting point of using UK steel. UK steel must be the centre of any recovery. It must be not an afterthought, but at the very heart of such projects.
We cannot carry on as we are now. We need the Government to step up and to support our industry. It needs support now.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
For the guidance of Members, I intend to call the first of the Front Benchers winding up the debate at 10.23 am.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I will start my remarks as others have, by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for calling this debate and for making such an important opening speech, in which he gave voice to many of the concerns felt by so many colleagues here. I thank him for that.
The fact that so many colleagues from across Wales are speaking in this debate demonstrates the strength of feeling that local people back home have when it comes to steel, the future of steel and the steel industry more generally. Like other colleagues, I am concerned about the recent recommendation on steel safeguards from the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate—now called the Trade Remedies Authority. I totally agree that it represents a potentially hugely damaging decision for the UK’s steel sector. Let us not forget that that sector provides jobs, fuels our country’s economic success and showcases British skill, talent and expertise.
As has been mentioned by others, the Trade Remedies Authority has recommended extending the UK safeguard measures on just 10 out of 19 product categories. That would, or at least could, open the UK’s markets to significant levels of trade diversion and undermine the effectiveness of the measures that remain in place. Divergence appears to be the rule of thumb from this Government. I urge Ministers to remember the age-old adage: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. They would do well to keep that in mind.
The United Kingdom has had steel safeguards since 2018 as a result of our then membership of the EU, and those protections were transitioned and carried over into UK law in January 2021. The measures were introduced to limit further increases in imports because of a dysfunctional global trading environment for steel—namely, global overcapacity of steel, trade diversions resulting from the US introduction of steel tariffs, and the increased use of trade defence measures globally. It is clear that the Biden Administration, and indeed our friends and neighbours in Europe, will probably retain those equivalent measures if the United Kingdom unilaterally removes or weakens its measures. That will open our market to import surges as the sector recovers from the impact of covid-19 and, crucially, at a time when our exports to the EU and US will still be subject to tariffs and quotas. This is the first test for the UK as an independent trading nation, and is an opportunity to demonstrate that the UK will use its new-found trade policy independence to provide a fair trading environment for the UK steel industry. People in all parts of the United Kingdom will be looking to see if the promises made by the Tory Ministers are put into practice.
No steel industry in the world can manage the transition to net zero production without substantial Government support, but a recent report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit revealed that while 23 hydrogen steel projects are either planned or under way across Europe, none is currently in progress in the UK. Will the Minister comment in her wind-up speech on whether she thinks that is a satisfactory state of affairs?
Steel production has been largely lost from my constituency of Newport West, so I am here today to make sure we do not lose it from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and from other parts of Wales. I am also here to stand up for my constituents who work in the steel production industry across south Wales. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon for securing the debate today and grateful to have had the opportunity once again to pay tribute to the steelworkers who keep Britain’s steel industry thriving. This is an important debate and I am glad that steel is once more before the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this debate. I remember his debate in the old Westminster Hall—perhaps I should say we are in the new Westminster Hall. I supported him then and I am back to support him again. The title of the debate is “UK Steel Sector: Supply Chains”, and I want to give the Northern Ireland perspective. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). I thank her and the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for their contributions. Newport West and Newport East are well represented here today.
The issue is of great interest to me because, over the past month to six weeks, the supply chains and the construction sector in particular have been an issue for my constituency of Strangford. I have lived in the Ards peninsula for a long time, and many of the companies there are small and medium-sized businesses. Those companies employ people locally and are very important to the local economy. The supply chain of steel has become critical for them. Others have referred to the high price of materials, and steel has been mentioned to me by two companies that contract to build homes. They price for £150 per square foot of finished steel, but are now looking at an increase of a third, up to £200 per square foot. This will cripple the construction industry, undoubtedly having an impact not only upon the construction sector and those small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, but on jobs, so it is very important.
In 2020, the UK steel sector contributed £2 billion in gross value added to the UK economy, equivalent to 0.1% of total UK economic output and 1.2% of manufacturing output. There are some 1,100 businesses in the UK steel industry, and the industry supported 33,400 jobs in the UK in 2019—0.1% of all the jobs in that sector, which is quite substantial. On top of that, there all the other construction sectors which are tied into it. The construction companies told me that it was not just the price of steel, but the prices of wood of piping that were an issue for them. However, steel is critical for the strategy going forward, especially as we come out of the coronavirus pandemic.
In 2019, the UK produced 7 million tonnes of steel, whereas China produced 996 million tonnes, and the EU produced some 157 million tonnes—8% of the world total. The UK was the eighth largest steel producer at that time. The differential and degree of reliance is clear, and this must be what we work to change. Our great nation, which was once the industrial force of the world, must return to self-reliance. To do this, our Government—the Minister in particular—must invest to enable us to produce our own steel. Government contracts must be at the top of this, bound to buy only British steel. Earlier, the hon. Member for Aberavon referred to the Ministry of Defence contract for Swedish steel to build ships. Why was it not our steel? That is the question that he asked, and it is a question I ask as well.
We know that covid has a role to play in terms of shipping and raw materials, with shipping companies raising prices massively. The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Asia to northern Europe, for example, soared from £1,061 in the summer of 2020 to more than £5,873 in May 2021. The increases are astronomical, even more than a third. It is a significant, and sometimes unbearable, factor. The questions must be asked: where are the containers and is this price rise justifiable in the long term? I do not believe it is, which is why I look to the Minister and my Government to address this issue. I put it to the Minister that in any strategy considered, looking into the increase in shipping which is affecting every product on the shelves and every product on the construction sites must be a priority. I would be interested to gauge the Minister’s opinion on what the Government is doing to tackle the cost, which is putting small businesses into bother at a time when we must be rebuilding.
One builder said to me,
“How can we rebuild after covid, Jim, when I literally can’t afford the rebuilding materials— what happens to my team members whilst I renegotiate contracts with developers to cover the astronomical price rises?”
These costs are going to hit the construction sector. These false prices will have to fall, and there will be some crash when they do. House prices in my constituency have risen by 20%. We are seeing at first hand the cost of relying on others when once we had the finest steel industry in the world. We can, and indeed must, return to this, providing jobs and a quality product. It is time for the Government to once again put steel into our backbone and to back our own right here in the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. My congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important and timely debate.
I was first elected to this place in 2015 and have since lost track of the number of debates I have taken part in and the questions I have asked regarding the UK and Scottish steel industry on behalf of the Scottish National party. In the Motherwell and Wishaw constituency, we produced steel. Motherwell was known as Steelopolis and Motherwell FC is nicknamed The Steelmen, but all that is left is the Dalziel works, which rolls steel. Ravenscraig, our integrated steel mill, was closed in 1992 as part of the deindustrialisation of Scotland under the Tory Government led by Maggie Thatcher. Now this Tory Government are determined to see steel production suffer all over the UK as a consequence of a Brexit deal that Scotland did not vote for.
At the end of 2020, the UK transitioned the EU steel safeguards retaining vital protection against trade diversion and import surges for 19 different steel products produced in the UK. The preliminary decision by the Department for International Trade is to remove a large number of safeguards designed to protect domestic producers from a flood of cheap imports. According to UK Steel, that
“needs to be urgently rethought.”
The Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate recommended extending the measures on 10 categories of imports for three years from next month. It also suggested that measures on nine categories be revoked. These plans are being described by UK Steel as “a hammer blow” that risks damaging the sector long term. That is exactly what they are. UK Steel has also said that the UK would become
“a magnet for huge volumes of steel imports…It is beyond worrying to consider the damage this could do to the UK steel sector and its long-term viability.”
The main union of steelworkers, Community, has said:
“This is the first test of the Government’s commitment to our steel industry post-Brexit and they’re failing it.”
UK Steel said the removal of the protections will have an adverse impact on the manufacture of steel across the UK, as attested to by hon. Members representing steel-producing constituencies across England and—it has to be said—mainly in Wales. The original safeguarding measures were designed to protect the viability of an entire industry, not individual production lines.
The Scottish National party is clear that the UK Government must extend steel safeguards beyond their current June 2021 expiry date. If the UK Conservative Government unilaterally remove the measures, they will open our market to import surges as the sector recovers from covid-19 and, crucially, at a time when our exports to the EU and US will still be subject to tariffs and quotas.
If the UK is serious about global Britain, it must remove the £54 million extra in energy costs that UK companies pay compared with companies in Germany. Over the past five years, that has cost the UK steel sector £254 million or 130% of annual capital investment. Consistently higher UK electricity prices increase production costs, reduce available capital and deter inward investment.
It is time for the UK Government to put forward a bold programme of support for the sector to level the playing field, as the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries has been continually calling for. Time and again, UK Tory Governments have failed to understand manufacturing. They talk about plans that they do not follow through; they do not even seem to realise that their vision of global Britain will never become a reality if we let down a foundation industry such as steel over and over again.
Scottish Government action in supporting GFG’s steel and smelter operations shows commitment to those sectors in Scotland. The Scottish Government helped Liberty Steel reopen Dalzell in my constituency and direct job numbers have recovered. In Lochaber, direct jobs have been saved. The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise supported Liberty’s acquisition; the UK Government must support UK steel industries across the board.
Scottish Enterprise recognises the challenging environment for businesses in Scotland right now and the significant economic benefit Liberty Steel brings in jobs, the supply chain and future safeguarding of Scotland’s steel industry. The Scottish Government work hard to protect jobs and promote Scotland as a place to do business. Indeed, Scotland has bucked the trend and the amount of foreign direct investment in Scotland is growing as international investors increasingly see Scotland as a welcoming place in which to invest. An EY survey of 570 international business decision makers found 15% ranked Scotland as the most attractive part of the UK in which to establish operations, behind London, but with a huge shift in the past two years. London’s vote as most attractive region had almost halved since 2019, while Scotland’s had more than doubled. That is what happens when a Government believe in their people, not just their friends and cronies.
Following the initial decision on safeguards, the Secretary of State for International Trade must decide whether to accept or reject the measures by the end of June. A rejection can only be made on the grounds that the Government believe the recommendation is not in the economic or public interests of the UK. A rejection would mean that the entirety of the safeguards would expire. Removing safeguards may see UK steel consumers receive some modest price reduction in the short term, but that will not last. This Tory Government must understand what is at stake. They must continue safeguards and actively support steelmaking in the UK, or they risk the UK being unable to supply its most basic steel needs in the future.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Graham. May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate and for his powerful opening speech on the future of this vital foundation industry, which is important to our history and our economy? I congratulate him and colleagues across the House on their work through the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries.
I also congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken powerfully in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Christina Rees), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—particularly on working with Liberty Steel on the sale of the Stocksbridge and Brinsworth plants—and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who made a powerful speech.
UK steel is at a turning point. A lack of strategic focus from successive Conservative Governments has inevitably resulted in reduced resilience against external shocks and fierce international competition. Our shared goal must be a sustainable future for UK steel and its supply chains, and we need the Government leadership that that demands. Steelmaking must decarbonise, and the long-term future of the industry is in supporting green jobs at the core of low-carbon economy. Steelmaking is a highly-skilled industry and a national asset, and it has a clear opportunity for continued growth, with procurement policies that could also help to increase the contribution of UK steel to UK manufacturing, products and infrastructure.
Currently, 60% of steels are imported, and there is no assessment of the carbon footprint of those imports. Across the UK, there are around 1,100 businesses in steel and around 75,000 jobs, whether directly supported or in the supply chain. Those jobs are at the centre of our economies. In my speech, I will say a few words about supporting our steel industry today, about the need for a vision and plan for the future, and about ensuring a fair and just transition.
The Labour party and the UK steel industry have been united in rejecting the recent draft recommendations of the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate to remove almost half the safeguard measures currently protecting UK steel producers from the surges in imports that threaten the sector. We hope that the Trade Remedies Authority will listen to the reasoned explanations as to why all current safeguards must stay in place beyond their June expiry date, not least in the light of the other huge pressures faced by the industry at this difficult time.
UK Steel’s criticisms of those recommendations have highlighted a failure to recognise the interconnectedness of the steel industry. One part of the supply chain cannot be damaged without damaging the industry as a whole. As an example, Celsa Steel UK has 28 product categories, with much interconnection between them, but 10 of those have been affected by the revocation of safeguards, while 18 have not—a situation that is inexplicable to Celsa and others. UK Steel has put together significant evidence to challenge the data used by TRID in producing its recommendations. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of that industry evidence.
The process has exposed a worrying gap in Ministers’ ability to act in the national interest, and has illustrated the flaws that the Labour party warned about during the process to establish the UK’s post-Brexit trade remedies regime. We also warned about the lack of representation of UK producers in unions such as Unite and Community, and the risk that it would exacerbate those failings. Worryingly, the current legislation does not allow the Secretary of State to retain existing safeguards or introduce new ones against the advice of the Trade Remedies Authority, even if to do so would be overwhelmingly in the public interest.
The fate of large parts of the steel industry and of thousands of jobs currently lies in the hands not of elected representatives, but of an unelected body that cannot be overruled. Even if the TRA reverses the original recommendations this month, we cannot find ourselves in this position again. We are therefore willing to work constructively on a cross-party basis to amend the trade remedies legislation to allow for a wider range of public interest tests to be applied in these decisions. In the interim, we call on the Government to do everything necessary and permissible within the law to extend all the current steel safeguards. The Minister must also make those intentions public at the earliest opportunity to provide the UK steel industry with the certainty that it badly needs.
We urgently need a truly ambitious vision for the sector that puts the UK at the cutting edge of green steel-making technology, and we need a plan to go with it. We need to see better progress on the industrial decarbonisation strategy and the acceleration of the clean steel fund. That £250 million fund was announced in 2019, but the spend from it is not set to start until 2023. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister about why there is a delay.
The UK seeks to decarbonise by 2050, but blast-furnace investments operate on a 20 to 25-year timescale, so we need a clean steel innovation programme now. As the Materials Processing Institute highlights, delaying until 2024 shows a lack of co-ordination between the Government’s timetable and the reality of the industry’s investment cycles.
Although we accept that it is necessary that UK steel continues using coking coal for the next decade until technology is in place to provide for decarbonised steel, with the right strategy, investment in renewable technologies can create three times as many jobs as those in fossil fuel industries—jobs that are long term, highly skilled and high wage. Hydrogen could also play a huge part. Trials of direct reduced iron technology are already happening in Germany, Sweden and China. The Government should act quickly to prevent the UK from being left behind with this technology too.
As the price of energy hinders progress, we need a clear industrial plan. We have heard how the gap between German and UK electricity prices is placing an extra £54 million a year additional cost on the UK steel sector. As the sector seeks to decarbonise, the price disparity is a major barrier to transitioning. All low-carbon options available are much more energy intensive. The Government have always said that the EU is a barrier to action. Now that we have left, they must take decisive action to address that price disparity.
We also need a plan for capital investment for future productivity. Plants that I have visited have demonstrated that they have a set of clear transformation business plans ready, with detailed assessments of returns on investment and alignments of goals with national priorities. In the short term, the challenge of working capital also remains. Viable businesses with multi-year order books, such as Stocksbridge, need urgent support to be able to purchase the supplies they need and get the products that are demanded by their customers into production now.
Priorities for a fair and responsible transition to low-carbon steel making must include long-term planning, as the Centre for Sustainable Work and Employment Futures, Community union and Prospect have begun to outline. Protecting jobs and steel communities also means that transition must seek to retain our capabilities and high skills, include retraining and avoid hard redundancies.
Our manufacturing renaissance, infrastructure and green economic recovery depend on steel. In 2015, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee argued that the relative decline of UK steel production was partly down to the fact that other European countries have better valued their domestic steel industry. That has to change. Labour is determined to safeguard the UK’s steel industry, and with industry operating on the basis of lengthy investment cycles, the future of industry is dependent on investment now to support our green transition. We need a strong steel industry fit for the 21st century that can compete on a level playing field, with the capability to make a full range of steels over the long term.
The Government have said that they are committed to supporting and securing a future for UK steel, but recent events do not back that up. It is vital that the Government do more now to bring forward a long-term plan to support our proud British steel sector and the UK manufacturers that are their customers. We must secure this industry in our national interest, to protect jobs, livelihoods and our economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss this incredibly important topic. It is encouraging to see so many hon. Friends and hon. Members participating. I am delighted to see the passion demonstrated by everyone this morning. That is a true reflection of the role that the steel sector plays in communities, and its importance as a foundation industry in the national economy.
Although ministerial colleagues and I are consistent and passionate advocates for the steel industry—hon. Members will know that I have a background in manufacturing—the topic of the debate is not within my policy portfolio. Should I fail to answer specific questions, I will ensure that they are responded to in writing by relevant Ministers or officials.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon for high- lighting safeguard measures. Hon. Members might be aware that the Trade Remedies Authority will make a recommendation on whether to extend or revoke the UK’s steel safeguard measures that are due to expire on 30 June 2021. The TRA is an independent body and the recommendation will be based on evidence, following consultation with interested parties from the steel sector.
As mentioned, the Secretary of State for International Trade can accept or reject the recommendation but not modify or partially accept it. She cannot extend the measures if the TRA does not recommend that. If the Secretary of State rejects the recommendation, then all the measures will expire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) highlighted, my Department is working closely with the Department for International Trade on the issue.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) spoke of the regulations governing the TRA. The Secretary of State for International Trade has spoken about her plans to review whether the UK’s trade remedies framework should be strengthened. I fully recognise that the global economic conditions continue to be challenging for the steel industry. Global overcapacity in the sector is a significant issue, and was estimated at 625 million tonnes in 2020 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The excess in capacity produced globally depresses prices and harms UK steel producers’ profitability.
The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised the topic of bonded warehouses. The Secretary of State has agreed to meet the management teams at Liberty Newport and Tredegar. As referred to by the hon. Member for Aberavon, the covid-19 pandemic has clearly had a disruptive impact on the steel sector. Recent supply shortages of steel have temporarily increased its price. However, that is unlikely to be sustained as the markets readjust.
Although the economic context is challenging, hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Government are committed to the UK steel industry, as the Secretary of State has reaffirmed on numerous occasions, and to a sustainable future, supporting local economic growth and our levelling-up agenda. To that end, our unprecedented package of covid-19 support is still available to the sector, to protect jobs and ensure that producers have the right support during this challenging time.
Beyond covid, the hon. Member for Aberavon mentioned the Industrial Strategy Council. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Chancellor have outlined how we are taking forward its best elements in the plan for growth. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the Government are working closely with industry and trade unions to understand how together we can create a sustainable steel sector in the UK. On 19 May, the Secretary of State co-chaired the second meeting of the UK Steel Council, which he reconvened in March this year. The council provides a forum for Government, industry and the unions to work in partnership, to develop a plan to support the sector’s transition to a competitive, sustainable and low-carbon future.
The second meeting of the joint industry and BEIS steel procurement taskforce was held yesterday afternoon. That was first launched in March and is chaired by Lord Grimstone. It explores what Government and industry can do to address the challenges the sector has reported when competing for and securing public contracts. I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) that work is continuing to develop on the subsidy control regime.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), have rightly focused on climate change, with welcome passion. In addition to our continuing close engagement with the sector, I can reassure the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) that we are taking action across a broad range of policy areas, including decarbonisation, energy prices, international trade and procurement. These actions aim to boost the sector’s competitiveness in the short term and to support long-term investment and transformational change that will increase efficiency while aligning with our goal of a net zero economy by 2050.
To reach our ambitious net zero target, we will need the UK steel sector to decarbonise. Our new industrial decarbonisation strategy sets out for the first time the Government’s comprehensive assessment of how industry, including the steel sector, can decarbonise in line with net zero in a way that supports both competitiveness and clean growth. The strategy includes a commitment to work with the UK Steel Council to examine the implications of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to set targets for ore-based steelmaking to reach near zero emissions by 2035.
In 2019, we announced a £250 million clean steel fund to support the sector to transition to low-carbon iron and steel production through the new technologies and processes, which could potentially include supporting hydrogen-based steelmaking. Other recent and ongoing work to support the sector includes the £350 million industrial energy transformation fund, which aims to support businesses with high energy use to cut their bills and reduce carbon emissions. As part of the industrial strategy challenge fund, we are also providing up to £66 million to help the key foundation industries, such as steel, develop innovative technology to reduce energy and resource use.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead made an important point about technology. Science and innovation have been made a priority by the UK Government, in recognition of the strong economic benefits of public investment in science and innovation and the capacity to leverage private investment. That is why we will increase R&D investment to £22 billion per year by 2024-25. We plan to establish a net zero hydrogen fund, with £240 million of capital co-investment until 2024-25. That will support at-scale hydrogen production projects, allowing steel producers the potential to access suppliers of low-cost hydrogen.
As we support the UK steel industry’s decarbonisation, we must do so in a way that enables us to compete globally and across Europe. Several hon. Members have raised the issue of industrial energy prices. We of course recognise that they are currently higher in the United Kingdom than in other competitive economies.
The hon. Member for Newport East mentioned the Ofgem targeted charging review. As she will know, network charging is a matter for Ofgem as the independent regulator, and decisions on its targeted charging review are for it to make. However, the Government continue to engage with Ofgem in order to inform our understanding of the reforms’ policy implications. We have provided more than £500 million in relief to the steel sector since 2013, in order to make electricity costs more competitive.
Finally, I turn to procurement and supply chains. I welcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe. We are working hard to ensure that UK steel producers have the best possible chance of competing for, and winning, contracts across Government projects. I previously mentioned the steel procurement taskforce, but I can also assure the hon. Member for Rotherham that the Government have recently consulted on an ambitious package of major procurement reforms, with the aim of creating a simpler and more flexible regime that works much better for British businesses, including our steel businesses.
The Government are also working the with industry to ensure that Departments and other sector organisations follow guidance to account for social and environmental benefits when buying steel. That includes publishing details of upcoming national public infrastructure projects every year, so that steel businesses can plan for future demand.
The steel pipeline shows how the Government plan to procure 7.6 million tonnes of steel over the next decade for infrastructure projects such as the expansion of the offshore wind infrastructure, the construction of Hinkley Point C, as has been mentioned, and the maintenance and upgrading of the UK’s motorway network.
Jim Shannon
It is important that we have steel for offshore wind power and so on, but it is also important that we have steel available at competitive prices for the construction sector. What can the Minister do to assure me on that?
Amanda Solloway
I will, of course, pass on the hon. Gentleman’s question.
I will move on to Liberty Steel. The hon. Member for Newport East rightly highlighted its importance to many Members and their constituents, and its recent financial difficulties, which were also raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham. As the Secretary of State reaffirmed to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in an oral evidence session, we continue to monitor the situation closely and engage with the company, trade unions, local MPs and the wider steel industry. Liberty is important.
Seema Malhotra
Does the Minister appreciate that there is a need to work to support plants that are viable—such as Stocksbridge and Brinsworth, which purchase their supplies from Rotherham—and provide the working capital that is needed for orders that are there and products that are there to be made?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Again, I will pass that on, with the passion that she has shown, to the relevant places.
I return to Liberty Steel. We continue to monitor the situation closely and to engage with the company, trade unions, local MPs and the wider steel industry. Liberty is an important supplier of steel and provides highly skilled jobs. The Government believe that Liberty sites can be viable and we remain hopeful that the commercial issues can be resolved to ensure future success.
It is, however, first and foremost the company’s responsibility to manage commercial decisions for the future of the organisation, and we welcome the dedicated efforts being made by Liberty to find solutions. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members, who have displayed sincere empathy for our steel sector today, that the Government are working tirelessly with the industry to secure its future through difficult times.
Focusing specifically on Tata Steel—I know that that is of great interest to the hon. Member for Aberavon, and I have saved discussion of it for my summing up—I can assure Members that the Government will continue to work closely with the company and the unions as they shape the business strategy to support the future of high-quality steelmaking in Port Talbot.
I have set out a wide range of actions that demonstrate that the Government fully understand the vital role that steel plays for communities, for our economy and as a foundation supplier for our manufacturing base. UK industry will continue to need high-quality steel, and British steel is among the best steel in the world. As we level up our country, we are actively considering where there is scope to go further to support our steel industry.
We are committed to sustainable decarbonisation, decarbonising a globally competitive future steel industry in the United Kingdom, and I look forward to working with Members towards achieving that goal.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank all hon. Members present for a really constructive and useful debate.
I thank the Minister for her response, but there is a chasm between the rhetoric that the Government are deploying and the tangible actions that we need to see. Safeguards are now of the utmost urgency, but we are in an absurd situation whereby the Secretary of State for International Trade is not being given the option of modifying the recommendations that we have discussed; it is simply, “Take it or leave it”. If the decision is to reject the recommendations in their entirety, all the safeguards will fall. That would lead to a massive import surge, which could be crippling for our industry. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department for International Trade with the greatest urgency. The recommendations appear to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how the steel industry actually works, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) so eloquently set out.
On procurement, we need concrete actions. We need targets for how much of the steel in public infrastructure projects should be British steel, and we need clear supply chain plans so that procurers are obliged to set out precisely how they will maximise the input of British steel. We have been calling for this for years, and we need to see specific actions.
On price disparity, we should be looking at the French-German model for network cost reductions, increasing the renewable levy exemptions and providing exemptions from capacity market costs. Again, those are all things that we have been calling for over several years.
Finally, on the green transition, a recent report by a think-tank, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, showed that there are 23 hydrogen steel projects happening across the European Union, but absolutely none in this country. It feels as though we could be behind the curve in that regard. Politics is about choices, and I urge the Government to make choices that actually favour our British steel industry.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
House Building Targets: North East Bedfordshire
(2 years, 10 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
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of housebuilding targets in North East Bedfordshire constituency.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham; it is a particular pleasure. I am grateful to the Speaker for granting this debate at this time, because it enables me to engage directly with the Minister on the existing impact of high levels of house building in my constituency ahead of his finalisation, with the Secretary of State, of the forthcoming planning Bill.
I place on the record my thanks to the Minister for his willingness to meet me on multiple occasions—I have lost count—to discuss the particular effects on my constituency of development from a wide variety of sources: the construction of East West Rail; the creation of development corporations; the 2017 Oxford-Cambridge arc proposals—highly questionable, in my mind— from the National Infrastructure Commission; road improvements, including on the A1 at Black Cat roundabout; and the processes of the local plans for Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council. The Minister has always been open to discussions, and I am grateful for that.
In this short debate, I will cover the Conservative party manifesto commitment to “infrastructure first”; the Department’s view on housing consequences from East West Rail and other transport decisions; environmental impacts of particular concern in areas where local authorities are having to meet housing growth targets that are well above average; and some critical requests for consideration by the Minister in the forthcoming planning Bill.
Let me let me start with some context. My constituency is already recording housing growth at roughly three times the average of the constituencies of all Members of this House. The National House Building Council provides some statistics: in 2018, North East Bedfordshire’s figure for new homes registered was 2.2 times the national average, in 2019 it was 2.9 times the average and last year it was 3.5 times the average. We anticipate that that rate will continue to increase in relative terms. Moreover, the Office for National Statistics states that in terms of absolute population growth, in the decade to 2026 the local authority of Central Bedfordshire, which covers part of my constituency, ranks second only to Leicester of all local authorities outside London. The population of North East Bedfordshire is already growing fast, and that rate of growth is getting faster. The absolute growth in population will be one of the highest in the country.
The effects of this house building are already having an impact on the availability of local services. Difficulties in accessing GP services are already being felt across my constituency: from Arlesey and Stotfold to Biggleswade and Sandy to Harrold and to Sharnbrook, residents have contacted me to say how increasingly difficult it is to access GP services. This is not to do with covid; it is directly to do with population growth. A House of Commons report on changes in the numbers of GPs, trainees and locums for clinical commissioning groups across the country records a 6% decrease in the number of qualified permanent GPs for the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes CCG since 2019. In that CCG, which covers my constituency, there were 2,112 patients per full-time equivalent GP as of December 2019, compared with 1,722 in England as a whole. There is already a disparity in access to GP services, which is only likely to grow, given the growth in housing numbers.
The Minister and I—and indeed you, Sir Graham—stood on a manifesto commitment of “infrastructure first”, pledging that we would ensure that new roads and services were in place before people moved into new homes. Does the Minister acknowledge that securing access to GPs and school places is a crucial principle of our “infrastructure first” pledge? Will he commit to an urgent review, with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Department for Education, to assess the current and projected requirements for my constituency and plans for improvements?
Let me turn to other aspects of infrastructure: roads and railways, of which my constituency has many, in part thanks to a 2017 National Infrastructure Commission report entitled “Partnering for Prosperity,” which was chaired by Lord Adonis. The report stated, with reference to the area between Oxford and Cambridge:
“Without swift and determined action to overcome the area’s housing crisis, it will fall behind its international competitors and fail to attract and retain the talent and skills it needs.”
I will not question that, although I feel that it was a bit tendentious in its expectation. This technocratic report went on to state:
“If the arc is to maximise its economic potential, current rates of house building will need to double—delivering up to one million new homes by 2050.”
However, the target of 1 million homes was wrong. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. The target included an allocation of overspill of 230,000 or more from London. It was based not on the fulfilment of the projections, but on the over-fulfilment of the highest projection of growth for the area. In short, it was a number plucked out of thin air by Lord Adonis, to get a PR-ready headline, but it bears only a tangential relationship to reality. Yet this “one million new homes” figure remains a potential threat to the already successful plans for housing growth in my local authorities of Central Bedfordshire and Bedford Borough Council. Can the Minister reassure me that this fantasy figure of 1 million new homes in the OxCam arc no longer plays a role in housing targets for the area?
From my discussions with CPRE and local environmental groups in Bedfordshire, I know there are considerable concerns that the rate of growth of housing means that biodiversity and access to green spaces are threatened. Does the Minister recognise that these frequently heard concerns, which I know concern him as well, are even more important in areas of considerable housing growth? Will he commit to requiring developments in Central Bedfordshire and Bedford Borough Council local authority areas to embed environmental considerations from the very start of the planning process, rather than making them considerations somewhat later down the track? I believe we need to prioritise access to our environment for residents where housing development is considerably above the national average. The Minister and the Department need to take action to move forward those considerations right to the start of the planning process.
A key part of the National Infrastructure Commission report was the creation of the east-west railway, linking Oxford to Cambridge and to points beyond them on both sides. This project is well under way, but the process has created concerns and confusion for many of my residents. I do not want to draw the Minister into transport-related matters, but can he advise me on a couple of points?
First, in the discussions with local authorities about the East West Rail project, were any considerations of consequential requirements for additional housing ever made by his Department or by the Department for Transport? If so, what were those additional requirements? Secondly, the Minister may be aware that, in part at the request of the leadership of Bedford Borough Council, the east-west railway is now planned to go via the town centre and then north across my constituency. That was a considerable surprise for many of my residents, partly because Bedford Borough Council’s recommendation was put into the consultation without the Mayor or the leadership letting the councillors know that. They did not even have a vote on whether to put it into the consultation. It was a surprise, because people saw that route and thought it was longer, more costly and hillier than alternatives.
I am agnostic on what the route decision should be, but I am not agnostic on the facts that underpin decisions when they are made. As we know, with very large infrastructure decisions, it is important that local communities understand and see that the process is transparent, and understand and see the data underlying any decision.
Given that surprise, will the Minister advise me—not on transport matters, but specifically on housing ones—whether that particular route decision to go through the town amended any expectation of consequential housing growth over any other route options? He may not have answers to my two questions today, but if he would commit to writing to me about them, I will be very grateful.
As I mentioned, my constituency has multiple changes planned or in progress, yet I am advised by local authorities that the level of co-ordination between Departments—over changes in water routes, railways, roads and other utilities—is extremely poor. That causes greater uncertainty in the preparation of local plans and greater disruption for residents. Will the Minister pay particular regard to improving such co-ordination in his forthcoming planning Bill? Furthermore, I encourage him in his efforts to reform CIL, the community infrastructure levy, as part of the effort to give local authorities the resources they need to fund required infrastructure.
The planning Bill offers a positive vision to enable housing developments to proceed more effectively and with more, not less, local community involvement. Does the Minister agree that any future changes in planning regulations should include, and indeed enhance, the involvement of local people in shaping and protecting their communities? Does he share my desire that the voice of local residents, easier access to proposed developments in their areas, the empowering of neighbourhood plans to have real teeth, promotion of micro-scale developments, encouragement of more smaller local builders and the closing of loopholes for creeping developers to exploit should be clear objectives of his plan and his Bill?
From discussions with town and parish councillors, in Potton, Upper Caldecott, Everton and Harrold in particular, I know that those are aspects of reform that are crucial to them. Reassurance of the power of democratic involvement in the planning of local communities is particularly important to North East Bedfordshire given the scale of change. Will the Minister also advise me what his Department sees as the respective roles of the spatial framework, development corporations and local authorities in setting and meeting housing targets in my constituency?
Finally, I have some further points on the planning Bill. Given the market failure in house building, greater recognition of the social contract is needed in fulfilling the country’s ambitions of making home ownership more accessible. The Local Government Association states that there is already planning permission for more than 1.1 million homes. Currently, there are no real penalties for failure to build when permission is granted. That free ride should end, with existing approvals given a “build by” sunset clause on planning rights and all new permissions issued with a build and council tax schedule.
Without such action, the ability of local authorities to fulfil their part of the social contract—from the national Government’s objective to the local plans for housing, the neighbourhood and parish council’s control over what happens in their communities and builders building what the country demands and requires of them—will be fundamentally undermined. I hope that the Minister will bear those particular concerns of North East Bedfordshire in mind.
The value of the debate for me has been in being able to demonstrate to the Minister that in one of the constituencies in the country that is facing some of the most considerable change—potential and current, of which house building is a crucial part—his Department and his ambitions for the planning Bill can have real impact and real contact. I hope that he will take away some of the points that I have made as he finalises his preparations for the planning Bill.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and a great pleasure to reply to the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is a doughty champion for his constituents. I am grateful to him for his kind words. He is right; we will always continue to engage in dialogue to make sure that we get planning reforms right, particularly for his constituency. I think I am speaking to him and his Bedfordshire colleagues later today. We will continue to maintain that dialogue.
I begin by reminding hon. Members that our country does not have enough homes. The average house price in England is about eight times higher than average gross earnings. In London and other parts of the country, including parts of the OxCam arc, it is around 12 times higher. I am pleased that the figures from 2019 to 2020 demonstrate that housing supply increased by some 244,000 new homes—the highest increase in more than 30 years—but we have an unwavering commitment to build more and, by the middle of this decade, to deliver at least 300,000 new homes each year, to ensure that we address the housing challenge.
We have already brought forward a number of proposals with the planning White Paper to improve housing supply—changes to permitted development rights, for example, and changes to use class orders, which make for a more flexible and responsive system and which will allow for the more gentle densification of urban and suburban areas, meaning that the weight can thereby be taken off some of the greener spaces that we all want to protect and enjoy.
We have a bold and ambitious vision for the future of planning and house building in our country, much of which was set out in the White Paper. We will bring forward the planning Bill in this Session of Parliament, which will make the planning process clearer, more accessible and more certain for all users, improving the quality, quantity and speed of home building.
Engagement, as my hon. Friend said, is absolutely crucial. It is not just about building more homes; it is also about engaging more people, and I will say a little bit more about that later in my remarks. We must ensure that the right homes are delivered in the right places for communities across our country and that new development brings with it the schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and transport links that local communities need and that my hon. Friend champions, while at the same time protecting our unmatchable natural environment.
My hon. Friend made a few remarks about local housing need. Let me just say in context that the local housing need numbers for his constituency remain those that we posited back in 2018. They have not changed as a result of the consultation we undertook last year. I also remind him that the standard method for local housing need calculation does not set a target; it is simply a starting point in the process of planning for new homes. Local authorities will still need to consider any constraints that they face locally to assess how many homes can be built in their area, as opposed to how many the local housing need calculation may suggest. I point him to my “Dear colleague” letter—from memory, I think it was on 18 December last year—which makes that very clear. I congratulate him on the work that his own council is doing in making sure that homes are built.
The “Planning for the future” White Paper, which we published last year, sets out our vision for the planning system. We had some 44,000 responses to the consultation, which was a very substantial amount of interest. We are working our way through them and consulting stakeholders big and small, as well as colleagues in the House, to ensure that we fully understand the feedback and that we represent and reflect it as best we can. We want to get this right; we do not want to just get it done quickly, and we are taking our time to address the feedback.
Our proposals for reforming the planning system will make it simpler, quicker and more accessible for local people to engage in, which is what I think my hon. Friend wants for his constituents. Now, something like 1% of local people get involved in local plan making—1%. That is not many more than the planning officials in a local authority and their blood relations. The number who get involved in an individual planning application rises to a whacking 3% of the local population. Yet, after what is oftentimes a very tortuous process—planning applications can take five years to go through—nine in every 10, 90%, are passed. That suggests to me a system that is not particularly engaging and not necessarily a very democratic one, in which communities have a real say in what is built around them. We want to change that with our reforms. We want to modernise the system and, through digitalisation, local communities can have a much clearer say in what is built for them, how it looks, where it goes, what the infrastructure should be and what the design of the buildings should be, too.
My hon. Friend pointed out the importance of “infrastructure first”. We agree with that. I will certainly be very happy to take forward his request with my colleagues in the Department for Education and in the Department of Health and Social Care, but let me say that the infrastructure levy that we propose is designed to ensure that developers pay for their fair share of affordable housing and infrastructure through a simpler, faster and more transparent infrastructure levy. We all know that section 106, which takes up the lion’s share of developer contributions, is slow, rather like the planning system; is opaque, rather like the planning system; and results, rather like the planning system, in outcomes that were not necessarily expected by the local community at the outset of their expectations.
The levy will be collected and spent at local level, with up-front infrastructure priorities such as schools and GP surgeries being at the heart of the proposition. It will also, incidentally, enable the speedy introduction of our First Homes initiative, which will enable local first-time buyers, including key workers, to get on the housing ladder by providing them with discounted properties. In constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, and nearby constituencies, where the cost of housing is oftentimes significantly above average earnings, that will be a mechanism to help his local constituents stay local, get on the property ladder and achieve their aspiration of having a stake in the country.
That is outwith the national home building fund, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced at the spending review and also at the Budget. It will be some £7.1 billion of funding for infrastructure, which we reckon will unlock something like 860,000 units for housing development across our country.
We also want to create more beautiful places by asking local authorities to develop their own design code, setting the standards that new developments will be expected to meet. One of the biggest concerns that many of our constituents have about new development that is proposed around them is what it will look like: “Is it going to look the way I would like my community to look?” Giving local people and local stakeholders much more say in what those design codes will be will make our planning system that much more consensual. It will also make the design of new builds really coherent with the local community, doing away with the “anywheresville” development that perhaps too many places have suffered from for too long.
We will publish the responses to the White Paper as soon as we can. However, as I said, we want to get this right and get it done quickly. There will be plenty of opportunities for colleagues across the House to continue to talk to Ministers to ensure that we get the proposals right.
My hon. Friend raised a number of questions about the OxCam arc. Let me say in introduction that we believe the OxCam arc, over quite a period of time—to the middle of this century—can support the creation of 2 million extra jobs and add over £110 billion a year to our economy. It is one of the fastest growing economic areas of our country, so there is a real opportunity to engender prosperity and growth for people. However, I am conscious that he has some concerns, so let me say that the ambition to build 1 million homes in the OxCam arc was a recommendation of the National Infrastructure Commission’s “Partnering for Prosperity” report. While we want to see more homes built, and let us remember that the OxCam arc is not a small space—it stretches from the north of Northamptonshire right down to the border with London—let me be clear that the 1 million homes number is not a specific Government policy or indeed a target. However, we do want to maximise the number of homes that can be built across the country.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of the environment. We want to ensure that we are baking the Environment Bill’s requirements for biodiversity net gain and nature recovery networks into our planning reforms. We are working out how most effectively to do that as the Environment Bill becomes an Act and we need to take it into account.
My hon. Friend also mentioned East West Rail. The railway will pass through North East Bedfordshire. I point him to the commitment that the Government have made to explore new settlement opportunities around stations such as Tempsford and the St Neots area so that, subject to appropriate community consultation, development can be delivered in the right places and in the right way. We are supporting Bedford Borough Council to develop its locally led vision for the realisation of the full benefits of East West Rail. I am sure that my hon. Friend has contributed to the consultation, which closes today, and I encourage anybody else who still has the time to do so. However, may I reinforce the message that while we are working with places, including Bedford, to understand opportunities for more housing and what advantages East West Rail will bring, housing targets continue to be determined by planning policy and by local plans?
My hon. Friend also asked to hear a commitment from the Government about the involvement of local people and local communities in the planning process, and when changes are made their voices need to be heard. Let me agree with him. It is absolutely our intent to engage more people in the planning process at an earlier point in the process so they can have a real say in how their communities are designed—what should go where and what it should look like. We believe that the proposals, which we are refining and will bring forward shortly, will achieve that purpose of more engagement and more say where it counts.
If I have not answered my hon. Friend’s remaining questions, I am happy to write to him, meet him or speak to him through whatever forum to allay any concerns or address any ideas he has. May I congratulate him on securing this important debate for his constituents? I hope that he and you, Sir Graham, will see that the Government are committed to delivering a planning system that will truly level up for all communities in our country; a system that is fit for purpose and that works for all. It will deliver a faster, more transparent and more predictable outcome for everybody, so that we build the homes that we need, to the design that we want and to the standards that we expect, with the infrastructure that communities need, and we can all be proud of our planning for the future.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).
Human Rights in Hong Kong
(2 years, 10 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating that they must remain here for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members are attending virtually and have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks. The email address is westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn unless you are speaking. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can only speak from the horseshoe, where there are microphones.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered human rights in Hong Kong.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. This is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have initiated. It is a privilege to speak, and I am grateful that this debate has been selected. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand it when I say that I wish I was not here. I wish none of us was here today to discuss this matter. This debate was entirely avoidable had international obligations been met.
Let me say at the outset what this debate is not about. It is not about colonialism or interference by a former colonial power. In his final act as Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten telegrammed London to announce,
“I have relinquished the administration of this government.”
The 156 years of British rule over Hong Kong ended on 1 July 1997, and we are not here to debate taking it back.
Hong Kong was handed over to China following an agreement that took the form of an international treaty lodged at the United Nations, which both the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China entered into freely. It is right that we consider whether that agreement—the Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong—is being upheld and whether it meets our and Hongkongers’ legitimate expectations.
The joint declaration was signed in December 1984. The text sets out the basis on which Hong Kong would be returned to China. It states:
“The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.”
It goes on to say:
“The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
I submit to you, Ms Ghani, that all those rights and freedoms have been diminished in modern-day Hong Kong.
Last year, China passed a national security law for Hong Kong that created a number of chilling measures. A new security office with its own personnel has been established by China in Hong Kong, outside local jurisdiction. Some criminal cases can now be tried in mainland China. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive has the power to appoint judges to hear national security cases.
The law includes many broad-brush offences, including
“provoking by unlawful means hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the Central People’s Government or the Government of the Region, which is likely to cause serious consequences.”
Given the extraterritorial nature of the legislation, it might well apply to those of us participating in this debate.
However, this debate is not about history, rules or what might happen to Members of Parliament; it is about people such as Donna Kong, who has lived in Hong Kong her whole life but has decided to take the difficult decision to leave her family behind and move with her husband to Liverpool. She says:
“Nowadays, we have to be careful what we say on the streets.”
Her husband adds:
“Hong Kong is going from a free, international city to just another Chinese city.”
It is about people such as Jimmy Lai, who was jailed in April 2021 for his participation in a peaceful protest in 2019. In reality, it was because he has the temerity to publish a newspaper that criticises the Government. It is about people such as Martin Lee, a barrister and member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong for over 20 years, who is regarded and revered as the father of democracy in Hong Kong. He has been silenced by the national security law. He has stopped his public activism and is no longer granting media interviews. He has also been sentenced for participating in an unlawful assembly, although his sentence was suspended.
The crackdown on human rights in Hong Kong has been all pervasive, and I will give some examples. The legislature has passed an immigration Bill to restrict freedom of movement in and out of Hong Kong. The police chief has floated the idea of a law to target so-called fake news, and he has called for the closure of Jimmy Lai’s Apple Daily, the last pro-democracy publication. Police have censored a website belonging to a Taiwanese church. The Government have attacked the Hong Kong Bar Association and fired 129 civil servants for refusing to sign an oath of allegiance. The local broadcaster, RTHK, has purged its online platform of any shows over a year old but given Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, her own television show, which is shown four times every day. So-called national security education is to be embedded across the curriculum in all secondary schools.
The examples I have given are from April 2021 alone—just one month in the life of Hongkongers—so I welcome the steps taken by the Government in response to China’s actions. The Government have suspended the UK’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and extended to Hong Kong the embargo on certain military items already imposed on mainland China. I particularly welcome the new visa route to people from Hong Kong who have British national overseas status and their close family members. It is a generous offer that befits a global Britain that takes this issue seriously, and I am pleased that the Home Office has announced that it has received 34,000 applications for visas in the first two months of operation.
The Government recognise that there is an ongoing breach of Chinese obligations, and I ask whether further measures might be taken. Is there scope to work with allies and partners to ensure a co-ordinated approach? I read recently that Germany will not accept BNO passports as identity documents, and it is important that democracies take a common line on such matters. We continue to have British judges sitting on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal—a position that perhaps looks increasingly untenable as the current situation continues. As we are able to identify officials in Hong Kong who are guilty of human rights breaches, I ask whether it is time to consider targeted sanctions against them, or at least to assess their effectiveness. Previously, the Minister has kindly indicated that he would be willing to meet me and fellow members of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong to discuss this subject, and I am very willing to take him up on that offer.
There is no dispute resolution clause in the Sino-British joint declaration, but it is a living document, and the United Kingdom is party to it. This country has a duty to protect the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. Until such time as those freedoms are restored, I expect that the voices from this island will only get louder. I look forward to hearing some of those voices this afternoon.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
What we are seeing in Hong Kong is a two-pronged assault on truth. First, China attacks the source of truth—reporting—by threatening and expelling journalists who expose the extent of China’s authoritarian behaviour. Secondly, China creates an Orwellian alternative narrative in which those who tell the truth are the liars, and those who commit violent acts of repression are the liberators.
China’s leaders hate journalism. At the end of March, the BBC’s China correspondent was driven out of Hong Kong. Plain-clothes goons followed him and his family to the airport. This was not an isolated case. Most independent foreign correspondents have now been expelled, as Beijing proceeds to eliminate the last vestiges of Hong Kong’s freedom. With this in mind, it is hardly surprising to see China being ranked by the World Press Freedom Index as one of the worst countries in the world for media freedoms; it is ranked a dismal 177th.
Once upon a time, some thought that Hong Kong could be a beacon for China, spreading its values to the mainland. Instead, the opposite has happened. Under its current leader, China has become ever more controlling and hostile to the truth. Hong Kong is merely the latest victim of a malign system that has trampled on press freedoms, democracy, cultural and religious minorities, and once independent nations, as the downtrodden and oppressed people of Tibet, the Uyghurs and many others can testify.
Journalistic censorship is paired with other despotic trademarks, disinformation being the foremost. In the digital world in which we live, it is not enough for the Chinese leadership to stem information coming from legitimate news outlets; information from normal citizens must also be quashed. China employs what is sometimes called the 50 cent army, so-called because of their meagre daily pay. Thought to number millions, these Communist party drones track online activity and work to sway public opinion with disinformation both inside China and outwith. Bots counter unfavourable reports and conversations about the Chinese regime.
It is a tactic deployed by the Kremlin, too, and it is spreading across the globe. During the recent onslaught against Gaza by the Israelis, there were mounting reports of another onslaught—the mass reporting by pro-Israeli groups of Palestinian posts from Gaza. This is a new world in which social media is weaponised by the powerful.
What can we do when faced with this bleak descent into untruth? We must champion journalism; we must speak up when we are told that there are “alternative facts”; we must steel the resolve of social media companies when they crumble under the weight of totalitarian pressure and their own avarice; we must speak the names of those who are bullied, arrested and imprisoned; we must honour the memory of those brave young people crushed by the Chinese regime in Tiananmen Square; we must assert the rights of the Uyghurs, and call out their detention and torture; we must champion the right of Tibet to self-determination; and we must never accept Hong Kong’s slide into the grim and oppressive reality faced by so many in mainland China, because we promised its people better.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Ms Ghani, it is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your stewardship.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing this debate, on what is indeed the issue of the moment. It has not gone away; it will not go away. The debate is timely, because the G7 starts its meeting tomorrow and, frankly, if its major conclusion is not that China has become the greatest threat to liberal democracy here and around the world, it will have failed. It is as simple as that.
Today, we are talking about Hong Kong, but we could just as easily be talking about the suppression—nay, the genocide—of the Uyghurs; or about the suppression—nay, the genocide—of Tibetans; or about the increasing pressure on the Inner Mongolians, the Falun Gong or Christians. This is a regime that is intolerant, dictatorial and brutal. It accepts no difference from its dictated opinions and views, and any attempt to question it is treated with brutality and incarceration, without any possibility of a free or serious trial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is quite right to have made the point that this regime has now trashed a particular international agreement. It has broken what it agreed to do regarding the rights, privileges and freedoms in Hong Kong under the “one state, two systems” model. I suspect that the real reason for that is that the Chinese Communist party signed the original Sino-British agreement only because it believed that it would act as a magnet for the reintroduction of Taiwan completely under the umbrella of its state authority. The problem is that the elected Government in Taiwan rejects that future. On that basis, China can see no reason why it should continue with this troublesome area in Hong Kong, where people have been campaigning —we would say legitimately and freely—for the right to express their views, for a free press, and for democracy. For the Chinese Government, that is no longer necessary. The suppression that has followed has been swift, but in a way somewhat predictable; without the reason for Hong Kong to exist in this separate state, it must now be crushed.
It is quite interesting to see what they have done in the past month. They have fired civil servants and the rest of the leaders of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement; introduced national security education for children as young as six; amended Hong Kong’s electoral system to bar pro-democracy parties from running; and passed an immigration law that would allow officials to restrict freedom of movement into and out of the city. Arrests, prosecutions and jail sentences have been happening behind closed doors.
I question why British judges are still earning a living in Hong Kong. I believe it is no longer possible for them to argue that they are modifying or ameliorating the situation. All they are doing is giving, in a sense, a bit of succour to a brutal, intolerant and debased regime. The Bar Council here should speak to those who are earning a living in Hong Kong and say, “It is time to draw stumps and come home.” I call on them to do that.
The arrests and prosecutions are staggering: 10,000 people have been arrested and 2,300 charged since the anti-extradition protests started in 2019. Imprisonment for 10 years to life is now the norm, and subversion, secession, collusion with foreign political forces and terrorism are the new laws. They could have just put down terrorism because they are going to find them guilty anyway, so they might as well make it simple; I don’t know why they bothered with the others. However, they have gone through this prolonged process—no doubt they think it somehow persuades people.
I am worried about the way this is going. Children as young as six are being taught to memorise the four crimes under the national security law that I have just mentioned. Schools are to inform police and parents about incidents involving political propaganda, and Hong Kong universities have now fired pro-democracy academics and cut ties with their student unions, following direction from Beijing.
The real question is: what can we do? We have already done a lot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has mentioned. The BNO passports are key, although the Chinese are threatening not to recognise them, nor to allow people to leave the country on those BNO passports. I am saddened, but not astonished, by Germany’s response. I do not know if the German Government will one day wake up to the idea that no matter how much they appease the Chinese, it never works. The idea that they depend on Chinese manufacturers for their own requirements and therefore do not want to upset the Government is one of the grave errors taught to us by history. Once started down that road, such a dependency leads further and further, so I hope they will review that.
I want more Magnitsky sanctions on Hong Kong and Chinese officials, and I would extend those further to those involved in the dreadful Uyghur massacres. We must also offer assistance to Hong Kong residents born after 1997. The BNO visa scheme currently does not cover Hongkongers born after 1997, including many young Hong Kong students who are now vulnerable to arrest. I say to my hon. Friend from the Foreign Office, the Minister for Asia, that we should work with like-minded partners to ensure that there are lifeboat schemes for these young Hongkongers.
Ministers should ensure that Hong Kong is on the agenda at the G7—I started with that point and it is vital, so I want to come back to it at the end. I want the Government to review the rules around UK investment in companies that are complicit in human rights abuse and to be much more explicit about the supply chains, so that every single business or investor in the UK or abroad knows what the links are to the main companies all the way down the chain. That has not happened and it must happen.
I believe that this is the single biggest threat facing liberal democracy that currently exists. We are being complacent. We have run to China to do business and, across the western world, we have therefore turned a blind eye to the abuses taking place for too long. The lessons of the 1930s tell us that if we assume that what Governments say is not what they mean, then we are destined to be trapped in the reality of what they do. That is where we are now.
At the G7, which starts tomorrow, I would like my Government to insist that by the end of the meeting we make a clear, unequivocal, united statement that we will no longer put up with the abuses and the nature of the Chinese Government in their attacks on their neighbours and on their own people who live in China. If we do that, then just maybe we will have started the beginning of the change that will secure and rescue our own democracy and our own people’s freedom.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on bringing this important and vital matter before the House. It is always an honour to speak after the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who made an excellent speech. If ever, as a country and as a people, we should be thankful for our freedom to worship and to think openly—our freedoms generally—it must be today when we consider the weight of the matter before us.
I speak as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. I will focus my comments specifically on article 38 of the Hong Kong national security law. If we look at that law and its full effect, it makes this meeting of Parliament and every single one of us here today, as well as those who are watching the proceedings, guilty of breaching that national security law.
Under article 38, the global extraterritorial jurisdiction remit, those measures mean that each of us could stand accused of collusion, sedition, terrorism and subversion against China with a foreign country. Just think of that: China has reached into this country and effectively passed a law that says that what we dare to talk about today is unlawful and that we could be held accountable for it if we went over to Hong Kong or China. Anyone who has lobbied us about this matter would also be guilty under that law.
Even friends of Beijing—there may be some MPs who are attending this debate or watching it who are openly or secretly friends of Beijing—are vulnerable because they have spoken about, participated in or associated themselves with the seditious practice that article 38 of the national security law brings about. As an officer of the APPG on Hong Kong, I certainly would not expect to go to Hong Kong anytime soon; neither should any hon. Member attending the debate.
This is a human rights issue that not only affects Hongkongers but affects anyone who dares to speak out or address some of the seditious issues that are ongoing. It is a breach of freedom, including freedom of religion. As we heard from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), it is a breach of freedom of expression by journalists. It is a clampdown on the right to worship, whether people are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Hindu, or practise any other religion. That freedom of worship is now officially to be oppressed.
It saddens me that I cannot mention in public, or in public prayer or in any of my speeches, my friends in the various mission groups that I have worked with in the past in Hong Kong. Hongkongers who wish to profess the name of their saviour can only do so under fear.
As parliamentarians, we have a duty to speak out. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that under the G7 our Government have signed up to article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. That is a right to the freedom of religious belief and expression and a freedom to worship.
If my Hong Kong friend and pastor, whom I know very well but whom I will not name because that would be unfair because of the effect it could have on his family, were to come here and preach in one of our local churches in Northern Ireland, or even in his own church in Hong Kong, he would do so under the fear of breaking this national security law. That law can be interpreted only by Beijing. This is persecution and torture, and it is via the long arm of the state.
The bamboo curtain on freedom and toleration is falling, and fast. Our nation must speak out about the freedom of religions, journalists and businesses to practise in the way they wish without being tortured or in fear of being tortured in future.
The UK potentially faces a tsunami of millions of Hongkongers coming to Europe. I welcome the decision to grant the Hong Kong British national overseas visa, I must say; I think I cheered out loud when I heard that the Government had shown the courage to do that. However, this potentially puts massive pressure on the UK Government, and it is a pressure that we must be prepared for. The UK has a duty to place each part of this country into a state of preparedness, so that we have sufficient school places, housing locations, jobs and opportunities for these people, who will have a right to be here and whom we should welcome with open arms, because we should be a place of refuge for the persecuted. We need a plan, and we need it now. I hope that the Foreign Office and Home Office will bring that home soon.
Finally, I respectfully ask, urge and implore China to respect that Hong Kong is different from mainland China. I urge our new consul to make a strong case for the Hongkongers. I call for the release of the peaceful protesters who are already in jail and face persecution. I call on the Government in China to fulfil the Sino-British joint declaration on freedom and the rule of law. I challenge HSBC, as others no doubt will in the debate, not to do the dirty work of Beijing, clamping down on people for making a living and having their rights. I will leave those thoughts with hon. Members. I hope the debate goes some way in expressing the anger and contempt for what has happened to these dear people in Hong Kong.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
To ensure that we can get all Back Benchers in to speak, I will have to impose a time limit of four and a half minutes.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing this important and timely debate on Hong Kong and add my voice in support of the arguments he made so powerfully this afternoon.
Last Friday marked the 32nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, when the Chinese Communist party brutally repressed pro-democracy protests in 1989, killing thousands and causing panic among Hongkongers, many of whom were refugees from Chairman Mao’s purges and feared authoritarian communist rule. That was five years after Margaret Thatcher had signed the Sino-British joint declaration with Deng Xiaoping, agreeing to hand over Hong Kong to China in 1987. In 1982, Deng told Mrs Thatcher that he could
“walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”
if he wanted to, to which she replied, if he did,
“the eyes of the world would now know what China is like.”
Well, the Tiananmen Square massacre showed the world what China was really like, and its disregard for the rights of its own citizens.
The Sino-British joint declaration was supposed to guarantee Hong Kong’s freedom, the rule of law and a way of life unchanged for a period of 50 years. It was a legally binding treaty, lodged at the United Nations, underpinning Hong Kong’s mini- constitution and provided the Basic Law with freedom of expression, a free press and an independent judiciary, and the right of Hongkongers to participate in free elections. However, the national security law introduced by Beijing is nothing less than an all-out assault on the autonomy of Hong Kong and its freedoms and a complete violation of that treaty. The pace of the decline of one of the most open and international cities in Asia is shocking and should alarm each and every one of us.
As the co-signatory of the joint declaration and the guarantor of Hong Kong’s autonomy, Her Majesty’s Government must take more determined action. First, there must be a punitive cost for the Hong Kong and Chinese officials who are guilty of dismantling the city’s autonomy and are engaged in cracking down on the pro-democracy movement. All individuals involved in the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong should be subject to co-ordinated Magnitsky sanctions, with the Government working in tandem with our allies.
Secondly, we must do more to support those brave young protesters, many of whom face the prospect of arrest under the draconian law but do not qualify for the Government’s BNO visa scheme. We should make an exception for those born after 1997 who cannot come over as dependants. Thirdly, the Government must stand up for the pro-democracy activists in jail who have British citizenship. The British Government have a duty and responsibility to defend British citizens from Chinese Government oppression. Finally, the Government should not allow the United Kingdom’s chairmanship of this week’s G7 summit to go to waste. Hong Kong must be on the agenda, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made clear. It is both the right time and the right forum to press for co-ordinated action from the world’s leading democracies. That should include the creation of a UN special rapporteur for Hong Kong.
The crisis in Hong Kong represents a substantial challenge to the idea of global Britain. The people of Hong Kong look to the United Kingdom, as a once-proud Crown colony, to lead the international response. Her Majesty’s Government simply cannot let them down.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. The UK Government have abandoned the people of Hong Kong, who once shared much of their national identity with ours. That is shameful. Over the past year we have had countless debates on the atrocious actions of the Chinese regime, but its human rights abuses continue, and we cannot condone that. Magnitsky sanctions have rightly been placed on Chinese Communist party officials responsible for the horrors of the Uyghur genocide, but there is no such action for their counterparts in Hong Kong.
We must not stand by as Beijing violates the independence of Hong Kong, imposing the oppressive national security law, manipulating the electoral system so that pro-democracy politicians cannot stand, expelling judges and ruthlessly arresting and abusing people who wish to challenge them. After years of the Chinese Government stripping Hong Kong of its basic access to freedom and democracy, we must show Hongkongers that we will not leave them high and dry. A year ago, Hong Kong Watch launched its international lifeboat scheme, and called for the UK to join international partners to provide refuge for those fleeing Hong Kong.
Extending the BNO visa to those wishing to leave Hong Kong was most welcome. Recent figures show that that has been taken up by nearly 35,000 people. However, it does not go far enough. We must make provision for young people from Hong Kong born after 1997, who are just as entitled to UK support and protection as their parents, and for the protesters who have bravely risked safety to challenge Beijing’s authoritarian takeover and now face serious criminal charges. We cannot just pull up the drawbridge.
Growing up in Hong Kong is dangerous not only for those activists; children as young as six years old—my child’s age—are being taught the national security doctrine in school. There are restrictions on what students can learn and discuss in universities; they are growing up with more and more limited access to neutral news sources. I ask the Minister, what will Britain do to fulfil our obligations to those children and young people? Will he join me in saying that we must not just stand with Hong Kong but stand up for Hong Kong? That means action. What action will the Government take?
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing such an important debate.
Today marks two years since the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, which were attended by hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and backgrounds. That mighty display of people power symbolised an unwavering belief in civic values, hope and optimism for change, and a refusal to be cowed by the Communist party in Beijing. Two years on, however, every single person in the free world has a duty to feel horrified about the events taking place in Hong Kong, a supposedly free society.
Beijing detests dissent of any description, and in the past few years, it has tightened its stranglehold over free Hong Kong. The final straw was the huge protests against the extradition Bill. Almost immediately, Beijing imposed a security law straight out of the mainland Chinese playbook. What is most disturbing is that that repression was not discreet and creeping as one might have expected; instead, the Chinese are so brazen that they have turned Hong Kong into Shanghai overnight, banning vigils, destroying controversial books and libraries, and making mass arrests. It has sent a chill through society in Hong Kong. The grotesque policing of attempts to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre are testament to that. If that overnight transformation of society can happen in Hong Kong, it can happen anywhere.
There is no doubt in my mind that Britain is solely responsible for Hong Kong’s fate. We have a singular and enduring responsibility toward the people of Hong Kong as a former ruling power and the guarantor of the freedoms secured in the Sino-British joint declaration. Regrettably, we have not covered ourselves in glory in that role. There are no other examples of a leading democracy handing over a free society to an authoritarian regime that clearly could not be trusted. We failed again in the 1990s, when we made a grave and unforgivable mistake by granting Hongkongers a bespoke class of British citizenship in the run-up to the handover, abdicating our responsibilities. We have not done nearly enough to challenge China and make it pay for its actions.
Hundreds of thousands of British nationals have been left to their fate, and Asia’s brightest light is going out, with many fearing that Hong Kong will become just another Chinese city. We cannot stand by and watch. This is not only an attack on the people of Hong Kong, but a direct Chinese insult to the UK as a signatory of the joint declaration. In many ways, we have failed Hong Kong, and that failure occurred the moment we trusted China’s empty promises. That failure is evidenced by Hongkongers’ wholesale rejection of the PRC and everything it stands for, and their continued association with Britain. Hongkongers of course have their own proud sense of identity, but they also look to us as a guarantor of their freedoms and as a beacon of democracy.
I welcome the fact that this Government have somewhat corrected that previous folly by providing a pathway to full citizenship for British nationals overseas—that is commendable. I greatly look forward to welcoming Hongkongers to Britain, where they will make a hugely positive contribution to our society, but we could and must do so much more on all fronts.
What can be done? First, we must review British involvement, and the involvement of British nationals, in the Hong Kong police and judiciary, as we must not be complicit in Chinese oppression. Secondly, we must support Hongkongers who do not qualify for the BNO scheme. One of the few things that Portugal did right in Macau was to guarantee full Portuguese citizenship to all Macanese people. We have implemented that for our overseas territories, so we must look at it again for Hong Kong. Thirdly, we must marshal a strong and co-ordinated international response against China to make the Chinese think again. They must realise that this conduct is not acceptable anywhere, whether in the south China sea, Tibet, Xinjiang, the Indian borders or Taiwan.
Fourthly, and most importantly, we must never trust China again. The one country, two-systems model has been proven to be lie, and we must not be swayed by short-term financial dividends when dealing with China, as we know that by doing so, we will pay dearly in the long term. Lastly, young Hongkongers are the future of the city. We must do everything in our power to support them in their resistance, both here and in Hong Kong. I am certain that if we put those policies into action, freedom will once again reign from Gloucester Road to Victoria Peak, from Stanley to Aberdeen, from the Admiralty to Lamma Island, and from Kowloon to Queensway.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Ghani. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on securing this debate. One of the things that he was quite right to say in his introduction was that this should not be about the history of our relationship with Hong Kong, and it is certainly not about recreating some sort of imperial past.
I think our own recent history with regard to the territory is worth reflecting on. The position in which we find ourselves today has not happened overnight; it is the product of three decades—possibly more—of British foreign policy and our determination to put commercial interests over human rights. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong with Baroness Bennett, and I am also a patron of Hong Kong Watch. We have seen a repeated pattern of people telling us, when we speak about human rights, “Maybe just wind your neck in. There is another deal coming. There is a delegation going. There is going to be a visit or a conference.”
In the years since we completed and entered into the joint declaration, we have essentially sent all the wrong signals, and that has brought us to where we are today. I am genuinely delighted that the Government have taken the action they have on BNO passport holders. How much better and stronger might our position be if we had done that at the point of handover in 1997? That was surely the point at which we could have sent a signal that we intended to stand with the people of Hong Kong. Our failure at that time was seen by the Chinese Government as an indication that we perhaps did not mean the things we said in the joint declaration.
That is ironic, when one considers that we entered into the joint declaration because of our experience in relation to the Falkland Islands. That was another instance where we had sent the wrong signals to a despotic regime, which then thought it could take advantage of that. We tried to avoid the same thing happening again by entering into the joint declaration, but we do not seem to have learned the lessons.
There are a couple of issues I want to touch on briefly. The first relates to the position of the BBC in Hong Kong and China. Its relationship with Radio Television Hong Kong as its local partner is becoming increasingly problematic. On 1 March this year, the new head of RTHK, a career civil servant, Patrick Li, took charge. He pledged editorial independence, but he said that there cannot be “freedom without restraint”. George Orwell would have been proud of that one. With the World News TV channel taken off air in China, and the blocking of news channels and internet provision for years, we have to look at what more we can do to support the World Service, which is still the blue chip standard in broadcasting around the world.
Secondly, I would like to hear more from Government about what we are saying to financial institutions, such as HSBC and Standard Chartered, that have come out in support of the national security law. That we allow them to continue to operate as normal in this country seems to contradict what we say of our intentions towards Hong Kong. It has been reported that there have been no fewer than 16 private meetings between the Treasury and those two banks in the six months from July to December 2020. What was said at those meetings, and why are we still engaging on a business-as-usual basis?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing his first Westminster Hall debate on such an important issue.
I have just visited a school in my constituency, Oasis Academy South Bank, just over the river on Westminster Bridge Road. Students, ranging from year 7 to year 13, spoke to me about issues across the world and why it is so important for us in the UK to call out human rights abuse. We cannot, as a country, say that we stand in support of democracy if we do not call out the injustices that are happening right across the world.
Many of my constituents have written to me because they are concerned about what is happening in Hong Kong. There is no doubt that what is occurring is a severe breach of human rights. In 2017, activists Alex Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong were given draconian prison sentences for taking part in democracy protests. The protest movement has been driven by disfranchised young people who just want representation, like our young people in this country do. A year ago this month, the Chinese Government introduced the national security law in Hong Kong, which gives Beijing the power to interpret laws in Hong Kong independently of any judicial or local policy body. Since then, the law has been used to crack down on pro-democracy activists and politicians. That is not right and cannot be happening in 2021.
In January, 55 leading pro-democracy figures were arrested for simply exercising their legitimate democratic rights. On 30 March, the election laws were changed to vet those running in the elections according to their patriotism. Taken together, those incidents suggest a really worrying trend in the rapid and dangerous erosion of human rights for Hong Kong nationals. There is no sign of that stopping, which means that the current sanctions are insufficient to deter China from its chosen path of action.
As a signatory to the joint declaration, the UK is in a unique position to guarantee a high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong until at least 2047. As a country we must therefore redouble our efforts to protect the people and the sovereignty of Hong Kong. When he responds, will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking to protect the basic human rights that we are all guaranteed, and will the Government impose sanctions on the Chinese officials who are responsible for the crackdown on pro-democracy campaigners?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
It is always difficult and frustrating to identify what effective role we MPs can play when there is abuse of human rights across the world. My view is that we can at least bear witness to what is happening and then mobilise for action, whether it is in Gaza, Yemen or Hong Kong. At least we can call it out. In the few minutes I have, I want to bear witness to what is happening to my trade union colleagues—they have become friends during campaigns over the years—who are part of the Hong Kong 47 trial.
I have worked with Lee Cheuk Yan, the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. Carol Ng was the chair of the trade union confederation until her imprisonment in February. I worked with Carol in the British Airways dispute, when she was a Unite rep. Winnie Yu is chair of the health workers’ union—one of the new unions formed in late 2019—which had a five-day strike in January 2019 against the Hong Kong Administration’s early covid complacency. They are all up before the courts and in prison. What worries me is that at the hearing on Monday 31 May, the Department of Justice declared its wish to move the trial from the district court to the high court. That implies that the sentences for the Hong Kong 47, which includes my friends, will exceed the limit of seven years that the district court is limited to. The maximum sentence could be up to life imprisonment.
At Monday’s hearing, my friends’ defence attorney asked for clarification that the trial would be conducted in an open court with a jury, and the prosecutors refused to give that assurance, so there is a real possibility that the judges will be able to convict without press or public scrutiny. The next hearing is on 8 July, at which it will be decided whether the trial will be public and whether there will be a jury. It is critical that we maximise pressure through our own Government, and through civil society here and internationally, and seek at least the openness of that trial.
Lee Cheuk Yan is still bravely agitating from jail. His sentences for illegal unauthorised assembly are piling up. So far he has accumulated 20 months, but there are more trials to follow. As with all trade unionists engaged in international dialogue, the regime might at some stage deem his work there a coalition with foreign powers and in breach of the national security law. That is my fear. Another prominent target of the regime is Leung Kwok-hung, widely known as “Long Hair”. He is an avowed left-wing socialist in the League of Social Democrats and so far has accumulated at least 24 months—and it just goes on.
I have listened to the other speeches, and of course I support the calls for Magnitsky sanctions and the accommodation of younger BNO passport holders born after 1997. I also agree with those who have pointed out the role that British companies are playing, and we have to address this matter. They lobbied the Prime Minister to try to get him to tone down the Government’s criticisms. Swire, the company that owns Cathay Pacific, led the way in sacking staff who supported the democracy movement. We know about HSBC and Standard Chartered bank, of course, but what about Jardine Matheson? They supported the national security law, and—I say this to colleagues in other parties—they were also Tory donors. We have a duty to call out UK corporations who are the sponsors of the Chinese regime’s repression in Hong Kong.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chinese Communist party has continued to dismantle Hong Kong’s autonomy at a worrying pace. This month marks the 32nd anniversary of Tiananmen Square and the second year that the Hong Kong authorities banned a vigil in memory of the atrocity. It would have been a meaningful show of solidarity had the British consulate in Hong Kong put candles in its windows to commemorate that anniversary, as the US and EU consulates did. It is disappointing that that did not happen.
We must condemn the arrest of Chow Hang Tung and continue to do all in our power to support those fighting for democracy. Western democracies need to show a united front against the Chinese Communist party’s attempt to silence historical truth. British foreign policy must be even more vocal in standing up for human rights. I urge the Minister to push for the creation of a UN special rapporteur for Hong Kong to monitor the human rights situation in the city, as we have heard about today.
Perhaps the biggest thing the UK can do to help Hongkongers is to make it easier for those with BNO status to make their lives here. The number of people who applied in the first 10 weeks of the citizenship scheme was about 35,000—more than a tenth of the 300,000 that the Government expect to apply in the first five years. The Government’s offer to open their doors to Hongkongers is welcome and supported by all parties.
Allowing people to come is one thing, but giving them the opportunity to make a good life here is another. What steps are the Government taking to support those from Hong Kong who want to make their lives in the UK? A survey conducted by Hongkongers in Britain showed that only half of those who responded have friends in the UK, and even fewer have family here. It is not easy, even in the best of circumstances, for someone to move to a new country thousands of miles away, where they may not know anyone, and to find a job and settle into the community. Imagine how difficult that would be in the middle of a pandemic for someone whose English language skills were initially not so good. From finding employment to using public services and placing their children in schools, many BNOs will need additional assistance to make their lives here in Britain.
Many BNOs in Hong Kong remain fearful that they will not be able to find employment when they reach the UK. The £43 million integration fund to help BNOs and their families settle here is extremely welcome, but there are reports that the UK Government have hugely underestimated the take-up of the offer and concerns that that money will not be enough to meet the scale of the challenge. What additional support will the Government offer to those born after 1997, many of whom have been at the forefront of fighting for democracy in Hong Kong? Can the Minister assure Hongkongers born after 1997 who are claiming asylum in the UK that they will not have their applications rejected and will not face deportation?
Today’s debate is a stark reminder that human rights are under threat in many parts of the world, and increasingly so in China. The plight of Hongkongers, whose history is closely linked to Britain’s, needs our urgent attention. We need to do even more than we have done so far.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Ghani. I know that if you were not in the Chair, you would be here on the Floor of this Chamber making your viewpoints known. I am sure you would like to be doing so, but it is good to have you here in spirit. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on setting the tone of the debate.
The Chinese authorities have committed many human rights abuses in Hong Kong. However, Hong Kong is not an isolated case, and those human rights violations are situated in the context of some of the worst atrocities of the 21st century. Whether it be the forced organ harvesting of practitioners of Falun Gong or the mass incarceration of Uyghur Muslims, the Chinese Communist party has inflicted untold suffering on its citizens. I believe that those concerns must be considered together, because how a state treats its minorities is a reflection of its attitude towards democracy and human rights in general. Just as in Myanmar, with the military’s genocidal treatment of Rohingya Muslims, a minority community has suffered human rights abuses in China. I see all the things that are happening and I despair.
I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I will cite a couple of other issues that the Chinese Communist party has influence over. The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy has said that the severely deteriorating human rights situation in Tibet has reach the level of a crime against humanity, as a result of the CCP’s forced assimilation policies. There are also concerns that up to half a million Tibetans are involved in forced labour in China. Deeply distressing though those reports are, they should not be a surprise to anybody who has been following the plight of the Uyghurs, who have been rounded up in the largest arbitrary detention of a religious group since the holocaust. Nor should it be a surprise to anyone familiar with the China Tribunal’s judgment that China’s campaign of forced organ harvesting against innocent victims is a crime against humanity. The Falun Gong have been central to that. I believe that constitutes one of the world’s worst atrocities.
Hong Kong authorities have used the same rhetoric and have increasingly adopted mainland China’s vague definition of national security to restrict the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association. I welcome the commitment from the Government and the Minister to sanctions against a number of human rights violators in China, but I note that there are many other key figures, such as Carrie Lam in Hong Kong and Chen Quanguo in Xinjiang province, who have thus far avoided sanction by the UK. I ask the Minister to give us some assurance today that those two reprobates —I do not think that is a bad word; the word itself tells a story—will be made accountable for their activities.
The Minister must take the opportunity presented by the upcoming meeting of the G7 to collaborate with international counterparts to take decisive action. The public have called for the 2022 winter Olympics to be moved from Beijing. It would be unthinkable for a state that is actively engaged in crimes against humanity to be allowed to host such a major international event. Demanding that the winter Olympics be removed would send an extremely powerful message.
I also call on the Minister to establish a commission of inquiry on human rights abuses in China. I welcome the Government’s call for Beijing to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights full access to Xinjiang, but China has thus far refused that call and is unlikely to change its position. I believe, as Human Rights Watch has stated, that UN inquiries into abuses have shown that investigations can be comprehensive and credible, even without the Chinese Government’s co-operation. There is ample evidence of the impact of the Chinese Government’s policies on human rights in Hong Kong and elsewhere. A commission of inquiry can be established outside the UN Security Council, and therefore can avoid China’s veto. Let us do the things that we can do and bite these people where it hurts.
We should first introduce sanctions against all violators of human rights in Hong Kong and China; secondly, publicly call for the 2022 winter Olympics to be moved from Beijing; and, thirdly, push for a UN commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in China. Those are three things that I believe this Government—my Government and my Minister—can do. I wish them to do those things. We have a responsibility to speak for the voiceless, who have nobody to speak for them. We are all here united. We want action, and we want our Government to take it.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on an excellent speech, and I am glad to agree with its tone and content. There has been a number of constructive and strong contributions from across the Chamber.
The reality is that we are bound to the people of Hong Kong in a way in which we are not to a number of other people in other places. We owe them a debt of empire. It is a special case. We also owe a legal debt, in that the UK is a part-guarantor of the Sino-British agreement guaranteeing one country, two systems. Hong Kong’s autonomy is guaranteed partially by the UK, and yet the national security law was passed.
Since that law’s passing, more than 100 pro-democracy activists—there were plenty more before that—have been arrested. They face 10 years in jail on trumped-up charges. Joshua Wong has been sentenced to 10 months in prison for attending a peaceful vigil. In a particularly worrying development, on 20 May, Tong Ying-kit was informed that he was not entitled to jury trial for trumped-up terrorism charges. That is significant for everyone under detention.
On academic freedom, the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong have shut down their student unions and massively curtailed freedom of speech on campus, in stark opposition to the activities of Confucius institutes within our boundaries. And it goes on. As we have heard from many right hon. and hon. Members, the situation is deteriorating daily in every way.
The UK has not been idle. It would be churlish of me not to recognise the fact that UK diplomats have been active. In particular, I applaud and recognise the significance of the BNO scheme for the Hongkongers themselves. That is a major, significant commitment. However, I honestly struggle to think of anything that Beijing has refrained from or reversed because of UK Government pressure, be it in Hong Kong or, indeed, anywhere else. The reality is that one country, two systems is dead and it died on the watch of this Government. In the face of Beijing’s wolf warriors, the UK’s tiger has, I am afraid, been somewhat toothless.
As for concrete suggestions, we have heard a number of suggestions today and I will also make some. I echo the call for more Magnitsky-type sanctions against individuals. We have had that discussion before with the Minister. We are not looking for speculation; we are looking for announcements. I appreciate that there will not be speculation, but across the House we want to see progress. The financial assets and business dealings of a number of UK companies need more scrutiny, in particular the actions of the banks and, in that case, especially Standard Chartered and HSBC, which have on occasion acted on behalf of the authorities under very dubious legality.
Speaking of dubious legality, UK judges should absolutely withdraw from the Hong Kong judicial system. They are lending a veneer of credibility and respectability to a system that simply does not merit it. As I and others have said, the Confucius institutes active within the countries of the UK must have far greater scrutiny of their actions than has been the case to date.
I echo calls for a UN special rapporteur on Hong Kong. That would assist in broadening the coalition, which already exists in part, and give it greater focus in scrutinising events in Hong Kong. I also echo those who have said that the G7 is an opportunity to make progress and achieve a wider international alignment—in particular with our friends in the EU, the US and Canada—on sanctions and transparency on Hong Kong and the actions of Beijing.
To conclude, there has been a lot of good agreement across the Chamber, as well as a number of good suggestions. If our Minister takes concrete action, he will continue to have SNP support in his endeavours for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. They are a special case—we are bound to them and it is right that we keep them on our agenda.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) on securing this extremely important debate, and I pay tribute to all those who have contributed. It is striking to see how united we are across the Chamber in our condemnation of the behaviour and activities of Beijing. I hope that the Minister will note the united message that he is hearing. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their powerful and passionate contributions.
The Chinese Government’s assault on Hong Kong’s democratic institutions and their ongoing persecution of pro-democracy activists is a scar on the conscience of the world, but it is of particular importance to our country. Beijing’s actions represent a flagrant violation of international law via the multiple breaches of the Sino-British declaration, including the introduction and application of the national security law. They show contempt for the Hong Kong Basic Law, riding roughshod over the one country, two systems framework, and represent a relentless crackdown on established universal rights and freedoms, such as the right to free speech, media freedom, judicial independence and the right to peaceful protest.
We have seen opposition lawmakers being forced out of office and then a new law being imposed to prevent critics of Beijing from standing for office. We have seen Lee Cheuk-yan, the trade union activist, sentenced to 18 months in prison, simply for attending democratic protests, and others like him have also been targeted. And we have seen Jimmy Lai, the media owner, being jailed for more than a year on spurious charges, while Radio Television Hong Kong’s independence has been compromised, and BBC world radio has been taken off the air following the banning of BBC News in China, which itself came as a result of the BBC’s outstanding and important investigation into the persecution of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang.
Perhaps most tragically of all in Hong Kong, we have seen the arrests and sentencing of scores of liberal pro-democracy activists, including brave young leaders such as Joshua Wong, Ivan Lam and Agnes Chow, and the Hong Kong eight. Increasingly, trials take place in secret and without a jury, utterly undermining the basic foundation of judicial independence upon which Hong Kong’s rule of law is built. In short, the Chinese Government are doing all they can to crush the democratic rights of the Hong Kong people and to assert their own authoritarian and despotic system.
Let me be clear that the Labour party will stand up for democracy, human rights and the rule of law everywhere, and will call out violations wherever they take place. We apply these principles without fear or favour, and we will always encourage the Government to work in partnership with our international allies to defend the values that we cherish.
It is, therefore, a matter of real regret that the UK Government have at times left us in a position of weakness. Consecutive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been naive and complacent in their dealings with the Chinese Communist party leadership. These successive Conservative Governments have eroded the UK’s leverage and influence: first, by leaving the British economy over-reliant on Chinese imports and supply chains, as, shockingly, 57 of our critical national infrastructure supply chains are now reliant on China; and secondly, by failing to form or maintain the alliances on the world stage to defend our values and interests.
In 2015, David Cameron and George Osborne, with enthusiastic support from Boris Johnson, who was then London Mayor, proclaimed a “golden era” of UK-China relations, a strategy designed to open up UK markets to Chinese business and investment, in the expectation that China would fall in line with international norms on trade and human rights. The opposite has happened. Uncompetitive market behaviour by state-backed Chinese firms has contributed to the £19 billion deficit that we are still running with China and, in short, the Chinese Government have failed to align themselves with any of the values or norms that the “golden era” was supposed to be based on.
We have seen the compromising of national and economic security by increased reliance on China, and we have also seen a concerning tendency towards lack of consistency across Government. Of course, we saw the divisions on the genocide amendment to the Trade Act 2021. The UK Government chose to block it, which was a matter of profound regret to the Labour party.
We therefore need a long-term strategy. The Prime Minister has a unique opportunity to deliver this at the G7. It means rebuilding our strategic independence by reducing our exposure to Chinese investment in supply chains. It means addressing the national security issues, particularly around Taiwan. And it really does mean looking at areas where China holds a de facto global monopoly, particularly around rare earth metals, for example.
In the shorter term, we must do more to support the people of Hong Kong. We need more Government support for British nationals overseas, including language support and access to GPs and to housing. We must see a clear route to citizenship for Hongkongers born after 1997 and we must not give up on those who are still campaigning. We need the Magnitsky-type sanctions that have been mentioned by many hon. Members. We need a judge-led inquiry into police brutality, and we need—as the Labour party is calling for—British judges to leave Hong Kong.
British judges are simply lending a veneer of credibility to the undemocratic, broken system. Have the UK Government made an assessment of whether UK judges are protecting the rule of law in Hong Kong or simply legitimising an authoritarian regime? Will the UK Government join the Opposition in taking a clear and principled position? We also need to see action on banks such as HSBC, which, as hon. Members have said, appear to be doing the dirty work of the Chinese Government.
There are so many important actions that the Government can and should take. We should bear in mind that democracy is in retreat across the world. A recent report showed that, for the first time since 2001, authoritarian regimes outnumber democracies. We should take very careful note of that. Hong Kong needs the free world, and the free world needs Hong Kong. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these important issues.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing this debate and to right hon. and hon. Members for their passionate and well-informed contributions on this subject, which we have had an opportunity to debate several times. I am sure this will not be the last time that the issue of Hong Kong is brought to the House. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
I will try to respond to as many as possible of the points raised. As I have said during previous debates on this issue, and as I have written to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, my door and the offices of my officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are always open. We are very keen to discuss the issues on a one-to-one basis. We have a depth of experience and knowledge on King Charles Street and we are more than happy to share it, so I hope we will be able to follow up on that.
As has rightly been said, this has been and continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. As Minister for Asia, I deeply regret not having had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong in better circumstances—some of my predecessors have been able to do so. In saying that, I share the deep concern of this House. That is why we have taken clear and decisive action. We have extended the existing arms embargo on mainland China to include Hong Kong. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we have suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and are creating a new visa route for British nationals overseas, which I will come on to shortly.
As colleagues will know, the Sino-British joint declaration was registered with the United Nations on 12 June 1985. They will also know that the declaration is a legally binding international treaty that remains in force today. This agreement between the United Kingdom and China made clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years from 1997, a point that has already been made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi).
In the agreement, China undertook to uphold the freedoms of speech, of the press and of assembly. It also agreed to keep in force the international covenant on civil and political rights and to maintain the independent judiciary and rule of law. For more than two decades after the handover, those rights and freedoms underpinned Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life.
Right hon. and hon. Members will also be aware that in 2019 and the early part of 2020, Hong Kong experienced a period of deep turmoil and widespread unrest, triggered by proposals that would have allowed extradition to mainland China. We were clear from the outset that the solution to that unrest must come from within Hong Kong and must not be imposed from mainland China. Instead, the Chinese authorities have shown an increasing propensity to breach their obligations in relation to Hong Kong. I think that on that, we are all agreed.
Since last June, Beijing’s actions have led us to declare three breaches of the joint declaration, including significant erosions of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the rights and freedoms of its people. The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing last June contains a slew of measures that directly undermine those rights and freedoms. China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong makes it clear that the territory should put forward and enact its own security legislation, so the direct imposition of the national security law is in clear contravention of that.
Senior Chinese Government figures claimed at the time that this law would target a “tiny number” of criminals who seriously endanger national security, but everybody in this room and watching this debate realises that the law has been used systematically to restrict freedom of expression. It has been brought up today by just about every Member present. We see in the courts the ongoing trials of 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists for their alleged roles in unofficial political primaries last year. Those cases and others demonstrate, in the starkest way, that the national security law is being used to stifle political dissent.
Stephen Kinnock
As the Minister is clearly on the section of his speech relating to legal and judicial matters, does he agree with me and, I think, many other Members here today that the continuing presence of British judges in the Hong Kong judicial system is simply lending a veneer of credibility to a completely broken system, and will he today give us a guarantee that the British Government will be using whatever means necessary to bring that practice to an end?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised that in his remarks, as did many other right hon. and hon. Members. British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years. We really hope that that can continue. However, the national security law poses real questions for the rule of law in Hong Kong—basically, the fundamental protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, which were promised by China in the joint declaration. It is therefore right that the Supreme Court continues to assess the situation in Hong Kong, and that will be done in discussion with the Government.
I am conscious that I have to give my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling a few minutes to speak at the end, so I will try to get through my points and the rest of my remarks in order to allow him to do so. It is clear that the authorities are pursuing politically motivated prosecutions under other laws and against a range of pro-democracy figures. We have heard today about the cases of Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai. On 11 November, China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress imposed new rules to disqualify elected legislators in Hong Kong; those rules contain vague criteria, allowing a wide interpretation. On 30 March, we declared this to be another breach of the joint declaration as it undermined Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed under paragraph 3 and annexe 1 of the declaration.
On 11 March this year, the National People’s Congress unilaterally decided to change Hong Kong’s electoral system without prior consent from Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, giving Chinese authorities greater control over who stands for elected office and over the removal of elected politicians whom the authorities deem unpatriotic. They also reverse China’s promise to Hong Kong, in its own Basic Law, of gradual progress towards universal suffrage and hollow out the Legislative Council even further. As several right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberavon, pointed out, these developments amount to a systematic and determined effort by Beijing to bring Hong Kong under its control. They erase the space for alternative political views and legitimate political debate.
Jim Shannon
What we are really asking for, with respect, is action from our Minister and our Government. Would it be possible to call publicly for the 2022 Winter Olympics to be removed from Beijing; for an independent UN commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in China, which could be held even with China’s veto; and for more sanctions against those violators?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman always makes decisive points. I will come on to the other two points later, but with regard to the Olympics, that is a matter for the British Olympic Association; it is not a matter for the Government to intervene in.
Nigel Adams
No decision has yet been made about diplomatic attendance at the Olympics, but I can tell my right hon. Friend, as the Minister responsible, that that is very much at the forefront of our minds.
We responded quickly and decisively to the enactment of the national security law. The day after the law was imposed, the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament that, after discussions with the Home Secretary, the Government would introduce this bespoke immigration route for British nationals overseas and their dependants, providing a new path to citizenship. This opened on 31 January, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has implemented a welcome settlement package for those who wish to take up the offer. Prior to that, on 20 July, the Foreign Secretary announced the indefinite suspension of our extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and the extension of our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. The extradition treaty will remain suspended until we have safeguards to ensure that it will not be misused under the national security law.
We have also led action in the international community, holding China to account through our presidency of the G7. I will be very surprised if this issue is not discussed either on the agenda or in the corridors of the G7 meeting taking place this week. On 6 October, with Germany, we brought together 39 countries to express our grave concern for Hong Kong and Xinjiang in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly third committee. The Foreign Secretary, in his high-level segment to the Human Rights Council on 22 February, called for the UN to respond, and he undertook to continue to raise international support. More recently, on 5 May, he called on China to act in accordance with its international commitments and legal obligations and to respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms.
I acknowledge that many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), called for sanctions in respect of the events in Hong Kong. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, with the experience of our sanctions regime in Xinjiang, we do not speculate on listings, as to do so would potentially undermine their impact.
In the time I have left, I would like to address some of the points that Members have made. On the issue of young people born since 1997 without family ties who are not eligible for the BNO status, these individuals can still apply using our existing routes to live, work or study in the UK. Specifically, Hong Kong nationals aged between 18 and 30 are eligible to apply to our youth mobility scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised the prospect of Germany not recognising BNO passports, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. We have raised our concerns with the German Government; they have assured us that all UK passports, including BNO passports, are recognised for the purposes of entry and stay in Germany. I have only a minute left. There are a number of issues I need to respond to, so I ask hon. Members to take up my offer of coming to see officials and me in the FCDO and I can address them then, or write to them following this debate.
While the turmoil on the streets of Hong Kong may have lessened since 2019, the underlying situation has certainly deteriorated further. After three breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration in nine months, since March the United Kingdom has considered Beijing to be in a state of ongoing non-compliance with it. There is a stark and growing gulf between Beijing’s promises and its actions. We must and we will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. I give my assurance as Minister for Asia that we will continue to work hard and in good faith towards that goal. We will hold China to the obligation that it willingly undertook to safeguard the people of Hong Kong and their way of life.
Tom Randall
I am grateful to all the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. When I was preparing for this debate, I reread the Hansard debate on the joint declaration in December 1984. I was struck by the fact that although there were some concerns about immigration status, there was unanimity across the House that, at the time, that was the best deal that could have been obtained for Hong Kong.
As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) have identified, there has been a similar unanimity today across the Chamber on this issue. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) observed, many other human rights abuses have been committed by China in the region. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, this is the issue of the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) said, today we are discussing the decline of the most international of Asian cities.
The speeches we have heard today have illustrated the breadth of China’s actions in Hong Kong—brazen actions, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). We have heard about the manipulation of election rules from the hon. Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi).
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken passionately about his comrades in the trade union movement who have been affected, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has spoken about how even basic things like professing one’s faith have been hindered by the actions taken by the Chinese Government.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) spoke about media clampdowns. At one of the most interesting and distressing meetings that I attended while involved in this subject I listened to Hong Kong journalists who had to be identified as witnesses 1, 2 and 3 because of fear of persecution. They underlined well the issues that they faced.
As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) observed, democracies have to put on a united front. I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and what he said, and we would be encouraged if this matter were raised at the G7 this week. It is a matter that needs to be raised, and I am grateful for the clarification.
I will conclude by quoting from the six-monthly report on Hong Kong that is produced by the Foreign Office. The latest one said:
“It is not too late for the authorities to reach out and start to heal divisions, however complicated and difficult that might be.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered human rights in Hong Kong.
Environment: Sittingbourne and Sheppey
(2 years, 10 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating that they must remain here for the entire debate. I remind Members that they are visible at all times, especially 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 they use them and as they leave the room.
I call Gordon Henderson to move the motion.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered environmental matters in Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency.
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani? Let me begin by making it clear that I fully endorse the Government’s long-term commitment to be the first generation to leave our environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it. With that in mind, I want to highlight some of the local environmental issue causing concern in Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
My constituency has a unique and varied natural environment. On the Isle of Sheppey, we have the Elmley nature reserve, a thriving coastline and some fantastic habitats for birds, including marsh harriers and a variety of wading birds. On the mainland, the bustling town of Sittingbourne is surrounded by a mixture of rural and built-up villages, all with a character of their own, including Iwade, which has its own nature reserve, attracting an abundance of wildlife throughout the year. All this wonderful countryside provides us not only with an enviable environment, but with many challenges for local communities. I want to address a few of those challenges.
When people contact me with concerns about our local environment, those concerns fall into a number of categories. Two main concerns revolve around the scourge of fly-tipping and littering. The impact that both of these thoughtless acts have on our local environment is huge. Not only is the discarded rubbish unsightly; it can be harmful to both humans and animals. I believe we need harsher punishments for people who are caught littering, with local authorities given more powers to clamp down on the offenders, as well as the resources needed to enforce those powers. However, fines are not the only answer. We also need to educate people about the antisocial nature of littering, most of which is caused by adults, who then set a bad example to their children. Those children pick up bad habits learned from their parents, which is why I set up the Litter Angels charity in Sittingbourne and Sheppey over a decade ago. Its sole purpose is to educate children about the harm associated with litter, and I am pleased to say that the charity has now extended the project into a number of other constituencies in Kent.
I turn to fly-tipping, which is littering on a larger scale. It is becoming a huge problem in Kent, including in my constituency. It places a financial burden on local landowners and farmers, who are seeing an increasing number of incidents in which lorry loads of rubbish are dumped on their land. They then have to pay to have the rubbish removed and disposed of, costing them hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of pounds.
I believe there are a number of reasons for the rise in fly-tipping. Two important causes are, first, the decision taken some years ago by Swale Borough Council to charge for the removal from homes of large items of waste, and, secondly, Kent County Council’s policy of restricting commercial companies’ access to its waste sites. I said at the time that both decisions were short-sighted and would lead to an increase in fly-tipping, and I was right. I appreciate that both decisions were taken for financial reasons. In my view, however, any cost saving made by our local authorities has been more than offset by the cost of cleaning up council-owned sites where fly-tipping takes place.
I believe the situation could be improved very quickly by reinstating the free collection of bulk waste and the free disposal of commercial waste at household waste recycling centres. Although this is an issue for the local authorities to resolve, I hope that Ministers will consider making the free collection of bulk waste and the free disposal of commercial waste a statutory requirement, backed up with the resources needed to implement it.
There is another environmental problem that last year blighted the lives of a number of residents in and around Iwade, the village I mentioned earlier. It became apparent that land in an area called Raspberry Hill Lane was being used to process building waste. For weeks, my constituents were subjected to the foul smell of melting rubber and burning, in addition to the noise and dust associated with the process. One result of this incident, which I believe is still taking place today, is the misuse of U1 exemption.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Mr Henderson, we seem to have lost your screen connection. Ah, you are back. Marvellous.
Gordon Henderson
I had got to one of the results of the incident, which I believe is still taking place today. It is the use of U1 exemptions to take waste from that site and dump it off the cliffs at the top of Warden Road on the Isle of Sheppey. I believe that the U1 waste exemption is a loophole that is open to abuse and should be closed.
According to the Government’s website, the U1 exemption allows for the use of suitable waste, rather than raw materials or items that are no longer waste, to be used in construction projects. For example, it would be in order, under the exemption rules, for crushed bricks, concrete, rocks and aggregate to be dumped to create a noise barrier around new development. Under the rules, it could then be topped off with soil and landscaped. It is also permitted to use road planings and rubble to build a track or path. Those are proper uses of the U1 exemption.
However, what is being done off the cliffs north of Sheppey is not a proper use. It is creating problems for residents who have to use the surrounding roads, and it harms the local coastal environment. That is the true danger of fly-tipping, which is a selfish act of throwing unwanted construction rubbish over a cliff. It appears that nothing can be done to stop those people, which is beyond belief. Apparently, because of the U1 exemption licence, the Environment Agency can do nothing. It does not seem to have the resources to monitor the terms of the licence to ensure that they are being observed. The problem could be solved by making the Environment Agency responsible for authorising, issuing, monitoring and enforcing the proper use of U1 exemption licences. I urge the Minister to look into this matter urgently.
While talking about the north Sheppey cliffs, I would like to highlight another ongoing problem: the plight of residents at Surf Crescent, in what is called the Eastchurch gap. The first anniversary recently passed of an incident that saw part of Surf Crescent fall into the sea, taking with it the home and possessions of a family, leaving them homeless. Many more of my constituents were moved out of their homes for their own safety, and they are concerned about their future in the homes that they have loved for so long.
The problem of the erosion of the north Sheppey cliffs is not new. I have raised the subject before, including in a Westminster Hall debate in December 2017. I will continue to raise the matter until something is done to save the properties that are under threat. Unusually, solving the problem is not about money. There are groups on the Isle of Sheppey that have put forward schemes to reinstate the cliffs, at no cost to the taxpayer. However, they come up against intransigence on the part of Natural England, which has stated publicly that it will oppose in principle any proposal to stop the erosion of the cliffs.
Natural England’s reason for its stance is that the cliff erosion is on part of the Sheppey coastline that has been designated a site of special scientific interest. Let me clarify what that means. The SSSI is in place not to protect land, which I could understand, but to protect the loss of land, which I find bizarre. I have asked in the past for SSSI designation to be lifted so that the homes of my constituents can be saved, but I was told it was an EU designation. We are no longer in the EU, so I urge the Minister to look again at the situation and see if the designation can now be lifted. If not, what other steps can be taken to protect my constituency?
Finally, I want to address another major issue that is having an impact on the local environment, which is housing. Kent has seen major housing development over the past couple of decades, which has seen too many of our green spaces concreted over. In addition, the increased population has put tremendous strain on our infrastructure. In many areas, the additional traffic created by those homes has harmed our environment, not least by worsening the already polluted air in our towns and cities.
My constituency in particular has taken more than its fair share of that increased housing, and its geography, demography and local environment have changed beyond all recognition. Sittingbourne and Sheppey has seen a tremendous increase in our population, without having the necessary infrastructure put in place to support those people. Now, we have overcrowded roads, over-subscribed schools and increased waiting times for health services because of a lack of doctors.
Under the current Government-imposed housing targets, my local authority, Swale Borough Council, is under immense pressure to build more houses, and there is mounting concern from local people about a number of proposed developments involving thousands more houses in our area. We are facing a proposed planning Bill that will increase further still the number of homes in Kent. No doubt Sittingbourne and Sheppey will be asked to take some of that total housing. More housing will mean more air pollution—[Inaudible.]
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Mr Henderson, you have muted yourself. Please unmute.
Gordon Henderson
I am sorry—it is the technology, I am afraid. I will repeat what I was saying.
Now, we are facing planning Bill that will increase further still the number of homes in Kent. No doubt Sittingbourne and Sheppey will be asked to take some of that total housing. More housing will mean more air pollution and even fewer green spaces. That will be a disaster for our local environment, which is why I want to use my speech to forewarn the Government that I will be unable to support the planning Bill unless it protects my constituency from any more unsustainable housing growth.
I do not apologise for highlighting what might be considered parochial issues. It is right that we have priority areas set out in law, including air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste production—all those things are mentioned in the Environment Bill, which is now in the other place—but I hope Ministers recognise that those measures go only halfway towards solving the issues that real people face on the ground. My constituents want an assurance that the basics, such as protecting their local green spaces and agricultural land, solving the problems of littering and fly-tipping, cutting regularly the grass on the verges of trunk roads such as the A249, and managing ground and air pollution, will also be taken care of.
In an ever-changing world in which the Government talk about building back to improve lives and livelihoods, please do not ignore the plight of those whom I have highlighted. Let us use this chance to make lasting changes for those people.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Henderson—I am pleased that we survived those gremlins.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Thank you so much, Ms Ghani. I do not think that I have had the pleasure of serving with you in the Chair—it is really very good to see you.
I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for his impassioned speech and for standing up, as he always does, for his constituency. We have seen him in every way today: in vision, out of vision, on mic and off mic. It has been a pleasure to hear what he has to say, and I thank him for securing this debate on a topic that is important in particular for his constituents.
My hon. Friend highlighted a number of a really important environmental issues, such as littering, fly-tipping, the illegal dumping of waste off the north Sheppey cliffs, the problem of cliff erosion in Sheppey, and the adverse environmental impacts, including pollution, of what he considers to be unsustainable housing developments. He covered a whole raft of subjects. He will be pleased to know—and I am sure he is aware—that our landmark Environment Bill, which is the first of its kind for 20 years, will really help to deliver, as I hope he feels, the future prosperous and sustainable environment that I believe we all want, including his constituents.
My hon. Friend referred to the Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament. The legislation will deliver transformative benefits, including cleaner air for all, the restoration of habitats, increased biodiversity, a resource-efficient economy, and better management of our precious resources in this changing climate.
Climate change is creating many challenges, and the Government are tackling them head-on with a strategy to reach net zero by 2050. On the other side of that coin is nature adapting to the changing climate that we face, some impact of which is being felt off the coast of my hon. Friend’s constituency.
On the issue of waste, many of our constituents share my hon. Friend’s concern about litter and the people who choose to spoil the environment that we all share with rubbish. I understand his concerns, but I want to outline the things that we have done already to tackle the issue and the things that we are going to do, which I hope will reassure him. We have introduced new penalty notice powers for councils in respect of fly-tipping and littering from a vehicle so that if a passenger in a vehicle throws something out of the window, the driver will be responsible for that person’s littering. We have also raised on-the-spot fines for littering and given councils powers to stop, search and seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. On conviction, those guilty of littering can already face a fine of up to £2,500, but we have committed to strengthening fly-tipping sentences.
We have provided funding worth almost £1 million to help councils purchase new litter bins. That might seem a small thing, but having the right bins in the right places makes a difference. I agree with my hon. Friend that education is really important. That is a key part of our litter strategy for England, and I thank him for the work that he does in this space, as does the Litter Angels charity in his constituency.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to support “Keep it, Bin it”, the anti-littering campaign launched in 2018 with Keep Britain Tidy. It does so much good work to tackle littering. We would like to see more children and, indeed, everyone participating in national clean-up days such as the great British spring clean. I got involved with a team of people in Taunton last week. I am sure that you also get involved in those things, Ms Ghani, as I know does my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Those things do have an impact in our local areas.
The main way to tackle frequently littered items and fly-tipping is to reduce the amount of waste that we have in the first place. There are measures in the Environment Bill that really will make a difference to our waste. We have a big emphasis on reuse, repair and recycle, and we are introducing new measures, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, including the extended producer responsibility scheme, which will focus on plastic packaging initially, because that is our biggest littered item. It will make the people who manufacture and use such packaging ultimately responsible for its end of life. They will not want to see littered items if they are responsible for it.
We are also consulting on the deposit return scheme, which sets out an incentive to dispose of in-scope materials that can be returned, and we are working on consistent collections through our local authorities, so there is a raft of measures. Last year, I held a roundtable with the fast-food retailers, because they are responsible for a huge amount of our litter, to understand what actions they are already taking. In fairness, lots of them are taking action, but I made it very clear that further action from them is necessary.
I noted my hon. Friend’s concerns about the charges at household waste recycling centres for certain types of waste, and I hope he will be pleased to hear that we will review those services and the controlled waste regulations. Subject to consultation, we will amend them to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and that charges are fairly applied.
We are aware of the ongoing issues on the north coast of Sheppey, particularly the U1 exemptions that my hon. Friend referred to. The EA is currently investigating and working with Swale Borough Council, so we cannot discuss active and ongoing investigations. However, we have consulted on reforming that particular exemption—I hope that will give him some reassurance—as well as others of concern, and we hope to publish the Government’s response later this year, setting out our proposed reforms to the waste exemptions regime that he referred to.
We are developing proposals to reform the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime, and we intend to consult on that. Other key measures are being introduced through the Environment Bill, which include mandatory electronic waste tracking, so that we know what is in the waste system, who is dealing with it and where it is going. Once we have much better data, we will be able to crack down on a lot of fly-tipping, which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about. Mindful of the problems of fly-tipping, we got an allocation in the 2020 Budget of £2 million to do some work and to support innovative solutions to tackle fly-tipping, and that is under way. In April 2021, we commissioned a research project to consider the drivers, deterrence and impact of fly-tipping, which will be completed by the end of the year. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that we are moving on with a lot of work in this space, because fly-tipping causes an enormous amount of upset and heartache. I have touched on the other measures we are taking to cut down the amount of waste in our society altogether.
I will move on to coastal erosion, which is a very serious issue for residents in Sheppey, as was seen in the incident referred to by my hon. Friend. Flooding and coastal erosion can have devastating consequences for the people it impacts upon, whether in respect of their business, their home or their environment. In recognition of that, between 2021 and 2027, we are doubling our investment in flooding and coastal erosion funding to £5.2 billion. That will ensure that a further 336,000 properties are protected.
We see the sea levels rising, so we are inevitably getting further coastal erosion. We defend the coastline where it is sustainable and affordable to do so, and let it function naturally where that is not the case. Our national strategy for managing erosion and flooding stresses the importance of resilience and adaptation in the face of change. On this relatively undeveloped part of Sheppey, the long-term approach agreed with Swale Borough Council, the Environment Agency and Natural England in the shoreline management plan is to allow coastal processes to enhance the natural environment locally and elsewhere. On the Eastchurch coast, Natural England’s view is that any development or activity that restricts natural processes is likely to damage the features of the geological site of special scientific interest that my hon. Friend referred to—that is Sheppey cliffs or Minster cliffs, as it is also called.
Just for information, the SSSI designation is a UK protection. The designations were made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—it is not an EU designation. My hon. Friend did hold a debate about this issue with the previous Environment Minister. As a result, the whole issue was reviewed, but in 2017 Natural England advised against interfering with the natural processes and the features that they produce. Importantly, online proposals to manage erosion and landslip in this area have faced major funding challenges, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, with cheaper interventions in recent years proving ineffectual.
The Environment Agency is working with coastal authorities on a £1 million refresh of the shoreline management plan that I referred to. That will ensure that it is up to date, using the best evidence in its recommendations. It will focus attention on priority areas for investment and adaptation. Through this exercise, Natural England and the Environment Agency will continue to work closely with the South East Coastal Group and Swale Borough Council, as they work with local residents and businesses to develop local adaptation initiatives. I am sure my hon. Friend would be welcome to be involved in that. Those initiatives will enable us to reach the long-term goal of a naturally evolving coastline, with local communities, that is resilient, rather than vulnerable to change. There are many places around the coast that are facing similar challenges right now.
My hon. Friend is rightly passionate about the risks of erosion facing some parts of his constituency. He has raised this issue many times, in particular via a parliamentary question in January. At that time, the Environment Agency provided me with information showing that its Medway estuary and Swale flood and coastal risk management strategy has developed adaptation options to relocate or compensate affected properties. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the strategy recommends that the adaptation options to relocate or compensate affected properties should be considered, but does not provide for any developed options.
On the housing issues that my hon. Friend raised, we do, of course, have an existing national planning policy, and it is clear that local plans should take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing habitat networks, and identify opportunities for enhancing natural capital. One of the policies states that new developments should not contribute to unacceptable levels of air pollution, which my hon. Friend raised. The Environment Bill will require the Government to set targets on air quality, including on fine particulate matter, which is the most damaging to human health. That is a Government priority, and it will of course impact on choices made about where houses are delivered.
In addition, one of the objectives of the proposed planning reform is to protect and enhance the environment. The Government have made a clear commitment not to roll back on our high standards for environmental protection. Indeed, DEFRA is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on these planning reforms and the “Planning for the future” White Paper. As my hon. Friend knows, they have received many responses.
We want to see more homes built, but it is possible to do that in an environmentally friendly way. The Environment Bill makes biodiversity net gain mandatory for every development granted planning permission, so every development will have to put back 10% more nature than was there when it started. That will make a big difference around the country to the amount of nature that we see in relation to our housing. I see that as a very positive measure, and I hope my hon. Friend agrees.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising all those really pertinent issues relating to his constituency. I hope that I have provided him with some reassurance about what we are doing, particularly on litter, fly-tipping and a number of the measures coming through in the Environment Bill. He talks about real people, and of course we are mindful of real people all the time, but we hope we are putting in place the right policies that will enable them to have a sustainable, green and prosperous future.
Question put and agreed to.
Menopausal Symptoms: Support
(2 years, 10 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debates in Westminster Hall and that they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times to us in the Boothroyd Room. If they have any technical problems, they must email westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Those Members attending physically must clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, unless you are speaking.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for people experiencing menopausal symptoms.
It is a pleasure to be opening this important debate in person, Ms Ghani, and to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Chamber engagement team for their support in creating a dedicated webpage for anyone impacted by the menopause to share their experiences with me ahead of the debate—this is a fantastic service available to us all in the House—and the responses that I have received have been honest, insightful and true examples of why we need to open up the discussion and remove the stigma that still surrounds the menopause. In total, 728 people responded to the public survey and I will share some of their experiences with Members later.
On World Menopause Day in 2018, I made a speech in the main House of Commons Chamber calling on the Government to commit to make a difference to the lives of all women experiencing symptoms of the menopause. At present, approximately 13 million of us in the UK are either perimenopausal or post-menopausal. That is almost a fifth of the entire population. In that debate back in 2018, I spoke of the need for changes in the curriculum to better educate our young people; improved public education to help women who are suffering and those closest to them; better training for GPs to ensure that women are correctly diagnosed and given the right treatments; and mandatory workplace menopause policies, so that women may continue to work through what can be the most difficult time of their lives.
With many pressure groups and the media now shining a light on issues to do with menopause, we are starting to talk about it more, but now we also need to start taking action. Education is key here, both public education—so that women understand what is happening to their bodies and feel confident in making informed decisions about the path they choose—and professional education, which is severely lacking.
A recent survey on menopause support revealed the shocking truth about training in medical schools. An astounding 41% of UK universities do not have mandatory menopause education on the curriculum. Menopause will, at some point, directly affect half of the population, and yet it is completed overlooked when training the people that we will all turn to for help.
Women are suffering unnecessarily, and while some barely notice any changes, for others the suffering is unbearable—stressful, debilitating and completely life-changing. Despite that, many doctors complete their training and leave university with absolutely no education about menopause at all. I am fairly confident that no other medical condition set to impact the lives of more than 50% of the population would be left out in that way.
The Royal College of General Practitioners states that menopause is included in the curriculum, although not mandatory or standardised. Bearing in mind that we know more than 40% are not providing mandatory training, however, women who are suffering and turn to their GP for help cannot be assured that the doctor they visit will be competent in recognising their symptoms, let alone to provide them with the treatment plan and medication they need. In our public engagement survey, Gillian shared her experience, saying that her GP told her to ask her mother as her experience would be the same:
“I walked out with a leaflet…no support, no advice, no understanding”.
Far too many women are still being misdiagnosed and prescribed anti-depressants, and they suffer extreme symptoms without the correct treatment and support. This needs to change. GPs should follow up-to-date guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on the menopause and hormone replacement therapy, and they should recommend such treatment if it is appropriate. Sadly, far too many women are denied this path, because many doctors are unaware or ill informed. Even those who are lucky enough to visit a GP who recognises their symptoms and understands the benefits of HRT treatment still face barriers.
In Scotland and Wales, prescriptions are free to everyone, but unfortunately women in England are forced to pay £9.35 per item. For some, their treatment may include multiple items every time. Lisa responded to our survey by saying:
“Free HRT prescriptions are needed. I’m currently charged two prescription charges for one box of medication.”
Lesley said:
“It’s a process of elimination getting the correct medication. It’s so expensive and I have found it very difficult to pay for the prescriptions.”
That is not something to be taken lightly. It is not just the odd hot flush or moment of forgetfulness. Menopausal symptoms can ruin women’s lives, and until something is done to improve the standard of diagnosis and treatment, they will continue to ruin even more.
Women deserve so much better. They are giving up their careers and ending relationships because of the severity of their symptoms and the impact on their physical and mental wellbeing. It is no coincidence that suicide rates for women peak between the ages of 45 and 54, which is the average age that most women reach the menopause or experience perimenopausal symptoms. This cannot carry on. I do not want to be standing here in another two and a half years talking about the same things.
Education on the menopause, which is slowly being incorporated into the curriculum in secondary schools, is a positive step forward, but it is just one part of a much bigger picture. Public health guidance, standardised compulsory training for those in the medical professions, and fully funded HRT treatments and workplace policies need to follow. Women should not feel inferior or incapable of doing their job because of the effects of the menopause on their health and wellbeing, but, sadly, too many do.
The situation could be so easily rectified. Simple changes in the workplace, such as flexible working hours, relaxed uniform policies and adaptations to the working environment, could all make such a difference. Dinah talked about this in her survey response. She explained that in her workplace, she was
“surprised to find no menopause policy whereas we have policies for most conceivable events.”
She added that she told her manager about her menopausal symptoms and how she felt that they were interfering with her capacity to do her job. She said:
“I was offered no support, we just talked about how I could stop making mistakes.”
The Government have alluded to that in their call for evidence for the women’s health strategy. One of the areas being considered is maximising women’s health in the workplace, with menopause being one of the female-specific conditions mentioned that impacts on women’s participation in work. I urge anyone affected to complete the public survey before the deadline of 13 June, and details can be found on the Government website.
None of the things I have mentioned are big on their own. They are all easy to rectify, but the lack of them all is having a devastating impact on so many lives. We have the power to change that, and we must seize the opportunity. I plan to set up an all-party parliamentary group on menopause support over the coming months. I have already had colleagues from across the House express an interest in joining, and I would be delighted to hear from more MPs and peers—both male and female—who I know share my passion to make a difference.
Women should not be left to suffer through a lack of awareness, inadequate support or financial restraints. Every woman experiencing menopausal or perimenopausal symptoms should be confident that they will be able to access the right treatment and support in every aspect of their lives. Women deserve to see medical schools providing appropriate training so doctors can diagnose and prescribe appropriately. Women deserve to have mandatory menopause policies in their place of work. They deserve to be given the reassurance that they can access treatment without worrying about how to pay for it and they deserve to be assured of all the support and care that they need. Women have been suffering in silence for far too long. This debate has given them a voice. Now it is up to us to listen and act.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the deputy leader of the Welsh Labour party, for securing the debate today and for all that she is doing to raise awareness of this and many other women’s health issues.
Menopause will affect the vast majority of women, with some experiencing menopause earlier as a result of cancer or other health conditions. I have friends who have gone through it who then have the added stress of having to explain to others why they are unable to have children, or to share their medical histories. There seems to be such a lack of awareness and understanding of issues around the menopause. It can still feel like a bit of a taboo subject.
The menopause is, of course, a women’s health issue, so quite why the House of Commons titled today’s debate
“support for people experiencing menopausal symptoms”
is a bit of a mystery, particularly when the House of Commons Library report uses the word “women” throughout. Like all mostly women’s health issues, there is often difficulty with our being able to access the right help or support, or even the most basic information. Like many women in Parliament, I am in the age group most likely to be experiencing menopause and, like most women I know of my age, we rely on personal and professional friendship groups for sharing information and our own experiences. We talk to each other and usually find that every one of us will have had some similar, but also some very different, symptoms. It is often hearsay, rumour, second-hand or third-hand stories, shared articles or scraps of advice that are our main source of information about this major life change and huge change to our bodies.
My constituent, Elizabeth Ellis, started her campaign group 50Sense and the campaign “Know Your Menopause” to inform women after she could not get any help and support when she was first going through the menopause herself. How many times do politicians meet people like Elizabeth, who have used their own life experiences to become an expert and a champion in order to help others?
50Sense’s Pausitivity campaign produces a variety of really useful information, as well as posters that people can print out and put up in their workplaces and ask GPs to display. I encourage anyone who wants to know more to find the pausivity.co.uk website and download the great resources, including questions to ask GPs. Of course, that includes men. As husbands, partners, friends, colleagues and responsible employers, they ought to find out as much as they can, too, about this big event in the life of almost every woman they know. I hope hon. Members will note that I left sons out of that list, as, if I am being honest, I know that mine really do not want me to discuss my menopause with them, as lovely as that might sound.
Elizabeth, my constituent, and so many other women like her, should not have had to go back and forth to the GP for almost four years, with symptoms that she now knows were quite obviously the menopause. She was sent to A&E with heart palpitations and was even asked more than once if she was a cocaine user. If she had seen one of the Pausitivity posters she has now produced, it would surely have saved her a huge amount of distress, not to mention the NHS a lot of money. Another constituent, Michelle, had a surgical menopause and, because of the horrendous symptoms and lack of NHS treatment, was forced to go to a private consultant and spend a lot of money because the support she needed was not there. These women are not alone. Menopause cafés such as those mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), in the last menopause debate are popular places for women to support each other and share stories. It is extremely common for many women to become almost suicidal with the lack of understanding or help available.
We need to end the postcode lottery or luck element of menopause support. All GP surgeries should have someone available to advise or support women, or should display a poster, so that they know what they are going through is perfectly normal. GPs and healthcare professionals can inform women about local support groups and menopause cafés. We need easy access to fully funded HRT treatment. Men too should also familiarise themselves with some of the facts. After all, most people in the UK are female and at some point will go through the menopause. I urge everyone to log onto pausitivity.co.uk or watch the excellent documentary produced by Davina McCall for Channel 4 recently.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
To ensure that all the speakers get in, we must impose a time limit of four and a half minutes.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing it. I know that menopause is shrouded in mystery and certainly used to be a taboo topic, but this is changing and it needs to, as its impact can be complex and numerous as regards health outcomes for women. I will speak on one aspect of menopause—its link with osteoporosis. I do this as co-chair, with Guy Black, Lord Black of Brentwood, of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on osteoporosis and bone health.
A key factor in women’s health is the protection of bones. Menopause is a crucial time to protect our bone health. When women reach the menopause, oestrogen levels decrease, which causes many to develop the well-known systems of hot flushes and sweats. According to the Royal Osteoporosis Society, a decrease in oestrogen levels also causes a loss of bone density—so the menopause is an important cause of osteoporosis.
Everyone loses bone density and strength as they get older, but women lose it more rapidly in the years following the menopause, losing up to 20% of their bone density during this time. With that loss comes reduced bone strength and a greater risk of breaking bones. According to a survey by the ROS, a fifth of women who have broken a bone break three or more before their osteoporosis is diagnosed. Breaking a bone normally means significant short-term pain and inconvenience, but it does not stop there. Many people with osteoporosis who break a bone live with long-term pain and disability, especially if their back is affected. The reality of broken bones and the fear of falling impacts on everyday activity, stopping people from doing the activities they love. As women lose the protective effect of oestrogen at the menopause, it is a critical time for their bone health and a time to consider many factors, whether that is positive life changes to help maintain bone strength, having a health bone assessment or considering whether osteoporosis drugs are needed to strengthen bones and reduce the risk of fractures. A number of medications are available for those with a significant fracture risk, including hormone replacement therapy, which, crucially, reduces bone loss and the risk of fractures.
It is tragic that the loss of bone strength, and the associated pain and disabilities that fractures cause, is preventable in so many cases, and that is why it is important that around the time of menopause women receive the support needed to consider whether they have a fracture risk that needs treating with osteoporosis medication. To support this, the Royal Osteoporosis Society is calling for GP surgeries to be incentivised routinely to use digital tools to assess risk and prevent fractures, as recommended in the NICE guidelines. Frustratingly, accessible digital solutions already exist and are not integrated properly into IT systems in GP surgeries.
Sadly, many GPs and other healthcare professionals lack the confidence to manage osteoporosis, missing opportunities to identify people at risk early and to prevent that important first fracture. A recent study showed that 75% of older women seen in primary care at high risk of fractures were not given the medication they needed, due partly to a failure to diagnose osteoporosis. These IT solutions can identify people with risk factors for developing osteoporosis before that first fracture. Patients found to be at higher risk can be offered anti-osteoporosis treatment proactively, with a personalised pain management plan comprising medication, lifestyle advice, vitamin D supplementation and fall prevention strategies. That is why it is essential that around the time of menopause, women are properly supported to assess their risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Provided that we support GPs with education and training, including on menopause and bone health, test those at risk and provide preventive medication such as HRT and vitamin D, the vision for early intervention can become a reality.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Ms Ghani. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing a debate on this incredibly important issue, and I echo her comments on the need for greater Government action and support; for improved education in GP surgeries, the workplace and schools; and to remove the stigma.
I am pleased to see so many hon. Members from across the House participating in this debate, and I am especially grateful to those who are sharing their personal experiences with the menopause. I, too, have some familiarity with the enormous impact that the menopause can have, on not only physical health but mental health. As is the case for many people across the country, my road to motherhood was far from straightforward. I knew early on that my best chance of carrying a child was through IVF—in vitro fertilisation. What many Members may not know is that the hormones and medication that you need to take as part of the IVF process often mean that you begin to experience a kind of early menopause. I had it all, from hot flushes and headaches to fatigue and terrible concentration. My mam, who had experienced all this before, was my absolute rock.
I know that, for many women, the menopause can be an incredibly difficult and lonely time. I was lucky: I had a very supportive employer, and my fertility story thankfully has a happy ending—after just one round of IVF, I fell pregnant with my wonderful son. But I know that, tragically, for many women that will not be the case. The last thing these women need is to feel that they must deal with the symptoms of menopause alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) is completely right to raise the brilliant Pausitivity campaign and the excellent resources that it provides. Everyone who has experienced menopausal symptoms, whether they are medically induced, as in my case, or part of the natural ageing process, will know at first hand how big an impact they can have. But we are far from alone. Around one in 100 women in the UK will experience menopausal symptoms before they turn 40, and it is estimated that in total about 13 million women are currently perimenopausal or menopausal in the UK. This is a normal part of life, but sadly, many women feel a huge amount of stigma and experience difficulty in talking about and dealing with these symptoms.
I am a very proud member of Unison and a long-time supporter of its menopause awareness campaign. I know from my own experience just how much of an impact simple changes such as paid leave, flexible working policies and temperature control in offices can have when women are experiencing menopausal symptoms. Nearly eight out of 10 menopausal women are in work. Many of them will have decades of experience and huge amounts of knowledge to share. Surely it is in employers’ best interests to introduce comprehensive policies to support them staying in their jobs.
The UK Government have a vital role to play in ensuring that the protections are put in place. We were promised an employment Bill in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, but more than a year has gone by now, so where is that much-needed legislation? Worse still, we find no mention of a forthcoming employment Bill in this year’s Queen’s Speech. That legislation would not only enable the Government to introduce their long-promised policy of paid leave for parents of babies receiving neonatal care, but give us all the important opportunity to introduce protections in the workplace for women experiencing the menopause. I ask the Minister to please work with her colleagues in Government to bring forward such legislation as soon as time allows. All of us taking part in the debate today know that the menopause is far from a niche issue. It does not take a genius to work out that it will affect about half of us in our lifetimes. It is absolutely necessary that this issue is taken seriously by the Government.
Incidentally, it is the same half of the population who have periods, and while we are on that topic, may I take the opportunity to congratulate the UK Government on once again following where the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland have led in making sanitary products free in schools?
I am very glad to say that in recent times we have seen real moves forward on visibility and awareness of the impact that the menopause can have. I have no doubt that Davina McCall’s fantastic and taboo-breaking documentary on the menopause last month will have had a major impact on the millions of women who may have been suffering in silence. But today’s debate makes it clear that far more needs to be done, so I urge the Minister to take forward the concerns and ideas of colleagues across the political divide and work with her colleagues in Government to address this all-important topic.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, I believe for the first time, and I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing such an important debate.
In preparation for this debate, I looked up the definition of menopause. There was a very short phrase that just described it as a natural process of ageing. Really? It does not feel very natural when you are going through it, I have to say. It also stated that there was no specific medicinal treatment. Treatment is aimed at “decreasing the signs and symptoms”, which is a very vague, non-specific definition.
I wonder why, even today, there is such a lack of knowledge and communication about such an important topic. There is lots of communication about puberty and pregnancy—they are well documented and well discussed, so people know what will happen before they experience them. It feels like menopause is the last taboo.
Having been a physiotherapist in my previous life, I thought that I knew all there was to know about the menopause, but nobody prepared me for the mental health aspects. My husband can testify to several meltdowns on my part, which left him completely taken aback, as was I. Obviously, once we realised what it was, we could put solutions in motion. But it is important that we know what is happening before it actually happens. Support is needed, whether at home or at work—I certainly benefited from the support of colleagues in the workplace—for all who go through the menopause, including before they go through it.
I feel privileged to have worked in the NHS in Wales on the menopause policy, which was issued in December 2018. The working group was all women of a certain age plus one very embarrassed man, but they produced important policy and guidance, offering specific and practical solutions for dealing with the menopause. They include simple things such as opening a window, relocating a desk or sorting out uniforms—simple things that just need to be put in practice. I urge the Minister to look at those sorts of practical solutions, because that is what we need to publicise.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East for highlighting this important topic, and I urge the Minister to do all she can to make sure that people experiencing the menopause are supported, both here in this place and in the wider world outside Parliament, because this really is a time for action and not words.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this debate. She and I have been in so many debates together that I have almost lost count. I have always supported her and, to be fair, she has always supported me.
I am here for two reasons: to support the hon. Lady but also because my wife has gone through this in the last wee period of time. Although I cannot begin to comprehend physically what it means to a lady for it to take place, I think that, as a dutiful husband, I am able to make a wee contribution to this debate.
I am also here because I am the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson. I take a particular interest in all health issues debated in this place, whether in Westminster Hall or in the main Chamber, including Adjournment debates.
Although I will never experience physically the difficulties outlined today by every one of the hon. Ladies who has spoken, I have supported my wife through her journey, and from the outside looking in, it has been a tough time. Describing it as “the change” is very apt—there are so many changes, so much change—and with change there must be support. Also, at that time my wife lost her mother. So, in addition to having the menopause, she lost someone who was very dear to her and who we all miss greatly. Those were difficult times. My wife had to go to hospital as well. My mother helped her in that regard, because I was over here and so was unable to assist her directly.
I believe that there must be a wider understanding that all of those things that are different are so difficult to understand. There may be a list of symptoms, such as anxiety, low moods, poor concentration and memory, hot flushes and night sweats, insomnia and so on. However, knowing that they things may be symptoms is one thing; dealing with them is very different. So, it is about how we deal with these things.
In Northern Ireland we have only two menopause specialists. The service is understaffed and in dire need of funding and attention. I believe that every trust must have dedicated specialised clinics to deal with the menopause and to provide information, medication and support. Women, especially those in Northern Ireland, have a “grin and bear it” mentality about most things in life, but I believe that that is not enough to see you through. We need to have the conversations and have them heard, not simply woman to woman, but with men, husbands, partners and sons—although I understand that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) may have a slightly different opinion on that. I suppose the question is how to help them understand and to offer them support that makes this cosmic shift bearable.
I employ seven staff—four part-time and three part-time. I have six ladies and one gentleman. As an employer, I have to be aware of my duty and understand, sympathetically and compassionately, where we are. I have learned over the years that we—and in this case I—can step outside our comfort zones when needed. This message must be clear. I believe that these discussions are needed and have to take place. I stood with my wife as she went through a particularly tough time, and I have realised that things are only as awkward or as uncomfortable as I make them. A simple, “Is there anything I can do to help today?” means the world to someone who feels they are battling the world and their own body.
I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East for raising this issue and all the hon. Ladies who have spoken. I look forward to hearing those who will follow me, especially the Minister, as I always do. We need these conversations. We also need a dedicated programme and funding. I look to the Minister, who does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland but who always answers well, to outline how the Government can ensure that we can do better—and that means everyone, male and female.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate. It should be clear to all of us that we do not speak nearly enough about the menopause, and that needs to change.
For far too long, a polite veil has been drawn over this and other issues facing women, young and old, so any mention of menopause, as if it were not a perfectly normal states of affairs, has been seen as a little bit distasteful. For women of a certain age, myself included, that is not okay. I am heartened that the SNP is committed to a women’s health plan and has plans in place to work with women’s organisations and the Scottish Trades Union Congress to identify areas in relation to menopause where action is needed.
Specifically female health issues have been silenced for far too long. We have recently been climbing a mountain in discussing sanitary protection. There is still more to do there, but bravo, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, including to the Scottish Government and the women who pushed for change, which meant that Scotland became the first country in the world to have free period products. We need to take the same approach to menopause. Things will not change if we do not have that opportunity and take the initiative in discussing it.
That dialogue will matter, because the veil of secrecy that too often surrounds discussions about the menopause is damaging women’s lives. Why is that the case? Half the population will experience menopause. A great many of them will be unclear about symptoms, treatments and where to go for support. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) mentioned the work of menopause cafés. The Menopause Café in Newton Mearns was admired by the people who attended it for the frank, open and supportive discussions held. That sharing and sharing alike on menopause is really helpful.
Some employers are making important moves to increase awareness and support for the menopause, including my local council, East Renfrewshire Council, which I know is discussing that at the moment. That is really important. If employers do not take that initiative, they are in grave danger of losing out on talent and experience, as well as treating women in a way that they simply do not deserve.
As the hon. Member for Swansea East said, that is one of the reasons we wanted to see an employment Bill. Equality matters, and while employment law remains reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government will continue to provide and promote fairer work practices for employers to look at. We need these powers to be devolved so that we can get on with job if it is not being done here.
I accept that conversations in the workplace will not be entirely straightforward. Policy development is never straightforward or clearcut, particularly on this issue because menopause is not linear. It can be extremely variable in terms of symptoms, duration and physical and emotional impact, but women need us to tackle this, none the less. At the moment, many feel unable to seek support about the menopause at work. However, the very fact that it is so complex means that it is all the more vital that we make progress.
We all know, or perhaps we are, women who have experienced uncertainty, miserable confusion—symptoms of all kinds. I thought it was really interesting, but not in a good way, to hear the hon. Member for Swansea East talk about the challenges of being unable to afford some of the necessary prescriptions. That is not an issue for women in Scotland, who are able to avail themselves of free prescriptions. There is so much more to be done, in terms of understanding, and her points about the education of the medical profession were absolutely spot on.
Women must be able to seek assistance and support. Although some will sail relatively serenely through menopause, there are often health and wellbeing implications which, if they are acknowledged at all, are just dismissed as women’s troubles. I have to tell hon. Members what women’s troubles actually are. They are the kinds of troubles that it suits folk for us not to talk about: periods, hot flushes—I could go on. The reason we have not historically talked about them is age-old: pure and simple sexism. Let us not have that anymore, thanks very much. I know that colleagues across Scotland and across the UK are doing great work to stamp that out, and I commend them all.
As we travel down that road, and with all the challenges it brings, let us continue to talk and to push for improvements in education and employment. Let us talk about the menopause and how we can practically improve things, and about periods, too. It would be sensible for those things to be part of our normal, everyday discourse. The menopause is normal, and it is time we stopped pretending that it is not.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani. I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for bringing forward this important topic for debate. She has done an excellent job in helping to raise awareness and to reveal the further changes we can make to ensure that our society is more supportive of menopausal and perimenopausal women.
The menopause is natural—indeed, normal—and is experienced by more than half of the population. It should not be embarrassing or taboo, yet nor should women be required to declare when they experience it. With around 5.1 million women in the UK currently aged between 45 and 55, the menopause affects a huge population at any given time. We should seek to be a society that understands and accommodates the symptoms that menopausal women experience as a standard part of our life cycles. We should recognise that every woman experiences menopause differently, and that 1% of women experience premature menopause, before the age of 40, sometimes induced by medical procedures such as surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy. As they have longer years of post-menopausal life, they are at increased risk of health problems such as the early onset of osteoporosis, as detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and heart disease.
We should also recognise that the menopause also affects black, Asian and minority ethnic women, who are too often overlooked in awareness campaigns that do not feature women who look like them. They are disproportionately likely to be diagnosed with menopausal-related conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and depression. What plans does the Minister have to address that?
Nor should we forget that some menopause treatments are incompatible with medicines taken by some disabled women, putting them in a particularly difficult position and hampering their ability to live normal lives. Can the Minister offer anything on specific support for disabled women?
Similarly, LGBT people, including trans men, may have specific issues with being able to access support and appropriate healthcare services if they are experiencing the menopause. What measures will be taken to ensure access to everyone who needs those, regardless of gender or sexuality?
The cornerstone of normalising menopause is, of course, education in schools, including in relationship and sex education classes. I welcome that those were added to the curriculum in 2019 and would like to hear from the Minister details of how widespread that teaching now is. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East important details about alarming gaps in medical school training. Some 41% of medical schools do not teach about the menopause, and we can only imagine how many misdiagnoses that produces. I understand that a third of women do not even seek to discuss the menopause with their GP. Let us hope that better training will lead to increased confidence. This is clearly something that needs to be improved. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government will take to require such training for doctors?
It is similarly clear that we can do better to ensure that GPs fully appreciate the benefits and proper use of HRT. Women deserve to have clear and up-to-date facts when they make such important medical decisions about their bodies. They must not suffer a postcode lottery if some GPs have unhelpful prejudices. How will the Government ensure that?
We have also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East, for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) about how women in Wales and Scotland benefit from free prescriptions, including for HRT treatments. Will the Minister tell us the cost of making HRT available for free across the UK to address symptoms that come naturally for so many women? Is that something the Government are considering?
As retirement ages have risen, women are spending more years in the workplace during their menopausal and post-menopausal years. The average age for menopause is 51, but the retirement age for women is 60, so many women will work for at least a decade while experiencing symptoms of perimenopause and menopause. Workplaces now quite rightly have maternity policies, but too few focus on how to support and retain menopausal women. There are many reasonable adjustment that employers can make, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—for example, considering workplace temperatures, designing uniforms to limit the impact of hot flushes, and being flexible with working hours so that people experiencing these symptoms are not required to travel during rush hours. Those should all be common-sense considerations without being intrusive. They will be of benefit to individual women workers and will help us unlock productivity gains as our workplaces become safer and more equal, with the talent and experience of women able to be realised much more fully. Will the Minister commit to such measures?
I would like to end by asking the Minister what is being done to hear the voice of perimenopausal and menopausal women in the women’s health strategy, which closes next week. Can she guarantee that the strategy will address the discomfort faced by perimenopausal women at work?
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this really important debate. It is our second session today, and I think she knows that there is nothing she has brought forward in the House that has not had my full support. I mentioned in our previous meeting that, when it comes to women’s health, and particularly in relation to the menopause, there is no place for politics. Women’s health is above that.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Lady, and I hope she will not mind if I use her debate, once again, to talk about the women’s health strategy. The reason is that we have had more than 100,000 responses to the call for evidence, which is just amazing. Many of the responses were from perimenopausal women, women experiencing the menopause and post-menopausal women, like me—I will not go into my own experiences but, like most women’s, they were not pleasant. As the menopause is a feature of the women’s health strategy, I urge people here today, and those listening who have networks, to send the link out, because it closes on the 13th, which is Sunday, so we have five days to go. We need as many women as possible to respond, because that will give us a mandate of more than 100,000 voices, and give us the evidence and data that we need to proceed with the development of policy.
I would also like to put on the record my sympathy for all women who have felt that they have not been listened to when discussing, or even attempting to discuss, the menopause with their healthcare providers or employers. The hon. Lady said it is referred to as “women’s troubles”—there is this taboo. There has actually been a taboo about women’s health issues since Aristotle—or since the beginning of time. It has been ingrained in the system and into us as women that it is something that we do not raise or talk about, yet we all suffer from it at some stage or another.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) raised osteoporosis. I will come on to some of the health conditions that women can experience as a result of the menopause, but I thank her for raising osteoporosis. Sadly, women are more susceptible to osteoporosis, because bone loss becomes more rapid after the menopause as a result of the reduction in oestrogen levels. So many of our problems in the menopause are a result of the reduction of oestrogen levels. Additionally, women tend to have smaller bones than men and a slightly longer life expectancy. But although women live longer than men, we live a longer period of time in poorer health. Declining oestrogen levels when we are perimenopausal, and a lack of oestrogen when we are menopausal and beyond, contribute to that poorer health.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) raised the issue of mental health. Again, having talked to leading doctors in the field of menopausal treatment, we know that women will be given half a dozen prescriptions for anti-depressants before getting a prescription for oestrogen, even though what they actually needed was the oestrogen replacement.
I heard the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) about employer-led facilitation of the menopause, but one of the things that I hear a lot from women is, “I don’t want a fan on my desk. I don’t want special treatment at work. I want the HRT. I want the oestrogen, because when I have the oestrogen, I am the same as everybody else. I want to laugh again. I want to live again. I want to feel normal again. I want to have the same energy levels again, and the only way I can do that is if my GP will listen to me and give me the HRT that I want—the oestrogen.”
Today I spoke to ex-servicewomen who were talking about the menopause and wearing heavy clothing. If they were on HRT, the thick jumpers and uniforms would not be an issue for them, because they would not be going through the hot flushes. There are many women’s voices and experience of the menopause to be heard, and I am afraid it is not just as simple as saying that we want employers to give leave or to put fans on desks. One woman said to me, “I’ve been told that I can have my desk moved to be near the window, which is a prime position. I don’t want that; I just want my doctor to give me HRT.” That is actually the nub of the issue with HRT and the menopause for many women, particularly when it comes to osteoporosis. We are hearing evidence, and we will hear more, that HRT delays the onset of dementia and so many other things. Some of the research that doctors are now using to set guidelines for HRT is from 2004 and earlier.
The hon. Member for Swansea East chose a really opportune time to have this debate. I hope that she continues to take this campaign further, because we need someone with her—I hope she will not mind my saying this—flamboyancy, tenacity and ability to get gender issues to the top of the agenda. I really hope that she will continue and take this issue forward, because that is what we need. We need women like us—women on the Back Benches, women in my position and women such as the hon. Member for Swansea East—to raise this issue, because the only way we can break down taboos is by making them no longer taboos. We need to talk about this issue, and it needs to stop being something that no one wants to discuss. Women have to do it.
We are consulting on the women’s health strategy over the summer—it closes on 13 June—and the menopause is playing a huge part. We will sift through the information over the summer period, and we will come back with our findings in October/November, when officials have the time to sift through it, take up the themes and get the evidence out. That will be an amazing collection of women’s experiences and what they have gone through—not being listened to, being closed down, and not being given the treatment they want—with most of it within the healthcare arena. We know that women are not listened to in the healthcare arena. As a result of the Cumberlege report, the Paterson report and so many other reports, we know that this is the case.
To help ensure that women receive the best possible care, NICE published guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of the menopause in 2015. It states that clinicians should adopt an individual approach or stages of diagnosis in the investigation and management of the menopause. I was accused of possibly patient-shaming when I said that women should feel empowered to be able to stand up for themselves and to challenge decisions that are made about their healthcare. I know myself, I know other women and I have heard from many women as part of the women’s health strategy who say that they know they are menopausal or perimenopausal, but their doctor insists on giving them a prescription for anti-depressants. One woman was told by a doctor to take a walking holiday before going back to him. Women know they are perimenopausal and should feel empowered to speak up about their situation.
NICE guidelines are not mandatory, although health and care clinicians are expected to take them fully into account. That is something that we need to continue to raise. Women may view various risks differently, according to their medical history, and the impact of the menopause symptoms on their daily lives.
In 2019, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency published updated safety information to enable women to make informed choices about whether, and for how long, to use HRT. Despite that, as I said, I have heard that many menopausal women seeking treatment are not receiving either the appropriate advice or the medication that they need to manage their symptoms.
I am committed to looking into that further. One of the reasons why I said that I hope the hon. Member for Swansea East, with her profile and her ability to take on difficult issues, will continue to champion this is that it will help everything we do in this place—all that women do in this place will help.
We are committed to supporting women at all stages of their lives to enable them to reach their potential. Half the population will go through the menopause, obviously, but one in four women in the workplace are menopausal or have completed the menopause, and 53% of women state that menopausal symptoms impact on their work. That is why I raised the issue of those women who were not given the treatment that they seek. What they say is that they just want treatment so that there is no impact on their work. We have to do more to combat that, for the sake of women and of our economy.
A number of organisations are working to change the approach to menopause in the workplace, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Faculty of Occupational Medicine and the NHS Staff Council’s health, safety and wellbeing partnership group, which has produced guidance on the menopause for employers. I encourage employers to refer to that guidance. I would be interested to know how many employers do refer to it, do develop policies in their work- place on the back of it, or even know that it is there.
Hon. Members asked about education in schools. In order to break down the taboos about menopause, there must be access to high-quality information to produce productive conversations. Health education is compulsory in all state-funded schools. From September 2020, relationship education became compulsory in all primary schools, and relationship and sex education became compulsory in secondary schools. Pupils are taught about intimate and sexual relationships, including facts about reproductive health and sexually transmitted infections, as well as facts about menstrual health, fertility and the menopause. That is a landmark step to ensure that all the population are educated about women’s health issues from an early age.
That was a challenge. When I was growing up, I had never even heard of the menopause. I do not think that even my daughters, now in their young adult life, had heard about it when they were growing up. It was just not discussed. Now, it is being taught in schools, which is a huge step forward.
Hon. Members know how brilliant our NHS staff are. This year, they have provided amazing care in the most difficult and testing circumstances. However, training is important at undergraduate, medical school and all levels. Individual medical schools set their own medical curriculum, which must meet the standards set by the General Medical Council. The GMC monitors medical schools to ensure that those standards are maintained. Importantly, all new qualified doctors must be able to recognise how normal human structures and physiology apply or change at significant age milestones and at the menopause. From 2024, the GMC will introduce the medical licensing assessment, which all UK medical students will need to pass to join the medical register. I am pleased that assessment includes knowledge of the menopause.
Things are moving and things are changing, but it is too slow. I think I said to the hon. Member for Swansea East that it is like turning the direction of a tanker on the ocean—it takes not just a Government, a Minister or a person; it takes all of us as women to start talking about the menopause and to start campaigning here. From my perspective, the women’s health strategy is my start.
I am excited to tell the House about a new menopause pathway improvement programme led by NHS England and NHS Improvement . The programme brings together key stakeholders and partners representing clinical colleges, menopause specialists, the workforce and women to develop evidence-based care pathways for women, aligned to NICE guidance and accounting for all demographics, to increase access to and delivery of optimal perimenopause and menopause care for women. It includes plans to increase access to education packages for clinicians who provide menopause care and a workforce support model that will be pioneered in the NHS and shared with all other industries and sectors. This programme of work feeds into the all-staff retention programme board, supporting the retention work specifically for those at risk of leaving the workforce—namely, female nurses aged 50-plus.
I again thank the hon. Member for Swansea East for securing the debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their invaluable contributions on this really important topic. While there is some good work under way, I am determined to make rapid progress to improve the support available to women experiencing the menopause and end the stigma that still surrounds many areas of women’s health. Following analysis of the call for evidence for the women’s health strategy, we will draw the work together and take an end-to-end look at women’s health from adolescence to menopause. That approach will ensure that women have better, more open conversations about their health and receive important treatments, including during the menopause.
Carolyn Harris
Thanks from me and from every woman out there who is suffering. I totally agree with the Minister that there is no room for politics in women’s health. Together, those of us in this room and in Parliament can make a change. We can, and we will, create a menopause mandate, and we will transform menopause support and services going forward. Of that, I am confident.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for people experiencing menopausal symptoms.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council: First Meeting
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (the right hon. Lord Frost CMG), has today made the following written statement:
The Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council met today, 9 June, in person and by video conference.
The meeting was co-chaired by the UK’s Lord Frost and European Commission vice president, Maroš Šefčovič. The First Minister and deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive, Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development of the Scottish Government, Minister for the Economy of the Welsh Government, and 27 member state representatives attended.
The first meeting of the Partnership Council marks a new phase in the UK and EU relationship as sovereign equals.
The Partnership Council discussed sanitary and phytosanitary measures and customs and trade facilitation; fisheries; law enforcement; long-term visa fees; participation in Union programmes; and received an update on the institutional frameworks supporting the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. The parties agreed an indicative timetable for upcoming meetings of the various joint committees established under the agreement, and encouraged continuing work on the establishment of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and the Civil Society Forum.
The Partnership Council supervises the operation of the TCA, providing strategic direction to the work of the Trade Partnership Committee and 18 specialised committees.
The UK restated its commitment to co-operating with the EU through the Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council to ensure that all areas of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement were implemented.
A post-meeting statement has been issued on gov.uk at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-partnership-council-9-june-2021
[HCWS77]
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee: Eighth Meeting
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (right hon. Lord Frost CMG), has today made the following written statement:
The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met today, 9 June, at Admiralty House, London.
The meeting was co-chaired by the UK’s Lord Frost and European Commission Vice President, Maroš Šefčovič. The First Minister and deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive and 27 member state representatives attended.
The Committee received an update on the work of the specialised Committees since the last meeting on 24 February, and discussed progress on withdrawal agreement implementation, with particular focus on the Northern Ireland protocol and citizens’ rights. The first Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee annual report was also agreed and signed, this will be published in due course.
The UK set out the extensive steps taken to operate the protocol, by the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, and by businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The UK made clear its readiness for continued constructive engagement to find pragmatic solutions that ensure the protocol operates in a way that safeguards the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions, minimises its impact on the day-to-day lives of communities in Northern Ireland, and maintains the integrity of the EU’s single market. The UK will continue to put forward ideas and options.
The UK underlined the urgency of a number of issues and noted it would continue to engage fully in discussions with the EU, with a view to finding substantial solutions to address the difficulties being caused by the protocol in Northern Ireland. The UK would, however, continue to consider all options available for safeguarding peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland.
The UK demonstrated its commitment to EU citizens living and working in the UK, where it has registered over 5 million people in the EU settlement scheme. The UK urged the EU to provide appropriate support to all eligible UK citizens living in the EU, particularly in EU member states with upcoming deadlines for their residency schemes.
The UK restated its commitment to co-operating with the EU through the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee processes to make sure that pragmatic solutions are developed to implement all areas of the withdrawal agreement.
A post-meeting statement has been published on www.gov.uk here, giving a current assessment of the UK Government’s view on the Northern Ireland protocol.
[HCWS78]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content” an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 9th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 View all Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Jun 2021)
Lord Blencathra
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will, for a change, be very brief, not least because there are a number of amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham which give a practical way forward and are far superior to mine. I declare a personal interest as someone who pays £602 ground rent per annum on my London flat. While that is a disgraceful rip-off, for no services given, it pales into insignificance compared to the horror stories I heard at Second Reading about leaseholders hit with escalating ground rents running to tens of thousands of pounds.
At Second Reading, I attempted to use mockery to draw attention to the fact that the English leasehold and ground rent laws are an absolutely prehistoric abomination which should not exist in a top G7 country these days. I also said that I fully support this Bill and will do nothing to hold up its becoming law. The only problem is that it does not go far enough and does not deal with the injustices for all those caught up in the current ground rent racket. The peppercorn rent solution, ridiculous though that term now is, does in fact give justice to all future leaseholders, and I welcome that. Amendments 1, 2 and 11 simply apply that same just principle to the current racket. If it is right and just that all future leaseholders, who have not lost a penny, are protected from this evil racketeering, then surely it is far more important to deliver justice to all those who are being ripped off at present, some for extortionate sums, as the House heard at Second Reading. Amendments 1 and 2 simply say that all current ground rents will become peppercorn rents, just as the Bill does for future rents. Amendment 11 offers an alternative, setting a ceiling on the amount which may be demanded in ground rent per annum and giving a refund to leaseholders who are being ripped off by ground rents above £1,000 per annum.
I suspect that my noble friend the Minister will say that this is a very complicated subject, that the Government are working on solutions and that we will see the full details next year in the leaseholders Bill. I accept that my amendments take an absolutist, purist approach, but I do like the detailed, sensible amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which may offer a compromise—letting leaseholders buy their freedom. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will confirm, since he is a far better scholar of ancient Roman law than I ever was, in ancient Roman times slaves could buy their freedom, but very few could afford to buy their manumission. Most were freed by testamentary manumission—that is, in the will of their master—and Caesar Augustus regulated the system. So I call on my noble friend the Minister to become the new Caesar Augustus and set free the millions of leaseholders still paying their salarium.
If the Minister cannot accept my amendments, I would like to hear exactly what is wrong with Amendments 7, 8, 12, 17 and 18, proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and Amendment 5 in another group, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. They seem to me to be an excellent way to remove this 800-year-old injustice, bring justice to leaseholders and not deprive freeholders of some of their entitlements. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12 and its consequential Amendments 7, 8, 17, 22 and 23. Their effect is broadly the same as Amendments 1 and 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, whose speech I commend. Whereas he was able to express himself in four lines, I am afraid that my amendments have taken up four pages. The amendments also achieve the same as Amendment 5, which we will come to later, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. However, his amendment reserves all the detail set out in mine to the discretion of the Secretary of State, in regulations, and is time-limited. The amendments standing in my name, if accepted, would give a right to buy out ground rents for ever, beginning on 1 January 2023.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra has just said, the Bill as drafted applies only to future leases, coming into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations. It does nothing to help existing leaseholders or anyone who buys a lease with a ground rent before the commencement date, but it is government policy that existing leaseholders should have the right to buy out their ground rents. I refer to the Written Statement by the Secretary of State on 11 January this year:
“I am confirming that the Government will give leaseholders of all types of property the same right to extend their lease as often as they wish, at zero ground rent, for a term of 990 years.”
Later comes the crucial commitment:
“We will also enable leaseholders, where they already have a long lease, to buy out the ground rent without the need to extend the term of the lease.”
The obvious question for the Minister, raised by these amendments, is why the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill does not deliver government policy on ground rents. Why should we have to wait for the next piece of legislation to honour the commitment? On waiting for promised legislation, I am once bitten, twice shy. As Opposition spokesman in another place, when the hereditary Peers were removed, I was assured by the then leader of the House that stage two of House of Lords reform would be in place for the first round of elections to your Lordships’ House, by 2001. Twenty years on, I am still waiting.
There is still no firm commitment from the Government on when the Bill will come into force and, the longer the Government leave setting a date, the greater the risk that new monetary ground rents will continue to be created. The Government could stop this by indicating even a provisional date for this legislation to come into force, which would shift the bargaining power in favour of prospective purchasers of leasehold properties. That is why Amendment 22, in my name, prescribes a date of 1 January 2023 for this right to buy out ground rents to come into force.
The case for giving existing leaseholders this right was well made by the Law Commission. They took head on the counterargument that this right is unnecessary because leaseholders can extinguish the ground rent by extending their lease. I quote from Law Commission paper 387, entitled Leasehold Home Ownership: Buying your Freehold or Extending your Lease. Paragraph 3.63 of the consultation paper states:
“we explained that the 1993 Act right to a lease extension has been criticised for requiring leaseholders simultaneously to extend the term of their lease (and therefore pay the landlord for the deferral of the reversion) and to extinguish the ground rent (and therefore pay the landlord the value of the remainder of the original term). We noted suggestions that leaseholders should be able to choose between extending their lease, extinguishing their ground rent, or both, in order to reduce the premium payable on the lease extension.”
The paper continued:
“Support for the introduction of a right to extinguish the ground rent under a lease without extending the lease (whether alone, or together with the right discussed immediately above) was widespread. Consultees who supported this option included various professional bodies, the majority of commercial freeholders, a majority of firms and individual professionals, and a significant majority of leaseholders and other individuals.”
I continue to quote from the report, which states:
“Generally, consultees’ reasoning for supporting a right to extinguish the ground rent without extending the lease focussed on the predicament of leaseholders who are subject to onerous or doubling ground rents in long or very long leases. Both professionals and leaseholders explained that these leaseholders have no need to extend their lease term (which may be as long as 999 years), but wish to buy out their ground rent before it becomes onerous, and/or to make their property saleable. It was said to be ‘pointless’ to require them to claim an extended lease term purely to solve this problem.”
The report goes on to say:
“Several consultees considered that, given the forthcoming ban on ground rents in the majority of new leases, the right to extinguish ground rent in an existing lease (which is very long and does not require extending) would help to avoid the creation of a ‘two-tier’ market, consisting of leases with ground rent and those without. This argument was most persuasively made by a number of leaseholders from 1 West India Quay Residents’ Association. Pointing out that media coverage of the ground rent scandal has led prospective buyers to scrutinise ground rent obligations much more closely, Antonio De Gouveia wrote: ‘If Government is to cap or eliminate ground rents on new leases (which we think they will do), then there is even more reason for new legislation from the Law Commission to enable all leaseholders in our building to buy out their ground rent (onerous or not)’.”
I note in passing that the point about a two-tier market was made in the helpful briefing for the Bill from the Law Society. This all led the commission to its conclusion in paragraph 3.108:
“We recommend that leaseholders who already have very long leases should be entitled to extinguish the ground rent payable under their lease without also extending the term of the lease.”
My amendments deliver that. They have been drafted so that costs are kept to a minimum. No valuation is required because proposed subsection (6) of Amendment 12 sets out the terms, based on Law Commission examples. There is no prejudice to enfranchisement rights and timescales are set out to prevent any delay by the freeholder.
My amendment also addresses a different complaint raised by the Law Commission, namely that the current process for statutory leasehold extensions is too long and cumbersome. Landlords have options to game the system to make it as difficult as possible for leaseholders to exercise their rights. Look at paragraph 2.23 of Law Commission report 392.
My Amendment 12 therefore seeks to give effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations for simplification by proposing a straightforward way in which to buy out monetary ground rents without the need for notice and counter-notice, as exists under the current legislation. There will be nowhere for unscrupulous landlords to hide if the approach suggested in this group of amendments is adopted.
My Amendment 17 provides for the First-tier Tribunal to have jurisdiction in dealing with any issues arising from the exercise of the rights given by Amendment 12 and mirrors the provisions in Clauses 13 and 15. Amendment 12 goes further, in that it would also permit the tribunal at its discretion to award damages to a tenant denied rights to buy out a monetary ground rent, which is intended to serve as a deterrent to landlords denying such rights. Amendment 22 brings in the commencement date of 1 January 2023, giving those involved time to make the necessary preparations. Amendment 23 is consequential.
Why not use the Bill to give an option to millions of existing leaseholders, rather than wait for another Bill that deals with ground rents? There is no disagreement on policy, and here we have the vehicle. I await the response from my noble friend the Minister and hope that he will set the tone for this Committee by looking favourably on this first group of amendments.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in particular about Amendment 1, and the consequential amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It was great fun to listen to him on Second Reading, with his eloquent flow sweeping away the whole caboodle of leasehold legislation and starting again from square one. That was spoken like a true reformer and radical, which, in his heart, I know he is.
Today the noble Lord was a bit more circumspect, but no less radical, with amendments that would not just reform the system but abolish it completely, starting on day one. That is an attractive proposal, especially to leaseholders—but even more so to lawyers. If implemented as drafted, it would leave a trail of wreckage that should keep lawyers employed for many a long year.
However, I suspect that, as befits a former Chief Whip in the other place, the noble Lord has carefully done his homework behind the scenes. No doubt he has had a word with the Minister and secured a commitment to bring back a government-led amendment on Report to comprehensively reform the entire leasehold regime and implement the recommendations of the Law Commission, and in the meantime to freeze the granting of lease extensions on grossly inequitable terms. If that is so, my noble friends and I will be ready add our names to that amendment, when it comes along.
However, perhaps the noble Lord’s quiet chat with the Minister did not go quite as well as he had hoped, and no such agreement was forthcoming—which may be why today he deferred to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Among those, Amendment 12, in particular, sets out in impressive detail a somewhat equivalent plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just spelt out. At first reading, that amendment would seem to provide less of a free lunch for lawyers than Amendment 1 would, and it is sensible, measured and proportionate, as one would expect from the noble Lord.
In his explanatory statement, the noble Lord describes Amendment 12 as a probing amendment. We certainly welcome that probing of the Government’s position and intentions. We too are concerned by the slow pace of reform, and the fact that the current Bill does nothing for existing leaseholders. Instead, the Government are offering jam tomorrow—or possibly the day after tomorrow—for current leaseholders. At least the noble Lord’s amendments offer us a sniff of jam today. I would encourage the Minister, in his reply, to explain fully to us exactly when he will come back with clear plans to achieve the reforms that the noble Lord has already drafted for him. I thoroughly endorse the noble Lord’s concerns about the gaps that could open up.
We should remember that leaseholders’ organisations desperately want this Bill in place, and the Liberal Democrats support their intentions. There should be no delay in its passage. But the Minister owes it to those leaseholders to commit to delivering a comprehensive reform in the shortest possible time. That is not only the right and equitable course of action, but the best way of avoiding disruption to the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the Law Society’s briefing on the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Law Society’s belief that leasehold purchasers and their mortgage providers will, understandably, steer clear of taking out leases under the existing legal framework if they can find a much more favourable lease elsewhere in the market, under the new terms in the Bill. That means that existing leaseholders who are trying to sell will be put at a double disadvantage—not only having to pay outlandish charges but having more difficulty in selling their homes than if they had benefited from the new terms.
That risk to a stable market gets worse the longer the second stage of the reform is delayed. Perhaps the fact that that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to hereditary Peers’ legislation speaks to that foreseeable risk of endless delay. Two experienced senior members of previous Conservative Governments have tabled amendments in very similar terms to try to pre-empt that delay—which may be some kind of hint that they lack trust in the Government’s commitment to deliver on the second stage. In the Minister’s reply we need to hear exactly when he, as the responsible Minister, and the Government he represents, will bring forward that follow-up legislation, which we believe is now a pressing priority.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to take part at Second Reading. Some of your Lordships know that my wife was taken very ill with Covid—in fact, we nearly lost her—and I decided to take her away for a rest. I am pleased to say that she is now pretty well.
There are a couple of interests that I ought to declare. I am a vice-chairman of the Shared Ownership Housing APPG. I have taken a particular interest in care homes, so I will be addressing the Committee on Amendment 4. My friends know that I was chairman of the housing committee in the London Borough of Islington from 1968 to 1971, when there was a fair number of lease challenges. Finally, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I welcome the principle behind the Bill and thank Her Majesty’s Government for actually moving things forward.
I do not want to speak for very long on any of the amendments. I understand my roommate’s enthusiasm, which he has for everything in life, and he does cut through the rubbish, usually. It is nice to see someone cut through, bearing in mind that this is a pretty revolutionary Bill to start with. That is one end of the spectrum, and that covers Amendments 1 and 2. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into it in great detail. I read with great care what he said at Second Reading and the Government would do well to do the same—I am sure they must have done. He covered what might well be in the next Bill. It should be looked at extremely seriously.
I am concerned—I wrote it down before the noble Lord spoke this afternoon—about the position of existing leaseholders when they come to sell. I think that is a fair question, which the Labour Front Bench raised. That problem will be there unless some action is taken. It certainly cannot wait until the second half of this problem is dealt with in another Bill.
One other area concerns me: the situation, which is not uncommon, particularly in the provinces—I am speaking today from Sandy in Bedfordshire—where a landlord offers a 25-year lease on a residential property at a market or rack rent. That is pretty common in mixed-use scenarios; for example, a shop with a flat above, where the owner wants the commercial and residential parts to be leased out concurrently. In those sorts of circumstances, it seems—some would say absurd but that might be going too far—unusual and strange to expect just a peppercorn rent when a lessee is getting the benefit of living in or renting out the property.
The amendments in this group are absolutely crucial and I too look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Lord Mackay, could you unmute, please? I will move on to the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the debate so far has underlined the urgent need for reform across the entire leasehold sector and has reflected some of the strongly made arguments at Second Reading. In particular, many of the amendments are about the 4.5 million current leaseholders who are still captured by this unfair legacy and the failure to shift to commonhold, initiated in the 2002 Act.
I start by taking this opportunity to thank the Minister for discussions in advance of Committee and to stress our strong support for the Bill’s intentions. Its primary purpose is to chop off the head of the snake: the continuing supply of investment opportunities for freeholders on which they can base their borrowing for the next batch of unsuspecting leaseholders. I therefore hope that it goes through the parliamentary process with considerable speed. That said, what we cannot afford is any loopholes that enable this “something for nothing” industry to continue. When we debate later clauses, noble Lords will see that I believe there is a significant loophole that will be exploited: informal extensions, more ON which later.
As the relevant Committee, it is vital that we continue to remind ourselves of the shocking unfairness out there for many leaseholders. Last month, the Daily Mail featured a story about Carole Patterson, aged 44, an administrator in human resources whose ground rent on her flat in south London doubles every five years, rising to £1 million a year in 50 years’ time. The freeholder, MEA Real Estate Ltd, is prepared to waive the ground rent for a one-off payment of a whopping £100,000, described as
“a quarter of the value of the property”.
Given the value of that property, it is now almost impossible for her to sell on. Currently, leaseholders exist in a climate that was probably signed off by a solicitor, supposedly on their behalf. For all the Caroles, it is critical that this reform begin, and soon.
I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, for Amendment 18, which I have also put my name to. It addresses the critical need for a swift resolution to the problem of existing leaseholders, and therefore asks for the next Bill to be delivered in draft form as quickly as possible. We recognise that the Law Commission has suggested a longer period, but the Government do not always do what it recommends. At present, a third of Law Commission recommendations are not implemented, some due to timing, but others because the Government have decided not to implement them. At certain points, politicians need to decide and act. With chronic unfairness built into the system for 4.5 million leaseholders, this is one of those moments.
Regarding the readiness for this change on the part of the freehold investment sector and the ongoing oligopoly of housebuilders, it is possible to argue that, since the leasehold reforms of 2002 or perhaps earlier, they have been forewarned that the clear intention over time of various Governments, of all parties, has been to move out of the leasehold system. If they are not prepared for that scenario, the problem belongs fully with them and not with the Government.
As my noble friend Lord Stunell—also a member of the former Chief Whips club in our own party—said, we of course support the intention of Amendments 1 and 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to move more swiftly to cover all leaseholds. We also support his Amendment 11, which would limit ground rents with a relevant cap of £250 and provide for reimbursement. It is an interesting approach, given that, as I understand it, a property in London with a ground rent of more than £1,000 a year, or of over £250 per annum in the rest of the country, now falls into the definition bracket of an assured shorthold tenancy. That means that for some aspects of leasehold obligations, the courts do not have jurisdiction, especially regarding forfeiture, which was much discussed at Second Reading. I therefore look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to this issue.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I will return to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
I am glad to say that I have managed to unmute with the help of the host.
I very much support the principles behind these amendments in this group. If it is wrong to have a new lease with ground rent of the kind that we are concerned with, why is it not wrong to have it in existing rents? That is what we need to address, and now, if at all possible, although I am equally strongly in favour of getting the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible and I would not like any delay to result from the other considerations. Nevertheless, these other considerations are very strong and I cannot see why it would not be possible to incorporate dealing with them in the Bill as well as preventing another wave of the problem.
I am very much in favour of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s Amendment 12 and all the complementary ones around it. I had the responsibility a long time ago of looking at this question of leasehold and I confirm what has just been said—that it was certainly my idea to try to get rid of it altogether. I was brought up under the Scottish system, where Scottish tenement property is capable of being owned outright without the necessity of a lease. I also had the experience of later seeing the feu, or feudal, system abolished. It had a rent, called a feu duty, which was part of the basic responsibility of the title, and the Government of the day decided to get rid of it altogether. Of course, that meant that something had to happen to the feu duty. It was capitalised by a very simple formula that the feuer had to pay, and so the whole thing finished. I would love to see something like that happen to the leasehold system but I realise that that is a hope beyond immediate realisation. Therefore, my stance is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—I think I am right in saying that I participated in the Bill when he was concerned with these matters a considerable time ago. I have suggested a small alteration to his way of dealing with the matter which I will explain briefly later.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it was certainly worth waiting for the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, because we now know we are all batting on the same wicket. As we have heard, Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Kennedy and me, in addition to amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, introduces the issue of existing leaseholders and brings into question why the Government are not legislating to protect them. To us there seems to be no rhyme nor reason why they are not.
Although the provisions of the Bill are welcome and the Government are right to set future ground rents to zero, they are offering nothing for those tied into existing leaseholds. In 2019, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government estimated that one in five homes in England were leasehold dwellings. That equates to approximately 4.5 million properties, and the number will have grown since. Many of those households, tied into leasehold arrangements, are subjected to ground rent arrangements overwhelmingly balanced to benefit landlords—what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, called legal racketeering. Some leaseholders are being charged extortionate amounts and others have seen their payments rise exponentially.
In fact, the Competition and Markets Authority is currently taking action against both Countryside and Taylor Wimpey, which are doubling some ground rents every 10 to 15 years. There is one factor that every household paying ground rent has in common: they receive little to no benefit from paying that sum. The Government should take action for those already stuck in leaseholds and paying extortionate ground rent charges. Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Kennedy and me, seeks to address this by ensuring that the Government bring forward further legislation. Can the Minister confirm whether any further legislation is anticipated or planned on this theme and, if so, when?
The purpose of Amendment 9 is to raise the question of remedial costs for leaseholders. The crux of this matter is that the Government have failed to introduce legislation to deal with the fact that building owners are attempting to pass on the cost of remedial work to leaseholders. Despite promises from Government Ministers that leaseholders would not be forced to pay to fix fire safety problems that were not their fault, the issue is still ongoing. I have a nephew who is a leaseholder in a block of flats in Hackney. The freeholder, Southern Housing, has simply failed to engage with the Government. It has not applied for any grant aid to assist to fix the fire safety problems, leaving the leaseholders potentially to bear the cost. We are talking here about tens of thousands of pounds per household. Can the Minister confirm when legislation will be introduced to prevent leaseholders facing those extraordinary costs?
Amendment 10, meanwhile, raises the issue of service charges in shared ownership properties. The purpose of the amendment is to highlight the sky-high fees that many residents in those properties are being charged, often with little return. Will the Minister use this opportunity to explain what steps the Government will take to help those in shared ownership agreements who are facing extortionate service charges?
Amendment 11 raises the important point of informal arrangements, which can be used to bypass the central provisions of the Bill. I look forward to clarification from the Minister in this area, and on the questions raised by Amendments 22 and 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I understand that the purpose of the amendments is to give time to prepare for all involved parties, but we should consider that the Bill’s proposals have been discussed for some time already. None the less, I trust the Minister will respond to the points made by the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a great deal today about the difficulties facing some existing leaseholders, particularly in relation to ground rent—poignantly in the speech by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and, with some powerful examples, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
We are very concerned about leases with high and increasing ground rents. We are aware that such onerous conditions affect not only the affordability of living costs for affected leaseholders but their ability to sell or even re-mortgage their properties. That is why we asked the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct an investigation into potential mis-selling and unfair terms in the leasehold sector. This included the issue of onerous ground rent. Following a detailed investigation, in February last year the CMA published its report, which estimated that the issue of doubling ground rent has affected more than 18,000 leaseholders. In March this year, it informed developers that they may be in breach of the law. Noble Lords will agree that this is very serious indeed, and the Government welcome the CMA’s continued efforts to bring justice to home owners affected by unfair practices.
Our commitment to existing leaseholders certainly does not end there. As I made clear at Second Reading, this is just the first of a two-part legislative reform programme that will improve the leasehold system. Further legislation later in this Parliament will address a range of issues facing existing leaseholders. In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Lennie, the aim is to have that next stage in the third Session.
On 7 January the Secretary of State announced a package of leasehold reforms covering enfranchisement valuation and 990-year leases. This is the first part of our response to the Law Commission’s reports on leasehold and commonhold. We will respond to the remaining recommendations in due course. We are absolutely committed to a comprehensive and ambitious programme of reform to create a fairer and more transparent leasehold market, but we need to make sure we get it right. That takes time, which is why we have started with this ground rent Bill, focused tightly on ground rents on new residential long leases.
I turn to the specific amendments before us today that deal with existing leaseholders. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has tabled Amendments 1 and 2. The whole House will have been left in no doubt as to his views of ground rents and the leasehold system following his barnstorming speech at Second Reading. His two amendments both aim to extend this Bill so as to reduce ground rent for existing leaseholders, and we can all understand his reasons for laying them.
I am grateful to colleagues from across the House for their close examination of the issues facing existing leaseholders. However, the decision to focus this legislation tightly on new leases was a very deliberate one. We are working to make the leasehold system fairer and more transparent for leaseholders, but we also need to ensure that we are fair to freeholders. Setting existing leases to a peppercorn raises complex issues and could have negative consequences that may extend beyond the leasehold sector. As just one example of these consequences, your Lordships will be aware that there are pension providers who hold existing investments dependent on ground rent income that were entered into some years ago. These are long-term financial commitments that service the needs of many of our elderly citizens.
I note again that we are in the throes of planning to bring forward further legislation on leasehold reform, and the changes to the valuation process will make a real difference for many existing leaseholders, especially those with fewer than 80 years remaining on their lease.
I come to the six amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham regarding the right to buy out ground rent in pre-commencement leases, Amendments 7, 8, 12, 17, 22 and 23. As noble Lords will know, there is already statutory provision for leaseholders of flats to reduce the ground rent they pay to a peppercorn on payment of a premium when they extend their lease, and leaseholders of houses can buy their freehold and so extinguish ground rent liability that way under existing legislation. The Government are aware that for some leaseholders this may be prohibitively expensive. This is why we have announced forthcoming changes to the valuation process that will cap how ground rent is treated, reducing the premium to be paid for leaseholders with onerous ground rents.
In addition, the Law Commission has recommended that leaseholders should be able to choose to pay to extinguish their ground rent without extending their lease, as my noble friend Lord Young mentioned. I can confirm that the reforms we will bring forward in future leasehold legislation will enable leaseholders, where they already have a long lease, to buy out the ground rent without the need to extend the term of the lease. We are considering the remainder of the Law Commission’s recommendations and will respond in due course.
I know that my noble friend Lord Blencathra has asked me to be a latter-day Caesar Augustus, but I point out that we have not addressed this in this legislation because reform of enfranchisement and historical ground rents is complex and interlinked. It is important to address these issues together in the forthcoming legislation. The cost of enfranchisement is directly related to ground rents and other components, such as the length of the lease. That is why we are looking to do that in a second tranche of reforms in the third Session of this Parliament. That is the plan.
These planned changes will directly address the issue underpinning the amendments from my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Young. Future leasehold reforms will allow existing leaseholders to pay a more affordable premium and buy out their ground rent when they extend their lease or purchase their freehold. This will be less costly for leaseholders than under the current approach to enfranchisement valuation. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these changes mean that the amendments are not needed, as their effect is being achieved through work beyond the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I press him on what he said right at the end about the importance of getting the Bill through “as speedily as possible”. I accept that, but if it is important that Parliament processes this legislation speedily, is it not then incumbent on the Government to announce an early date for the implementation of the Bill?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we want to move as speedily as possible but, as I stated in my reply, we do not want to set a deadline for things. We want to get this on the statute book very speedily in this Session; that is why it is so early in this Session. That is my answer.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I feel rather guilty that I am responding when it really should be my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who put forward an impeccable case today for the reforms he has suggested.
The one thing that has come through loud and clear to the Minister from all noble Lords is that the current system is totally unsustainable. My amendments are probably not appropriate; I believe the amendments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham are. If they cannot be accepted into this Bill, it is desperately important that we get them in the full leasehold reform Bill which we expect next year. If my noble friend wishes to put down his amendments on Report, I will support him; he may not wish to push them to a vote, but perhaps the Government need to see on Report that we are serious about talking about the injustice of the current leasehold system.
My noble friend the Minister has said that this is a difficult area and that he is committed to giving leasehold reform “high priority”. If I may say so, the Law Commission is a worthy body, but its problem is that it is full of lawyers; they see leasehold reform as a matter of dotting some “i”s, crossing some “t”s and tweaking an 800 year-old system a bit here and there to make it work better. As politicians—and as politicians in the Commons would say—we find the whole system iniquitous. It is wrong. Perhaps it is those of us from a Scottish background who cannot believe that you buy a property and do not fully own it; it is an extraordinary, wrong system. When the Bill comes next year, we do not want leasehold reform tweaked; we want it stopped for all new contracts.
The wonderful innovation of commonhold failed because we gave developers and other money-grubbing people the choice of continuing with leasehold or commonhold. We thought they would implement common decency and common sense, but they operated a system which made the most money—well, we cannot criticise that; it is inevitable. When the new Bill comes, let there be no choice. Let it be clear that commonhold will be the only system acceptable for all new purchase contracts in future.
That still leaves the problem of current leaseholders. I am very certain that, with Amendment 5 from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the amendments from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on a buy-out scheme must be the right direction to go in, because it affords justice to leaseholders who can get out of this wicked system and gives some compensation—too much in my opinion, but who am I to say?—to current freeholders who would demand the right not to be stripped of all their benefits.
On early implementation, I refer my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham to Amendment 26, where I suggest that the Bill should be implemented on Royal Assent. I appreciate that we may need to make exceptions for property for old folks’ homes—I am not sure what the current term is for an old folks’ home, but I believe that is to be exempted for a couple of years for us to figure out how to do it. The rest of this Bill should be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
With those words—and my apologies; my camera was off a lot of the time so that my machine did not run down, but I heard all the debate—I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and, in conclusion, emphasise to my noble friend once again that the Government might get away with not sorting out leasehold and ground rents in this Bill, but they will not get away with it next year when the big Bill comes. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the application of the Bill where premises are part business and part residential.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name is designed to shed light on what the Government mean by premises that significantly contribute to “business purposes”. We may move into less turbulent territory in this group.
I begin by asking the Minister a fairly basic question: if ground rents are, as I believe, a feudal anachronism or, in the words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, “legal racketeering”—a payment for which one gets nothing in return—why are they being banned only for future dwellings and not for all premises? Surely a combination of a lease and a conventional rent would suffice for the commercial sector and we could simply strip Clause 2 out of the Bill entirely. This may go beyond my noble friend’s negotiating brief but, if we are to have this distinction, we need some clarity.
By way of background, when I put the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act on the statute book, one of the most contentious issues was the exemption from enfranchisement of mixed-use buildings, with shops on the ground floor and flats above. After a healthy dialogue between the two Houses, when your Lordships’ House still had a healthy representation of the country’s freeholders and the other place was concerned more with leaseholders who actually had votes, we ended up exempting properties where the commercial use was 25% or more of the total space. That Act was about the collective enfranchisement of a building, whereas this Bill is about individual leases within a building, so the same definition may not work. There is, none the less, the same need for clarity and, with the current definition, I can see scope for argument and the possibility for a freeholder to introduce a ground rent by arguing that the leases in his building qualify for Clause 2 exemption.
Suppose, for example, a new block of flats is specifically designed so occupants can work from home. The developer not only builds in all the relevant infrastructure in each flat but has a communal space on the ground floor that can be hired as a conference room to get around Clause 2(3). Could he then claim exemption and include ground rents in all the leases in the flats?
I was grateful to my noble friend for the time he spent with me on Monday, when he explained that the object of exemption was where a ground-floor shop had a flat above it and it was essential, for the efficient operation of the shop, for the shopkeeper to live above it. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsmen had in mind publicans, who often live above licensed premises. My concern remains that the wording is too loose, so it can provide loopholes and give rise to litigation. I wonder whether, between now and Report, my noble friend could consider an alternative and tighter wording. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Lord Mackay, could you unmute, please? Lord Mackay? Perhaps I can return to him. In the meantime, I shall call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am of the same view as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the difficulty of understanding exactly why business premises of any sort are exempt from this. No doubt there is an explanation. If so, it is necessary to ensure that the precise reason for business premises being exempt should be the basis of their definition. This is my point. I am sorry; I seem to have difficulty in unmuting without help, for some reason that I have not understood so far. Maybe I will gradually learn as the day goes on.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will simply support the carefully presented argument from the noble Lord, Lord Young, with a case study which also shows a way in which the system might be exploited. On a new housing development outside Leicester, homes have been sold on leases with index-linked ground rents. So too have the parking spaces that go with them; the leases of the parking spaces are separate and also index-linked. There have been endless and, so far, fruitless battles to sort out the situation. Indeed, some leaseholders, facing rising charges and challenging their validity, have been presented with agreements signed with what they claim are forged signatures. Needless to say, they employed, of necessity, the developer’s nominated solicitor to advise them when they first purchased. The allegation is that he was a party to the alleged forgery.
Should the Bill—or, rather the next one because, as we have all fully understood, this Bill will not help anybody with an existing lease in Leicester—provide these residents with some relief? The Committee has heard from the Minister that it will, in due course, but how will they stand in relation to separate leases that they hold for their parking spaces? Is it open to a legally hawk-eyed owner of the lease to designate them as commercial? If they come as part of a car park that is also occupied by visitors to local shops, is the car park a commercial one, or does there exist some way of exempting the parking places of residents—not necessarily those living over shops, but those adjacent to commercial premises? Will they be entitled to redeem those leases on the car parking places under the terms of this Bill or its successor, or, in that case, will the evidently unscrupulous developers be able to claim that it is a commercial, not a residential, lease and therefore exempt, and that the accelerating payments can continue?
If the Minister says, “It is a matter of common sense”, then I would say that in Leicester it is not. If it will not be the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, it certainly needs to be something more than is in the Bill as it is now, setting out clearly that leases ancillary to the proper use of the home will be included in the legislation and there will be no loopholes left for exclusion. It would be good to hear the Minister say that he agrees and will bring a suitable amendment back on Report.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the application of the Bill where premises are part business and part residential. High streets across the four nations of the UK include properties that fit this description, and I hope that the Government have drafted the Bill with these in mind. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation of how the Government intend the Bill to apply to premises that are part business and part residential.
I have two questions. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether the Government have an estimate of how many part-business, part-residential properties could be impacted by the Bill. Will he also confirm what engagement the Government have had with the owners of such buildings as part of the drafting of the Bill?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their time on this issue, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I am happy to engage with noble Lords further on whether we can make the business exemption as clear as possible.
The Government consulted carefully on the detail that has informed the Bill. During that consultation a small number of areas were identified where there was a justification for the charging of a rent or ground rent for a property. The Bill exempts business leases from the peppercorn rent requirement, and we have always been clear that this Bill is aimed at residential properties. Clause 2(1)(b) addresses the very small number of leases that fall between these; that is, mixed-use leases, where a single lease comprises both business and residential purposes.
For the avoidance of doubt, this does not relate to mixed-use developments, which may comprise a range of property types, including both business and residential, but each on a separate lease. In such cases, provided that no other exceptions apply, the residential premises in such a development would be subject to a peppercorn rent, and a rent may be charged for commercial properties.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, the exemption applies only where flat and commercial premises are on the same lease. The Bill is clear that home businesses and other ancillary leases are not included in the definition of “business lease”.
The types of premises that Clause 2(1)(b) is intended to address are likely to be small in number. They could include, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, a flat above a shop where the occupant of the flat is a shop worker living above the business where they are required to have the shop open at certain times. The noble Lord mentioned a publican living above a pub.
We have taken care to ensure that this exception does not provide a loophole whereby a ground rent is charged on a premises that is to all intents and purposes a residential one. To prevent such a loophole, there must be a close link between the business purpose and the need for the associated residential use. That is brought about by the requirement in Clause 2(1)(b) that the use as a dwelling
“significantly contributes to the business purposes”.
There is a further protection for both leaseholders and landlords in Clause 2(1)(c). This requires that, at or before the point the lease is granted, both the landlord and leaseholder provide written notices that they intend the premises covered by the lease in question to be used for the business purposes set out in the lease. The purpose of Clause 2(1)(c) is to make sure that there is no doubt for either party that the lease is intended to be used, and continues to be used, for business purposes.
The business lease exception is carefully drafted to enable a rent to be charged where it is justified, and to include sufficient protection against abuse of this exception. I restate to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the Bill defines “dwelling” as including gardens or appurtenances, which should include parking spaces, but I will be happy to clarify that specific point before Report. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I welcome what the Minister said in his reply, that he would undertake to reflect on it between now and Report to see whether there is a better definition. I am not sure whether we have dealt adequately with the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, where, as I understand it, because a parking space is not a dwelling, it is not covered by the Bill. The Minister said he was going to reflect on whether that represented a loophole in that a developer could let a property separately from a parking space. The noble Lord also raised the issue of where you have a communal parking space that can be used by both the residents living nearby and the visitors to the shops, and whether the developer of the parking area could charge both the residents and the shops a ground rent for the use of the communal parking space.
The only other point I wanted to raise was whether my noble friend the Minister could give me an assurance on the specific example I gave, where a developer included in the block of flats a conference facility on the ground floor, and whether he could then argue that the nature of the business purposes permitted by the lease significantly contributed to the business purposes, and whether he could argue to everybody who bought a flat in that development that because they could access the conference room and whatever other facilities might be on the ground floor, therefore all the flats could be exposed to a ground rent. I do not expect my noble friend to give me a reply off the cuff but I would be quite interested in a response to that specific example if he could give it between now and Report.
On that basis I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Retirement homes where development has begun prior to commencement
(12) A lease is an excepted lease if it is a lease of a retirement home, and—(a) a contract to purchase the land to develop retirement homes was agreed before 1 April 2021, and(b) development of the homes began before the relevant commencement day under section 25(4).(13) A lease is a lease of a retirement home if—(a) it is a term of the lease that the premises demised by the lease may be occupied only by persons who have attained a minimum age, and(b) that minimum age is not less than 55.”
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Homes for Later Living group for its briefing on the issues that I shall raise. I greatly welcome the Bill, and congratulate the Government on taking the bold step of getting rid of ground rents. I know there is more to come in this space, and I look forward to further legislation to assist existing leaseholders in the future.
This amendment is intended to tidy up an anomaly in the Bill relating to the provision of retirement housing. I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People, and chair of the five inquiries flowing from the so-called HAPPI initiative—Housing our Ageing Population Panel for Innovation.
I shall set the amendment in context. Retirement housing is an important but very small part of the housing scene. It seeks to meet the needs of older people who want to “rightsize”, usually from a family house and garden to somewhere easy to manage and inexpensive to heat, with space and light and without stairs and obstacles, where care can be delivered if need be—and, importantly, with the opportunity for company and companionship, in these times when loneliness is a problem for so many.
By moving in later life, older people not only avoid the struggle and cost of maintaining a large property, and prevent the need for an expensive and unpopular move into residential care, but bring a much-needed family home on to the market. The house buying and selling chain that follows means that a young family, too, can access the home they need. The nation gets two for one. Yet in the last year before Covid, of around 200,000 homes built, only about 7,000 were tailor-made for later living—down from 28,000 in the recent past. That output is far short of the numbers needed, with surveys indicating that nearly 4 million people over pension age would be interested in downsizing—or rightsizing—if the opportunity were there.
I have been anxious to see whether the Bill assists or undermines the already very low level of new home building for older people. As it stands, there is a danger that it will have a negative effect on that sector, because ground rents currently play a special and different role in such schemes. The specialist developers of retirement housing have had a tough time competing with the volume housebuilders, which make bigger profits, and so pay more for sites, by concentrating on younger buyers who are less discerning and often desperate to move.
Retirement housing cannot take advantage of Help to Buy subsidies, or the ongoing stamp duty relief for first-time buyers. Importantly, retirement accommodation must include extra space for communal facilities—a clubroom, a garden area and a range of other facilities in assisted living and extra care schemes, such as a restaurant, a treatment room, accommodation for care staff and a guest room. Space for those items can add up to 30% of the total cost of a residential development.
The cost for a scheme of 40 apartments is likely to be between £1 million and £2 million. This is where ground rents come in. They have not been, as they are in other housing schemes, payments of “something for nothing”. When capitalised and sold to investors, they have been the means of funding the extra capital costs of the communal spaces inside and out. As I said at Second Reading, they have been “something for something”, and have represented an alternative to a higher purchase price, which would be entirely justified, but which can put off buyers in this sensitive marketplace and debar those unable to afford the extra cost.
Why, you may ask, cannot service charges cover the capital costs in retirement housing, instead of using ground rents? The existing rules on what goes into a service charge—which can, of course, cover the ongoing revenue costs of communal facilities—mean that it is impossible to use a service charge to pay for these extra capital costs. This is as it should be.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much admire the detailed knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has of this and many other areas of importance. I heartily agree with him. Your Lordships will appreciate that I may have a special interest in this area, in view of my years.
As a matter of interest, I wonder how the age of 55 was chosen. I hope he may be able to give me a short explanation of that, because it is of interest to me.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best. I am in my 80s and, from talking among friends, I am aware of at least two couples who are beginning to think about retirement homes. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is quite right. We discussed this issue before I even knew it was coming up in the Bill.
This sector of the market is, first, growing—that in itself is very encouraging—and as a country we have been a bit slow in this area compared with other countries. Secondly, it is growing in the sense that it was clear, back in my days as an MP, that there was a scepticism about retirement homes with all these extra facilities, but now it is taken as the norm and people are particularly fussy. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, says, a number are caught by this time dimension, it seems sensible that any business that started by the dates he puts in his amendment should be exempt.
I do not understand why 55 was chosen. The retirement age is still going up, so 55 seems a bit generous, frankly. Another 10 on top of it would not have gone amiss, but that is a minor issue. I hope Her Majesty’s Government take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, very seriously; they need addressing.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, developing adequate housing stock for an ageing population is a significant challenge for this and future Governments. The work of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the publications by his APPG for Housing and Care for Older People have been essential reading in this area. While we recognise that what is now in the Bill is a compromise achieved following a total exemption for retirement homes in the original consultation, and in spite of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Best—whose expertise in this area is significant—when the Minister responds, I still want to understand where the essential difference lies between retirement and other leaseholders, in his or the Government’s opinion. If the straight answer is money required to be spent on common parts, surely a more honest and transparent way to do that is in either the original price or the service charges. However, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said today and will study his explanation.
Given that ground rents appear to serve no purpose, as we have already discussed several times and at Second Reading, other than profit for the freeholder or security to borrow to develop more properties, why is this different when applied to retirement homes? I am sure that noble Lords are familiar with the Times investigation into this in November 2019, but it bears revisiting. It uses the example of one retirement property bought for £197,000, in 2009, from the FTSE 250 development company McCarthy & Stone, which was sold for only £26,000 six years later. By the time the flat owner died, she was paying the management company almost £8,000 a year.
The Times went on to say:
“Housebuilders such as McCarthy & Stone argue that without the money they make selling the freehold to management companies they could not afford to provide communal areas for their properties. Yet this is a poor excuse when there are far more transparent ways to raise revenue, such as simply selling their properties for a higher price.”
They often cover that in the service charge. The article continued:
“They insist, moreover, that the majority of their homes have increased in value.”
However, the Times then went on to find that
“one McCarthy & Stone property had lost £45,000 between 2015, when it was bought,”
and 2019. The same investigation found that, as with other leaseholders, elderly relatives are persuaded to use a solicitor who the developer has recommended, who turns out to be the very opposite of an advocate on behalf of the retiree. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained, this group can often be exploited and manipulated.
For those reasons, we are minded to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, but look forward to hearing the arguments in the closing stages of this debate.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the welcome provisions of this Bill will not apply to retirement properties until at least April 2023, despite previous suggestions by the Government that these properties would be included. This is echoed by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It represents a clear U-turn, without any explanation, and for this reason I have tabled Amendment 25 with my noble friend Lord Kennedy, intended to bring retirement properties in line with all other homes.
If the Government had placed the April 2023 date in the hope of creating a transition period, the Minister should explain to the Committee exactly why this is needed, when it has been accepted that no period is necessary for other properties, as part of this. Given that over 50,000 people in the UK live in retirement community units, I hope the Minister can explain what consultation has taken place with groups representing those residents and their families.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, who is deeply knowledgeable, has tabled an amendment to consider the application of this legislation to retirement homes where development has begun prior to commencement. I hope the Minister will offer an explanation of what steps the Government will take to support residents, which this clause relates to.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I start by addressing the point about age. It is great to hear from my noble friend Lord Naseby and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern on why we are considering people aged a mere 55 for this. I do not have to declare an interest as I have not quite made that age threshold yet. However, it is fair to say that that sector broadly starts providing retirement housing for those aged 55 and above. Some people in that age group choose to move to those properties. In fact, one can access lump sums from one’s pension from the age of 55 but I know that people at a greater age look at that and ask, “How can you even contemplate retirement at such a young age?”
As noble Lords know, it is our intention to protect leaseholders from unfair practices through the Bill by ensuring that future regulated leases are restricted to a peppercorn rent, unless exempted. While we would like the provisions of the Bill to come into effect as soon as possible, we have decided to give the retirement sector additional time to prepare for these changes, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, have tabled Amendment 25 to remove the provision that provides that the Bill will not come into force in regard to retirement homes prior to 1 April 2023. I thank them for their consideration of this matter.
I will explain to your Lordships the reasoning for including a transitional period for retirement properties and why it is the right thing to do. The detail of the peppercorn ground rent was announced in 2019, following the Government’s consultation Implementing Reforms to the Leasehold System. At the time of the announcement, retirement properties were to be exempt from the restrictions on ground rent in the Bill. Having reviewed this in further detail, the Government decided in January 2021 to widen the protections granted under the Bill and to remove the retirement exemption.
All other parts of the development industry have had time since the Government’s announcement in 2019 to adapt and review their business models and will have had sufficient time by the commencement of the Bill to adapt. However, given that the retirement sector has had less time to prepare, we have carefully considered the impact on developers and weighed this against our ambition to protect leaseholders. It is our firm belief that given these circumstances, the retirement sector should be given additional time to make adequate preparations to transition to peppercorn rents, as was carefully argued by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 4 would have the effect of extending the transition period for retirement properties that are under development, potentially for an additional two years, or even longer where sites are slower to build out and sell. I am grateful to noble Lords for looking closely at this, and to stakeholders in the retirement housing sector who have provided information on this issue. We have carefully considered this matter to ensure that we are striking the right balance, thereby giving the retirement sector time to transition and ensuring that protection for leaseholders comes as quickly as possible.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the transitional arrangements that we have set out in the Bill will make it fair for all parties, both developers and leaseholders, and that it is the right thing to do. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate on the amendment. Perhaps I may respond to them all.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked whether an age limit of 55 is sensible. It was chosen by the Government and is the age chosen by a number of retirement housing schemes. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords on that. Having had some responsibility for developing such schemes, I know that people actually move in in their 70s, not their 50s. The sometimes vain hope is that the scheme will attract a few younger people in order to get a mix of ages throughout. Indeed, sometimes people with disabilities who are in their late 50s are ideal people to move in. But the reality is that despite an age restriction of 55, people will only actually move in in their 70s. However, the flexibility has worked quite well also.
Other noble Lords were more sceptical. I hope that perhaps if they have a good look at Hansard, they might be convinced that there is a “something for nothing” versus a “something for something” debate here and that this particular kind of housing has achieved something for something with ground rents in the past and the transition to a future in which it has to do without that will present some problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, it is probably the case that, in the longer term, there will be more transparency in a higher purchase price. It means that people will have to fork out more at the beginning—they cannot spread it over a period of years with a ground rent—but it will be more transparent. If some people cannot afford it, that is a casualty along the way, which I am sorry about, but it will lead to greater transparency in the longer term.
In the meantime, there are developments in the pipeline that are a cause of actual concern and difficulty. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He made it clear that this sector was given quite a clear steer back in 2019 that it could carry on as it was with new developments because this ban on ground rents would not affect it and it would be exempted. I agree with the change of mind that followed. It is right that all people are dealt with the same, younger and older alike, and that there will be no ground rents in the future.
I am happy with that, but it does leave the providers of later living housing rather high and dry. Although they have been given until April 2023—a similar period to that for housebuilders building for younger households—it is a fact that they need a bit more time. The buyers in this particular marketplace are right to be discerning, but it does take longer and there will be a problem for the relatively small number of 180-odd developments and about 4,200 homes affected, for which the transition is just not long enough. We will have weird situations where there are two kinds of occupier in the same development, some paying ground rents and some not, and the producer of the scheme having some financial and management difficulties accordingly. It would be quite simple to help them on their way and encourage this sector to develop, rather than discourage it, which I fear is the outcome at the moment. However, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage and thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“Leases with an option of redemption
(1) In this Act a lease with an option of redemption means a lease which meets the following conditions—(a) it is a long lease of a dwelling,(b) it is in force on the “relevant transition date”, and(c) it is not an excepted lease.(2) The “relevant transition date” is the day on which this section and the other relevant provisions of this Act come into force in relation to leases of that kind.(3) After the relevant transition date the tenant has an option to pay a capital sum to the landlord, on payment of which the rent payable under the lease shall be a peppercorn rent.(4) The capital sum in subsection (3) shall be calculated in accordance with a formula specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(5) The option to pay a capital sum to the landlord set out in subsection (3) may only be exercised within two years of the relevant transition date.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an amendment on the principles that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham explained when speaking to his amendment. The only reason why I thought of doing it this way was to make it part of the legislation now, if that was acceptable, with a degree of flexibility in the Secretary of State’s powers to fix the way payment would be adjusted or assessed. I thought it might help to deal with this situation now rather than later. As I said, this is based to an extent on the way feu duty was dealt with in Scotland when it was made compulsory to stop it altogether as we departed from the feudal system. My suggestion may be attractive in the sense that it avoids dealing with a lot of detail now. On the other hand, it may not be very wise to leave it so doubtful, especially when there are other concerns associated with the payment of ground rent, such as the maintenance of insurance policies and so on. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
As in the earlier group, we support the principle of this amendment. I reiterate that the elegant drafting by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in the earlier group is the drafting that we would prefer—and very much look forward to seeing on Report.
On Amendment 5, our concern would be about any kind of delay in this process, which would be driven by having to produce subsequent drafting of regulations for how the amounts would be calculated. Therefore, we would prefer the wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
I also take this opportunity, given that the Minister, in his summing up of the first group of amendments on trying to extend to existing leaseholders, made an argument about the proportion and percentage of pension funds that are currently invested in freehold property and the disruption that this might cause to pension funds, to ask him to elaborate on what kind of proportion that might affect, and what the balance is between the 4.5 million leaseholders who currently experience quite a significant negative impact in terms of ground rent in particular in the abuse of this system, and the pension fund system.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment returns the debate to the question of existing leaseholders and appears to allow existing leaseholders to pay a fee to exempt them from ground rent. As I said in the earlier group, ground rent arrangements are overwhelmingly balanced to benefit landlords and the system needs urgent reform for all involved.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for explaining that this was based on the Scots departing from the previous feudal system, but I am concerned that his amendment, if applied literally, could lead to landlords charging extortionate termination fees. None the less, I appreciate that he sees the need for reforming the system and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I spoke earlier about the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into potential mis-selling and unfair terms in the leasehold sector. This included the issue of onerous ground rent. Our commitment to existing leaseholders does not end with the CMA investigation. As I have mentioned several times, this Bill is just the first of two-part legislation to reform and improve the leasehold system. As noble Lords will know by now, further legislation later in this Parliament will address a range of issues facing existing leaseholders.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s Amendment 5 would give an option of redemption on existing leases, allowing leaseholders to pay a capital sum to reduce their ground rent to a peppercorn. The broad aim of such an amendment to allow existing leaseholders to buy out their ground rent has been discussed previously, so I will avoid repeating the detail at length.
As noble Lords will recall, existing legislation already allows for the leaseholders of flats to reduce their ground rent to a peppercorn when they extend their lease, while leaseholders of houses can eliminate ground rent completely by buying the freehold of their property.
In January the Government responded in part to the Law Commission’s reports on leasehold and commonhold reform. This included a commitment to allow leaseholders who already have a long lease to buy out the ground rent, without the need to extend the term of their lease. We will respond to the remaining Law Commission recommendations in due course.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the work currently being undertaken beyond the Bill means that this amendment is not needed. Noble Lords can rest assured that this Government have a desire to reform the leasehold system at the earliest opportunity and the ground rent Bill represents the first stage in a two-step legislative programme.
I point out—as was raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender—that there are pension fund investments and we need to take that into account. That is why the Government believe it is right not to take a big bang approach to the abolition of existing ground rents but to make it easier to enfranchise and to offer that in the most leaseholder-friendly way. That is why we have made a number of commitments where people will be able to buy out ground rents without the need to extend their lease, as well as making enfranchisement as easy as possible, along the lines of the recommendations of the Law Commission. That is the balance that we want to strike to ensuring that existing leaseholders will have the mechanism and the ability to remove ground rents. I therefore ask that my noble and learned friend withdraws the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I should just like to ask the Minister to perhaps write to all Members involved in this debate to give a bit more detail about what proportion of pension funds are impacted, given that my understanding is that the pension funds are fully aware of the intention to abolish ground rents and extend that to existing leaseholders. I should still like to understand the balance of impact between the 4.5 million leaseholders and the pension funds, if that is to be deployed as a significant argument in this issue. I am very happy for the Minister to write to us later about this.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I shall try a second time, because obviously I did not manage it the first time. We have not made a commitment to abolish by fiat existing ground rents. We have committed to make it as easy as possible for leaseholders to enfranchise or to buy themselves out of the ground rent obligation. That of course then becomes a phased approach to the 4.5 million people who are paying ground rents. Of course, we are looking to the Competition and Markets Authority to deal with the issue of onerous ground rents. That is the policy position; the noble Baroness is implying something that we have not committed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate. It is quite important to have in mind the possibility of a variable way to buy off the ground rent, and that such a way of fixing that by a Minister in a regulation is flexible and could be of use in that regard. In the meantime, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Existing leases: transparency requirement
(1) In this Act an “existing lease” means a lease which meets the following conditions— (a) it is a long lease of a dwelling,(b) it is not an excepted lease, and(c) it was granted before the relevant commencement day of any section of this Act that would make it a regulated lease.(2) Before requiring a payment of rent under an existing lease the landlord must provide the tenant in writing with a justification for the cost of the rent, and an explanation of what the payment will be used for.(3) Section 83 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (duty of letting agents to publicise fees etc) is amended in accordance with subsection (4).(4) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) This section also applies in relation to a payment of ground rent.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require landlords charging ground rent on leases granted before this Act came into force to explain what the rent is for. It would also require lettings agents to make details of any ground rents available to prospective leaseholders.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this is a fairly small amendment but may make a big difference for leaseholders. In a way, it is about replicating what I thought was a very successful late-stage amendment to the Tenant Fees Act. We are trying to introduce a greater level of transparency for leaseholders.
Before being required to pay a rent under an existing lease, the landlord must provide the tenant in writing with the justification for the cost of the rent and an explanation of what the payment will be used for. I fully understand and recognise, given the arguments made at Second Reading and those made so far today, that in reality, a lot of us would say that the ground rent is used for absolutely nothing—except buying a new Porsche for a very wealthy freeholder, for instance. However, I still believe that there should be an explanation and accountability and that we should use the opportunity of the Bill to ensure greater accountability. A lot of people who campaign in the area of leasehold reform want to see a display of comprehensive, accurate data on properties. They want to see how long the lease is, what the ground rent is and what the nature of the ground rent is. We already heard in the debate at Second Reading that some people are charged a ground rent without any notification; suddenly they are asked for a particular sum and they may then get into dangerous grounds of forfeiture if they cannot pay it.
The sentiment I am particularly trying to push for—I will be very happy if the Minister says that the wording is not quite right, but that he understands and recognises the sentiment and will come back with further drafting on Report—is that people who currently have to pay freeholders ground rent should get some sense of accountability regarding the amount, the future amount and what it goes towards.
I also take this opportunity to point out that ground rent demands already have to be accompanied by a statement of leaseholder rights, so there is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot prescribe a standard form of information to be given to leaseholders in this area.
Also, could the Minister in summing up answer a question I asked on Second Reading about the CMA’s action against Countryside and Taylor Wimpey? I asked whether, if the process the CMA is currently undergoing fails and it has to go to court, the Minister would consider putting more emphasis in the Bill on consumer protection law. With that I mind, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support this. It is highly important that a person buying a property which is subject to this kind of rental arrangement should know precisely what its details are, as a necessary condition of the purchase. It seems essential to me to point out the whole nature of the responsibility for ground rent and what can happen, not only next year but in years to come. A person buying a property is entitled to know all the burdens on it at the time of purchase.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to speak in support of this amendment and am delighted to have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for the words of my noble friend Lady Grender in advocating for this change. It can hardly be a radical call to ask for accurate data to be available before a transaction is completed; yet, as the example I drew from Leicester in an earlier debate shows, that accuracy is often not present and the transparency is sometimes deliberately disguised. There is absolutely no particular obligation on those taking part in that transaction to make sure that the consumer is aware. It is very much caveat emptor, and one is in the hands of the legal representation one has—if any—in conducting it.
The Bill should state that there must be a clear explanation of the length and terms of the ground rent—the minefield that lies ahead of escalation charges and the development of the terms, some of which are not perhaps deliberately concealed but are well hidden in the small print. Reference has been made even to requiring release letters to cover pets, never mind alterations to the premises. Many issues have been used deliberately or have perhaps inadvertently fallen in such a way as to put leaseholders at a serious disadvantage. Of course, the hand they hold at that point is extremely weak, because if they decide to contest the payment, they have to consider not only the legal costs and the associated trouble and stress but the risk of forfeiture if they fail to pay. Paying and arguing afterwards is not a very successful basis for performance, either.
There are grounds for accuracy, transparency and accountability. We know that the CMA is actively looking at this area. If the Minister can give us some assurances about how he intends to proceed if the CMA does not do the business, I would find it a very helpful way forward.
I press the Minister to say that this is a sensible amendment that protects leaseholders and that any good landlord should be happy to comply with it. Therefore, I hope he will feel able to accept it.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment would ensure that landlords with existing leases explain why they are charging ground rent and that agents publicise the details of any such ground rent. Both of these points are pertinent and I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, tabled the amendment.
The first issue of ensuring that landlords explain why they are charging ground rent is so important precisely because there is often no reason to charge ground rent. Residents get no material benefit from paying these sizeable fees, yet the landlords often increase the charges exponentially. If the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment, could he estimate how many landlords currently offer explanations for the ground rent they charge?
On the second issue of ensuring that estate agents publicise the details of any ground rent, I understand that Rightmove has recently changed its policy to encourage agents to do exactly this. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have any plan of their own to follow this and encourage it further?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, to respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I appreciated the point about the importance of seeing where the CMA’s investigation ends up and the potential need to look at consumer protection should that not succeed. I do not want to pre-empt the investigation at this stage, but it is an important point, because one of the fundamental purposes of the Bill is to increase transparency and clarity for home owners. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I thank them for putting forward these amendments, which look at the issue of transparency and seek to add to that agenda.
I shall start by addressing Amendment 6, which would put a requirement on landlords to write to their leaseholders setting out why they are charging rent and what it is being used for. As noble Lords know, and I have mentioned previously today, it is our intention that no rent can be charged beyond that of a peppercorn for regulated leases once the Bill comes into effect, admittedly for new leases, unless special rules applicable to shared ownership leases or leases replacing pre-commencement leases apply.
In the Bill, “rent” has been defined in a way that will preclude landlords sneaking prohibited rents into leases under another name. This will ensure that there is clear transparency in the lease as to what is charged as “rent”—which is to say, generally, a peppercorn—and what is charged in return for a “service”. It is also important for your Lordships to note that, where a leaseholder may be dissatisfied with service charges, there are statutory processes they can use to seek redress. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that while this amendment is a welcome attempt to increase transparency, the Bill as drafted delivers the important changes that we want to see in the system.
I turn to Amendment 13, which would require a landlord to inform leaseholders of their rights under housing law in England and Wales and in relation to the Bill before entering formal and/or informal renegotiations or extensions to an existing lease. I note the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that without such an amendment there may be a rush for landlords to incentivise leaseholders to extend their leases before the changes in this Bill come into force. The effect of this, in their view, would be to ensure that ground rent on these leases could continue to be collected, thus trapping more people in a situation of ground rent payments in the system we are trying to stop.
Unfortunately, as drafted, the amendment would not come into effect until after the Bill commences, and it would not have the desired impact that the noble Lords seek. However, I assure noble Lords that we are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders who are committed, as the Government are, to ensuring that leaseholders are aware of their rights and what routes of redress they can take. I also invite the noble Lords to join me in these efforts to ensure that these important messages reach as far as possible. Communication of these important points is key. I therefore ask the noble Lords not to press the amendments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. We have not got to Amendment 13 yet, so I hope we can have a bit more discussion about it in the next group. I thank the Minister, in particular for his point about the CMA. I fully understand what he said. I hope that Ministers feel able to state an intent if the CMA court action is unsuccessful, simply to underline the need for particular developers who are currently on the naughty step to change their ways. I should very much like to revisit that, potentially on Report.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for his support and my noble friend Lord Stunell for his example in Leicester, which I think still holds true in this discussion. I hope to take another look, read the Minister’s words and revisit this on Report. I want to ensure as much transparency as possible for leaseholders. I think we all agree that leaseholders are not given full transparency or provided with full information. That is why so many leaseholders are so aggrieved, particularly the 4.5 million current leaseholders, as opposed to future leaseholders. With all that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
This group has two purposes. The first would be to remove Clause 6 altogether to ensure that informal extensions come under the regulations proposed in the Bill; the second, less dramatic amendment would increase transparency in both formal and informal renegotiations or extensions of the existing lease. I shall deal with Clause 6 stand part first.
We see informal leasehold extensions as a significant potential loophole and the next obvious area to exploit for the “something for nothing” industry in this area. Therefore, we wish to ensure that informal leasehold extensions are regulated in the same way. I appreciate that there may be extenuating circumstances where there is a need for an informal extension—for example, if someone inherits a home and needs to make a relatively quick sale on a very short lease—but those circumstances should be the exception, not the rule. I fear that this will become standard practice unless the Government find a comprehensive way to restrict its use. If noble Lords who speak after me in this debate have concerns and examples of the advantages that an informal leasehold extension provides, I am more than happy to hear suggestions of better solutions than this, but the key question for this debate is how to prevent informal extensions being used, as they currently are, to exploit leaseholders and how that can be reflected in the Bill.
I will be using, in particular, specific examples provided in a detailed blog on this issue by Louie Burns. Sadly, he died a year ago. He was a trustee of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and an expert practitioner in the area of leasehold extensions. I have taken the liberty of sharing the link to his blog with noble Lords participating in the debate on this group of amendments.
Louie Burns called such offers “Trojan horse offers”. He described an offer from a real case he dealt with, made by a large London-based freeholder, on a property valued at £230,000 with a ground rent of £75 a year, doubling every 33 years, and a current lease of 75 years. The cost of extending the lease using statutory legal rights would be a total of £13,250, securing a lease of 165 years with zero ground rent.
Often, the freeholders in this scenario are professional money makers. They make money from licensing fees hidden in the lease, through claiming a finder fee for the building insurance, when people have no choice as to who building insurance is provided by, through service charges and ground rent—and, of course, through money paid to extend the lease.
The freeholder writes to the leaseholder offering to extend the lease back up to 99 years—which means that, 17 years later, the lease will need extending again —for £10,200, plus VAT of £1,000, with ground rent at £250 doubling every 10 years, with a short deadline of 30 days to make a decision offered by the freeholder. In the small print, of course, the leasehold is extended only to 99 years—or the freeholder may offer 125 years, without explaining that the extension is from the date that the lease was originally granted, not the date of the extension offered.
Louie Burns went on to explain how the costs described, over a 24-year period, added up to more than £100,000, which will go to the freeholder. Please remember that this is a specific real case, which he provided as an example. When compared, unfavourably, with the statutory route, costing about £13,000, with zero future ground rent, that is beyond shocking. We need to bring this sharp practice under some form of regulation.
The other option is to accept Amendment 13, which would impose an obligation to explain. If leaseholders had the full picture and knew both their statutory rights and the full costs over 24 years, say, they would have much greater control. The alternative is an informal extension to 99 years—which, as I said, would have to be renewed 17 years later, and then in turn makes the flat impossible to sell, and prohibitively expensive to maintain, with the ground rent alone.
An informal extension of a lease also means that the leaseholder is not protected by the law, and the freeholder can make changes by saying things such as:
“We are not looking to amend your lease in any way, we will only modernise the terms of your lease.”
Louie Burns, in his blog, told people to beware of the term “modernise” as used here, because it means “amend”. An informal leasehold extension is a quick route for a freeholder to add additional payment. It is also a quick route for a solicitor to receive a fee—which may explain why, often, solicitors do not give a warning.
The statutory route is slower. With banks and building societies now showing reluctance to lend for such leasehold arrangements, yet again, the person who suffers the most, and is caught between freeholder and lender, and cannot sell, is the leaseholder, who has received minimal information. Sometimes Ministers like to solve such transparency issues through guidance. But if the aim is to ensure that the freeholder complies with the law, I suggest that the transparency approach should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness has done us a great service. We have all read about these situations. I am not aware of the details of any of them, but there has been enough coverage in the responsible media for me to see that this is a problem. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to address it.
I assume that in this group we are also dealing with my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 12, although I notice that it is not listed. It says “After Clause 6”. Is that after this debate?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
It was in the first group.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Yes, we have.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
I apologise. I very much support what the noble Baroness said. I need do no more than ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to take it really seriously.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, Clause 6 is inconsistent with the spirit of the amendments in the first group, which were heartily supported. In a sense Clause 6 stands against them, and for that reason I suppose it is logical to say that it should not stand part.
I am also very impressed by Amendment 13. There is a need to deal with this situation, in which people find themselves unconsciously in a very difficult position. I hope my noble friend will find it possible to deal with this in a satisfactory way.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whose legal background and desire to make sure that the consumer gets the right result are very much assisting our argument on this occasion.
My noble friend Lady Grender set out our case very clearly. I want to make it clear that informal leasehold extensions can be as bad an evil, if not a worse, as some of the other abuses that have been talked about. They are the worst for being concealed. If you are offered what appears to be a new lamp for old, and the only difficulty you might face is that somebody may modernise the terms of your lease, it is very likely that what modernising the terms of your lease consists of will escape your eagle eye.
It is like all those “Change my settings?” messages that one gets on websites. One wants to get on with the business. You click and carry on; you certainly do not read paragraph 123 on page 17, where you find that bedded in it there is a hidden charge, which you never find out until the moment it matters most. At the low-entry bar, I hope the Minister will say that he will come back and show us how we can incorporate into the Bill the claim for transparency we make in Amendment 13.
By saying that the clause should not stand part, we are following the logic of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, pointed out: it is absolutely contrary to the spirit and direction in which the Minister claims this legislation is intended to go. It is a major loophole, because it means that existing leaseholders who might find a way of using this new legislation to have a new lease find themselves drawn on an escalator—an escalator of continuing and repeated higher charges over the lifetime of that lease. That may well be the nuclear weapon amendment, but I hope it emphasises to the Minister the significance of Clause 6 and the damage it can do, and no doubt will do, in many cases that have already been spelt out.
I very much hope that I shall hear from the Minister a positive reaction to this and that we can move forward on Report with a proposal, coming from his side of the Chamber, that will help to remedy this major deficiency in the legislation we have in front of us today.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on Clause 6 exposes the extortionate legal racketeering that goes on in this sector. We are right to seek clarification. We cannot allow a situation to develop whereby landlords are pressuring tenants to agree informal extensions as a means to continue their ground rent arrangements. The fact remains that leaseholders need greater legislative protection. While the Bill will, I hope, set the foundations for that, there is much more that needs to be done. I hope that the Minister explains the intention behind Clause 6 and considers whether further provisions are necessary to prevent any exploitation.
Amendment 13 would require landlords to inform tenants of any ground rent extensions. This raises the question of whether lease extensions will be agreed before the changes in the Bill are implemented. Can the Minister estimate the legislative timetable for this Bill and when it might receive Royal Assent? Can he also confirm whether the ministry has received any reports of lease extensions being rushed through before these changes have been brought into force?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have just spoken of this Government’s efforts, including working with our key stakeholders, to strengthen leaseholders’ awareness of their rights and what entering into a lease might mean for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, have tabled a Motion to oppose Clause 6 standing part of the Bill. I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised, but I point out that we have made a conscious decision that the Bill should not create barriers to non-statutory leasehold agreements. Part of the reason is that more flexible processes outside the statutory route can, in some cases, be more cost-effective and quicker for both the leaseholder and freeholder, so we want to allow this option and choice to remain.
I reassure your Lordships that we do not want leaseholders to be taken advantage of in this situation, so we are working to ensure that better information, advice and support are offered to them, and we will consider where we can strengthen this where appropriate. By making the system more transparent and exposing inappropriate practices, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and others, we can protect leaseholders.
It is important that your Lordships note that the Government are considering the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement. They include recommendations on voluntary informal lease extensions. When the time comes, I will be more than happy to engage with noble Lords on this, as we have done on this Bill.
Our overall approach to increasing awareness and making things fairer and more affordable will help protect more leaseholders, whichever route they choose. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the noble Lord and all Ministers for participating in this part of the discussion. I fully recognise the need for some level of flexibility and that there is a case for informal extensions. As I said in my opening remarks, I still think there is a danger of this being a loophole through which the industry, which we know is not very responsible or kind to leaseholders, will travel. It will exploit any and every available gap in the law in order to perpetuate itself. For example, when the Government said they were going to ban leasehold houses, the industry rapidly moved to deploy estate rentcharge schemes attached to freehold houses. This ensured that there were still two profits on the sale of every plot and that investors could still access a certain income stream, albeit by a different name. As a result, the consumer—the leaseholder —continues to suffer.
I very much appreciate the Minister’s intention and hope that we continue discussions about how this significant loophole can be closed. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Lennie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their support for these amendments. Like my noble friend Lord Stunell, I hope that we move to a pragmatic remedy. There is potential for compromise and, with that in mind and an optimistic sense that there will be some compromise on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion that Clause 6 do not stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Abolished Offences
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to enable more people convicted under abolished offences relating to homosexual conduct to apply to have their convictions disregarded.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to enabling men with historical convictions for decriminalised homosexual conduct to apply to have their convictions disregarded. We are actively exploring whether further offences can be brought within the scope of the scheme to enable more people to benefit from it.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, have the Government noted that exactly 10 years have passed since the disregard scheme was announced to “right an historic wrong”, as it was described at the time, so that gay men convicted of or cautioned for offences that have been swept from the statute book—and indeed should never have been there in the first place—would no longer be stigmatised by having to declare such convictions and cautions? I thank my noble friend for her reply and pay tribute to all that she has done in connection with this issue, but is it not something of an affront to gay people that four and a half years have elapsed since she gave a commitment to extend the scheme—not least because the Home Office has long been in possession of draft regulations prepared by my friend Professor Paul Johnson at York University, who is the greatest expert in the country on the matter? Surely those regulations ought to have appealed strongly to a Government who resort so frequently to secondary legislation, particularly at a time when Scotland and Northern Ireland have wider disregard schemes than England and Wales.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend will know that I have noted what he said and that we remain committed to doing all we can to right this historic wrong. I pay tribute to my noble friend and others who have been so committed, and I pay particular tribute to Professor Paul Johnson for his expertise. It is important to note that any additional offences must meet the suitable legal criteria to be eligible to be disregarded.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, after the 1967 Act, remaining anti-gay laws were policed even more aggressively than before. In his research, Peter Tatchell estimated that 15,000-plus gay men were convicted in the decades that followed 1967. Lives were ruined for responding to the advances of an attractive policeman. Surely it is time for the Government to act. Why is the Home Office trailing behind Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have, as the noble Lord referenced, wider disregard schemes, leaving us behind? Why cannot we act now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I wish it were that simple. I want to acknowledge what the noble Lord has said: not only did men post-1967 face equal difficulties and persecutions for their sexuality but some of them have died—that is the tragic thing. This is complex work and we need to consider the challenging legal and practical issues in extending the scheme, but I do not want that to translate as our commitment being any less diminished.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, not only do the Government appear to be dragging their feet on this issue but there appears to have been a policy shift since Liz Truss became Minister for Women and Equalities. When the noble Baroness was Minister for Equalities, did she ever feel that the UK was focused too heavily on so-called fashionable issues of race, sexuality and gender? Could this explain the Government’s reluctance to take action on this important issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, our commitment to this has not diminished, despite the fact that it has taken time. When I was the Equalities Minister I was, and remain now, committed to equality, and the Government remain committed to equality. I am very proud of what the Conservative Government have brought forward to advance equality.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am glad that the Government have chosen to celebrate the life and work of Alan Turing, for which we must all be grateful. But I think he would be disappointed to find the somewhat hypocritical stance that he is being celebrated while other people are still suffering from the stigma of this legislation. On a second point, I would prefer to see the word “disregard” changed to “quashed”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As a Mancunian, I have every praise and admiration for Alan Turing, who was one of many LGBT people to change the world. We do not want people being persecuted—that is precisely what we do not want—but we do not want unintended consequences from the laws that we make.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it has been four and a half years and the work has been done, and we must move forward on these issues which blight the lives of women and men. Professor Paul Johnson has sent my Private Member’s Bill to the Home Office, which was not drawn in the ballot. It deals specifically and systematically with these pardons and disregards. I therefore urge the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, to move on this issue and publish a timetable for the regulation. Otherwise, the Home Office could join the growing narrative from the Government which might be described as stoking a cultural war against the LGBT+ community, or, at best, a callous disregard for them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, for whom I also have the highest regard; we have worked very constructively over the years. I have his Bill in my pack and look forward to reading it. He is absolutely right to say that this is about women and men—it is equality before the law that is so important. On the timetable, I know that we are doing a review of the offence of soliciting and intend to publish the outcome during the summer. The noble Lord will also know that two Bills are coming up, and I am trying to gauge whether the timetable for those would be in line with the outcome of the review.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has from the Dispatch Box used the words that we require “suitable legal criteria”, saying it is “complex” and not that “simple”—yet two parts of the United Kingdom have laws enacted on this issue on a wider disregard scheme, and in 2017, Professor Paul Johnson gave a full list of draft regulations, including legal definitions. Will the Minister please spell out in more detail what else the Home Office requires to get this Bill through, rather than, as it seems to many of us, dragging its feet?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we are not dragging our feet. We are working with Paul Johnson and others to try to ensure that regulation provides for that equality before the law. We are going through offences which go back decades to see whether they are in line with the disregard and considering offences that people bring to us to see whether they are in scope as well.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the second Oral Question.
Sudden Adult Death Syndrome
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they make of avoidable deaths from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome in the United Kingdom each year; and what steps they are taking to introduce screening to reduce such deaths, in particular for those involved in sporting activities.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in 2019, sudden adult death syndrome was a factor in 1,511 deaths. The UK National Screening Committee found insufficient evidence to support a national screening programme. However, where a family member has cardiac disease, relatives at risk are offered screening for potential causes of sudden adult death syndrome. In addition, the NHS is focusing on fast and effective action using automated external defibrillation to save the life of anyone suffering from cardiac arrest.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her Answer. As to the absence of evidence, there is a good deal of evidence from abroad that deaths could be reduced by screening. That has been building as a case for many years and parliamentarians have acknowledged it. There is an APPG on cardiac arrest; there have been debates, including an Adjournment debate; Andy Burnham has moved for this; and there is a general feeling that something must happen here to acknowledge the evidence that exists and reduce young people’s deaths. Will the Minister set out a timetable for when this can move forward to further action, please?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the evidence in the UK and abroad, and the noble Baroness may be referring to a study from Italy. Similar results have not been found in other countries, and the UK’s assessment of the evidence is as I set out in my former Answer. More work is being done, in particular to improve access to screening for those family members where someone has suffered from sudden adult death syndrome or is otherwise shown to be at risk.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, does the Minister concur with the Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndromes Foundation that for the 50% of SADS deaths that show no prior warning signs, rapid access to automatic external defibrillators—AEDs—is the only way to prevent many tragedies occurring? If so, do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans for expanding the number of AEDs available throughout the country, especially at sporting venues?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government do agree with that assessment and are putting in place, with partner organisations, a programme of work not just to expand the number available but to improve co-ordination, so that emergency services know where those locations are and can direct members of the public so that they can use that equipment where necessary.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, as president of the small sudden deaths in epilepsy charity SUDEP Action, based in my former constituency, I know that sudden deaths from epilepsy have also risen during the pandemic. Part of the issue is how these deaths are reported and recorded. It is the second most common cause of preventable death and there is a lack of protocols for use by healthcare professionals, particularly to help young people manage this condition. Will the Minister ensure that this issue is looked at and that we increase our attention on the tragedy of sudden death caused by epilepsy in young people?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to securing the best possible treatment and care for people with epilepsy, and to raising awareness of sudden deaths in epilepsy. Guidance has been made available from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that sets out recommendations for clinicians to this end, including referral to bereavement services for the families of those affected. NHSEI has also developed an epilepsy “right care” toolkit with leading charities in this area.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I declare that I am a patron of CRY and that my son is a cardiologist. Given that artificial intelligence automated screening could decrease the burden on screening, but must not dissuade participation in sport, and that sudden cardiac death can occur at any time and anywhere, how will the Government focus on the delivery and maintenance of defibrillators in sporting and all public venues, and ensure that CPR is taught to all athletes and coaches, all students in education, and all those working in public places? Will this be considered to be mandated?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that awareness of CPR is now part of the national curriculum in secondary schools for teenagers. Other work is also being done with partner organisations such as the British Heart Foundation and GoodSAM to improve the co-ordination of first responder activities and defibrillation skills for adults and passers-by who may need to respond in that kind of situation.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I found the websites of SADS UK, the British Heart Foundation and CRY useful in the information, advice and practical support they offer people about the various conditions which cause sudden adult death. Are these important organisations being supported by the NHS and the Government, and in what way? Secondly, can the Minister inform the House whether any research is being carried out into age, gender, race or other characteristics that will shed light on which groups are most vulnerable and carry the genetic disposition to SADS?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that the NHS engages with a number of charities involved in SAD, including the sudden arrhythmic death syndrome charity SADS UK. That organisation in particular is helping scientists and clinicians understand and combat a rare condition called “short QT syndrome”, which is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. On other factors that may put people at an increased risk, gender is one that seems to increase the risk for men rather than women. However, I am sure that there is further work and research being done in this area.
Lord Addington (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the Government undertake that when all elite-level athletes go through routine medical checks, they are actually checked for this condition? That would not only improve the chances of survival for anybody who has this but would widen general public awareness.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that is not the current position of the Government. The effectiveness of pre-participation screening for athletes is not proven by clear-cut evidence; there is mixed evidence out there. Its potential to reduce deaths is likely to be low because of the poor detection rate. There is also the counterbalancing potential for psychological harm due to the potentially high number of false positives, which could be particularly debilitating for professional athletes and those whose lives are centred around sport and participation.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
Every time this syndrome strikes, it leaves a terrible situation for all those connected to the victims, including sometimes feelings of guilt that somehow in individual cases it could have been avoided. Does my noble friend think that sufficient research is being carried out, especially in the field of genetic causation, and what more could the Government do to support and enhance such work and research?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there is an opportunity now, with the implementation of the genomic laboratory hubs across England, to explore the systematic introduction of post-mortem genetic testing for SAD, which could vastly help us in this area. A programme was launched last year between NHSEI and the British Heart Foundation to do that, and seven sites are developing pathways to improve testing in this area.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in Northern Ireland, following the unexpected deaths of several young people, an independent screening clinic was established at Ulster University and launched by CRY. What discussions and inter-exchange of ideas have taken place with CRY, and what efforts have been made through Whitehall and the devolved Administrations to have dedicated specialist clinics for this purpose? Maybe the Minister could outline the level of discussions.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the NHS engages with a number of charities involved in SAD. It also looks very carefully at the issue of screening, and the last time that it was reviewed by the UK National Screening Committee was in 2019.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister noted, the statutory guidance for PHSE education now includes teaching secondary school students life-saving skills, including CPR. But can she say what support is provided to schools to ensure that it is taught accurately, especially when there is no school nurse or staff member qualified to do so? As it is guidance only, are the Government monitoring the number of schools that are actually teaching this content within PHSE?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I know that a range of resources is available to support schools in their teaching of PHSE, but I am happy to take away the detail of the noble Baroness’s question and write to her in response.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now move to the third Question and I call the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
Criminal Trials: Intercept Evidence
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to change the law or practice on the use of intercept evidence in criminal trials.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I first apologise to the Lord Speaker because I stood while he was standing—we are all grappling with masks and other things at the moment.
We continue to assess whether the conclusions of the comprehensive review of 2014, which of course the noble Lord, Lord Beith, oversaw, remain valid. It is not possible to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court. The Government will keep this position under review.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, hundreds of arrests have been made because of the French police’s hacking of the EncroChat system used by criminal gangs, and more as a result of criminal use of the ANOM communication system, which was secretly controlled by the FBI. A recent Court of Appeal judgment means that much of this material could be used in evidence in UK courts. Does that not make the conclusion of the review to which the Minister referred now seem a little dated? The context has significantly changed, some of the obstacles that we foresaw in being able to make the change have been overcome, and maybe it is time to look again at it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this is quite a complex area. The information was obtained using an equipment interference warrant rather than an intercept warrant, and there are checks and balances within the criminal justice system to ensure that one route is not used in order to facilitate another outcome. We remain of the view that the review undertaken by the noble Lord is still valid.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, since intercept evidence is allowed in virtually every EU and common-law country, will the Government seek the advice of the Intelligence and Security Committee so that Parliament can decide, following the publication of its advice, the weight of the objections of the security services and inconsistencies where such evidence is allowed, in other countries, prisons and bugs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We have done several reviews on this issue, including, obviously, that of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, back in 2014. We keep these matters under review, but for the time being we share the noble Lord’s conclusion.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, surely there must be some circumstances where intercept evidence could be used without compromising operational integrity, such as those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beith. How many individuals could have been prosecuted if intercept evidence had been allowed instead of them being subjected to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, at considerable additional cost—both financial and to the reputation of British justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the question of how many individuals could have been prosecuted is very difficult to answer, given that the evidence was not used. I do not know if there are figures that I can give to the noble Lord. I want to make the point that we do not actually have an objection in principle to the use of intercept material as evidence, and we have tried to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court. As I said, though, successive reviews have found that it is just not possible.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, something that I proposed had the unexpected effect, unknown to me, of affecting the way in which the security services carried out surveillance. I was therefore given a briefing on the different ways in which they did these things, some of which were well-known to me and the public but others were not. Surely it would be possible to allow the security services to decide which methods they are going to reveal where they are using techniques that we do not want criminals to know about.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I have said to other noble Lords, the costs and risks of using intercept as evidence are disproportionate to the potential benefits, and therefore we have not proceeded to intercept as an evidence model. However, we are not closed to the idea and will keep the position under review, and I totally acknowledge what my noble friend has said.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the extraordinary success of Operation Trojan Shield has netted thousands of criminals in a hundred different countries, but is the Minister convinced that this country will be able to get the same level of successful prosecution as a result of that operation? Can she tell us quite why it is that intercept evidence that is deemed to be stored should be acceptable whereas intercept evidence that is in transmission is not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a very interesting question, which I am sure we will have debates on in the months and years to come, about the difference between the two. Fundamentally, there is a huge amount of other evidence that one would need to consider for an intercept warrant that makes it prohibitively costly, and therefore we just do not use it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in the EncroChat case the Court of Appeal analysed the distinction between intercept evidence where actual transmission has been intercepted and evidence that has been stored and harvested following transmission. That distinction is arcane and inconsistent. Can the Minister explain the difference in principle? Since we agree on the need for a warrant system to authorise the use of intercept evidence, should we not legislate for one consistent requirement for warrants to intercept actual transmission and warrants to harvest intercept evidence post transmission?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We would need a few hours to have that discussion so, thankfully, given that the Lord Speaker’s direction is to keep my answers brief, I will not go into that. As I have said, there are checks and balances within the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord well knows, that safeguard one route from being used in order to achieve another.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It has come to the attention of a few Members of this House that MI5 keeps files on them. If the police or security services chose to intercept our communications, would anyone in Parliament have the power to authorise or not authorise that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me notice of the fact that she was going to raise this issue; it is not really part of this Question, but that never stops her. As I said, we do not use intercept warrants as court evidence. In terms of who would authorise what, the Home Office would authorise its various agencies, the Foreign Office its agencies and the Northern Ireland Office its agencies, so it would be for those Secretaries of State to authorise those warrants.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the interception of telephone calls or voicemails is normally an egregious breach of personal privacy, and some tabloids have paid the penalty for that. I declare an interest as a victim of hacking. However, that is different from law enforcement using intercept methods, properly regulated by the UK police and security authorities. Does the Minister agree that such techniques are essential to facilitate the gathering of essential evidence, as exemplified, as has been mentioned, by the FBI sting yesterday using the ANOM app, leading to over 800 arrests worldwide, and that, provided that it is used and regulated properly by the law, it is a legitimate tool protecting our citizens from organised and violent criminals?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is a very good question to end on. The noble Lord raises the huge benefit of what the NCA has achieved through operations like Venetic. I will read out the figures: 746 individuals arrested and £54 million, 77 firearms and over 2 tonnes of drugs seized. That is an incredible achievement that goes towards keeping our citizens safe.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Passport and Visa Measures
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review their decision not to exempt young people from European Union member states on school trips to the United Kingdom from the new passport and visa measures due to come into force on 1 October.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, EU, EEA and Swiss students are now subject to the same rules as students from the rest of the world. They may come under the visitor route or as a student, but from 1 October they will require a passport like everyone else and we do not plan to review this decision.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a depressing advert for global Britain. Thousands of schoolchildren from Europe will not now be visiting our country since they will no longer be able to use an EU or EEA ID card. There is no doubt that the requirement for passports and, in some cases, visas, will put such trips beyond the capacity of many schools. It is short-sighted, petty and mean-spirited, and it means that, without these cultural exchanges with young people in Europe, we will not have the long-term economic and cultural links we have enjoyed for so long. The Minister says it will not be reconsidered; I ask her to reconsider this really outrageous decision.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I reiterate that we will not be reconsidering, but I do not agree with that assertion that thousands of children will not be visiting. What about the children from the rest of the world who visit this country? Are they in a different category? We are treating everybody in exactly the same way. Of course, there is always the option to get collective passports for groups of children issued under the 1961 Council of Europe treaty.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is getting a bit of a reputation for doing everything to annoy Europe. The Minister speaks about other countries, but all the nearby countries are in the European Union. All we are doing is making people feel unwelcome. We are tearing up something which does not need to be torn up. The Minister says that she will not reconsider, so I will not ask her to, but I will ask her to reflect on the damage this is doing to Britain’s reputation outside this country.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have much respect for my noble friend, but one could flip that the other way and say of the long-standing issue of children outside the EU: have we made them feel unwelcome for years? I do not think we have.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I raised this issue during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. The Government then argued that this will be a security risk, which I think is rather far-fetched. I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Balfe, that this is going to dent our reputation and does not in any way promote global Britain. I argue that this is very short-sighted; I think that it will damage our economy and education institutions, and lead to an end of short-term school trips. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that the fact it affects the rest of the world is not important—it is the question of our relationship with Europe. It is important that we do not in any way dent our soft power.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, that issue of the UK annoying the EU could also be read both ways. But it is not a question of not welcoming people—it is putting everybody on an equal footing going forward from 1 July.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am mystified. Will the Minister encourage her colleagues to look again—but not in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asks—at making it so that children from all over the world conform to the arrangements currently in force for children in Europe? That is another way of solving the problem. I note that 750,000 children from Germany and France alone have come on an annual basis under the present arrangements. Is she convinced that she could persuade the entertainment, tourism, heritage and cultural institutions of this country looking for a post-Covid boost that the refusal to reconsider this is logical or legitimate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think what the noble Lord is proposing is to make the rest of the world in line with what we had in the EU—in other words, to have an open borders policy with no passports. The answer is no, I am afraid.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, this attempt to elide European school students with the rest of the world really will not wash because, as well as talking about being ambitious for global Britain, the other favourite slogan of the Brexiter Government, is “We may have left the EU but we haven’t left Europe”. This restrictive policy towards European school students is narrow-minded and bad for Britain. One of the advantages of the present system is that no child is left out, so those who cannot afford a passport or are non-EU citizens and would need a visa are included. Do this Government really want to penalise schoolchildren and damage our reputation and, indeed, our economy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Again, I put it back to the noble Baroness: what about people who cannot afford a passport and do not live in the EU? Do they not matter?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think that many in the House will be extremely disappointed with the responses the Minister has given. Last year, noble Lords raised this issue, warning of potential problems. Given that these have now arisen, can the Minister tell the House how many EU schoolchildren she estimates will be affected by the changes? Is she not concerned in the slightest that barriers to visiting and learning in the UK will give a negative impression of our country to those young people and their families—one that might, in time, be to the detriment not only of our economy but of our cultural and global reputation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with him. In terms of numbers, it is very difficult to prove a negative: for example, how many children will not be able to visit because of the system we have. One might also about children who are currently outside of the EU. I mentioned collective passports, which are a route for groups of children to come to this country and are, I think, very affordable.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is not a level playing field; working- class kids from the poorest communities in the neighbouring countries which are the cheapest to get here will lose out. Middle-class and rich kids will get here whatever country they are from; that will continue. It will be the poorest kids from a variety of backgrounds, like the mining communities where I brought kids over from different countries to meet kids in our country. They are the ones who will lose out because the disproportionate increase in costs will not be borne by their parents. The poorer kids will lose from this policy, whether they are in Norway, which is not in the EU, or an EU country. The Government should think again.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I know that many schools have arrangements. When my children were at school there were children whose parents could not afford to send them on school trips, of which there were many, or perhaps to another country. There are generally provisions within schools to help out in such situations.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, this is not a matter of upsetting the European Union, but a matter of geography, history and educational connectivity and is about the reputation of our country. You can get into this country if you have £2 million whatever your circumstances, never mind whether we really want you or not, but you cannot come here under present arrangements from 1 July with a school party on the existing provisions if you come from those countries that historically we have welcomed. Surely the Minister, who is the conduit rather than the cause of our concerns, might back to the Home Secretary and say: “Yes, I know there’s a policy, which is to prevent as many people as possible coming to the United Kingdom, but at some point, does this not have a major detrimental effect down the line when people who were forbidden to come under existing arrangements remember?”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is not a question of forbidding people to come to this country, nor one of not welcoming children from all over the world, but it is a situation where the EU and the rest of the world are now all being treated the same way. Collective passports are in place and I am sure that there are arrangements within many schools to help children who cannot afford them, but we are not forbidding them. I just want to correct the noble Lord on that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will say a few words about the Division which we could not run yesterday on the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021. We had originally hoped to run that Division today, but although the system was restored yesterday afternoon, the Parliamentary Digital Service is still investigating the root causes of yesterday’s technical problems, so we have agreed to defer further the Division until tomorrow after Oral Questions, so that today’s test Division, which appears to have been successful, can be thoroughly analysed. We will have the vote, or votes, tomorrow, after Oral Questions and any PNQ, at around 1 pm. It is already on the Order Paper for then.
Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 9th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of Peers for Gambling Reform.
Digital Economy Act 2017 (Commencement of Part 3) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 9th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 (Commencement of Part 3) Bill [HL] View all Digital Economy Act 2017 (Commencement of Part 3) Bill [HL] Debates Read Hansard Text
Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 27 and 29 April be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 June.
Ajax Programme
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first time at the Dispatch Box as Labour’s defence spokesperson, and I look forward to debating these important matters with the Minister.
Ajax was set to be delivered in 2017 but, despite £3.2 billion being paid out, only 14 vehicles have been delivered—light tanks that cannot fire while moving—and personnel have been made so sick that the testing has been paused. The Defence Committee called this
“another example of chronic mismanagement by the Ministry of Defence”.
As the problem cannot be fixed before it has been identified, as we heard in the other place yesterday, when does the Minister expect to know exactly what is causing the problems of noise and vibration? How many personnel have been adversely affected? When will the reversing restrictions placed on Ajax be lifted? Given that the total fixed cost for the whole project is £5.5 billion and that £3.2 billion has already been spent, is the Minister confident that Ajax can and will be delivered to that total? If so, when?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I welcome the noble Lord to the House and his position on the Front Bench. I am pleased to answer the questions that he has posed. First, as he will know, in any complex acquisition, there are risks and challenges that must be mitigated against, and, in the case of Ajax, we face different challenges due to the nature of such capabilities. Delays can be for a range of reasons, including the technical challenges and programmatic issues.
On the matters that the noble Lord raised and those relating to speed restrictions—which have been publicly aired—the rear step and the question of firing on the move, I reassure the House that we are confident that these will be resolved very quickly. Those issues have been due to the restrictions that were deliberately put in place because we are in the demonstration phase of this project. On the question of noise, and vibration in particular, there is more work to be done. Although I cannot give a date on this, it is obviously an urgent matter and tests are under way at the moment to try to resolve it.
Finally, we have full confidence in the delivery of the whole project. As the noble Lord will know, full operating capability is not due until 2025. That is not to say that there is not a lot of work to be done before then, but we have full confidence in the main contractors, General Dynamics and GDUK, which were selected after a rigorous process and have 60 years’ experience of developing these advanced armoured vehicles.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to his place and apologise that I am not in the Chamber personally today. I will follow on from his questions and the Minister’s initial response. The contractor may have 60 years’ experience of delivering for the MoD, but this is supposed to be a modernisation programme. Will the tanks ever be fit for purpose? Is the Minister confident that mitigation can be put in place to ensure the safety of our service personnel and that, in the longer term, there will not be issues of deafness and other associated physical effects on them? If the project cannot be rectified, will it be stopped, rather than there being another £2.3 billion spent on something that may never be fit for purpose?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that we are confident that delivery will take place. As I said earlier, this is a highly complex programme, and we are working through the issues that have arisen. On the injuries that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, although I do not have the numbers, I say that, as is the norm for the demonstration stage of these highly complex projects, trials necessarily take place. We are confident that these issues will be resolved. I mentioned the vibration issue earlier, which is the most serious one that we need to address, and it is one of the reasons why we have withheld £434 million of payments that would otherwise have been paid until these matters are resolved.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to his place. I honestly do not think that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition could have picked a better defence spokesman, judging from our previous exchanges in the other place. I declare my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.
A bit of context is required here. Ajax is not just an updated armoured fighting vehicle; it represents a generational shift in capability that will be able to deliver precision strike at range and, crucially, a network capability that our adversaries simply do not have. Given that there are literally millions of lines of code, I am surprised that there have not been more challenges during the development phase. We have lost out in the past by not updating our armoured fighting vehicles on a regular basis, so can my noble friend the Minister simply reassure me that Ajax is being designed with open architecture so that we can update it on a regular basis?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. Perhaps I can add to what he was saying: this project represents the biggest single order for a UK armoured vehicle for over 20 years. Incidentally, the project supports approximately 4,100 jobs across more than 230 UK suppliers. It is now in its production and support phases, with the Army having taken formal delivery of the first Ares capability drop 1 vehicles in July 2020. However, it is more than that, as my noble friend said. This is a new and larger vehicle. It is modular and, over a predicted 30-year lifespan, it will be capable of being built on. It will be the backbone of the future digitised modern force, with unparalleled protection levels, incorporating hard-won lessons from recent conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps that adds to the complexity of this matter. I reassure the House again that these outstanding issues need to be addressed.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend Lord Coaker to the Front Bench. His initial question today indicates his enormous expertise.
I am surprised that we have got this far with this new development. We have seen the new report, apparently from the independent Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which says that this vehicle cannot reverse— perhaps we do not need to any more—fire on the move or go more than 20 miles an hour, and that the soldiers are limited to an hour and a half inside it because of the noise. What use is that on a battlefield? Will they put up a white flag and change staff before they continue?
I remind the House that the IPA has said that the delivery of the project “appears to be unachievable”. That is rather different from what the Minister has just told the House, which is that there are no plans to delay and that we will go on with it and, presumably, continue with the order of 580 tanks, which will all be deployed this year. Is it not time that we cancelled the whole thing and saved the Government, the taxpayer and ourselves several billion pounds of taxpayers’ money?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I need to put the noble Lord right on a number of points. First, on the IPA report, I remind the House that this came out as a result of a leak, and a full inspection is going on as to how that leak came out. On the speed restriction, I reassure the noble Lord that Ajax is capable and will be capable of speeds of up to 70 kph, but an initial limitation of 30 kph was introduced as a control measure for newly qualified Household Cavalry Regiment crews. That is in line with what I said earlier about this being the demonstration phase of this enormous project. On the rear step, the vehicle is capable of reversing over a vertical 0.75-metre step. Following some initial issues, this was restricted, again for the same reasons. Similarly, on the noble Lord’s point about firing on the move, the vehicle can and does fire on the move. The MoD has yet to certify the platform to perform this, which is also in line with what I said earlier. I reassure the House again that this major project is on track and will be delivered on time.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to questions on an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons on Tuesday 8 June on British Council closures. I call the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
British Council
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Nigel Adams yesterday acknowledged that the Covid pandemic had hit the British Council’s commercial activities incredibly hard. He was very sympathetic but failed to respond to Tom Tugendhat’s hope that the closure of five sites be reversed soon. As the Government host the G7 summit, does the Minister accept that to allow the closure of British Council overseas offices will be further evidence that the Government are not prepared to put the words of the integrated review into action?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s substantive points, I assure him that we have demonstrated our integrated review priorities and our support for the British Council by the large-scale package of funding we have provided to the British Council during the pandemic. The formal announcement is yet to be made on the reversal of any office closures. We are working through the implications with the leadership of the British Council. If there was one silver lining to the terribly grey cloud that is the pandemic, it has been the ability to see how we can avail of technology delivery, including in the work the British Council does across the world.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The strategic review rightly extols the soft power of the British Council, but its finances have, as we have heard, been savaged by the pandemic. I fought hard to get the council back into Angola, for example. It is vital there and elsewhere for future trading relationships with the UK. It is vital also for our higher education system to have the British Council in country, training those who want to learn English. Will the Government think again about the council’s £10 million shortfall?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s work in Angola. I know that she is involved with the British Council APPG. I have seen directly in my travels as a Foreign Office Minister, then as a joint Minister and now as a Minister at the merged FCDO the important work that the British Council does, including on English language training. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have provided support. The overall package is around £609 million over the past year, which includes emergency funding in March 2020 in line with the pandemic. We are working through the issue of any underlying shortfall with the British Council leadership. If the noble Baroness goes into the figures quite specifically, she will see that this is a very generous settlement for the British Council.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can say what has been accomplished over the last three years by the offices threatened with closure? Is it wise to close offices when the British Council is crucial to widen the influence of the United Kingdom in the world at this critical time in our national history?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble and learned friend again draws attention to the proposed closure of certain offices. I assure him that we are looking at and working through the implications for the services within each country but, equally, ensuring that we can plug the gap through an innovator model, including a hub-and-spoke model for a particular country, or through technology enablement.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages. This is supported by the British Council, which last year used £30 million of its income from English language schools to supplement its grant in aid. Covid has wiped out this commercial income. Between five and 20 country programmes are at risk for the sake of £10 million, including the Five Eyes countries, risking trade and cultural benefits, and Afghanistan, which could see the end of valuable work with women and girls that would be hard to digitalise. How is this compatible with global Britain?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the important work that the British Council does on the English language. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government recognise that the British Council is a leading provider of English language training and examinations and reaches more than 100 million learners across 100 countries. We will continue to remain focused, and in countries where we need to take a step back or there are office closures, we will look at how best we can provide such services there.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the two things about Britain that radiate around the world are the World Service and the British Council. They are the main thrust of our soft power, as was represented in the integrated review. I urge the Minister that, far from cutting back, we should seek to expand the role of the British Council as well as the World Service, particularly into areas such as Russia where we have been forced to withdraw. We should back the British Council by expanding its budget, not cutting it as we are at the moment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend inasmuch as the British Council is an important part of the UK’s soft power. Indeed, I would argue with substance that the UK is a soft power superpower. I assure my noble friend that the FCDO is supporting specific programmes with the British Council through the package that I have already outlined, and indeed through the BBC’s World 2020 programme, and there are other examples of our soft power, including the Chevening, Marshall and Commonwealth scholarships, which provide further examples of our continued support, notwithstanding the pandemic.
Lord Bach (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as an ex-chair of the British Council All-Party Parliamentary Group, and as someone whose father was a career senior officer in the council. As chair, I was privileged to work closely with the council at home, but I also visited Lebanon and Nigeria and saw the superb work being done on Britain’s behalf. Why on earth are Her Majesty’s Government effectively going to force the British Council out of a number of countries when they, the Government, constantly claim that they are in favour of a global Britain policy? The two concepts are surely in direct conflict with each other. As the Defence Secretary recently said,
“there is not enough of it”—
meaning the British Council—
“around the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/2021; col. 674.]
He was correct, was he not?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure that I will always agree with my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary, and I agree with him about the important role of the British Council. Where I disagree with the noble Lord is in his assessment. We are a major power when it comes to soft power, and the British Council is part and parcel of Britain’s continuing presence in that area across the world.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, following the theme of everyone else this afternoon, how can this country be a global Britain with an insular approach? How secure is the Minister that the Treasury fully understands the strategic contribution of the British Council in establishing networks and information gathering, the cultivation of future leaders around the world, and the creating of links for trade and export promotion, thus offsetting the demoralised Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again, I am a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government and I would argue that we remain very strong in the area of soft power, including through our work in the British Council. I would draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact that the UK ranks consistently well ahead of many other leading countries when it comes to soft power assessments; indeed, we are second in the Portland Soft Power 30 index, second in the Anholt Ipsos Nation Brands Index and third in the Brand Finance Global Soft Power Index. These are assessments of our capacity in soft power around the world.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister understands that it is difficult to believe in the Government’s commitment to being a soft power superpower while we are committing these cuts to development aid and the British Council. He may have to write to me, and I accept that, but can he assure me that the unique work that the British Council is doing through the cultural protection fund to repair the heritage of countries that have been so devastated by war will be placed on a sustainable footing? Does he agree with me that this is an absolutely critical and highly innovative way in which to maintain soft power where it really counts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The British Council’s specific budgets will be finalised, but of course I will write to the noble Baroness in that respect. It also plays an important role with other organisations, such as UNESCO, with regard to protecting world heritage sites, and it will continue to co-ordinate in that way.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as someone who once did an exam in the British Council office in Bangkok. That is of relevance to the question that I wish to ask the Minister. For the 5.5 million Britons who live abroad, in many ways British Council offices and services are for them a link back that they rely on. More than that, I did that exam as part of a master’s degree through the University of Leicester; this is a hugely valuable export for the UK, and many educational institutions, as well as other institutions and businesses, rely on that British Council link. Will we not damage all those links for Britons abroad and for British businesses making links abroad?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First, I hope that the noble Baroness passed her exam—as I am sure that she did, based on her very able and notable contributions in your Lordships’ House. On supporting the British Council, I share what she outlined: the importance of the relationships that the British Council has, and the nature of our partnerships with key universities. She mentioned the University of Leicester. I have already alluded to the scholarship programmes, in addition to the work that we do with the British Council, which underline our commitment to education.
Just for clarity, I mentioned the £609 million over the past year that we have secured to ensure the British Council’s future. We have provided £26 million of emergency funding and loan provision facilities to the British Council of another £145 million, and we are currently finalising another £100 million loan facility. So far, the British Council has, I believe, drawn down £50-odd million of that loan facility. Overall, in addition to those loans, we are providing £189 million of grant in aid funding to the council for 2021-22, of which £150 million is ODA.
I hope that that gives a degree of reassurance—although not to the total satisfaction of all noble Lords, I am sure—that we are committed to the British Council. We support it, notwithstanding challenging times and notwithstanding the pandemic. We have stood by the British Council and will continue to do so.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice)
I am grateful to the Minister and Members that, through their being concise, all supplementary questions, of which there were nine, were able to be asked and answered.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
Wednesday 9th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Professional Qualifications Act 2022 View all Professional Qualifications Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-II Corrected second marshalled list for Committee - (9 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who wishes to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. In putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wishes their voice to be accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Amendment 1
“Purpose of this Act
(1) The purpose of this Act is to give regulators the necessary powers to ensure demand for professions can be met in the United Kingdom.(2) Nothing in this Act affects the independent process of defining the accreditation processes of the regulators.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment underpins the principle that the process of defining the accreditation processes rests with the regulators.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, I should emphasise to the Minister, is offered very much in the spirit of helpfulness. At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“The Bill will allow action to be taken in the public interest if it is judged that a shortage of professionals has arisen in a profession, but that action in no way restricts regulators’ ability to take decisions about individual applicants; it merely requires them to set up a route through which people can seek entry to a profession.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 971.]
In other parts of his speech, the Minister reiterated the view that it was not the Government’s intention to interfere with regulators’ roles and responsibilities. Yet he also said:
“I emphasise that we want this new framework for recognition of professional qualifications to complement regulators’ existing practices.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 909.]
It is because of the need to clarify how the Bill complements the regulators that I am putting forward this amendment with the support of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed.
This Bill is backed up by secondary legislation that we have yet to see and which will define the true nature of this Bill. There are genuine concerns that the Bill creates potential for central government to intervene in a manner that cuts across the Minister’s assurances. This amendment seeks to clarify and delineate the purpose of this Bill. It does no more than the Minister has repeated in meetings and on the Floor of the House.
I make no apology for repeating that the overwhelming proportion of the reach of this Bill is yet to be seen. All we have is the skeleton. We know from the Minister that we should expect a deluge of secondary legislation, and it is in that where we will see reflected the true purpose of the Bill. I would add that, unfortunately, level of scrutiny of such secondary legislation sometimes falls below the level of the scrutiny by your Lordships of primary legislation, which is another danger.
Why should we be suspicious and, indeed, are those suspicions restricted just to these Benches? For the first time, but not the last, I refer your Lordships to the report of the DPRRC, published on 27 May, which addressed this Bill. In that report, the issue is clear. At the outset, the committee categorises Clause 1 as
“a Henry VIII power, as it includes power to amend primary legislation and retained direct principal EU legislation”
and goes on to say:
“The power can be used to make provision about a wide range of matters relating to applications to practise a profession, including ‘detail on the approach to be taken in assessing … qualifications’, requirements for regulators to have regard to guidance when determining applications to practise, the information to be included in such applications, fees to be paid and appeals.”
We have yet to see this potentially very far-reaching legislation. This takes this Bill to a place that is somewhat beyond what the Minister has outlined its role to be. Of course, those Henry VIII powers are qualified, but the scope of those qualifications is broad and will be discussed later.
As well as the mutability of Clause 1, the nature of Clause 3 has confirmed the need for this amendment. I was grateful that the Minister met me and colleagues this week. During that discussion, he confirmed that in relation to the purpose of the Bill, Clause 3 is explicitly needed in order to implement trade agreements where mutual recognition of qualifications is included. In fact, the Minister considers it vital for the Government to use this clause to make sure that the regulatory authorities enact the terms of a future free trade agreement. Of course, it is not needed for that. The Government could bring each trade deal to Parliament for approval, which would be a way of getting primary approval of such clauses within a free trade agreement. In that case, Clause 3 would not be required, and we can have that debate later. This is all about the creeping remit of the Bill, which is why I refer to it in this amendment.
The amendment clearly upholds the aim of giving all regulators the powers to regulate international professionals. Importantly, it also underpins the independence of the regulators—independence that the Minister so obviously treasures, but which this Bill, as drafted, so obviously threatens. In the Minister’s own words at Second Reading,
“the regulators are the experts in their respective fields and they ensure that high professional standards are maintained. Regulators must continue to have the ability to act in the public interest, including in the best interests of their professions and the consumers of professional services.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 971.]
We say prove that by accepting Amendment 1 and putting it in the Bill. I expect the Minister to say that he agrees with the text, but disagrees with putting it in the Bill. If indeed that is the Minister’s response, I would appreciate him explaining why he disagrees with putting it in the Bill. What is wrong with putting it in if that is the purpose of this Bill?
This is a skeleton Bill—another skeleton Bill—and this amendment tries to make clearer what this Bill is for, explicitly guiding what the Bill will do when the body of secondary legislation is added. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is looking at an out-of-date list of speakers.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am rising rather surprised. We have heard my noble friend Lord Fox elegantly put the reasons why the Bill needs to be slightly tidied up, if nothing else. The amendments in this group do all they can to allow overseas qualifications to be treated as acceptable in the UK. The amendment in my name seeks to deal with a situation where the qualifications and experience are held to fall short; the Bill does not talk about what happens then. In many spheres, what happens is that there is some bridging measure to bring the applicant up to the required standard.
Amendment 12 in my name seeks to give the regulator relief from bringing the applicant up to the required standard if this would involve unreasonable cost, time and be a resource burden on the regulator. My noble friend Lord Fox said that the regulator will be independent. We must not add the cost of providing bridging training if people do not come up to standard.
As has been said, this is a skeleton Bill. We need to make it clear on whom the duty falls to provide the additional training or experience to bring it up to standard. The Bill does not say, but it must not be down to the independent regulator.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to make her intervention.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I asked the Government Whips’ Office to order the speakers as is normal in the Chamber when we do not have lists—that is to say, those who have tabled amendments are allowed to speak before those who simply wish to comment on them. I was advised that the list was issued late this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, may recall that I do not like purpose clauses. I believe that a Bill should be written in clear language and that its scope and impact should be readily understandable on its own terms. This Bill fails to meet that test, but I do not think that a purpose clause is the answer. Instead, we should focus on making sure that the Bill itself is fit for purpose. We have tabled a number of amendments aimed at doing this.
I also have a minor quibble with the drafting of Amendment 1. Subsection (2) refers to
“the independent process of defining the accreditation processes of the regulators.”
I believe that the independent processes which this Bill should protect go beyond mere definition of accreditation processes. We do not want any form of interference in the independent processes of regulators. This should be an enabling Bill which should unblock legal impediments to the recognition of overseas qualifications. It must steer clear of all the processes operated by regulators, not just of those defining accreditation.
I put my name down to speak because I recognised the Institute of Chartered Accountants’ provenance of Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. That is why I was keen for him to speak first. Amendment 9 in my name, in a later group, is slightly simpler, but on the same basic point. I realised a little too late that perhaps I should have asked to add my amendment to this group. The essence of Amendment 12 is to ensure that inappropriate burdens are not placed on regulators, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has explained. I will not repeat those arguments. I will explain my own amendment when we reach it later.
This is a very real issue. The Government need to look at it again to ensure that their approach is reasonable in the context of what regulators could be compelled to do by the provisions of this Bill. As far as we can, we should seek to avoid any possibility that they could be compelled to do anything unreasonable, burdensome or otherwise inappropriate to their profession.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 1. Subject to the clear statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it would be desirable to try to focus much more of this wide-ranging Bill. If that is not done, a provision to make clear that the independence of regulators is not in any way affected is of vital concern. The regulation of professions should be set by the structure ordained by Parliament—not by the Executive and then left to the regulators. If more precise provisions cannot be incorporated, Amendment 1 would have this vital effect of making clear the independence of the regulators.
In the case of the legal profession, it is convenient at this stage to raise two points about independence. First, the independence of the courts depends on the independence of lawyers, with their ability to challenge the powerful, particularly the Government. This can only be safeguarded by independent regulation within a structure set by Parliament. Given the position of the Executive in relation to the courts and the legal profession, it should not be the Lord Chancellor’s role to be involved in this in any shape or form. It is difficult to see, given the scope of the Legal Services Act, why these wide-ranging powers need to be given to the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we are at the start of the Committee stage, I declare my interest as a board member of the GMC, although I am speaking on the Bill in a personal capacity.
I support Amendment 1. We have a real problem with the skeletal nature of the Bill and the extensive use of Henry VIII clauses. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whose powerful intervention illustrated some of the problems. The power in Clause 1 could be used to make provision about a huge range of matters relating to applications to practise a profession. Extensive powers are delegated to Ministers. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has pointed out, neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the Explanatory Note gives adequate reasons for the extensive use of Executive power. I will come back to this during Committee, but the Minister should at least have a shot at explaining why Executive powers are needed to this extent. So far, we have not heard a reason.
The Delegated Powers Committee illustrated the example of the dentistry profession. Dentistry is one of the professions for which regulation is provided in primary legislation. The Dentists Act 1984 includes a provision to recognise overseas qualifications. Holders of overseas qualifications who wish to qualify for registration as dentists in the UK must not only have a recognised overseas diploma but, as a starting point, they must sit an examination to satisfy the regulator that they have the requisite knowledge and skill. They must also satisfy the regulator as to their identity, good character, good health and knowledge of English. The committee says that Clause 1 appears to allow such requirements and other comparable requirements in primary legislation relating to other professions to be watered down by statutory instrument, if Ministers considered this necessary to enable demand for the service of the profession in question to be met without unreasonable delay. I do not need to remind the Minister that the dentistry profession is under acute pressure.
My reading of the Minister’s amendments in Clause 1, which are welcome, is that some protection is provided, because regulations can specify additional conditions for a professional’s overseas qualifications to be met. But, of course, that depends on the Minister taking the necessary action. It also appears that Clause 3 could be used to implement an international agreement that encompassed an override in respect of the actions of a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to this, and, again, we will come back to Clause 3 later today.
So there is a need to safeguard and protect the integrity of the regulators and uphold the public interest in high standards among the professions covered by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has attempted to draft such protection, and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. If not, he needs to realise that the current construct of the Bill will simply not do, and the House would be right to insist on further protections.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised her consistent point, for which I give her respect, about declaratory statements within legislation. My noble friend Lord Fox, in bringing forward his amendment, which I had the pleasure to cosign, is justified in this instance, given what other noble Lords have said within this group. The Government have not provided the level of detail about the potential use of the extensive Henry VIII powers under this legislation in particular. Therefore, a statement that these powers should not be used to impact upon the independence of our regulators is of great importance.
That has been not endorsed but reflected in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. As has been my wont over many years in this place, I have taken great joy in reading Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reports—I did not have grey hair when I came into this place. It is rare that a committee report such as this can be so clear. On the Trade Bill, the Minister was given great credit when the committee cited support of the Government and raised no issues, but in this area, it could not be clearer. So the calls of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Fox for greater clarity are important.
The committee, in paragraph 8, said of the fact that no adequate explanation was given:
“This is particularly disappointing given that … as the Government have acknowledged, most of the substantive changes to the law envisaged by this Bill are to be made through delegated powers rather than the Bill itself.”
Therefore, a statement such as this amendment is clearer. So we agree with the committee that a much fuller explanation of the provision to be made in regulations under Clause 1, and the justification for that provision, is required.
The Government did not need to go down this route, as their own impact assessment indicated. The impact assessment started, under the Minister’s signature on the opening page, by giving reasons for the alternative approaches, and included:
“For recognition of overseas qualifications: a fixed (one size fits all) approach; and a risk/benefit system.”
I think there would be common ground between most of us on these Benches and the Minister on risk/benefit systems usually being best. But no, the Government have opted for “one size fits all”.
The impact assessment goes on:
“For regulators and international recognition agreements: arrangements for specific regulators.”
As we will no doubt hear in other groups, specific regulators have specific legislative underpinning for their own purpose and require scrutiny on a case by case basis. But the Government rejected it. And they rejected for information transparency a non-legislative guidance-based approach. So it is the Government’s choice to go down this route, which opens up a lot of areas where they should be much clearer in indicating the intent behind the regulation-making powers they want.
The Minister said on Second Reading that this Bill, while a framework, was the result of a considered view from reflecting and consulting with regulators as well as more widely with stakeholders. So I was frankly amazed to read that there is currently, for the healthcare professions, a live consultation on regulatory reform. It started on 24 March and closes a week today; it has not even closed yet. That consultation, Regulating Healthcare Professionals, Protecting the Public, touches on governance, the operating framework, fees, education and training, registration and fitness to practise. At paragraph 10, on the governance and operation framework, it says that the Government are
“proposing to devolve many of the decisions about day to day procedures to the regulators themselves, whilst ensuring that they continue to meet their overarching objective to protect the public.”
But this Bill provides the Government with Henry VIII powers to do exactly the opposite when they choose. So I ask the Minister: which is the Government’s intent—the one in the Bill we are scrutinising at the moment or the consultation that has not yet closed?
Paragraph 17 says that the regulators
“are accountable to the Privy Council … and the PSA provides oversight of how they carry out their regulatory functions. The Privy Council has default powers to direct most of the regulators if they fail to deliver their objectives. However, this does not apply to the GDC and GPhC. We propose that the GDC and GPhC are included within the Privy Council’s remit.”
So the Government, in their consultation, are seeking to expand the role of the Privy Council with its default powers, while this Bill is going in the opposite direction. So could the Minister explain what the relationship will be between the regulation-making powers in this Bill and the Professional Standards Authority? Can these powers be made to change the Professional Standards Authority’s legislative standing and how it provides oversight to the regulatory bodies it provides for? And what is this Bill’s relationship with the Privy Council? The Privy Council, as the Government say in their own live consultation at the moment, is the body these regulators are accountable to.
Paragraph 23 says:
“The proposals set out in this document aim to give regulators greater flexibility to determine how they set standards for, and quality assure, education and training.”
But the powers under this Bill will provide—in a way the Government have not yet provided information on—Henry VIII powers to completely determine what they are for the set purposes. So restrictions on the Government’s ability to use those powers which will impact upon this legislation are necessary.
The element of the consultation I thought was quite extraordinary is that the Government themselves say that when it comes to regulation of the medical professions they will go down a different route to change the legislation. The Government’s consultation says:
“We intend to implement … changes for each of the healthcare professional regulators through secondary legislation made under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999.”
There is no reference to any mechanisms under the Professional Qualifications Bill, so what is the Government’s intent for the Henry VIII powers under this Bill, with their already publicly stated intent to use the Health Act for medical?
Finally, the Government’s consultation closes with this:
“While we are required to hold a public consultation on all draft secondary legislation made using the Section 60 powers, we are taking this opportunity to seek views on the proposals that will, in due course, apply to all the professional regulators and all regulated healthcare professionals.”
On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made a very valid request of the Minister, which was to see some draft regulations about the intent before we conclude our scrutiny of this Bill in this House. The Minister refused her.
The Government’s consultation says that they are
“required to hold a public consultation on all draft secondary legislation”
when they change the regulation of health professionals, so what is the Government’s position on this? The Government say, in paragraph 407 of that document:
“We also intend to commission a review of the professions that are currently regulated in the UK, to consider whether statutory regulation remains appropriate for these professions.”
Clearly that is not the case, because the Government have decided so, as I said at the start of my contribution. Can the Minister tell us what the status of this consultation is, if so many issues have been pre-decided by the Bill?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I slightly have the feeling that the back of an envelope was used for the drafting of the Bill. I could be quite wrong, but it has that feel about it.
I actually really welcome the “purpose” framing of the Bill—and here, unusually on this Bill, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—because I think that such framing is extraordinarily useful when one later comes either to court cases, which have in the past occasionally been involved in determining what the purpose of a Bill was or what it meant, or to looking at statutory instruments. I like the idea of setting out what a Bill is for and what it is trying to achieve. Therefore, I welcome Amendment 1, although I have a question about one part of it.
What seems to me really important about Amendment 1 is the second part:
“Nothing in this Act affects the independent process of defining the accreditation processes of the regulators.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, this statement is of great importance. It clearly underlines many of the concerns raised with us—and, I am sure, with others around the House—by regulators, that somehow the Government will tell them how or when to accept the qualifications or experience gained under other jurisdictions so as to allow an individual to practice here. Indeed, this concern is reflected in Amendment 12, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which emphasises that regulators should be able to rule on whether someone meets their standards.
As I said at Second Reading, regulation is all about protecting the public and the consumer or user interest. It is why we restrict when someone can call themselves a lawyer or a doctor. The comfort that gives to a client or a patient is obvious: it is shorthand for saying that someone has trained them up, someone has tested them, and someone knows they are fit to practice. For consumers, that is a really important purpose of regulation. It is why we have set up, in law, independent regulators to be able to decide whether somebody meets the recognised standards. They do of course do more than that—they look at CPD, at discipline and at various other issues—but for the purpose of this, it is about setting a standard and ensuring that someone can meet that standard before they practice, to protect users of the service. That part of Amendment 1 is really important.
What I am querying is the other bit, which says that the purpose of the Act—and as I said, I like the idea of a purpose of an Act—is to
“give regulators the necessary powers to ensure demand for professions can be met in the United Kingdom.”
Of course, that does not describe the Bill as it is at the moment; that is only one arm of the Bill. Indeed, the regulators who have been in touch with us say about the part I have just quoted that they can do it anyway, and ask why we are passing a Bill to give them powers that they already have. None of the regulators has been clamouring for these powers. Nobody, while we were in the EU, came to us and said, “Look, outside the EU we would love to have lawyers, doctors, vets”—I forget who is on the long list now—“from another country, but we are not able, because of our statutes, to have a process to take them in”. So this has got nothing to do with leaving the EU; either they had those powers before and they were not used, or they did not have them before and never felt the need of them. Nobody is asking for these powers. It is quite extraordinary that the back-of-an-envelope drafting managed to drop that bit in. Basically, that is what the regulators have been telling us.
We have also had the noble Lord, Lord Trees, telling us, from the veterinary surgeons’ point of view, that they have been able to do this. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, knows that the GMC has been able to recognise doctors’ qualifications and experience from around the world. None of the regulators needs this, so it is very hard to understand why it is being dropped in.
Of course, partly it is being dropped in because the purpose of the Bill is not simply to look at where there may not be sufficient professionals here. The Government say that they want to do trade deals, and, as part of those, want to be able to sell—or is it offer or swap?—the rights of professionals from other jurisdictions to come here. Actually, I think that that is what the Bill is about. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, deliberately did not put it in the purpose of the Bill as he knows we are coming later to try to delete Clause 3 because we have our doubts about it.
It seems to me that we need to be clear whether we need the first bit. I will ask the Minister later—I have given him notice—which of the 160 regulators in the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, do not already have the powers. If there are three of them, are we really passing a Bill for three regulators that cannot do it and probably do not want to do it anyway? I think that broad question needs to be asked. We will come on to that.
There is a big issue around whether the Government should be asking a regulator to do something it does not want to do. If a regulator wants to put in a process for recognising qualifications from another country, it has probably already done so anyway. We are therefore looking only at situations where it does not want to do it, and the Government are saying, “Nevertheless, we want you to”. We are going to come back to ask whether it is right that that should happen.
Going back to the second part of Amendment 1, the Minister has said in a letter to me—and to others too, I am sure; I do not think I get special words from him—that he
“fully recognises that the autonomy of regulators in assessing standards is key to protecting consumers and public safety and … in all negotiations a key concern for the government is ensuring the autonomy of UK regulators and protecting UK standards”.
If he is willing to put that in a letter to me, I see no reason why he should not put it in the Bill, so I hope he will at least accept the second part of Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their proposed Amendments 1 and 12. These amendments would enshrine a purpose for the Bill and seek to avoid unreasonable burdens on regulators. I think we all recognise that, although this is a short Bill, it is a very complex one, as any Bill dealing with a landscape composed of more than 50 regulators and more than 160 professions was bound to be.
Many of the points raised in the debate, which I listened to very carefully, relate to the detail of subsequent clauses. So I propose, and I hope this is acceptable, to deal with these points later, in the order in which they come up in the Bill, rather than attempt to deal with all the points now. I have to say that I am very optimistic that, when I come to these points later, I will be able to deal with and assuage the anxieties expressed by noble Lords.
Coming back to the amendments in this group, I start with Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was trying to be helpful, as he always is, in tabling his amendment. The proposed new clause contains two provisions, and I will take them in turn.
First, the amendment states that
“The purpose of this Act is to give regulators the necessary powers to ensure demand for professions can be met in the United Kingdom”.
I am in firm agreement with the noble Lords’ intent. Indeed, one of the core purposes of the Bill is to give regulators the powers they need to enable demand for the services of professions in the UK, or part of it, to be met without unreasonable cost or delay. In essence, that is the purpose of Clauses 1 and 2. It is unnecessary to state one of the core purposes of the Bill separately, as it is already contained in Clause 2.
The Bill’s objectives, however—I think that this is clear to all of us—are wider than the purpose expressed in this proposed new clause alone. Do the noble Lords intend to limit the Bill only to responding to demand for services? That would be an opportunity missed. I will outline other important objectives of the Bill. It gives UK government Ministers and devolved Administrations powers to implement the professional qualification provisions of international agreements, and to empower regulators to enter into their own recognition agreements. These support the UK’s trade agenda. Having these powers has the knock-on benefit of helping to address demand for professions. Taken alone, however, these clauses are about international agreements and not demand for professions.
The Bill also has an important objective in relation to targeted steps for good regulatory practice. The clauses on transparency and information-sharing will support regulators in operating efficiently and individuals in entering professions. They are not necessarily about the demand for professions. I hope that the noble Lords recognise that these are also worthy purposes of the Bill.
The second provision in the proposed new clause outlines that nothing in the Bill affects the independent process of defining the accreditation process of regulators. As we all know, that process is important in maintaining professional standards in the UK. Once again, I find myself in firm agreement with the noble Lords’ intent. The Government are committed to upholding the autonomy of our regulators.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, spoke with great knowledge of this in the context of the legal profession, and I completely agree with his views about the need for the independence of the profession to be maintained. Let me say at the outset—I am sure that this is common ground across the Committee—that our regulators are the experts in their fields. They make sure that high professional standards are maintained. The core of the Bill supports the autonomy of regulators and their freedom to determine whether an individual with overseas professional qualifications is fit to practise in the UK.
Furthermore, and importantly, I am pleased to say that the regulators I have spoken to—I have spoken to a great number of them—agree that the Government are not interfering with their independence in the Bill. I add that I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes about purpose clauses, especially when, as in the Bill, they serve no useful purpose. I am not therefore convinced of the need to set out the importance of the independence of regulators’ processes in an additional clause in the Bill, when the autonomy is manifest already. That autonomy, I beg to suggest, runs like a golden thread throughout the whole Bill.
I know we will come back to delegated powers when we debate individual clauses, but I appreciate the point raised by noble Lords that, with many powers contained in the Bill, a statement enshrining the purpose of the Bill would offer reassurance. I repeat, however, that those principles are delivered through the substance of the Bill, and I will offer arguments on the necessity of the powers later in the debate. I hope that they will assuage the fears of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and others.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, not having participated in this group, I am prompted by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on the regulation of healthcare professionals, to which I do not think my noble friend responded. I have here the Law Commission report of April 2014—my noble friend will be aware of it—on the issues referred to by the noble Lord, which included the recommendation that Section 60 of the Health Act 1999, and indeed the powers of the Privy Council, should be substantially removed from the regulation of healthcare professions. What is the Government’s intention on the regulation of healthcare professionals? Do they intend to implement the Law Commission report seven years later, or do they now intend to proceed without any reference to it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, if I may, because it is a point of some detail, I will write to my noble friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I say to the Minister respectfully: he did not assuage my fears, because he did not address them. Can he reassure me now, from the Dispatch Box, that none of the Henry VIII powers in the Bill will be used to impact the accountability of the medical professions vis-à-vis the Privy Council, or—whether in response to demand or otherwise—to impact any of the powers or the relationship between the professional standards authority and any of the regulators that it has responsibility for?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I did not believe that my comments on this group would assuage the noble Lord’s fears, but I am sure that as we progress through the Bill my comments on this matter in later clauses will do so.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has already been a more interesting debate than I had anticipated. The response of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the subject of such clauses was not unexpected, but I emphasise that—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, noted—this is a twin-track approach.
We would like at the end of this to have a Bill such that, in the Minister’s words, we all exit the Chamber assuaged. In the event that we do not, however, something along these lines is needed as a safeguard. I am not parti pris about the wording on this—I will take full advantage of the wisdom of others in the Committee, not least that of the Minister himself, if his department chose to engage to offer reassurance. He admits that such a clause would offer reassurance, and then says that the Government do not want to offer reassurance. The opposite of reassurance is something that I would not have thought the Government wanted to be spreading around, but clearly I am wrong.
On the chances of our being assuaged, there are two clear problems. First, while there has been some engagement with the medical profession, we have already had accountants, dentists and lawyers paraded as professions that have issues. I suspect that if there were experts in your Lordships’ House on many of the other professions, they too would express problems. So, while there has been consultation, it seems to me that more of that could be done.
That takes us to the other point, which is the back-of-the-envelope comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made. I knew what my noble friend Lord Purvis was going to say, and I was still shocked when I heard him say it. There has been no reference by Her Majesty’s Government to this parallel exercise, and there would have been no reference to it had the diligence of my noble colleague not come to bear. It seems unthinkable that Her Majesty’s Government would bring a Bill such as this—a complex Bill, in the words of the Minister—without acknowledging a parallel exercise that is going on. The Minister does not seem to be prepared to answer the direct questions, but perhaps he could tell your Lordships’ House if Her Majesty’s Government are aware of any other parallel exercises going on in other departments at the moment. It would be helpful if they were all brought to light at this point rather than surfacing later.
It seems that assuaging us is going to take an awful lot of application from the Front Bench opposite. That said, we will wait and see how the debate goes today and on other days. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 1: Power to provide for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications
Amendment 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable regulations to specify additional conditions that must be met by an individual in order to be treated as if they have a specified UK qualification or specified UK experience.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2 and to speak to Amendments 3, 6 and 10 in this group.
I have set out the need for a framework for the recognition of individuals with overseas qualifications and experience that focuses on addressing unmet demand for professional services in the UK. Clause 1 brings in an important part of that framework. It means that regulations can be made which require regulators to have a route in place to determine whether to recognise overseas-qualified professionals from around the world. Where such regulations are made under this clause as amended, they would require a regulator to make a determination as to whether an individual has substantially the same knowledge and skills to substantially the same standard as the UK qualification or experience. These regulations would not and cannot alter the standards required to practise professions in the UK, and UK regulators would still decide who can practise here. Regulations would be made by an appropriate national authority, meaning the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, or the devolved Administrations where within devolved competence. I reassure noble Lords that, where Clause 1 is not exercised—it can be exercised only when particular conditions are met—regulators will be free to continue recognising qualifications from overseas in line with their existing powers and any reciprocal agreements in place.
On Second Reading, several noble Lords spoke to the concerns of healthcare regulators. They highlighted that Clause 1, as it appears in the Bill, could limit the ability of regulators to assess knowledge and skills as they see fit. I committed at Second Reading to table an amendment to Clause 1 to ensure that regulators can assess knowledge and skills as they consider most appropriate. I assure noble Lords that the Government take the views of regulators very seriously. This brings me to the detail of Amendments 2, 3, 6 and 10 in my name.
First, the amendments recognise that, where Clause 1 regulations are used in relation to a given profession, additional criteria may need to be satisfied before an individual may become eligible to practise—for example, criminal record checks to ensure public protection. As raised by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading, this could also be used to ensure overseas-qualified professionals have suitable levels of English language proficiency in appropriate cases—something that, where appropriate, could also be addressed as a compensatory measure under Clause 1(3)(b)(ii). The amendment to Clause 1(1) and the addition of new subsection (3A) would allow these additional regulatory criteria to be specified in regulations made under Clause 1. These criteria would need to be met before an individual with an overseas qualification or experience is treated as having a UK qualification or experience.
Secondly, there are of course a variety of ways that regulators may wish to assess the knowledge and skills of an overseas-qualified applicant. These might include an assessment of their qualifications or a test of competence. The amendments to subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 and the addition of new subsection (3A) provide reassurance that, when the power in Clause 1 is used, regulators can assess an applicant’s knowledge and skills in whatever way they consider appropriate. I hope, in my first step in assuaging the concerns of noble Lords, that that is the start of the practice.
I have been clear since introducing the Bill that we must protect regulators’ autonomy. This includes autonomy over decisions about who practises a profession and flexibility in assessment practices, in line with regulators’ own rigorous standards. The methods used to determine whether a professional qualified overseas is similarly qualified to work in the UK should rightly be identified and implemented by regulators. Through these amendments, the Government want to ensure that regulators can use a full range of approaches to make this determination. This could include making judgments only on the basis of qualifications or experience, or on such other bases as a regulator considers appropriate.
I have discussed my amendments with the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council, who raised this issue directly with me. I am pleased to say that, in a very good discussion we had yesterday, both the GMC and the NMC welcomed these amendments to the Bill.
At this juncture, it is right to address a point I have discussed with several noble Lords and which touches on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the interaction of the Bill with other matters—in particular, the interaction between this Bill and the Department of Health and Social Care’s consultation on regulating healthcare professionals, which also touches on international recognition of professionals. I reassure noble Lords that there is no reason whatsoever why any proposals resulting from the ongoing consultation and requiring legislative changes could not be implemented through legislation led by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and his Ministers. I have no doubt that that legislation would be the appropriate vehicle for upgrades to UK healthcare regulators’ legislative frameworks. This is my second point of assuagement.
To conclude on this point, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments address the challenges raised at Second Reading. The amendments will ensure that flexibility and autonomy for regulators is preserved in the event that the power in Clause 1 is used. I beg to move Amendment 2.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present at Second Reading, so I will not detain noble Lords with my views about the Bill in general terms. However, I hope that I will be forgiven if I have not been able to say those things previously.
Amendment 11 in my name seeks to amend government Amendment 10. My noble friend the Minister has explained helpfully and clearly how the Government have brought forward amendments even before the Committee stage to points made at Second Reading and by the regulators. That is extremely helpful, and I agree with them. There was always a risk that if there was a generic recognition of overseas qualifications or experience, an individual would be deemed to have met the required standard in the United Kingdom, but not necessarily by that individual’s experience, qualifications or other factors. My noble friend referred to things such as language assessment. When I was Secretary of State for Health, we were closely engaged in our dealings on this with other countries in the European Union. It is simply not the case that because someone undertakes qualifications that are deemed to be the equivalent of those in the United Kingdom, people are able to practise here in a way that is not impaired. We set about trying to remedy that and we need to make sure that we do not introduce legislation which would reintroduce the same kind of problem.
I encourage noble Lords to look at government Amendment 10. I understand what is intended, but I think that there is a drafting problem. The determinations set out in proposed subsections (3A) (b) (i) and (ii) state that the qualifications and experience are substantially the same or may fall short. Those determinations are to be made
“(i) only on the basis of the overseas qualifications or overseas experience concerned, or (ii) on such other basis”.
The inclusion of the word “only” means either qualifications and experience on the one hand or on another basis on the other hand, but it cannot be both. I do not see why that is the case. To me, it is transparent that we may be looking for an individual to have overseas qualifications and experience, but the regulator should have the flexibility to look at other assessments or experience. For example, I can think of someone I met while I was in hospital not so long ago who looked after me. He was a medically qualified practitioner from overseas, but he was working as a technician in the NHS because his qualification was not recognised for our purposes. However, his experience here in the United Kingdom treating patients should have been taken into account in assessing, for example, his linguistic competence and other experience.
If, for example, a regulator wanted to look at overseas qualifications and experience, as well as UK experience, why should it not be able to do that? The inclusion of the word “only” precludes such a combination on its plain meaning. That may not be the Government’s intention, and obviously I will not press this amendment, but I hope that, at the very least, my noble friend will undertake to look at this and say that leaving out the word “only” might enable this amendment to the Bill to do what he wishes it to do.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the government amendments in this group. I want to speak in particular to Amendments 2 and 3, but having just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I can see that Amendment 11 has an awful lot to commend it.
At Second Reading, I expressed concern that proficiency in English was not a prerequisite for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications. I was prepared to put down an amendment to that effect, but I readily acknowledge that this is a matter much better left to the regulators than put in the Bill. The addition of the words “any other specified condition” leaves this in the hands of the regulators. It is hoped that many of them will recognise the importance that anyone working in the UK should speak and understand English. It is important not only for professional but for social reasons. We are still, alas, a hopelessly monolingual country, and any overseas worker who can speak only their language will have a difficult time both with their fellow workers and with sorting out their everyday life, however brilliantly they are qualified and however much experience they have.
Clause 1 concerns qualifications and experience, but leaves it with the regulator to consider whether experience makes up for any lack of appropriate qualifications. These amendments put the onus exactly where it should be—on the regulator. We on these Benches support the amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments. My question for the Minister is why we need these amendments. I understand that he has brought them forward in part to satisfy concerns raised by the General Medical Council and those expressed in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. My noble friend has had an opportunity to speak to other regulators—here I declare an interest as a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates—but what he is proposing in these amendments could appear to be micromanaging criteria that would best be left to the regulators.
Concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council for England and Wales that the Government are conflating two different aspects. The first is the right of the Government or the state to set out which person should have the right to enter and remain here. The second is what I believe is the right and the duty of the regulator, which is whether an individual has the right to practise a particular profession or to establish services in this country. In seeking to amend the Bill in the way the Government are doing, we are moving away from the mutual recognition basis which has served this country so well, and I do not agree with that premise. Perhaps I may repeat that I had the opportunity to practise in Brussels on European Community law on two separate occasions, so I think that the Bill before us and the regulations to which my noble friend has referred will make it much more difficult to achieve that in the future.
I refer also to a letter from my noble friend which he sent to the Delegated Powers Committee. He talks about a “generous agreement” that was sought with the European Union on professional qualifications. He goes on to state on page 12 in the third paragraph:
“However, for other trade partners, we are more likely to consider Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) frameworks, a more common precedent in international trade agreements.”
I confess to being slightly confused, because if we are moving away from mutual recognition of qualifications with the European Union, why are we seeking to establish them in international trade agreements? I look forward to my noble friend being able to clarify those concerns.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for these amendments, as I have spoken at length about the problems that would have been created for the General Medical Council otherwise. I am also grateful that he had extensive consultation with his officials and the General Medical Council. As he said, the General Medical Council is grateful to him for bringing forward these amendments.
Having said that, I would like the Minister to confirm on the record that any determination made by a regulator on whether a professional is able to join a register can be based on an assessment of the individual’s knowledge, skills and experience rather than solely on qualifications. Can he further confirm that the regulator would be able to make such an assessment using whichever method they found appropriate, including existing tests of competence and any other test they might develop in the future when it is found necessary?
I also support the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. When the General Medical Council considers qualifications and experience, it takes into account the experience that the individual may have gained in his or her own country, but it also has the power to look at the experience that the individual may have gained subsequently outside their country. The amendment sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seems appropriate and I would be interested in the Minister’s response, but, at this juncture, I thank him for his amendments, and I support them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interest as a member of the GMC board for the sake of this group of amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I welcome the government amendments and thank the Minister for his discussions with the regulator. I listened with great interest to the comments and queries of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the amendments. In a sense, they reflect the generic and skeletal nature of this Bill, which means that each clause has to relate to many different professions. Frankly, I think it argues for a more detailed Bill, which would meet her issues as well as mine.
The argument that the GMC and others have put is very simple. Clause 1 currently gives power to the appropriate national authority—in the case of health regulators, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—to draft regulations to introduce a process that will require them to assess whether someone has a particular overseas qualification that is substantially the same as a UK qualification. In the case of the GMC, a person so deemed would then be eligible to practise as a doctor in the UK. That is because the GMC does not require those with UK qualifications to do anything further to demonstrate that they have the necessary knowledge and skills for registration. This could give an automatic entitlement to practise, under the current provision of Clause 1, for international medical graduates on the same basis as UK graduates. Currently, GMC has a very rigorous process for assessing whether the international medical graduate is safe and fit to practise. Without these amendments, it would be almost impossible for the GMC to manage operationally, with 10,000 international medical graduates applying for registration each year. It would be virtually impossible to assess this number of qualifications from countries as diverse as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, UAE and many others, with hundreds of different medical schools. The concern was that the Bill as drafted could force health profession regulators to accept professionals into UK practice in a way that compromised patient safety.
The Minister was sympathetic, and I am very grateful to him. However, there remains the issue of the relationship of Clause 3 to Clause 1, which we will come on to debate. In relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he clearly has a point. I hope the Minister might take this away and give it further thought.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am registered with the General Medical Council and I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Like others, I know that the GMC has welcomed these amendments from the Government. Indeed, they address many of the concerns that we raised at Second Reading. I have had some discussions too with the Health & Care Professions Council. It still has some concerns that I hope the Minister will be able to address.
Government Amendment 6 leaves in the phrase “substantially the same” at Clause 1(3)(b)(i), in respect of knowledge, experience and standards. Currently, the processes demand that registrants meet certain standards in order to practise. There is a concern that the phrase “substantially the same” in the legislation risks lowering this standard, potentially creating a two-tier system in which applicants from overseas would need to meet a lower standard than their UK counterparts.
It is, of course, most welcome that the Government have recognised that regulators currently make a holistic assessment: they look at education, training, commitment to CPD and, importantly, the level of experience of each applicant rather than just at something on paper from the institution from which they received a qualification at some time in the past. This focus on the situation of the individual, whether it is an overseas qualification or experience demonstrating an equivalent level of knowledge and skills, is crucial.
Our current workforce shortage is acute. We have a lot of vacancies across the UK and there seems no longer to be the incoming workforce that there used to be. We have people leaving as well, so the vacancy factor is becoming more acute with a workforce that is already feeling the strain and burnout following all the pressures of Covid. I hope that there will be a clear assurance from the Minister that there will be no dropping of standards in a rush to try to fill vacancies and that there will be a concerted effort to provide the education and training needed to make sure that we have the appropriate number of properly skilled people in our workforce.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as discussed, seems to raise an important point. I think that the general tenor of the debate so far has been that we hope the Government will take their own amendment away and have another look at it, rather than expecting it to be put into the Bill today. It could come in on Report when it had been appropriately amended if necessary. It certainly would seem to need some more thought.
I am well aware from my own discipline of medicine that many drugs and conditions have remarkably similar names. It is extremely easy for people to become confused over which is which; that is how errors occur. Even if someone passes an English language test, it is actually their command of the language in the relevant discipline that becomes so important.
The other thing I want to ask the Minister before I sit down relates to those disciplines that are not yet on a professional register but will need to be. They include physician associates, anaesthesia associates and nursing associates in particular. I know that the General Medical Council will take on the registration of physician associates and anaesthesia associates, but I would welcome from the Minister confirmation that the same criteria will apply to them as will apply to those in professions that are already regulated by regulators to whom this Bill currently applies.
There is also a question about what will happen in future to some other groups that are not regulated, such as some of the psychological therapies that we discussed at length during the passage of previous pieces of legislation—for example, the Domestic Abuse Bill—when many Peers across the House expressed serious concerns about some of the standards of practice. We know that some of the schools of psychology have evolved in different countries around the world. It is important that we do not inadvertently create another problem by allowing people to come here and practise in an unregulated way.
That brings me to my last point, which is on cosmetic interventions. Currently, they are unregulated. I hope that we will see them regulated, but I request from the Minister confirmation that the same ability for a regulator to determine criteria will apply and that it will not be separate if it concerns a group coming into regulation that was not regulated previously. We know very well the number of damage cases that there are, particularly from inappropriate cosmetic procedures.
At this point, I seek those assurances from the Minister but reiterate that the government amendments are most welcome. They have demonstrated that they have listened to the representation, particularly from the General Medical Council but also from others.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support the Government’s amendments in this group and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. Initially, I thought that his amendment was attached to the word “only”, which is often misused in the English language—most often as an inappropriate or misplaced modifier. Initially I thought my noble friend was going to say that it was a misplaced modifier. However, I listened to what he said, and he raised a very substantive concern about the drafting of the clause. Like other noble Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree to take this away and look at it and, if necessary, bring an amendment back on Report to make proper sense of his new amendments.
Of course, there is a slight problem: once we have amended a Bill, we are not supposed to go back and amend it again at later stages. However, I think that if my noble friend were clear enough from the Dispatch Box today that he will look at this, it would not cause a problem.
My noble friend Lord Lansley may well have noted that, in our Conservative notes on the amendments that we are considering today, his Amendment 11 was described as an opposition amendment. I know that my noble friend has not always toed the party line—he is not alone in that—but I have never regarded him as the Opposition. I share this with the Committee in the hope that it will improve my noble friend’s street cred.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the Minister on moving quickly on this. I also congratulate the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council on moving quickly in terms of raising this issue with Her Majesty’s Government. Reflecting back on some of the things we heard in the debate on the first group of amendments, it seems that there are other professional groups in regulated professions that still have outstanding issues. I hope that the Minister can confirm that his door is just as widely open for them to bring their issues forward, albeit somewhat later, so that we can clear them up.
The Minister talked about whether we were assuaged and then stated that the Secretary of State for Health could bring forward statutory instruments concerning the health profession. We knew that. What we do not know, and what has not yet been answered, is how conditions set and laws made by this Bill that reflect on the consultation—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out frankly, this Bill and the DHSC consultation are travelling in highly contradictory directions—will affect the consultation and the health professions. It is that direction that we are more interested in, rather than the opposite.
I associate myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal. These amendments are welcome. I note that, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, we expect to debate the word “substantially” later because we have some concerns around that. I also note her point about future regulators, so to speak. My assumption is that those regulators will be established by a different process somewhere else but, in order to add those additional regulators to this Bill, we will be seeing some more of the Minister’s statutory instruments in future. Perhaps the Minister can be clear about how future new regulators will be added to the terms of this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, does not regard the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as the Opposition, and I kind of do not, either. In this respect, I think the Minister would do well to listen to his very wise advice.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as has been said, the changes made are welcome. However, we should reflect that there are still concerns over the powers. On 7 June, the Delegated Powers Committee produced a report on the changes. It said that the Government had still failed
“to explain what such ‘additional requirements’ or ‘conditions’ might be”
and—this is the important bit—had failed
“to explain why the amendment would leave it to Ministers to determine … whether there are to be any such conditions and, if so, what those conditions are to be.”
The committee also said that the Government had failed
“to explain why all such conditions should be a matter for secondary legislation”
rather than primary legislation—a theme to which we will continue to return.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the GMC welcomes the changes but has asked for a couple of things to be put on the record by the Minister today. For example, can the decision on whether a particular professional is able to join a register be based on an assessment of that individual’s knowledge, skills and experience, rather than on just their qualification? Also, will the regulators make that assessment? As the noble Lord said, the GMC has asked for that, but I must say, as a potential patient, that I too would like an absolute assurance that it will be the regulator who says that someone is fit to start cutting me open, or whatever else anyone would do.
On the little secret we heard about in the briefing from the other side of the House, perhaps the mistake next time could be calling my amendment a government amendment, because that way we might be able to get it through without anyone noticing. I live in hope.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is a good one. I also wonder whether the Bill needs an “and/or”. That seems to go to the strength of putting this amendment to one side and putting it in on Report. The Minister should not think that there is any egg on his face or anything if we ask for a pause. As I am sure he will know, it is very normal for government amendments to be put in on Report; otherwise, they have to be brought back, slightly clunkily, at Third Reading, by which time we are normally rather tired and want to leave early. So if the noble Lord could not push his amendment today so that we can deal with it on Report, that might be the best way forward.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given their careful consideration to the amendments in this group. It was an unusual experience for me standing at the Dispatch Box almost to feel a warm glow as noble Lords welcomed my amendments. The lesson that I learn from that is that the quicker one can amend one’s own Bills, the better, probably, in your Lordships’ House.
As noble Lords will appreciate, the Government have not brought these amendments lightly. As we have heard, they have been informed rightly and properly by careful engagement with healthcare regulators. I thank a number of noble Lords; perhaps I can single out the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his comments. Without reservation, of course, my door is open to other regulators who wish to speak to me as this Bill continues its passage.
We heard again from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his point about consultation with the HSC. I think that group 7, which is about consultation, will be a good place to return to that and I will try to address in detail the points the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis, have made.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred back to what, in her view, was clearly the golden age of mutual recognition with the European Union. As I said previously, we would have liked to have maintained that mutual recognition. The phrase I used at Second Reading was:
“We took the horse to water but it refused to drink.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 975.]
I hope that noble Lords will support my amendments. I believe that they protect the public interest, maintain standards and ensure that regulators have the necessary flexibility and autonomy to regulate appropriately. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his comments, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I am happy to give a complete reassurance standing at the Dispatch Box on the important points that were made.
In relation to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about the use of the word “substantially”, we have a later group which is almost entirely devoted to discussing that word. If I may, I will leave comments on that until we get there and, again, I hope to assuage noble Lords’ fears when we reach that point.
On what happens if other regulators pop up in this field, the way the Bill is drafted and, frankly, one of the reasons why we have not included a list of professions—I am sure we will come back to that later as well—is because it is a moving target. Of course, any new profession that ends up being regulated by law will automatically fall within the purview of the Bill by being so regulated, and if it falls within the purview of the Bill, the standards of the Bill and the methods that we have been discussing today in relation to my amendments will also apply to those new professions.
I come to Amendment 11 in the name my noble friend Lord Lansley, who made some interesting points during the discussion which were reinforced by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I always admire my noble friend Lord Lansley’s forensic attention to the detail of the legislation before our House. I think all Front-Bench spokesmen from this side always listen carefully to the points that he makes. I will look at this again, but I hope that he appreciates that the wording of Amendment 10 is intended to provide more flexibility about how regulators make their determination. We believe that they need this flexibility and will find it helpful.
Some regulators—and this is, of course, completely a decision for the regulators—may consider it appropriate to look solely at what is demonstrated by a qualification obtained overseas, others may require an applicant to pass a separate test of knowledge and skills, while others may choose to combine the two. Regulators should have this broad discretion available to them. I believe, and I am advised, that the proposed removal of the word “only” from Amendment 10 could cast doubt on whether the first of those options is available. I will have another look at this to make sure that that is the right reading. Meanwhile, I ask my noble friend not to move his amendment.
I commend Amendments 3, 6 and 10 to the Committee and beg to move Amendment 2.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lansley, and then I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who has requested to speak after the Minister.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have kindly approved of the argument made in Amendment 11 and to my noble friend for saying that he and colleagues will look at it again. I think that what they suggest is not the case. As it stands, Amendment 10 allows regulators to make a determination based on overseas qualifications and experience alone, but it runs the risk, which is a different risk, of preventing them combining that with other factors and assessments and bringing them together in the determination. That is the point. The removal of the word “only” would not, in my view, prevent a regulator making a determination based solely on overseas qualifications and experience.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. If the Minister is willing not to move Amendment 10 today and to look at it again and bring it back on Report, I think that would be the best way to proceed. I think we all know what we want to achieve, which is to give the regulators flexibility. It is purely a drafting issue, and I am sure we will not need to be detained at length on Report if the draftsman, is, in the event, clear that the effect is as the Minister wishes it to be. He has not moved Amendment 10 yet, and I hope he will not move it when we reach it.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I think I have in fact moved Amendment 10. I commended amendments to the House and begged to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
May I explain to the Minister that we are debating Amendment 2, with which other amendments are grouped? The debate that is taking place currently is on Amendment 2 only.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. May I consider that point and come back to the House shortly on it?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
If I make a slightly longer intervention than I planned, it might allow the Minister to consult the Whips in order to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in a constructive manner. Certainly, these Benches would appreciate it if the Minister was able not to move his amendment at this stage. Like my noble friend Lady Garden, I do not think that there is a large area of difference. I cannot speak for the Cross Benches—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—I am giving the Whip plenty of time here, I hope.
The Whip should not indicate to my noble friend Lord Fox for me to carry on speaking, because normally that is quite the reverse of what my noble friend asks me to do, which is to shut up. However, that said, I hope that the Minister will reflect on it. If he is able to respond positively with a nod, I will defer my actual comment until later on in the Bill—he is nodding enthusiastically to try to do that.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the confusion. I am happy to have another look at Amendment 10 in the light of these comments. I commend Amendments 2, 3 and 6 to the Committee.
Amendment 2 agreed.
Amendment 3
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the determination that must be made by a regulator in order for an individual to meet the condition in subsection (2) of the Clause so that the determination relates to the knowledge and skills of the individual.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 4
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I wondered if I had drawn the short straw for this set of amendments. It always feels slightly lonely when yours is the only name on an amendment, but I assure noble Lords that I have the support of all my Lib Dem colleagues. I beg to move Amendment 4 and speak to Amendments 5, 7, 8 and 33—there may be more to come later; I hope that this is not a spoiler alert—to remove “substantially” from the relevant clauses. It appears so often that it is obviously a favourite word of the Bill drafters, but it expresses a qualification, uncertainty and lack of conviction which we wish to challenge, and it surely threatens to undermine the authority of the regulators. If I were having an operation, or water were flooding through my roof, I am not sure that I would be reassured to know that the surgeon or the plumber had substantially the same knowledge and skills as those required by a UK surgeon or plumber, or substantially corresponded to the practice of a profession. Surely in legislation we need to be more assured. If we are genuinely looking at a level playing field between UK and overseas professionals, let us have the courage of our convictions and assure our citizens that they are in safe hands because the regulators have done their professional job and checked that qualifications and experience match across the countries, not just substantially but in their entirety.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments. As my noble friend has excellently explained, we are probing the use of “substantially” and highlighting what we see as its inadequacy. The Minister’s own amendments start to tackle this problem. Both the British Dental Association and the British Medical Association have concerns that the proposals focus too heavily on simple qualifications and do not adequately recognise the importance of skills and experience, as well as the vital requirement to be of good character and to put patient safety first. This is fundamental in healthcare and being of good character is of course important in teaching-related professions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, earlier outlined the concerns of the Health and Care Professions Council. The Minister may argue that the BMA, the BDA and so on are not regulators, but they represent their profession. They have a stake in the respect in which that profession is held, and they pay substantial annual fees for the recognition of their qualifications. The impact assessment makes it clear that the proposals in the Bill will be likely to increase those fees.
In some measure, the amendment encapsulates the fundamental problem with the Bill. It tries to impose a simplistic solution on an endlessly complex and dynamic situation. The Government have grossly underestimated how long it will take to replace the current structure with an adequate and comprehensive alternative. The interim recognition of qualifications is swept away on enactment of the Bill, on the grounds that it gives preference to EEA and Swiss nationals before a replacement is necessarily ready. What will it be replaced with? Another set of recognition for qualifications from countries which will then be given preference as a result of international trade arrangements.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the requirement to speak Welsh in Wales is rather important.
I have some sympathy with the Minister. Later, we will get to our proposed new schedule—it is on pages 18 and 19 of the Marshalled List—to specify the regulators, again referring to the letter sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The range of regulators covered by the Bill—and if they are covered they should be in the Bill—includes farriers, who may never have gone to university and for whom none of this might apply.
One has to be careful. Part of the problem is that we are trying to write a Bill for an enormous range of professionals. It does not include the Church—the right reverend Prelate will be very pleased—and their qualifications are probably recognised across different jurisdictions, but it includes all sorts of others, such as driving instructors. I used to call their body the DVLC, but I think it is now called the DVSA. It may well be that, in order to be able to instruct people, a driving instructor has to have five years post their own driving licence in one country but six in another. There may well be bits that are substantially the same, but I understand why we would want to include them. We are not just talking about the health service. I see the problems with that, but as a patient I would want the qualifications to be the same if not higher if we are recognising someone here.
Part of the problem is that, in writing what looks like a simple piece of law to cover the Security Industry Authority, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Highways Agency—presumably the people who check that the roads are safe; I do not know what they do but they are in here—we have ended up with a Bill that tries to ensure that both doctors and farriers, for whatever reason the latter are regulated, are of high quality. I have some sympathy, but nevertheless I see a substantial problem in allowing too much flexibility, which would not be in the interests of patients in particular and maybe of other clients in sensitive areas. I look forward, as they say, to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for tabling Amendments 4, 5, 7, 8 and 33, which probe the use of the word “substantially” in Clauses 1 and 4, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her comments. The point is that, in the end, it is the individual who must be fit to practise, and the assessments that we make must relate to the individual. It is here where the important matter of regulator autonomy comes in, and why it is that the only people who can safely work out what is the appropriate route for a particular profession and the right mix between the individual, the skills and the qualifications seems quite properly to be the regulator. That is the key safeguard that we want to achieve under the Bill.
I turn to the amendments. As we know, Clause 1 is the “Power to provide for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications”. If amended as the Government suggest, under Clause 1 an individual would be treated as having UK qualifications if the regulator determined that the individual had substantially the same knowledge and skills to substantially the same standard as are demonstrated by the specified UK qualification or experience. The noble Baroness asked some interesting questions about this approach and whether it undermines the freedom of UK regulators. I reassure noble Lords that the issue has been very carefully considered.
If we removed the word “substantially” from Clause 1, that would change the requirement such that individuals would need the same knowledge and skills to the same standard as demonstrated by the specified UK qualification or experience. That suggests an assumption that it is often the case that skills and knowledge gained in one country for a profession exactly match those gained in another country for that profession. It also suggests an assumption that it is often the case that a profession in one country covers exactly the same set of activities as the equivalent profession in another country. Of course, these assumptions are not necessarily valid. So while it might make it easier for UK regulators to decline applications, removing “substantially” would remove regulators’ flexibility in considering how skills and knowledge developed overseas translate into the UK profession.
In the event that regulations were made under Clause 1 as drafted, regulators would have the discretion—and I believe that is where the discretion should sit—to make appropriate judgments about whether overseas skills and experiences meet their expectations to an acceptable degree. That drives us back to the consideration of whether the individual is fit to practise in substantially the same way as a UK individual would. This does not water down expectations and is not a compromise on quality, because if a regulator felt that the quality had not been maintained then they would not want to approve that person. The individual’s knowledge and skills must be substantially the same.
Lastly, including “substantially” does not restrict the freedom of regulators to make determinations of equivalence in ways that they deem fit. We come back to a point that we discuss regularly in this debate: the importance of regulators’ autonomy in deciding exactly the right approach to take.
On the question of English language proficiency, at Second Reading the noble Baroness raised the need in certain professions for demonstrable English language proficiency in order for an individual to deliver professional services to the standards required in the UK, and for regulators to be able to consider this. The Bill allows regulators to take into account language requirements as part of an assessment of knowledge and skills. Alternatively, under Amendments 2 and 10, regulations could provide that passing a language test was an additional condition in itself.
Amendment 33 examines the definition of “corresponding profession” in relation to authorisation that can be given by the appropriate national authority to enable regulators to enter into regulator recognition agreements. The amendment would change the permitted scope of regulator recognition agreements from those with overseas professions whose activities are
“the same as or substantially correspond to”
the UK profession to those with overseas professions that are “the same as or correspond to” the UK profession. As I have explained, there are differences between professions in different countries, and differences between how they are regulated between jurisdictions. Even under the EU’s prescriptive mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive, there were differences in the qualification requirements between different EU member states. The clause as drafted reflects the reality that professions do not exactly align across different countries’ regulatory systems and standards. Some countries do not make the same distinctions as us in how they define professions—for example, England and Wales distinguish between barristers and solicitors, but that is not the case in many other countries.
The amendment would narrow the circumstances in which a recognition agreement could be made, potentially preventing recognition agreements from being made at all if professions did not directly align with one another. The Government believe this would limit the autonomy of regulators to make decisions about how similar professions are in different countries. Regulators should be free to determine for themselves where it is appropriate to enter into regulator recognition agreements with their counterparts overseas.
Many noble Lords have spoken passionately about the need to ensure that regulators can make decisions that are appropriate to their professions. I hope I have explained why the word “substantially” is an important qualifier that allows for more regulatory autonomy in these clauses, and indeed in the other clauses where it is used, and that, on that basis, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has asked to speak after the Minister.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister, who has used words to set out why the Government want to put “substantially” in there but in no sense explained it. Again, the Minister stated the importance of regulatory autonomy for the regulators, which of course is why I proposed Amendment 1—to put it at the very beginning of the Bill, rather than in words such as “substantially”, which mean several things to different people, in the body of the legislation. I have one specific question. Can the Minister tell us what the legal judgment is on including “substantially” and opening up regulators to legal challenge? In other words, if the law says “substantially”, who determines that, and is there legal recourse for an individual who has been turned down by a regulator to use that word to make a legal case? If the Minister does not have that legal writing to hand, perhaps he could furnish it before the next day in Committee.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for that point. Much as noble Lords know, I love giving my opinion on everything, but I hope it might be safer if I write to him about that legal point afterwards.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I thank everybody who has spoken on this debate, which turned out to be rather more interesting than I was expecting. I can see the two uses of “substantially” and
“the same knowledge and skills”.
Perhaps “the same range of knowledge and skills” would be right, but I cannot understand why “substantially the same standard” is right, because surely we should be looking for “the same standard” throughout. I might amend some of the amendments on this point but I am not assuaged, I am afraid, by the Minister. He also did not really address the important points made by my noble friend Lady Randerson about why higher education institutions and others were not involved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned the farriers. I believe the farriers are regulated by a livery company, are they not? I declare my interest with City & Guilds; they are likely to have City & Guilds qualifications rather than degrees in farriering. I could be wrong on that but, from memory, that is what happens. But she is quite right that the range of these professions is extremely wide. Many of them are almost crafts and trades, rather than professions, but perhaps everything is a profession these days.
On that basis, this has been a very important debate and we may need to return to it at the next tranche. And we have another load of the word “substantially” in the next half of the Bill to have fun with. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the determination that must be made by a regulator in order for an individual to meet the condition in subsection (3) of the Clause so that the determination relates to the knowledge and skills of the individual.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 9
Baroness Noakes
“(iii) that the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) can be met without imposing unreasonable costs or other burdens on the specified regulator or on individuals who are already qualified to practise the specified regulated profession, and”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment adds an additional determination requirement related to the costs and other burdens involved in dealing with overseas professional qualifications which fall short of the standards of the relevant UK qualifications.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who is no longer in his place, explained the concerns which underpinned his Amendment 12, debated earlier this afternoon: namely that regulations could impose unreasonable burdens on a regulated profession to remedy a lack of appropriate qualification or experience in overseas professionals. My amendment has the same core concern. It was drafted after reading similar concerns expressed by the British Dental Association, which highlighted the burdens that could be imposed on regulators if they are required to assess professionals or overseas qualifications, or to develop new recognition agreements, to comply with regulations under Clause 1.
Even if regulators have autonomy over individuals who can practice, the regulations under Clause 1 could well impose burdens and costs in making the regulators set up operating processes to carry out the assessments to make the decisions, including having to assess the suitability of overseas awarding institutions, as well as the nature of practical experience that comes with individuals who wish to practice. In addition, it was noted that the costs which were incurred in any such new activity are likely to end up being borne by existing members. Regulators get the majority of their income from membership fees, and asking existing members to shoulder the costs of funding a problem of having too few professionals—which is what Clause 1 is said to be for—is, at the very least, unfair. That is why my amendment refers to the impact on existing members of the profession.
Amendment 9 would add a new determination that the regulated profession must make: that the additional processes of making good any deficiency in an overseas qualification
“can be met without … unreasonable costs or other burdens on”
the regulated profession or the existing members of that profession. I have expressed this in terms of costs or burdens because a regulated profession might, for example, have a shortage of suitable individuals who could carry out the processes and who therefore could not be obtained at any cost. It would actually be imposing an unreasonable burden for the regulated profession to bear. Importantly, my amendment places the judgment in the hands of the regulated profession.
Clause 2 refers to “unreasonable delays or charges”. These are words that my noble friend Lord Lansley wishes to delete with his Amendment 18, which is also in this group. But from my perspective, it should always be the regulated profession, and not the Secretary of State or other national authority, who should make that judgment. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about his Amendment 18, but I see the place for assessing burdens and costs, and that that assessment should be made by the regulated profession. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to speak to my Amendment 18 in this group.
In relation to Amendment 9, moved by my noble friend Lady Noakes, I think she has a point. Somewhere, we should be taking account of the costs that are imposed on regulators, and by extension as they are imposed on the professionals who are themselves regulated. In the previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to the material in the impact assessment on that point. Personally, I do not think Amendment 9 puts it in the right place, with great respect to my noble friend. There is a good point for putting it perhaps slightly later in Clause 1, and we may come back to this on Report. It seems that it certainly should be taken into account in the making of regulations under Clause 1; it just is not, at the moment. For example, there are things as to fees being paid in connection with an application but nothing to do with the regulations taking account of the costs on those regulated, including those who are currently regulated in that profession.
Why have I brought forward Amendment 18? The reason is that it relates to the inclusion of
“without unreasonable delays or charges”
at the end of Clause 2(2). What does that do? It is trying to define the circumstances where demand for a professional service is not being met. My fundamental problem with it is that it illustrates this by reference to unreasonable delays or charges. The implication is that this is the criterion by which one measures whether professional services are in sufficient supply.
For example, in relation to the health service, it is very hard to measure why there are delays for treatment. Sometimes they occur because of lack of workforce and sometimes for completely different reasons. It may be incredibly difficult to ascribe delays to simply having insufficient overseas applicants for a particular profession in the health service. Charges will be even more difficult since we do not charge. It may be possible to do this for dentistry but not for most other healthcare professions, since we do not charge consumers for access to services.
Interestingly, my noble friend Lord Grimstone wrote a letter to the Delegated Powers Committee—I think last Thursday—which is in its latest report, published on Monday. There is a paragraph which comes exactly to this point, in which he says:
“The Committee sought further clarification on the point that this demand needs to be met without unreasonable delays or charges. Those words make it clear that regulations can be made where the demand for the services of the profession is, strictly speaking, being met but the consumers of those services are experiencing unreasonable delays or having to pay high charges.”
Demand for those services under those circumstances is not, “strictly speaking, being met”; it is not being met. We do not need to write “unreasonable delays or charges” into the Bill for it to be evident that, in circumstances where insufficient members of a profession are providing services, there are delays in accessing those services; that is plainly the case.
As the end of the same paragraph, the Minister says, rather tellingly, that unreasonable charges and delays
“are illustrative of the considerations that the appropriate national authority would make in relation to this condition.”
“Illustrative” is not what the Bill says. It does not say “for example”, which it might well say. It says
“met without unreasonable delays or charges.”
It specifies those factors, so I think we should take them out. If unreasonable delays or high charges to consumers result from a lack of professional supply and that can be remedied by overseas applications, the appropriate national authority can make such a determination. It does not need the Bill to reference “unreasonable delays or charges” for that to happen.
I hope my noble friend will recognise that, in this respect, I am not trying to argue that delays or extra charges are not important; they are very important and may well be the principle determination one looks for in some professions. In others, one looks for other things. We should simply take those words out when the time comes—I hope we will—and the appropriate national authority will, if necessary, properly consult on what the demand for a professional service may be and the circumstances in which it is not being met.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Explanatory Notes state about Clause 9 that
“a regulator in one part of the UK could ask an equivalent regulator in another part of the UK for information relating to an individual’s fitness to practise and, where applicable, any instances of professional sanctions. This provision ensures that regulators in all parts of the UK have access to information that helps them fulfil their obligations.”
Does the Minister agree that, in view of the duty of all regulators to co-operate with each other, it should be mandatory for all four nations to allow any professions to practise in all four nations without any hindrance?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward these amendments. She is very modest and did not tell the Committee whether they are considered opposition amendments, but, if it is not too unhelpful for her, I will say that I am very sympathetic to them. We have been considering them very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, quoted the interesting response from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. I think it was fairly clear that the Government intend to have these powers to, if they so choose, change the ability of the regulators to set fees for applicants. The Government will take those on board and then, for international trade purposes, set the fees for applicants. That changes the responsibility of the regulator quite dramatically, especially since many regulators, under law, have to seek approval from the Privy Council or the Scottish Parliament to do so.
I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, whether she might respond to the two times I asked the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, about whether any of the regulations under this Bill will impact the oversight and accountability of the Privy Council regarding the setting of fees and the professional standards authority regarding its oversight. If the Government cannot, in Committee, offer reassurance on that point, then we are in a separate situation of considering the relationship of the Privy Council and Scottish Parliament.
If the Government intend to have the new powers now under the provisions of Clause 1(5)(e), which makes
“provision for fees to be paid in connection with an application”,
we have to look very closely at the impact assessment with regard to the impact of the Bill on fees. In their impact assessment, the Government have said that there is a high cost of this Bill of £42.82 million and a best estimate of £18.16 million. Let me be fair to the Government and take their best estimate of £18 million. The impact assessment says:
“These costs could be passed through in fee increases to professionals”.
I raised the staggering costs of this to professionals—the applicants—at Second Reading. The Minister responded that I should not be too concerned because this was not cost to the Government. It is not—it is to the applicants. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I agree; the Government do not have money—it is taxpayers’ money, as we are always told from that side of the House. The people who will be paying £18 million for this are the applicants. The Government say they want these new powers to reduce fees, but by implementing these powers the fees are going up. What is their plan, given that one completely contradicts the other?
The Minister may be able to help me out here as I do not know, but it may be that the Government are using the Home Office forecast of a 70% reduction in applicants from the EEA and Switzerland as a result of leaving the mutual recognition arrangements with the EU. Paragraph 90 of the Government’s impact assessment says that this
“may save resources by no longer assessing applications. It should be noted however that these regulators will also no longer receive the fee revenue attached to these applications.”
We could see a 70% reduction in the foreign fee applications, with an £18 million increase in this bureaucracy, which the Government say is going to be paid by British applicants.
I hope that the Committee is following me. If it is, I will refer back to the Department of Health and Social Care’s live consultation on the medical professions, which says in paragraphs 71 and 72:
“Four regulators (the GMC, GDC, GOC and the GPhC) can set registrant fees without any Parliamentary oversight. The remaining regulators can only implement fee changes with the approval of the Privy Council and, in some cases, of the Scottish Parliament ... We propose that all regulators should be able to set their fees in rules without Parliamentary oversight. This will make regulators directly accountable to registrants for the fees that they charge.”
However, this Bill will not do that; in fact, it is completely contrary to the proposals in the consultation for the medical professions to remove parliamentary oversight. The Bill is putting it in.
If that were not bad enough, the current situation for regulators setting their fees, as paragraph 73 says, is:
“Any fee changes, including those to put in place a longer-term approach, would require consultation.”
The Government are proposing—this relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about where the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, could fit—to put these regulations in place, with these provisions on fees and extra costs, through the negative procedure without any consultation. The Government are not only contradicting what they are saying to the medical regulators at the moment but weakening the ability of—or the requirement for—regulators to consult on who would pay these fees in the first place.
I would be grateful if the Minister could neatly wrap all this up for me because I am really struggling to work out whether BEIS or the Department of Health and Social Care is in charge of this situation. The impression I get at the moment is that no one is.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will dwell on Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. As he said, delays to services may not have anything to do with the workforce, although they may. I put my hands up: I live in a cladded building at the moment, and we feel strongly the lack of specialist fire surveyors to get things going. Therefore, one may have unmet demand for all sorts of reasons. Another one—save I would not want to say it to the ex-Secretary of State for Health—might be that the Government just do not spend enough money on the health service.
The issue that I really wanted to raise is not that one—I just cannot help teasing from time to time, as the Minister will well know—but the other point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised. In that letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, on 3 June to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is in its report of Monday, the Minister said—it has already been quoted—that, in ascertaining whether there is an unmet demand for a particular profession, “delay” could be a factor. More surprising to me to hear from a Minister on that side of the House was his reference to “high charges” charged by the profession. Normally, that side of the House in particular would stray away from any government intervention in the setting of fees by professions or indeed any other service. As a consumer representative, I have often gone to the CMA or other regulators, saying, “We’re being ripped off”, and they say, “No; as long as the consumer knows what they’re paying beforehand and has the chance to take themselves out of the contract, we or the Government do not get involved in the fees charged to consumers”. As such, I find this unusual because it sounds like the Government are saying that if they felt that lawyers or surveyors, for example, were charging “high” fees—that was the word that the Minister used in the letter, not “excessive”—they could bring in regulation to open up the profession to outsiders. I hope that I have got that wrong, but it looks to me as if that is what this says, or it could be a way of defining it.
In a later group, we will come back to how we deal with skills shortages, and we will make comments at that point about the Government’s responsibility to fill any such shortages. However, at the moment, I ask for some explanation about whether it really is possible for the Government to put themselves in a position of defining whether a professional is charging excessive fees and, if so, being more sympathetic to bringing in overseas providers. Some clarity on that would be appreciated.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Lansley for Amendments 9 and 18, which bring together two elements of the recognition framework proposed under the Bill. Noble Lords have raised some interesting points about the Bill’s potential impact on professionals and consumers of their services.
I turn first to Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which seeks to ensure that any cost or burden on UK regulators in helping individuals with overseas qualifications or experience to make up deficiencies in their knowledge or skills is reasonable. The amendment proposes that particular means of addressing these deficiencies should not be available if the costs or other burdens on UK regulators and existing UK professionals, including those who fund professional bodies, are not reasonable.
By way of background, I note that Clause 1 allows the regulator to specify a means for an individual with overseas qualifications or experience to make up for a shortfall in their knowledge and skills, compared to UK requirements. This is typically known as a compensatory measure, which could include aptitude tests, completion of an academic course or further experience. If Ministers in the UK Government or the devolved Administrations make regulations under Clause 1, the regulator will decide the means by which it assesses individuals with overseas qualifications and experience. It is for the regulator to specify any appropriate compensatory measures.
I agree with my noble friend that any compensatory measures to demonstrate that the professional has met this standard should not be unreasonable or burdensome on the regulator or the qualified professionals whom they regulate. This is why there is no requirement for the regulator to have to specify a means to make up shortfalls where it is not appropriate or not available. There is no requirement for the regulator itself to provide particular courses or experience to an individual to help them make up shortfalls.
In some cases, a regulator may, for example, simply specify that the individual must complete certain academic courses or obtain a certain amount of additional work experience. This would not place unreasonable costs on the regulator. I should add that compensatory measures are a commonly used approach in professional qualification recognition; it is not a new concept or practice for many regulators.
For example, if English language proficiency were required in order properly and safely to practise a profession, it would be reasonable for a regulator to require an individual with poor English to take a course and pass exams to show that their English had improved. It would not be necessary for the regulator itself to deliver that course. In conclusion, I hope that regulators would not consider that compensatory measures place unreasonable costs or burdens on them.
Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, who speaks with some authority in this field, seeks to remove “unreasonable delays or charges” to consumers being taken into account under the condition in Clause 2 for making regulations under Clause 1. Instead, the condition would focus solely on whether regulations would enable demand for professional services to be met.
Clause 2 limits the scope of the power in Clause 1 to a specific set of circumstances where the appropriate national authority deems it necessary to enable the demand for services provided by that profession to be met without unreasonable delays or charges. By this, I mean that the consumers of those services in the UK are experiencing unreasonable delays or having to pay high charges. An illustrative example of an unreasonable charge might be where consumers or businesses face unreasonably high fees caused by a shortage of professionals. For example, this could be the NHS—a consumer of professional services—or the general public’s consumption of them, direct from a professional. An unreasonable delay might, for example, occur if a profession was unable to deliver its services quickly enough without more professionals in the workforce. This could include, for example, waiting times for social worker support—so unreasonable delay or cost can be made distinct from demand or shortage. Without this wording, the levers that we have to take action where there is a need are narrowed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister has not answered my question. She seems to have continued to say that a national authority—that is, the Government or one of the devolved Governments—can decide when a professional is charging high fees. Can she be absolutely clear that she is saying that? I would like to know on what basis that would be and whether they would go to the CMA for advice. Whether it is a farrier or anything else—or an accountant, although I think they are not covered—on what basis is a Minister going to decide that a professional is charging a high fee? Will that be challengeable in court or via the CMA? What would be the mechanism for that decision?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry that I gave that impression, but I do not believe that I did give the impression that the Government would set the fees. There would be a mechanism for oversight, which would be the impact assessment route that I mentioned in my speech.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have had a request to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Could the Minister repeat what she said at the Dispatch Box? She said that the regulators do not have parliamentary oversight in setting their fees. The Health Department’s consultation at the moment says that four do not but the remaining ones do. They have to secure the approval of the Privy Council and, in some cases, the Scottish Parliament. So which is it, and will any of these regulations have any impact on the relationship with the Privy Council and the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the fact that they have to approve changes of fees?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Perhaps I can clarify what I said earlier. The Privy Council is the intermediary between independent regulators and the Government; it is essential to maintaining regulators’ independence, such that regulators are able to deliver their duties impartially. There is no relationship between the council and the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions, an awful lot of which were on my amendment. Some important issues were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, none of which have been very satisfactorily dealt with by the Minister.
I turn to my amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his support and accept his challenge to look at the positioning of my amendment if I decide to take it forward at a later stage. The Minister talked as if compensatory measures were just sitting in every regulator’s toolbox to deal with every situation that could possibly arise, but the truth is that compensatory measures will have been designed for the sort of applicants who have already been coming to the UK for assessment, and they are not going to cause any problem. We do not even need this Bill for those applicants.
We are most likely to encounter problems when other forms of overseas applicant arise, with less traditional professional qualifications and/or experience. It is that which is likely to cause the burdens on the individual regulated professions to cope with things that they are not already coping with. The question posed by my amendment was about how we avoid unreasonable burdens being placed on those regulators and, in particular, on existing members of those professional bodies who fund the regulators.
To be honest, I do not think that the Minister answered that question at all. There is a very real problem there. I can see that we are not going to progress it any further today, but I recommend to my Front Bench that all the issues raised in this debate are looked at again before we get to Report because there are some big unanswered questions arising from this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Before inviting the Committee to consider the withdrawal of the amendment, I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was attempting to come in after the Minister.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful. I just wanted to make a point after the Minister because I think she made a fundamental error in suggesting that if we were to take out the words
“without unreasonable delays or charges”
from this subsection unreasonable delays or high charges would not be able to be considered as factors in determining whether demand is met. On the contrary, they will be considered with other factors. They would not be excluded.
We will clearly come back to this again on Report because the reply to the debate was not satisfactory, and we will have to write these things out in more detail. Will my noble friend at least just agree that removing those words does not mean that those factors are not taken into account?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The firm advice that I had from my officials was that it would.
“(4A) Before regulations under subsection (4) may be laid before Parliament, Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, the appropriate national authority must undertake a formal consultation with the devolved administrations, regulators and the Lord President of the Court of Session.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to move Amendment 13 and to speak to Amendments 24, 35 and 40. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his support of these amendments. I shall speak also in support of Amendment 41, and look forward to hearing more detail and the thinking behind Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
On the background to Amendments 13, 24, 35 and 40, the case was made at Second Reading, and I have now followed that up more firmly with these amendments. It is really about having regard to two distinct concepts. I come from the background of the Faculty of Advocates, albeit now as a non-practising member. There are separate jurisdictions of law in the UK, and there are sufficient differences between these legal systems to warrant an exclusion from the provisions that create greater regulatory integration of other professions between the UK’s composite parts throughout the Bill.
Secondly, as I said at the outset, it is a process of not just recognising that the distinct nature of legal services needs to be recognised and respected but also that the regulation of the legal profession, certainly as regards solicitors and advocates, is devolved. What I propose to do, and I hope that the House will support me in this regard, is to ensure that there will be a formal consultation with the relevant devolved Assemblies before any regulations are made under the provisions of the Bill as passed.
Amendment 13 relates to Clause 1, but the wording that I have used is similar in relation to Clauses 1, 3 and 5—Clause 3 relates to the “Implementation of international recognition agreements”, and Clause 5 relates to the “Revocation of general EU system of recognition of overseas qualifications”. A slightly different wording is used in Amendment 40 to reflect the fact that this relates to the setting up of an “Assistance centre”. As regards Amendment 40, I would go so far as to say that there should be a formal consultation with the devolved Administrations and regulators. I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and I have both been greatly assisted by the Law Society of Scotland in our preparation for this afternoon, and I thank the society most warmly for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, goes further and goes to the question of consent—that consent be specifically given. In that regard, if that consent is not given then the understanding is that the arrangements would not proceed. I think it is extremely important, again underlining the fact that the purport of these regulations —also as regards to the assistance centre—must have regard to the nature of the devolved Administrations and regulators.
Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, looks to the common framework agreement. I have just one little question here. Is that what we understand by the common frameworks? I am following this as closely as I can, albeit living in England. Is the noble Baroness referring to the existing common frameworks, or is she proposing a separate one in that regard?
I believe that it really is essential that we adopt either Amendments 13, 24, 35 and 40 or something equivalent to them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look kindly on these amendments and go some way to assuaging my concerns that, without these amendments, we are not going to have a full consultation in advance of these regulations being laid.
With those few opening remarks, I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate on these amendments. I am grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I have taken the precaution in Amendments 13, 24 and 35 to acknowledge the fact that the Lord President of the Court of Session has a specific role to play in regulating the legal profession in Scotland.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—who, following the revelations from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I suppose I should now call my noble friend Lord Lansley—I did not participate in the Second Reading debate, as I was not able to be here, unfortunately. I agree with many people who said on that occasion that, although this is not a contentious Bill, it is a very important one. When you think of the number of professional bodies and areas of employment that are being regulated—more than 160—it is really a very important issue. I will come back to that.
However, I have sat through now two and three-quarter hours of what purports to be a Committee stage of the Bill. I must say that it is really a very disappointing and inadequate way of dealing with a Bill. It is not proper consideration when we cannot intervene properly and ask questions when the Minister is speaking and cannot intervene on each other. I would have liked to have intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. We could have had a dialogue about the Privy Council, of which I am a member. I know nothing about any of these matters because it is all delegated to various committees of the Privy Council. We could have maybe explored that.
There are other issues. The noble Lord’s predecessor in the Chair, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, was very good and allowed the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to come in without having to go through the process of emailing the Clerk. I think the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, managed to whisper in the Clerk’s ear. It is excellent that there is some flexibility, but it ought to be more flexible. We ought to have a proper Committee stage. The interesting thing is that most of the people participating have been here in person. There are relatively few today in this Committee stage on the screens. That is why I think that the Procedure Committee and the usual channels need to carefully consider changing the arrangements for Committee and Report stages, which are so important in dealing with aspects of Bills.
It was a fascinating exchange earlier between the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the Minister. Under normal circumstances, there would have been a different kind of dynamic arising from that exchange. It could have been much more helpful in dealing with this Bill. At the moment, because everyone has to be dealt with equally—whether they are at home, as I was on a number of occasions, or here—we cannot have a proper Committee stage. One of my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested that we do away with that equality and the Procedure Committee should say that, for Committee and Report stages, certainly, those who are present should be able to operate normally as we used to do and that people at home should accept that and understand that. If they want to participate, they should be able to come here in one way or another. I really think that, in terms of considering our legislation properly, we need to look at that. That is nothing to do with the amendment, by the way, but it is very important.
Can I also say another thing that I would have said in Committee? As my noble friend Lady Hayter said earlier, there has been a lack of investment in training of doctors and nurses—over the last 10 years, in particular —so that we do not have home-trained doctors and nurses. I worry that some of the motivation of some people in the Government behind this—not everyone—is to bring in doctors and nurses from overseas as quickly as possible to make up for the fact that they have not been training enough doctors and nurses. As someone who has been involved in overseas development for years now—I used to be Minister in that department and now we are suffering that huge cut in our overseas development assistance—I think it would be wrong for us to drag in too many people and to see this as a way of bringing in too many doctors and nurses from overseas from countries that need them equally as much as, if not more than, we do, and which need their health infrastructure strengthened. That is nothing to do with amendment either, but it gets it off my chest.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations —but with qualifications, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—prior to making arrangements for the assistance centre. We welcome the provisions regarding the assistance centre; I speak on my own behalf, but I know, as does the noble Baroness, that the Law Society of Scotland welcomes it. Like her, I am grateful to Michael Clancy and his colleagues from the Law Society of Scotland for their help on these amendments.
The centre will provide advice and assistance regarding entry requirements—we will come to other aspects of it later—to those seeking to practise a profession in the United Kingdom or to those with UK qualifications seeking to practise overseas. We note the obligation on regulators, contained in Clause 7(2), to provide the designated assistance centre with any information it may need to carry out its functions. That seems entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
The obligation to make arrangements for the assistance centre lies on the Secretary of State. However, the centre will provide advice and assistance covering the whole of the United Kingdom, not just England. Accordingly, we consider that it would be important, and reflect the acknowledgement of the role of the devolved Administrations in earlier clauses of the Bill, for the devolved Administrations to be rather more than consulted on the arrangements for the creation of the assistance centre.
What I suggest in the amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, generously said, goes further and is more radical than the amendment she has proposed. However, it would not give the devolved Administrations a veto; it says that the Secretary of State—should first “seek the consent” of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers and department in Northern Ireland; that is where I go further. If the Government do not get that consent within a month—it gives the devolved Administrations a veto or delaying power of a month—they can still go ahead. But if they do, notwithstanding the fact that they have not got approval from the devolved Administrations, they then have to publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the arrangements without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned. They have to explain why they have not taken account of representations before going ahead.
I say to my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who knows more about the United Kingdom Internal Market Act than anyone around today, that this replicates the compromise that was agreed in that Act when we discussed it as a Bill in relation to, for example, the CMA and other aspects. Does the Minister consider that my amendment would have the same effect as the Government have already agreed in relation to the internal market Act? It is not revolutionary; it is more radical than the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but it is something that the Government have already agreed to in terms of the internal market Act. I therefore hope that it will be considered sympathetically by the Government.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Just for clarification, if a Member wishes to speak after the Minister and is in the Chamber, they can message the clerk; if they are online, they can email the clerk. But all requests must come through the clerk to the Chair. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak specifically to Amendments 42, 49 and 57, which I have co-signed. They all address issues related to the interaction of UK Government powers with those of the devolved Administrations and each of the three relates to different aspects of that issue.
Amendment 42 relates to the national assistance centre. The impact assessment makes it clear that this will be a centralised facility under the control of the Secretary of State, but it will also provide information and assistance in relation to devolved regulators and where the professional qualifications are different in the devolved nations. In preparation for this debate, I went online and explored the websites of a range of regulators. They all seem to provide comprehensive advice and information services, so I am puzzled as to what the problem is. Why is it necessary for the Government to overlay the well-established structure of regulators with this additional bureaucracy with—of course—its accompanying additional cost?
Because I am of a suspicious nature, I feel that the real purpose of the assistance centre is to enable to the UK Government to override the differences between the nations of the UK and, when making trade agreements, to take the opportunity to iron out those annoying differences in qualifications in one part of the UK and another. Hence my amendment, which simply requires consultation with the devolved Administrations on the function and operation of the assistance centre before it is established.
It should not be necessary to state this basic constitutional principle in terms of an amendment to a Bill, but the Government’s approach to this Bill has been woeful so far. It has been developed at speed—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, suggested it was on the back of an envelope—at a time when elections meant that there have been none of the usual opportunities to consult the devolved Administrations. In Wales, officials did not even see a draft of the Bill until the week before its introduction. They did not see the final version until we all saw it, when it was laid.
As drafted, this Bill confers a suite of regulation-making powers on the appropriate national authority. In Wales, the Welsh Ministers are that authority for the devolved areas, but the powers conferred on them are exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor—hence the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor could legislate in devolved areas and would not need to obtain Welsh Ministers’ consent.
As things stand, all the devolved Administrations appear to be opposed to this Bill in its current form. In Amendment 42, I offer just a modest solution to a very small part of the problem that the Government face. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly how he sees the assistance centre working, how large it will be, what it will actually do and the estimated cost.
Amendment 49 relates to the interaction of this Bill with common frameworks, an issue that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Several noble Lords can boast that they have the T-shirt in relation to common frameworks and their interaction with government attempts to regain devolved powers. We fought several rounds with the Government on this issue during the passage of the internal market Bill. It is not at all clear how this Professional Qualifications Bill interacts with the well-established common frameworks programme.
There is a recognition of professional qualifications framework in preparation by BEIS, but it seems to have been delayed and there has been no explanation for that delay. Is this Bill designed to replace that common framework? If so, the Government need to tell the devolved Administrations, because they would much rather go ahead on the basis of a framework that involves non-legislative co-operation and a lot of working by consensus. This amendment is designed to ensure that the common framework on professional qualifications is not undermined or overtaken by any provisions in this Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in this group. I do not wish to say anything further about the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, save to say that I warmly support them, as I do the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
I come to the principal issue on which I wish to speak. Amendment 57 and Clause 14 demonstrate that there are two significant issues before this Parliament. The first is the extent to which we have framework legislation with Henry VIII powers—and with a vague statement that these are needed—while knowing that there is no opportunity for proper scrutiny and amendment of the powers that will be exercised in subsequent regulation. The second problem is what I would describe as the chipping away—because this is what it is becoming—of the devolution arrangements. This is being done without the consent of the devolved Governments and without putting in place a proper framework for joint agreement on how to move forward where there is a necessity for a UK solution. I fear that these issues will bedevil this Session of Parliament. They come to a head in Clause 14.
Clause 14 gives the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State power to make regulations in devolved areas. It is immensely concerning that Henry VIII powers are being used without any indication as to precisely how this is to be done and no real argument as to why they are necessary. It is difficult to understand why this area needs to be chipped away. What is the benefit for the future of the union? It would be useful if the Minister could say what he sees as the benefits and acknowledge the costs of the damage to the union.
I warmly support Amendment 57, subject to one matter I shall mention later. It is difficult to see why this problem cannot be dealt with by Amendment 57. This would leave the devolved Ministers to make decisions within their areas of devolved competence. Something like a common framework or some structure for common policy-making could then be used to resolve the differences. Using the twin devices of framework legislation and Henry VIII powers is quite the wrong way to go about our constitutional arrangements. I hope the Minister will be prepared to discuss these issues in much greater detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has already touched on the point I wish to make about Amendment 57. Its proposed new subsection (5) is taken from Clause 14 of the Bill as it stands, and seems a wholly unnecessary irritant. It is not constitutionally necessary. I do not understand why this Government wish to irritate people by further constraining the powers of the Welsh Ministers in a way that is wholly unnecessary. Again, a cost-benefit analysis, thinking what we are doing this for, would be a great step forward.
I hope that the difficulties inherent in the combination of the Henry VIII powers and the chipping away of devolution can be seriously discussed between those in the devolved Administrations, together with this House and the Government. I would welcome such discussions before Report to avoid what it seems is a further significant strengthening of those who wish to oppose the union for very little benefit in return.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 13, 41, 42 and 57, which look to formal consultation with the devolved Administrations and, in the case of Amendment 41, the consent—under certain conditions—of the devolved Administrations to any regulations made under this section.
As all speakers on this group and in the debates on previous amendments have said, the Bill involves wide-ranging powers and Henry VIII clauses. These are apparently justified on the grounds that what may be required cannot be anticipated, and therefore cannot be legislated for in advance. This seems a dangerous and spurious catch-all which, of itself, is sufficient justification for requiring formal consultation with the devolved Administrations.
This all relates to trade deals yet to be negotiated. It will hinge on areas of skills shortages across and within the UK, as well as the opportunity for UK professionals to practise abroad. Professional regulation must surely be founded on ensuring that any professional is safely and properly qualified and experienced to practise in all or part of the UK. Yet this Bill and the powers within it are specifically linked to trade deals, and there is a risk that deals involving reciprocity could lead to standards being compromised. This concern has been identified by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House.
Also, given that skills shortages vary across the UK, and by time and sector, if a devolved Administration identify a skill shortage, will the Immigration Rules also be taken into account, not just the professional qualifications regulations? Clearly, that will be necessary.
The Government have stated that they would,
“not normally make regulations under these powers in devolved areas without the agreement of the relevant devolved authority”.
Right from the very beginning of the Brexit debate, however, we have debated what “normally” means. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, it looks like a shifting definition, and one that is not to the benefit of the devolved Administrations—or indeed to the professions in the devolved areas.
In this context we should also consider the role of the assistance centre, whose staff should surely all be thoroughly conversant with all regulators, including in the devolved Administrations. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would be a helpful contribution to that, because the assistance centre is a welcome recommendation, but only if it is properly qualified and its staff fully appreciate what goes on across all aspects of the UK. In areas as complex and specific as professional qualifications, that is a big ask, which must be answered. The scale and diversity of the professions that we are discussing, and the regulators that engage with them, absolutely require that any changes should be carried out only after consultation and, wherever possible, consent.
As an example of this, Scotland has long had an all-graduate teaching profession. It is sad that Scotland’s education performance has fallen down the international scale; however, that is not the fault of the teaching profession but of a curriculum and examinations set-up that is simply not fit for purpose, yet whose reform is not being tackled. We are not short of qualified teachers. Many are unable to find permanent employment, which in itself is a scandal. We certainly need to tackle education reform in Scotland. In that context there may be a role for teachers from other countries to make a contribution, but it would be regrettable if standards were compromised in a trade deal, and if those teachers were recruited while well-qualified teachers in Scotland were unable to get employment in the profession, which is where we are currently.
The UK Government say that they are working with the devolved authorities on a number of common frameworks. I also have the T-shirt as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, as do five noble Lords contributing to this group of amendments. The Government say that they are working on common frameworks to help co-ordinate policy development between UK nations where powers have returned from the EU and intersect with devolved competencies. This includes the mutual recognition of professional qualifications: the MRPQ framework.
In an update covering 26 September to December 2020, the Cabinet Office said that discussions on the framework made progress during that period but that development timelines should be extended. It went on:
“Agreement was reached between the UK Government and the devolved administrations that both MRPQ and Services should be developed over extended timelines to allow for more work to be done. All administrations remain committed to working to develop and agree these frameworks.”
That is all welcome, but I hope the Minister will agree that, as I have pointed out, the range and complexity of the regulation of professional qualifications, and uncertainty over the changes that may be needed, require formal consultation to be carried out and consent secured. How will this happen if we are operating on different timelines? The Government may be out there desperately trying to negotiate trade deals while all these procedures are in the process of a long, drawn-out common frameworks negotiation. As we know, the common frameworks are well behind the schedule originally hoped for and planned.
They have clearly set out the mechanism and an arrangement—which those of us on the committee feel has much to commend it—that seeks the maximum amount of co-operation and consent, looks to have fair and balanced dispute resolution mechanisms and ought to be the model for how the interconnection and co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is carried through going forward. It would be good if Ministers acknowledged that so much has been learned in this process that it should be applied not just to those areas that were historically part of the transition out of the EU but to all future ways of working, and the principles on which the common frameworks have been founded and developed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I put my name down to speak to this group of amendments—the first time I have participated in this Committee—because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, they collectively address a basic constitutional principle.
I find myself in the slightly unusual position of standing up to speak in favour of preserving current constitutional arrangements. However, I pick up on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that what is happening here is a chipping away of devolved powers. I put it to those who wish to see the union continue that squeezing more tightly—squeezing away powers—is the way to ensure that people choose to slip out of its grasp.
I suspect that we might hear the Minister, as we have heard from Ministers in so many other debates on so many different subjects, say: “Don’t worry, we don’t mean any ill, this Government do not mean the wrong thing”. This morning, I was talking about the situation and debate around the potential Australian trade deal—about hormone-laced beef and animal welfare standards—and we said in that context, as in so many others, that words are just words. We need guarantees in a Bill.
All these amendments head in the direction that I would like to see, but I highlight in particular Amendments 41, 42 and 57. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that his amendment was not absolutely revolutionary, although, as you might expect to hear from me, I rather tend towards the total peaceful revolution. The amendment says that there would have to be a delay before a devolved Administration could be overruled. I question whether there would be any circumstances in which it would be reasonable for a devolved Administration to be overruled. I therefore repeat a question I put at Second Reading, to which I did not get an answer: can the Minister give examples of circumstances in which the Government might feel it right and justified to overrule a ruling from a devolved Administration, where that Administration say “No, these regulations on professional qualifications you are trying to impose are not good enough for us and do not meet our needs”?
In looking at why there might be different rules in different places, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, pointed to the differences in legal systems, which is one very obvious area—a long-running historic circumstance. But there are also practical differences.
Somebody mentioned driving instructors. Driving in the highlands of Scotland may be very different from driving in most parts of England and there may be good, practical reasons why qualifications may be different in different nations, for obvious reasons, but also, of course, we are very much talking about politics. In something of an aside, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to Welsh language qualifications for teachers in Wales. These are issues of intense political debate and discussion; they are not merely small, technical issues that can be ironed out by dealing with a few technical measures. These are political decisions that have been made by devolved Administrations who have been given constitutional powers that are supposed to be guaranteed. So it is very clear that we need to see change to what we have currently in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted something I have been puzzling over. At Second Reading, a lot of people questioned the whole issue of the assistance centre, and it is very hard to see how this all fits together for something so complex and difficult. As many noble Lords have said thus far in Committee, this really feels like a severely undercooked Bill; a great deal of work is needed. This is one area where I really believe we have to see change, and if we do not see change from the Government when we get to Report, we will be coming back to this and very much consulting with the devolved nations. We need to see that kind of consultation and involvement, and the first place where we really should be seeing consent from the nations is in their acceptance of the form that the Bill takes.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, like others who have spoken, I strongly support these amendments. I am most grateful for the most comprehensive speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who laid out clearly what the issues are, both in terms of the constitutional conflict that is in the Bill at the moment, and the consequences of it, and also the consequences for services within Wales. I think these also apply to Scotland, but I should declare an interest as someone who lives and works in Wales—that is the area of my own experience. I ask the Minister to explain quite clearly why the draft of the Bill was given to the Welsh Government only a week before it was published, and why the final version was not seen before it was laid on 12 May. To me, that does not feel like consultation or like any attempt to find a consensus agreement with devolved Administrations at all.
There is a concern that the skills shortages are being linked to the trade policy agenda, and how the new obligations on regulators could be moved and adjusted because they are driven by some trade policy, rather than by the need to ensure that we have safe and effective high-standard services for people within our nation. Although Clause 14 confers regulation-making powers on the appropriate national authority, these are exercisable only concurrently with the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor. That seems to make it possible that the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor could legislate in devolved areas and would not be required to obtain the Minister’s consent to those regulations. I understand that the Minister stated in a letter that these powers would not normally be used, but the problem is that once this is in legislation, such assurances do not carry any weight at all, and they are not binding on this or any subsequent UK Government. So it would seem that there are really serious risks, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, outlined.
In the event that there needs to be regulatory compromise in the interests of trade—I cannot think of a specific example, but I see the confusion and conflict between these two areas—will the Minister confirm that any such regulatory compromise will be notified to Parliament, to ensure that there is parliamentary accountability for any pressure put on to compromise any standards? We have heard in this debate already about the importance of common frameworks, but I will finish by advocating that the Government look very carefully at these amendments and make sure that they do not drive a further wedge between the four nations, because the consequences really do not bear thinking about. I certainly agree with those who say that they create an additional threat to the cohesiveness of the union.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the Minister assured the House earlier this afternoon that the autonomy of the regulators would be respected. I am sure we all take the Minister’s assurance at face value and fully understand what he is getting at, but one of the many problems that lurks within the Bill and the wide regulation-making power it creates is the risk of causing collateral damage by careless or inadvertent wording or insufficient research before the power is exercised. As I said at Second Reading, the centralised systems that the Bill seeks to create will work only if the diversity that exists across the United Kingdom is fully respected. That is especially true where the devolved Administrations are concerned.
My own experience is confined to the systems for regulation of the legal profession in Scotland, but it is a guide to how the regulatory systems among the professions may differ from each other. In my cases, they involve not just one but two regulators working together, and there are different systems for the two branches of the legal profession in Scotland. For the Law Society of Scotland, which regulates solicitors, it is the society itself, working together with the Lord President of the Court of Session. For the Faculty of Advocates, it is the Court of Session itself, whose functions are then delegated to the Lord President of the faculty. The message that these two examples conveys is that it cannot be assumed that the regulatory systems that currently exist are alike in all cases, or even in most, so great care is needed to ensure that what is being done fits the requirements and practices of the profession that is being regulated.
This brings me to Amendments 13, 24, 35 and 40, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I have added my name. The point that each of these amendments is making is that prior consultation with the devolved Administrations and the regulators is essential before the regulation-making powers in Clauses 1(4), 3(3) and 5(2) are exercised. I shall say a little more about each of these subsections.
Clause 1(4), which is about providing for individuals with overseas experience and qualifications to be treated as having UK qualifications, really has to be read with Clause 1(5), which sets out a list of the many provisions that may be made in the exercise of the Clause 1 power. They are very wide-ranging. Paragraphs (f) and (g) in the list are of particular concern, as they are so wide in their scope. The words “guidance” in (f) and “other duties” in (g), which are not otherwise qualified, leave a huge amount to the discretion of the national authority.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. To start where he left off, it is a disappointment that the Government chose not to have this Bill as a creature of the frameworks agreement, especially given the fact that recognition of professional qualifications was an area where there had been outstanding differences between the devolved Administrations. Indeed, many lengthy debates during the passage of the internal market Act led to some progress on the recognition of the frameworks, as the noble and learned Lord indicated.
My concern is added to by the fact that we persuaded the Government to have further exclusions—through government amendments—on the education and legal professions, with the exemptions in the internal market Act. However, it is not categorically stated within this legislation that we will not effectively see a back door. Because they are Henry VIII powers, the regulations that could be made under this Bill could be used—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, indicated—to implement a trade agreement which can effectively trump the internal market Act by including education and legal professions under MRA elements of trade agreements, which are excluded in the operation of the internal market Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that will not be the case and confirm the principles established in the internal market Act for those professions which are considered very strong for public service. I understand that there are carve-outs for certain professions—which the Canadians in particular have had—in our Canada agreement. I would be very interested to know if that is the Government’s position.
The reason why I was slightly alarmed by the Minister’s response to the point I made in the previous group is that there are existing mechanisms—as she heard me say—under Section 60 of the Health Act for England and, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, there are certain areas where regulators have a statutory responsibility to seek approval from the Scottish Parliament for certain changes, including fees. Those mechanisms, certainly for Section 60, require public consultation and parliamentary procedures—approvals —in the Scottish Parliament, but the Minister said that there was no need for any consultation on an SI because the Government would publish an impact assessment on it. That is quite alarming, and not only because these provisions can apply across the UK. If the Government are not even committed to consulting the devolved Administrations, in addition to stakeholders, on some of these regulations, that would be contrary to many elements of what we have been told by the Government up until now about working closely with the devolved Administrations. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that would never be the case—that regulations would never be brought forward that would impact upon the devolved Administrations without consultation. How that could apply more easily under this legislation than previous legislation was outlined clearly by my noble friend Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
Because of the concurrent nature of the powers under this legislation, in effect, the Government seem to suggest that the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland department are all acting equally. That is not the case when it comes to UK Ministers’ determinations with regard to the impact on the other regulators. The Scottish Parliament cannot bring forward any regulations if it believes that a demand for professions could be met from other parts of the UK or abroad. The Scottish Parliament cannot bring forward regulations to make it easier to apply from other parts of the UK to Scottish regulators. But the UK Government can do that for Scotland if it was regarding England. I do not know why that is the case, because it is not reasonable. If the powers of determining demand rest with the UK Government, they should also, as the UK Government say, rest with the devolved Administrations. But of course they do not. The Secretary of State retains the power to activate this if the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers do not. So a concurrent power, in my mind, is always a kind of “If you don’t, we will” power, and I think it is best removed.
I speak now in support of my noble friend Lady Randerson’s amendment on the assistance centre. She and I both had difficulty finding information about the centre in the impact assessment, which goes back to the comments I made about the viability of impact assessments on consultation. But it turns out it was not there; it is in a different document, the policy paper Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Regulation of Professions: Policy Statement, coincidentally published on the same day as the Bill. The policy statement indicated a direction of travel at exactly the same time as the destination was highlighted. So we are back in the situation of there being two parallel processes.
That policy paper stated that the decision had already been made about the assistance centre, as a contract had been issued. That had not been mentioned by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, and it is not in the impact assessment. The UK Centre for Professional Qualifications, run by Ecctis Ltd, has been given the contract. I see the Minister shaking his head, but I will quote from the policy paper, if he does not mind:
“The UK has an existing contract with the UK Centre for Professional Qualifications to be the designated assistance centre.”
That is in the policy paper. If he can confirm that is not the case in his response, I would be grateful. Either the policy paper is wrong or there is not a contract. But if there is, he can make clear how much that has been issued for and provide information about that. I see the Minister nodding, so that is going to be helpful.
The final element I would like to raise—a separate concern about the necessity for consultation—is that on the medical professions consultation paper there is a clear list of 13 offences against fitness to practise. There are five Scottish offences and two Northern Irish offences and, if someone has committed or is committing one of them, they are no longer fit to practise. Because this list has the Scottish offences, but there is no reference in any of the provisions in the regulation-making powers under this Bill, I simply do not know what the interaction would be with regard to the fitness to practise offences. For example, because the Government have not made any comment about this so far, when it comes to bringing forward elements to ease applications from abroad, how do our regulators know that the applicant has not committed an equivalent offence in their jurisdiction, especially if in certain areas there are separate Scottish offences from those listed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? I hope the Minister can give reassurance that no regulations could be made to change this that would make it harder for our regulators to find out whether those who are applying will have committed an equivalent of the listed offence. If the Minister can offer reassurance on these points, I would be grateful.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to leave the question of an assistance centre to one side. I think I have an amendment later on to delete it from the Bill. I have yet to understand why we need a statutory body and why this cannot just happen. We were told that all this is being done at the moment, perhaps by BEIS, so I really do not understand why it has to be in here. But we will come to that elsewhere.
Colleagues know we are on somewhat delicate ground with these issues, with the devolved authorities having been excluded too many times, going right back to the Brexit negotiations and then the Internal Market Bill, with UK powers imposed over devolved competencies. Since then, we have seen the Government wanting to spend the levelling up fund and the shared prosperity fund on projects in the devolved areas but also in areas where the devolved Governments would normally spend money—and where, frankly, the devolved Governments know best how expenditure should be part of their strategy. That is the background to how we are looking at this. So the Bill—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Randerson, said—being seen a week before it was introduced is just more of the same: them as an afterthought.
I am not going to repeat here in public what the Minister told me in private was the reason for this, although he might like to spread that a bit further if he thought others would be interested. But the second reason given was that the other Governments had been in purdah and therefore this was not possible. While that may well be the reason it could not be shown straight away, it does not explain why the Bill had to be suddenly published and rushed into this House without taking a breath. There is no reason to think that suddenly we need more doctors, nurses, vets, furriers and everything else—a sudden shortage of skilled people—and that is why we need the Bill to give powers to regulators if, as I said earlier, there are any that do not have them at the moment.
Therefore, of course, the feeling is this is being rushed through because there is some trade deal in the offing that needs this urgently. If that is the case, I think we should be told. In one of his answering letters, I think the Minister said he could not comment on current negotiations. This seems too important. If it was not shown to the devolved authorities because they were having elections but then has to be rushed into this House, it feels to me either that the Government forgot about the devolved Administrations or that there is something else going on.
The problem, therefore—and the reason why the environment in which this is taking place is important—is that this Bill replays exactly the same problems as we had with the internal market Act. At first glance, the use of concurrent powers looks like a rather deliberate, perhaps subtle, undermining of devolution because it allows the Secretary of State to amend or repeal Welsh primary and secondary legislation and regulations even in areas of devolved competence, as we have heard. Also, in the case of Wales—like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I come from there, so I am always much more aware of the differences there—it would apply to devolved regulators such as the Education Workforce Council and Social Care Wales.
The Minister has said that these powers will not “normally” be used but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, that does not offer a lot of comfort. Nice man though the Minister is, his words are not law and are not binding on the UK Government. We very much hope that the Government will accept Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, which seems to strike a really good balance. As in the internal market Bill, it would oblige the Minister to seek the consent of the devolved authorities but would allow them to proceed, albeit with a published explanation, if no consent is received within a month. So it is not an absolute veto, but it starts on the assumption of working towards consent, which is really important. I am absolutely confident that my noble friend will bring that back on Report.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thought he might. I think he can probably expect us to support him in that.
Amendment 49, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would specifically allow the common framework approach, which we have been discussing, to trump the use of these powers in instances where the common framework procedure is developing a mutual recognition of professional qualifications framework. As we have heard, in its update covering the fourth quarter of last year, the Cabinet Office reported that discussions on the MRPQ framework had made progress, though the development timelines have had to be extended. As the Government and the devolved Administrations want the MRPQ framework to be completed, we want nothing from this Bill to be done outside of its remit.
The significance of how the devolved authorities are treated in this Bill has ramifications beyond the issue with which we are concerned today, which is the regulation of professional qualifications. I urge the Minister to engage with the relevant Ministers in the devolved Governments and do everything in his power at least to shore up, and hopefully strengthen, devolution rather than undermine it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that the Government are chipping away at the devolution settlement; I think that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was referring to when he talked about collateral damage. Something that happens in this Bill is chipping away at a really important part of the devolution settlement. I must ask the Minister whether he understands that. Does he understand those feelings? If so, does he feel an obligation, for the sake of the union, to amend the Bill to alleviate these concerns? I hope that we will hear a thoughtful and positive response from him on this.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, these amendments have brought about a fulsome and entirely appropriate debate about respecting the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the Bill continues its passage through the House.
Let me start by saying, in a direct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that I, too, find her a very nice person, although I must say that I think she has a suspicious mind in relation to this Bill. I assure her and other noble Lords that there is nothing going on about the timing of FTAs which is driving this Bill.
On a point of fact, the Bill was seen by the Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on 22 April. This was just eight days after I first saw it, so it was not hidden or kept in a drawer away from the DAs until the last possible moment. It was seen by them pretty much as soon as I saw it after it had been prepared.
I assure noble Lords at the outset that the Government fully respect the devolution settlements. Devolved matters should of course be, except in the most exceptional circumstances, for the devolved Administrations to legislate on. The Government have no desire for this Bill to chip away at that in any way. I can confirm that we will seek legislative consent for the Bill in line with the Sewel convention, and we do not in any way intend to use this Bill to chip away at the devolution settlements.
I can confirm for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that it is not part of our trade policy to compromise our standards. We have had many debates about that in this House. Free trade agreements will not compromise our standards or those of regulators. No free trade agreement will have the power to do that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for tabling Amendment 57 concerning the authority by whom regulations may be made and concurrent powers. I suggest that it is entirely fitting that the current definition of “appropriate national authority” in Clause 14 means that Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland departments are the appropriate national authorities and may make regulations, provided, of course, that they fall within the competence of the relevant devolved legislature. In direct answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, let me say that the Government do not intend to disturb this in any way.
The issue is that this is a very complex landscape. As I have said before, it involves 160 professions and 50 regulators. Regulation varies between professions. Some professions are regulated on a UK-wide basis despite being within devolved competence. Some professions are also regulated across Great Britain. So the complexity of the regulatory landscape makes the use of concurrent powers important to the Bill’s operation in a purely practical sense. They are meant to be entirely practical and are not intended to undermine the authority of the devolved Administrations in any way. They make sure that professions that fall within devolved competence could have regulations brought forward across several parts of the UK by the relevant national authority. This will provide those professions with certainty and continuity.
Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, aims to ensure that Clause 9 does not affect the establishment or operation of a common framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also made this point. I am a huge enthusiast for common frameworks to make our systems work as efficiently as possible.
As noble Lords know, the common framework on the regulation of professional qualifications is under development between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure a common approach on powers that have returned following our exit from the European Union and which intersect with devolved competence. Although this amendment relates specifically to Clause 9, let me assure noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that the provisions in this Bill work alongside the common frameworks programme. We absolutely will consider this as we develop the framework further. The Bill does not constrain that.
There was a hiatus in the development of this framework, while work paused during the election period in Wales and Scotland. We are very keen now to resume discussions to seek collective agreement on the timeline for delivery of the framework, including concentration on interactions with this Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Purvis of Tweed. We will start with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response to several of the issues that I have raised. I welcome his assurances on the common framework on this issue and I look forward, along with colleagues across the Committee, to scrutinising it in due course. I also welcome the information that he has provided on the assistance centre. That is helpful, but it would have been even more helpful if it had been included in the impact assessment so that we would not have had to waste time today seeking that information.
Finally, I want to make an important point. To me, it sounds as if the Minister has been really surprised by this Bill and therefore it should not be unexpected that the devolved Administrations have been surprised by it too. Since the vast majority of the Bill touches on devolved powers, why were not the officials of the devolved Administrations, if not the Ministers, involved at an earlier stage in the development of this policy? That would have improved trust if that had happened. Perhaps I may urge the Minister to make up for lost time by having some fairly intensive discussions with the devolved Administrations over the coming days.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness about the assistance centre. In response to her other points, many things have surprised me since I became a Minister, so I am no longer surprised by them.
I should add that my officials have been in very regular contact about this with officials in the devolved Administrations. I have pulled out the Bill date as a specific one, but of course officials have been working hard on this for some time, right back to the call for evidence that was asked for last year. A lot of consultation has been going on, but again it is the complexity of this Bill that has led to perhaps there still being some rough edges, which I think the debates in our House are helping to iron out.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am interested in the revelation that the Minister saw the Bill only eight days before the devolved Administrations, Can the Minister tell us which Minister supervised the drafting of the Bill?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am the Minister responsible for the Bill and the policy; I am not just the Lords spokesman on the Bill. Of course, the work that goes on before a Bill appears on one’s desk is enormous: instructions to parliamentary counsel, development of the policy and so on. I am the policy Minister in relation to this Bill as well as the Minister who has the pleasure of addressing your Lordships’ House on the matter.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the points raised by my noble friend and myself about the assistance centre. I thought he might reply along those lines, which is why I have the EU directive with me. The directive has never stipulated that a member state has had to have one centre. I shall quote from recital (33):
“In particular, it does not prevent the designation at national level of several offices, the contact point designated within the aforementioned network being in charge of coordinating with the other offices and informing the citizen, where necessary, of the details of the relevant competent office.”
There has never been a requirement under EU law for there to be a single member state office, but I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that the small, efficient European office that he claims was in place has to be put, as the very first thing the Government are doing, on a statutory basis in the post-Brexit world. I think that it is worth saying to the Minister that there was never that requirement, so I look forward to further debates about why the Government are insisting that there should now be a statutory office as the single point of contact.
My question to the Minister is this: he did not quite give a reassurance about the professions within Scotland that have been excluded from the internal market. However, I heard what he said about the interaction with the internal market Bill. I welcome the fact that he will be writing to me, so perhaps he might add that element about the legal and education professions. Regardless of the reassurance, my reading of the Bill is that it could potentially bring into scope those professions which have been excluded from the internal market Bill.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As he spoke, I was reminded that I had not fully answered it and I will certainly write to him on it. I hope that he and other noble Lords will agree that having four statutory assistance centres would probably be to overegg the pudding.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received a further request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, so I will call the noble Baroness now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I return to the question that I raised both at Second Reading and in my comments today. As the amendment seeks to address, it would appear that there is the possibility of the Government here in Westminster overruling on this. There are currently no requirements to consult or to interact with the devolved Administrations, but as I say, there is a possibility that the Government could overrule—and that indeed is referred to in the guidance for this legislation. I will ask the Minister again: under what circumstances would he imagine that the Government would overrule a devolved Administration if it objected to arrangements?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that point. Frankly, I can conceive of no circumstances in the area of professional regulation and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications where the Government would wish to overrule any devolved Administration.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
I regret to say that I am not completely assuaged by the replies of my noble friend. I will take as an example the wording of Amendment 13, which seeks to ensure that there is
“a formal consultation with the devolved administrations, regulators and the Lord President of the Court of Session.”
I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that I do not expect the Lord President to be involved in every case, but I listened carefully to what he said at Second Reading and that is why this is included.
At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also highlighted the fact that while consultation with professionals is essential, as I think we would all agree, there is no mention of that either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes. I therefore remain discontent and dissatisfied. While in his summing up, my noble friend the Minister said that a lot of consultation had taken place, he did not say what form that consultation would take.
I have a further cause for concern, referring back to what the noble Lord said yesterday. I had hoped to intervene in the debate on the trade deal with Australia, but I was told that it was heavily oversubscribed. He made the point that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will only look at future trade deals literally just before they are to be signed. As we have heard in the debate on this group of amendments—and as the practice seems to have been—any consultation seems to be left to absolutely the last minute. It concerns me greatly that that is not doing justice to the complexity of this. I will look carefully at the Minister’s response before the next stage of proceedings. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“(5A) The appropriate national authority must consult such persons as it considers appropriate when preparing regulations under subsection (1).”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am very pleased to move Amendment 14, which would require the Secretary of State, the Scottish and Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland department to consult when preparing regulations under Clause 1. A number of noble Lords have said that it is important that the UK Government consult the devolved Administrations. It is equally important that the devolved Administrations themselves consult the bodies affected. Sometimes they are quite good at that; sometimes not. It is therefore important that we make it clear that this is a requirement. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out the need for consultation by the appropriate national authorities when preparing regulations. Both the Law Society and I agree strongly with those comments, and on the need for consultation on draft regulations under the Bill. As colleagues have said on a number of other occasions, this is a very important and wide-ranging measure which affects a considerable number of professions—160 as stated in the Explanatory Notes and as other noble Lords have said earlier.
Government across the UK does not possess the in-depth knowledge that would enable it to legislate unless it has such pre-legislative consultation. The Minister said that he would
“anticipate that determining whether professions meet this condition would require extensive close working”.—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 974.]
BEIS has made it clear in its engagement with stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland that it agrees that it is important for the Government to engage extensively with a range of interested parties before legislating. BEIS may argue that it is already well established that Governments need to consult before making secondary legislation, including through the government consultation principles of 2018, so there is no need to legislate for this. That may be so, but I am not so sure. In a number of recent Acts, the Government have nevertheless expressly legislated for consultation duties such as these.
We certainly agree that aspects of the Bill will require close working between the Government and a range of interested parties, including the professions. However, “close working” does not necessarily include statutory consultation. We also know that legislation has a particular way of concentrating Ministers’ minds in a way which published guidelines do not. That may be why legislation as diverse as the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 have provisions which oblige the Secretary of State to consult before making orders or regulations. That statutory duty to consult is vital; it puts pressure on Ministers much more effectively than any guidelines. I therefore hope that the Government will seriously consider this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that what I am going to say has nothing to do with devolved Administrations, because the Bill obviously affects them greatly. The Bill is a law of unintended consequences. It has been described as having been written on the back of an envelope; that envelope has got a lot of writing all over it by now. Amendment 52, to which I have attached my name, is about how many organisations have not realised, and still do not realise, the impact of the Bill. They think: “Professional qualifications; that does not really worry us”. Many noble Lords have had consultations with large organisations, chartered organisations and the like, all of which have given us their opinion. Some have given us their opinion twice because they have changed it. However, small and medium-sized enterprises have not been consulted at all. They have probably not even known that this Bill exists and how it is going to affect them—how it is going to impact on the qualifications of their workforce and whether they are going to have problems with their workforce. When I talk about small and medium-sized enterprises, I mean those with one to 50 employees. If they have problems recruiting now, how will it be afterwards?
As the Bill seems to have been created on the hop, without thinking too much about some of the detail, we now come to trying to mop up a Bill which has not been terribly well thought out in the beginning. We have to look at how to rectify that after the Bill becomes an Act. My Amendment 52 is about the Government committing to there being a report back within 12 months of the Act being passed, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. By then, they will have realised the impact of the Bill on the staff they have, do not have, and might have. They might then feel that they can contribute. At that stage, one year hence, perhaps we can put the then Act into a better format. At the moment, it certainly does not seem to have been thought out properly from beginning to end.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who has tabled a very useful amendment, Amendment 52, to which I was pleased to attach my name. I will speak chiefly to Amendment 55 in my name, but I will also look at the whole range of Amendments 52 to 55, which are all on variations of forms of reports. It might be useful for us to consider whether we can bring this together for Report. There is clearly a desire, coming from a number of different directions, to see a reporting and scrutiny mechanism for the Bill.
I will, however, briefly comment on and commend Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which refers to consulting consumer interests. That is particularly interesting when we look back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, at Second Reading, and the concerns about the way in which many of our professional services are failing to meet the needs both of those using them and of broader society. There is something useful in the suggestion from the noble Baroness that would be interesting to take forward.
I will now address Amendments 52 to 55, on the issue of reporting back. There has been great discussion in this Committee about the complexity of the Bill, the difficulty of fully understanding its impacts and, indeed, the fact that, with its range of Henry VIII powers, much of the detail will come in later regulation of which we have very limited or no democratic oversight.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She was right to say that we will probably need to think a little further about the subsequent scrutiny arrangements for the operation of this legislation. I fear that the amendments we have at the moment probably do not do it.
Perhaps with the exception of Amendment 54, they all suffer from the difficulty of proposing subsequent scrutiny of the impact of this legislation on issues which will themselves be impacted by a wide range of other legislation, administration and circumstances. It is difficult to isolate the impact of this legislation in particular. When we re-examine it we should, if not legislating, certainly be looking to Ministers to say that we should focus on understanding how it is working after a suitable period. One of the conventional processes would be five-year, post-legislative scrutiny. That would probably be the appropriate route down which to go.
I want to say a word about the issue of consultation, which came up under the previous group. There are a number of amendments in this group, but I am pretty sure that the proposers of Amendments 25 and 29 will recognise that they do not provide appropriate consultation opportunities. If there is a mutual recognition agreement in an international agreement with another country, it will have been subject to its own consultation arrangements. To have another consultation on the regulations to implement it would be inappropriate. It is also inappropriate and unnecessary to consult on regulations simply to get rid of the existing EU directives or retained EU legislation.
Turning to Amendments 14 and 19, in both instances there is a good case for consultation. I am not sure whether it needs to be legislated for in statute, but we too often assume that there is a public law duty to consult when there is not. It may be better to have a statutory duty to consult even if it is framed, pretty much as these provisions are, in broad and general terms, just to ensure that Ministers go through the appropriate processes at the right time. I am quite supportive of Amendments 14 and 19 for these purposes, particularly Amendment 19.
We had a previous discussion about demand. You cannot look at demand for professional services without actually asking consumers, so making sure that consumers are consulted in the process would be a good approach. I hope that Ministers will at least look at whether there is a place for a statutory duty to consult on regulations under Clause 1, and on the question of demand for professional services being met.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak mainly to Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I had hoped that he would speak before me, so I could hear his views on the amendment, but I support its intent. I might have some reservations regarding whether a report should be made within 12 months or a longer period, as others have mentioned. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it is not a question of the impact on innovations of this Bill alone, but the cumulative impact of other Bills, to which this one might add. That is the issue I wish to explore.
The United Kingdom has a big ambition to be a science superpower, as has been said many times by our Prime Minister. In fact, he is the second Prime Minister, including Harold Wilson, to have mentioned science as a driving force for the United Kingdom and the UK’s leading in science. So, we have a great ambition: we are going to invest 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and, depending on the spending settlement to be announced shortly, it looks as though there will be £22 billion for R&D leading up to 2024. A significant amount of resources is being put in. So, what drives innovation? The drivers of innovation are research infrastructure; funding; importantly, career development opportunities for early-career researchers—I emphasise early-career; and collaboration and knowledge exchange through institutions in different countries working together.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I put my name down in this group in order to speak to Amendments 19 and 29, but I shall say a few words first on Amendments 52 to 55. Normally, I do not support Report amendments, which are a slightly lazy way of trying to open up a debate on wider issues, but in this case I think they have a point.
The Government’s impact assessment is, to use a tactful term, pretty light. It certainly does not analyse very much impact, probably because the Government do not have a clear idea of what they are going to do with the powers in the Bill. If that is not clear from the Bill itself, it is certainly clear from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Poor impact statements are a widespread problem and we will not solve that for this Bill, but it is incumbent on the Government to be transparent about the impact of a Bill once it becomes law.
I shall therefore be listening carefully to what the Minister says, because it may well be that some or all of Amendments 52 to 55 will need to be considered again on Report. Alternatively, as my noble friend Lord Lansley suggested, we could legislate for post-legislative scrutiny; after five years might be an appropriate time for a report. However, it is very important that we monitor the Bill’s impact.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has one defining characteristic, it is her determination to get the consumer interest felt, and she frequently finds all kinds of surprising ways to do that in Bills, but I want to explain why in this instance she is wrong to try to get the Bill amended with her Amendments 19 and 29. I was particularly struck by a briefing from the British Dental Association that commented that this Bill appears to focus on services, consumers and trade. Those are inappropriate concepts to describe the healthcare professions, which are certainly one of the major reasons given for this Bill being enacted and are cited as the professions likely to be covered by the regulations under Clause 1.
Those terms may well be appropriate for other professions which qualify and oversee professionals who trade their services, though I am not sure that “consumers” is always the right description for those other professions. For example, I do not really know who the consumer is in relation to regulated auditors, who are covered by this Bill via the Financial Reporting Council. The healthcare professions are focused on safety rather than on what consumers want or need from the profession, and we should never lose sight of that.
I do not think that either the consultation requirement in Amendment 19 or the board membership requirement in Amendment 29 fit well within this Bill, given the focus on the healthcare professions that is likely to follow once the Bill becomes law. I completely get that regulated professions and their regulators must not be focused on their own narrow interests but bear the public interest in mind. But that is usually achieved through regulators being independent of the professionals they regulate, and they often have independent members comprising some or the majority of their boards. If they are not on their boards, they are certainly well entrenched in their disciplinary processes. That aspect, the independent characteristic of the regulators, is what we should focus on in this instance, rather than the consumer interests.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, especially after the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
This amendment takes a broader view about the nature of skills shortages and human consequences from the recognition of professional qualifications. There are many reasons for this Bill, and one is the failure of the United Kingdom to produce skilled labour, and the relative absence of any coherent government strategy to produce the desired skilled labour force. The problems have been well documented. For example, in 2000 a report published by the National Skills Task Force said that there were
“external skill shortages, that is, recruitment difficulties due to an excess of demand over supply of required skills in the external labour market”.
Examples included
“highly-paid occupations requiring specific technical qualifications such as engineers and technologists and health and related occupations … and craft and technician vacancies in the engineering industry”.
It also referred to internal skills shortages—that is,
“skill deficiencies among existing employees”.
Similar skills gaps were identified in the 2019 report by the Industrial Strategy Council, which said that about 21 million workers—two-thirds of the workforce—might
“lack the basic digital skills”
that employers will need in 2030.
Some businesses have responded to skills shortages by renting talent from external partners—for example, through outsourcing partnerships. Of course, that creates its own logistical and organisational problems. Nevertheless, in the absence of a coherent strategy, neither the Government, the industry nor universities have been able to address the perennial problem of skills shortages.
Finding appropriate PhD students, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, is also highly problematical. It is simply too costly for many individuals to undertake a PhD in the UK. In supervising PhD students for nearly 30 years, I can only recall about one or two indigenous British students who came to do a doctorate in accounting, business or finance. It is so rare.
At the moment, the Government and industry are not even connecting the dots. The spate of hiring and rehiring workers on inferior pay and working conditions will not address skills shortages and will have a negative effect on attracting new local talent to crucial industries. After all, if the wages and working conditions are poorer, why would somebody want to go into that industry?
The Government’s strategy so far has been to enrol and recruit foreign workers to fill the gaps. That is especially evident in the National Health Service. Brexit has added new dimensions because it has alienated many EU workers residing in the UK. Their departure and the unwillingness of many other EU citizens to work in the UK have deepened and widened the skills shortages.
The Government are now looking to recognise foreign qualifications to address the local skills shortages. The aim, as always, is to poach skilled persons from abroad. The traffic will predominantly be one way from developing countries to the UK. I doubt that many Brits will actually want to go and work in countries such as Ghana, Zimbabwe or Nigeria, where the wages may be lower and the working conditions may not be comparable.
This ability to poach workers from other places will inevitably dilute the pressure on the UK to develop its own institutional structures to address the skills shortages. That development is highly necessary, and we need a government strategy. Therefore, it is absolutely right that Parliament must monitor the impact of this Bill on the management of strategies for addressing skills shortages, as has been extremely well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
To be clear, I am not against mutual recognition of qualifications, as this increases opportunities for individuals, but I am very concerned about the negative consequences for developing countries. They spend millions of pounds to educate and train engineers, doctors, surgeons and other skilled persons, but will never see the full benefit of their social investment. It can take more than a decade to train a skilled doctor or surgeon and, at the end, having developed those individuals, the developing countries will be unable to receive the benefits. There are also other consequences. To put it another way, if the UK started to see its highly educated citizens leave on a scale already observed in many developing countries, it would find itself with a smaller and less educated workforce. Such changes would coincide with a more rapidly ageing population due to the fact that emigrants tend to be younger adults.
For a long time, the UK has taken the cream of the skills from developing countries with absolutely no compensation. This brain drain retards the development of local economies and social infrastructure. It results in a huge transfer of wealth from poorer countries to the UK, while they suffer from a lack of sufficiently skilled personnel in both the public and private sectors. With a loss of skilled labour, poorer countries cannot offer universal healthcare to their citizens. That is just one example. The only appropriate redress is a bilaterally managed scheme of direct reimbursement of the value lost to each of the countries affected by migration of skilled labour. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give such an undertaking and, in due course, bring legislation to provide further details and make the compensation to developing countries a reality.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to support many of the amendments in this group. Those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are very similar to those in my name. I notice that Amendment 38 extends the proposed consultation to Clause 6. I will limit my remarks to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has cleverly married the concept of consultation with specifying the number of bodies that are to be consulted upon. When she comes to move Amendment 27, I would be interested to learn why she picked those specific ones. I am also interested to learn from the Minister why there is no reference in the Bill to any specific professional bodies. What was the thinking behind that?
On Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, obviously, a number of professional people co-operate together in partnership, but many may consider them a small firm, if you like. I see some merit to Amendment 52 in relation to what the Bill’s impact will be on small and medium-sized companies. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response to that request.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this group is perhaps the inevitable consequence of trying to reduce a highly complex system and situation, as the Minister has highlighted, into a small one-size-fits-all Bill. In other words, we have a mixed bag of amendments in this group. I will speak initially to Amendments 53 and 54 in my name and to Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his support of Amendment 53. He said that he was disappointed to be speaking before me. I have to say that I am not disappointed to be speaking after him because he gave a much better speech than I could possibly have managed myself. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right, in that the innovation issue is hard to measure, but I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that this is part of a cumulative effect on innovation is important.
I was hoping to probe the Minister on how the Government have joined the dots between the intention of the Bill and how it will drive the future nature of our economy. To some extent, the criticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, of these kinds of amendments as a way of trying to shoehorn in something else is true; I make no apology for that.
At the heart of the Bill, there is a central conceit. At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“The Bill will allow action to be taken in the public interest if it is judged that a shortage of professionals has arisen in a profession.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 908.]
What is a “shortage of professionals”, and what level of omniscience is required from the department in order to identify that particular need in the market for professionals?
Is there a danger that the Bill is in fact solving yesterday’s problems? That is the innovation question—because we need people to create the businesses of the future. Yet we have a Home Office that lets in only people who already have a job, and BEIS, which will measure the current need for people. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was closer to the mark when he talked about early career researchers—I would add research technicians. Both find it extremely difficult to get Home Office visas because they are paid less than the limit for them to come in.
We are going to have a debate about the availability of people, in the group starting with Amendment 17, and I do not want to pre-empt that, but I want to hear the Minister’s playback on how the department and those drawing up the Bill drew the dots between the Bill and innovation. That is one of my objectives with this amendment.
Amendment 54 looks at a different kind of impact. In fact, in retrospect it should have been grouped with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, Amendment 9, because in a sense it measures the effect that she has highlighted there. As happenstance will have it, she did not get an answer to her questions the first time around, so this gives us a chance to run through them again.
Minister, there is a strong belief that the regulators will come under great influence from the Government on the level of fees. That will either reduce their income or maintain their income at the expense of those registering. This amendment seeks to give transparency to that problem. If indeed it is not a problem, we will see that clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave it something of a thumbs-up, in that it is measurable—and I assume that it is data that BEIS is already collecting because, of course, it is going to create a model of the entire professional market in order to manage it on behalf of the national economy. I assume that the data is already available. Therefore, publishing it would be very helpful and perhaps give a lie to the fears or expose them, so that the Government can change things to stop them becoming an issue.
Very simply, the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about some joined-up reporting is well made. Whether it is the whole hog or just a few key elements—and I would probably prefer the latter to the former—I think that the global south issue can be solved by having a geographic split on where people are coming from, for example, to highlight those issues.
My noble friend Lord Palmer spoke on Amendment 52 about the need for there to be a realisation within organisations of the impact of the Bill, particularly on SMEs. In the past, many SMEs have picked up employees from the European Union without having to give a moment’s thought to the accreditation of their skills. That is now changing, and I absolutely agree with my noble friend that there has been no dawning on the vast majority of Britain’s businesses of that change. I think he has a great point.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, spoke strongly, as usual. I agree with him—I would like the opportunity to intervene and interrupt the noble Lord, although of course I would exercise it with great care. But in the main, I would like the Minister to push back on Amendments 53 and 54 and say how this affects innovation and whether we can see the numbers when it comes to costs and the financial effect on the regulators.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I start by saying that I may have misheard what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said. I think she was asking about Amendment 27, which is in the next group.
I will speak to Amendments 19 and 29 in my name, but also thoroughly endorse all the pleas that we have heard for a very thorough—and, indeed, statutory—requirement on consultations with all the relevant parties. The impact of this will be felt; it could be felt on professionals and on service providers or users of those services. This is not a technical thing, so it is important that the consultation takes place.
Amendment 19 simply specifies that it is crucial that consumers are consulted. Consumers may be users, patients, clients—in the case of lawyers—or customers. When I was involved with the regulation and standard setting for actuaries, which I guess comes under the FRC in this, noble Lords will not be surprised that I chaired the user committee and was on the board. We had pension administrators, pension trustees and other people who used actuarial services, so that we were able to get their input as we were setting standards for actuaries.
The word “consumer” is a broad one and it is always difficult to say what it means, but it seems to me that if one were setting standards or one wanted more actuaries in the country, and the same could be true of other regulated areas, talking to the people who use those services would be highly appropriate. So, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says about the use of that word, it seems to me that the people who use the services of the professions covered in the Bill really should be consulted if there is going to be a different way of recognising and approving people to carry out that profession.
As I said earlier, regulation was always set up to protect the consumers or end-users, however they are defined, and therefore, in changing the procedure of how a regulator works in accepting professionals, it should be automatic that users of those services that the regulator was set up to protect should be involved. It certainly should not be just between the Government and the service provider—in other words, the professionals involved—because those affected by the decisions should surely not be excluded. Government always needs reminding that the end-user is what regulation is all about. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his support on this. It ought to be automatic; we should not have to think about putting it in a Bill, but so often it does not happen.
I was reading earlier in one of the government documents—sorry, I have had lots of letters from the Minister—about the call for comments in a consultation that was put on the BEIS website, I think. I have to say that most people would not think that a call for consultation on the regulation of professional qualifications would affect them as, say, a pension trustee, not realising that it will affect the professionals that they depend on in decisions they take, whether it is about pension holidays or, more likely, making up for deficiencies in a pension. One has to be on the front foot and go out looking for the input of users or consumers of professional services; they will not automatically happen to be watching the BEIS website to see that there is a consultation taking place.
Amendment 29 may be slightly cheeky, but it is really a nudge to the Government. It says that a regulator set up either to create or to maintain standards in the interest of consumers or users really ought to have those end-users or consumers on its board, its council or its executive. Therefore, when we are talking about regulators, we should require them to have this. I think this is possibly pushing the boundaries of the Bill a little far, but if the Minister will accept Amendment 19, I will go quiet on Amendment 29.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, before I address the important amendments in this group, may I clarify something in relation to the previous group, about consultations with the officials of the devolved Administrations? I am informed that a working group of officials across all devolved Administrations was set up as long ago as last August. I would not like the House to think that my comments about the timing of when I saw the Bill meant in any way that there had not been massive consultations before that, so I am pleased to have clarified that point.
On the amendments before us, noble Lords have spoken eloquently about engaging with a range of interested parties before making regulations, and said that the Government should continue to consider the impact of the Bill after it comes into force. I agree that these are important considerations. However, with the utmost respect, I believe it is unnecessary to add those specific requirements to the Bill.
Amendments 14, 25, 36 and 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would introduce duties on the appropriate national authority to consult people it deemed appropriate before introducing regulations under Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 6. The Government are absolutely committed to working in partnership with regulators, devolved Administrations and other interested parties when regulations are made under the Bill, and of course, consultations are bound to form part of that.
Amendments 19 and 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, focus on consultation with consumer representatives. Few would disagree that regulators must have the interests of consumers of services—be they customers, patients, or students—at the heart of their approach to regulating professions. That is an incredibly important point. I appreciate the intention of her amendment to Clause 4, but I can reassure the noble Baroness that any recognition agreement would still have to meet the regulator’s existing standards and duties around public protection—that would not be diluted in any way. Regulators rightly guard their autonomy to decide who is fit to practise a profession, to ensure that only the best candidates can do so. So I think we can expect that regulators will continue to ensure high standards to protect consumers.
Amendments 52, 53, 54 and 55 require the Government to report to Parliament on the impact of the Bill in a range of areas. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, proposes two reports. The first would be on the costs to regulators and applicants. Many regulators already operate in line with the framework set out in the Bill. Therefore, we believe that the anticipated costs to regulators and applicants will be modest. The second report would be on innovation. Innovation is an important feature in the Government’s wider ambitions, and I have carefully noted the sensible points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Patel, about this. However, because the Bill is not about immigration, I am not entirely sure about its relevance to the recognition of professional qualifications. However, I will of course consider it carefully.
We should note that a primary objective of the Bill is to allow an appropriate national authority to take action to help enable a profession to meet demand by ensuring that there is a route to recognition for individuals with overseas qualifications and experience. This should help to attract the talent needed from around the world to provide services in the UK—and, on a reciprocal basis, allow our professionals, who provide such a valuable export service to the UK, to practise overseas. I have no doubt that an indirect result of this would be to add to the pool of skills and experience in a profession, which in itself may help to drive forward innovation. However, the primary purpose of the Bill is to help enable service provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made a very good point on the impact on SMEs. Through my work chairing the Professional and Business Services Council and my regular engagement with this sector, I am well aware of the importance of professional qualifications for services exports.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, tabled an amendment that proposes a report to consider the Bill’s impact on skills shortages, how the Bill relates to immigration, overseas development and skills training, and skills demand in the health professions. Of course, these are all very important points, but I humbly suggest that this would speak to several policy areas beyond the Bill. The Government’s skills strategy, visas and immigration, international development, and how demand for skills is being met in health and social care are, I would say, outside the scope of this Bill. Publishing reports in each of these areas is not a necessary component to assessing the impact of the Bill.
A number of noble Lords were concerned about the impact of regulations brought forward under the powers in the Bill. This will also be considered in line with the Government’s better regulation framework.
I trust that this gives reassurance on the checks and balances that we have carefully built into the Bill. I hope it demonstrates that there is no need to specifically provide for further measures. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, wishes to speak after the Minister.
Lord Fox (LD)
Thank you. I did send an email—it is probably lurking in the system. Coming back to the Minister’s assessment that the costs would be low, I am again looking at one of my noble friend’s favourite documents—the impact assessment. It is limited in scope but does have estimates of costs. The Government’s best estimate—this has the Minister’s signature on the front, so I assume that he agrees—is £18.2 million, the majority of which will be absorbed somewhere in the regulatory system. I suggest that that is not a small amount of money for the regulatory sector. Can the Minister calibrate what he just told us or explain how these two numbers meet up?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for that question. I do not think that I can really add to what is in the impact assessment. Those costs are incurred over a number of years, but I think the impact assessment was carefully prepared and that those are the costs.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, in one of his better interventions earlier, this is a mixed bag of amendments and probably represents skilful grouping by the Government Whips’ Office. As a result, we have had a very wide-ranging debate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill—an area I know very well, by the way, but that is another story—that I agree with him. Although he did not deal with the devolved Administrations, he made some very good and useful points. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned all the reports and very sensibly suggested that they might be looked at and consolidated or reorganised in some way on Report. I hope that that will be considered.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Lansley—he is getting more on my side every day—for his support on a statutory duty to consult. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is important to make it a statutory responsibility, otherwise it is so very easy for Governments —of all shades—to forget that they have a responsibility to consult widely.
Having said all that, in light of the helpful reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 15
“(5A) Regulations under this section relating to priority professions may not be made unless—(a) they have been published in draft form, and(b) the relevant regulators have been consulted on them for a period of three months beginning with the day on which they are published.(5B) In this section “priority professions” means—(a) healthcare professionals,(b) social workers,(c) teachers, and(d) veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.(5C) In this section, the relevant regulators are—(a) Nursing and Midwifery Council,(b) General Medical Council,(c) General Pharmaceutical Council,(d) Health and Care Professions Council,(e) General Optical Council,(f) General Dental Council,(g) Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland,(h) General Osteopathic Council,(i) General Chiropractic Council,(j) Social Work England,(k) Scottish Social Services Council,(l) Social Care Wales,(m) Northern Ireland Social Care Council,(n) Teaching Regulation Agency,(o) General Teaching Council for Scotland,(p) Education Workforce Council,(q) General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, and(r) Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I will speak to Amendment 27, both of which are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
These amendments are here for two reasons. One is that the regulators listed already have the power to recognise professionals from other jurisdictions, so they are somewhat at a loss as to why they should need to be covered at all. The other is that the maintenance of their standards is particularly crucial to the lives of patients—be they human or animal—pupils and clients. If there is any chance that they will be mandated to open up their approval system further than it is already—because they already have one—at the behest of the Government, then there must be the most thorough consultation and agreement. This really is too important to leave to chance. We need a legal commitment to consult in the Bill for the priority professions listed in the amendment.
In answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, during our debate on an earlier amendment, the Government had a list—the Minister sent it in a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—of all the regulators covered, but this group of healthcare and personal care professionals already have the ability within their statutes to do the necessary for international. So there is this two-way reason why we put them in the amendment: their clients or patients are particularly vulnerable if standards fall, and they already seem to have this power. Therefore, for the Government to take a power to ask them to do something outwith what they want to do seems to require a particularly high level of consultation. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. The requirement in these amendments for regulations to be published in draft form and consulted on is sensible, for the reasons that the noble Baroness has given. I just do not see why they are confined to this so-called priority list, because any profession that could be brought within the ambit of Clause 1 or Clause 3 should be treated in the same way. While we can sympathise with the medical professions and vets being priority groups over such mundane things as auditors and farriers, in practice any profession that might be impacted by these sorts of regulations, and could therefore have its standards impacted, ought to be covered in a consultation process.
I do not think the consultation process, as drafted in these amendments, should be confined to the regulators, because it is not just the regulators themselves that would be impacted by any regulations made under these clauses; so would the professionals operating in those regulated professions and all the other groups affected by them. I support consultation being in the Bill because of the unusual nature of the powers the Bill is taking, but I do not think it should be confined to the so-called priority groups.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 27, which is principally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. There is a lot to be said in this particularly obscure Bill for the publication of regulations in advance of their being made, so that people can see them in draft and consider them before they take effect. Regulators themselves would of course be consulted if this amendment is passed, but publication gives the opportunity for the wider public to scrutinise them, and no doubt inform this House and the other place, before the crucial point comes when the regulations are made. So I support this particular amendment.
There is a lot of force in the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that to confine this provision to the priority professions perhaps misses the point. Perhaps there should be a requirement across the board. There are other important professions that are not in this list. I am not claiming this particularly for the legal profession, as there are certainly other professions that are absent from this list, given the enormously long list of people who are within the purview of this Bill. The amendment may be a starting point but, for what it is worth, I support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I put my name to these amendments because I regard full and transparent consultation as very important. At its heart, the integrity and independence of our regulators is at stake. The problem is that the Bill gives far too many powers to Ministers. In the previous debate the Minister said that future trade agreements will not compromise standards. I wonder what our farmers and fishers think of that. We know that the Government are desperate for trade deals and that they have a track record of carelessness about their details. Clause 3 gives Ministers a completely free hand when it comes to trade agreements.
This debate is also set in the context of the independence of health regulators and fears that it may be compromised. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a cogent analysis of the interrelationship, or lack of it, between this Bill and the current extensive consultation by the Department of Health and Social Care on the reform of the health regulatory bodies. Those proposals are extensive and, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, give extensive powers to each regulator to streamline its own processes. I support that, because the public will benefit from more streamlined approaches to fitness to practise, which will deal with issues more quickly.
However, alongside this, it is widely expected that the forthcoming NHS Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will contain extensive provisions on the very same regulatory bodies in health that we are talking about today. One provision will be to allow Ministers, by regulation, to abolish a regulator and establish others. I have huge reservations about this, because surely it puts their independence at risk if, on a whim, a Minister can get rid of a regulator that they do not like. When you put that prospect together with this Bill, alarm bells start to ring. Consultation is not everything, but it is a safeguard. My noble friend’s amendment would provide one such safeguard that I believe we need.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in the right place in the right order on these two amendments and I apologise for what happened earlier. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on bringing forward these two amendments. I echo the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Noakes as to why they are limited to certain professions and not others. I am not entirely sure that all medical professions are represented here—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, can confirm whether this is the case.
The noble Baroness will know that I am wedded to statutory consultation, and she has clearly set out what the specific forms of the consultation would be. With that support, I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister say whether he can see merit in these or whether they should be extended to other professions as well.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. The amendment could be extended to include all professions rather than just the health profession, but I will concentrate my comments on the health profession.
I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Currently, the General Medical Council, as the regulator of doctors, has powers to regulate the training of doctors; to regulate clinical training following a degree course at university and the foundation years; and to regulate and approve specialist training conducted by the Royal Colleges. The curriculum is provided by the Royal Colleges but the General Medical Council approves it. The council then maintains a register of generalists and of specialists. In my case, it would be the specialism of obstetrics and gynaecology; I therefore could not practise cardiac surgery unless I was trained and approved by the regulator to be put on a specialist list of cardiac surgeons. The risk about not having consultation and producing regulation is that the regulator cannot then change the rules.
Amendment 27 is more to do with international agreements. There have been occasions when hospitals overseas have tried to open a branch for provision of specialist medical services with a view to their own people—their own doctors—delivering the care, until it was pointed out that that cannot be done.
It is possible—I have done it myself—to go to the United States and practise in a given hospital with a visa that allows you to do so, without having to go through any regulatory registering process or have experience and qualification approved. What we do not have, and quite rightly so, is a similar arrangement in the United Kingdom. It would therefore be wrong for any trade agreement to allow for that provision. Having the ability to guard, through consultation, against that is extremely important. Hence, I support Amendments 15 and 27.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments, and to reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He has reminded us of the complexity and sensitivity of these issues, with his example of medical practice in America. It is a country— the richest in the world— with the very highest medical standards, but it does not have the guarantees of high standards, perhaps, that we rightly want to take for granted in this country. I think he has pinpointed an important sensitivity on this issue.
I welcome these amendments, especially the emphasis on consultation, since I am very worried about the lack of awareness of this Bill beyond this Chamber. I think it is right to say that some of us in this Chamber have woken up only gradually to the huge complexity of the Bill. The Minister himself expressed some surprise at it, and the more that can be done to raise awareness among regulators and among the professions affected the better.
I have one very specific comment: I was struck, on reading the impact assessment, on how narrow the Government’s consultations with regulators were prior to the laying of this Bill. Out of 150 professions and 60 regulators, only a dozen were involved in some of the consultation. They were asked questions about the costs and, in one case, there were replies from only three of them. The costings we have been given on an expensive new policy are based, in some aspects, on replies from three regulators, and they could hardly be regarded as a representative cross-section. There is a real worry for us about a lack of understanding of the complexity of the Government’s policy.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her amendments and I note that the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, are supporting them. These amendments introduce a duty to publish, in draft form, any proposed regulations where they relate to the professions listed, and to consult on these regulations before they can be made under Clauses 1 and 3—the powers to provide for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications and the implementation of international agreements respectively. I have spoken at some length about the commitment to engagement on both clauses but let me provide some further reassurance specific to these amendments.
First, and perhaps most importantly, the Government, through this Bill, will not and cannot bring forward regulations that affect the autonomy of regulators or the standards that they set. With the greatest of respect to noble Lords, I sometimes feel that they think there is more to this Bill than meets the eye. There is not. This is a Bill which, at its heart, is about the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. It is not, and could not be, a Trojan horse for the Government to somehow choose to undermine the autonomy or the standards of regulators. It would be the height of foolishness for any Government, not just mine, to do so. I suggest that a little injection of reality about what this Bill is about should creep into some of our debates, and I say that with the greatest respect to noble Lords.
I turn first to Amendment 15 to Clause 1, which would mean that, if one of the listed professions were deemed to meet the demand condition in Clause 2, and regulations under Clause 1 were justified, there would be a three-month period of consultation with their regulators before regulations relating to those professions could be made.
I recognise that the professions and regulators specified by the noble Baroness are primarily those supporting our important public services. It is of course essential that any regulations made under the Bill support the delivery of public services and complement regulators’ existing practices. However, there seems little merit in listing, in primary legislation, a set of priority professions —my noble friend Lady Noakes put this very succinctly —which would be subject to change as demand changed. To do so could unduly restrict the ability of the Government, or the other national authorities, to respond quickly and efficiently to the needs of the professions on the list when they were deemed to have unmet demand.
Moreover, let us remind ourselves of what Clause 1 does. It requires regulators to have a route to consider applications from these people. It does not tell them that they have to accept these people or that there has to be a diminution of standards in relation to them; it requires regulators to have a route to consider them. This in no way undermines the carefully constructed architecture that our regulators have put in place to protect patients, consumers and other users of regulated services. Decisions under the Bill will be informed by careful engagement with professions and their regulators, and not introduced without warning. I agree that regulators will need to be involved from the outset, and have time to prepare for changes.
Amendment 27, which relates to Clause 3, seeks to make a similar requirement to publish and consult on draft regulations, with the same regulators and professions, in relation to implementing parts of international agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications. As I have explained previously—and will no doubt have to continue to do—a key concern for the Government in all negotiations is ensuring that the autonomy of regulators within these trade agreements protects UK standards. That applies to all regulators and professional bodies which may be within the scope of an international agreement, not just the ones specified in this amendment.
Through the Department for International Trade the Government engage with a range of stakeholders, including regulators, to understand their priorities and inform the UK’s approach to trade with future trade agreement partners. We have several forums to inform these negotiations, including the trade advisory groups, which hold strategic discussions to help shape our future trade policy and secure opportunities in every corner of the UK. We also hold many ad hoc consultations with interested parties. BEIS also organises regulator forums that provide updates on the negotiations and the terms of trade deals.
In addition, to consult before making regulations at the point at which the international agreement being implemented has already concluded would, frankly, be too late to meaningfully impact the substance of the agreement. That is why in May this year we launched a public call for input as we prepared for trade negotiations with India, Canada and Mexico. I encourage all those with an interest, and of course that includes all regulators and professions, to respond. Why would we not want to know what people think before we embark on the negotiations? To think that we should consult them after the agreement has been effectively finalised, when it is being prepared for parliamentary scrutiny, seems, with great respect, to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
On Clause 3, it is important for the UK Government to be able to meet our international obligations on professional qualifications, to support UK professionals and trade in professional services, and to do so in a timely fashion. I know that on a later group of amendments we will come back to further examination of this clause.
I trust that this gives reassurance to noble Lords on the engagement of professions, including the professions cited in the amendments but of course all others, before any changes are enacted through regulations through Clauses 1 and 3. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, there is a problem in what the Minister said. He talked about consultation and a call for input, but that is very passive. As I mentioned on an earlier group, unless you know that the Government are going to be looking at your profession, who would think to input at the beginning? On a later group we will come to the need to have a negotiating mandate, because at that stage that might stimulate people to think, “Oh gosh, that’s my profession.” If the Government would like architects, surveyors or whatever to be covered then they may start talking about it, but just putting out a call does not actually tickle the trout; people do not know that they should be involved. What the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said was interesting: people do not even know that the Bill exists, so the idea that they are following the situation and will keep looking at websites just in case their profession is affected is not going to happen.
There is an issue, not just about the Bill but about all sorts of measures, of the Government’s consultations consisting of, “We hope you’ll hear what we’re doing and will come and tell us about it.” The Minister has talked about the trade advisory groups. I am sorry to go on about this again, but there are no consumers on any of those groups. Again, the users of those professional services, be they clients of City lawyers or whoever, will not actually sit on those trade advisory groups so are not part of that inner circle that is kept close.
The Minister has basically said, “You can trust us. The Government wouldn’t bring forward regulations that affected the independence of regulators. We would never think to abolish a regulator.” The problem is that he was not in this House—quite a few of us who are here today were, including my noble friends Lord McAvoy and Lord Foulkes—when we had the Public Bodies Act. Do noble Lords remember that? It abolished 32 public bodies with a skeleton Bill and then by statutory instrument. The poor noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has to put up with me all the time because the National Consumer Council was abolished under that Bill; had it not been, I probably would not have had so much cause to be here because there would have been a statutory body on the formal list that the Government have to consult, and a lot of the stuff that I come in on at a very late date probably would have been dealt with before. So we have previously had a Bill on the basis of “Trust us, we won’t go round abolishing things”, and now here we are: we have no National Consumer Council any more. There is history here that predates the Minister, and that is why we would like a little more evidence in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 16. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 16
“(7) The appropriate national authority must seek reciprocal arrangements with other jurisdictions, including individual Member States of the European Union, for those with UK qualifications; as well as in the context of future Trade Agreements and continuing negotiations with the European Union in the context of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 16, I commend and endorse Amendments 23 and 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, supported so ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I shall leave them to speak to these amendments. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for lending his support and for cosigning my amendment.
I have sought to highlight that it is up to the appropriate national authority to
“seek reciprocal arrangements with other jurisdictions, including”—
as I specify—
“individual member states of the European Union, for those with UK qualifications, as well as in the context of future trade agreements and continuing negotiations with the European Union in the context of the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement.”
In his response at Second Reading, the Minister mentioned that the Government had been willing to negotiate mutual recognition of professional qualifications with our erstwhile partners in the European Union, but that they would not play ball. So will he take this opportunity to update us on the negotiations with our erstwhile partners? Is it still a matter of dialogue with them?
I understand that a specialised committee is also being set up within the context of the trade and co-operation agreement. It is a matter of great concern to those of us in this place, not least the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who chairs the European Committee. There seems to be no sense of urgency. I am sure my noble friend will blame the European Union, but I would like to hear that it is a priority for this Government to set up all these specialised committees in the context of the TCA—but in particular this one.
What grieved me at the time was that when a statutory instrument was moved by our then Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, he stated that we were going to accept all those coming from the European Union and EEA countries to work here but we had not negotiated the reciprocal right for our, dare I say, lawyers—the issue of most concern to me—and practitioners in other professions. That seemed to me a very regrettable way of proceeding.
In the briefing that I received today, the Bar Council of England pointed out also that Clause 3 on international agreements has a part to play in the amendment. The council’s concern is that the clause is
“useful but limited to international agreements—that is, treaties to which the UK state is a party. The power would not be available to make or amend legislation to give effect to a mutual recognition agreement negotiated autonomously at the level of professional regulators. This is a further deficiency in the Bill.”
So I ask my noble friend to explain, where a professional body such as, for example, the Faculty of Advocates, the Bar Council or the Law Society of Scotland, has negotiated some mutual recognition, to what extent the Government would be able to support that and what the mechanism would be to do so.
My noble friend the Minister, in his letter to which I referred earlier, replied to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its third report of this Session published on 7 June, in appendix 1, at the foot of page 12, where there seems to be something of a contradiction. He stated:
“The Trade Act 2021 provides for the implementation of provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications that are included in UK trade agreements with countries with which the EU had signed trade agreements as at 31 January 2020.”
At the end of the paragraph, he then stated:
“Finally, the powers provided in the Trade Act 2021 expire after five years, whereas it is anticipated that, for example, MRAs”—
mutual recognition agreements—
“formed as part of trade agreements will need to be implemented well beyond this limited period—especially in light of the lengthy timeframes MRAs typically take to finalise.”
I should be interested to know how that contradiction is going to be resolved in the context of the Bill. Are we really leaving it to regulations to resolve that timeframe? Are we going to be invited to look at these mutual recognition agreements as part of the trade agreements, because I understood my noble friend to say that we would not be going into that level of detail when we discussed other trade agreements hitherto.
So I commend this amendment to the Committee. It is appropriate that we seek reciprocal arrangements with other jurisdictions. That has served us extremely well in the past and made England, particularly London, the second centre in the world, after New York, for legal practice. We have done extremely well out of the arrangements and it is important that we continue to negotiate this, not just in future trade agreements but through the trade and co-operation agreement. In commending and moving the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will look favourably upon it and bring us up to date as to where we are.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 23 in my name deletes Clause 3(2)(c), which provides regulations under this clause and relates to the charging of fees. That is at odds with the terms of Section 31(4) of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, which provides that no fees should be charged. That Act does not allow for the imposition of fees in regulations designed to implement the trade and co-operation agreement. So this is a probing amendment that gives the Government the opportunity to explain why they have a completely different approach in the Professional Qualifications Bill from that in the future relationship Act. I look forward to hearing how the Minister can explain that away.
Amendment 47 has also been signed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who will be much better at explaining it than I could ever be.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am very grateful for that invitation but before I get to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has said in support of Amendment 16 about the need for
“reciprocal arrangements with other jurisdictions, including individual Member States of the European Union, for those with UK qualifications”.
This amendment is of particular interest to the legal professions in this country, in view of the achievements that were made right across the board in all three jurisdictions—Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales—in that respect while we were in the EU.
I am quite sure that the professions do not want to lose the benefit which those arrangements were able to achieve. There is a gap here that the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU has left unfilled. Amendment 16 goes some way to addressing and filling the gap in the interests of those who would like to benefit from the kind of arrangements we previously had under the European Union.
Coming to Amendment 47 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, it seeks to clarify the provision in Clause 9(4) about the risk that the duty of a regulator to provide information may contravene the data protection legislation. The same point arises in Clause 10(7), which is the subject of another amendment by the noble Lord, Amendment 50. Unfortunately, it is not in this group but will arise later on. Perhaps one is addressing the same point this evening. It also arises in regard to Clause 7(5), which raises exactly the same point. The Minister will appreciate that one is dealing here with a duty to disclose information. It begs the questions: first, does it breach any restriction under rules or contract, for example, or, secondly, does it breach the data protection legislation?
Concentrating on Clause 9, its structure is really quite interesting because it provides the duty in its subsection (2). It is a duty to provide
“any information … that is held by the first regulator … that relates to the individual”
and
“that … is requested by the second regulator.”
Then we come to its subsection (3), which says:
“A disclosure of information under this section does not breach … any obligation of confidence owed by the first regulator, or … any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
Those words are perfectly clear. They provide a complete answer—a complete defence—to a claim for breach of contract or a claim that the rules have been breached. For example, if I objected to the information being released by the first regulator that related to me on the ground that I had entered into a contract preventing the release of that information, I would simply be deprived of my contractual right to complain, because that is exactly what subsection (3) says.
The problem is subsection (4) which says:
“Nothing in this section requires the making of a disclosure which contravenes the data protection legislation”.
If that subsection had said that no disclosure which contravenes the data protection legislation shall be made, or words to the same effect, it would mean that, despite the firm duty in the earlier part of the clause, one was simply not required to disclose anything which would breach the data protection legislation. However, it does not say that; it just says that nothing requires you to do it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this short debate on these amendments. I will say a quick word on each, if I may.
First, on Amendment 16, I entirely support my noble friend’s wish for us to enter into mutual recognition of professional qualifications with the European Union but, as they say, it takes two to tango. We wanted to do it and our policy intention was to do it, but it was not the European Union’s intention to agree to it. I do not doubt that it would remain the Government’s intention to enter into such an agreement if it were possible to do so. I regret that putting this into the Bill does not change any of those circumstances. As it happens, I would not put it into the Bill at this place either. It is essentially contingent upon Clause 3 and our ability to negotiate an international recognition agreement with European Union countries in any case. It may be we have to do it with European Union countries individually, but I agree with the objective. It seems to me that Clause 4 allows regulators to enter into recognition agreements, and that is the mechanism. If the Law Society or anybody else wants to do it, they should seek approval from the Government to enter into such an agreement in that way.
I do not understand why we need Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. This is about international recognition agreements. It is not specifically about the European Union and it may not apply to European Union member states. It is not required to be consistent with the future relationship with the European Union. All it means is that when we allow the recognition of overseas applicants to our professions, the professional regulators may charge them fees in the way that they charge fees to UK applicants. I think that is perfectly reasonable, so I would not accept that amendment.
On Amendment 47, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was probably not here when we discussed the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020, nor when we dealt with similar provisions in the Trade Act 2021. My noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I remember those discussions very well.
Supreme Court judgments have determined that where, for example, data protection legislation requires the protection of legislation—and there are specific duties relating to that—if there are other statutory gateways that might create a statutory provision permitting the disclosure of information which could contravene the data protection legislation, the position the court arrived at was that the decision-makers should end up being able to balance the statutory gateway in the additional statute with the originating data protection legislation. That is where it ended up, and that is why “taken into account” is the appropriate language. It would not be “considered a defence”, because that would conclude that it had not been weighed properly in the way that the court expected. It expected these two things to be considered alongside one another. That is where we ended up on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, for reasons I understood then, and as far as I can see, this drafting is absolutely consistent with those pieces of legislation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to this short debate, but I will be brief and forbear commenting on Amendments 23 and 47, as noble Lords have already covered them and I cannot really add anything. I want to speak specifically to Amendment 16 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for tabling it.
I think there should be pressure on the appropriate national authorities in the Bill to seek reciprocal agreements. It is something that certainly needs to be discussed and pushed. Other noble Lords have spoken about the situation of established professionals and the professional bodies. I want to take a moment to think about young people recently qualified, and those young people who have been through such difficult times and who will qualify in the next year or two, for whom there should be the opportunity, as a young professional, to go out and to travel—the European Union countries being the obvious place, being relatively close to home, relatively cheap, et cetera. It is crucial to those young people to have opportunities to stretch their wings, to learn new things and to develop professionally.
We have seen a lot of problems arising as a result of Covid. Covid is being blamed for lack of progress in a great many things, but it has also suppressed demand, and we are going to see a real explosion of demand as it becomes more possible to travel and to move. I will not get started on the great loss of free movement for the people of the UK, but given that we have so curtailed the opportunities for our young people, it is crucial that we do everything possible to open up, or reopen, professional opportunities for people to grow, to develop, to travel. Of course, if the Government do not want to consider this from any other angle, it is obviously of considerable importance if those people return to the UK and work here with those skills or, indeed, if they remain overseas but keep their UK contacts, which will be very important for UK business and professionals.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble and learned Lord for bringing Amendment 47 to us and to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his comments, and I have two questions for the Minister in regard to those. The first relates to a document which I am sure that the department for business Bill team is studying closely, which is the Department of Health and Social Care’s consultation on regulatory reform for the medical professions. Paragraph 156 has a set number of criteria of the data which the medical professions will now be required to have, which is not the same as the data within the Bill. In some areas, it includes, for example, registrants’ geographical locations and measures relating to fitness to practise, which includes former criminal records and other information that is held. Therefore, on the requirement for the information to be provided to the regulators in other parts of the UK, I am curious as to how the Bill will interact with what the Government’s intentions are for the other information which is now being proposed by the consultation on the medical professions.
It will be of importance, given that those entering the labour market who had previously been recognised—I am thinking of EEA citizens who now have settled status—are likely to be the biggest call upon this duty regarding transferring of data, because the estimates are that potentially up to 1 million people will be settled in the UK with a professional qualification recognised to carry out their work. However, because the Home Office chose not to verify their previous information in order to give them settled status, there is currently no formal record of their continued fitness to practise.
This leads to my second point. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s estimate of how many EEA professionals, who have in the past had their qualifications recognised to carry out work, as guaranteed under the withdrawal agreement, have their withdrawal agreement rights recognised? Certainly, if those who have settled status wish to move throughout the UK, that will presumably be the first call upon the Clause 9 duty, and the Home Office is not at the moment maintaining that information, as far as I understand, so it would be helpful to know this.
I also want clarification of the Government’s intentions regarding Amendment 16 and our position with the European Union. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on re-entering the Government Benches, for being a loyalist now. He is not listening. Oh, he is listening. I congratulate him on being very loyal to the Government’s position regarding their intent. Clearly, he is of the view, as the Minister told us at Second Reading, that it was the Government’s intention to seek a mutual recognition agreement with the European Union covering all the countries together, and this was rejected by the European Union.
I was interested in that slightly revisionist bit of history from the Minister, so I read chapter 13 of the draft UK negotiating document, on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I thought that I had better compare it with the European Commission negotiating mandate too, just to double-check that what we have been told is the case. It is certainly the case that the Theresa May Administration—which was before the Minister’s appointment, so I do not blame him for the situation—sought a level playing field for services, which included a reciprocal agreement between the UK regulatory bodies and the Union’s regulatory bodies with supervisory autonomy. The Boris Johnson Administration chose not to pursue that. Instead, they sought a Canada-style agreement, which we now have, because our arrangements in the TCA are the same as Canada’s.
However, the UK negotiating document, which the Minister says was a comprehensive offer that was rejected by the European Union, called for, under “Objectives and scope” in chapter 13,
“a framework to facilitate a fair, transparent and consistent regime … where … a service provider with a professional qualification obtained in the United Kingdom makes an application to a relevant authority in the Union”.
What did “relevant authority” mean? Well, the Government was very helpful in clarifying that. It meant that it was a body that authorised and recognised qualifications of a profession in a jurisdiction—that is, in each member state. The Government simply wanted a negotiated framework to facilitate an agreement in each jurisdiction. Paragraph 43 of the Commission’s negotiation mandate states that:
“The envisaged partnership should also include a framework for negotiations on the conditions for the competent domestic authorities to recognise professional qualifications”.
There is not really much difference between the two. I do not think that one is a comprehensive offer, and I do not think that the other is a rejection.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has withdrawn from this group of amendments, so I call the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for their proposed amendments. They cover reciprocal recognition arrangements, the charging of fees and information sharing between UK regulators respectively. I will discuss each amendment in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, again raised the DHSC consultation on medical professions, and I admire his deep knowledge of this. I would like to be able to respond fully to the points he has raised, so, if I may, I will write to him and put a copy of my reply in the Library. I also noted his point about EEA citizens’ withdrawal agreement rights. I will try to obtain the number and include that in the same letter.
Let me start with the amendment to Clause 1 from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I fully recognise the benefit of reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of professional qualifications. I completely understand why my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seek this. I do not think I can put it better than my noble friend Lord Lansley succinctly did, in that it takes two to tango.
We have had the benefit of the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on the negotiating stances within the EU agreement. I was not a member of the Government at that time so I cannot comment on the detail of that. I think it is now, frankly, a matter of history. The noble Lords may frown, but I think it is a matter of history and we have gone past that. I will see if I can glean any useful information to send to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, but I am not entirely confident I will able to.
As the Committee will know, reciprocal recognition agreements can be secured through international agreements and through agreements between regulators. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement includes a mechanism for agreeing UK and EU-wide recognition arrangements. I say in reply to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that the first meeting of the partnership council is taking place this very day. I believe that a number of committees will start to meet after that. My information is that one of those committees will include services within its remit.
Regulators have the option to use this process if they wish. Some have indicated they might find it rather cumbersome and so may prefer to conclude arrangements outside this framework. Clause 4 of the Bill will support that. As we know, it provides powers to enable regulators to enter recognition arrangements with their counterparts in other countries. Of course, in reply to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I say that some already have this power and have used it, and I thoroughly welcome that. Sadly or unfortunately, others do not have the power at present or have doubts about whether they do. One reason why we are bringing forward Clause 4 is to be able to give the power to all regulators that wish to have it. If they then use that power, nobody would be happier than me.
To help them to pursue this route, we are taking action to support regulators in securing such arrangements. For example, the Government recently published guidance to support regulators in agreeing recognition arrangements, including mutual recognition agreements with their counterparts in other countries. However, these arrangements are of course completely distinct from the purposes of Clause 1. As noble Lords have heard, Clause 1 concerns enabling the demand for the services of professions in the UK to be met without undue delay or charges. Clause 1 does not relate to mutual recognition arrangements. However, there is of course nothing in Clause 1 that would act to inhibit reciprocal recognition agreements being agreed where regulators wished to do so. Moreover, recognition agreements are, frankly, demand-led processes, and it is for regulators themselves to decide whether to enter into one and to decide the terms between themselves. That is a feature of the regulators having autonomy. Requiring national authorities to seek out reciprocal arrangements for certain professions would, I suggest with the deepest respect, reduce regulators’ autonomy. I know the importance that noble Lords attach to not doing that. I agree that it is appropriate for the Bill to support regulators’ ability to enter into such recognition agreements, and I hope that noble Lords will agree this is adequately addressed elsewhere in it. No doubt we will come back to this later.
I turn to the amendment to Clause 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. The current provision on the charging of fees makes sure that regulators can be enabled to cover any additional cost burden from administering any systems established under international recognition agreements. Of course, this may also be necessary if an agreement references fees. This will help to make sure that regulators are no worse off due to the UK implementing international recognition arrangements. It allows them to cover costs that will arise from implementing and operating processes to recognise professional qualifications from a trade partner’s territory. Some international agreements include commitments about the charging of fees. For example, in typical language, this would be that they are reasonable or proportionate. This power is necessary to implement such measures.
On the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about why Clause 3 departs from precedent on the charging of fees, I noted the Law Society briefing on this point and understand its interest in hearing us place on record the reasons for the difference between the approach taken in this Bill and that in the 2020 future relationship Act. Clause 3 is a power created with the future needs of international agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications in mind. The requirements and concerns to be considered for this clause are distinct from more general implementation powers that deal with entire free trade agreements and all their different chapters, as is the case with the powers under the future relationship Act.
Clause 3 is also designed to be flexible and to ensure that the UK Government can implement the UK’s precedent-setting policy on professional qualifications, as well as more traditional mutual recognition agreement frameworks and other provisions. If the noble Lord would find it helpful to have a further discussion with me about that, of course I would be delighted. The debate that we come to later will turn to the detail of Clauses 3 and 4 and reciprocal arrangements, so with noble Lords’ permission I shall not go further into the detail of those clauses here.
I now turn to Amendment 47, which concerns Clause 9. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for their amendment. Clause 9 relates to information sharing between UK regulators. The amendment seeks to create a defence if a disclosure made under the duty in Clause 9 contravenes data protection legislation. This clause places a duty on UK regulators, where requested, to provide information to another regulator in the UK relating to individuals who are, or have been, entitled to practise the relevant profession in another part of the UK. It ensures that regulators have the information, when an individual applies for entitlement to practise, necessary to assess that individual’s entitlement to practise the profession in that part of the UK. This necessary information is limited to information held by the UK regulator about the individual.
Clause 9 also specifies how the provision interacts with the data protection legislation. Where the new duty relating to the processing of personal data applies, it does not require the making of any disclosure which would contravene data protection legislation. This approach—I think that my noble friend Lord Lansley recognised this—and similar wording has been adopted in other recent Bills, some of which are now Acts, such as the Pensions Schemes Act 2021 and the Agriculture Act 2020.
Let me provide reassurance on the concern which appears to underpin this amendment that regulators may face legal challenges in complying with Clause 9. The clause specifically requires disclosure only when it does not contravene data protection legislation. There is therefore no defence needed. I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. The clause is also clear that the duty to share information can be taken into account in determining whether improper disclosure has occurred.
We will return to the important issue of data protection in our wider debate, and I look forward to continuing this discussion. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and amendments. I hope my explanation of the Government’s objectives in relation to reciprocal arrangements, my agreement to write to noble Lords and the rationale for including provisions to charge fees and consideration of how the Bill requirements interact with data protection have been helpful, and that on that basis my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this little debate. I hate to disappoint my noble friend Lord Lansley, but this amendment was entirely my own work—it was not from the Law Society of Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the work that he put in to prepare for this group of amendments. To add to his comments on paragraphs 92 and 93 of the impact assessment, they do not record the loss of reciprocal rights for those lawyers who might otherwise have gone from this country, along with other professions such as dentists and doctors, to work in other European and EEA countries.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his full reply—especially the acknowledgement that the partnership council met for the first time today. For the first time, we hear that it is hoped that the committees will meet shortly after that. I believe that we should make this a priority, so that all professionals have reciprocal arrangements. I am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out the implications of Clause 4 in this regard, as well as Clause 3. I shall follow that extremely closely. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to probe this matter, and I shall continue to monitor it during the progress of the Bill. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am using the stand part debate on Clause 1 to raise my general concern about the extensive power given to Ministers without adequate justification or explanation.
On Second Reading I referred the Minister to the recent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which during the course of the year has
“become increasingly concerned about the growing tendency for the Government to introduce skeleton bills, in which broad delegated powers are sought in lieu of policy detail”.
The committee went on to say that
“we urge the Government ‘to bring forward bills that contain clear policy intention instead of broad delegated powers’ and to ensure that ‘Departments do not use the exceptional powers given to them by Parliament as an expedient in the context of the pandemic as a cloak for effecting longer term, post-pandemic changes which would more properly be included in primary legislation’”.
Unfortunately, the Minister and the rest of the Government have chosen to totally ignore that in bringing this Bill before us. Not surprisingly, that has drawn a critical response from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. A number of noble Lords have quoted extracts from the committee’s report today. It drew three powers to the attention of the House, and in relation to each it noted
“a failure to provide adequate explanation in the Memorandum. This is particularly disappointing given that (a) as the Government have acknowledged, most of the substantive changes to the law envisaged by this Bill are to be made through delegated powers rather than the Bill itself, and (b) these are Henry VIII powers”.
On Clause 1, the committee commented:
“It is a Henry VIII power, as it includes power to amend primary legislation and retained direct principal EU legislation … The power can be used to make provision about a wide range of matters”—
which we have discussed comprehensively today. As the committee says, the Explanatory Memorandum
“provides two justifications for the delegation of power. The first is that the use of the power ‘is to be demand-led’ and ‘demand will naturally change over time and so it is not possible to achieve the policy through provisions on the face of the Bill that apply to a fixed set of professions’”.
If we accepted that argument, we could justify dealing with almost every piece of legislation in that way. As the committee said,
“that does not explain why all of the changes within the scope of the power—across so many professions and including changes to primary legislation—should be a matter for secondary rather than primary legislation”.
Nor did the Government respond to concerns that Clause 1
“could allow such requirements—and other comparable requirements in primary legislation relating to other professions—to be watered down by statutory instrument if Ministers considered this to be necessary to enable demand for the services of the profession in question to be met without ‘unreasonable delays’”.
The committee continued:
“The second justification given for the delegation relates to the existing legislative provision covering a wide range of different professions and regulators: ‘the professions that are in scope of this power have pre-existing legislative frameworks governing how each is regulated. It is not feasible to provide, on the face of the Bill, for an approach that would interface with each of these various frameworks and their different approaches to the recognition of professional qualifications, or to address them individually’”.
Well, as the committee expressed itself:
“We are surprised and disappointed that neither the Memorandum nor the Explanatory Notes … give any examples of circumstances in which the power might be exercised and changes that could be made in such circumstances; or … explain why Ministers will have no duty to consult before making regulations.”
We have discussed that in some detail. This
“makes it difficult to understand how significant the changes that could be made in exercise of this power could be, particularly given the proliferation of existing legislative schemes that could be amended; and gives rise to uncertainty as to whether there may be aspects of the law relating to recognition of overseas qualifications that the Bill would allow to be provided for in regulations … but which should instead be subjected to the much greater Parliamentary scrutiny afforded to primary legislation.”
I hope the Minister will explain why the Explanatory Memorandum is so scanty on such an important matter. Will he justify the extraordinary powers he and his colleagues are taking to themselves? Does he accept that some of the mistrust he complained about two groups ago on the part of Members towards the Government perhaps rests on the cavalier approach the Government themselves have taken to this House and Parliament by the unsatisfactory nature of the drafting of this Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, on the face of it, Clause 1 does seem innocuous, but at its heart there is a power for the Government to interfere in the way that regulated professions recognise people who have qualified abroad. I am far from clear that a case has been made for government intervention. I have not seen any evidence of the regulated professions dragging their feet when it comes to recognising overseas professionals. I recognise that our country has a demand for some professionals, notably those related to healthcare, which may well outstrip the numbers who qualify here, but there is still a big step before saying our UK professions need the Government to tell them what to do.
I have no problem with giving the regulators additional powers if their current rules make it difficult to accommodate the recognition of overseas professionals and they need legislation to change that—but that is not what this clause is about. The clause covers many regulated professions that already have effective provisions for the recognition of overseas applicants, but the Government have not excluded them from the scope of Clause 1. I believe the clause would be better expressed in terms of a power to be exercised by the Government at the request of regulated professions or with their consent. The Government do not know best when it comes to the professions, but the Bill does seem to be predicated on that belief. I hope it is not too late to reshape how this Bill interacts with regulated professions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for putting this amendment forward, and I commend him on the forcefulness of his speech. I am not going to repeat things he said, but I agree with his points. During the opening group, I touched on this issue and outlined the powers that are being taken into this clause, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred just now. I am still trying to understand what the Government think they are going to improve by doing this.
In essence, because of Brexit, the simple reality is that we are losing access to a considerable source of professionals. That is a problem, or potentially a problem. There is absolutely no certainty that we can replace them in another way, but there is also no certainty—indeed, possibly the opposite—that these clauses are going to help that to happen. So the idea that “We are from the Government and we are here to help you recruit people” seems to be unfounded.
There are two problems with Clause 1. One is that it seems to be a misguided effort. The other, which was front and centre of the points the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, is that this is the Government overstretching themselves in taking powers upon themselves and grabbing secondary legislation opportunities. We know that there is virtually no chance to amend—there have been very few examples in my lifetime where secondary legislation has actually been turned down. So it is with that that we on these Benches are supporting this amendment, and, of course, similar arguments will be put forward later on in the evening.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 1 enables regulations to be made—as we have heard, they are never overturned—to require a specific regulator to put in place a procedure for assessing whether to treat overseas qualifications as if they were UK ones. However, we still do not know how many of the 60 actually lack such a power. The Minister wants this Bill; he says that it is necessary. Could he please list those regulators which, if circumstances required extra skilled professionals, could find that their statutes were insufficient and thus that they would need to be mandated, by law, to introduce a new process? Because, frankly, if there are no regulators that need this power, we do not need a law to give it to them.
If the regulator wanted to introduce such a process, and had the statute, why would it have to be mandated to do it? If the regulator does not want to introduce such a process, how autonomous is a regulator if it can then be told by a Government that it must do so with the force of law? It may, as the Minister has said, be just a process that they have to introduce, but we are, nevertheless, talking about the Government mandating a regulator to do something that it does not want to do—because if it does want to do it, it will just do it.
So the Minister needs to list the regulators who do not already have the power to adopt such a process. I understand that there may well be some, but it would be nice to know which ones they are. If the regulator has such a power, but does not want to introduce a process to assess whether somebody’s qualifications should be agreed, how does he justify mandating the regulator by law to do that?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I have previously set out the need for a framework for the recognition of overseas professional qualifications. The Government are proposing one that focuses on addressing unmet demand for professional services in the UK. The intention of Clause 1 is to bring in that framework. It means that regulations can be made which require regulators to have a route in place to determine whether or not to recognise overseas qualified professionals from around the world. The framework that the Bill introduces will replace the interim system for the recognition of professional qualifications that was put in place as the UK left the EU.
Clause 1 sets out the substance of the new recognition framework. I stress that these conditions cannot be amended by regulations under the Bill. Where regulations are made under this clause, they would require a regulator to make a determination as to whether an individual with overseas qualifications or experience has substantially the same knowledge and skills, to substantially the same standard, as the UK qualification or experience. As I have said previously, these regulations would not alter the standards required to practise professions in the UK. They could not alter such standards, and regulators would still decide who can practise. No regulator would be forced or pressured into accepting qualifications that did not reach UK standards. Any other appropriate regulatory criteria, such as language proficiency or criminal records checks, must also continue to be met before a regulator may give access to a profession.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I am grateful to the Minister. At heart, he is saying that the Bill is proportionate, but the speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lady Hayter have undermined that point. It is clear that many of the current regulators already have the necessary powers, so the question must be: if the powers are required only for a limited number of regulators, why has a catch-all approach in the legislation been chosen by the Government? This gives us a clue to the kind of amendments that we will need to push on Report.
The Minister is grateful for the scrutiny the Bill has been given by the Delegated Powers Committee. I must say that, in my ministerial experience, it is not a committee whose recommendations are to be dismissed lightly. He has dismissed all of them in respect of the use of Henry VIII clauses and has given no explanation of why the Explanatory Memorandum is so inadequate. As for the offer of affirmative regulations in relation to the use of Henry VIII clauses, fewer than 10 defeats of secondary legislation have ever taken place in your Lordships’ House, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. It makes not a jot of difference whether the procedure is affirmative or negative, because we can debate every negative SI. This is an alarming use of Henry VIII clauses.
I hope firmly that, on Report, we will amend the Bill to make it proportionate in the way that it needs to be. I am grateful to all noble Lords.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. Anyone who wishes to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 2: Power conferred by section 1 exercisable only if necessary to meet demand
Amendment 17
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 17, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. They make up two distinct elements which, as we have heard, lie at the heart of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise statutory regulators, where their powers are not available, to be able to put in place a process that would recognise overseas professionals either to fill a skills shortage or to assist in implementing a new trade agreement where the agreement includes a professional skills recognition clause.
However, because of the two possibilities, as we have heard, a third issue arises, which is that of the absolute guarantee of the independence of regulators and the need to ensure that they are never mandated to recognise particular qualifications or experience. This third issue of independence is covered in Amendment 26 in my name and in Amendment 28 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name. The amendments say quite simply that no regulation under a trade agreement provision can undermine the independence and autonomy of a regulator, and that any such regulation may permit but not require a regulator to recognise an overseas qualification in allowing someone to practise here. These are the very least that must be guaranteed in the Bill and I am sure that it is something we will want to return to on Report.
I turn to the first issue of a skills shortage. It is not clear whether this means that the whole of a profession such as medicine, or only one specialism such as geriatric care or trauma surgery, would be dealt with in a regulation to require a process to be in place. It may well be that we need one, but not the other. My guess is that trauma surgery is quite popular and geriatric medicine perhaps less so. It would be interesting to know how granular the regulations would be when we ask a regulator to put a particular process in place. More than this, of course, is how the relevant Government, be they the UK Government or a devolved one, would decide that there is such a skills shortage. What role will service providers or the relevant regulator play in that decision?
Amendments 20 and 21 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett, would therefore require sufficient consultation with the regulator. The Government must also produce a report, not only on the findings of their consultation but on the data and the modelling used to come to the conclusion that there is a skills shortage. This is crucial to what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Sikka and, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett: the Government must also indicate what they have meanwhile been doing to fill the skills shortage, by way of training our own workforce rather than pinching from other—sometimes very much worse off and more needy—countries, and what they are doing to retain the workforce that we have.
I hear from my consultant stepson that retaining existing medical staff is one of the biggest challenges. It is no good keeping on bringing people over and recruiting them to the health service—or indeed anywhere else—if our retention is so low that we are losing people elsewhere. Continuing to hire in when we cannot keep those whom we have does not sound like brilliant workforce planning. Indeed, the Minister might like to explain how, after a decade of Conservative Government, we still lack over 100,000 social workers, 3,000 teachers and 84,000 NHS staff in England. The Royal College of Nursing estimated that, before the pandemic, we were 50,000 nurses short, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has described lack of staff as one of the biggest causes of workforce burnout in mental health. If he has a moment, he might just reflect on how 10 years of Conservative Government has left us in the position where he now tells us that we need the Bill to fill gaps in our skill base.
I should add that the Bar Council is concerned about the restriction in Clause 2 of the Clause 1 power to situations of unmet need for particular professional services. The Bar Council feels that the Government have offered insufficient justification for this measure which could, it says, negatively affect professional autonomy through an unintended effect of the scope of pre-existing regulatory powers to recognise overseas qualifications. It sounds as if the consultation that we heard has taken place was perhaps not all that thorough. Rather than respond to that today, could the Minister undertake to meet the Bar Council before Report to see whether he can better understand and meet its concerns or find some arrangements to allay its fears? Given how much consultation we have heard has happened, that last-minute plea—it arrived in my in-tray today—suggests that the consultation has perhaps not been all that deep.
I turn to the second arm of the Bill: its potential power to require a regulator to set up a process for foreign accreditation. We again ask, as before—the Minister agreed to it—that he let us know which regulators lack that power. If there are such regulators, Amendment 26 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, again demands that any such regulation to implement an international recognition agreement does not undermine the independence and autonomy of a regulator. The noble Lord is unfortunately unable to speak because his name is not on the speakers’ list, but he obviously knows the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons very well. It already has all these powers and frequently recognises professionals from other non-EU countries.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments because, as far as I can see, it is about addressing the domestic skills shortage. I do not think anyone should be under any illusion about the extent to which there now is a skills shortage. I am going to address this purely across health and social care, which is the area that I know about. I am not going to touch on law and so on.
There is a skills shortage now, particularly among clinical scientists. These are not qualified doctors; they are scientists who are now working in the clinical arena, often carrying a great deal of clinical responsibility. As medicine progresses, and as clinical sciences progress, there will be more of these people coming forward who have very narrow but highly specialised skills. I have already mentioned the physician assistants and anaesthesia assistants. Anaesthesia—and I say this having trained for a time in anaesthetics myself—is not a straightforward discipline. Things can go wrong very rapidly, and the responsibility carried by somebody with this skill set is enormous, because somebody’s life depends on it. They need to know what they are doing all the time. Currently, this group of assistants are not registered. I use that as an example because there will be others, including people working in fields such as cardiology and radiology—in all kinds of interventional areas. Then there are those working in the diagnostic fields who are clinical scientists. If they get something wrong, the diagnostic label attached to a patient will be wrong, the treatment will be wrong, and that patient’s life may be not only damaged but lost. If that original diagnostic test is not properly conducted, the mistake is repeated all down the line. I have a major concern, therefore, about the domestic shortage of clinical scientists. We used to have a good supply of people who wanted to come here from Europe. Now, those from Europe have been returning to Europe, but people from Europe no longer want to apply to come to the UK. That is aggravating the existing gaps in the service.
I have added my name to Amendments 20 and 21, and I fully support the requirement for others to be consulted. In all these fields, there is increasing interdisciplinary working. Although the registration of doctors is held separately to that of nurses, midwives, physios and so on, they must in fact work as a team and there must be cross-fertilisation of skills and competencies. We need to invest in UK training to upskill our own professionals—hence Amendment 21. Amendment 21 may lead the way to credentialling, which has been suggested as a way forward across the different healthcare disciplines, whereby people develop highly specialised skills and are credentialled in one particular area, rather than having to go back to their baseline qualification to apply for a post. I also wonder whether the Bill itself has been drafted as it has to push forward credentialling. I would be grateful if the Minister was able to clarify whether that has been behind some of the drafting, particularly in Clause 2.
Amendment 26 stresses the autonomy of the regulator. I would have thought, from the comments we have heard about the Government’s respect for the autonomy of the regulator, that they would wish to accept that amendment, although I do not have my name on it—it is in the name of other noble Lords.
On Amendment 28, again I would hope that the reciprocal arrangements between regulators would be in the Bill itself, to ensure that there is cross-disciplinary working and an interchange of standards. It would be a real mistake to have standards for a certain procedure, or way of doing things, that vary depending on the background—the initial qualification, possibly decades old—of that professional. That would mean that, if they came up through a nursing background they would somehow be expected to operate at a lower standard when they are, as a sole operator, doing a diagnostic procedure such as a gastrostomy, and that the skills and competencies required of them to do that procedure would be different from those required of someone with a medical degree. They should not be: there should be one standard for the procedure—for the patient—and, if it is complicated, it may well be that it gets handed on to the person with the medical degree.
This is, therefore, a very important set of amendments, and I am most interested to hear the Government’s response to them.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister emphasised that the UK wanted to retain mutual recognition of EEA qualifications, and my noble friend Lord Purvis disputed some of that. Whatever led us to the current situation, shortages are a real problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, just mentioned, the impact of the lack of recognition is very serious in some professions.
I shall give noble Lords an example: there are around 22,000 EEA-qualified doctors licensed to practise in the UK, although a significant number of them will have returned home, or at least left the UK, in recent months and years. Nurses, in particular, have gone home in large numbers. In contrast to those 22,000 doctors, only about 2,000 UK doctors are licensed to practise in the EEA, so the impact of that decision not to have mutual recognition falls much more heavily on the UK than on the EEA. We are one country with an impact of 22,000, versus 28 countries with an impact of only 2,000 UK-trained doctors.
However, I am pleased to have the opportunity as a result of these amendments to emphasise that the Government have to get a grip on workforce planning generally. There are amendments in this group that refer to the importance of working far beyond reliance on foreign-trained doctors and professionals generally. The Government have to fund an expansion of university and medical school places and increase the number of places on training courses in a wide range of professions where there are shortages.
Judging by statements in the impact assessment, the Government’s purposes seem to waiver. They seem not to have made up their mind about whether regulators can continue to operate independently and autonomously or should be part of a co-operative effort to address skills shortages. This will partly be addressed by international trade agreements. This group of amendments incorporates some ideas that offer the opportunity for greater clarity. Amendment 20, which I support, ensures consultation with regulators, so that it is not the job of the Government alone to decide whether there is a shortage.
One example is from the information that I received in preparation for these debates. The British Dental Association makes the point that in healthcare professions, patient protection must remain the overarching aim. It points out that the current barriers to work in the UK for overseas-qualified dentists include the need, once they are registered, to undertake up to one year of additional training in dental practices. I know this, in part, from my experience of regularly going to the trainee doing one year’s practice at my local dental practice. These opportunities are apparently very rare and difficult to obtain because they involve costs to the practice hosting the training dentist and costs to the new dentists themselves, so any supposed shortage of new dentists in this country would not be resolved by the simple measure of encouraging more registrants. That is the point of the BDA’s comments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 28 in this group, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has added her name. I have sympathy with many of the other amendments in this group, particularly those that affect Clause 3. I think that, in one way or another, we are all struggling with how to make sense of this rather dirigiste Bill and trying to turn it into something that is oriented around the regulated professions rather than around what the Government want the professions to do.
Specifically, Amendment 28 would make it clear that Clause 3 could not be used to force a profession or its regulator to recognise overseas professionals. The power created by Clause 3(1) is very broad. The national authority can make whatever changes it likes in order to implement an international recognition agreement. I recognise that the Government have said they do not intend to use trade agreements to recognise professions directly but will work through mutual recognition processes. However, the fact remains that they could do so because, if Clause 3 becomes law, it will give them that power and nothing else in that clause or anywhere else in the Bill stops them. For example, they could agree to Indian chartered accountants being recognised as auditors in the UK even though existing recognition processes have thus far not determined that those qualifications are sufficient either for the purposes of chartered accountancy in general or for the specific purposes of the regulated audit profession. That is just not acceptable.
I said at Second Reading that this measure could drive a coach and horses through the ability of professions to guard their standards and quality. My noble friend the Minister said in response that the Government have not forced the professions to accept anything in treaty negotiations to date and that basically we could rely on the Government to do the right thing. However, giving a Government powers to do things on the basis that they will not actually use those powers is a dangerous approach to legislation, and one that the House should rightly reject.
I believe that recognition of regulator autonomy on the face of this Bill is essential, and no amount of Dispatch Box reassurance can make good the problem of giving the Government too much power.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath [V]
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—I so agree with her. At the moment, Clause 3 gives Ministers a blank sheet to do whatever they wish, and I am afraid that ministerial assurances are not sufficient. One way or another, we need to amend Clause 3.
My principal reason for speaking is to support my noble friend in her Amendments 20 and 21 on skills shortages. It is surely important that any regulatory change is only considered before consultation with the relevant regulators, in the context of how the national body is undertaking work and investment in the domestic sector in order to help alleviate those shortages.
I am particularly interested in workforce issues in the health service and social care. I remind the Minister of a report by the King’s Fund in February this year which said that NHS hospitals, mental health services and community providers were reporting a shortage of nearly 84,000 full-time equivalent staff. Key groups, such as nurses, midwives and health visitors were severely affected. General practice was under strain, with a shortage of 2,500 full-time equivalents, with projections suggesting that this could rise to 7,000 during the next five years if current trends continue.
The regulator for health and social care, the Care Quality Commission, has highlighted workforce shortages as having a direct impact on the quality of care. NHS waiting time standards have been routinely missed for a number of years, which the consequences of Covid will exacerbate.
The Health Foundation, another respected independent institute, says that the UK ranks below the average of high-income OECD countries for the number of practising nurses and the annual number of new nurse graduates relative to its population. Further, about 15% of registered nurses in the UK are trained outside the country—more than double the OECD average.
Workforce shortages are not new in the NHS. They have been a recurring and enduring feature during its 70 years or so. The reasons are complex. A historical reliance on international recruitment may be part of the story. A bias in the UK towards focusing on the Exchequer cost of training doctors and nurses—which is expensive—but not on the cost associated with the failure to train enough staff is another factor. More broadly, workforce shortages are totemic of the short-termism that dominates national policy-making under this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, will speak at the end of this debate. I hope he mentions his House of Lords committee report from 2017. It argued that the absence of any comprehensive, national, long-term strategy to secure the appropriate skilled, well-trained and committed workforce that the health and care system will need during the next 10 to 15 years represented
“the biggest internal threat to the sustainability of the NHS.”
Amendments 20 and 21 post the way for a national authority to be required to publish a report on how skill shortages are being met and how we are investing domestically to address this shortage and upskill existing staff. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak chiefly to Amendments 20 and 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to which I have attached my name. These amendments are also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which gives them both cross-party and non-party backing. I have mentioned that all noble Lords received a letter yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with her Department for Education hat on, about the Bill and the skills strategy. Its second paragraph says:
“Let me reassure you the Bill is not a short cut to addressing skills development for the UK.”
We can see that the Government have really understood some of the deep concerns that have been expressed by your Lordships’ House about this Bill.
The letter makes reference to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I am not going to start its Second Reading now, although we have to look at whether ladening people with more debt is the answer to our skills shortage.
Another sentence in the second last substantive paragraph of this letter says:
“To meet demand across certain regulated professions, we need appropriately qualified professionals from both domestic and overseas sources.”
In relation to Amendments 20 and 21 and my earlier Amendment 25, do the Government accept that, particularly for certain key—basic, you might say—professions central to our health and well-being, such as nurses and doctors as a general category, we should be training at least enough medical professionals to meet our needs? That sentence would suggest that that is not something that the Government accept.
I come briefly to a couple of details about these amendments, particularly Amendment 21, which is quite valuable and perhaps adds more than my Amendment 51. They highlight important issues, one of which is in subsection (d), which asks for a report on the number of the professionals in the group being considered who are female and male. It is important that we highlight gender disparities. There has been a lot of discussion about medical professions, but I have interest in both the farming and the building and engineering areas, where we have huge skills shortages and there are very serious gender disparities in recruitment.
As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talking about the complexities of modern medical approaches, I was thinking of some of the engineers I have been speaking to recently about the complexity of building ventilation, something that Covid-19 has very much brought into focus and which we clearly need to be thinking a great deal more about. There is a high level of complexity and a high level of skill is required; you have to understand each individual room and each individual climatic environment. It is a very complex area and requires very high levels of skills and training. I think also that when we are thinking about agriculture—we will be talking about this in the Environment Bill and in the agriculture Bill—we are talking about agri-ecological approaches and agriforestry approaches, not just one field of monoculture that you whack the plough over and you whack the sprayer over, but very complex management of ecosystems that requires a very high degree of skills that we simply do not have now. It requires training and may require people being brought in.
I also want to highlight, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, did, retention rates. Of course, nursing is the obvious area, but there is also a big issue in medicine that needs to much more attention. This is a really important amendment. The support for it demonstrates that, as does the Government reaction, but I think we need a much clearer picture of what the Government’s overall approach is. Are they determined to meet the challenge of training enough people for our needs?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, again, and to follow up the points she made about skills shortages. We spoke in an earlier debate about the formula in Clause 2 relating to the condition that there is, in effect, unmet demand. I think that at the time I expressed the view that it was unsatisfactory to define that by reference to unreasonable delay and higher charges. This gives us another opportunity to look at that. I think there is merit in the formula in Amendment 21; I just think we may need to develop it a little and make it very clear that in Clause 2—Section 2, as it will be—where a Minister or the appropriate national authority is considering regulations, the condition is that there is unmet demand in that profession. What is meant by that?
The letter that the Minister sent to the Delegated Powers Committee last week said:
“The Government plans to consider various factors in determining ‘unmet demand’, and further detail on our approach is provided in the Government’s policy statement that accompanies the Bill.”
Well, the policy statement, in a very curious paragraph, says:
“Our proposed framework is intended to enable professions to meet the demands placed on them in all parts of the UK without undue cost or delay.”
In that particular context, the cost and delay appear to relate to the cost and delay of the regulators. It is rather strange.
The policy statement goes on to say that where they make these determinations, “Considerations for” what they refer to as “priority professions”—in other words, where there is demand for skills from overseas—
“will include: whether the profession is on the shortage occupation list; vacancy levels; workforce modelling and skills forecasting; and whether there are other ways that professions might address shortages … We will allow for these determinations to evolve”.
Well, some of those factors are indeed those that the noble Baroness has included in Amendment 21—not completely, but I think we are getting there. So I suggest that the route down which we should go on Report is to amend Clause 2 to say “These are the various factors that appropriate national authorities should consider”. It would not be an exhaustive list but of course, in doing so, they should also consult the regulators and the professions in relation to this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will try to be very brief; I know that the hour is getting late. I will speak only to Amendments 20 and 28, both of which were brilliantly introduced by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Noakes.
I will address what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raised about the report of the House of Lords inquiry that I chaired on the long-term sustainability of the NHS. He is right: the key threats to this were the strategy for long-term workforce planning and social care. Neither has been addressed yet.
On Amendment 20, the regulator has no role in terms of workforce planning. As the Minister said, the Government also do not have any role in imposing any regulations on the regulator when it comes to recognising overseas qualifications. The regulator also does not have a role in terms of recruiting professionals from overseas; that is the business of the service. However, as we all agree, the regulations that the regulator makes for assessing qualifications, experience and any other measures of competence cannot be diluted.
I support Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. If the Government were to take powers in relation to any regulations through any treaty, including trade treaties, that might dilute the regulator’s role in assessing overseas qualifications, experience and tests of competence, that would be unacceptable. That is the only time that regulators will have a role, in terms of being consulted in relation to workforce shortages.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I first endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whose comments in this area are very important.
I know that it is not in order in these proceedings to intervene on other Members, but I was itching to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, because no one in this Chamber, notwithstanding the Grimstone rule holder, understands the CRaG process more. My question, which I will leave hanging—or convert into a question to the Minister—is as follows. My reading of the Bill is that it does not necessarily mean that an international recognition agreement will be considered a treaty under CRaG. A CRaG definition of “treaty” is any international agreement between member states or an international organisation. It does not include any agreement under an existing treaty—so, if we have a treaty with a country with which a mutual recognition agreement is subsequently signed, that does not necessarily need to go through the CRaG process. The international recognition agreement under this legislation does not necessarily state that that will be the case. My question was going to be on that, but the Minister can get back to me in writing at some stage; the hour is getting late, so he does need to reply today.
This may be of significance when it comes to scrutiny. To take the example of Canada, let us say that a subsequent agreement under the aegis of the Canada agreement expanding the mutual recognition elements would not be considered under CRaG but would trigger the regulation-making power in this area, which means we would still need to consider scrutiny. That is important because, when I looked at what the international recognition agreement stipulates on the activation of these powers, Clause 3(4) refers to
“the recognition of overseas qualifications or overseas experience”,
and that is it. It does not include fitness to practise and all the other areas the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, alluded to, which are currently covered under the statutory protection for regulators to consider the fitness of someone who is applying, including their past record.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised this, because my document of choice for the day—the Department of Health’s consultation document—is quite clear on the Government’s intention to expand the role of regulators to have wider remit in considering the setting of standards and outcomes for quality assuring education and training, both pre and post-application. Indeed, the regulators would be able to have a view not just on the qualification of an applicant but on the appropriate education and training standards that the person went through to reach that qualification. In my view, that is important for the very point the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated.
Simply recognising an overseas qualification under an international agreement is way below what our current regulators look at when they take into consideration the standards of the education that led to that qualification. We have had scandals in this country, with Oxford colleges and others, which required the Government to go beyond the previous scandals that simply accepted a qualification. Now we look at the underlying quality assurance of the courses, the programmes of training and the education and training providers. Indeed, the Government say:
“We propose that all regulators should have the power to approve, refuse, re-approve, withdraw approval, monitor and quality assure courses, programmes of training, qualifications and education and training providers. Where relevant, these powers should also apply to post-registration courses, programmes of training, qualifications and post-registration education”.
If an international agreement with a country was simply about the recognition of the qualification, that is a diminution rather than a maintenance or enhancement. I think the points have been very well made, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond.
I think that the Minister said “never”. I have been in this House for seven years, and Ministers rarely use the word “never”. In fact, they never use that word, not least because they cannot bind their successor Governments. I have found that they rarely bind their successors as Ministers—but the Minister did do that. He said that it would never impact on what Governments would tell regulators about how they handled applications; they would never change the wider duties on regulators for the decisions made in an application; and they would not impact on the powers in connection with an application. If that is the case, why are those three specific provisions in Clause 1? Subsection (5)(f) means that the powers will be about a specific person, and that a regulator would
“have regard to guidance issued from time to time by a specified person”—
as in the Minister—
“when determining an application”.
Subsection (5)(g) refers to a
“provision as to the other duties of a specified regulator in connection with an application”.
Subsection (5)(h) likewise refers to a
“provision as to the powers of a specified regulator”.
So if the Minister is right that these regulations would never be used to do it, why are they in the Bill? I think that, as we heard under the previous group of amendments, they should be taken out.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and others—and my noble friend Lady Noakes, of course, for tabling these amendments.
I am very conscious that noble Lords have dug very deep in this debate and that my answers, particularly at this time of the evening, will not necessarily do justice to the questions that they have asked. Where that is the case, I shall be writing to noble Lords as soon as possible after this debate.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for reminding me that “never” should never be used by a Minister. I have learnt in my time in your Lordships’ House that it is always wise to take the advice of the noble Lord—so I will do so and, with permission, substitute “hardly ever” for “never” in that instance. I am particularly indebted to him for having invented the “Grimstone rule” in our many debates on the Trade Bill.
Amendment 17 seeks to change the condition set out by Clause 2. Noble Lords do not need me to repeat yet again the purpose of the clause. Demand for the services of a profession includes, but is not necessarily synonymous with, a skill shortage. For example, it could allow consideration of whether consumers can access a service without a long wait or having to pay unreasonably high fees. I completely and utterly endorse the idea that the Bill is not a shortcut to addressing skills development for the UK and does not replace work to boost domestic skills. I endorse the importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, attaches to that. The Government have published a Skills for Jobs White Paper and introduced the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill to provide the legislative underpinning to those reforms. Alongside those reforms, it is appropriate that Clause 2 uses a broader condition. The amendment also relates to the implementation of international agreements. However, those powers are already provided by Clause 3. I fear that a reference to them in Clause 2 risks conflating two different issues: trade and skills shortages.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has set out the purpose of the report proposed in Amendment 21. In determining whether Clause 2’s condition is met, decisions will be informed by much of the information suggested in that amendment, where available. There is a requirement in Clause 8 of the Bill for regulators to publish information, including the number of individuals who have become entitled to practise the profession. I hope that this satisfies the need to have such information on record. While I value the outcomes that these amendments seek to deliver, they are not necessary. Therefore, I would ask that they be withdrawn or not moved.
I turn to Amendment 20, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has explained fully, and I will not repeat that here for brevity. As I have said in relation to earlier questions from noble Lords, I am committed to ensuring that regulators and other interested parties are fully engaged on any regulations brought forward as a consequence of the Bill. I recognise and support the objectives of the amendment. However, there is already engagement planned in determining which professions meet the condition set out in Clause 2. In answer to the specific question the noble Baroness asked, I have already met the Bar Council once, but I am happy to do so again following this debate. I can also confirm to her that the shortage test is granular and is therefore at the level of the speciality, as opposed to some kind of overall definition of medical professions.
Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, would place requirements on the Government around consultation on international agreements that involve provisions on professional qualifications. These include publishing negotiating objectives, consulting regulators, and reporting and producing impact statements on the professional qualifications provisions and their effects at certain stages. In all negotiations, a key concern for the Government is ensuring the autonomy of regulators within those international agreements and protecting UK standards. I have already spoken about my commitment to engagement, so let me put on record some examples. The Government have recently launched public calls for input on trade negotiations with India, Canada and Mexico; and they engage widely through the trade advisory groups and the BEIS-organised regulator forums.
The Government are committed to a transparent and inclusive trade policy. This includes through consultations on proposed new FTAs. Before negotiations commence, the Government publish economic scoping assessments on the impacts of FTAs. Indeed, we recently published pre-negotiation information notes on India, Mexico and Canada. Before any final deal, impact assessments considering the impact on different sectors and bodies will be published and laid before Parliament prior to ratification, as with the UK-Japan agreement.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I say that the Trade Act 2021 provides for the implementation of provisions for the recognition of professional qualifications included in UK trade agreements with countries with which the UK signed agreements as of 31 January 2020. However, it provides for the ability to amend primary legislation in respect of these agreements only if it is retained EU law. Additionally, those powers may expire after five years, whereas it is anticipated that, for example, MRAs formed as part of trade agreements may need to be implemented well beyond this limited period—especially in light of the lengthy timeframes that MRAs typically take to finalise.
In response to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s point about how scrutiny processes should work in relation to these agreements, I have to say that he and I generally see eye to eye on the sequences of these scrutiny arrangements and how they should operate. I understand the interesting point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, makes about CRaG coverage. I will look into that and write to him. I believe that the additional requirements set out in this amendment are disproportionate, as their objectives are being delivered already. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 26 and 28 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. As I have mentioned previously, I strongly support regulator autonomy. However, ensuring the preservation of that regulator autonomy to determine who should practise is best achieved through the agreements themselves. Clause 3 will simply implement those agreements. The limit of the Government’s ambitions on professional qualifications is well illustrated in the recent agreement with the EEA EFTA states. Although ambitious, it respects the key priority of regulatory autonomy to assess applicants and determine who should practise. Under that agreement, the autonomy of regulators and national authorities to set standards and reject applicants who do not meet them is maintained.
For most trade partners, we are more likely to agree mutual recognition agreement frameworks. I am concerned that these amendments could create issues if a regulator wishes to enter into a binding recognition agreement that, for example, required the contracting regulators to recognise specified qualifications. In this circumstance, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, although no doubt well intentioned, would render implementation through regulations made under Clause 3 impossible. Meanwhile, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would result in uncertainty on this point, depending on whether this was construed as undermining regulator independence or autonomy. These amendments could therefore undermine regulator autonomy, rather than preserve it, by restricting what agreements reached by regulators could be implemented under Clause 3. On that basis, and in conclusion, I ask the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will be very brief. In his response, the Minister said that the calculation for shortages would be granular. Whether it is because it is late or because I am stupid, I do not really understand what that means. Perhaps he can add it to his correspondence list. In that regard, it will help greatly if the letters that the Minister has promised can come before the next day in Committee, where possible, because it will certainly lubricate the process.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. I think that I can answer the first point immediately because it comes back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. She wondered whether it would be at the level of, say, the medical profession rather than at the level of a specialty within that profession, such as anaesthesia. On letters, we will do our best to get them out quickly. It is slightly irritating that we have our next day in Committee as quickly as next Monday, but we will certainly do our best.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. On letters, I know that he is backed by many civil servants and colleagues. He is looking at the whole of my office at the moment—me—so could he not expect us to go to the Library and find things? When he is writing to one person who has asked a question, can he automatically circulate the letter to us because I am afraid otherwise we have no way of seeing it? That would be very kind.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, which I have found really useful. The Minister is not going to like what I say, but there you are. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will help in the redrafting, but I think it is only fair to say to the Minister, nice try, but he can be fairly sure that three groups will be brought back on Report. One will be about the autonomy of regulators. They should not be forced to something. It has to be said somewhere that no trade agreement can underpin them. We can take advice on where it goes.
On the second one on skills, we will want some assurances that other things are going to be done and this will not be the immediate device for filling skills. I think that is in Amendments 20 and 21. We definitely want to look at this again. On skills, I very much welcome the clarification about granular. If I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said earlier, specialists —be they specialist registrars or consultants or members or fellows of the royal colleges—are awarded the specialisms by the medical royal colleges. I get a nod from across the Committee. The colleges are not the regulator, that is the GMC. I am going to keep out of that and leave it for the specialists. I am sure the Minister will need to discuss that with the medics. It is welcome that he says it will be granular, but then it will not be a regulator which is able to do that because, I think I am right in saying, the medical royal colleges are not regulators in this sense.
The third element was international agreement, which was covered by Amendment 22. Although we may want to look at the detail of that, I think that putting the Grimstone rules into this piece of legislation will be important. For the moment though, having said thank you for the answers but we will be still back, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.